标签： Oceania

Almost four years after her high-profile sexual assault allegation against a former parliamentary colleague rocked Australian politics, Brittany Higgins has announced a formal return to the national political sphere, taking on a leadership role dedicated to pushing back against growing misogyny and the mainstreaming of far-right ideological positions across the country.

The appointment was made public by the Vida Fund, an Australian advocacy organisation that works to support independent female candidates running on platforms of gender equality reform. Higgins will step into the role of executive director, tasking herself with building and rolling out a new national gender equality strategy to keep equity at the forefront of Australian political discourse.

In her first public remarks following the appointment, Higgins framed the move as a timely response to shifting political tides. “We are entering a period where misogyny, extremism are becoming increasingly organised and visible. Vida intends to meet that moment with evidence-based advocacy, strategic campaigning and community-backed action,” she said.

She specifically called out right-wing political groups for normalising anti-gender rhetoric, noting that “One Nation and the new right are trying to mainstream misogyny on a scale Australians have never seen before.” Higgins also targeted former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, criticising his push for restrictions on reproductive rights that echo divisive U.S. conservative policy battles, adding “it has never been more important to get organised and take action.”

This role marks Higgins’ first formal permanent position within Australian political advocacy after her 2021 allegation that she was raped by then-parliamentary colleague Bruce Lehrmann inside Parliament House. Lehrmann has consistently denied all allegations against him. A 2022 criminal trial against Lehrmann was aborted after juror misconduct, and all criminal charges were subsequently dropped. However, when Lehrmann launched a civil defamation suit against media outlet Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over their reporting of the allegation, the Federal Court ruled on the balance of probabilities that the rape did occur, leading Lehrmann to lose the case.

In the years following the initial allegation, Higgins and her husband David Sharaz have faced ongoing legal battles. Most recently, former senator Linda Reynolds, who was Higgins’ boss at the time of the alleged incident, launched a defamation suit against the pair over a series of critical social media posts about Reynolds’ handling of the allegation. The WA Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds’ favour, ordering Higgins and Sharaz to pay $341,000 in damages, a ruling that ultimately left the couple bankrupt.

A fierce political clash has erupted over the Albanese government’s sweeping planned changes to Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), with state and territory governments launching an extraordinary rebuke of proposals that would remove an estimated 160,000 participants from the scheme to cut billions in spending. The federal government’s legislative package, which aims to slash $35 billion in long-term expenditure by tightening provider requirements and shifting almost 200,000 people off NDIS rolls, has already cleared the lower house of parliament. It now faces a Senate vote following a ongoing parliamentary inquiry, and will require crossbench support from either the Coalition — which has signaled tentative backing for reform — or the Greens to pass. In their formal submission to the inquiry, state and territory health ministers acknowledge that the NDIS, which has ballooned since its launch, faces urgent systemic pressures: prior reviews have documented widespread financial strain, market distortion, rising fraud, and a gradual drift away from the scheme’s original core purpose. Ministers agree that targeted reform is necessary to keep the NDIS effective, participant-centered, and financially sustainable — but they argue the federal government’s current approach is disproportionate, rushed, and poorly coordinated. Critically, the subnational governments stress they never agreed to take on funding responsibility for the 160,000 people set to be removed from NDIS, including participants shifted to off-scheme foundational support programs such as Thriving Kids, which serves children with mild to moderate autism. “While elements of the proposed reforms have the potential to deliver improved outcomes, the Bill in its current form risks undermining the original intent of the NDIS,” the ministers wrote in their submission. They warn that the government’s laser focus on rapid expenditure cuts, paired with a lack of clear planning for a broader disability support ecosystem and insufficient consultation with subnational governments, creates a severe risk of fragmented, chaotic service delivery. Without a coordinated, carefully phased approach that integrates these changes with broader improvements to the national disability support system, the ministers argue, many people with disability could end up in inappropriate care settings such as hospitals, or lose access to critical support entirely. To address these gaps, the state and territory governments have put forward two key amendments: first, that the most fiscally impactful components of the bill can only proceed if they are agreed to by all states and territories; second, that the NDIS Act be updated to include a formal “Category A rule-making power” for outlining alternative support arrangements, and that the federal government clarify future NDIS pricing frameworks. The ministers note these recommendations align with agreements reached during a January meeting with federal officials, and that their submission focuses only on the most contentious section of the legislation, Schedule 1, with more concerns potentially to come. Another major flashpoint is the consolidation of extensive decision-making power in federal Health Minister Mark Butler, the submission argues. The proposed changes would allow Butler to enact long-lasting modifications to the scheme without adequate safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny, or agreement from state and territory co-governors. Specifically, the reforms would let the minister set binding caps, limits, or funding ratios for support categories and make broad changes to individual participant budgets via a simple determination, with no clear rules around how the powers would be applied, whether they would apply across the entire scheme, or which participants would be exempt. “This is a significant power with limited safeguards, and there is insufficient clarity about how these changes would operate in practice,” the submission reads. Amid growing cross-party and advocacy pushback, Butler has defended the government’s reform plan, telling reporters the government is monitoring the inquiry and reviewing thousands of public submissions closely, and will not make final adjustments until the inquiry concludes. He stressed that the government’s plan was carefully developed to put the NDIS back on a sustainable long-term footing, while still keeping people with disability at the center of the scheme. The inquiry has already heard damning testimony from disability advocates and NDIS participants, who have repeatedly urged parliament to reject the reforms in their current form.

A high-stakes legal battle over the publication of a landmark corruption investigation report in the Australian state of Victoria is heading toward a key decision this Friday, with appellate judges set to rule on whether two parties challenging the report’s release can keep their identities hidden from the public.

The dispute centers on Operation Richmond, a years-long probe run by Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) into allegations that emerged from 2016 enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) negotiations between the United Firefighters Union and the then-incumbent Andrews Government. IBAC launched the investigation in 2019 and had initially planned to table its completed special report in state parliament by July 1, but the legal challenge has put the release on hold.

The two challengers, currently identified only in court documents as XY and Z, have launched legal action to quash the entire report and block its public release. Their specific justifications for the challenge have not been presented in open court, and the Supreme Court has already scheduled a full closed-door hearing for their case on June 24. Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Clare Harris ruled that while the entire challenge proceeding would be held in private, the two applicants could not hide their identities behind pseudonyms.

That ruling was immediately appealed. On Thursday, experienced barrister Paul Holdenson KC, representing XY and Z, argued before the Court of Appeal that Justice Harris had made legal errors in her application of pseudonym rules. Holdenson contended that public release of his clients’ names would trigger unwarranted, irreversible public speculation that they are seeking to block the report to hide negative findings of misconduct against them. He added that under existing legislation governing unreleased IBAC reports, even if his clients successfully quash the report, they would be legally barred from responding to public speculation or explaining their position. “They can’t rebut, they can’t comment, they can’t contextualise, they can’t do anything,” Holdenson told the court. “They cannot speak to the public and say what might well be in this report concerning their conduct.”

Court of Appeal Justice David Beach pushed back on this argument, noting that if the pair succeed in overturning the report, they would be permitted to publicly state that the court ruled IBAC’s document unlawful or invalid. Holdenson acknowledged this point but maintained that pre-existing speculation about their involvement would never be fully corrected, even after a favorable ruling.

Legal teams opposing the anonymity request pushed back against Holdenson’s arguments in court Thursday. A lawyer representing IBAC argued that the applicants’ desire to protect their personal reputation does not meet the legal standard required for a court to grant pseudonym status. “My submission is there is nothing special in this case that would move the court to anonymise the applicants,” he told the bench.

Justin Quill, a media lawyer representing multiple local news outlets, emphasized that the public interest in disclosing the applicants’ identities is exceptionally high. “It is in the public interest the public know the identities of parties seeking to stop IBAC releasing that report to parliament,” Quill said. He added that if the court finds in the challengers’ favor, there is nothing preventing the pair from publicly proclaiming their innocence and clarifying the court’s ruling, countering Holdenson’s claim that the applicants would be unable to respond to speculation.

Chief Justice Richard Niall, Justice David Beach, and Justice Peter Gray will deliver their ruling on the anonymity appeal at 9:30 a.m. local time on Friday. If the court upholds the earlier Supreme Court ruling, the two challengers’ names will be made public immediately.

In an official statement, IBAC confirmed that the ongoing legal proceedings have delayed the release of the Operation Richmond special report, but the commission reaffirmed its commitment to making the document public once the legal process concludes. IBAC Commissioner Victoria Elliott has repeatedly pushed for legislative changes to the state’s anti-corruption laws to increase the commission’s transparency. “As a general principle of public integrity, Victorians deserve to know more about IBAC’s efforts to expose and prevent corruption and police misconduct – and we want to tell you,” Elliott said. “But to do that, IBAC’s legislation needs to change, as it currently limits our ability to share what we believe to be in the public interest.” She has urged the Victorian government to adopt the regulatory amendments IBAC submitted to the Victorian Parliament Integrity Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the IBAC Act, noting that “Victorians want – and should have – greater insight into what is being done to address allegations of corruption and misconduct.”

Three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has dramatically overhauled its once-permissive conscription system, closing off nearly all legal avenues for eligible men to avoid mandatory military service and building a sophisticated pressure apparatus to push conscripts into voluntary combat contracts bound for the Ukrainian front. These changes, documented through firsthand accounts collected by Agence France-Presse (AFP) and interviews with rights advocates working on behalf of conscripts, have upended civilian life for Russian men of military age, turning everyday public spaces into potential trap points for draft evaders.

For one young Moscow bank employee, avoiding conscription meant weeks of steering clear of the city’s metro network, where law enforcement had begun deploying facial recognition technology to flag men wanted by military recruitment authorities. But on a snowy Friday evening in late 2024, gridlocked road traffic forced him to take the underground to reach his mother’s home. Mid-journey, two officers boarded his train carriage and took him into custody for failing to respond to draft summons. Within just 72 hours, he was processed and transferred to a military base outside Moscow to begin his 12-month mandatory conscript service. Like dozens of other conscripts who spoke to AFP for this reporting, he agreed to share his story only on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation from Russian authorities.

Prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, avoiding conscription through legal means was widely accessible to eligible men. Medical exemptions were relatively easy to obtain, many young men extended their education to delay service indefinitely, and alternative civilian service options were available for those with objections to military service. “Before 2022, there were many ways to avoid the draft without doing anything illegal,” explained Artyom Klyga, a lawyer with the Movement of Conscientious Objectors, a Russian advocacy group. “Now very few legal ways remain.”

Over the past three years, the Russian government has systematically tightened conscription rules to expand the pool of available personnel for its war effort. The draft, once limited to two seasonal call-up periods per year, is now held year-round. The upper age limit for conscription was raised from 27 to 30, eligibility criteria for medical exemptions was sharply narrowed, and a new digital summons system was introduced that automatically enforces travel restrictions and other penalties once a summons is issued online. In major cities including Moscow, facial recognition surveillance integrated with a unified national recruitment database allows authorities to locate and detain draft evaders in public spaces in a matter of minutes.

Once conscripts are processed into the military system, intensive pressure to sign formal combat contracts — which deploy troops to the front lines in Ukraine — begins within days, advocates and conscripts report. Cut off from outside contact, most new conscripts have no access to their families, legal support or independent media, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. Advocates say recruiters and commanding officers use a wide range of tactics to convince conscripts to sign contracts, from deceptive marketing to outright coercion.

Timofey Vaskin, a representative of Shkola Prizyvnika (School of Conscripts), a group supporting conscripts, says the most common approach is to frame a combat contract as a routine, well-paid job rather than frontline combat duty. Recruiters tell conscripts they will work standard nine-to-five shifts, earn significantly higher pay than conscripted service, and be exempt from menial base duties. Other promises include non-combat roles as drivers or clerks, and assurances that the contract will last only 12 months — matching the length of mandatory conscript service. In reality, all military contracts for combat service in Ukraine are effectively open-ended, with no guaranteed exit after one year.

“It is a major success of the Russian authorities that they have convinced many people that conscripts simply serve for a year,” Klyga said. “As a result, conscripts are now ending up in the war in record numbers.”

Official data confirms that the system is churning out unprecedented numbers of contract fighters. Former Russian president and current Security Council deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev reported that 422,000 Russians signed voluntary combat contracts to fight in Ukraine in 2025, just 6% lower than the 2024 total. At the same time, roughly 295,000 men were called up for mandatory conscription service in 2025. Klyga says that for conscripts who agree to sign a contract, deployment to the front can happen in as little as 30 days.

For the detained Moscow bank worker, the pressure to sign began almost immediately after his arrival at the unit. Held for three days in a detention facility with no access to a shower or clean clothes, he was never explicitly forced to sign, but constant subtle pressure left no doubt about what was expected. “You’re a good fit, we need people like you,” his superiors told him, repeating the same pitch he had heard from other recruiters: that he would get a good position, earn good money, and avoid unpleasant routine base duties. While he never ultimately signed, many other men in his unit agreed immediately, he told AFP.

Other conscripts describe far harsher coercive tactics. A Moscow DJ who tried to avoid service for years told AFP he eventually gave in after authorities blocked him from obtaining a driver’s license and an international passport, both of which require proof of compliant military status. After he was assigned to a military medical unit for his 12-month service, he found even contracted combat soldiers were desperate to leave. “None of them want to serve,” he said. “They all want out.” Oddly, he even recalled some junior commanders warning new conscripts against signing contracts: “Don’t sign anything. Don’t ruin your life.”

Advocates have documented dozens of cases of outright abuse to force signatures. Vaskin described one incident where security personnel planted a prohibited mobile phone on a conscript, then gave him an ultimatum: sign a combat contract or face criminal detention. Klyga’s organization has collected complaints of conscripts being subjected to punitive sleep deprivation, forced to wear heavy chemical protection suits for 24 hours straight, and ordered to perform pointless repetitive labor such as digging holes and refilling them to break their resistance. In some extreme cases, advocates say, commanding officers have forged conscripts’ signatures on enlistment contracts without their knowledge or consent.

“Under constant pressure they break a person,” Klyga explained. One conscript told AFP that a man in his unit, desperate to avoid deployment to Ukraine, swallowed a needle in an attempt to secure a medical discharge. “He was covered in blood when they brought him in,” the conscript recalled. The man survived, and was ultimately discharged from service.

Many conscripts who do yield to pressure and deploy to the front choose not to inform their families of their new status, advocates say. “They simply leave, and the family only finds out later,” Klyga said. In the worst cases, parents only learn their son was pushed into frontline service after they receive notification he has been killed in combat.

The demand for legal help to avoid conscription has “risen sharply” across Russia, Vaskin said, as eligible men scramble to find any remaining path out of service amid the Kremlin’s tightened rules.