What Does This Mean For Australia?

Australia has responded cautiously to the dramatic escalation between the US and Venezuela.

In a brief statement, Albanese said his government was “monitoring developments” following the capture and transfer of Venezuela’s president and his wife to the United States.

“We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy in order to secure regional stability and prevent escalation,” he said.

In an article for The Guardian, Donald Rothwell, professor of international law at the Australian National University, stated that “for Australia, given that it is deeply entwined in the US military and security framework through ANZUS and AUKUS, this has particular legal and defence implications.”

He goes on to question: “If US military action in the region was challenged, would that trigger Australia’s ANZUS treaty obligations, and how would Australia precisely come to the aid of Trump-inspired US military adventurism?”

We can only wait and see.

The post Trump Says The US Will “Run” Venezuela Now—But What Does That Mean For Australians? appeared first on marie claire.

After Zohran Mamdani secured his historic victory in New York City’s mayoral race on Tuesday night, he was joined on stage by his wife, Rama Duwaji. In his celebratory speech, Mamdani paid tribute to her, saying, “There is no one I would rather have by my side in this moment and in every moment.”

Previous

New York Fashion Week’s Most Striking Spring/Summer ’26 Shows

What Does Trump’s New TikTok Deal Mean For Australian Users? 

Native ad body.

Sponsored by %%sponsor_name%%

Next

When Mamdani is sworn in on January 1, 2026, Rama Duwaji will officially become the city’s first lady, marking another milestone alongside her husband’s. Zohran Mamdani will be New York’s first Muslim, first South Asian and first African-born mayor.

For her nuptials, Rama embodied an understated kind of cool in a white lace handkerchief dress, paired with black boots and a plush brown fur coat. The look was equal parts romantic and irreverent, a tableau of New York nonchalance that felt instinctively her own.

Beneath one of the wedding posts, a comment read, “hot girls for Zohran we must protect her” — a sentiment that seemed to capture the collective awe for a woman who had, without trying, become something of a modern muse.

Sharing the sweet photographs on Instagram, Mamdani used the post to speak directly to those who had negatively targeted his wife online.

“If you take a look at Twitter today, or any day for that matter, you know how vicious politics can be. I usually brush it off, whether it’s death threats or calls for me to be deported. But it’s different when it’s about those you love,” he wrote.

“Rama isn’t just my wife, she’s an incredible artist who deserves to be known on her own terms. You can critique my views, but not my family.”

Duwaji herself has remained measured and private. On election day, she posted a carousel of photo-booth pictures, a voting-sticker selfie and a childhood photo of her husband, captioned, “Couldn’t possibly be prouder.” The gesture was understated yet intimate, mirroring her presence throughout his campaign.

As New York steps into a new era, Duwaji’s quiet composure stands in contrast to the noise of city politics. If Mamdani’s campaign was about affordability and access, hers is about empathy and endurance.

The post Who Is Rama Duwaji? Meet The Artist Who Just Became The First Lady Of NYC appeared first on marie claire.

They’ve reflected on what went wrong: a highly politicised debate; a rampant disinformation campaign; a cost-of-living crisis that stole attention and triggered fear. And perhaps most significantly, the fact that many Australians didn’t understand the fundamentals of what the referendum was about.

Since then, the Albanese government has backed down on its commitment to real progress on Indigenous issues. “I think [that’s] what happens at a time of acute political loss like a referendum – they’ve gone completely quiet on Aboriginal issues except for Closing the Gap,” says Professor Megan Davis AC, a Cobble Cobble woman and renowned constitutional lawyer. “Closing the Gap is a government program that … doesn’t work, but they still continue it.”

The latest data on the program shows that key targets, including rates of suicide, imprisonment and children in out-of-home care, are continuing to worsen. According to Davis and Aunty Pat Anderson AO, an Alyawarre woman and powerful human rights advocate, the Uluru Statement from the Heart remains as relevant today as ever.

“You don’t just accept no and say that’s the end of it,” says Davis, pointing to a renewed push for a referendum to extend federal government terms from three to four years (Australia voted No on the matter in 1988), and Australia’s long-standing republican movement (Australia voted No in 1999). “No-one tells them to shut up shop.”

Now, with new energy thanks to a rising generation of youth leaders, the Uluru movement is ready to reignite, talk to people about how they voted and listen to their concerns. Notably, 6.2 million Australians voted Yes to a Voice, including an overwhelming majority of Aboriginal Australians.

“About 10 per cent voted No; it was very minuscule,” says Davis. Going forward, the focus on education will be greater and the role of the non-Indigenous “ally” will be different. “We don’t even see them as allies,” says Davis. “We can’t do this separately to them … They need to be walking next to us, not behind us … We want their active input because it’s their democracy and it’s our democracy. One of the lessons of the referendum was that we can’t drive it ourselves. It’s a movement of the Australian people.”

Here, Anderson and Davis take stock of the past and look to the future.

Professor Megan Davis AC The first six months after the referendum were hard. Our biggest concern was how Aboriginal young people felt. They felt ashamed and rejected and a lot of kids got teased at school. That first week, so many people kept their children home.

Aunty Pat Anderson AO It wasn’t a planned thing. It was just what families individually decided, including my nephew who’s a teacher, as is his wife. Even they kept their kids home from school, because it was dangerous.

MD At home they played Aboriginal movies and songs.

PA And had lots of takeaways to keep them comforted. It happened all over the country.

MD There was so much emotion. People had been working on [the campaign] for so long. They were really gutted … I felt like I was forcing everyone to be Pollyannas about the situation instead of letting them be angry. I started reading a lot, trying to figure out [what were] some of the problems. We did essential research. It showed most voters didn’t know what the Uluru Statement from the Heart was. Most didn’t know what the Uluru Dialogues were. And virtually no-one knew that it was an Aboriginal idea and that it wasn’t a politician’s idea, an Albanese idea. When we read that, we were devastated.

PA The referendum was about us, but it was for the nation. It’s not about blackfellas, it’s about who we [Australians] are in the 21st century. What kind of people are we? What are our values? What do we think is important?

MD I think we didn’t get there because it got framed so quickly as a political football. Also, unlike Turnbull and Gillard, Albanese wouldn’t allow us to have non-Indigenous Australians on the committees with us. So it looked like it was a separatist Black issue, and it wasn’t. It was a nation-building one.

PA The people’s movement was never meant to be a political movement.

MD The whole idea was working with Aussies across 151 electorates, actually going and talking to them. They would build the movement because it needs to be us together. And I think the way the referendum process was set up, it was really separative. We had no non-Indigenous faces standing next to us. It looked like it was just a singular Aboriginal thing when in fact it was meant to be an Aussie thing. And that was really lost … politics is like that.

PA The minute we went to Parliament House it went downhill.

MD It’s been two years now and I think people who voted Yes will always be sad about it. And certainly for Aboriginal people, you can see from the AEC ballot results that a majority of Aboriginal people voted Yes – that’s still not very well known by Australians. And in the Northern Territory, every single ballot box voted Yes except for one. And a couple were 90 per cent Yes. I often get emails from No voters saying they had no idea that Aboriginal people wanted the Voice. And that’s partly because the mainstream media elevated No Aboriginal people to the same level as Yes Aboriginal people. But people are regrouping. It was a political loss and we dust ourselves off and we keep going. I think the biggest thing about the [anniversary] is that two years on, statistics are going backwards. Closing the Gap is a mess.

PA Disadvantage for [Indigenous people] across the board is increasing as we speak. Despite the millions, billions, of dollars that goes to the state system, there’s not been a return on what they’ve spent. And now it’s showing, it’s telling. So a lot of money is spent on Aboriginal affairs, but it doesn’t get down to the need, it doesn’t get to [Aboriginal community] Maningrida, where every second or third person is dying of rheumatic heart. It doesn’t get down to the housing shortage. And yet that state jurisdiction has been given money for housing. It doesn’t get there. And nobody says, where did that money go? How many houses did you build? MD Something circulated constantly in the referendum period was that $30 to $40 billion goes into Aboriginal affairs. The number is inaccurate. It was fact-checked, but it didn’t matter in that referendum campaign. The Productivity Commission has come out and said it’s not $30 or $40 billion.

PA It doesn’t come to us.

MD They found around $5 billion actually hits Aboriginal communities. The rest goes to … they count public hospitals; they count all the money that goes to non-Indigenous institutions that is meant to be spent on Aboriginal people; they include money that the Commonwealth uses to fund pastoralist objections to native title; they fund their own litigation against native title. That all gets added to this big number, but it’s not necessarily money that is helping communities. The Productivity Commission is really clear about that, but it doesn’t seem to have permeated the community. So the community thinks all this money going to Aboriginal people is not being effective.

PA Most people just take it for granted that the government’s doing good, Closing the Gap and all that. And then it turns into something like: “All this money that they’re spending on blackfellas and look, they’re still sick, they’re still drunk, they still don’t go to work, and they’re lazy and dirty.” That’s how the argument goes. It’s [nearly] 20 years [of Closing the Gap] and it doesn’t work.

MD There’s an expression, “The purpose of a system is what it does.” And governments are good at that. That is the history of Western liberal democracy and bureaucracies – setting up regulatory frameworks that don’t work. And we see that it’s not just Aboriginal affairs, it’s aged care and nursing homes. It’s little kids in childcare, it’s child protection, it’s the NDIS. We set up these regulatory frameworks and then they don’t function properly.

PA The Voice was going to be the place to [ensure accountability] and ask the state jurisdictions where did that $20 million go? How many houses did you build? Did school enrolments increase? Did you get so many kids this year through year 12 and so on? Nobody [now] would dare ask.

MD A really core part of the Voice would’ve been the cascading impact of having Aboriginal people at the table, not as an afterthought. [A grassroots representative elected by their Indigenous community, as per the Voice] is not the same as [an Aboriginal agency representative selected by the government] living in Canberra saying that they know the problems or saying, “Oh, I’m grassroots. I grew up in an Aboriginal community.” Yeah, but you haven’t been there for 30 years. That’s the difference. Aunty Pat and I grew up in Aboriginal communities, but we wouldn’t be running to represent the Voice in our communities. The point is to get people who are the end users of all the shitty policies that are imposed upon them. They’re the people who don’t have a voice.

PA [That’s why] the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not dead.

MD It’s alive and well. We have so many Aussies contacting us and, weirdly this year, a lot of buyers’ remorse. There’s a slow burn in terms of understanding it. Now, we see our work as building that people’s movement based on what we know now, which is that there’s 6.2 million Australians who get the Voice and who supported it. That’s a huge foundation to build off – we’re not building from zero like we were before the referendum.

And so a big part of what we want to do is get the Yeses to talk to the Nos and have that conversation with Aussies about what Uluru means for our democracy. Because I think if we don’t face up and discuss this issue, it will reemerge with the republic movement. Australia can’t become a republic without recognising First Nations people. You just can’t … So for the past two years we’ve been really reflecting on what went wrong and what we could have done differently. We weren’t expecting the misinformation avalanche at all. Stupidly, I went into it thinking everything was going to be factual. And so I’d be on these radio calls saying the facts, and it’s impossible to have conversations when they’re just throwing stuff at you. “Does this mean the Voice will take the local beach?”

PA They were totally fixated on that … Lots of things have happened, but we certainly haven’t given up. We’ve been doing this since 1788. Why would we give up now? Just because they’ve said no once, or lots of times, really. But the country needs structural reform [across the board]. It needs to reorient, rejig itself and reorganise. A civilised society is judged on how you treat elderly people and how you treat young people. Any society that neglects or mistreats those two sectors of society is not a civilised society. That’s a thumb measure, and Australia bombs out on both categories. MD The royal commissions and commissions of inquiry into child removals, the elderly and people with disability are painting a picture of a community that probably doesn’t do enough to protect these sectors.

PA So the country has to change. We can’t go on like this. Not giving a darn about disadvantaged or poor people, sick people or old people. All the vulnerables, they have to be taken care of. That’s a civilised society. This is a great country, there’s no doubt about that. But we’ve got to do a whole lot better to look after our own people.

MD When people feel included and when they know they’re going to have a voice, they actively engage in democracy. When they feel excluded and their children are being churned into prison, they don’t engage in voting. And these experts throw their hands up and go, but why? It’s because people feel dislocated. And I think part of constitutional recognition is about the nation saying, “We want you to be a part of our democracy.” I know people don’t understand that point, but people don’t feel included in Australian democracy.

PA I don’t think they do.

MD [Professor] Jill Stauffer writes about ethical loneliness. It’s a concept that came out of interviews with men who had been interned in Nazi concentration camps. And it’s a psychological medical phenomenon where people who are so acutely let down by the people who were meant to protect them, they remove themselves from society.

They’re making an ethical decision to protect themselves because humans can’t take being let down over and over again. And so they just dislocate and remove themselves. And you see that manifesting in poor behaviour and poor decisions right across the continent. The belonging aspect is so critical. And I say that partly for my second point, which is that constitutions do provide the material conditions for a good life. Australia’s an affluent country where a majority of people live peaceful lives.

A big part of that is our Constitution, because we have good institutions, we have the rule of law, we have a really good independent High Court system. That has applied to most Australians, which is why most Australians do well, but that doesn’t apply to Aboriginal people because for the first 67 years [after the establishment of Australia’s Constitution], we were excluded completely from the framework. And yes, we had a referendum in 1967 [to count Indigenous Australians in the census and allow the Commonwealth to make laws for them], but it is really difficult to make up that ground in such a short time.

And instead of thinking about the ways in which we can enhance our democracy to make Aboriginal people a part of that democratic framework – given how tiny we are as a cultural group – we are almost entirely blamed for the problems that plague our communities.

And so two years after the referendum, we’re not resigning from the constitutional element [of the Uluru Statement]. The reason still exists for why constitutions can render particular groups more included within the framework of the state. And that’s at the heart of constitutional recognition.

PA The Uluru Statement from the Heart was meant as an olive branch, a message of hope. The invitation is to walk with us, a true, sincere invitation. Come with us. This is your place, too. Learn about it, respect it, love it, and we’ll all be fine.

MD It’s about trying to bring the Aboriginal identity and Australian identity closer, not apart.

This conversation has been edited for length.

The post Where Do We Go From Here? Two Years On From The Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum appeared first on marie claire.

“We argued a lot that night, and he said no-one in the 21st century would take up weapons, it won’t happen. They said we would have to flee the country, but it won’t happen,” Vlada recalls.

But the war changed everything. For Anton, it became a countdown to his 25th birthday. Ukrainian men between 25 and 60 are conscripted into the army, and few exemptions are granted. So he enlisted instead, joining a special forces unit.

He packed his AeroPress coffee maker and film camera, and in January was dispatched to the Sumy border region, one of the hotspots of the war.

Vlada, meanwhile, has continued life in Kyiv. On her hour-long commutes to university, she’ll record voice messages for him: updates on the coffee date with his
mum, struggles with her coursework, where did he put the screwdriver and what’s the password for the electricity account again? Out in the trenches, Anton registers the
text bubbles coming through. He’ll save them for later, 
to listen to in his bunk: little salvos of ordinary life
narrated in her voice.

They’ve been doing this for a few months now. “It’s a process,” Vlada says. “We’re getting used to the situation.”

They met seven years ago at a school dance. He blew
her away with his moves, and at the end they stole away
for a kiss.

That was just the start: enrolling at the same university, taking ski trips and flights criss-crossing Europe. A few years ago, they moved in together.
They got a cat, and then a dog.

That’s how the neighbours found out he’d gone to war. Anton had always been the one to walk the dog. “They asked, ‘What happened? Where is Anton?’,” she says. “And you know, every time you tell it to someone, they are trying to hide their eyes.”

Especially when it’s other men, she says, men who should probably be off fighting. She senses their apprehension, how they drop the subject when Anton’s name comes up. She wishes they would just ask her
what life is like for him, for her.

“Probably they don’t want to dig this hole in my heart again and again,” she says. “But I’d rather you ask me. Because if you don’t ask, it feels like you don’t care.”

In the fourth year of fighting, Ukrainians are weary. The ongoing conflict has hardened a population where almost everyone knows someone with a loved one away at the war. Male conscription is enforced – men can be taken off the streets, rounded up from bars. But women do go 
to war, too. Anton’s unit is currently made up of himself,
an 18-year-old girl who volunteered, and three men in
their forties. One of them was taken while en route to his honeymoon. The officers asked his wife if she could drive.

Anton didn’t want to run, and felt it was his duty to fight for Ukraine. “He didn’t actually have a choice, but he did his best in this situation. He tried to take as much control as he could,” she says.

Even with US president Donald Trump trying to force 
a ceasefire this year – one that would have seen disastrous concessions for Ukraine – for most Ukrainians there’s no end to the war in sight.

It has ground on with little advancement from both sides. Drones strikes and advanced troop surveillance
have made it largely a war of attrition. There’s been a huge toll. Neither side provides official figures, but president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in February more than 46,000 soldiers had died, with 380,000 wounded; many analysts consider this an underestimate. (For Russia, the BBC calculates there have been up to 237,000 combat deaths.)

And Russia is increasingly targeting civilians. In April, Moscow killed at least 210 people at a dozen locations across Ukraine. I travelled that month to Kyiv, which is seen as far safer than the eastern war zones. Still, 
30 people died there in strikes that month.

Moscow claims to only ever attack military targets.
But on April 4 a ballistic missile landed in a playground
in Kryvyi Rih, a city hundreds of kilometres from the frontline. Twenty people were killed that sunny Friday evening, among them nine children. The youngest was three. I was on the night train heading out of Ukraine when my phone flashed up with the news.

Vlada and Anton got married in March, joining an institution they’d never considered before. They wanted Vlada to have the right papers “to show
in the worst-case scenario”.

In Ukraine, the frontline is referred to as “zero”. When Anton’s out there, he’s in a unit monitoring Russian troop movements where there’s often little cover. He and Vlada have set up rules for themselves. “If I get a message from the very beginning of the day and then at the very end 
of the day, then everything is all right,” she says. He also calls her most mornings just to be her alarm clock.

But one day he didn’t ring. Vlada knew his unit was moving positions into open space, and likely to be spied 
on by Russian drones. She felt a rising panic, a churning 
terror. She wanted to call his mum but felt she couldn’t worry her. “In that moment, you’re very much on your own,” Vlada tells me. Her voice is steady as she recalls the event, but in her hands she quietly shreds a paper coffee cup. (Anton was fine; he texted the next day.)

I meet Yuliia Kotova, 29, in a cafe with her sister Anya, where they’re fundraising on their laptops over salad bowls and green juices. Both their husbands are in the military – Yuliia’s husband, Oleh, since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and claimed parts of the Donbas region; Russia currently occupies 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory. Of course, Yuliia wishes her husband could be around. Particularly now – she touches her belly under the table – as she’s five months pregnant.

It was a surprise – “I feel too young to be a mother,” she says. They’ve planned a gender reveal party in a few weeks. Oleh has
to apply for special leave to attend. For their wedding
last year, he negotiated 10 days off. They honeymooned
on the Mediterranean, and then he went back to his unit.

We’re interrupted by the wail of a siren, meaning a Russian drone has crossed into Kyiv’s zone. But the sun 
is streaming down on this leafy street, and people are lounging around with iced lattes. The alarm is ignored. Yuliia tells me that she longs for her child to grow
up without air raid sirens.

In many ways life feels robustly normal in Kyiv. People stroll into bookshops and boutiques, and attend bottomless brunches. They go on date nights in wine bars, lit by candles (for the vibes and also the not infrequent 
power cuts). But they also buy flowers in subways, which double up as underground shelters. Posters advertising skincare and techno raves are pasted next to recruitment for the elite Azov unit.

One night, I’m cutting through the riverside Khreshchatyk Park to get home before
the midnight curfew. People are out walking their dogs,
joggers lope past. The boom of explosions – the Patriot
air defence system intercepting Russian drones – starts
up in the distance. But I’m the only one picking up the pace.

Still, reminders of the war are everywhere. I’m with Yuliia when we come across a convoy for a fallen soldier moving down Kyiv’s central avenue. It’s headed towards the war memorial at Independence Square, where thousands of framed photos are planted in
a field of blue and yellow flags. An Australian flag flutters next to a boxing kangaroo – foreign volunteers who died fighting for Ukraine’s democracy are remembered here too. The procession makes traffic crawl to a stop and people emerge from their cars, some getting down on one knee. Organ music is playing, and over the loudspeaker an announcer says: “This is the price we pay for freedom.” Yuliia is standing by, watching as it passes. She turns
her head away and silently she’s weeping.

Love, romantic love, in the time of war can feel near impossible to find, some young Ukrainians say.

Yehven Siroshenko, a charming 29-year-old soldier, says
there’s certainly no romance on the frontline. We meet at the central railway station while waiting
to board a train heading to Kharkiv, a battleground city
in the east. Soldiers in fatigues wait next to families on
the platforms, but they’re almost all on their own. Some
are injured and heading home. But Yehven’s going the
other way, after a month studying in Kyiv. He’s already 
been fighting for two years, a baby-faced veteran of conflicts in Kramatorsk and the Donbas. He flashes
a smile and tells me his own “unhappy love story”.

Right before the war broke out, he met a woman – Katya – in a yoga class. When the fighting began, he thought about death a lot. “I felt in my heart, the reason I will regret
about death is because I didn’t get a date with the girl.”

They did meet up in the end – “Thank God we did” – and dated for a short period; she even went out to Kramatorsk. But that visit was strained, weighed down with worries and miscommunication. “After that, she moved to
Germany and I went to Donbas.” They stopped talking. “That’s the story of what happens during the war,” he says.

But he’s ready to go back to fighting, where he’s “needed more”. Some of the older guys see him almost as a son. “They’re waiting for me there with their whole heart.”

Dating is fraught for civilians too, says Marsha,
a 23-year-old model. We’re at a packed cocktail bar on
a weeknight in the last hour before curfew. The Ukrainian flag is draped over a chandelier above the bar and there are stickers and murals on every wall, lights strung through
the trees. Young people spill out onto the street corner.

The dating scene is “really sad”, Marsha says. Men are afraid to build relationships because “they’re traumatised, and scared they could be randomly taken into the army”.

“Women have options; they can leave the country,
do whatever they want” – she just came back from a three-month modelling contract in Japan. “But the
men don’t. So they have this fear inside.”

She mentions an ex-partner and how he closed himself off to her. They couldn’t plan a future in the shadow of
war. “It’s hard to help the person you’re with when he doesn’t know how his life is going to be. And then you
lose your connection to them.”

She pauses, and then tells me she had a friend last year who had to join the army. Not someone she was terribly close to, but a fun guy at parties. When he was killed, she found out on Instagram. “Just three months ago,” she says. “His girlfriend – they were married by then, so his wife – she was pregnant, five months.”

Ukraine’s government now sponsors the cost of IVF treatment for civilians, a policy that kicked in last 
year.

“Right now, we have a catastrophic demographic situation. There’s this understanding that there needs to be something done,” says reproductive specialist Dr Halyna Strelko. A baby, a “new life”, is “the opposite of death, opposite of war”, she says. “It can help people get through this difficult situation.”

When I visit her clinic one morning, the foyer’s full of waiting patients. Mostly it’s the women who convince their husbands to come, Strelko says.

I later find out that Vlada and Anton live a five-minute drive away, and they’ve walked through those clinic doors. Anton was reluctant at first. “His first answer was no,
I don’t want you to have to start this family without me,” says Vlada. “And I said, ‘You decided to join the army, now I ask you to do just this one thing for me.’”

Strelko says: “We have had couples who have
produced an embryo, transferred it to the woman and then probably the man has died or disappeared. Probably. But we don’t know for sure.”

Vlada is proud of her and Anton’s choices, and their sacrifices. She’s scathing of those who think differently. She tells me about a high-school teacher she’d once idealised, who had inspired her with tales of protesting during the 2014 Maidan democracy demonstrations.

Up to a million Ukrainians took to the streets to protest against the government’s push for closer ties with Russia instead of Europe; Russia invaded Crimea shortly after. The former teacher, whom Vlada regarded as a 
mentor, contacted her this year, criticising Anton’s
decision to go and fight.

She called it a shame to see the young couple sacrifice their lives. There’s steel in Vlada’s voice as she recounts this; her eyes are blazing.

Last year, she says, was the worst year of her life: “Half of my friends went to the war and the other half left the country.” She has not kept in touch with those who fled, struggling to accept that they chose this way out.

“They don’t want to lose their youth, I can understand this,” she says.

But what about her and Anton, she says,
and every other Ukrainian fighting for their way of life?

“Because there are some who are willing to sacrifice their age, their years, their life,” she says. “It’s here you verify the values of your life.”

Later that day, I visit their apartment and sit beside her during a video chat with Anton. Anton
is sweet and attentive, cracking jokes through the screen. Vlada is beaming.

Is he scared out there?

“To die is not as scary as to live without doing 
something that matters,” says Anton.

“That is my real fear.” His wife sits a little taller. Throughout our chat, her
eyes haven’t once left his face. She says in a strangled 
voice that her husband is someone who can actually
stand by those words. They both have a dream for after 
the war, although it’s mainly Anton’s fancy: to do up an
old Soviet-model car and road trip around Europe.

“I love that we want to be free,” says Vlada. “It was
our dream to travel the world, to see as many countries as possible. But I think we wouldn’t have continued our relationship if he decided to flee the country.
I wouldn’t have joined him. “Sometimes you have to adjust to the catastrophe.”

In May, Anton’s unit was hit by a Russian drone while changing positions. The driver of their vehicle was injured and taken back to Kyiv, where he is recovering; Anton was unscathed. He and Vlada hope to reunite in Sumy soon.

The post What Does Love In A War Zone Look Like? appeared first on marie claire.

What began as a political bromance soon developed into something deeper when Elon made the influential jump from Trump’s billionaire bankroller to head of the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE. The love-bombing came thick and fast, with the self-proclaimed “First Buddy” taking to X (formally Twitter) to declare that he loved Trump “as much as a straight man can love another man.”

Musk accepted his newfound influence with glee, opting out of Tesla board meetings for the bright lights of the oval office and swapping SpaceX duties for the greens of the Mar-A-Lago golf course. But as with any relationship forged from the fire of ego and unfettered power, there’s only one way it can end; badly.

Whispers of an impending Elon Musk-Donald Trump fallout began bubbling away under the surface as early as November 2024, when Musk’s near-constant presence started causing friction. “Elon won’t go home. I can’t get rid of him,” Trump told House Republicans in (alleged) jest.

If the clock wasn’t already counting down to the breakup we all saw coming then, it was certainly set in stone when Time ran a cover showing Musk behind the desk of his pal’s Oval Office desk, naming him Person of the Year. But even then, the bros kept up appearances. That was, until Musk decided to speak out against his buddy’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

Now, the gloves are off and the dog whistles have been blown, with both Trump and Musk tweeting up a storm worthy of any scorned-lover’s wrath.

“The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon’s governmental subsidies and contracts,” Trump posted on his own social media website. While Musk responded by explaining to his followers that Trump hasn’t delivered on his promise to release the infamous Epstein files because he (Trump) was “in the Epstein files.” And they say women are too emotional to hold positions of power.

Now that the Donald Trump Elon Musk bromance to breakup pipeline has reached peak fallout and the internet is reacting in the best way. Below, some of the best memes, tweets and reactions, so far.

The Internet Reacts To The Donald Trump & Elon Musk Feud

Related articles:

• How Will America’s Broligarchy Affect Women?
• Men Are Racing Their Sperm—Proving Competitive Masculinity Is Alive And Well
• 6 Acts Of Subtle Rebellion You Might Have Missed At Trump’s Inauguration

The post The Internet Is Relishing The Messy Break Up We All Saw Coming appeared first on marie claire.

The footage, captured as the presidential couple prepared to exit their plane in Hanoi during a high-profile visit to Vietnam, quickly made headlines around the world. In the clip, Brigitte Macron’s hand briefly appears to shove the French president’s face, causing him to recoil before breaking into a smile and waving at cameras.

While the moment looked awkward to some viewers, Macron was quick to clarify the context to reporters on the ground. “We are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife,” he said. “It’s being blown up into a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe.”

Why Did The Moment Go Viral?

The timing of the video’s viral spread was no coincidence. Russian state media and social media accounts aligned with the Kremlin seized on the footage, mocking the incident and suggesting it was evidence of domestic discord. Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, sarcastically wondered on Telegram whether Brigitte “miscalculated her strength” while “cheering up her husband with a gentle pat.”

“It was a moment of closeness,” said an Élysée Palace official, “just a bit of larking around before the official visit started.” Another source explained that the Macrons often joke in this way, with Emmanuel known for teasing Brigitte before events – and she responding in kind. “It wasn’t even a slap.”

The episode is emblematic of the wider problem Macron faces with disinformation campaigns targeting him. In recent weeks, videos have been twisted to suggest everything from alleged drug use with other world leaders to staged conflicts with political opponents. The French president has openly criticised such misinformation, urging people to “calm down” and see these viral clips for what they really are.

Macron also highlighted the alliance between Russian propagandists and French far-right extremists who amplify such conspiracies to undermine his leadership. “They’ve explained that my diplomacy was like that of a battered husband,” Macron joked wryly, underscoring the absurdity of the claims.

What Is The Age Gap Between Emmanuel Macron And His Wife?

The couple’s relationship, well known in France, is rooted in a decades-long love story that began when Brigitte Auzière was Emmanuel Macron’s drama teacher in high school. Despite the 24-year age gap and initial controversy, they married in 2007 and have since been seen as a strong, supportive couple.

On this visit to Vietnam, the first by a French presidential couple in nearly ten years, the Macrons were there to solidify significant economic deals worth billions, including major Airbus contracts and cooperation on nuclear energy, defence, and vaccines.

The “push” incident – while viral – should be seen as a rare, candid glimpse of the couple’s playful dynamic rather than fodder for geopolitical conspiracy. In an age of online misinformation, even innocent moments can be weaponised to spread division and doubt.

Macron’s takeaway? Behind the flashes of cameras and global stagecraft, he and Brigitte are just two people who joke, tease, and decompress like anyone else – no matter how much the internet tries to spin the story otherwise.

The post Brigitte’s ‘Push’ on Macron? Just Couple’s Playful Banter – Don’t Buy the Kremlin Conspiracy appeared first on marie claire.

This week Ferguson addressed the National Press Club in Canberra – a podium historically reserved for senior journalists and politicians who’ve been practising their spin for decades – and didn’t mince words. “Running a campaign and losing is also a powerful thing to do,” she said in her speech. “To show other young women that they can do the same thing – and that it’s not embarrassing. It’s actually a triumph.”  Well said.

Ferguson is the co-founder and CEO of Cheek Media, a proudly progressive media platform that lives where the vast bulk of Gen Z and Millennials live –  Instagram, TikTok, and podcasts. Her sharp, often funny takes on Australian politics, gender equity, and media concentration have drawn a loyal audience of 275,000 across platforms. She was named in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list and was nominated in the marie claire 2024 Women of the Year awards for being such a strong and prominent female voice in the media landscape.

Despite her massive following she recognises being elected will be a challenge, saying “running for the Senate as an Indie is virtually impossible. In NSW you have to get 400 to 500 thousand votes to get the required numbers. That’s a tough ask.” So why do it? It seems Ferguson has spent her burgeoning online career talking about power. Now, she wants to challenge it – in the corridors of power that count.

Of course critics have already come for her – for being invited to budget lock-ups, for not being a “real journalist,” for allegedly blurring the line between commentary and activism. Sky News has referred to her as a “far-left activist influencer”. She’s steely-eyed about the noise. “I said no to money from multiple political organisations,” she said during her speech. “Everything was my bias – but I was forthcoming with it.”

She certainly was. In the lead-up to the Federal election, Ferguson sold T-shirts declaring “Good morning to everyone except Peter Dutton”. After the Labor landslide, she suggested the Liberal Party should invite her into their inner-sanctum and she could school them on what they’re doing wrong.  During a recent guest appearance on Gruen Nation, prior to the Press Club address, she nominated a potential future media election slogan as “Not male, pale or stale.” Clearly for Ferguson it’s not only about making it to the red carpeted floor of the Senate. It’s about showing up – and daring others to do the same.

“It can often be hard to find one candidate or one party that represents all of your views, and I don’t expect people to align with me,” she said “I expect criticism and constant negotiation and compromise, but I want to try my best to sort of walk the walk.”

Even if she doesn’t win, she’s already changing the game by entering the race.

The post Hannah Ferguson’s Senate Bid Is About More Than Winning appeared first on marie claire.

Ley certainly has all the credentials to lead the 80-year-old institution. With a 24-year career in Australian parliament, she has much to offer the embattled party now in rebuilding mode after the catastrophic loss at the recent Federal election. She has worked as a cabinet minister in governments under Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison, and was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition since 2022. Outside of politics, Ley holds a pilot license, has worked as an air traffic controller, a farmer, and a public servant. She holds multiple degrees and is also a mother and grandmother.

According to folklore, she also apparently changed her birth name in her 20s from Susan to “Sussan” in a bid to live a bigger life. Respect for that bold move.

Is Sussan Ley Facing the Glass Cliff in Her New Leadership Role?

But despite all the qualifications and accolades, there are many words of warning that Ley has just accepted a classic glass cliff offer. For those who haven’t been keeping score, that’s the phenomenon where women get handed leadership positions precisely when things are going catastrophically wrong and the probability of failure is through the roof. How convenient!

Surely it’s not just a coincidence that the Liberal Party chose this exact moment to publicly support the notion that a woman is qualified to lead its party. After decades of men keeping the Good Ship Conservative afloat in an ocean of 1950s ideology, the party’s power brokers have suddenly decided that yes, perhaps it’s time to let a woman try her hand at this whole “leadership” thing.

Facing a gargantuan task to reunite factions, shore up the fanbase, and lead a depleted Opposition, it seems the subtext is crystal clear: when Ley inevitably fails to perform a literal miracle, the old guard can sagely nod and reassure themselves that they were right all along.

Will Sussan Ley Overcome the Odds and Lead the Liberal Party to Victory?

What makes this particular glass cliff so vertigo-inducing is that Ley isn’t just any political appointee. With two decades of navigating the halls of Parliament House under her belt, she would have to understand exactly what game is being played. The coming months will reveal whether she can defy the glass cliff statistics and transform her position into a platform for genuine change.

Either way, it’s already welcoming to hear a female leader of the conservative party and the broader Coalition, talking about women and women’s lives.

“I want to say right here and now we need more women in our party,” Ms. Ley said to gathered reporters in Canberra. She also took time to mention the fact her mother is receiving end-of-life care, reflecting the lives of many women who are forced to balance careers with caring.

“I want to acknowledge my mum, Angela, in Albury,” Ley said. “My mum is very sick and, on Mother’s Day, before I came up here, I called in to see her and I thought that it might be the last time that I did. She is in end-of-life care and this week has been tough because I’ve kept in touch with her and her medical team and my family. I know you’ll understand that after I’ve taken all of your questions, I will be heading home to be by her side.

“My mum grew up in wartime Britain, and the values of resilience, self-reliance, and persistence that I believe I have today come from her. So, thank you, mum.”

Will Australia’s political establishment give Ley the time and support to succeed? History suggests otherwise. But we’re here for it, Sussan-with-a-double-S. Just watch your step.

The post Sussan Ley Breaks Barriers as First Woman to Lead the Australian Liberal Party appeared first on marie claire.

But as I boarded that plane to the capital, I didn’t realise we were flying straight into a media storm. Before we’d even arrived, I received an email from a journalist asking whether I’d had to undergo security checks. My team consists of trained journalists – many who’ve worked in major newsrooms across the country – and we covered our own expenses. Still, the tone was clear: why were we there at all?

If you follow the news, you probably saw what happened next. A group of creators became the story of budget night – not the budget itself. The headlines branded us as naïve, unserious, and clueless. Milly Rose Bannister, the founder of mental health charity Allknd, was branded an “activewear ambassador” and later appeared on The Project, where she was mocked by the panel for being too young and too online to possibly have a political opinion. Her clapback – “Maybe dropping something really crucial to youth mental health? That would go viral” – was pitch-perfect.

Weeks later, ABC’s Media Watch clipped one of our Missing Perspectives videos out of context with the objective of ridiculing our team. Never mind that the content was focused on making politics more accessible to audiences traditional media has long ignored. For a generally progressive newsroom, I was surprised to see that segment and the way in which our content was used, and positioned.

Another favourite was a comment from an Australian Financial Review staffer on LinkedIn. “What does a fashion and beauty influencer have to say about the impact of a 2 per cent graduated decrease in the bottom tax rate over two years and how that helps on cost-of living-pressures and/or potential inflationary impact on the economy? You know?”

And it didn’t stop there. Senator Jane Hume raised Abbie Chatfield’s collaborative political posts in Senate Estimates. The AEC later reviewed the content and found it didn’t require authorisation, but the insinuation lingered.

Let’s be clear: I’m not denying the need for transparency and accountability when it comes to the intersection of influencers, content creators and political parties. I’ve interviewed the AEC myself on these very issues. But it’s impossible to ignore that the bulk of scrutiny is disproportionately aimed at young women.

After my experience covering the budget, it’s no surprise to me that women remain underrepresented in Australian media. In political journalism specifically, just 41 percent of bylines belong to women.

It’s also no wonder that young women are disengaging from mainstream news. The 2024 Digital News Report found that the gender gap in media interest between Gen Z men and women is widening. Traditional media just isn’t speaking to us, so we’re building our own platforms instead.

The truth is, young people, particularly women, are going to decide the next federal election and we aren’t just passive consumers of news anymore. We’re not just voting. We’re shaping the narrative. Political parties already know it, which is why they’re investing in digital-first strategies to meet us where we are.

We’re engaging, questioning, and reporting on the issues that matter most to us as young women in this country – in ways that resonate with our audience. And if traditional outlets continues to ignore or belittle us, we’ll just continue creating our own spaces, where we get to tell our stories our way.

Related articles:

• Dutton’s Avoidance Of New Media May Be His Biggest Mistake
• Getting To Know The Greens: What They Stand For This Federal Election
• How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics
• Lizzie Hedding Is On A Mission To Demystify The Ballot 

The post Are Politicians Finally Taking Notice Of Women This Election? appeared first on marie claire.

To start, she has competed as a professional long jumper on the international circuit (just casually) – only making the call to retire just this month. Aside from also being a brand strategist and graphic designer, Lizzie, along with Tegan Lerm, is a co-founder of Project Planet – an initiative helping Australians turn climate anxiety into tangible action.

Hedding’s passion for climate advocacy started early. “I’ve been interested in climate for as long as I can remember – as a kid I would meticulously monitor our family water bills and develop and implement water saving measures during the drought of the early 2000s,” she told Frontrunners in a 2023 interview. “More recently, I (like many Australians) was shocked back into action following the devastating 2019/20 bushfires. The smoke that blanketed so much of eastern Australia, and left me unable to train on several days, was an omnipresent reminder of the future of life on an overheated planet.”

From Climate To The Ballot Box

Project Planet began as a way to share learnings around climate change, evolved into a nationwide digital movement that set out to make climate information more accessible by offering a digital toolkit that connects climate organisations, activists, and everyday Australians.

Now, Lerm and Hedding are adding another string to their bow. Build A Ballot is a big bet that’s gaining momentum – particularly on social media – in the lead-up to this year’s federal election.

Build A Ballot is a one-stop voting prep kit designed to demystify the chaos of polling day. It lets voters explore where candidates and parties stand on the issues that matter to them most, then helps them build their own how-to-vote card, before stepping foot in the booth.

“It’s everything you need to do your research all in one place. Even as a very politically engaged person [myself], I’ve walked in to vote and not really been sure who these guys in the Senate are – like, no clue,” Hedding tells marie claire.

“Basically we asked how we could put everything in one place so that you can find out which candidates and parties best match with you, and then also actually plan your votes. To order your preferences and have it ready to go, so that when you walk into the polling booth, you’re not trying to figure that out.”

The tool is built around a short nine-question survey focusing on key policies, like how to ease the cost of living or address climate change. After answering, users receive a match score with candidates running in their electorate.

But the real power? Flexibility. “You can reorder your preferences however you like,” says Hedding. “Maybe a candidate doesn’t align perfectly with your values, but you still believe they’ll be a strong advocate. That’s what this is about – creating a personalised how-to-vote card based on what you care about.”

Incredibly, Build A Ballot has hit 100,000 users – all without a cent spent on paid promotion. Instead, it’s been fuelled by pro-bono support, word of mouth, and clever partnerships with brands like Twoobs and Gelato Messina, helping cut through to younger voters who might not normally engage with politics. They’ve also launched a Research Hub that breaks down policy platforms, voting structures, and more – helping voters become not just more engaged, but better informed.

“We want to reach the people who aren’t paying attention, because they’re the ones who matter most,” Hedding says.

While climate concern is at the heart of their mission, Hedding is quick to point out that Build A Ballot is designed for every voter. “Ultimately, it’s about helping Australians make informed decisions – whatever they care about,” she says.

Long-term, they’re already dreaming bigger. “We want to roll this out for state elections too,” she reveals. “There’s so much potential, and the response so far has proven that we can do really cool things.”

Related articles:

• How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics
• Feeling Disillusioned By Politics? Here’s How to Make Your Vote Count This Election
• Why Dutton’s Avoidance Of New Media May Be His Biggest Mistake

The post Build A Ballot Wants You To Vote Like You Actually Know What’s Going On  appeared first on marie claire.

With the 2025 federal election looming, this generational shift isn’t just a demographic detail – it’s the political story. For the first time in Australian history, voters under 40 hold the power to decide who governs, but it’s becoming glaringly obvious that Dutton is nowhere to be seen on the platforms that matter most to them.

The Numbers Are There, So Why Is Dutton Staying Silent?

Back in September, social-first news outlet The Daily Aus pitched a ground-breaking idea to both major parties: the first-ever leaders’ debate hosted by a youth media company. The Labor Party agreed, but representatives from the Coalition never responded.

Since then, The Daily Aus says they’ve emailed, called, and texted “many, many times,” to no avail.

Turns out, they’re not alone. At Missing Perspectives, we’ve had a similar experience. After being invited by the Labor government to attend the budget, we reached out to Dutton’s office on February 6 to request an interview, and followed up again on 31 March. What we proposed was similarly simple: a dinner with a group of undecided young voters.

The result? Not even a read receipt.

The Coalition’s Missed Opportunity With A Generation That’s Watching

We’ve seen Labor, The Greens and the teals actively embrace platforms where young people get their news, including Instagram, TikTok and the world of podcasts. Meanwhile, Dutton seems to be sticking to a strategy that prioritises traditional media with its safer, more predictable audiences.

Sure, he hasn’t been entirely absent from interviews and podcasts, having appeared on on Mamamia’s No Filter, Straight Talk with Mark Bouris, and Diving Deep with Sam Fricker. But these outlets and newsrooms still skew older – and apart from No Filter – toward male-dominated audiences.

He hasn’t gone near The Daily Aus, Cheek Media, Junkee, Abbie Chatfield, or Hannah Ferguson’s Big Small Talk. In other words: he’s avoiding the very platforms that speak most directly to the generation that will shape this election, and the ones that come after it.

Dutton’s avoidance of youth media communicates that he is unwilling to sit across the table and tell us his plan for a future we will inherit

Hannah Ferguson

“Dutton’s avoidance of youth media communicates that he is unwilling to sit across the table and tell us his plan for a future we will inherit,” Hannah Ferguson, CEO of Cheek Media, tells marie claire. “At best, he isn’t interested. At worst, he doesn’t have one.”

“It’s worth noting that traditional media have framed new media and content creators as less critical in our approach to delivering information, yet Peter Dutton is far more willing to sit down with legacy media than with the young women behind platforms with the biggest reach in the country,” she adds, before offering a possible explanation. “I’d guess that Dutton knows if he were to debate us, he would lose.”

Why Avoiding Us Might Be Strategic – It’s Still A Mistake

From a campaign perspective, it’s easy to assume team Peter Dutton is attempting to avoid the perceived risks associated with new media. A podcast interview could be unpredictable. He could be asked challenging questions. The conversation could go viral – and for the wrong reasons.

But does dodging young audiences really offer more protection than engagement? According to Crystal Andrews, founder of Zee Feed and Crikey readers’ editor, it’s precisely this strategy they’re going for.

“Part of the nature of this new media landscape… is that a large deal of the audience reach for these outlets comes from the way the podcasts are clipped up and distributed on social channels,” says Andrews.

“It’s clear that both Dutton and his campaign managers know that appearing on podcasts in close proximity with young women journalists, where he is perhaps going to be asked, or required to be more candid, creates more chance for an awkward moment, that will likely be clipped and distributed on social media, potentially reaching a very large audience.”

It’s this potential virality, that Andrews adds, could “do far more damage to this campaign” than saying ‘no’ to a sit down with new media ever would.

Andrews points to the viral success of Abbie Chatfield’s interview with Anthony Albanese as a moment of contrast: “That made me realise how rarely Dutton is pictured with young women who aren’t aligned with the Liberal Party. The visual says it all.”

Out Of Sight, Out Of Touch?

In the short term, avoiding youth-led media may seem like a safe call. But in the long run, it risks reinforcing the perception that the Liberals are out of touch with the very demographic that holds the key to their survival.

If Peter Dutton continues to overlook these voices by staying silent now, how will that play out for the party when this generation becomes the country’s political and economic centre? When their votes – and trust – are even harder to win back?

Andrews and I agree on one point: in future elections – if Dutton retains his seat, and isn’t ousted by his own – avoidance of these platforms is not a reliable path to take. And I’m writing this as a genuine swinging voter and as a young person working in the media.

The clock is ticking. Polling day is almost here. And whether Peter Dutton and the Coalition choose to engage or not, one thing is clear: young people are the future of this country and they’re paying attention.

Related articles:

• How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics
• Feeling Disillusioned By Politics? Here’s How to Make Your Vote Count This Election
• Getting To Know The Greens: What They Stand For This Federal Election 

The post Dutton’s Avoidance Of New Media May Be His Biggest Mistake appeared first on marie claire.

In the lead-up to the 2025 federal election, The Greens are making a play for Gen Z and Millennial voters, and it’s working. At the last election, they picked up three new lower house seats, and secured the balance of power in the Senate – giving them more influence over national policy than ever before.

Their slogan this election? “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act.” But what exactly are the policies being platformed by The Greens – and how might they affect you?

From climate and housing to free dental and student debt relief, here are the policies The Greens are promising ahead of the 2025 federal election.

Climate & Environment: Their Core Mission

It’s probably no surprise to anyone, given the name of the party, that the most central policy platform is climate action and environmental protection.

They want to:

• Ban new coal and gas projects
• Expand publicly-owned renewable energy
• Phase out native forest logging
• Cut power bills by transitioning to clean energy
• Subsidise solar and battery tech for homes and businesses
• Hit net zero (or net negative) emissions by 2035 or sooner

They also want Australia to take a leading role in international climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But not everyone’s sold. Critics have questioned whether The Greens’ climate targets will drive up power bills. “When faced with a choice between policy purity and their hip pocket, will voters baulk?” asked political reporter Tom McIlroy in the AFR.

Still, the party helped Labor pass the safeguard mechanism, which aimed to curb emissions from 220 of Australia’s biggest mining, gas and industrial sites – signalling they’re willing to work across the aisle for results.

Housing: The Greens Say There Is Another Way

Under Adam Bandt, The Greens have made affordable housing a top priority.

Here’s what they’re promising:

• Deliver 610,000 affordable homes over the next decade via a new federally owned public developer, with the aim to rent and sell below market prices.
• Provide 70% of the homes as rentals capped at 25% of household income or 70% of market rent (whichever is lower)
• Sell the remaining 30% just above construction cost
• Establish a National Renters Protection Authority & make unlimited rent increases illegal

In November 2024, they reluctantly helped pass Labor’s Help to Buy scheme and Build to Rent tax incentives – despite frustration over Labor refusing to budge on issues like negative gearing reform. “The Greens can announce that we’ll be waving through Labor’s two housing bills after accepting that Labor doesn’t care enough about renters to do anything meaningful for them,” Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather told reporters at the time.

Cost of Living, Health & Education

The Greens are also campaigning on a broader platform of economic and social reform – including:

• Making dental care free under Medicare
• Removing the current cap on subsidised mental health sessions
• Making GP visits free
• Abolishing all student debt (HELP, VET, SFSS) from July 1, 2025
• Bringing back free university and TAFE
• Ensuring a fully-funded public school system

So, a common question – and perhaps criticism – of The Greens is: how will they pay for all these measures?

The Greens say that to fund these reforms, they’ll implement a range of measures estimated to raise over $514 billion – including but not limited to:

• A 40% tax on excess profits for corporations with over $100 million in turnover
• A 10% tax on the net wealth of Australia’s 150 billionaires
• Closing tax loopholes for big oil and gas companies

Are The Greens Likely To Win More Seats?

Polls suggest The Greens’ primary vote has increased since 2022 – currently sitting between 12.4% and 14.1%.

It’s expected they’ll retain their Senate balance of power, meaning they could play a pivotal role in shaping future legislation – especially on policies that concern housing, the environment and education.

Some voters love them. Others, might still need convincing, but one thing’s clear: The Greens are betting big with their policies this election – and they’re not going anywhere.

Related articles:

• How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics
• Feeling Disillusioned By Politics? Here’s How to Make Your Vote Count This Election
• A Guide To Australia’s Preferential Voting System

The post Getting To Know The Greens: What They Stand For This Federal Election  appeared first on marie claire.

If you’re feeling disillusioned heading into the 2025 federal election, you’re not alone – and you’re not wrong to feel that way. Between performative politics, relentless spin, and a system that often feels rigged to serve the status quo, it’s no wonder so many Australians are tuning out. But hopping off the exhausting campaign cycle isn’t the only alternative to buying in. In fact, your disillusionment might be the very thing that makes you politically powerful.

We know that Gen Z and Millennial voters will form the largest voting block at the polls this election, and the shake-up happening as a result of this is well underway.

Together, Gen Z and Millennials are proving that the two-party system only holds currency if we consent to it. By refusing to vote out of blind loyalty, we’re demanding the major parties earn our support – and showing them that if they don’t, we’ll find alternatives who will.

It’s an exciting shift, but it can also feel daunting if you’re a young or undecided voter. So, how can you turn disillusionment into genuine influence? Here are a few empowering steps and resources to get your head back into the political game and vote with a voice this federal election.

Vote With Your Values & Know Your Preferences

Don’t let anyone tell you your vote won’t count, because we all know there’s no such thing as a wasted vote. Use Australia’s preferential system as it was intended to be used, by ranking candidates in your true order of preference. If you love what a minor party or independent stands for, put them number one – you’re sending a strong message, and your vote will still flow to your next choice if it comes to that​. Still need convincing? We’ve got a quick guide to understanding our voting system, here.

Tip: Tools like Build A Ballot and Vote Compass can help you map out your preferences in advance and see how your vote will travel.

Look Beyond The Headlines

In our era of partisan media, getting balanced info is crucial to making your vote count this federal election. Seek out non-partisan voter guides and policy explainers. The ABC’s election site, for instance, often breaks down each party’s platform minus the spin.

Independent outlets run by young Australians – like Cheek Media, Zee Feed, Kaleidoscope News, and Missing Perspectives – are great for succinct explainers that centre facts over party talking points. Dig into what candidates stand for (and check their track records!). Knowledge is power here.

Get Talking IRL

It might be tempting to avoid political talk to keep the peace, but some of the most influential campaigning happens in our living rooms, group chats and workplaces.

Share what you’ve learned with your friends, your parents, and your colleagues. Have those tough conversations. As we’ve learned, a thoughtful chat over coffee can change a perspective far more effectively than a Facebook rant​.

You don’t have to be an expert – just speak from your experience and listen to others. It all helps chip away at the cynicism and misinformation out there.

Stay Involved Beyond Voting Day

Democracy isn’t just a once-every-three-years kind of deal. If you’re feeling energised (or infuriated) by an issue, channel it into how you vote this federal election – and beyond.

Volunteer for a campaign that inspires you, join a local advocacy group or attend a town hall meeting. Even a few hours of handing out flyers for an independent candidate or phone banking for a cause can make a difference , and you’ll meet like-minded people and feel the impact you can have. As Lizzie Hedding from the youth-led initiative Build A Ballot reminds us, if thousands of us each give just a little time, that collective effort is huge​.

Related articles:

• Everything You Need To Know About The Upcoming Federal Election
• How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics
• A Guide To Australia’s Preferential Voting System

The post Feeling Disillusioned By Politics? Here’s How to Make Your Vote Count This Election appeared first on marie claire.

The position is one of significant cultural and political influence, setting the agenda for roughly 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide. And the stance the pope adopts on political issues can trickle down through believers and non-believers alike. For example, in his final speech before his passing, Pope Francis called for a ceasefire in Gaza, and disparaged violence and contempt against migrants and minorities, which were also the subjects of his final meeting with US Vice President, JD Vance.

However, Pope Francis was not your standard pope. His election back in Mach 13, 2013 caused quite the stir. Not only was Pope Francis the first non-European pope in centuries, but he brought some progressive sensibilities and opinions to the chair. While the Catholic Church remains regrettably immovable on social issues like gay marriage, abortion and female representation in the clergy, Pope Francis proved to have a more welcoming point of view than many of his peers and predecessors.

Now, the question becomes who will be the next pope—and what attitudes will the bring? With issues of fascism and genocide on the table, with leading nations like the United States seeking to

How Is The Next Pope Selected?

The next pope is elected by vote, open only to cardinals in the Church. Cardinals are the second-highest ranking members of the Church, after the pope who is, of course, the first.

However, there are some rules within that. Specifically, only cardinals under the age of 80 are permitted to vote. The next pope will be voted on by 136 eligible cardinals.

As for candidacy, there are few rules apart from you must be baptised Catholic and male. The pope is, however, most likely to be elected from those who sit in the conclave.

The vote is held as part of a highly classified meeting of eligible cardinals called a ‘conclave’. The conclave can last days or months—however long is takes for a candidate to get a two-thirds majority vote. During the conclave the cardinals are essentially on lockdown, living in the Vatican and restricted from contact with the outside world.

Votes are cast by paper ballot in the Sistine Chapel. After each vote round, the ballots are burned and a black smoke signal is sent up to signify that a new pope has NOT been elected. When a decision has been reached, a white smoke signal will be sent.

Who Will Be The Next Pope? Meet Your Contenders

Although the secrecy of the conclave means we don’t get a lot of intel, Catholic commentators are putting their own picks forward based on personal preference and likelihood. The College Of Cardinals Report has put forward 12 names as the “leading candidates” to be the next pope.

The mix includes some traditionalist and progressive choices, with black and Asian candidates in the balance. Much of the church remains staunchly anti-women, so it goes without saying that unfortunately all the candidates are men.

We have compiled profiles on some of the wider-reported front runners, with a further shortlist below.

Cardinal Péter Erdo

From: Budapest, Hungary
Age: 72
About: Erdo is a conservative and traditionalist, per ABC News. He’s described as well-read and intellectual, but does not support divorce or homosexuality, even favouring conversion therapy. The College of Cardinals Report says he was a favourite of Australian Cardinal, George Pell, who was the most senior member of the clergy to be convicted (and later acquitted) of child sex offences.

Cardinal Matteo Zuppi

From: Bologna, Italy
Age: 69
About: A favourite of the late Pope Francis, Zuppi is very popular in and out of the church. He grew up in Rome and is well connected. The College of Cardinals Report describes him as “someone who seeks to engage constantly with the modern world and implement the “profound change” that he believes the Council wanted for the Church.”

Cardinal Luis Tagle

From: Manila, Philippines
Age: 67
About: Cardinal Luis Tagle is from Filipino and Chinese ancestry, and has reportedly been labelled the “Asian Francis”, resembling some of Pope Francis’ attributes and training with Jesuits. He was once a preferred successor but has allegedly “fallen out of favour”. His views are mixed, with conservative approaches to abortion and euthanasia. He would be a preferred candidate for those wanting to continue Pope Francis’ legacy.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin

From: Schiavon, Italy
Age: 70
About: The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin is a high-powered, unapologetically political figure in the church. However, his visibility, influence and handling of both political matters and finances has meant he’s not without his critics on the inside, which could damage his dreams of becoming Pope. To some, however, he is viewed as a master of peace and diplomacy who will most likely continue Francis’ legacy with some less radical ideas.

Cardinal Robert Sarah

From: Ourous, Guinea
Age: 72
About: Cardinal Robert Sarah is another conservative choice, with strong and outspoken opinions on the “evils” of abortion, same sex couples and Islam. However, The College Of Cardinals report still labels him as the leading contender to be the first African Pope since Pope Gelasius in the fifth Century. He is quite vocal on social media, frequently publishing his commentary on X (formerly Twitter).

Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith

From: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Age: 77
About: The Cardinal from Sri Lanka has negative stance on ordaining women and blessing same sex couples. While he continues Pope Francis’ focus on the challenges of climate change, he is more in line with Pope Benedict’s legacy. His connection to Asia could also work in his favour.

Further candidates for the next pope include:

• Cardinal Willem Eijk, Netherlands
• Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Jerusalem
• Cardinal Charles Bo, Myanmar
• Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, Democratic Republic of Congo
• Cardinal Anders Arborelius, Sweden
• Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline, France

Will There Be An Australian Pope?

If you’re hoping to see an Australian pope, you might be out of luck for now. There is, however, one Australian cardinal, that is Melbourne Bishop Mykola Bychock. He is the Vatican’s youngest cardinal at the age of 45.

When Will The Next Pope Be Elected?

After the death of the pope, the Vatican enters a nine-day mourning period, called Novemediales. Between 15 and 20 days after the pope’s death, the cardinals will convene the conclave and begin the selection of a new pope. The voting will take place until a two-thirds plus one majority is reached. As this could take days or weeks, nobody knows the precise date we will have a new pope.

The post Who Will Be The Next Pope? The Succession Drama Begins appeared first on marie claire.

Forget rusted-on party loyalty or “lesser evil” voting. This is a generation raised on climate strikes, housing crises, and internet-fuelled political awakening – and they’re using their numbers to reshape the system. Together, Gen Z and Millennials now form the largest voting bloc in Australia, and with May 3 looming, their issue-based, independent-first voting patterns are forcing a reckoning in Canberra.

Whether it’s ditching party allegiance in favour of climate action, calling out spin on TikTok, or wielding the preferential system like a protest tool, young Australians are proving they’re politically engaged – just not in the way previous generations were. The two-party monopoly? It’s cracking. And Gen Z and Millennial voters are the ones swinging the hammer.

Politically Homeless, Not Apathetic

Gen Z and Millennials have largely lost faith in the old two-party dance, but it’s not out of apathy. It’s out of anger and disappointment. In fact, only 21% of young Australians in a recent survey said they voted last time because they believed it would make a difference and nearly half said they mostly voted just to avoid a fine​. That stark data speaks volumes. 

Many of us came of age during what journalist Crystal Andrews calls the “Nemesis years” of Australian politics – the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison era – where we saw power plays and performative politics trump real progress. It’s not that young Aussies think politics doesn’t matter; it’s that we’ve rarely seen it work for us.

“It’s not an erosion of trust; it’s that none was built to begin with,” Andrews shares of her Millennial generation’s view of Canberra. Older Australians at least remember leaders who fought for big reforms; for those of us under 40, “the bad patch is all we’ve been able to participate in”​. No wonder so many young voters feel jaded.

Yet talk to any younger voters – Gen Z or Millennials – this federal election and you’ll find we’re deeply passionate about issues. We’re volunteering, marching in climate strikes, starting petitions, and blowing up group chats about the latest political drama. We’re politically engaged – just not in the traditional way.

A New Kind Of Engagement

Unlike our parents, we aren’t getting our political education from 6 pm news or party pamphlets in the mail. Scroll through TikTok or Instagram and you’ll see Aussie young people dissecting federal budgets, fact-checking politicians, and yes, making memes out of them. This digital native approach means we’re arguably more informed than any youth cohort before us. But it also means we can spot BS and “spin” a mile away.

That said, most of us know change won’t happen just by posting an Instagram story or dunking on a politician in the comments. As Crystal Andrews observes, “no viral post will ever beat real-life conversations when it comes to changing minds. There is no post you could share that will be more effective at changing hearts and minds than being an active member of your community, having real conversations with people of different political beliefs,” she notes​.

The online content created by outlets like Andrews’ Zee Feed, Phoebe Saintilan’s Missing Perspectives or Demi Lynch’s Kaleidoscope News isn’t about swaying your vote with clickbait, it’s about equipping young Australians with context and facts, so when we do argue politics over dinner or on the group chat, we’re armed with substance, not just slogans. As Andrews puts it, the goal is not to win an online argument, but to empower more of us to spark offline ones that influence friends, family, and coworkers in the long run.

Lynch, the founder of Kaleidoscope News, often highlights how disengagement itself is a sign of privilege. “If you’re a marginalised young person – a renter, a uni student, a single mum, a queer teen – you feel politics in your everyday life. Opting out isn’t an option if the status quo is hurting you.” In other words, many young Aussies are intensely engaged despite their disillusionment. We share explainer posts about the broken rental market, we swap podcast recommendations on the Indigenous Voice or integrity commissions, and we rally each other to enrol to vote (or risk that dreaded fine!). It’s a savvy, self-educated generation. But we also know voting still matters – we just refuse to be loyal to parties that haven’t earned it.

From “Youthquake” To Game-Changers

In the 2022 federal election, our cohort’s rejection of “business-as-usual” politics was impossible to ignore. Nationally, fewer than one in four Millennial and Gen Z voters chose the Coalition – the lowest youth support for a major party ever recorded​ – and the Labor vote among under-30s also dropped as thousands turned to independents and minor parties. This generational shift delivered what analysts dubbed a “youthquake” at the polls, booting a nine-year Coalition government out and sending a clear message that young Australians won’t be taken for granted.

That’s a sea change in Australian politics. It’s already forcing both major parties to rethink how they campaign, what policies they offer, and even who they preselect.

Perhaps the most powerful move Gen Z and Millennials are making in the lead up to the federal election, is wielding Australia’s preferential voting system to its full advantage. We’ve figured out that we’re not stuck with a binary choice between two big parties. However, as Lizzie Hedding from the youth-led initiative Build A Ballot reminds us “The major parties become a default when people aren’t paying attention, if you’re not super engaged you tend to subscribe to the idea that they’ve been running the country for a while so they must know what they are doing.“

Hedding also noticed a lot of “political hobbyism” among young Aussies – we consume heaps of news and know what’s wrong, but many feel unsure how to act on that knowledge. Build A Ballot was designed to bridge that gap. It lets voters plug in what issues matter most to them and see which candidates in their area align, producing a personalised how-to-vote guide based on your values.

Gen Z & Millennials Are Coming For The Federal Election

The two-party system is not written in stone – it’s held in place by tradition and complacency, and we’re actively dismantling both. By voting with our eyes open and our values front and centre, by refusing to settle for “lesser evils,” Gen Z and Millennial Australians are building new pathways to engagement. We’re injecting accountability and fresh ideas into a stale system. We’re showing that loyalty must be earned, not assumed. In the process, we just might compel the major parties to up their game – or pave the way for a new political landscape altogether.

Either way, we’re not sitting quietly on the sidelines anymore. Politicians can either catch up to the change we’re demanding or watch us take our votes (and our futures) elsewhere.

The message from Young Australia is loud and clear: do better, or we’ll find someone who will. And that, more than anything, is why this generation is one to be reckoned with at the 2025 election and beyond.

Related articles:

• Everything You Need To Know About The Upcoming Federal Election
• A Guide To Australia’s Preferential Voting System
• I Survived The Mental Health System, The Budget Won’t Save the Next Me

The post How Gen Z & Millennial Voters Are Disrupting Australian Politics appeared first on marie claire.

Coming straight out the gate promises of sweeping economic reforms immediately after he was elected, US President Donald Trump hasn’t been shy in revealing elements of his fiscal agenda, which is largely based around lowering corporate taxes and raising tariffs.

Now, he’s delivered on his promise by announcing a range of tariffs as part of what he’s labelled “Liberation Day”.

So what do these new policies mean and how might they actually impact Australia, you ask? That’s a a good question, so let’s start with the basics.

What Is A Tariff?

Simply put, a tariff is a tax on goods that come into, or leave, a country.

Tariffs can be applied based on country of origin/destination, or particular items. Taxes on goods are imposed to raise money or protect local industry, but they can also be used as a political tool to apply pressure on another nation.

Let’s use a hypothetical situation relating to a US-based clothing company, as an example. Say a brand imports its goods – in this case, t-shirts – from China into the US, under Trump’s proposed tariff hike, the American clothing company will now pay a 60 per cent tax on the value of that import. So, if a t-shirt costs $10 to import from China, the US company would have to pay $6 per t-shirt to the US Government.

Sounds simple right? But here’s where it gets sticky.

If companies are now having to pay 60 per cent tariffs, then they’re hardly going to just accept the loss. Instead, the more likely scenario will see companies increase the cost to the consumer, as a way to recoup or mitigate the significant knock to profits.

Trump’s strategy behind this is two-fold. On one hand, the proposed tariffs will be instated as a deterrent to companies importing from China therefor creating an incentive to manufacture in America. Very simplistically, more local manufacturing equates to more jobs for Americans.

But in deterring US companies from importing goods from China, the tariffs can also be seen as be a tactic to weaken the Chinese economy. And this is where experts argue, that Australia could be hit the hardest.

What Are The New Trump Tariffs?

President Donald Trump has been vocal about blaming the global trading system for a laundry list of local woes – including job cuts, closed off foreign markets and inflation. The answer to all of which, according to Trump, remains closely, if not solely, linked to tariffs.

Trump’s latest “liberation day” announcement involves ‘sweeping’ or ‘across-the-board’ tariffs on all imports to the US from around the world. The tariffs imposed on April 2 range from 10 per cent to 49 per cent on all goods imported from oversees, with an additional 25 per cent tariff on specific categories such as foreign automotive companies.

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said during his address.

So What Do The Trump Tariffs Mean For Australia?

When the proposed tariffs were first announced in December 2024, economic experts were quick to point out the need to act swiftly to avoid the full brunt of reforms. At the time, Richard Holden, Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School, spoke about the importance, stating: “If Trump goes ahead with across-the-board tariffs or very significant tariffs on China, that could easily usher in retaliatory tariffs and an era of deglobalisation – and that would be very bad for the US economy, for the global economy, and for Australia in particular.”

In the same respect, said Professor Holden, reactionary measures could also be expected from China. “China might do the same thing and say, ‘Well, if the US is going to impose big tariffs on Australia, which is a military and security ally of the US, then we’ll have big tariffs on Australia.’ That would be really bad for all of our exports.”

So does the latest announcement line up with market predictions? “Overall it looks worse than markets expected with 10 per cent on all countries and much higher rates on many,” noted AMP economist Shane Oliver.

“For Australia, the 10 per cent tariff is bad news for the industries affected. Pharmaceuticals (worth $2bn a year) are not currently included but look likely to see their own tariff down the track.”

Our local beef trade has also been targeted under the new regime, with Trump stating: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

“Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

“They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

The Prime Minister responded to Trump’s comments with a measure of his own, reinstating the country’s commitment to its current ban on the import of US beef.

We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity,” he said.

“We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination.” 

How Did Australia Respond?

In the wake of today’s announcement, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the tariffs are “not unexpected, but let me be clear, they are totally unwarranted”, adding they were “not the act of a friend”.

While he maintained Australia would refrain from imposing reciprocal tariffs on the US, he also stated, “The administration’s tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations’ partnership. This is not the act of a friend. Today’s decision will add to uncertainty in the global economy and it will push up costs for American households. It is the American people who will pay the biggest price for these unjustified tariffs.

“This is why our government will not be seeking to impose reciprocal tariffs,” he continued. “We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth. We will stand up for Australia. We will continue to make the strongest case for these unjustified tariffs to be removed from our exporters.”

Further cementing the Australian line in the sand, Albanese reaffirmed the government’s stance by ensuring the alliance remains steadfast, whatever the projected outcome.

“Our shared history, our friendship, our alliance, these are all bigger than a poor decision. But the Australian people have every right to view this action by the Trump administration as undermining our free and fair trading relationship and contrary to the shared values that have always been at the heart of our two nations’ longstanding friendship.”

READ NEXT:

What Does A Trump Win Mean For Australians?

Donald Trump Is The Winner Of The US Election

What Does The Trump Win Mean For Women’s Productive Rights?

The post Trump & Tariffs: An Australian Perspective appeared first on marie claire.

So, what exactly did Abbie do? She recently interviewed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for her podcast It’s A Lot , and, as is standard practice, shared clips of their chat on social media to promote the episode.

As part of her content series, she also sat down with Greens leader Adam Bandt, and appeared alongside him at a Melbourne event called “Vote,” encouraging people to get involved in politics in the lead up to the federal election.

Pretty standard influencer-meets-politics content, right? Well, the AEC is investigating whether these related posts comply with electoral laws that require political messaging to be properly authorised.

Why Is This An Issue?

Australia has strict rules about political advertising, and the AEC wants to determine whether Chatfield’s posts fall under those guidelines. The concern is whether these interviews and endorsements – intentional or not – should have come with an official authorisation statement alongside them, the kind you usually see following traditional campaign ads.

The key question is whether the posts can be classified as news opinion from an independent content creator, or, if they should be interpreted as unpaid political promotions.

A spokesperson for the AEC has clarified that the review is simply about ensuring compliance with transparency laws. “The AEC will review these posts,” they shared. “When it comes to any content on social media, the AEC’s advice is always ‘if in doubt, authorise’.”

“We’d have to look and see whether content was being produced of the own volition of the person who’s the influencer or [if there] is another buying, potentially using that as advertising and promotional content,” per The Sydney Morning Herald.

Abbie Chatfield Responds

She’s made it clear that there was no financial agreement with either leader, and that she’d extended the same invitation to opposition leader, Peter Dutton as well – he just chose not to take her up on it.

In a statement shared with Pedestrian.TV, Chatfield clarified her stance: “I definitely was not paid by either party to create content,” she said.

“We were asking Bandt and Albanese for months to come on the podcast, and they had zero say in the content of the podcast or the posts I made.”

The influential media personality has consistently used her platform to highlight social issues and engage her followers in political discourse, so these interviews are hardly off brand for her. But as influencers play a bigger role in shaping public opinion, the legal landscape around political content is struggling to keep up.

The Bigger Picture: Legacy vs New Media

This whole situation is more than just a bureaucratic example, it speaks to a major shift in how Australians, and the public in general, consume and engage with political information.

Traditionally, politicians have relied almost solely on legacy media to get their message across. Now, they’re actively courting digital creators and new media influencers, recognising that platforms like Instagram and TikTok hold more power over Gen Z and Millennial voters than mainstream channels, and need to be part of the conversation.

Albanese and Bandt’s willingness to appear on a podcast like It’s A Lot (boasting 400,000 monthly downloads) shows how political messaging is evolving. But it also raises new questions: How can these new avenues be treated in line with traditional media outlets? How do electoral laws apply when political engagement is happening in casual, unscripted online spaces? And at what does it say about the politicians who don’t (or won’t) engage with the new direction?

What Happens Next?

Right now, the AEC’s review is just that – a review. They haven’t accused Chatfield of breaking any rules, and there’s no expectation that anything will come of it. But this case could set an important precedent for how influencers and political figures collaborate in the future.

One thing’s for sure: the digital sphere isn’t just a place for celebrity fan accounts and OOTDs anymore. It’s a battleground for political influence, and whether regulators and legacy media like it or not, the new wave of creators should be recognised as major players in the conversation.

The post What’s Happening With Abbie Chatfield & The AEC? appeared first on marie claire.

While previous speculation had placed the most date to be early April, the current prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has today confirmed that Australia will head to the polls on the first Saturday of May.

Gathering in the prime ministerial courtyard, Albanese addressed media to make the announcement.

“My fellow Australians, this morning, I visited the Governor-General, and Her Excellency has accepted my advice that an election be held on Saturday, 3 May, 2025.”

“Over the last few years, the world has thrown a lot at Australia. In uncertain times, we cannot decide the challenges that we will face, but we can determine how we respond.”

Beginning his first of many pitches for the upcoming campaign trail, the prime minister called on Australians to “choose the way forward,” stating:

“Your vote has never been more important.

“And your choice has never been more clear. This election is a choice between Labor’s plan to keep building or Peter Dutton’s promise to cut. That is the choice.”

Below, a quick guide to understanding the federal election process for choosing when Australians will head to the polls in 2025.

What Date Is The Next Federal Election?

The next Federal Election is set for Saturday, May 3.

Why such mystery around the date? Unlike electoral processes in other parts of the world which maintain a regular voting schedule, Australia’s system gives the sitting prime minister the power to determine when an election will fall – within reason, of course.

Under constitutional rule, the nation must head to the polls by May 17, 2025.

This is due to the three year cycle of our parliamentary system and its necessary checks and balances.

The constitution dictates that an election can’t be held any later than 68 days after the House of Representatives terms expire, which is on July 25, 2025. If a prime minister simply had to keep this factor in mind, then a federal election could be held as late as September 27.

Throwing a spanner into the works however, is the fact that half the current Senate’s terms expire on June 30, 2025.

So, given the precedent to hold both house and half-senate elections simultaneously, working backwards from the June cut-off gave us a final deadline of May 17.

While you’re waiting to head to the polls, brush up on Australia’s Preferential Voting System here.

How Do I Enrol To Vote?

Voting is compulsory for Australian citizens aged 18 years or older.

If you are not currently enrolled to vote, or your details are out of date, you will need to correctly enrol by 8pm local time Monday 7 April.

Those looking to enrol for the first time can do so here. Or, for anyone with specific circumstances or support needs, the AEC has created more ways to vote, here.

If you need to update details or confirm an enrolment before the cut off date, then head to the AEC website, here.

What Factors Influence The Election Date?

We heard rumours that the election would be called in early March, but Cyclone Alfred and the Western Australia state election, meant that wasn’t possible.

Announcing a federal election at the same time as an individual state’s voting schedule would muddy the campaign waters and create a sense of confusion for potential voters.

Another factor in the election date guessing game is where (between now and May 17) public holidays fall, and with April taking out a large proportion of dates with events such as Easter, Anzac Day and Passover, that month was always looking less likely.

Given the circumstances requiring a minimum period of 33 days between when an election is announced and when we head to the polls, an actual date was closing in. And now, we now have our answer.

Related articles:

• Life Before Leading The Opposition: Anthony Albanese’s Rise To The Top
• The Australian Government Passes Social Media Ban For Children Under 16
• A Guide To Australia’s Preferential Voting System

The post Everything You Need To Know About The Upcoming Federal Election appeared first on marie claire.

We get it! With everything that’s going on in the world right now, it can be hard to filter through the noise and harder, still, to know exactly what filter to apply.

That’s why we’ve compiled this easy to follow guide to the preferential voting system and why this means there’s no such thing as a wasted vote – despite what you may have heard.

What is preferential voting?

How does preferential voting work in Australia?

Why it matters

Quick Fix

What Is Preferential Voting?

Preferential voting allows Australian’s voting community an opportunity to voice who they want – and who they don’t want – to win the election.

Simply put, it’s a system that takes your voting preferences into account to ensure whichever candidate comes out on top is there because they represent the views held by the majority of the population. Or, at least the majority of those eligible to vote. Or, in other words, voters rank the candidates in order of who best aligns with your personal values.

While there are different types of preferential voting systems used both here, and around the world, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll focus on the preferences required for the federal election. Those being – filling in an order of preference for candidates on the green ballot paper (House of Representatives) and the white ballot paper (Senate).

How Does Preferential Voting Work In Australia?

The House of Representatives

The House of Representatives is made up of MPs representing 151 electorates across the country. When you head to the polls, you’re voting for the MP you wish to represent your electorate.

When voting for the House of Representatives (the green ballot paper), you need to place a preference number next to all of the candidates in your electorate – starting with 1 next to your first preference, 2 for your second and so on.

In order for a candidate to be successful in their electorate, they must receive at least 50 per cent of the votes.

Say the candidate you placed first isn’t elected, then your second choice is counted instead and so on, until one of the candidates reaches the 50 per cent mark.

What this means is that even if you allocated your number one spot to a smaller, or independent party that failed to win, your vote will still be counted towards electing your area’s member.

Senate

When it comes to the Senate, a proportional representation system is used – meaning that seats are allocated to candidates according to how many votes they receive. To be elected, candidates need to receive a certain amount of votes.

You can choose to vote above the line, or below the line – just not both.

If you choose the above option, you are voting for a political party or group and must number your preferences from 1-6 next to at least six parties. If there are fewer than six on your ballot, then you have to number all the groups.

If you choose to vote below the line, then you are voting for individual candidates within those parties.

As above, you must allocate your order of preference in front of at least 12 candidates. Again, if there are less than the required 12, you must assign a preference number to all of them.

When tallying the votes, candidates marked as number one are counted first. Any candidate who reaches their quota from that first round of counting will be elected. If votes for a single candidate exceed the required quota, then the second preferences of their votes will be counted, too – just at a reduced rate.

What this means is that multiple candidates have the chance of being elected if they also make their quotas. And, if any Senate spots still remain after this process, the candidate with the least amount of votes will be cut from the running and their votes will be distributed amongst the remaining names – based on the voter’s preferences.

If you’re still unsure, you can practice voting here. 

Why It Matters

Have you ever been told that your vote is wasted if it’s not assigned to one of the major parties? We’re here to ensure you that you’re not alone in thinking this might be true.

Despite what you might have been told – or rather – how the major parties might have framed it, your vote is extremely powerful, regardless of which party or candidate you choose to allocate it to.

Not only does the preferential voting system provide us with the opportunity to have our voices heard by ensuring our preferences are given due recognition during the counting process, it also allows us to vote for minor parties and independents without ‘wasting’ our vote.

You are the only one who decides where, and for whom, your vote goes to, and while parties may try and influence how you number your ballots on election day with their ‘how to vote’ cards, at the end of the day, your preferences are just that; yours.

Regardless of whether your number one pick makes it in or not, preferences are a clear indicator of what matters to the people of Australia and the electorates they live in, and are often referred to by the elected party when considering future and current policy.

The last federal election saw a sea of Teal Independents upend both Labor and Liberal seats, with The Greens also taking on more seats in the Senate than ever before – sending a strong message to the big players that Australia was ready to challenge the two party system.

This year, Gen Z and Millennial voters will make up nearly 50 per cent of the voting demographic, marking an end to Baby Boomers’ era-defining political influence. All eyes are on the polls to see if such a seismic shift will result in significant shakeup, but one thing’s for sure, the major parties are taking notice.

Related articles:

• When Will The Australian Federal Election Be Called?
• What The Government’s Health Reform Boost Means For The Women Of Australia
• Life-Changing Endometriosis Treatment To Be Subsidised For The First Time In 30 Years

The post A Guide To Australia’s Preferential Voting System appeared first on marie claire.

His third wife, Melania, wore a strategically wide-brimmed hat that rebuffed her husband’s attempt to kiss her on the cheek (genius); and the returning president was flanked on the dais
by the leaders of the world’s most powerful tech companies: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Sundar Pichai.

Outgoing US president Joe Biden had warned of an incumbent tech-billionaire oligarchy once the transfer of power was complete, and now that it’s here, it’s even more sinister – and nerdy – than many had anticipated.

Silicon Valley is a tech wonderland of disruption, innovation, profit and speed, but a dystopia when it comes to inclusivity. We know that when women finally break into male-dominated industries such as “Big Tech”, it’s nearly impossible for them to climb the ranks. Studies have found that “like promotes like”, so when a man can’t relate to a woman, she’s not considered for a promotion (only 10.4 per cent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women).

What we’re left with is a gaggle of men wearing zippered hoodies and high-fiving one another in the boardroom. Only now, that boardroom is the White House, and the high-fiving men are some of the most dangerous in the world for women and minority groups.

These “tech bros”, who already wield huge global influence, are now permeating the highest echelons of government, one that has shown itself time and time again to be violently and vehemently anti-women.

Arguments can and have been made that virtually every man who shared the inauguration stage in that moment with Trump is a misogynist. Ten days before the event, “Zuck”, the founder, chairman and CEO of the social media conglomerate Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram), stepped off his surfboard and wiped the zinc off his face long enough to go on Joe Rogan’s podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience.

During their nearly-three-hour conversation, Zuckerberg declared that corporate culture had become too “feminine”, needed more “masculine energy” and could do well to “celebrate the aggression a bit more”. A few days before these controversial comments, Zuckerberg had essentially changed Meta’s policies to allow hate speech
against women and minorities on his platforms again.

On January 7, he announced that Meta would be doing away with fact-checkers, claiming that they were “biased” – against Trump? Seems likely. “Fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” he said. This came just a day after the anniversary of the 2021 US Capitol attack, which was largely fuelled by false claims spread on social media that the US election Biden won was rigged.

In March 2024, both Meta and Google were accused of restricting reproductive health information, with reports the platforms weren’t allowing local abortion providers to advertise, and were deleting posts about abortion and contraception.

But this wasn’t exclusive to the US, where a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body was steamrolled by the Supreme Court in 2022. In Ghana, in West Africa, searches such as “pregnancy options” were reportedly flagged as going against Google’s community guidelines, while Meta was accused of applying US conservative values on posts
in countries with progressive health policies, such as South Africa. Meta later confirmed some account suspensions and the blurring of posts, and then restored some of them in mid-January, according to The New York Times.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Google said the policy covered all telemedicine ads and was not specific to abortion providers. Let’s talk more about Google.

As the world’s number one search engine, it has – according to its own generative and “experimental” AI Overview – nearly 80 per cent of the global desktop search market. The company’s revenue in 2024 was nearly $US340 billion, and it is the world’s second-most valuable brand (behind Apple).

“Google” has become a verb as well as a noun, and has been genericised like Band-Aid. Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, was on that inauguration stage. Until then, he’d been considered one of the “good” tech elites: in 2017 he fired an employee after they circulated a memo stating that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech. But then came the restricted ads and now a seat at Trump’s table.

After the US president signed a ridiculous executive order demanding the Gulf of Mexico be renamed the Gulf of America, Pichai confirmed that the body of water would appear as the latter in Google Maps for US users.

If he’s throwing Trump that bone so early on, what’s he expecting in return? Only time will tell.

I asked ChatGPT to write something for me. The AI language-generating chatbot is owned by OpenAI, which Musk co-founded alongside Sam Altman in 2015. Artificial intelligence has been plagued by gender and racial bias from the moment it burst recklessly onto the public domain.

We know now that generative AI leans heavily on the gendered stereotypes that it pulls from the internet (it will make a doctor male and a nurse female, and make both of them white, for example) and so I wanted to see if it also favoured Musk.

When I asked it to write an essay about the dangers of the tech bros in the White House, including how Musk feels about women, it told me that generally, Musk supports and champions women, and that it’s not up to the men leading the tech companies to ensure they’re inclusive; it’s on women to ensure they remain vocal about being left out.

As the owner of X – one of the major social media platforms globally – Musk has been systematically shifting the notions of what is normal and acceptable behaviour. Hours after the inauguration, Musk spoke at a rally where he jumped around and offered not one but two Nazi salutes. (You can’t convince me it was anything else – and he did try.) Not only was his gesture abhorrent and disgusting, it was not surprising.

X has become one of the most prominent platforms for the spreading of right-wing propaganda and mis- and disinformation since Musk paid $US44 billion for the platform, known then as Twitter, in late 2022. Before he bought it, investigations uncovered that it was the source of hate campaigns against Meghan Markle and Amber Heard, in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

Musk didn’t buy the platform to change it. In an article for The Guardian in early January this year, J Oliver Conroy called X “the global right’s supercharged front page”. On the platform, conspiracy theories spread like weeds. Remember Trump’s claims during the election campaign that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, had been eating cats and dogs? It led to bomb threats and harassment against Springfield residents.

Musk also loves making his own posts, spreading out-of-context and intentionally misconstrued claims about youth gender transition, government crackdowns on free speech on social media, illegal immigration – the list goes on. The attacks usually affect women, gender-diverse people and other minorities.

In July 2024, during an interview with Jordan Peterson, Musk claimed his 20-year-old daughter, Vivian Wilson, who is trans, was “dead: killed by the woke mind virus”. One of Trump’s first executive orders sought to end gender-affirming medical treatments for people under 19, and only recognise two genders.

Trump appointed Musk as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, a post that requires him to recommend steep cuts to federal spending and regulation. Since then, he hasn’t stepped away from any of his businesses, including X, Tesla, SpaceX and xAI, which of course puts him in the conflict-rife position of being able to target the funding of government agencies that stand in the way of his corporate ventures.

You could say Musk bought his role as “special government employee”, given he put $US277 million towards Trump’s campaign, which made him the largest political donor of the 2024 election cycle. He’s since seen a spike in his wealth, thanks to Wall Street betting his businesses will benefit from his convenient new arrangement.

As for Bezos, well, in 2023, the founder of Amazon was accused by a former employee of allowing a culture of “insidious sexism” at his company. “Jeff Bezos has talked publicly about how he doesn’t believe in work-life balance, he believes in work-life harmony. I’m not totally sure what that means,” said the employee, “but it essentially means you’re never not at work.” This is the type of arrangement that pushes women out of the workplace when they’re required to be the primary carers of their children and ageing parents.

As the owner of The Washington Post (one of the most important news organisations in the US), Bezos shouldn’t be undermining the credibility of journalists and fanning the flames of Trump’s “don’t trust the media” fire, and yet here we are.

In October last year, just days before the election, he penned an op-ed declaring The Post would no longer be endorsing presidential candidates, despite reportedly being about to endorse Kamala Harris. After breaking that 30-year precedent, Bezos then blamed traditional news media for society’s lack of trust in its reporting.

He has drunk Trump and Musk’s “the media is the enemy of the people” Kool-Aid. “We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate,” he wrote. “It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement.”

The man at the centre of all of this, of course, is Trump. While the tech bros are behaving like “pick- mes”, he’s been off meeting with the CEO of TikTok. Trump was initially all for a TikTok ban, given its mysterious algorithm is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and could put Americans at risk in an information war.

But just 14 hours after the app’s blackout (in which the app displayed a message thanking Trump for saving TikTok) it was back. The stunt was designed to appeal to a certain group of people addicted to the video sharing app, who are grateful to “Daddy Trump” for bringing it back from the dead.

The TikTok algorithm is so mysterious that no-one outside ByteDance, which owns the app, understands it. So how is anyone supposed to monitor its content for credible information, reliable sources and balanced news? The answer is they can’t. I’ve heard anecdotes of young Australian men spouting praise for Trump, only for their mothers to confiscate their phones and see that their algorithms are flooded with far-right pro-Republican content.

Now, these ultra-wealthy Silicon Valley elites, who were not nominated and not elected into power, are walking through the hallowed halls of the White House, where they will influence policy decisions and shape the national dialogue through their news, social media, and internet search platforms.

Of course, we’re used to powerful figures using their wealth and influence to shape politics behind the scenes, but to be so brazen as to stand on the same stage as the US president while he’s being sworn in feels like a kick in the teeth to women, gender-diverse people and minorities. Be alert and alarmed.

The post How Will America’s Broligarchy Affect Women? appeared first on marie claire.

Your nightly viewing of Saiorse Ronan’s favourite reality TV show (Married At First Sight Australia) has likely been interrupted by the billionaire mining magnate and political figure Clive Palmer telling you that “Australia needs Trump policies”.

These ads have already started airing with increasing frequency ahead of the federal election (Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to call it and set a date, but popular opinion is that he’ll do so in the next fortnight). In them, Palmer, leaning on the lectern with his yellow tie gleaming, informs us “Peter Dutton has stated he’s no Donald Trump and we agree with him,” before giving a rather unconvincing impersonation of the convicted felon and current US President. Like Trump, Palmer doesn’t really say anything with this speech, beyond repeating that “We respect all Australians” and “We need to respect all people who made Australia what it is today. A wonderful country…all Australians are equal.” Sure, Clive, and?

It thus begs the question of whether Trump’s extremist nationalism and separatism will influence the upcoming Australian federal election. Is Clive Palmer Australia’s answer to Trump?

In short: he wishes.

Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that in the ads, Palmer’s title is listed as the ‘Chairman of Trumpet of Patriots’ (italics ours). That’s because after the 2022 election, Palmer deregistered his United Australia Party. His time was much better spent doing whatever it is he does than dealing with unnecessary administrative tasks involved in running a party (things like, say, financial disclosures). But Palmer didn’t listen to those who warned him that deregistering his party meant he’d be excluded from the opportunity to run for Parliament in 2025. And when he tried to challenge this by taking it to the High Court, they ruled against him.

Enter: the Trumpet of Patriots. Formed in 2021 by South Australian management consultant Nick Duffield, thanks to Palmer, it’s now being compared to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement. When the High Court dashed Palmer’s chances of reviving the UAP, he joined ToP. Now, his campaign strategy is to copy Trump: reduce immigration, ban trans athletes, acknowledge only two genders, and cut government waste, for example.

Like Trump, Billionaire Palmer certainly has the cash to flash. In the 2019 election he spent $80 million on his campaign and nearly doubled that in 2022 when he threw in $120 million. Which is more than all the other parties combined. And he said he plans on spending $90 million in this upcoming federal election. But as we know, unlike Trump’s right-hand and unofficial vice president Elon Musk – who spent $US 277 million on Trump’s campaign – Palmer’s had a hard time paying his way to power and influence because there are two things he really struggles with: reading from a teleprompter, and knowing where to spend his money.

And even if he was smart with his money, it’s only going to get harder for Palmer to buy his way in. He’s supposedly going after the “Teals” in this election, which is weird because in 2022, he was barely a blimp on the radar in “Teal electorates”. He won just 2 per cent of votes in Wentworth, Goldstein, Curtin and North Sydney; 3 per cent in Mackellar; and a measly 1 per cent in Kooyong.

Making it even harder: recent legislation that will see political donations and expenditure capped for the first time received bipartisan support. From 2026, the maximum amount an individual donor can give to a candidate or political party will be capped at $20,000, and the threshold above which donations must be publicly disclosed will be $1000, down from $16,900.

So, unlike American politics – with its super PACs and shudder-inducing billionaires like Musk and Jeff Bezos who are able to pour in as much money as they want to the candidate of their choosing – Australia is already safe-guarded from a potential oligarchy situation.

Still, you wonder: will Palmer be able to convince Australians that they, too, need a government willing to take a ‘Trumpist’ approach? Well, you want to know the reason Dutton has said “he’s no Donald Trump”? Because Australians generally don’t vibe with Trump’s extremism. According to an Essential Poll held before the US election, only 29 per cent of Australians said they would vote for him as candidate for president.

Which isn’t to say we’re immune from what happens in America, or that Australians don’t resonate with some of Trump’s populist messages. The cost-of-living crisis, increasing disaffection with housing affordability and belief that “ordinary citizens” are being left behind or outright ignored by the elite who populate the political establishment are all common themes in both contemporary American and Australian politics. Not only that, but we also know policy is impacted and politicians inspired by what happens in the States. For instance, ultra-conservative Liberal MPs in both South Australia and Queensland have been connected to attempts at re-criminalising abortion in Australia, no doubt influenced by the walking back of Roe vs. Wade in the US.

Really, though, Palmer (or any billionaire who believes they could do a better job than the professional pollies at running the country) will struggle to realise his Trumpian vision here for three main reasons, rooted in the institutions that uphold and safeguard Australian democracy. The first is compulsory voting. We’re very unlike America, where voter-suppression can run rampant and the party who convinces the most people to turn out wins. Compulsory voting has a moderating impact, making the spectrum more centre-right to centre-left.

The Westminster style-government also makes it difficult for figures like Palmer to gain real traction because you need to be voted by the party to be leader, and thus, Prime Minister. And finally, the Australian Electoral Commission also stymies Palmer’s cause. The AEC is legitimate and completely apolitical. Electorates are drawn according to population swings, not political preferences. Votes are counted in all the states the same way and registration to vote is the same for those in Far North Arnhem Land as it is for the people on St Georges Road in Toorak. All these things make exercising the kind of authoritarian executive power that Trump has in America very difficult in Australia.

But if Trump has shown anything, it’s that democratic backsliding can happen anywhere. So we shouldn’t take the architecture of our government for granted. When Albanese finally calls the 2025 election, Palmer’s ToP assault will intensify and we shouldn’t ignore them. They should be a reminder to have tough conversations and stay vigilant in the ongoing fight to protect democracy. If Palmer and his ilk prevail, we’ll have much bigger problems than the airheads on MAFS.

The post Is Clive Palmer Australia’s Answer To Trump? appeared first on marie claire.

Now in charge of the US Department of Health and Human Services – the nation’s highest healthcare office – RFK Jr will oversee $US1.7 trillion ($2.7 trillion AUD) in federal spending, casting his role in even more scrutiny than ever before.

The appointment comes after his cousin, former US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy, weighed in on RFK Jr’s then still-potential role in the Trump administration, calling him a “predator” who has preyed on family and sick children.

What Did Caroline Kennedy Say About RFK Jr?

In the letter sent to members of the US government, and then read aloud and shared on social media by Caroline’s son, Jack Schlossberg, Caroline said she felt “an obligation” to speak out about RFK Jr, whom she says “unqualified” for a role in the government.

Among the details of Caroline’s were an account of RFK Jr’s (whom she calls Bobby) college dorm room, where she claims he blended mice and baby chickens to feed to his pet hawk. “I have known Bobby my whole life; we grew up together,” she continued. “It’s no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator.”

She continues that RFK has been buoyed by his charisma, “able to attract others through the strength of his personality, willingness to take risks and break the rules”. She accuses RFK of leading siblings and cousins “down the path of substance abuse”, who then suffered “addiction, illness and death, while Bobby has gone on to misrepresent, lie and cheat his way through life.” Caroline claims her cousin is “addicted to attention and power”.

One of RFK’s key platforms is one of anti-vaccination, which Caroline called “dangerous and wilfully misinformed”. She also added that he has “hypocritically” vaccinated his own children, while “preying” on the “desperation of parents of sick children” by discouraging them to vaccinate theirs. Caroline also points to a financial stake RFK has in a lawsuit against the HPV vaccine.

The Kennedy family has long held government positions, most notably former President John F. Kennedy (JFK), who was famously killed while in office. He was not the only member of the family to die at a young age, which has led to the rumour of a “Kennedy Curse”. Both Caroline’s father (John F. Kennedy Jr) and RFK Jr’s father (Robert F. Kennedy) died at the ages of 38 and 42, respectively.

Caroline’s letter accuses RFK Jr of using the family’s legacy to advance his career. “Bobby continues to grandstand off my father’s assassination, and that of his own father,” she wrote. “It is incomprehensible that someone who is willing to exploit their own painful family tragedies for publicity would be in charge of American life-and-death situations.” She adds they would be “disgusted”

Meanwhile, Caroline’s letter comes amid increasing scrutiny from her son, Jack Schlossberg, a rising social media figure and political commentator, who has been lambasting his family on Instagram in the weeks following the US election. Schlossberg, 32, gained prominence for his quirky social media presence and remarkable resemblance to his uncle, JFK Jr.

Who Are The Kennedy Family?

The Kennedys are a prominent American family with a long involvement in politics. Many members of the family have held prominent political offices in the United States since 1947. Their most famous member was John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States.

JFK was a Democrat, who held the office of president for two years between 1961 and 1963, before he was assassinated by gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK was married to Jacqueline Bouvier, with whom he had four children, including Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr. Another of their children was stillborn, while another, Patrick, died in infancy.

John F. Kennedy Jr had a prominent relationship with journalist Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy before the two were killed in a plane crash in 1999.

RFK Jr’s father is Bobby Kennedy, a United States senator and former US attorney general, who was also assassinated.

Prominent members of the Kennedy family include:

• John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, 1917-1963
• Robert F. Kennedy, former US attorney general, 1925-1968 (brother of JFK)
• Ted Kennedy, US senator, 1932-2009 (brother of JFK)
• Caroline Kennedy, born 1957 (daughter of JFK)
• John F. Kennedy Jr, 1960-1999 (son of JFK)
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr, born 1954 (son of RFK, nephew of JFK)
• Maria Shriver, born 1955 (daughter of Eunice Kennedy, niece of JFK)
• Jack Schlossberg, born 1993 (son of Caroline Kennedy, grandson of JFK)
• Patrick Schwarzenegger, born 1993 (son of Maria Shriver)
• Conor Kennedy, born 1994 (son of RFK Jr., former boyfriend of Taylor Swift)

What Is The Kennedy Curse?

The Kennedy Curse is a work of American mythology, born from untimely deaths of several prominent family members. Two members of the family were assassinated, President John F Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy.

A number of Kennedy family members have died in plain crashes, including JFK Jr (1999), Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. (1944), and Kathleen Kennedy (1948). Other untimely and tragic deaths include that of two of RFK’s granddaughters: Saoirse Kennedy Hill, who died of an accidental overdose at the age of 22, and Maeve Kennedy McKean, who drowned alongside her 8-year-old son during a canoe trip.

It’s not only early deaths that plague the Kennedy family, with the ‘curse’ also extending to infamous cases like the Chappaquiddick incident, which saw Ted Kennedy convicted of negligent driving and fleeing the scene of a car accident that killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

Related articles:

• Outgoing US Ambassador Caroline Kennedy On Legacy, Trump & Her Cousin’s New Role
• Ryan Murphy’s ‘American Love Story’ Will Follow The Life Of John F. Kennedy Jr. And Carolyn Bessette
• What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Australians?

The post Why The Kennedys Aren’t Backing RFK Jr’s New Trump Appointment appeared first on marie claire.

Not only did Trump spend his inauguration promising to deliver on a vast array of concerning executive orders under the guise of returning America to its “golden age,” but he then took to the stage (literally) to sign them into apparent reality.

While most of the attendee reactions oscillated between adoration, astonishment, confusion and outright disbelief, there were a few notable moments of silent protest from some of the members that spoke a thousand words.

From noteworthy absences to sartorial statements we can’t stop thinking about these are the subtle forms of protest that made us stop during the president’s speech.

6 Reactions To The Trump Inauguration Speech We Didn’t See Coming

1. Bernie Sanders Refusing To Stand

Bernie Sanders has made no secret of the fact that he has no plans to hitch himself to the Donald Trump wagon, and after today, that’s unlikely to change.

When Trump announced he would “sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America,” the inauguration crowd reacted with a standing ovation. Most of the crowd, that is.

As the camera panned across the Rotunda, a stoic Bernie Sanders was captured sitting – hard to miss in a sea of people raised to their feet.

Not only did he mark his disapproval of Trump’s vow to “end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life,” but his objection remained for the president’s subsequent declaration to end the Green New Deal – a cause Bernie personally championed.

Trump inauguration reactions came thick and fast as social media users couldn’t help but identify with Bernie’s state of mind.

2. Hilary Clinton Responding To Trump’s “Gulf of America” Comment

While maybe not as subtle as some of the other reactions during the Trump inauguration, former first lady and political opponent Hilary Clinton found one particular part of the day’s events rather amusing.

During Trump’s tirade about “returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came,” also included his intention to rename the Gulf of Mexico to – the Gulf of America.

Though the declaration might have been missed by most, Clinton was quick to show her opinion of the statement and made no attempts to hide her reaction.

Thankfully for us, a quick-thinking camera operator managed to capture the candid moment – as seen in this CNN footage.

3. Melania Trump’s Main Character Boater

The minute Melania Trump’s serious looking boater-style hat made it onto television screens across the world, it became an instant internet hit.

Managing to not only obscure most of her face from every possible angle, many online commentators noted its width also might have been a way of preventing her husband from going in for a celebratory little smooch. And they weren’t wrong.

The hat drew comparisons to everyone from Hamburgler to Al Capone, with others likening her chosen outfit to funeral attire.

Whatever the world’s reaction, we’re sure Melania knew exactly what she was doing by opting for that particular millinery moment.

4. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calling Out Hypocrisy

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to twitter to explain her missing-in-action status and made her very clear.

Responding to those questioning her about why she chose to skip the event, Ocasio-Cortez said she “doesn’t celebrate rapists.”

And who could blame her? Donald Trump is officially the first president to be convicted of a felony and still take up office, after also being found liable of sexually abusing American writer E. Jean Carroll.

5. Jill Biden’s Call For Unity

First lady Jill Biden chose to make a subtle statement of the sartorial kind at this year’s inauguration.

Opting for a positive spin on the day’s events, she wore a Ralph Lauren ensemble in a bright shade of purple.

The colour – a notable blend of red and blue – represents a coming together of the two parties, symbolising a hopeful call for bipartisan unity.

6. Michelle Obama’s Notable Absence

When the guest list for the second Trump inauguration was first dropped, a key omission from the list signalled a pretty significant break in tradition.

Former-president Barack Obama opted to travel solo, that is, without his wife and former first lady, Michelle Obama.

You see, it turns out that Michelle wasn’t really in a celebratory mood, and choosing to prioritise her own peace meant sitting this one out.

Sources close to the couple reportedly told People: “There’s no overstating her feelings about [Trump]. She’s not one to plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake,” the source said. “Michelle doesn’t do anything because it’s expected or it’s protocol or it’s tradition.”

Related articles:

• All The Key Moments From Donald Trump’s Inauguration Speech
• A Guide To Who Is (And Isn’t) On Trump’s Wild Inauguration Guest List
• What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Australians?

The post 6 Acts Of Subtle Rebellion You Might Have Missed At Trump’s Inauguration appeared first on marie claire.

As he addressed the crowd, made up of government members, past presidents, notable dignitaries, tech titans and celebrities, Trump promised that “from this day forward, our country will flourish.”

The wider Trump family assembled to mark the occasion, including Melania and their son Barron, as well as Ivanka, Donald Jr., Eric and Tiffany.

In line with tradition, former presidents Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton were also there to witness the transfer of power from outgoing president Joe Biden to Trump.

After the oath swearing ceremony, Trump began his second inaugural address, criticising Biden’s last-minute decision to pre-emptively pardon key political allies and family members who could have potentially become a target under the incoming administration.

But his apparent indignation didn’t stop there. In a statement admonishing the outgoing government, Trump swore to end “the vicious violent and unfair weaponisation of the justice department,” and work to restore the “scales of justice.”

Referring to the assassination attempt during his campaign trail, he noted that the attempt to end his life was a galvanising moment.

“They tried to take my freedom and, indeed, to take my life,” he said. “I felt my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.”

Below, some of the key takeaways and political promises from Donald Trump during his second inauguration speech.

Donald Trump Promises To End “Catch And Release”

As the crowd met his vow to declare a “national emergency on the Mexico border” with applause, he went on to announce a slew of hard line executive orders he plans to enact as his first weeks as President.

One of the first executive orders Trump plans on signing includes ending the practice of “catch and release,” which is a vague term that’s generally used to describe the detaining of people who are waiting for a court date, to avoid them being “at large.”

He said “I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.”

As well as promising to reinstate his “remain in Mexico policy,” he also said that he’d “send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous the disastrous invasion of our country.”

Trump Pledges To Take Back The Panama Canal

After promising to take back the Panama Canal from the current system that “China is operating,” he stated that “we have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made and Panama’s promise to us has been broken.”

He also claimed that 38,000 American lives had been lost in the building of the Panama Canal, despite the official death toll indicating that number was 5600.

He Announced Plans To Repeal Trans Rights

As part of his inauguration speech, Trump announced plans to sign an executive order to recognise only two genders – male and female.”

Aligned to this is his promise to roll back protections for transgender people and end the country’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs, in order to end what he called efforts to “socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.”

Trump Will Declare A “National Energy Emergency”

While the exact details surrounding this declaration are current unclear, Trump’s vow to support the growth of the fossil fuel sector was reaffirmed when the President announced: “We will drill, baby, drill.”

“We will be a rich nation again and it is the liquid gold under our feet that will help us do it.”

The sentiment was also extended to electric vehicles, which became the target of his intended repeals, promising to revoke any mandates related to EVs. A peculiar promise given that Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk is now a member of his newly-formed cabinet.

While no such mandates currently exist, it’s assumed that Trump is referring to policies that seek to encourage a general transition – over time – to battery powered cars.

Related articles:

• A Guide To Who Is (And Isn’t) On Trump’s Wild Inauguration Guest List
• What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Australians?
• 21 Things Trump Has *Actually* Said About Women

The post All The Key Moments From Donald Trump’s Inauguration Speech appeared first on marie claire.

From trade policies to social movements, here’s how the Trump win could impact Australians in 2025 and beyond.

Potential Tensions In Trade Agreements

Trump’s intentions regarding tariffs have been clear since his campaign for President began. During his last term, Australia narrowly avoided being hit with tariffs, but we may not be so lucky this time around.

Currently, under a 20-year-old agreement with the U.S. 90 per cent of Australia’s imports to the States are tariff-free. It will take some careful diplomacy on Australia’s part to avoid increases again, with Trump mentioning during his campaign wanting to install a broad 10 per cent tariff on most imports.

Australia’s economy is also highly dependent on its trade relationship with China – particularly in industries like mining, agriculture, and education. During his previous administration, Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods spurred retaliatory measures from China, which indirectly affected Australian exports.

If a similar trade war reignites, Australia might have to navigate increasingly complex diplomatic waters, choosing to either strengthen ties with the US or manage its own relationship with China more independently. The Australian Financial Review suggests that such shifts could prompt Australia to explore alternative export markets or bolster trade agreements within the Asia-Pacific region to offset potential losses.

Interest Rates Could Rise

Trump’s return to power brings uncertainty to global financial markets, including those in Australia. One of the most immediate concerns is how his administration’s policies might impact Australian interest rates and inflation.

In Trump’s previous presidential term, his “America First” approach led to tensions in global trade, particularly with China. Given that Australia has a strong economic relationship with China, any escalation in US-China tensions could have repercussions on Australia’s trade exports and economic stability​.

Should Trump push for lower interest rates in the US, the Federal Reserve could react by strengthening the US dollar which will put pressure on the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to adjust our interest rates accordingly. This could then have a ripple effect on Australia’s real estate sector – which is already grappling with high-interest rates – as it’s possible it may increase inflation and add further strain to Australian households. 

Indirect Influence On Social Policies Including Abortion Rights

While the US cannot directly dictate Australian laws, the social and political climate in America often influences Australian discourse. As such, Trump’s victory could further embolden conservative political factions worldwide. For instance, his stance on issues like abortion rights may inspire similar debates within Australia – which have somewhat already sparked in the case of the recent Queensland state election. 

Trump-appointed judges in the US Supreme Court have already set precedents on reproductive rights, and while Australia’s legal system is distinct, these global ideological shifts can sometimes influence political discourse domestically. With Australian states largely controlling abortion policies, any pressure to adopt more conservative stances could emerge indirectly.

This influence extends beyond abortion rights. Trump’s policies on immigration, gender identity, and climate change have already inspired global conversations. Any shifts in these areas under a second Trump administration – and consequent media coverage – could shape the Australian public’s attitude on similar issues, potentially affecting local policies.

Implications To Foreign Policy And National Security

A second Trump presidency could also result in a more isolationist US foreign policy, creating the potential for fractures in Australia’s defence strategy and alliances.

His previous term saw a push towards less engagement in international conflicts, which could place a heavier defence burden on allies. As a result, Australia might need to recalibrate its foreign policy in response, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where US support plays a stabilising role against growing influence from China.

Additionally, Trump’s potential withdrawal or re-evaluation of alliances could press Australia to increase its defence spending and explore independent security measures. In 2017, Trump’s administration threatened to cut back on defence funding for NATO, raising concerns about the US backing away from global military commitments. Should Trump succeed in his presidential campaign, there is a chance that Australia will be required to handle regional threats independently.

So, What Should Australians Prepare For?

While Trump’s political impact is felt most acutely in the US, Australians should expect some indirect yet significant effects in the economic, social and geopolitical arenas. His administration’s policies could bring volatility to our financial markets, influence social movements, and challenge Australia’s foreign policy strategies.

Australian analysts anticipate potential policy clashes that could strain bilateral relationships and may push Australia to reassess its trading strategies and economic dependencies.

Socially, Trump’s win could amplify conservative movements globally, including in Australia. Although Australia has its own legislative independence, shifts in US policy, particularly around reproductive rights, can set precedents.

When it comes to social policies such as abortion rights, changes made under Trump’s administration are unlikely to directly alter Australian laws, however, it is expected that his reign could inspire local advocacy groups aligned with conservative views and see an increase in lobbying for similar policies in Australia.

READ NEXT:

All Your Burning Questions About The US Presidential Election Answered

What It Means For Australians If Kamala Harris Wins The US Election

Study Finds Trump Has The Vocabulary Of An 8-Year-Old Child

5 Important Things You Didn’t Know About Kamala Harris

The post What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Australians? appeared first on marie claire.

The 2025 line-up will perform over several days, as Trump prepares to formalise his second term the Whitehouse with four days of celebrations across the Capitol.

Names like Carrie Underwood, The Village People, Kid Rock, Billy Ray Cyrus and even rapper Nelly, will take to the stage to kick of the federal festivities, alongside celebrities, tech titans and foreign leaders, who are all scheduled to descend upon Washington in anticipation.

And with a reported $200US million raised to fund his inauguration – almost double the figure donated and raise for his first – its no wonder- the guest list is at capacity.

But as with any notable political event, there are some shocks and surprises, as well as some not-so-happy fans that have some thoughts (here’s looking at you Carrie).

Below, the celebrity performers and notable guest list, set to attend the 2025 inauguration of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

Who Will Perform At The Trump Inauguration In 2025?

Carrie Underwood

Country music singer Carrie Underwood will perform America The Beautiful as a precursor to the official oath-taking ceremony that will follow.

Almost as soon as the news broke that the American Idol winner was due to perform on January 20, it was clear that many fans weren’t happy about her decision to accept the invitation.

The private singer had previously kept her political views away from public consumption.

Revealing her decision to do so in a 2019 interview with The Guardian, she said: “I try to stay far out of politics if possible, at least in public, because nobody wins.”

“It’s crazy. Everybody tries to sum everything up and put a bow on it, like it’s black and white. And it’s not like that.”

After facing backlash for taking the 2025 gig, Underwood explained “I love our country and am honored to have been asked to sing at the Inauguration and to be a small part of this historic event.”

“I am humbled to answer the call at a time when we must all come together in the spirit of unity and looking to the future.”

But many of her LGBTQI+ followers are none too pleased, taking to X (formally Twitter) to voice their disappointment in the Love Wins singer.

One X user wrote over a GIF that repeats ‘Ouch’: “Carrie Underwood was the start of my gay awakening. Sweet precious 17 year old me. I only liked her first 2 albums. She was one of the first mainstream country stars to say she supported marriage equality. I knew that meant a lot to me, but I didn’t realize how much until now.”

Underwood will join opera singer Christopher Macchio – scheduled to sing the national anthem – at the swearing in ceremony.

While there’s been no confirmation as to whether Underwood will bring her giant coupe-style performance vessel to the stage for the inauguration, it would certainly bring a bit of flair to the otherwise formal events.

The Village People

The Village People, whose hit song Y.M.C.A became a mainstay at Trump election trail events, will take to the stage once again to perform at one of the inaugural balls.

Although one of the group’s founders and only original member left, Victor Willis (the policeman), had previously sent a cease-and-desist letter to Trump’s lawyer to demand he stop playing their songs at his rallies. But, it now appears the tide has, rather dramatically, shifted from derision to devotion, with Willis taking to social media to defend his stance.

In a Facebook post a few days before the band was set to take the stage, Willis explained the band’s reasoning for accepting the confusing invitation.

He wrote: “First of all, our performances are not an indorsement of the President Elect’s policies no matter what you say to the contrary. Having said that, we do support that we have a new president now and we should all wish him well until he gives us a reason not to. But let’s give him a chance and see what he’s going to do.”

“Let’s see what he’s going to do moving forward and if he does things to restrict LGBTQ rights, Village People will be the first to speak out. But you can’t transfer your rights issues onto the shoulders Village People,” he continued, before commending Donald Trump for bringing “a lot of joy to the American people with his use of Y.M.C.A and claiming any refusal to accept the invitation would be inherently “negative.”

And, in a perplexing turn of events, Willis also denounced the “false assumption” that the band’s famous hit, Y.M.C.A, is a “gay anthem.”

“As I’ve said numerous times in the past, that is a false assumption based on the fact that my writing partner was gay, and some (not all) of Village People were gay, and that the first Village People album was totally about gay life,” he explained in another Facebook post.

“This assumption is also based on the fact that the YMCA was apparently being used as some sort of gay hangout and since one of the writers was gay and some of the Village People are gay, the song must be a message to gay people. To that I say once again, get your minds out of the gutter. It is not.”

Will Nelly Perform At The Trump Inauguration?

While not technically performing during the official inauguration ceremony, rapper Nelly will appear at the Liberty Inaugural Ball – one of three official balls taking place in celebration of Trump’s return to the oval office.

Not immune from Trump-related criticism himself, Nelly responded to those confused by a recent interview with Willie D Live.

Dismissing anyone who appeared to conflate his political leanings with the acceptance of Trump’s offer, Nelly was quick to shut down the backlash.

“I thought you was riding with me because I put on for my city and I try to bring my city up every step of the way. I did not know you was riding with me because you thought I would ride with who you voted for,” he said.

“If you follow what I do, this shouldn’t even be an argument. He’s the president. He won. This isn’t a campaign, this isn’t an RNC. I’m not out on a political campaign.”

Continuing, Nelly remarkably likened his appearance as performing a civic duty. One that was “an honor… the same way that our men and women, our brothers and sisters who protect this country, have to go to war and have to put their life on the line for whoever in office.”

“So if they can put their life on the line for whoever in office, I can damn sure perform.”

Nelly’s statement isn’t that outlandish when you consider the general state of appeasement in the Trump-scented air at the moment, with

Who Else Will Perform At Trump’s Inauguration?

Joining the rest of the line up will be country music stars Kid Rock and Billy Ray Cyrus, along with Gavin DeGraw – of One Tree Hill theme song fame.

Kid Rock, aka Robert James Ritchie, also performed at the MAGA Victory Rally on the eve of the inauguration, sharing his views on what Trump’s second term means to America.

“It feels like the rebirth of our nation,” he told Fox News before his performance.

“There’s just this overwhelming sense … you’ve heard it a million times, that America’s back.”

Tech Titans Join Foreign Officials To Welcome Trump

Just in case anyone was worried, Silicon Valley will be well represented at the Trump 2025 inauguration, with tech’s elite making their presence known in Washington to mark the occasion.

Everyone from Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Alphabet (Google) CEO Sundar Pichai, to TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew and of course, Elon Musk, are all scheduled to show their support.

But their presence is far from surprising, given the group reportedly made contributions of US$1 million each in the lead up to Trump’s inauguration.

The tech bro conference-come-inauguration will take place amid outgoing President Biden’s recent comments about Zuckerberg’s fact-checking repeal announcement at Meta.

“An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy,” Biden said of the growing influence over the incoming government.

In the same message, Biden also warned of “the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy people.”

A handful of foreign leaders are also expected to attend the ceremonial events, including Argentina’s president Javier Milei and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Amid the ongoing TikTok negotiations and tariffs discourse, China’s vice president, Han Zheng, is also expected to make an appearance on behalf of President Xi Jinping, who was also invited.

Zheng’s presence marks the first time in American history – according to records dating back to 1874 – that a foreign leader has ever attended a ceremony of this kind.

Who Won’t Be In Attendance At Trump’s Inauguration?

In a break of tradition, former first lady Michelle Obama will be notably absent from the proceedings.

The decision to skip the ceremony while her husband, former president Obama attends, is contrary to protocol which usually dictates that former presidents and their spouses attend inaugurations – regardless of the side they served under.

However, the former first lady isn’t the first to break ranks. Trump himself was marked absent from Joe Biden’s 2020 inauguration weeks after the January 6 riot on the Capitol wreaked political havoc.

While Michelle Obama took part in the traditional transition to power ceremony with Trump and Melania in 2017, she’s also made no secret of her feelings regarding the president-elect since.

She once said she’d “never forgive” Trump for spreading false allegations about her husband’s country of birth, claiming his dangerous rhetoric put her “family’s safety at risk.”

Where To Watch The Inauguration In Australia

The inauguration events, beginning with a formal swearing-in ceremony, will be available to watch live on SBS On Demand exclusively from 2.30am Tuesday EDT.

Related articles:

• Trump & Tariffs: An Australian Perspective
• What Does A Trump Win Mean For Australians?
• Who Is Donald Trump’s VP JD Vance?

The post A Guide To Who Is (And Isn’t) On Trump’s Wild Inauguration Guest List appeared first on marie claire.

Why Is TikTok Banned?

Conversations about a U.S. TikTok ban first began when officials raised concerns about the threat the Chinese-owned app posed to national security relating to U.S. user data being shared with the Chinese government.

As conversations escalated, Congress moved to force ByteDance to sell its stake in the app to a U.S. shareholder or face being cut-off from the market by January 19^th. Despite TikTok calling the claims “inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information”, it failed to meet the requirement of a U.S buyer and was subsequently banned (for 14 hours).

Is The TikTok Ban Lifted?

While the TikTok app has returned in the States, seemingly thanks to a promise from soon-to-be President, Donald Trump, what happens next remains unclear.

Following his inauguration, Trump is expected to place a “halt” on the ban, but not abolish it completely.

Takingto social media on Sunday Trump revealed he intends to “extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.”

Speaking to NBC, he indicated that the pause on the ban would “most likely” extend for 90-days.

What Impact Will The TikTok Ban Have?

While the TikTok app has returned in the States, seemingly thanks to a promise from soon-to-be President, Donald Trump, what happens next remains unclear.

Following his inauguration, Trump is expected to place a “halt” on the ban, but not abolish it completely.

Takingto social media on Sunday Trump revealed he intends to “extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.”

Although significant, many believe the financial uncertainty of a TikTok Ban pales in comparison to the deeper, more widespread implications of the app’s closure. Namely that of its effect on creatives, culture and community as a whole.

Social editor at marie claire Australia, Georgia Nelson agrees: “What started as a dance app has transformed into a platform where so many young people get their news, education and entertainment,” she says.

“It’s seen the rise of so many celebrities, like Addison Rae and Emma Chamberlain, and had a major impact on mainstream media, music, pop-culture, fashion — the list goes on.”

“It’s also been a space for people to find community and seek out others with similar experiences,” an important factor, says Georgia, in considering the wider implications of limiting social media access.

That said, all of this is not to diminish the negative and harmful aspects of social media platforms like TikTok – a development that’s also been recognised in Australia’s-own landmark social media ban.

What Will The US TikTok Ban Mean For Australia?

While there’s no concrete evidence to point to a local ban of the platform, the fact that we are about to head into an election cycle means that anything, and everything, is ripe for political picking.

And if history tells us anything, it’s that what happens in America, rarely stays in America – especially when it concerns geopolitical strategy and tensions with China.

If the US is successful in forcing ByteDance to sell its US-based operations to an American owner as a means of mitigating the perceived threat to its national security, then there’s a chance Australia could follow suit.

And if not for political reasons, then potentially for more technical reasons. “I do think it will have a local impact because if it does go through, the 170 million American users will disperse between You Tube shorts, Instagram, and to a lesser extent, twitter/X,” says head of social content at Are Media, Elise Wright.

“Australia, being a much smaller market, won’t be able to sustain the platform growth and will have to follow the Americans.”

As for how the looming ban might be viewed in hindsight? Georgia has some thoughts.

“Historians will study this short but truly iconic time in history and its far-reaching global impacts, and we’ll all be telling our grandkids about the time Bella Poarch lip-synced m-to-the-b.

“It was rare, I was there, I remember it all too well.”

Related articles:

• The Australian Government Passes Social Media Ban For Children Under 16
• ‘I Dread The Day My Kids Are On Social Media’
• Is The Government Banning Beauty Filters?

The post US TikTok Ban Is Lifted After 14 Hours, But What Happens Next? appeared first on marie claire.

The actions of the agreement will reportedly be staged, but sees the release of Palestinian and Israeli prisoners held by both sides. Per ABC News, the agreement will not entirely end the conflict, but is a first step towards peace. The agreement contains a six-week ceasefire period, during which time 33 hostages are the be released by Hamas, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) will begin a withdrawal from major population centres from Gaza, and Palestinians displaced from parts of Gaza will be able to return. The IDF will remain control of border areas.

Palestinians in Gaza are celebrating the news, with photos showing a gathering in the streets to watch the announcement on a TV. While the Israeli parliament votes on the deal, Hamas has called it “a great gain that reflects the legend that had been achieved through the steadfastness of Gaza, its people, and the bravery of its resistance”.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have welcomed the news in a joint statement. “Australia will continue working with the international community towards a two-state solution — a Palestinian state and the State of Israel, living side by side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders,” the statement said. “We hope it will allow the Palestinian people the opportunity to rebuild, reform their governance, and pursue self-determination.” The statement also reiterated its condemnation of the October 7 events, and confirmed its position that “there must be no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza”. “Any future Palestinian state must not be in a position to threaten Israel’s security,” the statement concluded.

The news has also been welcomed by world leaders, with the UK Prime Minister Keir Stamer calling the agreement “long overdue”. Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden called it one of the “toughest negotiations” of his experience. The ceasefire agreement will begin on January 19, a day before the inauguration of incumbent president Donald Trump.

The conflict in Gaza was escalated in October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an attack on a southern area of Israel, killing roughly 1,200 people. Israel declared war on Gaza, killing more than 46,000 people to date, with over half of the victims being women, children or the elderly. While these are the present figures, the New York Times reports that the Gaza death toll could be up to 40 percent higher than present estimates, totalling around 64,000. Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza strip has drawn international condemnation from human rights groups and international lawmakers. The United Nations criticised Israel’s “acts of genocide”, including the IDF’s targeting of hospitals, press, humanitarian aid efforts and civilian areas in its attack on the region.

The post Israel And Hamas Reach Ceasefire Agreement appeared first on marie claire.

That number makes up 30 per cent of active emergency units dispatched to battle the fierce wildfires currently raging across California’s Palisades and Eton communities, in what is already being described as one of the deadliest in the state’s history.

Below, we explore the role, challenges, and societal implications of utilising prisoners as firefighters, particularly in response to natural disasters like wildfires.

What Are Prisoner Firefighters?

Prisoner firefighters are incarcerated inmates employed by prison-run programs to attend to, and support members of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) during times of emergency.

Out of the nation’s nearly 2 million people held in state and federal prisons, two out of three inmates are also employed across various sectors as workers.

While there are benefits to running employment programs for incarcerated inmates, a lack of minimal protections that are otherwise guaranteed for workers outside of the prison system, fosters an environment of punitive exploitation.

This is partly due to convicted criminals being excluded the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution which largely offers protection against slavery and involuntary servitude.

The origins of modern-day labour programs, such as those made up of prisoner firefighters, can be traced back to the end of America’s Civil War, when the drafting of the 13th Amendment sought to abolish slavery “except as a punishment for crime.”

According to a 2022 report conducted by The University of Chicago’s Law School Global Human Rights Clinic, the exclusion meant “States in the North and the South turned to incarcerated labour as a means of partially replacing chattel slavery and the free labour force slavery provided.”

And, as prison systems expanded, “so too did the number of state-sponsored incarcerated labour programs.”

The inquiry also found that more than 76 per cent of incarcerated workers report being made to work, for fear of “additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic life necessities like bath soap.”

Additionally, “they have no right to choose what type of work they do and are subject to arbitrary, discriminatory, and punitive decisions by the prison administrators who select their work assignments.”

The same report highlights the lack of universally recognised protections such as minimal wage laws, the right to unionise, and are denied basic workplace safety guarantees.

Does California Use Prisoners As Firefighters?

California jointly operates 35 conservation camps, otherwise known as fire camps, across 25 counties.

Of the 35 camps run jointly with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, two are made up of women prisoners.

The workers in the minimum-security facilities respond to a host of manmade and natural disasters as support for local and federal government agencies during times of emergencies.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, once workers pass a physical fitness test, they are then required to complete CAL FIRE’s Firefighting Training (FFT) program.

The training consists of four days of classroom training and four days of field training, taught by CAL FIRE staff, after which they become certified wildland firefighters.

How Much Are Prisoner Firefighters Paid?

As listed on the CDCR website, camp “participants” earn anywhere between $5.80 and $10.24 (USD) per day.

When the workers are called to an active emergency, they are given an extra $1 per hour, regardless of skill level.

The website also states that “during emergencies, crews can work a 24-hour shift, followed by 24 hours of rest.”

Can Inmate Firefighters Become Real Firefighters?

Despite governments framing prison labour programs are rehabilitative and offering formerly-incarcerated members avenues for employment, the reality of the situation is largely a different story.

“When people leave prison, they face state-imposed barriers to finding employment, such as laws that explicitly authorise discrimination against formerly incarcerated individuals in housing, employment and other areas of life,” notes the A.C.L.U report.

Furthermore, “State occupational licensing restrictions often bar people with conviction records from work in the very fields they trained in while incarcerated,” – a disparity co-founder of Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program (FFRP), Royal Ramey understands more than most.

Ramey co-founded FFRP after experiencing prison firefighting camps, and the barriers faced by those seeking to be employed in that field upon release -firsthand.

His non-profit now helps previously incarcerated individuals overcome the same challenges he faced, actively recruiting, providing training for, and securing placement for those wishing to pursue a career in the fire or emergency services.

In 2020, a law that sought to make it easier for certain ex-prisoners to clear their records for the purpose of employment, was passed.

Though the intent was there, and many have successfully utilised the law after their release, the process to do so is, according to the A.C.L.U report, prohibitive by design.

“This legislation, while a step in the right direction, still leaves unreasonable barriers in place. Such draconian barriers take a toll on those denied work, the states they live in, and the U.S economy as a whole.”

Related articles:

• Celebrities Mourn Homes Lost In The LA Fires
• Why Social Media’s Reactions To The LA Fires Are So Disturbing

The post The Prisoner Firefighters Battling California’s Devastating Wildfires appeared first on marie claire.

The significant legislation introduced on Thursday 28 November by David Crisafulli and his LNP party as part of the ‘Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024‘, has put a stop to the Queensland Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry just five months after it began.

Passing the urgency motion, despite the opposition and independent members calling for due parliamentary inquiry, the majority government was able to force the legislation through before the end of its first sitting day.

Bearing witness to the events were around 60 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people participating in the annual Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament, who watched on from the public gallery, as it unfolded before their eyes.

Former Labor minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partnerships Leeanne Enoch addressed the floor, admonishing the government for “sneakily and disrespectfully tacking the repeal of the Path to Treaty Act onto this bill.”

“Today these young people witnessed the Crisafulli LNP government undermine any future relationship between First Peoples of this state and the Queensland Government,” Enoch said.

“The Premier has used his first day in parliament to abuse the processes of this place and show this next generation of Indigenous leaders – and all Queenslanders – that when he says something it means absolutely nothing.”

The decision to repeal the legislation and end the truth-telling and healing inquiry was first announced by Crisafulli on October 31, in an address to the media during where the premier doubled down on his party’s election campaign promise to end the state’s “path to treaty process”.

Despite Crisafulli saying he would seek to close the inquiry with “respect and decency,” the news came second-hand to the Queensland Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry chair, Barrister and Waanyi and Kalkadoon man, Joshua Creamer.

At the time of the announcement, Creamer expressed his disappointment in the government’s “hugely disrespectful” decision, noting that he was yet to hear from any members of the LNP party in regards to the comments made.

“There is a lot of suffering, a lot of pain, a lot of hurt in relation to this decision”, he said. “To cease that in the very early stages of our work is a significant step back on the road to reconciliation for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

“I am really genuinely concerned about the trauma of this decision.”

Following last week’s parliamentary push to repeal the Path to Treaty Act and “wind up” the Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry, Creamer said “The government certainty have no interest in listening.”

A final statement from Creamer published on the dedicated Queensland Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry website reads: “The Inquiry was established for a 3-year term, but the new Queensland Government has now terminated it after only 5 months. It is unprecedented in Queensland for a government to end an Inquiry this way.”

“This Bill disregards years of community consultation and First Nations-led processes that led to the Inquiry.”

“This is a lost opportunity for the state and a lost opportunity for our generation.”

A Premier Backflip

In May 2023, prior to the 2024 Queensland election, then-opposition leader David Crisafulli was one of the total 34 LNP MPs who supported, and voted in favour of, legislation for a path to treaty.

At the time of the landmark legislation, Crisafulli had said that he hoped the bill could provide “the catalyst for true accountability of government”. Speaking to parliament, Crisafulli also said: “I believe in truth-telling and to me that means telling it like it is… We cannot shy away from the real experiences of Indigenous Australians throughout history. We must tell the truth about the real challenges they are facing today.”

All in all – a glowing LNP report for the “opportunities” offered by the historic Path to Treaty Act 2023. That was, until the referendum, where nearly 70 per cent of Queenslanders voted ‘No’, rejecting a voice to parliament.

In a move straight out of the Peter Dutton playbook, Crisafulli announced his party would no longer support a path to treaty, stating that doing so would “lead to greater division, not reconciliation, and I cannot support that.”

Continuing the narrative that equated Indigenous Constitutional Rights with “division”, as spun by the ‘No’ campaign in the lead up to the referendum, the LNP party was quick to jump on the separatist bandwagon despite failing to provide any evidence to support such a claim.

And as the move to dismantle the Queensland Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry and the Path to Treaty Act was playing out in parliament last week, the same rhetoric was used by the LNP when defending the tabled legislation changes.

Enoch, however, in response to the line of reasoning reiterated by LNP Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Fiona Simpson, refuted the correlation, stating that such parallels were not only wrong, but “appalling”.

“The truth-telling inquiry is not divisive, it is not offensive, and it is not the referendum,” Enoch stated in her reply to the member for Maroochydore.

“To continue this falsehood that somehow they are of the same thing is absolutely appalling.”

“Our shared history is not always beautiful. Sometimes it is uncomfortable, sometimes it is ugly, but it is our story. Until we actually embrace it, we will never understand and never be full reconciled as a state. We will never be able to close the gap because we will never accept the truth.”

Life Sentences For Children Show “Society Has Lost Its Way”

On the same sitting day, David Crisafulli and his LNP government tabled its Making Queensland Safer bill.

Under the Liberal National party’s ‘adult crime, adult time’ pledge Crisafulli vowed to reduce victim of crime numbers in Queensland, a promise he hopes to achieve by committing 10-year-olds to mandatory adult-equivalent imprisonment for the following 13 offences.

• Murder
• Manslaughter
• Unlawful striking causing death
• Grievous bodily harm
• Wounding
• Serious assault
• Home and business break-ins and robbery
• Dangerous operation of vehicles

Adult Crime, Adult Time offences include:

The bill, set to be considered by committee before being debated in December and implemented before the end of the year, doubles the current non-parole period from 10, to 20 years.

As part of the legislation, the proposed bill removes from the Youth Justice Act 1992 both the principle of “detention as a last resort and the principle that a non-custodial order is better than detention for promoting a child’s reintegration into the community.”

The victim-first legislation will also “fully open” the Children’s Court for victims, their families and media, where previously they were closed, and “removes the court’s discretionary power to exclude victims’ representatives and media on the grounds of preventing prejudice”

The bill also amends the Youth Justice Act to provide that a child’s criminal history will be admissible when the person is being sentenced as an adult, for up to five years after the last childhood offence.

Queensland’s Human Rights Commissioner Scott McDougall argues that the government’s harsher laws will not make the community safer, and are in fact, a clear breach of human rights obligations.

“What seems to have been lost is the fact we are talking about children – some as young as 10 years old. We’re talking about children in grade 4, who aren’t old enough to go on a ride at a theme park by themselves, and we are talking about treating them and giving them the same moral culpability we give to adults,” said McDougall.

Greens MP Michael Berkman criticised the urgency motion assigned to the bill last week, stating that without adequate time to consider the legislation, mistakes will be made.

“The evidence is incredibly clear on this. The younger kids are exposed to the youth justice system the more likely they are to reoffend and the more likely they are to reoffend more seriously in the future.”

In proposing this bill, the LNP also submitted a statement of compatibility – required under the Human Rights Act – that acknowledges, says the Commissioner “the harm these reforms will do to already marginalised children and young people, including their disproportionate impact on First Nations children.”

“The amendments will lead to sentences for children that are more punitive than necessary to achieve community safety. This is in direct conflict with international law standards”

“Those aren’t my words,” McDouglall said of the LNP’s statement. “They are the words of the government responsible for tabling this legislation.”

“Any society that treats children in the same way as adults is a society which has lost its way. We are all diminished by these laws.”

National Children’s Commissioner Anne Hollonds agrees. “We are failing to protect our children. Frequent breaches of their human rights are inexcusable and a national shame. As a federation we repeatedly ignore our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and have not embedded its principles into a national Human Rights Act and other domestic laws.”

“These are preventable problems of our own making. We are choosing to invest millions more in criminal punishment instead of evidence-based solutions to prevent offending and reoffending that would keep the community safer.

“It’s a choice to ignore the evidence and put politics ahead of prevention.”

The post “No Interest In Listening” QLD Ends Truth-Telling & Healing Inquiry, Repealing Path To Treaty appeared first on marie claire.