Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina N. Zdenek, Associate Researcher, The University of Queensland

Scientists in the United States have created a new snake antivenom using the blood of a man who deliberately built up immunity to snakebites by injecting himself with many different kinds of venom more than 800 times over 18 years.

The researchers showed “super antibodies” from the man’s blood prevented toxic damage from neurotoxins found in the venoms of 19 different snake species, including mambas and cobras.

The new study may represent a welcome advance in antivenom production. Most current techniques are more than a century old and involve injecting venom into horses and other animals, then harvesting antibodies from their blood.

Even so, new treatments are only part of the challenge of addressing the huge global problem of snakebites, which kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people around the world each year.

How was this new antivenom made?

Tim Friede describes himself as an “autodidact herpetologist and venom expert”. He deliberately immunised himself with increasing doses of a number of snake venoms over an 18-year period, in a risky practice known as “mithridatism” that we don’t recommend. Some issues include: Friede nearly died several times, and immunity can drop in weeks.

Scientists took a small sample of Friede’s blood and isolated the antibodies his immune system had developed to counteract the venoms. Next, they determined which of the antibodies were broadly effective against two important types of neurotoxins found in the venoms of elapid snakes, a family of species including cobras, mambas, and taipans.

The next step was to sequence the DNA from Friede’s b-cells (a type of immune cell) that produced those two antibodies, then insert the genes responsible into a kind of virus called a bacteriophage. Then, using the modified bacteriophage and human cells as mini factories, the researchers produced lots of the antibodies to use in their work.

How is antivenom usually made?

Antivenom is currently the only specific treatment available for snakebites. It is usually produced by first collecting venom (which is dangerous), then “hyper-immunising” a domesticated animal (such as a horse) by routinely injecting it with small but increasing doses of that venom.

The horse’s blood is extracted and its antibodies purified. The antibodies can then be injected into a snakebite victim, where they stick to toxins. This prevents the toxins from binding to targets in the body, and it also flags them for elimination by the immune system.

Traditional antivenoms have their problems. They can cause a severe allergic response known as an anaphylactic reaction (up to 50% of the time, in some countries). They may also have limited effectiveness due to differences in venom composition in snakes from different regions, or at different stages of the snake’s life.

Broad-spectrum or “polyvalent” antivenoms are made by injecting horses with mixtures of venom from different species or different populations of snakes. However, the elevated antibody content per dose can increase the risk of adverse reactions.

Another challenge with mixed antivenoms is that some toxins that produce a strong immune response can suppress the production of antibodies against other equally dangerous toxins.

Why has it taken so long to improve antivenom production?

Antivenom production is not presently a very profitable business. The expenses are huge, there is limited economy of scale, the effectiveness of antivenoms can be geographically specific, and the products have a short shelf-life and may have strict refrigeration requirements.

Snakebite is also a disease of poverty. The people most affected are those least able to afford treatment.

In Australia, the government has been supporting onshore antivenom production since 2020.

How else can we treat snakebite?

In the past decade, more precise, ethical, and potentially cost-effective methods of producing snakebite therapeutics have emerged. These include monoclonal antibodies produced in the lab, as well as more conventional drugs.

For example, varespladib is one drug that has progressed to phase II clinical trials. It works extremely well against a major component found in many snake venoms worldwide.

Hybrid products containing “designer antibodies” and inhibitors like varespladib may be the future of snakebite treatment.

The new “universal elapid antivenom” is in many ways an improvement on traditional antivenoms. However, there are still several deadly toxins present in elapid snake venoms it does not address, such as the coagulotoxin (blood-attacking) prothrombinase found in the venom of eastern brown snakes and taipans.

Why do we need antivenom?

Many people around the world live with the daily threat of being bitten by a venomous snake. Farmers, graziers, children walking barefoot to school, and many rural and remote workers in tropical and subtropical region, are at risk.

The World Health Organisation deems snakebite a neglected tropical disease. It kills one person roughly every four minutes. As many as 2.7 million people are bitten annually, resulting in up to 138,000 deaths and around 400,000 people permanently maimed.

Will this new medicine reduce snakebite deaths?

When it comes to reducing the number of people who die from snakebite, novel snakebite treatments are undoubtedly important. However, developing new drugs is the relatively easy part of the problem.

A drug is only as good as your capacity to deliver it when and where it’s needed. For snakebites, time is short and locations may be remote.

Far more attention and resources need to be devoted to all aspects of health infrastructure in the tropics, including the availability and distribution of life-saving medicines.

Prevention is also critical. Reducing the number of snakebites will reduce the burden on health infrastructure by saving lives and limbs.

To achieve this, we need far more resources devoted to research on snake behaviour, snake ecology, human–snake interactions, and public education about snakes. Snakebite is the result of an ecological encounter between two organisms, and we know disappointingly little about the circumstances in which it occurs.

Christina N. Zdenek co-owns and works for the Australian Reptile Academy, a Queensland-based company that provides venomous-snake identification and handling courses for industry and the public.

Timothy N.W. Jackson is co-head of the Australian Venom Research Unit, which has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Health, and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. ‘Super antibodies’ for snake toxins: how a dangerous DIY experiment helped scientists make a new antivenom – https://theconversation.com/super-antibodies-for-snake-toxins-how-a-dangerous-diy-experiment-helped-scientists-make-a-new-antivenom-255611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

With those who haven’t already cast a pre-poll vote ready to hit the polling places tomorrow, a final batch of polls give Labor a firm lead.

The final Newspoll gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a Freshwater poll gave Labor a 51.5–48.5 lead, a DemosAU poll gave Labor a 52–48 lead and a Morgan poll gave Labor a 53–47 lead. Vote counting at the election is also covered.

The final Newspoll, conducted Monday to Thursday from a sample of 1,270, gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the April 21–24 Newspoll. Primary votes were 34% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (up two), 8% One Nation (steady) and 12% for all Others (steady).

Applying 2022 election preference flows to these primary votes would give Labor about a 53–47 lead. Newspoll is giving the Coalition a greater share of One Nation preferences than in 2022.

Here is the final poll graph. Labor is clearly ahead and will win Saturday’s election unless polls are overstating them by as much as they did in the 2019 election.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll was down one point to -10, with 52% dissatisfied and 42% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval slumped a further four points to a new record low of -28. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by an unchanged 51–35.

Since the early March Newspoll (the last one before the election campaign began), Dutton has lost 14 points on net approval, while Albanese has gained two points.

Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are the Newspoll data points and a trend line has been fitted.

A simple average of the four polls this week that have asked for leaders’ ratings (Newspoll, Freshwater, Essential and Resolve) has Albanese at net -3.8 approval and Dutton at net -20.

By 57–43, voters thought they would be better off in the next three years under an Albanese Labor government than a Dutton Coalition government.

Labor takes 51.5–48.5 lead in final Freshwater poll

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted Tuesday to Thursday from a sample of 2,055 (double the normal sample size), gave Labor a 51.5–48.5 lead by respondent preferences, a 1.3-point gain for Labor since the April 14–16 Freshwater poll.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down two), 33% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady) and 18% for all Others (up one). One Nation were broken out for the first time and had 8%. By 2022 election flows, Labor would lead by about 51–49.

Freshwater has been the most pro-Coalition of regular Australian pollsters, and its last poll had a near tie when other polls had Labor well ahead.

Albanese’s net approval was up seven points to -3, with 44% unfavourable and 41% favourable. Dutton’s net approval was down five points to -16. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 49–39 (46–41 previously).

Labor gained a point on cost of living and economic management to reduce the Coalition’s lead to one point and five points on these issues respectively.

The Coalition led by 55–45 with the 42% who had already voted (25% early and 17% by postal ballot). Labor led by 52–41 with those yet to vote with 7% undecided.

Two DemosAU final week polls

The two national DemosAU polls listed here were taken over a concurrent fieldwork period. The previous DemosAU poll, conducted April 22–23, had given Labor a 52–48 lead from primary votes of 31% Coalition, 29% Labor, 14% Greens, 9% One Nation, 7% independents and 10% others.

A national DemosAU poll
, conducted April 27–30 from a large sample of 4,100, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, from primary votes of 33% Coalition, 31% Labor, 12% Greens, 9% One Nation, 2% Trumpet of Patriots, 7% independents and 6% others. State and other breakdowns are provided in the report.

Albanese led Dutton by 46–34 as preferred PM. Party breakdowns of this question had Albanese leading by 71–10 with Greens voters, 57–20 with independent voters and 36–27 with other voters. Dutton only led by 43–21 with One Nation voters and 37–30 with Trumpet of Patriots voters. These breakdowns don’t imply a Coalition surge on preference flows.

A second national DemosAU poll for The Gazette, conducted April 27–29 from a sample of 1,974, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, Primary votes were 32% Coalition, 29% Labor, 12% Greens, 9% One Nation, 7% independents and 11% others.

Labor retains 53–47 lead in final Morgan poll

The final national Morgan poll, conducted Monday to Friday from a sample of 1,368, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, unchanged from the April 21–27 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 34.5% Coalition (steady), 33% Labor (down one), 13.5% Greens (up 0.5), 6.5% One Nation (down one), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (up 0.5), 3% teal independents (up one) and 7.5% for all Others (steady). By 2022 election flows, Labor led by an unchanged 54–46.

More from the Spectre poll

I’ve received the full Spectre poll that I wrote about on Thursday. Labor’s net favourability was net zero, the Liberals were at net -2, Albanese was net -6, Dutton was net -13, Pauline Hanson was net -8 and Greens leader Adam Bandt was net -12.

The most unpopular people in this poll were US President Donald Trump at net -47 and Elon Musk at net -45.

Vote counting for the election

Polls close at 6pm AEST Saturday in the eastern states, which have 122 of the 150 House of Representatives seats. Polls close at 6:30pm AEST in South Australia and the Northern Territory (12 combined seats), and in Western Australia at 8pm AEST (16 seats).

By 8pm AEST, I expect the large majority of votes cast on election day to be counted in the eastern states. But pre-poll votes and returned postal votes already account for 40% of enrolled voters, and the biggest day of pre-polling (Friday) is still to be added.

In many seats, we will need to wait until the pre-poll votes are counted before a result can be called. It’s unlikely the election will be called until a large proportion of the pre-poll votes have been counted. This is likely to take until late at night AEST.

Not all seats will be called on election night. In some seats, the electoral commission will have selected the incorrect candidates for its final two candidate count, and will need to re-do this count with the correct candidates.

Other seats will be close between the final two, and we will need to wait for late postals and absent votes to decide the winner. If postmarked by election day, postals have up to May 16 to arrive (13 days after the election).

I wrote about the Senate election on April 16. It will usually be clear on election night who has won the top four or five seats out of six in a state. But to resolve the final seats, all votes need to be data entered into a computer system, then a button is pressed to electronically distribute preferences. This is likely to take about four weeks after the election.

UK byelection and local elections

I covered Thursday’s United Kingdom parliamentary byelection and local government elections for The Poll Bludger. The far-right Reform gained the safe Labour Runcorn and Helsby seat, winning by just six votes. They are making massive gains from both the Conservatives and Labour in the local elections.

In final results from Monday’s Canadian election, the centre-left Liberals won 169 of the 343 seats, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. The Conservatives won 144 seats, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 22, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) seven and the Greens one. Vote shares were 43.7% Liberals, 41.3% Conservatives, 6.3% BQ, 6.3% NDP and 1.3% Greens.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Final polls give Labor a clear lead before the election – https://theconversation.com/final-polls-give-labor-a-clear-lead-before-the-election-255724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlyn Forster, Associate Lecturer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney

The world has been gripped by the case of Australian woman Erin Patterson, who was charged with the murder of three people after allegedly serving them a lunch of beef wellington containing poisonous death cap mushrooms (Amanita phalloides).

A new element of the sensational story emerged in court this week, when prosecutors reportedly alleged Patterson used iNaturalist to locate and visit places where death cap mushrooms were known to grow.

So what exactly is iNaturalist? And how is this 17-year-old citizen science project being used to better understand our world?

More than 240 million observations worldwide

iNaturalist is an app that allows users to take photos of plants, fungi, animals and any piece of nature. The photos are uploaded, and identified using a combination of crowd-sourcing and artificial intelligence.

When a user uploads an image, they can also choose to make the location public, so others can see where it was found. iNaturalist’s database holds more than 240 million observations wordlwide. More than 10.6 million of these are in Australia.

All of this data is extremely important for scientists to understand the ecology of different species. iNaturalist has played a key role in the discovery of new species as well as sightings of species that have previously not been seen for decades.

iNaturalist might turn out to be an important part of Patterson’s trial, but how else can our observations be used?

Finding the unusual

Real people usually collect images for iNaturalist as part of their everyday life, rather than systematically as part of their job. That means there are patterns to the data that is collected.

Observations tend to be recorded on weekends and in good weather, and to involve life forms people find strange, unusual or interesting.

For example, at the time of writing, iNaturalist had recorded 1,382 sightings of domestic cats in Australia, compared with 29,660 koalas. But cataloguing the rare and wonderful can be useful.

iNaturalist can be used to track invasive species

One key use of iNaturalist is understanding the native range of plants and animals.

Australia invests a lot of resources in preventing species from entering the country. But we still see incursions frequently. Observant citizen scientists can be really important for finding species outside their native range. In Australia, if observations of biosecurity threats are made, alerts are automatically sent to biosecurity teams for further investigations.

In the same vein, species commonly found in the pet trade can be quickly observed and captured to prevent the spread of invasive species.

But how safe are the observations?

In 2011, iNaturalist added more features to protect geoprivacy – which allows locations of observations to be obscured. Rare and exciting pets, and collectable insects could be found by looking at location data on iNaturalist.

There is previous evidence this has occurred. Nowadays, species of concern for poaching automatically have their locations obscured, preventing them from being illegally poached or collected. This can also be helpful to prevent people crowding popular endangered animals when they have been sighted.

Typically, anything listed as endangered will automatically have an obscured location on iNaturalist.

Observations on iNaturalist can be helpful for forensics

Observing nature, and taking photos of plants and animals in their native environment, can give us a much better understanding of where they naturally live and grow.

Aside from being fantastic for conservation reasons, this has potential use for forensic investigation of crimes. The use of insects, animals and plants in forensic cases is well established. For example the Sarcosaprophagous Beetle is used in Australia to help understand the time since death when bodies are found.

This sort of science is underpinned by an understanding of where insects naturally live, their lifespans and the sort of environments they thrive in, which are all features iNaturalist can help with.

Should I worry about my location data on iNaturalist?

Observing nature has huge benefits to understanding our natural world. But these observations do collect a lot of personal data in terms of where and when the observation occurred.

Although iNaturalist doesn’t sell users’ information, and users can obscure their precise location, the pictures a person shares can still contain enough information to figure out where they are.

This could be used for forensic intelligence to locate plants and animals of interest, and to place people with them at the time the photo was taken.

If you’re lucky enough to see a rare or threatened species, consider taking a photo that has little background information that can give away the precise details of the locations, particularly when observing immobile organisms like such as plants and fungi.

iNaturalist is a fantastic resource for observing nature. More data points to understand where plants, animals, and mushrooms can be found is vital for understanding their ecology, and potentially conserving species.

It also has huge ramifications for biosecurity, forensics, and even understanding movements that may have occurred during an alleged crime. So it’s really worth getting out in nature and taking photos of interesting things you see!

Melissa Humphries receives funding from the MRFF, NIH, USDoD and DSTG.

Caitlyn Forster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is iNaturalist? The citizen science app playing an unlikely role in Erin Patterson’s mushroom murder trial – https://theconversation.com/what-is-inaturalist-the-citizen-science-app-playing-an-unlikely-role-in-erin-pattersons-mushroom-murder-trial-255714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Carson, 2024 Oxford University visiting research fellow RIJS; Professor of Political Communication., La Trobe University

The spread of electoral misinformation and disinformation is undermining democracies around the world.

The World Economic Forum has identified the proliferation of false content as the leading short-term global risk in 2025 for a second consecutive year. Misleading information poses a bigger threat to global GDP, population and natural resources than even climate change or armed conflict.

Here in Australia, is the federal election facing the same threat from misinformation and disinformation? And how concerned should we be?

Fake information is real

Our latest study on public trust shows Australians are encountering electoral misinformation and are worried about it.

We surveyed more than 7,000 people during March and April when the election campaign was heating up. At least two-thirds of respondents said they had already encountered false or misleading election information.

Whether deliberate (disinformation) or unintentional (misinformation), we found Australians were exposed to different types of election falsehoods involving:

• issues and candidates

• election procedures

• election integrity, such as alleged rigged outcomes and unsupported attacks on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

Consistent with other Australian and international misinformation studies, people are clearly anxious about being misled. An overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) viewed political misinformation as a problem; more than half regarded it as a “big” or “very big problem”.

An array of falsehoods

Our team, based across four universities, examined the types of electoral misinformation and disinformation Australians reported seeing. Almost two-thirds, 63.1%, encountered falsehoods about issues or candidates, such as misleading claims about parties’ policy proposals.

Thirty-nine percent reported misinformation/disinformation about voting procedures, such as when and how to vote. A similar share, 38.4%, identified fake content about election integrity, including false claims that elections are rigged or that the Australian Electoral Commission is colluding with political parties.

A significant number of people, 20-30%, were also unsure whether they had encountered misleading content. This uncertainty is concerning in itself. Being unable to judge the accuracy of information can undermine the formation of informed opinion.

It also aligns with other research showing many Australians feel they have limited ability to verify information online.

The most prominent examples of misinformation/disinformation related to major election issues, such as:

• Medicare
• nuclear energy
• housing
• cost of living
• climate

The most common names that people associated with misleading information were:

• Donald Trump
• Clive Palmer
• Labor Party
• Liberal Party
• Facebook

Deeper analysis is needed to understand the context of these self-reported claims of misinformation and disinformation during the campaign. However, we do know that those exposed to false content identified it in both mainstream daily news and social media sources.

Should we be alarmed?

Research across the fields of psychology, communication and political science shows exposure is not the same as impact. Yet, misinformation and disinformation can influence attitudes and behaviour among vulnerable groups.

Our own work on the 2023 Voice referendum showed disinformation targeting the Australian Electoral Commission had a small but noticeable effect on public trust, even though trust remained high overall.

In another global study, we found online disinformation can distort perceptions of election fairness.

These findings underscore the need to counter falsehoods. Electoral authorities and political leaders must work to protect democratic trust and prevent the kind of election denialism that led to the January 6 Capitol insurrection in the United States.

Of course, people might not always accurately judge how much misinformation or disinformation they’ve seen. This is a common challenge in studies like ours. But even if their perceptions don’t match reality, simply feeling exposed to false or misleading information is linked to greater political cynicism.

Fighting falsehoods

Encouragingly, most Australians recognise the problem and want action. In our survey, 89% said it’s important to know how to spot it, while 83% agreed the practice makes it harder for others to separate fact from fiction. But only 69% felt false information affected them personally.

Many feel especially vulnerable about false claims about candidates and election issues (see Figure 1). Such falsehoods are currently unregulated at the federal level in Australia. But the AEC ranks among the world’s most innovative electoral authorities in countering disinformation, even without “truth in advertising” laws.

In another, yet unpublished study, we found the AEC is a global role model with its multi-pronged strategy to counter misleading information. Its tools include a public disinformation register, media partnerships, and the “Stop and Consider” campaign, which provides clear, accurate information to help voters think critically before sharing content.

Our own study revealed other encouraging signs. Individuals who are more satisfied with Australian democracy perceive disinformation as less of an existential threat than those who are already dissatisfied. This suggests a positive attitude towards democracy helps protect democratic institutions.

This provides a strong rationale for non-profits such as the Susan McKinnon Foundation to promote the value of democratic governance. The Scanlon Foundation, is also making an important contribution with its recent Voices of Australia podcast series, “Truth, Trust and Politics”.

Whoever wins the election, our study shows one thing is clear – fighting electoral misinformation and disinformation is in everyone’s democratic interest.

Andrea Carson receives funding from the Australian Research Council for this project led by AJ Brown at Griffith University: DP230101777 — Mapping & Harnessing Public Mistrust: Constitutional Values Survey 2023-27.

Max Grömping receives funding from the Australian Research Council for this project led by AJ Brown at Griffith University: DP230101777 — Mapping & Harnessing Public Mistrust: Constitutional Values Survey 2023-27.

– ref. Fake news and the election campaign – how worried should voters be? – https://theconversation.com/fake-news-and-the-election-campaign-how-worried-should-voters-be-255514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the United States’ top public health official, recently claimed some religious groups avoid the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because it contains “aborted fetus debris” and “DNA particles”.

The US is facing its worst measles outbreaks in years with nearly 900 cases across the country and active outbreaks in several states.

At the same time, Kennedy, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, continues to erode trust in vaccines.

So what can we make of his latest claims?

There’s no fetal debris in the MMR vaccine

Kennedy said “aborted fetus debris” in MMR vaccines is the reason many religious people refuse vaccination. He referred specifically to the Mennonites in Texas, a deeply religious community, who have been among the hardest hit by the current measles outbreaks.

Many vaccines work by using a small amount of an attenuated (weakened) form of a virus, or in the case of the MMR vaccine, attenuated forms of the viruses that cause measles, mumps and rubella. This gives the immune system a safe opportunity to learn how to recognise and respond to these viruses.

As a result, if a person is later exposed to the actual infection, their immune system can react swiftly and effectively, preventing serious illness.

Kennedy’s claim about fetal debris specifically refers to the rubella component of the MMR vaccine. The rubella virus is generally grown in a human cell line known as WI-38, which was originally derived from lung tissue of a single elective abortion in the 1960s. This cell line has been used for decades, and no new fetal tissue has been used since.

Certain vaccines for other diseases, such as chickenpox, hepatitis A and rabies, have also been made by growing the viruses in fetal cells.

These cells are used not because of their origin, but because they provide a stable, safe and reliable environment for growing the attenuated virus. They serve only as a growth medium for the virus and they are not part of the final product.

You might think of the cells as virus-producing factories. Once the virus is grown, it’s extracted and purified as part of a rigorous process to meet strict safety and quality standards. What remains in the final vaccine is the virus itself and stabilising agents, but not human cells, nor fetal tissue.

So claims about “fetal debris” in the vaccine are false.

It’s also worth noting the world’s major religions permit the use of vaccines developed from cells originally derived from fetal tissue when there are no alternative products available.

Are there fragments of DNA in the MMR vaccine?

Kennedy claimed the Mennonites’ reluctance to vaccinate stems from “religious objections” to what he described as “a lot of aborted fetus debris and DNA particles” in the MMR vaccine.

The latter claim, about the vaccine containing DNA particles, is technically true. Trace amounts of DNA fragments from the human cell lines used to produce the rubella component of the MMR vaccine may remain even after purification.

However, with this claim, there’s an implication these fragments pose a health risk. This is false.

Any DNA that may be present in this vaccine exists in extremely small amounts, is highly fragmented and degraded, and is biologically inert – that is, it cannot cause harm.

Even if, hypothetically, intact DNA were present in the vaccine (which it’s not), it would not have the capacity to cause harm. One common (but unfounded) concern is that foreign DNA could integrate with a person’s own DNA, and alter their genome.

Introducing DNA into human cells in a way that leads to integration is very difficult. Even when scientists are deliberately trying to do this, for example, in gene therapy, it requires precise tools, special viral delivery systems and controlled conditions.

It’s also important to remember our bodies are exposed to foreign DNA constantly, through food, bacteria and even our own microbiome. Our immune system routinely digests and disposes of this material without incorporating it into our genome.

This question has been extensively studied over decades. Multiple health authorities, including Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, have addressed the misinformation regarding perceived harm from residual DNA in vaccines.

Ultimately, the idea that fragmented DNA in a vaccine could cause genetic harm is false.

The bottom line

Despite what Kennedy would have you believe, there’s no fetal debris in the MMR vaccine, and the trace amounts of DNA fragments that may remain pose no health risk.

What the evidence does show, however, is that vaccines like the MMR vaccine offer excellent protection against deadly and preventable diseases, and have saved millions of lives around the world.

Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The MMR vaccine doesn’t contain ‘aborted fetus debris’, as RFK Jr has claimed. Here’s the science – https://theconversation.com/the-mmr-vaccine-doesnt-contain-aborted-fetus-debris-as-rfk-jr-has-claimed-heres-the-science-255718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul McInerney, Senior Research Scientist in Ecosystem Ecology, CSIRO

What’s the currency for all life on Earth? Carbon. Every living thing needs a source of carbon to grow and reproduce. In the form of organic molecules, carbon contains chemical energy that is transferred between organisms when one eats the other.

Plants carry out photosynthesis, using energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Animals get carbon by consuming organic matter in their diet – herbivores from plants, carnivores from eating other animals. They use this carbon for energy and to produce the molecules their bodies need, with some carbon dioxide released by breathing.

But there are other, stranger ways of getting carbon. In our new research, we found something very surprising. River animals were feeding on methane-eating bacteria, which in turn were consuming fossil fuel as food.

Usually, the carbon used as food by river creatures is new in the sense it has been recently converted from gas (carbon dioxide) to solid carbon through photosynthesising algae or trees along the bank. But in a few rivers, such as the Condamine River in Queensland, there’s another source: ancient natural gas bubbling up from underground, which is eaten by microorganisms. Insects such as mayflies have taken to this methane-based carbon with gusto.

How does a river usually get its carbon?

The way photosynthesised carbon moves from a plant to an animal and then another animal can be described as a food web. Food webs show the many different feeding relationships between organisms, and show how species depend on each other for sustenance in an intricate balance.

In a river food web, carbon usually comes from one of two sources: plants growing and photosynthesising in the river (such as algae), or when organic matter such as leaves are washed in by rain or blown in by wind.

Rivers that are well connected to their floodplains often get plenty of carbon from leaf litter from trees which dissolves in water or is eaten directly by animals. Algae in rivers provide a high-quality source of carbon for animals because they can contain high concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids essential for growth and reproduction.
The primary source of carbon for river animals varies depending on prevailing conditions and the individual river.

The carbon of the Condamine

Some microorganisms called archaea naturally produce small amounts of methane in oxygen-depleted sediments of rivers.

But we wanted to look at the Condamine to see whether much larger volumes of methane could be used as food.

After it forms deep underground, natural gas can slowly escape through cracks in the earth. If a river bed is directly above, this methane-rich gas will seep into the river.

That’s what happens in Queensland’s Condamine River. The river rises on Mount Superbus, inland from Brisbane, and flows inland until it meets the Darling River.

In some parts of the river, methane bubbles up constantly through the water column from a natural gas reservoir that formed since the Late Pleistocene.

In these stretches of river, dissolved methane concentrations are extremely high: up to 350 times greater than trace concentrations upriver, away from the methane seep.

We wanted to see whether methanotrophic bacteria consuming methane from natural gas were being eaten by river animals, and whether we could trace the carbon signature through the food web.

To find out, we analysed the carbon in the bodies of river animals such as zooplankton, insects, shrimp, prawns and fish, and compared it to the different sources of carbon that could make up their food.

The results were clear: animals within reach of the natural gas seeping from underground had a distinct carbon signature showing they were eating food derived from the natural gas. In fact, for insects such as mayflies, methane-based food made up more than half (55%) of their diet.

Over time, this methane-derived food moved up the food web, showing up in prawns and even fish. Here too, it contributed a significant portion of their carbon.

We found this methane–derived carbon moved through multiple levels of the local food web. It made up almost a fifth (19%) of the carbon in shrimp and 28% of the carbon in carnivorous fish.

For river shrimp and prawns, leaves washed into the river were still important sources of carbon. For mayflies, algae was still an important source of food.

But our work shows that natural gas seeps can be a major, even dominant, source of energy for the entire food web. This is very surprising. It shows an unexpected connection between Earth’s geology and living creatures in a river.

Why does this matter?

Until now, researchers have focused on river and land plants as the main way a river gets its carbon. Our research has uncovered a surprisingly significant way some rivers get their carbon – methane.

In deep sea research, this pathway is better understood. Methane-eating bacteria can form the basis of entire ecosystems which have sprung up around deep sea hydrothermal vents of hot water.

But until now, we have overlooked the role methane-eating bacteria can play in rivers. With this knowledge, we can better track the flows of carbon in rivers so we can gauge ecosystem productivity and see how a food web is functioning.

Paul McInerney receives funding from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

– ref. Scientists surprised to discover mayflies and shrimp making their bodies out of ancient gas – https://theconversation.com/scientists-surprised-to-discover-mayflies-and-shrimp-making-their-bodies-out-of-ancient-gas-253334

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Culture and Communication. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

More than 50 years ago, when I was a junior curatorial assistant at the Art Gallery of NSW, I had the daunting experience of hanging the annual Archibald, Wynne and Sulman prizes.

At the time the professional staff held the exhibitions in such disregard, they complained about the news media’s interest in this mediocrity while ignoring more worthy events.

Attitudes changed in the 1980s with the late director Edmund Capon, who recognised popularity was an asset – not a disadvantage.

Capon raised the prize money with sponsorships and started charging the public to see the winners. His strategy proved so successful that the Archibald, Wynne and Sulman exhibitions are now a significant source of revenue for the gallery.

This year, the highly experienced Beatrice Gralton, Senior Curator of Contemporary Australian Art, has curated the exhibitions with support from a crew of more than 40 colleagues.

Packing Room Prize goes to Abdul Abdullah

In the 1970s, the media was refused access to the exhibitions until just before the winner was announced. Now it is actively courted with a public viewing of the works that survive the rigorous culling process.

This takes place a week before the final judging, when the Packing Room Prize is announced. The changing status of this prize is also evidenced by changing personnel. Those who did the physical work of packing and loading artworks in the past were not expected to know much about art – and often gave the prize to paintings that would otherwise not be hung.

In 2025, the specialist installation crew that handles the portraits in the packing room are most likely to be professional artists themselves – a reminder that most artists need another gig to stay afloat.

This year’s Packing Room Prize winner is Abdul Abdullah’s portrait of fellow artist Jason Phu, No mountain high enough. There is a glorious irony in this, as Abdullah has long been a critic of the self-important art establishment.

His work is a riff on the heroic paintings of 19th century landscapes, except for the flock of twittering birds that surround the head of the solitary rider, a bit like a halo.

His subject, fellow artist Phu, has to be seen as a serious contender for the main prize, which will be announced on May 9. Phu’s portrait of actor Hugo Weaving – older hugo from the future fighting hugo from right now in a swamp and all the frogs and insects and fish and flowers now look on – has both the humour and energy that has long characterised his work.

But there are many serious contenders for this year’s prize. Kurdish refugee Mostafa Azimitabar first exhibited in the Archibald in 2022, with a self-portrait painted in coffee, with a toothbrush. Art became his refuge during the many years he spent incarcerated as an asylum seeker.

He still uses a toothbrush, but has used paint for his wonderfully fierce painting of a taut Grace Tame, appropriately named The definition of hope.

Then there’s Kaylene Whiskey’s delightful self-portrait From comic to canvas, which manages to include images of her heroines, Dolly Parton and Tina Turner.

Not all works are so strident, however. Lucila Zentner’s Wendy in the gallery, is a subdued portrait of fellow artist Wendy Sharpe, placing her in the context of her art, almost as a decoration.

A suite of diverse storytelling

As is spelt out in J.F. Archibald’s will, the judges of the Archibald Prize must be the trustees of the gallery, and no one else may interfere in their decision.

However, for decades after a spectacular court case resulting from the 1943 Archibald, the trustees were so nervous of litigation that the final judging was administered by the NSW electoral office. In a court case in 1944, plaintiffs claimed the trustees’ 1943 decision was a breach of trust as the winning painting wasn’t a portrait. And one trustee claimed he had accidentally voted for the winner, thinking he was voting against it.

Today, all decisions are made in-house. Court cases have been fought over whether entries were paintings (or not), painted from life (or not), selected by the trustees (or not). In 1990 Sidney Nolan had to withdraw his entry after it was pointed out he could not be described as a “resident in Australasia for 12 months preceding the date of entry”.

But once the entry conditions are met, the curator has a free hand. This year, Gralton has hung all three exhibitions on the premise they are “about stories and storytelling”.

There is the joyous extravagance of Meagan Pelham’s Magic Nikki and Charlie fancy pants party … Djaaaaaaaay, the stark analysis of Chris O’Doherty’s Self-portrait with nose tube, and the wildly painterly approach of Loribelle Spirovski’s Finger painting of William Barton.

In the Sulman prize exhibition – awarded for best subject painting, genre painting or mural project – the once academic modernist Mitch Cairns has gone full conceptual with his stark Narrow cast (studio mural). It looks like something straight out of the 1970s Art & Language movement.

But my money is on Thom Roberts’ Mrs Picture Book and the three bears, a painting as a book, in three canvases.

The Wynne prize is for both Australian landscapes and sculptures. This year there are many three-dimensional works, ranging from the elaborate Billy Bain to the almost agonised restraint of Heather B. Swann.

Lucy Culliton’s Cliff Hole, Bottom Bullock, hangs alongside Betty Muffler’s Ngangkaṟi Ngura – healing Country – both paintings of Country.

Then there is Mehwish Iqbal’s beautiful, delicate Zameen muqaddas (sacred earth), a pen and ink contrast of fine botanical drawing and delicate wash, all on handmade paper.

While artist Elizabeth Pulie has already judged the Sulman prize, the judging for the Archibald and Wynne will be finalised early morning on May 9. This year’s result is anyone’s guess.

Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the ARC.

– ref. Archibald Packing Room Prize goes to Abdul Abdullah for Jason Phu portrait, among broader set of bold and deeply personal works – https://theconversation.com/archibald-packing-room-prize-goes-to-abdul-abdullah-for-jason-phu-portrait-among-broader-set-of-bold-and-deeply-personal-works-253747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Hayman, PhD Candidate and Casual Academic in Politics, La Trobe University

The impression of the Liberal Party as out of touch with women persists in this year’s election.

The party’s “women problem” was brought into sharp focus by the backlash to its now-abandoned policy to stop public servants working from home.

Then there was a candidate claiming women should be removed from the military, and misogynistic social media posts from a Liberal campaign manager. These recurring issues suggest there are larger problems that have not been dealt with.

Until the party does so, Liberal claims of broad representation remain in doubt. It also makes the party more vulnerable to independent insurgencies, making its path to majority government unclear.

My new research shows how a key Liberal weakness became an independent success for “Teal” candidates. The results provide key lessons for the Liberals on how the Teal campaigns that won against them in the previous election recruited women to their movement.

Read more:
When ‘equal’ does not mean ‘the same’: Liberals still do not understand their women problem

An intractable problem

The Liberal Party has long had a lack of female representation in its ranks.

Although only 29% of federal Liberal MPs are women, the party has been reluctant to adopt gender quotas.

It’s instead adopted a gender parity by 2025 target, which will almost certainly not be met. Recent research has shown women still make up only one in three Liberal candidates and are less likely to run in safe seats.

A review of gender within the Liberal Party in 2020 found women made up 34.8% of Young Liberals and only 23.4% of branch presidents or similar leaders. Despite targets, these numbers have remained sticky.

Recruiting more women to take up positions throughout the organisation is vital. Without this, parties have a smaller pool of prospective women candidates and are less likely to preselect women.

My study

As part of my recently published study, I conducted 55 interviews in 2022 with volunteers, campaigners and candidates to examine how Teal campaigns recruited.

This study found women’s social and professional networks are vital for recruitment, for everyone from boots-on-the-ground volunteers to candidates.

Recruiting through personal networks is more effective than other means often used, such as individuals signing themselves up alone. Interviewees gave examples of recruiting their friends and family members into independent campaigns, like the woman who designed the graphics for a campaign because she was an old schoolmate of the candidate.

People’s social networks are often full of people who are similar to them. Among the independents, the women who volunteered were often skilled professionals, who recruited other professional women.

This recruitment developed organically through friendships and colleagues. Interviewees gave examples, such as a volunteer who:

[…] invited eight or ten of her own friends, who she knew were pretty well onside, but asked them to bring friends to that gathering, which ended up being 50 or so people.

Many independent volunteers had also been active in local community organisations. As one interviewee put it:

it’s women who get things done. It’s always the women who are organising barbecues and whatever needs to be done at school and whatever community organisation there is, whether it’s a community garden or a football club. It always seems to be women who just quietly go about the work.

There is a long literature exploring who is a “joiner” and why that supports this approach. Women involved in other causes and organisations – political or not – are more likely to participate and be effective.

Recruiting from civic organisations is not unique to independents. The Liberal Party effectively engaged with the Women’s Leagues in its formative years. Doing so again would likely provide volunteers who are well-known and connected in their communities, enthusiastic and full of expertise the campaigns could draw on.

Women seeing potential in other women

As the independent campaigns developed, they required supporters with specialist skills, such as website development. To find these people quickly, campaign leaders recruited trusted friends and professional contacts instead of advertising externally.

This meant women were recruited directly to the higher levels of the campaign, making up the majority of leaders across the movement.

In turn, these leaders shaped the candidate-selection processes, searching for “the candidate from central casting”, as one interviewee described Allegra Spender. Most saw a professional woman as the ideal candidate in 2022.

Women are more likely to believe women candidates are electable, shaping who gets preselected to run as a candidate.

Within the Liberal Party, women campaigned for more female candidates last year. To succeed in these factional battles, more women must hold leadership positions.

The continued lack of progress on gender parity suggests the Liberal Party needs to do more to actively engage with the women who are already members of the party and engage with leaders across civic and political organisations that already exist within the community. Members may be their most important resource in achieving parliamentary gender parity.

However, achieving this means first having women in the room. Independent interviewees viewed parties as masculine and hierarchical organisations.

Dealing with this perception will be no easy feat, but must be the first step in any attempt to bring women back to the Liberal Party.

Phoebe Hayman receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

– ref. The Liberals’ women problem may seem intractable, but here’s what they could learn from the Teals – https://theconversation.com/the-liberals-women-problem-may-seem-intractable-but-heres-what-they-could-learn-from-the-teals-254058

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Plum, Senior Research Fellow, Auckland University of Technology

If you own a business, would you be willing to hire a person who has been convicted for a crime? Give them a chance when a background check shows they have a criminal record?

The answers matter for both individuals and communities. For people who have paid their debt to society, rejoining it can hinge on getting a second chance without being judged on their past.

It is not something they can really hide. Employers often conduct criminal background checks as part of the hiring process. People with criminal records face high levels of stigmatisation, making it harder to reenter their communities and make money legally.

The thorny question of what to do with people with convictions when it comes to employment has been considered by policymakers and justice campaigners around the world.

In the United States, more than 27 states have introduced “Ban the Box” legislation. While each law is unique, by and large they have eliminated the requirement to provide criminal background information in job applications.

And a number of countries, including New Zealand, have implemented clean slate initiatives which help conceal criminal records for people who meet certain criteria.

Our new research looks at whether New Zealand’s clean slate scheme increases the job prospects for eligible people.

The clean slate reform was introduced as the Criminal Records Act in 2004. People who were previously convicted of minor offences can now have their criminal records automatically concealed if they can maintain a conviction-free record for seven years after their last sentence.

The regulation excludes people who were involved in a serious offence (such as sexual misconduct) or who received a particularly punitive sentence (such as incarceration or an indefinite disqualification from driving).

Clean slate and the labour market

Our research started with the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), hosted by Statistics New Zealand (StatsNZ). This is a repository of records provided by different public and private agencies, including court charge data from the Ministry of Justice and tax records from Inland Revenue.

StatsNZ uses specific characteristics of individuals (such as name and birth date) to identify them across the different datasets. This enables researchers to track the same individual’s data footprint across different administrative records.

We used court charges data on all men convicted between 1992 and 2003 who had fulfilled the clean slate eligibility criteria. We then linked this pool of people with their Inland Revenue records to measure their employment and earnings.

To identify the labour market impact of the clean slate policy, we compared the employment and earnings of those who completed their seven-year rehabilitation period (the treatment group) with individuals who become eligible some time later (control group).

Limited benefits of clean slate scheme

Our analysis found the clean slate scheme has no relevant impact on the likelihood of eligible individuals finding work. This could result from the length of time required between sentencing and being eligible for a clean slate. Seven years could simply be too long.

But the clean slate scheme did create at least a 2% increase in eligible workers’ monthly wages and salaries – equivalent to a NZ$100 hike for an individual with an average monthly salary of $5,000.

The increase in monthly earnings appears to be greater for workers with a stronger commitment to working and for those who remain with one company for longer periods.

Global patterns

The labour market effects of concealing past convictions have also been explored in the US. Recent research looked at a policy enacted in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Bexar County, Texas. Mirroring our own results, the authors do not find any relevant impact on gaining employment.

Our findings indicate the concealment of past convictions through New Zealand’s clean slate scheme might happen too late to make a huge difference. But there are changes that can be made to improve work outcomes for people who have completed their sentences.

This could include following the example of countries such as Finland, where access to criminal histories is much more restricted. In Finland, the background check has to be directly relevant to the job requirements. For example, the law allows checks for someone applying to work in the financial sector who was convicted of fraud.

There would also be benefits from looking at the eligibility criteria for New Zealand’s clean slate scheme.

Currently, it only applies to people who committed a minor offence. But policymakers should consider whether it makes sense to expand the policy to people who committed more serious crimes but managed to turn their life around. Making this change would allow people to reap the benefits of working without stigma.

All that said, the government’s current “tough on crime” stance makes change unlikely, with a focus on the cost of crime rather than what happens after punishment has been completed.

Kabir Dasgupta is affiliated with the Federal Reserve Board. The opinions expressed in this article does not reflect the views of the the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Reserve System.

Alexander Plum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. This NZ law aims to give people with criminal convictions a ‘clean slate’. It’s not working – https://theconversation.com/this-nz-law-aims-to-give-people-with-criminal-convictions-a-clean-slate-its-not-working-254687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Specker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Refugee Trauma and Recovery Program, School of Psychology, UNSW Sydney

When Australia signed the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention, it committed to providing protection to people who have fled war, persecution and human rights violations.

Refugees have often experienced severe traumatic events. This can include war, torture, kidnapping and witnessing the murder of loved ones.

Understandably, refugees are more likely than the general population to experience mental health problems. About 27% of adult refugees suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 30% from depression. Only 5.6% of Australians experience PTSD and 6.4% experience depression.

Australia has a humanitarian and legal responsibility to support the mental health of refugees and asylum seekers so they can recover and thrive.

Mental health problems are highly treatable when people have access to effective treatment. Addressing key barriers to accessing mental health services is in everyone’s best interest.

So, what mental health support is available for refugees when they arrive in Australia?

Different pathways

Much depends on how the person came to Australia and through which scheme they applied to be recognised as a refugee.

First, there are people who apply for and are granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or Australia’s humanitarian program before arriving in Australia.

These people, often termed “humanitarian entrants”, represent the largest cohort of Australia’s refugees.

They are provided with permanent visas and join the government-run Humanitarian Settlement Program upon their arrival.

Humanitarian Settlement Program caseworkers can refer these people to internal or external mental health support services.

Importantly, people under Australia’s humanitarian program can also access vital services such as:

• Medicare
• Centrelink
• English-language classes.

They also have the right to work and study. This helps promote recovery, adjustment and wellbeing.

Second, there are people who sought asylum via alternate pathways.

This often means they arrived in Australia without a valid visa. Or, they may have held a non-refugee visa and subsequently applied for refugee status after arriving in Australia.

These people, termed “asylum seekers”, are in a much more precarious situation.

They face lengthy visa processing times, the possibility of being held in detention, and a greater likelihood of being granted only temporary visas.

Many people in this situation are restricted from accessing government-run settlement support, such as the Humanitarian Settlement Program and Centrelink.

This is a problem, because research shows people seeking asylum or holding temporary visas in Australia are especially likely to be experiencing mental health problems.

A range of services

That said, Australia has a range of mental health support services available to all refugees and asylum seekers.

This includes the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (FASSTT), a network of rehabilitation centres in every state and territory.

These specialised services provide holistic support including:

• psychological and counselling sessions
• community capacity building programs (such as work readiness and community garden initiatives), and
• advocacy.

Organisations such as Settlement Services International, Australian Red Cross, AMES and Beyond Blue also provide refugee-specific mental health supports and resources.

And some community-run social programs, such as Football United, focus on increasing social inclusion, which can help boost mental health.

Barriers to access

Demand for specialised mental health services is high. That can mean long waiting times for all Australians, including refugees and asylum seekers.

Research has identified a number of barriers that especially affect refugees and asylum seekers. These include:

• stigma around mental health problems and help-seeking
• lack of knowledge on mental health
• language and cultural barriers, and
• logistical barriers (such as cost and travel distance).

Finally, some refugees (particularly asylum seekers or people with temporary visas) may not be as aware of mental health services as humanitarian entrants. The latter group are often connected with such services while part of the Humanitarian Settlement Program.

This puts the onus on such individuals to independently research what services are available and refer themselves.

That’s a tough ask for people also busy finding housing, learning English, enrolling children in school, and progressing their visa applications.

Why does this matter?

Refugees represent a significant portion of our society. By the end of this year, Australia will have welcomed 1 million refugees since the end of World War II.

International law dictates that survivors of torture and other forms of persecution under Australia’s protection have access to effective rehabilitation services.

More broadly, the psychological cost of trauma can make it harder for some refugees to adapt to life in Australia. PTSD and depression can be chronic conditions. Without effective treatment, mental health challenges can persist for decades.

Helping refugees recover from the psychological effects of trauma and displacement also promotes the prosperity of the wider community. That’s because refugees enrich Australian society by establishing local businesses, working, facilitating new trade links, volunteering and contributing to the community.

When refugees thrive, we all do.

Philippa Specker receives funding from an MQ: Transforming Mental Health Postdoctoral Scholarship (MPSIP15). She is an associate of the Human Rights Institute, UNSW.

Angela Nickerson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Belinda Liddell receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Explainer: what mental health support do refugees and asylum seekers get in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-mental-health-support-do-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-get-in-australia-255427

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

The Coalition’s policy costings have been released, just two days ahead of the federal election.

The costings show the Coalition would run up a larger budget deficit than Labor in the first two years of government, but make a greater contribution to budget repair in years three and four.

This arises because two big-spending Coalition policies – the fuel excise reduction and cost of living tax offset – are short term. Their impact on the deficit disappears after year two.

Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor said the deficit would narrow by A$14 billion by the end of the fourth year.

There are other spending initiatives – notably a significant increase in defence rising to $5.7 billion by the last year of the estimates, 2028-29. This will bring defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The vexed question of nuclear costings

On the vexed question of nuclear power, the statement promises to fund the program primarily through equity investments in exchange for an ownership stake.

These do not appear in the budget, on the premise that they fund commercial activities. This funding is estimated to total $118.2 billion by 2050 – well short of the $600 billion Labor has estimated the proposal will cost. There is no independent Parliamentary Budget Office costing of the number – it is based on Coalition modelling.

Smaller sums are proposed for “community engagement” on nuclear technology ($87 million over four years) and a nuclear coordinating authority and training facility ($65 million). Both look to be in the right ballpark; they are however tiny compared with the costs of building nuclear reactors.

Items to reduce the budget deficit include income tax increases by abolishing Labor’s top-up tax cut and public service reductions. In 2028-29 the tax increase raises $7.4 billion and public service cuts save $6.7 billion.

A range of savings measures

There are numerous other savings, including:

• taxation of vaping products
• reduction in a variety of environmental programs
• reversing tax incentives for electric vehicles
• cuts to the Housing Australia Future Fund
• reduced spending on overseas aid
• restoring the activity test for childcare
• changing eligibility for several government welfare payment programs.

It is a long and detailed list.

Most of the savings appear achievable, with the notable exception of cuts to the public service. It will be close to impossible to achieve a saving of 41,000 public servants in Canberra alone without forced redundancies.

The total Canberra public service workforce according to the Australian Public Service Commission is only around 68,000.

At the press conference announcing the costings, Opposition spokesperson Jane Hume said however the figure was 110,000.

It is not clear where that number comes from. If the Coalition is using a different set of public service numbers to those published by the Australian Public Service Commission, it should identify where the extra come from. Off a larger base the savings would be difficult, but not completely infeasible.

As with the Labor proposal to cut consultants, it still leaves the question of what will happen to the work those public servants were doing. Without changes to programs or activities, the Coalition will need to spend budget funds to get the work done.

Too late for the early voters

The costing release comes after more than 4.8 million Australians have already cast their vote. This is less than ideal for helping inform voters’ choices.

There is precedent for releasing costings late. The Albanese opposition similarly released costings on the Thursday before polling day in 2022.

This week, the Labor government released its costings on Monday.

It is not clear what drives the practice of late release. One possibility is small target strategy: the less detail there is to criticise the more comfortable an opposition feels.

There is so much detail in this Coalition announcement, and so many interest groups potentially offended, that the caution about its release may be justified.

Savings previously announced by the Coalition include scrapping production tax credits for critical minerals and hydrogen and removing fringe benefit tax breaks for electric vehicles.

The Coalition also plans to scrap some of the government’s off-budget funds and measures, including the Rewiring the Nation fund for electricity transmission and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Stephen Bartos was Parliamentary Budget Officer for the past three New South Wales state elections.

– ref. The Coalition’s costings show some savings, but a larger deficit than Labor in the first two years – https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-costings-show-some-savings-but-a-larger-deficit-than-labor-in-the-first-two-years-255592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Manfreda, Senior Lecturer in Tourism, Torrens University Australia

Flight Centre, one of the world’s largest travel agencies, has warned it could lose more than A$100 million in earnings this year, citing weakening demand for travel to the United States.

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) this week, the company pointed to “volatile trading conditions” linked to changes in US entry policies.

This is the first major indication from an Australian company that travel to the US is becoming a serious concern. It follows growing consumer fears linked to US immigration checks, reports of tourists being detained, and rising costs.

Australian visitor numbers to the US fell by 7% in March compared with the same time last year – the sharpest fall since the COVID pandemic.

Australians are not the only ones staying away. New US data for March show sharp drops in visitors from key markets: Germany (down 28%), Spain (25%), the United Kingdom (18%) and South Korea (15%), to name a few. In total, inbound tourism fell 11.6%.

Even Canadian travellers, traditionally the US’s most reliable market, dropped by more than 900,000 or 17% in March, as growing numbers of Canadians opt to boycott US holidays.

What was once a reliable flow of high-spending international travellers is becoming a much quieter stream.

America’s welcome mat is wearing thin

The US, long marketed as the land of opportunity and adventure, is increasingly perceived as unwelcoming. Tighter border scrutiny, aggressive immigration enforcement, and a sharp shift in political tone have made travellers wary.

While the Flight Centre statement used careful language, its chief executive Graham Turner was clear, saying:

People from Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia really don’t want to go to the States, given what’s happening there. We’re hearing more and more people don’t want to go through passport control.

Reports of tourists being detained, shackled and deported at US airports over minor alleged visa issues or misunderstandings have circulated widely. In some cases, visitors have had their phones and electronic devices searched without clear cause. For many travellers, that is a risk not worth taking.

Governments have started to respond. Several countries, including New Zealand, Germany, France, Denmark and Finland, have updated their official travel advice for the US, urging citizens to exercise caution when visiting. The message filtering through international media is clear: the US is not as easy, safe or welcoming as it once seemed.

But while diplomatic warnings grow louder, the economic costs of America’s hardening stance are only beginning to register.

Tourism: America’s forgotten export

While President Donald Trump has slapped tariffs on goods imports from most countries, he has ignored the contribution of services trade to the economy. The US actually runs a surplus in services such as education and tourism. Trump has dismissed the decline in visitors as “not a big deal”.

The trade wars have focused on goods – cars, steel, farm products – but the service sector, which makes up a larger share of the economy, bears the hidden costs.

Tourism is the US’ biggest service export, contributing more than US$2.3 trillion to the economy and one in ten jobs. That’s a bigger contribution than manufacturing jobs, which account for about 8% of total US employment.

As a driver of economic prosperity, tourism isn’t simply about leisure; it sustains local businesses, rural economies and millions of livelihoods.

A double blow to the tourism experience

While the decline in arrivals has been widely reported, the experience for those who still choose to visit is also likely to change.

Tourism relies on global supply chains, from food to hotel amenities to rental car fleets. Trade war tariffs have raised input costs across the board. Hotels, restaurants, airlines and attractions are passing those higher costs onto customers.

Labour shortages are intensifying the problem. Nearly 20% of the US hospitality workforce was born overseas. Cuts to seasonal work visas and heightened deportation fears have left many businesses struggling to find staff, compounding existing labour shortages.

The burden is heaviest on small- and medium-sized enterprises, which form the bedrock of the US economy and play a central role in accommodation, dining and local tourism experiences.

A quiet but costly erosion

Tourism is not just a big part of the economy; it’s also a soft power, shaping how the world perceives a nation through its culture, values and hospitality.

Every visitor who feels unwelcome, scrutinised or disappointed is not just a lost sale, but a lost connection.

Research group Tourism Economics forecasts the US could lose up to US$10 billion in international travel spending in 2025 if current trends continue.

And while manufacturing job announcements grab headlines, the slow erosion of America’s tourism brand may leave a longer, deeper scar on its culture, its communities and its place in the world.

The Flight Centre downgrade is not an isolated warning. It is a symptom of a broader shift, one that risks turning visitors away for good.

And for thousands of US businesses, workers and communities – and now Australian ones too – the losses may not be so easily shrugged off.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Tourism to the US is tanking. Flight Centre is facing a $100m hit as a result – https://theconversation.com/tourism-to-the-us-is-tanking-flight-centre-is-facing-a-100m-hit-as-a-result-255498

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elenie Poulos, Adjunct Fellow, Macquarie University

As Australians cast pre-poll votes in record numbers, it is not only political parties and candidates who are trying to influence votes.

Australian Christian Right (ACR) groups have produced “scorecards” that rate party policies according to so-called Christian values. And they have organised candidate forums designed for Christian audiences.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has deployed hundreds of its members to pre-polling booths in marginal seats to campaign for the Coalition.

Who is the Australian Christian Right?

The ACR is a diverse movement of individuals, groups and churches that share traditional, fundamentalist approaches to the Bible and church teachings. It includes the Australian Christian Lobby, which has a long history of political activism in Australia and of engagement with the global Christian right.

In our research we examined how the ACL has adopted right-wing populist rhetoric and what the effects might be on Australian politics.

The ACR’s historical focus has been on abortion, euthanasia, sexuality and marriage. Now it also campaigns on human rights issues relating to gender, religious freedom and freedom of speech.

These interests have seen the ACR connect to global right-wing networks, including the US Conservative Political Action Network (CPAC) and Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.

For our research, we identified high-profile ACR actors and studied their publicly available texts. We found three intertwined themes of populist discourse. Each one has been given a Christian framing and adapted for the Australian context.

“Saving Western civilisation”

European populists have used this rhetoric to define the Muslim “other” and the threat Islam supposedly poses to Western democratic culture and values.

Australia’s construction as a white British “outpost” gives this ideology its power. It has been used to inspire fear of immigrants.

In Christian right rhetoric, “Western civilisation” is defined by Judeo-Christian values, which are purportedly under threat from an aggressive secularism that would rid society of its moral foundations and undermine the “family”.

This polemic found fertile ground in 2017’s marriage equality debate. LGBTQ+ people and their allies were cast as anti-Christian activists who undermined Western tradition. A point made by former prime minister Tony Abbott when he addressed the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom in New York in 2018:

the campaign for marriage in my country has mobilised thousands of new activists; and created a network that could be deployed to defend Western civilisation more broadly and the Judeo-Christian ethic against all that’s been undermining it.

“Saving the moral community”

The Australian Christian Right divides people into the traditional moral community that upholds family values, and the politically correct woke elites who allegedly threaten the Christian values that have shaped Australia.

In opposing marriage equality, religious freedom became the ACR’s primary weapon of choice.

Former Liberal Party senator and committed conservative Christian Amanda Stoker applies a right-wing populist approach to the movement’s opposition to transgender rights:

The new elite — exclusive and “woke” — in fact has disdain for the traditional family, actively seeking to break it down with new genders, new family forms, and greater dependence on the state for the roles that family used to play in education, in sharing values, and in care for those in times of need.

This rhetoric aims to position the ACR as arguing on behalf of all moral people who uphold traditional values, and all reasonable Australians who value freedom of religion.

“Saving the people from racial division”

The mythology of a “white Christian Australia” dates to the White Australia immigration policy, and remains a powerful force in Australian politics.

In contemporary Australian populism, it has found form in the identification of Indigenous people as the subject of alleged preferential treatment. In contrast, non-Indigenous Australians are portrayed as victims suffering reverse racism. It has now been given a Christian right twist.

During the referendum campaign for the Voice to Parliament, the ACR joined the far-right activist group Advance to argue the case for a “no” vote.

In its opposition to constitutional recognition, the ACR adopted two themes of the “no” campaign: Indigenous people don’t need the Voice, and it would divide Australians on the basis of race. It then added a third by doubling down on the progress made in the marriage equality debate with “religious freedom” rhetoric.

Lyle Shelton, head of Christians for Equality, claimed the Voice would be a “lever for anti-Christian” ideology.

And in a collection of essays on the “religious” perspective of the Voice proposal, a number of authors, including ACR leader Dave Pellowe, argued the Voice would breach religious freedom by imposing Aboriginal religious beliefs and practices on the entire country.

Dangerous consequences

Since last Sunday’s leaders’ debate, the populist trope of “saving Australia from racial division” has been in plain sight. Consistent with his anti-Voice position, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton declared that acknowledgement of Country has been “overdone”.

Christian political party Family First echoed his concerns, saying the ritual means:

citizens don’t have equal standing in this nation.

When the three thematic strands are woven together, the ACR’s populist vision for a “back-to-a-better” Australia becomes clear.

The mutually reinforcing rhetoric of the populist right and the Christian right creates a distinctly Australian agenda that has dangerous implications for many people, especially those who are already marginalised.

This article is based on research funded by the Australian Research Council Grant DP230100538 ‘Australian Spirituality: Wellness, Wellbeing and Risks’.

Elenie Poulos is an ordained Minister in the Uniting Church in Australia and a non-executive director on the Board of Uniting NSW.ACT.

This article is based on research funded by the Australian Research Council Grant DP230100538 ‘Australian Spirituality: Wellness, Wellbeing and Risks’.

– ref. The rise of right-wing Christian populism and its powerful impact on Australian politics – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-right-wing-christian-populism-and-its-powerful-impact-on-australian-politics-255392

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation

We’re at the tail end of five weeks of intense campaigning for the federal election. The major and minor parties, as well as independents, have thrown a slew of policies at the Australian people, most of which we’ve catalogued in our Policy Tracker.

There have also been memorable moments, a few fairly forgettable debates, and a whole lot of memes – both astute and cringeworthy. (Where does that Coalition “diss track” fit in? We’ll leave it to you to decide.)

So, how closely have you been paying attention? It’s time to test your election campaign knowledge.

Digital Storytelling Team does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Election quiz: have you been paying attention? – https://theconversation.com/election-quiz-have-you-been-paying-attention-255603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A YouGov MRP poll has Labor clearly winning a majority of seats in the federal election – 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.

Labor also leads the Coalition by 53–47% in new polls from Redbridge and Spectre Strategy.

Respondent-allocated preference flows from various pollsters do not imply a big Coalition gain from the 2022 election preference flow method.

YouGov conducted a national MRP poll (multi-level modelling with post-stratification) from April 1–29 from an overall sample of 35,185 people. MRP polls are used to estimate the outcome in each House electorate using huge samples and modelling.

YouGov’s central forecast is Labor winning 84 of the 150 lower house seats, an 18-seat majority. The Coalition would win 47 seats, the Greens three, independents 14 and others two.

Since YouGov’s previous MRP poll that was taken from late February to late March, Labor is up nine seats, the Coalition down 13, the Greens up one and independents up three.

And compared to the first YouGov MRP poll conducted before mid-February, Labor is up 18 seats and the Coalition down 26.

The high forecast in the new MRP poll is 85 seats for Labor and 53 for the Coalition, while the low forecast is 76 for Labor (just enough for a majority) and 45 for the Coalition.

On national voting intentions, Labor led the Coalition by 52.9–47.1% in this MRP poll, a 2.7-point gain for Labor since the previous MRP poll. Primary votes were 31.4% Labor (up 1.6 points), 31.1% Coalition (down 4.4), 12.6% Greens (down 0.6), 9.3% One Nation (steady), 8.1% independents (down 0.2) and 7.6% others (up 3.7).

By 2022 election flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by 54.1–45.9%.

Labor won the 2022 election by 52.1–47.9% from primary votes of 35.7% Coalition, 32.6% Labor, 12.3% Greens, 5.0% One Nation, 4.1% United Australia Party, 5.3% independents and 5.1% others.

In this poll, the major parties combined are winning just 62.5% of the vote, down from 68.3% in 2022, which was already a record low for the combined major party vote.

Unless the Coalition surges in the final days before Saturday’s election or the polls are overstating support for Labor, Labor will win the election. The graph below includes the Redbridge poll, but not the Spectre Strategy one.

Labor takes 53–47% lead in Redbridge poll

The final national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids, conducted April 24–29 from a sample of 1,011 people, gave Labor a 53–47% lead over the Coalition by both respondent and 2022 election flows.

This is a one-point gain for Labor since the previous national Redbridge poll in early April.

Primary votes were 34% Labor (up one), 34% Coalition (down two), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all others (steady). One Nation’s preference flows to the Coalition had increased in this poll compared with 2022, but Labor’s flow increased from other sources.

On type of government desired, 24% wanted a majority Labor government, 12% a Labor minority government with the Greens and 10% a Labor minority government with the teals (comprising a total of 46% who wanted Labor to govern).

For the Coalition, 30% wanted a majority Coalition government, 2% a Coalition minority government with the Greens and 7% a Coalition minority government with the teals (a total of 39% who wanted a Coalition government).

New pollster Spectre Strategy gives Labor 53–47% lead

A national poll by new pollster Spectre Strategy, conducted April 24–28 from a sample of 2,000 people, also gave Labor a 53–47% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences from primary votes of 34% Coalition, 31% Labor, 15% Greens, 10% One Nation and 11% for all others.

By 2022 election flows, this poll would give Labor about a 52.5–47.5% lead over the Coalition.

Women voters (71%) and men aged 18–34 (64%) both massively favoured Labor. Among voters aged 35–54, 61% of women supported Labor, compared to just 49% of men. Both men and women aged 55 and over favoured the Coalition by 58–42%.

Anthony Albanese led Peter Dutton as preferred prime minister by 47–35%.

DemosAU polls of Melbourne and Sydney seats

DemosAU collectively polled the Labor-held seats of Dunkley, Bruce and Hawke in Melbourne from April 13–22 from a sample of 924 people. Labor led the Coalition by 53–47%. The party won the three seats by 56.5–43.5% in 2022.

Primary votes in the poll were 32% Labor, 31% Liberal, 13% Greens, 10% One Nation and 14% for all others.

DemosAU collectively polled the Labor-held seats of Parramatta, Reid and Werriwa in Sydney from April 13–27 from a sample of 905 people. Labor led the Coalition by 56–44%. The party won the three seats 54.7–45.3% in 2022.

Primary votes in the poll were 36% Labor, 28% Liberal, 10% Greens, 5% Libertarian, 4% One Nation, 11% independents and 6% others.

Preference flows

Phillip Coorey wrote in the Australian Financial Review Tuesday that JWS polling of some seats had right-wing party preferences flowing at 80 or 90% rates to the Coalition. If this is true, the Coalition would do better than expected from current polls.

But respondent preferences were used in the Redbridge poll above, giving the same result as the 2022 flow result. The Spectre respondent result was actually 0.5 of a point better for Labor than the previous election method.

The polls I covered on Tuesday from Resolve, Essential and Morgan used respondent preferences. The Coalition was up one point in the Morgan poll compared to the previous election method and up 0.5 of a point in the Essential poll. There was no difference between the two methods in Resolve.

JWS has given the Coalition very strong results in many of its seat polls. All other evidence suggests only a small gain for the Coalition from using respondent preferences as opposed to the 2022 election flows.

Inflation increased in March quarter

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the March quarter inflation report on Wednesday. Headline inflation increased 0.9% in the March quarter, up from 0.2% in both December and September. This was the highest quarterly inflation since June 2024. Annual inflation was steady at 2.4% from December.

Core inflation increased 0.7% in the March quarter, up from 0.5% in December. Annual core inflation dropped to 2.9% in March from 3.3% in December.

The same principles with poll analysis can be applied to economic data. We’re most interested in the current polls, not in averaging these polls with those from months ago. The quarterly inflation numbers should be emphasised, not the annual numbers that include data from the June 2024 quarter.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Major YouGov poll has Labor easily winning a majority of seats in election – https://theconversation.com/major-yougov-poll-has-labor-easily-winning-a-majority-of-seats-in-election-255601

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hiran Thabrew, Senior Lecturer in Child Psychiatry and Paediatrics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition. Someone may have social and communication differences, sensory issues and/or restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour or interests.

There has been increased awareness and an expanded definition of autism over the past couple of decades. Now around one in 40 people are thought to be autistic.

Autistic people often have strengths such as focus, honesty and dedication. But due to a combination of genetic and autism-related factors, they also have higher rates of other health conditions.

Common mental health conditions include anxiety, depression, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders and intellectual developmental disorder.

Common physical health conditions include epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease.

The core features of autism can’t and don’t need to be altered. But a range of talking therapies and medications can help manage these other health conditions.

Commonly prescribed medications

The increased awareness of autism and availability of new medications has seen increased rates of prescribing for autistic people and those with other chronic conditions over the past few decades. This is a trend we have seen internationally.

The most common medications for mental health conditions among autistic people are:

1. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as fluoxetine (Prozac), for anxiety and depression

2. low-dose antipsychotic medications, such as risperidone and aripiprazole, for reducing stress-related irritability and aggression

3. stimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) for ADHD

4. melatonin and other sleep medications.

The most common medications for physical health conditions among autistic people are:

1. painkillers, such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, for pain and fever, especially in younger children. These are also the most commonly prescribed medication for non-autistic children

2. antibiotics, such as amoxycillin, for suspected or confirmed infections (autistic children tend to have more infections)

3. asthma and allergy medications, including salbutamol inhalers, loratadine and oral steroids (autistic people have similar rates of allergies to non-autistic people)

4. laxatives, such as lactulose, for constipation. Autistic people are at increased risk of constipation due to limited food preferences, rigid toilet habits, and difficulty recognising when they need to use the toilet.

Multiple medications, or not enough

Prescribing multiple medications at the same time is known as polypharmacy. This has become more of an issue for autistic people in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia.

One study found autistic children and young people from Aotearoa New Zealand received a mean (average) four medications in one year (versus 2.9 medications for non-autistic people). Some 57% were prescribed three or more medications at a time.

Medications may work as well for people with and without autism. However, autistic people are more likely to have side effects. This might be due to heightened sensory sensitivities and the way medications affect the nervous system.

Polypharmacy increases the risk of medication interactions. It is also likely to contribute to autistic people’s higher chance of dying early. A 2024 study confirms this occurs at double the rate of non-autistic people.

Possible reasons for polypharmacy include:

• lack of agreement between doctors and clear guidelines for prescribing medication

• insufficient access to non-medication options to manage health conditions

• greater likelihood of being treated during crises. For instance, behaviour that escalates to the point of personal or property damage and family burnout may require medication to allow a child to stay at home.

However, at times, autistic people may not receive appropriate medications. This may be because doctors do not have clear prescribing guidelines or vary in how they prescribe. It can also be because someone or their family are concerned about side effects.

The right dose for the right time

We should aim to use the appropriate medication for the appropriate period of time for the growing number of people diagnosed with autism.

It’s essential prescribers have clearer prescribing guidance, aim for the lowest possible dose of medication, actively address polypharmacy and regularly monitor autistic people with a view to weaning medications as soon as possible.

Earlier identification and support for autistic children and their families would reduce the chance of crises and stress-related health conditions.

We need health services that can better meet the needs of autistic people. Flexible, tailored care should be provided in an environment that matches someone’s sensory needs. For instance, an environment should not be too bright or loud, or overstimulating. Ideally, this will have been designed with autistic people.

We also need an adequately resourced health system to provide autistic people with timely, appropriate, safe and equitable care.

Hiran Thabrew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist, paediatrician, autism researcher and New Zealand Chair for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. He has never received any pharmaceutical company sponsorship for his clinical or research activities.

– ref. Which medications are commonly prescribed for autistic people and why? – https://theconversation.com/which-medications-are-commonly-prescribed-for-autistic-people-and-why-251715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fan Yang, Research fellow at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society., The University of Melbourne

This election, social media has been a major battleground as candidates try to reach younger voters. As Gen Z and Millennials now make up the dominant voter bloc in Australia, securing their support is more electorally important than ever.

This effort has also played out on Chinese social media platforms, namely WeChat and RedNote. Thousands of Australians use these apps, often as a main source of news.

The RECapture research team has been tracking political activity on these platforms for years. Between October 2024 and April 2025, we observed 319 Liberal Party advertisements, 68 Labor Party advertisements, and 258 ads from independent candidates on WeChat. More than 20 Australian politicians used RedNote for self-promotion. Both platforms are becoming increasingly popular among politicians.

But there’s a catch: political communication on these apps is either banned or hidden. So how do candidates work around the rules?

We’ve found they use influencers and third parties, blurring the lines between authorised political advertising and undisclosed campaigning.

Skirting the rules

Platforms such as Facebook and Google maintain public ad repositories to document political advertising.

On WeChat and RedNote, however, such content is not formally registered or subject to public scrutiny.

Since 2019, WeChat has been a key platform for Australian politicians trying to reach Chinese-Australian voters.

From 2022 onwards, our research has observed the rising political popularity of RedNote, driven by its low entry barriers and emphasis on visual content.

In January, a shift of US-based users from TikTok to RedNote further elevated the platform’s prominence. Now, candidates of all stripes are using it.

But WeChat bans political advertisements and campaigning. RedNote uses shadowbanning (the covert hiding of specific content) to limit the visibility of political accounts.

As a result, political figures in democracies globally often bypass these restrictions by working with Chinese-language media or influencers to reach Chinese-speaking voters.

This tactic enables political messaging outside platform and regulatory oversight. It undermines transparency and accountability in political communication.

How do political ads work on WeChat?

Political advertising on WeChat isn’t transparent. WeChat requires official account registration through Chinese businesses recognised by Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent.

In Australia, Chinese-language media outlets serve as intermediaries. They distribute political campaign materials on behalf of candidates.

Political advertising on WeChat is presented in three main formats:

• embedded within articles

• as sponsored content

• and as short videos distributed via WeChat’s Channel function.

Advertising costs are typically negotiated between media outlets and campaign teams, ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the outlet’s influence and the ad’s target demographic.

Spending on political ads on WeChat isn’t disclosed anywhere, so it’s very hard to track how much money is being spent this way.

What do these ads look like?

For example, we identified Scott Yung, a Liberal candidate for Bennelong, and Andy Yin, a former Liberal Party member now running as an independent for Bradfield. They both published between two and eight political advertisements on WeChat daily in April.

These ads were in addition to their self-promotional content and other campaigning activities via short videos.

This content sometimes includes celebrity endorsements. In 2019 and 2025, respectively, Yung and Yin used third-party media and marketing companies based in China to recruit celebrities to endorse their campaigns.

However, such strategies are criticised domestically due to concerns about potential “Chinese influence” and perceived links to the Communist Party of China.

But behind the public political ads lies a semi-private form of campaigning.

By attaching a QR code to their political ads, candidates direct their campaigns to private group chats, enabling a more targeted form of engagement (observed in the case of Liberal candidate for Reid Grange Chung’s sponsored content).

What about RedNote?

Non-Chinese Australian politicians often get around shadowbans on RedNote by signalling their connection to Chinese communities through symbolic gestures. This includes posts showcasing their visits to Chinese restaurants or photos taken at Lunar New Year community events.

Candidates of Chinese background often highlight their connections with prominent white Australian politicians, such as former prime ministers Tony Abbott and John Howard, to show their standing and political credibility within the party.

Discussions of party policies, especially controversial ones such as Australia-US-China relations, are rare. When they do occur, they are often selectively focused on matters of concern to Chinese migrants or those deemed safe for discussion on RedNote.

Chinese-Australian candidates often organise their offline campaign events to target Chinese-Australian influencers. The influencers then disseminate relevant content on RedNote.

As a result, candidates rely on content creators, influencers, supporters, migrant businesses and Chinese-language media outlets to promote their campaigns.

Regulations falling by the wayside

Candidates usually follow authorisation disclosure rules on their English social media pages.

These rules, however, are often disregarded on RedNote or WeChat.

Candidates often outsource their campaigning work to Chinese media and marketing agencies. This means the candidates have minimal oversight of the activities taking place on these platforms, raising concerns about whether electoral regulations may be inadvertently violated in the process.

We’ve found instances of unauthorised pages of politicians and candidates that have gone unnoticed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

These are hard to find because the content is largely shadowbanned. If users or the AEC searched a particular candidate’s name, they wouldn’t be able to find much.

In April, the AEC advised rules around authorising this sort of content. It said electoral communications distributed by people or organisations that are not political entities still require authorisation if monetary or gifts-in-kind transactions are involved.

The AEC’s guidance further says political parties should include an authorisation if they repost collaborative content. The general principle is: “when in doubt, authorise it”.

The key challenges here are identifying who collaborates with whom, on which platform, how content is remixed, and whether the collaboration is voluntary or involves monetary or in-kind transactions.

The AEC doesn’t actively monitor Chinese social media platforms. This makes enforcing any regulations almost impossible.

Given how much political candidates are using these apps, there needs to be better regulatory oversight of what happens on them.

We thank researchers Robbie Fordyce and Mengjie Cai for their contributions to this project.

The project is funded by the Susan McKinnon Foundation between 2024 and 2025.

Dan Dai, Luke Heemsbergen, and Stevie Zhang do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How do candidates skirt Chinese social media bans on political content? They use influencers – https://theconversation.com/how-do-candidates-skirt-chinese-social-media-bans-on-political-content-they-use-influencers-253847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Professor in Geochronology and Geochemistry, Southern Cross University

The internet’s latest absurd obsession is: who would win in a no-rules fight between 100 average human men and one adult male gorilla?

This hypothetical and strange question has taken over Reddit, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Some argue that humans once hunted mammoths so, clearly, we would win. Others point out that a silverback gorilla can lift close to 1,000kg and could throw a grown man like a rag doll.

To be honest, it’s not really a question we need to answer – and yet, as usual on the internet, everyone has an opinion.

But, beyond the jokes and memes, this silly debate provides an opportunity to reflect on human evolution. What are the real strengths of our species? What have we sacrificed? And what can a gorilla, our majestic, powerful and endangered distant cousin, teach us about our own nature and evolution?

Gorillas and humans: two branches of the same evolutionary tree

Gorillas are one of our closest living relatives. Along with chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans, they belong to the great apes or Hominidae family. Chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA with us, while gorillas come a close second, sharing around 98.4%.

The last common ancestor between humans and gorillas lived roughly 10 million years ago, and it is also the same ancestor for chimpanzees.

Since the evolutionary split, humans and gorillas have followed very different paths. Gorillas have adapted to dense forests and mountainous terrains, while humans have evolved to live in the open, but realistically to multiple and various environments.

Despite the substantial difference in ecological niches, humans and gorillas share many traits, such as opposable thumbs, facial expressions, complex social behaviours and emotional intelligence.

Mastering forest power

In the recent Dune saga, to win, Duke Leto Atreides wanted to develop “desert power”. Well, gorillas have mastered forest power.

And let’s be clear – in terms of raw power, the gorilla wins every time. An adult male silverback can weigh more than 160kg and lift about a tonne without going to the gym every day. Their upper-body strength is shocking. And that’s no evolutionary accident – it’s the result of intense competition between males, where dominance determines mating.

Additionally, gorillas are extremely tough and resilient, yet gentle and calm most of the time. Gorillas, like many primates, have a strong social intelligence. They use a variety of vocalisations, gestures and even chest drumming to communicate across distances.

They have shown the ability to use sign language, mourn their dead, and demonstrate empathy, attesting to sophisticated cognitive skills.

Trading muscles for minds

A fight between 100 men and one gorilla might lead to a lot of dead men, but we all know that men will come with weapons, strategies, drones, fire and other clever tricks.

Humans are not physically strong in comparison to many other mammals. Our strength as a species is our adaptability and our ability to collaborate in very large groups.

Our brains are, on average, three times larger proportionally than those of gorillas. This fantastic evolutionary adaptation has allowed us to develop abstract thinking and symbolic language, but most of all, to pass and build on complex knowledge across generations.

And this is our greatest superpower, our ability to cooperate across vast groups, far beyond the average gorilla social unit, which usually ranges from a few family members up to a group of 30 individuals.

Humans’ evolutionary history has led to trading brute force for social, cultural and technological complexity, making us Earth’s most versatile and dangerous species.

So, who’s the winner?

In a one-on-one brawl, the gorilla can make “human-mash” with one hand. There is no contest when discussing brute force and bare hands.

But humans fight dirty. Judging by our evolutionary success, humans would likely lose many battles but ultimately win the fight. Mountain gorillas were not on the brink of extinction in the 1980s without our help.

Our species has spread across all continents, all terrains, and all climates. We have reshaped ecosystems, walked on the Moon, and developed advanced technologies. But gorillas are another kind of success rooted in harmony with their environment, physical grace, and quiet strength.

Perhaps the real takeaway message isn’t who wins in a fight, but to realise that two very different and yet very close cousins have walked two separate evolutionary roads, each in their own distinct way. And both are nature’s triumph and accomplishment.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Leakey Foundation, National Geographic, and the European Research Council.

– ref. Who would win in a fight between 100 men and 1 gorilla? An evolutionary expert weighs in – https://theconversation.com/who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-100-men-and-1-gorilla-an-evolutionary-expert-weighs-in-255621

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kai He, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

The United States and China remain in a standoff in their tariff war. Neither side appears willing to budge.

After US President Donald Trump imposed massive 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in early April, China retaliated with its own tariffs of 125% on US goods.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week it’s up to China to de-escalate tensions. China’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said the two sides are not talking.

The prospect of economic decoupling between the world’s two largest economies is no longer speculative. It is becoming a hard reality. While many observers debate who might “win” the trade war, the more likely outcome is that everyone loses.

A convenient target

Trump’s protectionist agenda has spared few. Allies and adversaries alike have been targeted by sweeping US tariffs. However, China has served as the main target, absorbing the political backlash of broader frustrations over trade deficits and economic displacement in the US.

The economic costs to China are undeniable. The loss of reliable access to the US market, coupled with mounting uncertainty in the global trading system, has dealt a blow to China’s export-driven sectors.

China’s comparative advantage lies in its vast manufacturing base and tightly integrated supply chains. This is especially true in high-tech and green industries such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar energy. These sectors are deeply dependent on open markets and predictable demand.

New trade restrictions in Europe, Canada and the US on Chinese electric vehicles, in particular, have already caused demand to drop significantly.

China’s GDP growth was higher than expected in the first quarter of the year at 5.4%, but analysts expect the effect of the tariffs to soon bite. A key measure of factory activity this week showed a contraction in manufacturing.

China’s economic growth has also been weighed down by structural headwinds, including industrial overcapacity (when a country’s production of goods exceeds demand), an ageing population, rising youth unemployment and persistent regional disparities. The property sector — once a pillar of the country’s economic rise — has become a source of financial stress. Local government debt is mounting and a pension crisis is looming.

Negotiations with the US might be desirable to end the tariff war. However, unilateral concessions on Beijing’s part are neither viable nor politically palatable.

Regional coordination

Trump’s tariff wars have done more than strain bilateral relationships; they have shaken the foundations of the global trading system.

By sidelining the World Trade Organization and embracing a transactional approach to bilateral trade, the US has weakened multilateral norms and emboldened protectionist tendencies worldwide.

One unintended consequence of this instability has been the resurgence of regional arrangements. In Asia, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), backed by China and centred on the ASEAN bloc in Southeast Asia, has emerged as a credible alternative for economic cooperation.

Meanwhile, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) continues to expand, with the United Kingdom joining late last year.

Across Latin America, too, regional blocs are exploring new avenues for integration, hoping to buffer themselves against the shocks of resurgent protectionism.

But regionalism is no panacea. It cannot replicate the scale or efficiency of global trade, nor can it restore the predictability on which exporters depend.

Looming dangers

The greater danger is the world drifting into a Kindleberger Trap — a situation in which no power steps forward to provide the leadership necessary to sustain global public goods, or a stable trading system.

Economist Charles Kindleberger’s account of the Great Depression remains instructive: it was not the presence of conflict but the absence of leadership that brought about the global economy’s systemic collapse.

Without renewed global coordination, the economic fragmentation triggered by Trump’s tariff wars could give way to something far more dangerous than a recession – rising geopolitical and military tensions that no region can contain.

The political landscape is already fraught. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, has long tethered its legitimacy to the promise of eventual unification with Taiwan. Yet the costs of using force remain prohibitively high.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s recent designation of China as a “foreign hostile force” have sharpened tensions. Beijing’s response has been calibrated – military exercises intended more as a warning than a prelude to conflict.

However, the intensifying trade war with the US may become the final straw that exhausts Beijing’s patience, leaving Taiwan as collateral damage in a US-China final showdown.

A role for collective leadership

China alone is neither able nor inclined to assume the mantle of global leadership. Its current focus is more on domestic priorities – sustaining economic growth and managing social stability – than on foreign policy.

Yet, Beijing can still play a constructive role in shaping the international environment through its cooperation with Europe, ASEAN and the Global South.

The objective is not to replace American hegemony, but to support a more multi-polar and collaborative system — one capable of sustaining global public goods in an era of uncertainty.

Paradoxically, a more coordinated effort by the rest of the world may ultimately help bring the US back into the fold. Washington may rediscover the strategic value of engagement — and return not as the sole leader, but as an indispensable partner.

In the short term, other states may seek to gain an advantage from the great power standoff. But they should remember that what begins as a clash between giants can quickly engulf bystanders.

In this volatile landscape, the path forward does not lie in exploiting disorder. Rather, nations must cautiously advance the shared interest in restoring a stable, rules-based global order.

Kai He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The global costs of the US-China tariff war are mounting. And the worst may be yet to come – https://theconversation.com/the-global-costs-of-the-us-china-tariff-war-are-mounting-and-the-worst-may-be-yet-to-come-254583

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cairney, Professor and Head of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences; Director, The Queensland Centre for Olympic and Paralympic Studies, The University of Queensland

Not so long ago, life was pretty simple for sports leagues and teams when it came to connecting with fans: the contests and athletes were the stars of the show, with the on-field action covered and celebrated by sports media accordingly.

Things are rapidly changing.

Sport used to primarily be about performance, competition and entertainment. Now, sport and the athletes who play it are often dynamic media platforms.

This paradigm shift is being driven by the convergence of artificial intelligence (AI), data mining, immersive technology and the creator economy. Each exposes anomalies in the old model and demands a new framework for how sport is consumed, valued and organised.

Read more:
The social media games: why sports teams and leagues aren’t just competing on the field

A changing landscape

In today’s modern sporting landscape, many leagues, teams and even mega-events are fully functioning media companies.

Athletes are both product and producer.

They not only generate performance-based content (highlights, stats) but also personal narratives, political positions, or cultural influence.

They are creators and media entities in the full sense — with their own brands, platforms and followers.

Professional leagues and events must reckon with the power shift these actions imply.

There is extraordinary opportunity in leveraging athletes’ identities for deeper fan engagement. But there is also caution: narratives may not always align with league and team/owner agendas.

Consider some recent examples.

Former No. 1-ranked women’s tennis player Naomi Osaka used her platforms to create a brand that spans fashion, media and activism.

Her 2021 withdrawal from the French Open, which she announced on her own terms on social media, stemmed from her decision to skip post-match press conferences to protect her mental health.

Osaka’s move highlighted both the opportunity created by authentic, athlete-driven engagement and the challenge it posed to traditional tournament control.

In 2024, Shohei Ohtani, the Japanese baseball phenomenon, offered a different but related case.

A dominant pitcher and elite hitter, Ohtani signed a record-breaking US$700 million (A$1.1 billion) contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers, the most lucrative deal in baseball history.

Since joining the Dodgers, he has tightly curated his public image, favouring controlled, self-managed media content over traditional press access.

His control over access and messaging means the Dodgers and Major League Baseball can’t fully shape his story.

Ash Barty’s post-retirement career offers a compelling Australian parallel.

Since stepping away from tennis in 2022 while ranked No. 1, Barty has carefully balanced commercial endorsements, a memoir and media appearances.

Like Osaka and Ohtani, Barty’s example speaks to a new form of athlete agency: one where narrative control, emotional transparency and strategic silence all play a role in reshaping sport’s public conversation.

All these cases illustrate a shifting paradigm — where athletes are no longer just performers but powerful media outlets, often with more influence than the familiar institutions they represent.

The influence of AI

This opens important questions around ownership, intellectual property, image rights and the ethical stewardship of public platforms.

It also means if athletes, players and leagues are media companies, monetisation is a function — but not the sole purpose. Successful media ecosystems don’t just sell content, they also build belonging.

This means investing in and influencing community, culture and shared values — not just launching branded apps, paid streaming services, or spin-off content that extend the brand.

AI, in this context, becomes a community-builder, not just a recommendation engine. Its ability to support personalised experiences and micro-segmented fan journeys allows for mass intimacy: experiences that feel deeply individual yet can be scaled broadly.

With the help of data and machine learning, leagues and teams can now deliver mass customisation not just of products but of experiences and narratives — tailoring highlight reels, merchandise, content and even storylines for each fan. This shift enables a deeper, more emotional form of engagement.

The National Basketball Association (NBA)’s upgraded app and NBA ID platform bring this to life, using Microsoft Azure AI to serve fans personalised highlight reels, real-time stat overlays and exclusive content based on their favourite teams and players.

These “fan journeys of one” show how leagues can turn data into connection — building not just audiences but communities, powered by AI.

As to what the future may hold, some key questions in this space are:

• How does AI reshape the power dynamics between leagues, athletes and fans?
• What new business models will emerge when the fan is also a co-creator?
• Can AI be used to foster social good through sport, not just drive engagement metrics?

This ongoing tension between “brand-dom” (controlled or innovative messaging) and “fandom” (grassroots, emotionally driven engagement) will continue to evolve as technology also evolves.

Sport’s future won’t just be something we watch — it will be shaped by fans, athletes and technology working together, and it will keep changing faster than ever.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Savvy athletes and new technology are flipping traditional sports marketing on its head – https://theconversation.com/savvy-athletes-and-new-technology-are-flipping-traditional-sports-marketing-on-its-head-254596