Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Garrett, Lecturer in Exercise Science and Physiology, Griffith University

Australia’s love affair with the major football codes – the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) – is well documented. However, one aspect that stands out to many observers, particularly those overseas, is the length of these leagues’ pre-seasons.

While global and international sports such as soccer and the United States’ National Football League (NFL) typically have pre-seasons lasting only a few weeks to two months, AFL and NRL pre-seasons can stretch well beyond that, sometimes up to and even surpassing four months.

Why do these two codes, more than almost any others, devote such an extended block of time to pre-season training?

The answer lies in a blend of the diverse physical qualities required to play AFL and NRL and the greater risk of injury associated with short preparation times.

High-impact collisions and diverse physical demands

Both the AFL and NRL are considered contact team sports. Athletes are required to cover large distances at speed, with frequent contact.

AFL players can run upwards of 12–17 kilometres per match, at incredibly high intensities, all while executing numerous technical actions, such as kicking, catching, handballing and tackling.

NRL players face similar challenges. Athletes are required to perform more than 30 high-impact collisions per game combined with repeated bouts of high-intensity activity, such as running and sprinting.

This blend of endurance, strength and power, combined with the high contact demands, creates a distinct training challenge.

Off-season programs must therefore develop multiple physical qualities. These include endurance for sustained high-intensity efforts, speed and agility for generating and closing space, and strength and power for tackling, wrestling and contested ball situations.

A shorter pre-season can limit the time available to improve each of these qualities safely. This in turn increases the likelihood of in-season injuries and reduced performance overall.

Longer pre-seasons and injury prevention

From a sports science perspective, a key benefit of extended pre-seasons is the gradual increase in training load. This helps reduce injury risk once the season begins.

Research has shown the importance of progressive overload (gradually increasing training demands in a safe, structured manner), recovery management, and adequate conditioning to tolerate in-season demands.

Evidence also shows increased pre-season participation, additional pre-season sessions and higher workloads (such as total distance) result in fewer games missed due to injury within the season.

These findings underscore that a carefully structured, longer preparation phase, even if it appears arduous, can build resilience.

By gradually but systematically exposing players to both low- and high-intensity running volumes, physical contact, and skill-based sessions, clubs can equip their athletes’ bodies to withstand the onerous demands of an AFL or NRL season.

What do other codes do?

European football (soccer) clubs often have limited downtime between league seasons and international fixtures.

Pre-season often entails high-profile international exhibition tours, leaving little space for the months-long conditioning programs common in AFL and NRL.

Moreover, the absence of a draft system can mean injured players are simply replaced via the transfer market. This reduces the incentive for longer pre-season conditioning to keep key athletes healthy.

The NFL’s pre-season is relatively short. It uses a training camp model that includes a few pre-season games in which their “starters” play a limited role due to injury concerns.

The sport’s stop-start nature and its athletes’ highly specialised positional requirements also results in players having a more specific physical profile. In contrast, AFL and NRL players require a broader physical profile.

In recent years, the NFL has become increasingly aware of higher injury rates tied to abrupt increases in training load. It is now exploring extended or restructured pre-season protocols that in part aim to reduce injury risk.

Changes may be afoot

Interestingly, the AFL itself may face a similar scenario this year.

In the most recent off-season, many AFL clubs had only two to three weeks of full-squad structured training before Christmas, followed by three weeks off.

This approach, designed to provide player downtime, might inadvertently produce an effect akin to what the NFL experiences, where shorter preparation periods are linked to higher rates of tendon and soft-tissue injuries.

Sports scientists at Australian clubs will be monitoring training loads closely when their players return, aiming to avoid the pitfalls of quick turnarounds meeting high-impact competition.

There’s a reason for these long pre-seasons

Devoting three to four months to pre-season training is not merely a quirk of the Australian sporting calendar.

It is a necessary response to the extreme physical demands of these codes. More importantly, a longer, carefully managed pre-season significantly lowers in-season injury risks.

Clubs need to strike a balance between giving players sufficient rest and allowing enough time for a measured and carefully planned off-season. This not only enhances performance, but reduces injuries.

Given the evidence, it is little wonder that Australian codes invest so heavily in this crucial preparation phase.

Darren Burgess, General Manager of High Performance at Adelaide Football Club, contributed to this article.

Joel Garrett 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. AFL and NRL pre-seasons are among the longest in world sport – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/afl-and-nrl-pre-seasons-are-among-the-longest-in-world-sport-heres-why-248430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Rickerby, Lecturer, School of Product Design, University of Canterbury

Some 45 years ago, a team of staff and students at Wellington Polytechnic designed and built a desktop computer with an operating system customised for the needs of New Zealand schools.

The Poly-1 was far ahead of international competition, but New Zealand failed to capitalise on the opportunity. At the time, public investment in a new knowledge-based industry ran counter to both “Think Big” industrial policy and the emerging neoliberal agenda in government.

As New Zealand looks to scale up investment in artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies, the story of the Poly-1 has enduring lessons about research and innovation policy – and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration.

Leading the world

The Poly-1 was designed in 1980 as a learning device and teacher support tool. It was advanced for its time with colour graphics and powerful processors. It incorporated a networking feature, enabling up to 32 workstations across multiple sites to communicate over a real-time connection.

Its tough, rounded fibreglass case with carry handles and integrated keyboard was ergonomically designed to handle the rigours of classroom use. A range of bold colour options were meant to make it more relatable for children.

Fifty working prototypes were built in less than a year. A large group of volunteer teachers worked over the summer break to integrate course content and ensure it was ready for use in classrooms.

In 1981, the Department of Education signed a NZ$10 million purchase agreement for 1,000 units per year over a five year period.

The Poly-1 went into production under Polycorp, a joint venture with Lower Hutt-based Progeni. Manufacturing was backed by the state-owned Development Finance Corporation venture capital fund.

Polycorp was poised for scale with a field-tested product and unique distributed learning model. Wide deployment in classrooms would position New Zealand as leading the world in maths education and applied computing.

Blocking innovators and boosting importers

Voicing outrage at this use of public funds, corporate lobbyists began publicly attacking “bureaucrats and boffins”. Privately, they put pressure on ministers sympathetic to a nascent deregulation agenda. They argued only the market could properly decide which computers were used.

In 1982, then prime minister Robert Muldoon’s cabinet scuttled the deal, halting higher volume production and discarding two years of work.

The beneficiary of the broken contract was Apple, which targeted New Zealand as its first education market outside the United States. It gave away free Apple II computers to schools, then followed up by offering larger volumes to the Department of Education at below cost.

The Apple computers were unsupported by curriculum resources, lacked teacher training and were soon obsolete.

By the mid 1980s, the rollout of computers in classrooms stalled as the Fourth Labour Government prioritised administrative reforms in education. Schools were left on their own to deal with hawkish IT vendors and distributors.

Missed opportunities

Relying on an underdeveloped market to serve the growing demand for computers in education led to anti-competitive practices and a devaluing of the teaching expertise behind the software and services.

It’s unlikely the Poly-1 would have survived through the early 1990s as cheap IBM-compatible clones became widespread. But its ultimate end was a consequence of finance rather than technology.

The collapse of the government-owned Development Finance Corporation in a complex tangle of failed property investments left Progeni directly exposed as a debtor to the BNZ, which was also teetering on the edge of collapse.

In late 1989, Progeni was forced into receivership by the bank, which asset-stripped the company and sold it at a nominal value.

Innovation is interdisciplinary

The current government has recently announced major structural changes to New Zealand’s research and innovation system, including a new Public Research Organisation focused on advanced technology.

Institutional reform is much needed and long overdue, but significant challenges remain. A narrow focus on science and technology driving economic growth is not enough. More attention to detail is needed to bridge from current capacity to a desired future state.

The Poly-1 required collaboration with industrial designers and teachers to become market-ready – and the same is true today.

Successfully commercialising research in AI and other advanced technologies requires contributions from experts across design, social science, arts and business.

Like personal computers in 1980, AI is a new category with contested meanings. This has an impact on policy and the reception of new products.

Discussions about state-led innovation often default to arguments about picking winners. But direct support for industries and firms is only part of the broader picture.

In order to see economic and public benefits of investment in AI, the government has a role to play in coordinating interdisciplinary efforts across sectors. This requires visions for the future that are a practical response to the needs of individuals, businesses and communities.

Countries like New Zealand have so far been consumers rather than producers of current generation AI. Changing this balance requires willingness to learn from past mistakes to support leadership in both innovation and regulation. Poly-1 still has lessons to teach us.

Mark Rickerby was the recipient of an arts innovation grant from Manatū Taonga, Ministry for Culture & Heritage in 2021. He is a member of the New Zealand Game Developers Association (NZGDA).

– ref. Remembering the Poly-1: what NZ’s forgotten homegrown school computer can teach us about state-led innovation – https://theconversation.com/remembering-the-poly-1-what-nzs-forgotten-homegrown-school-computer-can-teach-us-about-state-led-innovation-249577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonia R. Grover, Clinical Professor of Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne

Menstruation, or a period, is the bleeding that occurs about monthly in healthy people born with a uterus, from puberty to menopause. This happens when the endometrium, the tissue that lines the inside of the uterus, is shed.

Endometriosis is a condition that occurs when endometrium-like tissue is found outside the uterus, usually within the pelvic cavity. It is often considered a major cause of pelvic pain.

Pelvic pain significantly impacts quality of life. But how can you tell the difference between period pain and endometriosis?

Periods and period pain

Periods involve shedding the 4-6 millimetre-thick endometrial lining from the inside of the uterus.

As the lining detaches from the wall of the uterus, the blood vessels which previously supplied the lining bleed. The uterine muscles contract, expelling the blood and crumbled endometrium.

The crumbled endometrium and blood mostly pass through the cervix and vagina. But almost everyone back-bleeds via their fallopian tubes into their pelvic cavity. This is known as “retrograde menstruation”.

The process of menstrual shedding is caused by inflammatory substances, which also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches, aches, pains, dizziness, feeling faint, as well as stimulating pain receptors.

These inflammatory substances are responsible for the pain and symptoms in the week before a period and the first few days.

For women with heavy periods, their worst days of pain are usually the heaviest days of their period, coinciding with more cramps to expel clots and more retrograde bleeding.

Many women also have pain when they are releasing an egg from their ovary at the time of ovulation. Ovulation or mid-cycle pain can be worse in those who bleed more, as those women are more likely to bleed into the ovulation follicle.

Around 90% of adolescents experience period pain. Among these adolescents, 20% will experience such severe period pain they need time off from school and miss activities. These symptoms are too often normalised, without validation or acknowledgement.

What about endometriosis?

Many symptoms have been attributed to endometriosis, including painful periods, pain with sex, bladder and bowel-related pain, low back pain and thigh pain.

Other pain-related conditions such migraines and chronic fatigue have also been linked to endometriosis. But these other pain-related symptoms occur equally often in people with pelvic pain who don’t have endometriosis.

Repeated, significant period and ovulation pain can eventually lead some people to develop persistent or chronic pelvic pain, which lasts longer than six months. This appears to occur through a process known as central sensitisation, where the brain becomes more sensitive to pain and other sensory stimuli.

Central sensitisation can occur in people with persistent pain, independent of the presence or absence of endometriosis.

Eventually, many people with period and/or persistent pelvic pain will have an operation called a laparoscopy, which allows surgeons to examine organs in the pelvis and abdomen, and diagnose and treat endometriosis.

Yet only 50% of those with identical pain symptoms who undergo a laparoscopy will end up having endometriosis.

Endometriosis is also found in pain-free women. So we cannot predict who does and doesn’t have endometriosis from symptoms alone.

How is this pain managed?

Endometriosis surgery usually involves removing lesions and adhesions. But at least 30% of people return to pre-surgery pain levels within six months or have more pain than before.

After surgery, emergency department presentations for pain are unchanged and 50% have repeat surgery within a few years.

Suppressing periods using hormonal therapies (such as continuous oral contraceptive pills or progesterone-only approaches) can suppress endometriosis and reduce or eliminate pain, independent of the presence or absence of endometriosis.

Not every type or dose of hormonal medications suits everyone, so medications need to be individualised.

The current gold-standard approach to manage persistent pelvic pain involves a multidisciplinary team approach, with the aim of achieving sustained remission and improving quality of life. This may include:

• physiotherapy for pelvic floor and other musculoskeletal problems
• management of bladder and bowel symptoms
• support for self-managing pain
• lifestyle changes including diet and exercise
• psychological or group therapy, as our moods, stress levels and childhood events can affect how we feel and experience pain.

Whether you have period pain, chronic pelvic pain or pain you think is associated with endometriosis, if you feel pain, it’s real. If it’s disrupting your life, you deserve to be taken seriously and treated as the whole person you are.

Sonia R. Grover receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund for LongSTEPPP: Longitudinal Study of teens with Endometriosis, Period and Pelvic pain. She is Director of the Department of Gynaecology at the Royal Children’s Hospital and
Gynaecology Unit Head at the Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg.

– ref. What’s the difference between period pain and endometriosis pain? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-period-pain-and-endometriosis-pain-244656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Davis, Associate Professor in Conservation, Edith Cowan University

Humans have been poisoning rodents for centuries. But fast-breeding rats and mice have evolved resistance to earlier poisons. In response, manufacturers have produced second generation anticoagulant rodenticides such as bromadiolone, widely used in Australian households.

Unfortunately, these potent poisons do not magically disappear after the rodent is dead. For example, it’s well known owls who eat poisoned rodents suffer the same slow death from internal bleeding.

Our new research shows the problem is much bigger than owls. We found Australia’s five largest marsupial predators – the four quoll species and the Tasmanian devil – are getting hit by these poisons too.

Half of the 52 animals we tested had these poisons in their bodies. Some had died from it. These species are already threatened by foxes and feral cats. Rat poison is yet another threat – and one they may not be able to survive. Other countries have moved to ban these poisons. But in Australia, they’re widely available.

How does rat poison end up in a Tasmanian devil?

Quolls and Tasmanian devils are carnivores. They eat mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, finding food by hunting – or by scavenging dead bodies, including rats and mice. But do they eat enough poisoned rats and mice to be at risk?

To find out, we analysed liver samples from all four of Australia’s quoll species as well as the iconic Tasmanian devil. The samples came from dead animals from a range of sources, including animals dying in veterinary care, found as roadkill, or simply found dead.

Each of these species is endangered or vulnerable. Together, they represent the largest remaining Australian carnivorous marsupials – native animals at the top of their food chains.

We tested samples from 52 animals. Half of these were positive for second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Of these, 21% tested positive for more than one rodenticide.

Unfortunately, many animals we tested had consumed doses high enough to kill. Around 15% of the Tasmanian devils, 20% of the eastern quolls, 22% of chuditch (western quolls) and 20% of the spotted-tailed quolls tested were very likely to die either from the poison itself or a related cause such as longer-term sickening.

We found one chuditch from a Perth suburb had been exposed to three different second-generation rodenticides. It had levels of one poison, brodifacoum, at 1.6 milligrams per kilo, far above the rate presumed to be lethal to mammals. This is likely the highest recorded exposure rate in an Australian marsupial.

Some 5% of Tasmanian devils had also been exposed to lethal levels of these second-generation poisons and a further 10% were exposed to potentially lethal levels.

Even when these poisons don’t directly kill the quoll or devil, they can leave it worse off.

All five species are threatened, meaning their populations are a fraction of what they used to be. Even small changes to populations can trigger more rapid decline.

Our analysis indicates an increase in deaths of just 2–4% of the chuditch population could increase extinction risk by 75%. This figure is dwarfed by how many chuditch are at risk from rat poisons, which we estimate at 22% of any given population in each generation, based on the exposure rates here.

So, exposure to rat poison alone is likely enough to tip the species towards extinction – even without other threats such as being killed by foxes and cats.

Can poisons be too potent?

After the poison kills a mouse or rat, it remains lethal for some time.

The poisons we examined take several months to halve in toxicity, meaning during this time they can kill owls, reptiles, frogs and small and medium-sized mammals such as possums.

In Australia and around the world, evidence is mounting that these second-generation rodenticides are killing many more animals than those targeted. The poisons are hitting a wide range of carnivores including otters, wolves, foxes and raccoons. Even the famous Californian condor is threatened by rodenticides.

Efforts to use thousands of litres of bromadiolone to stop a mouse plague in New South Wales triggered strong criticism. But to date, criticism has done little to curb their use in Australia.

Australia is an outlier on this issue. In European and North American nations, these products are restricted to use by licensed pest controllers and banned for home use. Some nations have gone further and banned these poisons altogether. But here, you can buy them at Bunnings, Coles or Woolworths.

Last year, a delegation of Australian researchers lobbied politicians to do more to regulate the use of these poisons.

The institution responsible for ensuring poisons are safe is the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority. At present, the authority is weighing a decision on whether to introduce restrictions on these second-generation poisons, expected in April.

Four other threatened Australian species – the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, Tasmanian masked owl, powerful owl and Carnaby’s black cockatoo – have previously been found to be exposed to these rodenticides. Our research takes this tally to nine threatened species.

In the absence of regulation, you can make a difference at home. Don’t use second-generation poisons which rely on brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, difenacoum or flocoumafen. Get rid of your mouse or rat problem with first-generation poisons containing warfarin, coumatetralyl or other chemicals.

If you only have a mouse or two, consider looking at non-poison alternatives.

Taking a moment to consider these alternatives could save Australia’s most threatened native predators from an agonising death.

Acknowledgements: Michael Lohr (Birdlife Australia) was the lead author on the research behind this article. Cheryl Lohr (Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Western Australia) contributed to the research.

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. Lethal second-generation rat poisons are killing endangered quolls and Tasmanian devils – https://theconversation.com/lethal-second-generation-rat-poisons-are-killing-endangered-quolls-and-tasmanian-devils-250035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

It’s an unfortunate fact that bad people sometimes want guns. And while laws are designed to prevent guns falling into the wrong hands, the determined criminal can be highly resourceful.

There are three main ways to source an illegal weapon: find a lawful owner willing to provide one unlawfully, buy one from another criminal, or make your own.

The first two options aren’t as easy as they sound. The buyer might “know a guy” willing to sell, but the seller generally has good reason to be cautious about who they sell to.

The price of the right firearm can be high, too, as is how “clean” its history is. No criminal wants to be connected to someone else’s crimes by their weapon’s history.

Which leads us to the third option. Privately made firearms, manufactured to avoid detection by the authorities, are nothing new. What has grown is the computer-aided manufacture, of which 3D-printing technology is the best known form, enabling manufacture without traditional gunsmithing skills.

The resulting “ghost guns” will potentially become more prevalent in New Zealand, and are already posing a significant challenge in overseas jurisdictions. With public submissions on the planned rewriting of the Arms Act closing at the end of February, it’s an issue we can’t ignore.

No room for complacency

Although blueprints of fully 3D-printed firearms are most common, hybrid designs, conversion kits, and firearms components sold as a kit or as separate pieces, are all gaining ground.

These are all far more advanced and deadly than the homemade wood and metal weapon used in 2022 to kill former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Their ease of manufacture, improved reliability and performance, non-traceability and lower cost all appear to be driving demand. There is also the ideological attraction of avoiding state scrutiny that makes 3D-printing popular with far-right extremist groups.

New Zealand authorities seized their first 3D-printed firearm in the middle of 2018. As of the end of last year, 58 3D-printed guns and between 200 and 300 firearms parts had been seized.

This growth mirrors overseas trends. But it’s important to keep the numbers in perspective. Of the 9,662 firearms (including airguns) the New Zealand Police seized between August 2016 and July 2022, the most common were conventional rifles and shotguns.

However, that is no cause for complacency. If proposed firearms law reforms – such as a new registry – help shrink the black market, we can expect the ghost gun market to grow.

Gaps in the law

Legislation passed in 2020 makes the crime of illegal manufacturing (by unlicensed people) punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Additional penalties can be added for making certain prohibited items, such as large-capacity magazines. In October last year, an Otago man became the first to be imprisoned in New Zealand for 3D-printing firearms.

Despite this, and the foreseeable risk, there are several significant gaps in New Zealand law.

1. Making guns detectable

Unlike the US and some other countries, New Zealand does not mandate that every gun be detectable by containing enough metal to set off X-ray machines and metal detectors.

The US also prohibits any firearms with major components that do not show up accurately in standard airport imaging technology.

2. Penalties for obtaining blueprints

While the manufacture of 3D-printed firearms is illegal, there is nothing specific in New Zealand law about downloading blueprints.

There may be scope within existing censorship laws around downloading objectionable material. But this may be limited by the need to classify each plan or blueprint as objectionable. And artificial intelligence means these plans can change and evolve rapidly.

More wholesale laws covering the computer-aided manufacture of firearms or their individual parts would be preferable.

Canada, for example, introduced recent changes to firearms law making it a crime to access or download plans or graphics. Knowingly sharing or selling such data online for manufacturing or trafficking is also a crime, with penalties of up to ten years in prison.

New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia are all making new laws in this area. In the case of South Australia, offenders face up to 15 years in prison for the possession of 3D-printer firearms blueprints.

3. Preventing ‘ghost ammunition’

Privately manufactured firearms still require ammunition to be effective, and the Arms Act is only partly effective in this area.

Only firearms licence holders can lawfully possess non-prohibited ammunition, and all firearms dealers and ammunition sellers must keep a record of those transactions.

But that obligation does not apply when firearms licence holders give, share or otherwise supply ammunition among themselves. Furthermore, there are only limited regulations around obtaining the precursors or tools for making ammunition, with only a few key ingredients, like gunpowder, restricted to licence holders.

This is similar to the Australian approach. But Australia also requires licensed owners to purchase only the type of ammunition required for their specific firearms type.

Trying to the correct balance here is tricky: the law must be practical to work but also ensure a potential ghost gun market does not create a “ghost ammunition” market, too.

The ability to privately manufacture firearms, by computer-aided methods in particular, is a foreseeable and potentially hard-to-police problem. But by learning from other jurisdictions and making a few simple law changes, New Zealand can move now to make communities safer.

The author thanks Clementine Annabell for assisting with the research for this article.

Alexander Gillespie is a recipient of a Borrin Foundation Justice Fellowship to research comparative best practice in the regulation of firearms. He is also a member of the Ministerial Arms Advisory Group. The views expressed here are his own and not to be attributed to either of these organisations.

– ref. The threat of 3D-printed ‘ghost guns’ is growing, but NZ is yet to act on these 3 big legal gaps – https://theconversation.com/the-threat-of-3d-printed-ghost-guns-is-growing-but-nz-is-yet-to-act-on-these-3-big-legal-gaps-248541

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 national Newspoll, conducted February 10–14 from a sample of 1,244, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down one), 31% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (steady) and 12% for all Others (up one).

Newspoll previously used 2022 election preference flows, but they have adjusted for stronger One Nation preferences to the Coalition at the Queensland state election. The one-point drop in the Coalition’s primary vote suggests Labor gained, but preference flow changes affected the unchanged two-party estimate.

The graph below shows Labor’s two-party vote for each pollster’s headline voting intentions. As the pollsters are making adjustments to the 2022 election preference flows, I don’t think it’s useful anymore to use the 2022 flows as a baseline.

I’ve revised some of the previous iterations of Morgan and Essential so they use their headline respondent preferences. The four new polls included since the last federal update are Newspoll, the YouGov MRP below and last week’s Morgan and Redbridge polls.

All polls have the Coalition leading by about 51–49. Labor had a better result (a 50–50 tie) from Morgan two weeks ago, but last week it reverted to a Coalition lead. Labor can recover this lead by the election that is due by May, but they’re currently losing.

In Newspoll, Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid one point to a new low of -21, with 58% dissatisfied and 37% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval was up one point to -10. Albanese led Dutton by 45–40 as better PM (44–41 previously).

The graph below shows Albanese’s deteriorating ratings in Newspoll. The plus signs mark the data and a smoothed line has been fitted.

In more bad news for Labor, just 34% said they deserved to be re-elected, while 53% said it’s time to give someone else a go.

YouGov has Coalition winning the most seats

YouGov conducted a national MRP poll (multi-level modelling with post-stratification) from January 22 to February 12 from an overall sample of over 40,000. MRP polls are used to estimate the outcome in each House of Representatives electorate using huge samples and modelling.

YouGov’s central forecast if the election were held now is the Coalition winning 73 of the 150 lower house seats, three short of a majority. Labor would win 66 seats, independents eight, the Greens one and others two. At lower limits, the Coalition could win 65 seats and Labor 59, while at higher limits the Coalition could win 80 and Labor 72.

The overall vote share in this MRP poll was 51.1–48.0 to the Coalition, a 3.2% swing to the Coalition since the 2022 election. Primary votes were 37.4% Coalition, 29.1% Labor, 12.7% Greens, 9.1% One Nation, 8.9% independents and 2.8% others.

YouGov is using respondent preferences for its MRP polls, and it has a weakening of flows to Labor from both Green and One Nation voters compared with 2022. By 2022 election preference flows, this poll would be 50.2–49.8 to Labor.

Labor’s primary vote is down most in its once safe working-class seats. But the Coalition is not likely to regain any of the seats taken by teal independents at the last election.

Redbridge and Morgan polls

The Poll Bludger reported last Tuesday that a national Redbridge poll, conducted February 3–7 from a sample of 1,013, gave the Coalition a 51.5–48.5 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since early November. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (up two), 31% Labor (down three), 11% Greens (steady) and 18% for all Others (up one).

Coalition supporters were more firm in their voting intentions (61% solid, 34% soft) than Labor supporters (51% solid, 39% soft). The poll suggested a 9% two-party swing against Labor in the outer suburbs, but this would have been based on a small subsample. Other swings were 5% against Labor in inner and middle suburbs, no change in provincial cities and a 3% swing to Labor in rural areas.

The Poll Bludger reported Sunday that a Redbridge and Accent Research poll of 20 marginal seats, conducted February 4–11 from a total sample of 1,002, gave the Coalition a 52–48 lead (51–49 to Labor across these seats in 2022). Primary votes were 43% Coalition, 33% Labor, 12% Greens and 12% for all Others.

A national Morgan poll, conducted February 3–9 from a sample of 1,688, gave the Coalition a 51.5–48.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the January 27 to February 2 poll.

Primary votes were 40.5% Coalition (up two), 29% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (down 0.5), 4% One Nation (down 1.5), 9.5% independents (down one) and 6% others (up two). This is the lowest support for the Greens in this poll since November 2022. By 2022 election preference flows, the Coalition led by 51.5–48.5, a two-point gain for the Coalition.

UAP can’t register for election

Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP) voluntarily deregistered during this term, and were unable to re-register under this name. Palmer and the UAP’s only federal parliamentarian, Victorian Senator Ralph Babet, challenged this law, but the High Court last Wednesday denied the challenge.

Babet was elected in 2022 and won’t be up for election as his six-year term expires in June 2028. The coming election will be a normal one for the full House and half the Senate, not a double dissolution where all senators are up for election.

The UAP could still register under a different name, but their registration would need to be completed before writs are issued for the election. If the election is on May 17, the latest possible date, writs would need to be issued by April 14.

Victorian Labor retains Werribee at byelection

I previously covered the February 8 Victorian state byelections for Werribee and Prahran. On the election night count, Prahran was a Liberal gain from the Greens, with Labor ahead in Werribee but not certain to hold.

Over 2,000 additional postals have been counted in Werribee, and Labor increased its lead, and now leads by 50.8–49.2 against the Liberals, a 10.2% swing to the Liberals since the November 2022 state election.

Left-wing parties will do badly in Germany

I covered next Sunday’s German election for The Poll Bludger on Saturday. The conservative CDU/CSU and far-right AfD are the top two parties in the polls, with the governing centre-left SPD and the Greens trailing.

In Canada, Mark Carney is almost certain to be elected Liberal leader, replacing Justin Trudeau. In recent weeks, the Liberals have closed the gap on the Conservatives, but still trail by a large margin. US and UK polls were also covered.

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. Coalition leading narrowly in four polls and would likely win an election held now – https://theconversation.com/coalition-leading-narrowly-in-four-polls-and-would-likely-win-an-election-held-now-249694

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has taken off at lightning speed in the past couple of years, creating disruption in many industries. Newsrooms are no exception.

A new report published today finds that news audiences and journalists alike are concerned about how news organisations are – and could be – using generative AI such as chatbots, image, audio and video generators, and similar tools.

The report draws on three years of interviews and focus group research into generative AI and journalism in Australia and six other countries (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France).

Only 25% of our news audience participants were confident they had encountered generative AI in journalism. About 50% were unsure or suspected they had.

This suggests a potential lack of transparency from news organisations when they use generative AI. It could also reflect a lack of trust between news outlets and audiences.

Who or what makes your news – and how – matters for a host of reasons.

Some outlets tend to use more or fewer sources, for example. Or use certain kinds of sources – such as politicians or experts – more than others.

Some outlets under-represent or misrepresent parts of the community. This is sometimes because the news outlet’s staff themselves aren’t representative of their audience.

Carelessly using AI to produce or edit journalism can reproduce some of these inequalities.

Our report identifies dozens of ways journalists and news organisations can use generative AI. It also summarises how comfortable news audiences are with each.

The news audiences we spoke to overall felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for behind-the-scenes tasks rather than for editing and creating. These include using AI to transcribe an interview or to provide ideas on how to cover a topic.

But comfort is highly dependent on context. Audiences were quite comfortable with some editing and creating tasks when the perceived risks were lower.

The problem – and opportunity

Generative AI can be used in just about every part of journalism.

For example, a photographer could cover an event. Then, a generative AI tool could select what it “thinks” are the best images, edit the images to optimise them, and add keywords to each.

These might seem like relatively harmless applications. But what if the AI identifies something or someone incorrectly, and these keywords lead to mis-identifications in the photo captions? What if the criteria humans think make “good” images are different to what a computer might think? These criteria may also change over time or in different contexts.

Even something as simple as lightening or darkening an image can cause a furore when politics are involved.

AI can also make things up completely. Images can appear photorealistic but show things that never happened. Videos can be entirely generated with AI, or edited with AI to change their context.

Generative AI is also frequently used for writing headlines or summarising articles. These sound like helpful applications for time-poor individuals, but some news outlets are using AI to rip off others’ content.

AI-generated news alerts have also gotten the facts wrong. As an example, Apple recently suspended its automatically generated news notification feature. It did this after the feature falsely claimed US murder suspect Luigi Mangione had killed himself, with the source attributed as the BBC.

What do people think about journalists using AI?

Our research found news audiences seem to be more comfortable with journalists using AI for certain tasks when they themselves have used it for similar purposes.

For example, the people interviewed were largely comfortable with journalists using AI to blur parts of an image. Our participants said they used similar tools on video conferencing apps or when using the “portrait” mode on smartphones.

Likewise, when you insert an image into popular word processing or presentation software, it might automatically create a written description of the image for people with vision impairments. Those who’d previously encountered such AI descriptions of images felt more comfortable with journalists using AI to add keywords to media.

The most frequent way our participants encountered generative AI in journalism was when journalists reported on AI content that had gone viral.

For example, when an AI-generated image purported to show Princes William and Harry embracing at King Charles’s coronation, news outlets reported on this false image.

Our news audience participants also saw notices that AI had been used to write, edit or translate news articles. They saw AI-generated images accompanying some of these. This is a popular approach at The Daily Telegraph, which uses AI-generated images to illustrate many of its opinion columns.

Overall, our participants felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for brainstorming or for enriching already created media. This was followed by using AI for editing and creating. But comfort depends heavily on the specific use.

Most of our participants were comfortable with turning to AI to create icons for an infographic. But they were quite uncomfortable with the idea of an AI avatar presenting the news, for example.

On the editing front, a majority of our participants were comfortable with using AI to animate historical images, like this one. AI can be used to “enliven” an otherwise static image in the hopes of attracting viewer interest and engagement.

Your role as an audience member

If you’re unsure if or how journalists are using AI, look for a policy or explainer from the news outlet on the topic. If you can’t find one, consider asking the outlet to develop and publish a policy.

Consider supporting media outlets that use AI to complement and support – rather than replace – human labour.

Before making decisions, consider the past trustworthiness of the journalist or outlet in question, and what the evidence says.

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Michelle Riedlinger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Global Journalism Innovation Lab. She is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Phoebe Matich receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a post-doctoral research fellow within the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society.

Ryan J. Thomas 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. Generative AI is already being used in journalism – here’s how people feel about it – https://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-already-being-used-in-journalism-heres-how-people-feel-about-it-247232

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abdul Aziz, Lecturer in Media and Communication Studies, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University

Google’s search engine handles the vast majority of online searches worldwide. By one estimate, it fields 6.3 million queries every second.

Because of the search engine’s enormous scale, its outputs can have outsized effects. And, while Google’s search results are shaped by ostensibly neutral rules and processes, research has shown these algorithms often produce biased results.

This problem of algorithmic bias is again being highlighted by recent escalating tensions between India and Bangladesh and cases of violence against Bangladeshi citizens in India and violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. A pro-Indian misinformation and disinformation campaign is exploiting this algorithmic bias to further its agenda – an agenda that has been described as Islamophobic and alarmist.

This kind of misinformation has been implicated in several riots and violent incidents in Bangladesh.

All of this serves as an important reminder of the power Google’s search engine has in shaping public perceptions of any event – and its vulnerability to being exploited. It’s also an important reminder to anyone who uses Google’s search engine to engage critically with the results it dishes up, rather than accepting them at face value.

What is algorithmic bias?

The algorithms that power Google’s search engine are trained on massive amounts of data. This data is gathered by computer bots which crawl billions of pages on the Internet and automatically analyse their content and quality. This information is stored in a large database, which Google’s search engine relies on to serve up relevant results whenever it receives a query.

But this process doesn’t capture every website on the Internet. It is also governed by predetermined rules about what is high quality and what is low quality, and reflects existing biases in data. For example, even though only 16% of the world’s population speaks English, it accounts for 55% of all written content online.

This means the reality of life on the ground in non-English speaking countries is often not reflected in Google search results. This is especially true for those countries located in the Global South.

This lack of representation perpetuates real-world biases. It can also hinder a nuanced public understanding of global issues.

What’s happening between Bangladesh and India?

Relations between Muslim-majority Bangladesh and neighbouring India, which is currently led by the Hindu nationalist BJP government, have deteriorated recently.

In August last year, youth-led anti-government protests erupted in Bangladesh.

These protests resulted in the downfall of prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s long-lasting autocratic regime, which had been supported by the Indian government.

An interim government filled the void. But certain Indian media outlets have leveraged sensitive issues such as Hindu minority rights to undermine its legitimacy.

In November, Bangladeshi authorities arrested Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das on sedition charges over allegations he had disrespected the Bangladeshi flag. This triggered violent clashes between his supporters and police. These clashes resulted in the death of a Muslim lawyer.

Hindu activists also attacked a Bangladeshi consulate in India.

There have also been verified instances of mob violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. However, the Bangladeshi government claims these incidents are politically motivated rather than communal attacks.

The unrest intensified earlier this month, with thousands of protestors destroying the family home of deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka.

Boosting a disinformation campaign

A disinformation campaign based in India has exaggerated some cases of religious violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.

This campaign has been boosted by Google’s algorithmic bias.

For example, an analysis by the Tech Global Institute of Google search results about Chinmoy Krishna Das’s arrest between November 25 and December 20 last year found a “consistent pattern of bias”.

Specifically, Indian news outlets – including Hindu ultranationalist news outlets – “disproportionately” dominated the top search results. This overshadowed

factual reporting from credible Bangladeshi media outlets […] despite the search originating from within Bangladesh, the country where the incident originally occurred.

This bias was also evident in search queries coming from overseas. For example, roughly 90% of the top results about Chinmoy Krishna Das were from Indian outlets when searched from Australia and the United States. Bangladeshi news outlets featured on the thirteenth and fourteenth pages of results.

Indian news outlets – unlike their Bangladeshi counterparts – produce a substantial amount of content in English. They also employ more advanced search engine optimisation – or SEO – techniques, such as using effective keywords and sensationalist headlines. This gives them an advantage in Google search results compared to their Bangladeshi counterparts.

Another investigation by Bangladeshi fact-checking outlet Rumor Scanner in December 2024 found 72% of social media accounts spreading fake and misinformation are located in India.

The Conversation asked Google a series of questions about its search engine. It did not receive a response.

An illustrative case of a global problem

Bangladesh is an illustrative case of the global problem of algorithmic bias. It highlights how search engines can be exploited to promote disinformation and misinformation and powerfully shape people’s perceptions about what’s happening in the world.

It also highlights how everybody should think critically about the information they find online about the current situation in Bangladesh. Or about any news event, for that matter.

The case also reinforces the urgent need for policymakers, tech companies and governments to work together to effectively address algorithmic bias. This is especially urgent in the Global South, where marginal voices remain silenced.

Abdul Aziz 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. Unrest in Bangladesh is revealing the bias at the heart of Google’s search engine – https://theconversation.com/unrest-in-bangladesh-is-revealing-the-bias-at-the-heart-of-googles-search-engine-249131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University

The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is a serious blow to the soft power of the United States and disastrous for many poor countries where it helps provide humanitarian, health and educational services.

One country whose citizens will bear the brunt of it is Afghanistan, under the misogynistic and draconian rule of the Taliban.

According to United Nations reports, more than half of Afghanistan’s estimated 40 million population is dependent on international handouts for their survival. Most of the remaining barely earn enough to exist.

USAID has played a critical part in alleviating the suffering of Afhghans since the hasty retreat of the US and its allies from the country and the return of the Taliban to power in mid-2021.

Since then, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, amounting to US$3.71 billion (A$5.8 billion), channelled through UN agencies and other international organisations. USAID has been responsible for delivering a large proportion of it.

The effects are already being felt. A major midwifery program has closed, while “secret schools” for girls and the American University of Afghanistan has suspended classes.

US aid, along with help from other donors, has also been critical in keeping mass starvation at bay.

Aid propping up the Taliban

Indeed, not all the aid has directly been delivered to the needy. The Taliban have creamed off a portion of it in the process of permitting and supervising its delivery.

As widely reported, the group has indirectly received some US$40 million (A$63 million) a week of donor funds. The United Nations says it’s unavoidable that some money makes its way to Afghanistan’s central bank, which is under the control of the Taliban.

This aid money, together with US$7 billion (A$11 billion) worth of light and heavy arms left behind by the US and its allies, has been crucial in enabling the Taliban to enforce its extremist rule, despite lacking domestic and international legitimacy.

US President Donald Trump’s objection to the flow of any American aid to the Taliban is well placed. He has criticised the Biden administration for its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and failure to curtail the indirect benefits of American aid to the group.

He has called for an end to American money going to the Taliban and for the return of US military equipment from the group. He has even floated the idea of retaking the strategically important Bagram air base outside Kabul, which he claims is now under Chinese influence.

Further, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who both served in Afghanistan, have vowed to continue to fight terrorism around the world. Waltz believes terrorist groups are regrouping in Afghanistan under the Taliban and the Pentagon may need to send US troops back there.

A halt to any aid that can advantage the Taliban is absolutely imperative. Countering the group is vital to combating violent extremism and terrorism.

Afghans still desperately need aid

However, this effort needs to be managed in ways that do not deprive the needy people of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s economy, industries, reconstruction projects and work opportunities have virtually collapsed, while many schools have been closed or transformed into religious institutions.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates that in the last three years, Afghanistan’s economy has contracted by 27%, with staggeringly high unemployment and inflation.

Living conditions are so bad that some families are selling their children in order to feed the rest of the family.

No section of the society is in more desperate need than girls and women, who have been stripped of all their basic rights to education, work and public life. They are not even allowed to speak in public or pray outside the four walls of their homes. As put by actor Meryl Streep, a cat has more freedom than women in Afghanistan.

This has caused a mental health crisis among women in Afghanistan, with rising numbers of suicides.

What can be done?

The disembowelling of USAID will have far-reaching consequences for the people of Afghanistan.

If the Trump administration wants to achieve its anti-Taliban objectives, it needs a two-pronged policy approach:

• identify new ways to continue humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan in ways that don’t benefit the Taliban

• increase pressure on the Taliban by strictly enforcing international sanctions and maintaining its isolation on the international stage.

The suspension of American aid has already resulted in a devaluation of the Afghani currency. This has prompted the Taliban to impose severe restrictions on the transfer of dollars out of the country.

Some analysts predict that if the economy continues to worsen, it will impact the Taliban’s ability to govern.

In turn, this could strengthen civil and armed opposition groups – including the women’s Purple Saturday movement, which stands for a free and legitimately governed Afghanistan. These groups have increasingly become active in different parts of the country.

Amin Saikal 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. In Afghanistan, families are forced to sell children to survive. Trump’s USAID cuts will be devastating – https://theconversation.com/in-afghanistan-families-are-forced-to-sell-children-to-survive-trumps-usaid-cuts-will-be-devastating-249713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

New Zealand’s smokefree law was hailed around the world for creating a smokefree generation that would have lifelong protection from smoking’s harms.

The smokefree generation would have ended sales of tobacco products to anyone born on or after a specific date, thus gradually phasing out smoking. This new approach goes beyond age restriction policies (such as R18 or R21), which may imply smoking is “safe” once people reach the designated age.

However, the coalition government moved swiftly to repeal the smokefree generation measure. That decision did not reflect attitudes towards the policy from young people and the general public.

In an earlier in-depth study, we found young people strongly supported measures restricting their access to tobacco because they understood this policy would protect them from becoming addicted to smoking. Surveys also showed strong support for the smokefree generation policy from young people, the general public and people who smoke.

NZ falls further behind international best practice

As New Zealand went backwards, other jurisdictions, including the UK and several US towns, have proposed or taken more progressive approaches. Recent policies include vapes and other nicotine products, alongside smoked tobacco, and aim to create a nicotine-free generation.

This approach recognises young people’s right to lead lives free from nicotine addiction and aims to address the growing threat addiction to vaping poses to their wellbeing.

Because many more young people in New Zealand vape than smoke, we were interested in how they viewed a nicotine-free generation policy.

On the one hand, they might support an approach that reduces the shame, stress and stigma nicotine addiction causes. On the other, they might accept arguments tobacco companies have made, claiming birth-year measures remove young people’s freedoms.

What young people who vape think

We talked in-depth with 20 young people who assessed themselves as addicted to vaping. We asked them to imagine a nicotine-free generation policy was in place and applied to them, before probing how they interpreted and rationalised this approach.

Our participants thought a nicotine-free generation policy would bring several wide-ranging benefits. They outlined personal benefits, such as increased fitness, better overall health and fewer financial concerns.

Participants also envisaged societal benefits, including reduced pollution (from littered disposable vapes), fewer disputes among young people (less fighting over vapes) and a less pressured health system.

Nearly all participants wanted to quit vaping. Several had tried to stop but relapsed. Easy access to vaping products and vaping’s ubiquity made many feel that quitting was impossible.

Some felt targeted by marketers and unable to resist the pro-vaping environment that surrounded them. One person said vape shops were designed to attract younger people.

There’s vape stores everywhere. It’s insane […] they’re always bright[ly] colour[ed] so you can see them.

These feelings of powerlessness led several to view government regulation as the only way to protect young people from vaping. Rather than wanting to assert “choices” and “freedoms”, many of the people who talked with us felt they would be better off if this option simply did not exist.

One participant explained:

Although it is a choice […] it’s never going to be a positive choice. I wouldn’t mind it being taken away because I know it would be for my benefit […] it wouldn’t be a negative thing.

Participants wanted a better future where younger generations did not face the challenges they had found overwhelming.

The generation below me […] I don’t want them to go through [negative] health effects [and] experience that kind of thing.

Nonetheless, a very small minority argued that young people should find out about risks themselves. One person argued:

It’s people’s lives and they should be able to pick what they do […] Let them find out for themselves.

Participants noted concerns about how a nicotine-free generation policy would be implemented and questioned whether retailers would respect this measure. Some thought parents or older siblings would supply vapes, as some already did. Others expected an illicit market could evolve.

However, participants suggested several solutions they thought could address these challenges, including not normalising vaping, reducing retail outlet numbers and vape product marketing, increasing compliance monitoring and providing better support to help people quit vaping.

Time for political leadership

Our findings suggest it is time to discuss whether Aotearoa New Zealand should return to more progressive smokefree policies that recognise how the rapidly evolving nicotine market has undermined young people’s wellbeing.

The current political emphasis on individual responsibility ignores young people’s calls for policies that remove harmful “choices”. It does not address earlier evidence that suggests governments have a responsibility to protect young people from harms.

Reducing the ubiquity and appeal of vaping products should be an urgent policy priority for 2025.

We acknowledge the excellent work undertaken by Renee Hosking, a summer scholarship student with the ASPIRE Aotearoa Centre.

Janet Hoek receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Royal Society Marsden Fund, NZ Cancer Society and NZ Heart Foundation. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s smokefree expert advisory group, a senior editor at Tobacco Control (honorarium paid) and she serves or has served on several government, NGO and community advisory groups.

Lani Teddy receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. She is affiliated with ASPIRE Aotearoa whose members undertake research to inform tobacco policy.

Anna DeMello 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. We asked young people if they wanted tighter vaping regulation to phase out nicotine – here’s what they said – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-young-people-if-they-wanted-tighter-vaping-regulation-to-phase-out-nicotine-heres-what-they-said-249456

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By George Disney, Research Fellow, Social Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne

When the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established in 2013, one of its driving aims was to make disability services and support systems fairer.

However, our new research shows significant inequalities remain, with some groups finding it much harder than others to be deemed eligible and access a funding plan.

Recent NDIS reforms in part aim to address inequity, and to manage costs.

So, what can we do to ensure these reforms don’t further embed existing inequalities? Here’s what we found.

Inequalities in scheme access

To receive funding from the NDIS, participants are required to demonstrate their eligibility.

We wanted to explore whether decisions about eligibility were leading to inequalities in who could access and use NDIS funding.

Our study looked at the individual NDIS applications of 485,676 people aged seven or older, made between 2016 and 2022, to see if they were deemed eligible.

We then compared differences in eligibility rates between groups, considering:

• age (applicants 55 or older versus those under 55)
• gender (women and girls versus other applicants)
• socioeconomic disadvantage (those from the poorest 30% of areas versus all other areas).

Who is deemed ineligible?

We found some groups are more likely to be rejected from the scheme than others: women and girls, people aged 55 and over, and those who live in disadvantaged areas.

Within these groups, eligibility rates also vary.

For example, people with intellectual disability, autism, and brain injury or stroke were very likely to be deemed eligible, regardless of their age, gender or socioeconomic disadvantage (900 or more were accepted per 1,000 applicants).

However, people with physical disability and psychosocial disability (disabilities that can arise from a mental health issue, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) were significantly more likely to be rejected.

This was true across groups, but particularly evident among women and girls.

We compared eligibility rates within every 1,000 applications made by women and girls versus men and boys.

Among those who had physical disability, 145 more women and girls were rejected, compared to men and boys.

Among those with psychosocial disability, 83 more applications were deemed ineligible for every 1,000 applications made by women, compared to men.

Age was also a factor. Older Australians with a physical disability had 235 fewer approvals per 1,000 applications than those with physical disability under 55.

What about once they’re eligible?

Inequalities are more pronounced among those trying to prove eligibility for the scheme.

Once accepted into the NDIS, our research found women and girls, and people living in poorer areas, received similar amounts of funding as men and boys, and those living in better-off areas.

This budget is based on what the participant wants to achieve in everyday life and their support needs relating to their disabilities.

However once people receive and are using plans, we then see some differences in how much these people are able to spend. This relates to factors such as the availability of services in an area or whether culturally safe supports are available.

We found that women with psychosocial disability spent more than men with similar sized budgets.

This result could reflect that women with psychosocial disability on the NDIS have higher support needs than men.

It could be that it is harder for women to get onto the scheme in the first place, so those who are deemed eligible have more significant disability than men.

But we need more research to unpack this further.

Why do we see these inequalities?

In the early days of the NDIS, to help fast-track applications, the National Disability Insurance Agency (which runs the NDIS) specified a list of diagnoses closely related to disability.

Known as list A conditions, people with these diagnoses are automatically eligible for the NDIS.

Disabilities likely to be associated with a list A diagnosis include level 2 or 3 autism (requiring substantial or very substantial support) and intellectual disability.

However some people who could have permanent and significant disability, may have a diagnosis not on list A, such as Down syndrome and motor neurone disease. They must provide a broader range of evidence on the impact of their disability to be eligible.

If they face other challenges – such as socioeconomic disadvantage – it may be harder for them to collect this evidence. For example, they may not be able to afford private health care that would help support their application.

This might explain why people who do not have a list A diagnosis are less likely to prove their eligibility for the scheme.

Where next for the scheme?

Following recommendations from an independent review into the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Agency is currently making changes to how it assesses eligibility.

One of the changes suggested is removing list A classifications altogether.

Instead, the agency will use a suite of functional assessment tools. These are still in the process of being designed, but they are one way to assess a person’s ability to perform everyday tasks and identify the level of support they require.

This approach aims to assess more objectively and fairly how much someone is impacted by their disability.

However, there are longstanding critiques of these tools. These include concerns they are not safe for minority groups, such as those with a culturally or linguistically diverse background, LGBTQIA+ people, and First Nations applicants.

Our new research demonstrates how and why some inequalities arise. We should put this understanding front-and-centre in any changes to the NDIS.

Most importantly, we should make sure reforms are co-designed with a broad range of different groups, to ensure we don’t perpetuate old inequalities or introduce new ones.

George has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).

Alexandra Devine receives funding from the NHMRC.

Anne Kavanagh receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC, MRFF, MS Australia and the Australian government.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC and Department of Social Services.

Yi Yang has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (inequalities in NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (inequalities in NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).

– ref. NDIS reforms aim to make the scheme fairer. But we’ve found the groups struggling to gain access – https://theconversation.com/ndis-reforms-aim-to-make-the-scheme-fairer-but-weve-found-the-groups-struggling-to-gain-access-248562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

Living with a pet brings many benefits, including constant presence, love and support. Pet ownership is also linked with a lower long-term risk of early death.

Most of us would do anything for our pets if they become unwell. But just as caring for a human loved one can come at great personal cost, a growing body of research shows that’s also true for many pet owners looking after a seriously ill pet.

This stress is often known as “caregiver burden”.

Stress, depression, burnout and anxiety

One 2017 study looked at how people with healthy pets fared compared to those caring for pets with serious diseases.

It found many of those looking after seriously ill animals felt they didn’t have enough time for themselves due to the time they had to spend with their pet.

Compared to owners of healthy pets, those caring for unwell pets experienced:

greater burden, stress and symptoms of depression/anxiety, as well as poorer quality of life.

Our 2023 research into experiences of people looking after older dogs showed similarly concerning results.

We surveyed people with dogs eight years or older. Some of these dogs were living with canine cognitive dysfunction, a form of dementia similar to Alzheimer’s disease in people.

Out of the 637 respondents to our survey, 16% had a high burden of care likely to be associated with negative psychological, physical and financial outcomes.

One respondent told us:

My partner and I cannot leave him home alone for long at all […] I worry about [my pet’s] quality of life. I feel my partner is really struggling with [my pet’s] deterioration and when the time comes for euthanasia I know it will be me forcing the issue. I feel constant anxiety about this decision looming.

A higher burden of care was associated with the dog having more severe canine cognitive dysfunction, pet owners who were aged between 25 and 44 years, and those who lived alone.

This makes sense, because people who live alone don’t have another person to support or help them. The most difficult dog behaviours people reported were night-time disturbances and barking.

Burden of care in other situations

Any significant pet disease or disability is likely to be associated with stress in their caregivers.

Even behavioural problems in dogs, such as aggression or separation-related disorder, have been associated with clinically significant strain in more than 68% of people.

Most of the research has been done in dogs, but owners of ill cats also have a higher burden, although it appears less than owners of an ill dog.

We previously showed that a third of owners of cats with epilepsy are likely to be experiencing high levels of carer stress or strain.

These problems were worse in owners who did not feel supported by their vet. For example, they may feel they’re being rushed through appointments, or that their concerns are being dismissed.

Pet owners more likely to feel this caregiver stress included those who were younger than 55, and those whose cat had uncontrolled seizures.

Strong emotions and complex needs

The burden of caring for an unwell pet is not well recognised, even by vets.

People suffering this kind of carer stress are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet’s office, visit more frequently, and become angry and emotional.

From a vet’s perspective, clients with such strong emotions and complex needs can be challenging.

How can you get help?

If you or somebody you know is struggling with caring for a seriously ill pet, find a vet you trust and feel comfortable with. If you can tell them what you are struggling with, the vet may be able to provide some support.

Call on your village! Ask friends and family for help to provide you with respite. We often do it when we first bring a new puppy or kitten home, but don’t think it’s OK to ask for help when they’re sick or ageing and need more care.

Know that it’s OK to sometimes feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or even resentful towards your pet. It doesn’t mean you don’t love them. It means providing this level of care is hard.

Despite the hardships, many caregivers find comfort in their deep connection to their pets. One of our respondents in the senior dog study wrote:

every moment I have with her now is a blessing. She has given me so much over the last ten years; it’s time to pay back now.

Pets also give meaning to our lives. In our study of cats with epilepsy, one person wrote:

I think that most of the people are not aware of the benefits of living with the cat with special needs.

Supporting the human-animal bond means supporting both humans and animals. We’re all better off when we recognise and support people struggling with caring for their pets.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.

Susan Hazel has received funding from the Waltham Foundation and is affiliated with the Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia, and the RSPCA South Australia.

Tracey Taylor receives funding from the Waltham Foundation.

– ref. ‘I feel constant anxiety’: how caring for a seriously unwell pet can lead to stress and burnout – https://theconversation.com/i-feel-constant-anxiety-how-caring-for-a-seriously-unwell-pet-can-lead-to-stress-and-burnout-247329

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

With the unembarrassed audacity parties show as an election nears, the government has stolen the opposition’s policy to ban foreign investors buying established homes.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O’Neil have announced foreigners won’t be able to purchase established homes from April 1 for at least two years, with a review to determine whether the ban should be extended.

When the opposition announced its policy last year, Labor was dismissive, pointing out the numbers were minuscule. But the idea is popular with the public and the government is anxious to neutralise it.

The turnabout comes immediately ahead of the Reserve Bank’s’s two-day meeting starting Monday, with expectations high that on Tuesday the bank may finally start moving rates down.

A rate cut would increase speculation Anthony Albanese will opt for an April rather than a May election. That would mean cancelling the March 25 budget.

With the election fast approaching and polls suggesting a high prospect of a minority government, attention has turned to how crossbenchers would react in the event of a hung parliament.

Much conjecture is around the “teals” who occupy former Liberal seats but are more progressive than the current Liberal party.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on Sunday: “It would be unusual that if we were able to achieve 72 [a majority is 76] and we were a number of seats ahead of the Labor Party, that there wouldn’t be a guarantee of supply and confidence from the crossbench.

“But some of them will only ever support the Labor Party. I think if they’re into transparency and honesty, they should be transparent and honest with the public before the election about if you vote for Kate Chaney, are you going to get Anthony Albanese or will she support a Coalition government in a minority situation?”

Chaney, one of the teals, holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, which the Liberals believe is a chance for them.

In their statement about foreign investors, Chalmers and O’Neil said the government would also “crack down” on foreign land banking.

The ministers admitted these latest initiatives were small but said they were an important part of the government’s broad housing policy,

“Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study,” they said.

Under the new arrangements, “foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign-owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.”

On landbanking, the ministers said foreign investors are presently subject to developmental conditions requiring they put vacant land to use within a reasonable time.

“The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.”

The Australian Taxation Office and Treasury will be funded for an audit program and to improve compliance.

Dutton hints at action against insurance companies that ‘rip off’ people

While Labor sought to shore up its credentials on housing, Dutton was venturing further down the interventionist road, hinting a Coalition government might use divestiture against recalcitrant insurance companies.

The Coalition has already courted controversy with its threat supermarkets could face divestiture.

Dutton is now looking more widely, after being concerned about how people in areas recently devastated by fires or floods often haven’t insurance because they can’t afford the increasingly high premiums.

Asked on Sky whether the Coalition would reduce the cost of insurance, Dutton said, “We need to make sure that we’re not being ripped off by insurance companies.

“As we’ve done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment if consumers are being ripped off, similarly, in the insurance market, we will intervene to make sure that consumers get a fair go because at the moment people are paying too much for their insurance and what’s resulting is that people aren’t taking out insurance. […] People just simply can’t afford to insure the car or their home at the moment.”

In a wideranging interview, Dutton cast doubt on whether the opposition would support any extension of government relief on power bills.

“If it’s going to be inflationary and it’s going to keep interest rates higher for longer and it’s going to keep grocery prices higher for longer and it’s going to keep electricity prices higher for longer, then no.”

(The relief the government has already provided put downward pressure on inflation.)

The opposition leader criticised the government for not putting enough effort into its handling of the Trump administration.

“Every minister should have been cycling through Washington. I’m not aware that other ministers have been to Washington since Penny Wong was there for the inauguration,” he said.

“If they have, that’s great. But the prime minister probably should have been on a plane to the US, as we’ve seen with other world leaders and there should have been greater engagement with the president earlier on.”

Dutton apparently forgot the visit made by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who was the first defence minister to meet new defence secretary Pete Hegseth.

Reminded of the Marles visit, he immediately criticised him. “Richard Marles is a nice guy, but he’s batting fairly significantly down the list in terms of the government’s key hitters.”

Dutton said Trump had to be seen in a different light to other presidents.

“Donald Trump is different to any of his predecessors, certainly in the modern age. If you look at his background, he’s a businessman, he does deals, he brings parties together, he swaps contracts. That’s been his background, and it’s not a background, probably, that’s been shared by too many of his predecessors. So, I don’t think you’re taking everything he says literally.”

Dutton left his options open when asked whether he would replace Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the United States.

“We have to have an ambassador who is in our country’s best interests. Kevin, obviously, is an accomplished person as prime minister of our country and if he’s the best person for the job, then he should stay in the job.

“If it turns out that he’s had no access to the White House and no real influence in relation to this [tariff] issue or whatever the next issue might be, then you would have to reassess his position. But at the moment, we’re being told that he’s effective in his advocacy in the administration. I suppose time will tell.

“My instinct would be to leave him in the job. But […] if there are insurmountable problems that he has, or that the administration has with him, then that would make it very difficult.”

Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: government nabs Coalition policy on foreigners buying houses, Dutton eyes action on insurance companies – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-government-nabs-coalition-policy-on-foreigners-buying-houses-dutton-eyes-action-on-insurance-companies-250023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cecelia Cmielewski, Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

To be selected as the artist and curator team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale is considered the ultimate exhibition for an artistic team. To have your selection rescinded, as has now happened to the 2026 team of Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino, is without precedent.

Australia has presented at the biennale since 1954, and is one of 29 countries to have a permanent pavilion. Last year, Archie Moore was the first Australian to win the Golden Lion for best national pavilion.

The selection of an artist and curator pair is managed by Creative Australia. The arts funding body appoints a committee of visual artists and industry experts to form a shortlist of six teams, and make the final selection.

The announcement on February 7 of Sabsabi and Dagostino was widely celebrated as creatively bold and inclusive.

On Thursday, opposition arts spokesperson, Claire Chandler, questioned Sabsabi’s selection in the Senate. She cited a 2007 work that featured Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and said the artist had made work “promoting” Osama bin Laden.

In a statement released on Thursday night, Creative Australia said Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer represent Australia at the biennale.

The Creative Australia board, the statement said, “believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community”.

On social media, the artistic community was swift in its condemnation. They criticised the paucity of understanding of Sabsabi’s artistic and community practice, and questioned the role of political interference and freedom of artistic expression.

Artists called for the resignation of the Creative Australia board, and for a boycott of the Australian pavilion at the biennale.

‘A remarkable career’

Before moving into visual arts, Sabsabi began his career as a hip-hop artist, known as Peacefender. In a career spanning more than 35 years, he has worked in video, mixed media and installation art, exhibiting around Australia and internationally.

Media artist and academic John Gillies described Sabsabi as “a thoughtful and peaceful person” who has worked as a community arts worker in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

The former head of the Sydney gallery Artspace, Nicholas Tsoutas, said Sabsabi “has had a remarkable career in contemporary art and his selection was so well deserved”.

He praised the selection of Sabsabi as “an extraordinary opportunity to really advocate for artistic freedom for bringing [people] together”, and added this decision will “do the exact opposite”.

‘A sad day’

Artist Kate Just said the board’s decision “undermines the expertise of the artist, curator, and the selection team. The decision fails to uphold the work of artists to interrogate complex personal and political histories and the urgent issues of our time.”

Fiona Winning, former director of programming at Sydney Opera House, said it was “a shameful call by Creative Australia”. Artist Nigel Helyer expressed his belief this decision was “liable to emphasise cultural divides, rather than placate them”.

Investment banker, art collector and philanthropist Simon Mordant, commented on Instagram he has “resigned as an Ambassador to the now cancelled project and withdrawn my financial support – this situation is unacceptable”.

He suggested “the Pavilion should remain empty in solidarity with Khaled. A very dark day for Australia and the Arts”.

Advocacy body National Association for the Visual Arts (commonly known as NAVA) released a statement saying “government interference in the expert panel’s selection process undermines the very principle of independence”.

The decision, they said, “erodes public trust, alienates artists, and sparks widespread protest from those who stand with Sabsabi and Dagostino as a matter of principle”.

‘Artists reflect the times they live in’

The five artistic teams who were shortlisted to represent Australia at the biennale have released a joint statement in support of Sabsabi.

They called the selection process “rigorous and professionally independent” leading to the selection of a team with “artistic vision and courage”.

Revoking support, they wrote, is “antithetical to the goodwill and hard-fought artistic independence, freedom of speech and moral courage that is at the core of arts in Australia”.

In a statement, Sabsabi and Dagostino said “art should not be censored as artists reflect the times they live in”.

“We intended to present a transformational work in Venice, an experience that would unite all audiences in an open and safe shared space,” they said.

As the artistic community is showing, this decision has raised a debate on what artists are allowed to say in Australia and brings into question the independence of Creative Australia.

Cecelia Cmielewski 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. ‘A shameful call by Creative Australia’: the arts community reacts to Khaled Sabsabi being dropped from the Venice Biennale – https://theconversation.com/a-shameful-call-by-creative-australia-the-arts-community-reacts-to-khaled-sabsabi-being-dropped-from-the-venice-biennale-249941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on the northwest coast of Australia and is likely to make landfall early Friday evening.

It’s a monster storm of great concern to Western Australia. Port Hedland is the largest town in the firing line and also our busiest iron ore export port. Strong winds may extend to other areas along the coast, and inland to areas such as Marble Bar, Tom Price and Paraburdoo.

Even if Zelia doesn’t hit towns directly, it’s likely to cause a lot of damage. The Bureau of Meteorology predicts extremely dangerous sustained winds of around 205 kilometers an hour and wind gusts higher still, at 290km/h. That’s strong enough to flatten homes, trees, power lines and other infrastructure.

This is a category five cyclone, which is the most severe possible under the current scale. But as climate change worsens, authorities may need to add another category to the scale.

Do we need a category 6?

Elsewhere in the world, tropical cyclones are called hurricanes or typhoons.

The severity of a tropical cyclone (or hurricane or typhoon) is ranked in categories from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest).

Category one involves maximum average wind speed of up to 88km/h, and strongest gusts up to 125 km/h. It typically causes negligible damage to homes but may damage crops, trees and caravans.

Category five, the most severe, is defined as “extremely dangerous”, causing widespread destruction of buildings and vegetation. These cyclones bring maximum average wind speeds greater than 200km/h and gusts greater than 279km/h.

However, on a warming planet, cyclones are expected to become more intense. It’s also making tropical cyclones and hurricanes intensify more quickly.

Some scientists have called for a category six for hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones with sustained wind speeds greater than 309km/h. They argue a new category is needed to communicate the risks associated with tropical cyclones fuelled by climate change.

Climate change is feeding storms

It’s too early to say if Cyclone Zelia is directly caused, or fuelled, by climate change. However, research over the last 30 years has found a link between global warming and more intense tropical cyclones.

Globally, 2024 was Earth’s warmest year on record. Ocean heat content is increasing around most tropical seas, and other places where tropical cyclones are forming.
Warmer oceans, and a warmer atmosphere, both feed energy into tropical cyclones, making them more intense and fast-forming when conditions are favourable.

Zelia intensified from a category one into a five in just over 24 hours.

Australia is currently experiencing record-breaking sea surface temperatures. The area off the northwest coast has been up to 4-5°C above normal this summer.

Hurricane Milton, which struck the United States in October last year, also shows how climate change is making tropical cyclones worse. Amid very warm ocean temperatures, it intensified rapidly over the Gulf of Mexico to a category five hurricane.

We can expect more of these severe cyclones in future, if humanity keeps warming up the oceans and the atmosphere.

Slow is not good

Climate change is slowing the forward motion of tropical cyclones over the ocean and land. That means they take longer to cross the coast and pass through an area – inflicting more damage from wind and storm surge, and dumping more rain.

The Bureau of Meteorology says Cyclone Zelia’s “forward speed” is quite slow, at 11km/h. So, heavy rain and the strong winds will persist for quite a few hours before and after it crosses the coast.

The strongest winds of a tropical cyclone are usually near the eye, but can extend for hundreds of kilometres. Sometimes, winds on opposite sides of the eye blow in different directions, causing destruction on the ground which damages buildings, infrastructure, farmland and the environment.

Conditions on the ground

At the moment around Port Hedland, winds are about 70-100km/h and rising. That’s gale force but not too alarming. Conditions will rapidly deteriorate into this afternoon, particularly to the east of Port Hedland.

The storm has already dropped a lot of rain. This has caused local flooding and cut rail lines. But there’s more to come.

The Bureau of Meteorology is also warning of a significant storm tide – when sea levels rise well above a typical high tide. This may lead to flooding and inundate coastal roads and properties.

The cyclone will continue to trek inland over the weekend, gradually weakening as it goes. People in mining and Indigenous communities hundreds of kilometres inland could experience strong winds, heavy rain and flooding.

The bureau is providing regular updates online. For those in the path of the cyclone visit www.emergency.wa.gov.au or download the Emergency WA app for the latest community alerts and warnings.

Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian government.

– ref. Bracing for a monster: Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on WA. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/bracing-for-a-monster-tropical-cyclone-zelia-is-bearing-down-on-wa-heres-what-to-expect-249947

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor, ANU National Security College, Australian National University

A Victorian government decision to allow dingo culling in the state’s east until 2028 has reignited debate over what has been dubbed Australia’s most controversial animal.

Animals Australia, an animal welfare group, has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the decision. The case is due to be heard this year.

Announcing the legal action, the group said the eradication program targeted a unique native animal at risk of extinction, and ignored pleas from Traditional Owners who “treasure the dingo as a totem species”.

The controversy raises a few thorny questions. Are dingoes an important native species or an agricultural pest? And what is the right balance between protecting the species, and protecting the interests of farmers?

What’s this all about?

Dingoes are listed as vulnerable in Victoria. This means the species faces a high risk of extinction in the wild over the medium term.

Dingoes are also protected under Victoria’s Wildlife Act – unless a special order is made to declare them “unprotected”. To date, these unprotection orders have been made when authorities deem it necessary to prevent dingoes from killing livestock.

An unprotection order means a person can legally kill dingoes in certain areas of private and public land, by trapping, poisoning or shooting.

Since around 2010, a succession of unprotection orders have allowed dingoes to be killed in various parts of Victoria. The unprotection order now being challenged came into effect on October 1 last year and will continue until January 1, 2028.

Announcing the decision, Victoria’s Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos says the government was:

striking the right balance between protecting our vulnerable dingo populations while giving farmers the ability to protect their livestock, and we will regularly engage to ensure settings continue to achieve this balance.

Dingoes are not ‘wild dogs’

DNA studies suggest dingoes have been in Australia for between 4,600 and 18,000 years. Often wrongly described as “wild dogs”, they are [actually descended from south Asian wolves](https://environment.desi.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/dingoes#:~:text=The%20dingo—Australia’s%20only%20native,role%20in%20the%20natural%20environment.Sustainable dingo management (and public sympathies either way).

Adding to the complications, it can be hard to distinguish between a wild dog and a dingo without DNA testing.

Dingoes were once widespread across Victoria but are now extinct across most of the state, save for two populations in the state’s north and east.

Conservationists and scientists fear the extended order in eastern Victoria may push dingoes to local extinction

The experience in north-west Victoria offers a cautionary tale. There, under a dingo unprotection order, the population dropped to as few as 40 individuals. The local dingo population was deemed “critically low and at risk of extinction”, prompting the government to reinstate dingo protections.

In eastern Victoria, the dingo population is estimated at between 2,640 and 8,800.

However in September last year, before the unprotection order in eastern Victoria came into effect, Nationals Member for Gippsland, Tim Bull, claimed 1,500 dingoes were already being killed in the region each year by farmers and others.

If those figures are correct, it suggests extending the unprotection order until 2028 will devastate the dingo population in eastern Victoria.

A decline in dingo populations is not just a concern for the species itself – it will have knock-on effects.

Dingoes are apex predators and research shows they are central to how ecosystems function. They can help control introduced predators such as foxes, feral cats and rabbits. This benefits native animals and plants.

Is the balance right?

Given the risks to dingo populations and the broader environment, it’s pertinent to ask if the government decision swings too far towards protecting agricultural production.

One report suggests within Victoria’s 16 “wild dog management zones” in the 2022–23 financial year, there were more than 1.7 million head of livestock. Of these, 1,455 were confirmed killed by dingoes. While understandably of concern to farmers, this nonetheless represents a tiny proportion of total stock numbers.

The number of sheep killed by dingoes is also only a fraction of the 14.6 million currently farmed in Victoria. Sheep are not at risk of extinction.

These numbers suggest the government has not struck the right balance between protecting livestock and ensuing dingo populations survive.

Considering the rights of Traditional Owners

When weighing up an unprotection order, a minister must consider how it affects the rights of Traditional Owners.

In 2023, when deliberating over whether to make an unprotection order in eastern Victoria, the Victorian government stated that for Aboriginal people:

• dingoes are part of their living cultural heritage

• the loss of a dingo is akin to the loss of a family member

• the dingo helps maintain connection to Country

• some have a totemic and kinship relationship with the dingo.

The government said while the order would limit Aboriginal people’s rights, this was justified when taking other factors into account.

The court will decide

Animal protection group Animals Australia has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the lawfulness and validity of the unprotection order. Court documents are not yet publicly available.

Australia does not have a single and consistent animal welfare and protection regime. Instead, protections are fractured between the states. That is why the current challenge to dingo culling is limited to Victoria, even though culling takes place in other states. This illustrates the difficulty in using the law to protect animals at a national level.

This challenge is part of a broader push to redefine the relationship between humans and animals through what’s known as animal law. In recent years, animal advocates have used various aspects of the law to challenge the gassing of pigs before they are slaughtered, and recreational duck shooting.

The current case is an important test for how the law balances the needs of humans and animals – and in particular, how much harm is deemed “necessary” at law to protect commercial profit and livelihood.

Danielle Ireland-Piper 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. Dingoes are being culled in Victoria. How much harm to the species is needed to protect commercial profits? – https://theconversation.com/dingoes-are-being-culled-in-victoria-how-much-harm-to-the-species-is-needed-to-protect-commercial-profits-245759

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

In Australia, fatal road crashes are climbing again, especially since the pandemic, and despite years of attempts to reduce road trauma, the numbers remain stubbornly high.

Strategies to reduce the road toll have largely focused on speeding, distractions and enforcement gaps, such as roadside drug testing.

But hidden in these statistics is a lesser-known, deeply troubling reality: some of these crashes are not unintentional at all.

A difficult area to explore

A portion of road fatalities each year are deaths by suicide.

For some, cars and trucks are not just modes of transport – they become a means to intentionally end their lives.

The true scale of this issue is difficult to determine, as coroners and crash investigators often struggle to distinguish suicide from accidental death.

The phenomenon is not confined to Australia – it has been studied and documented in several countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and the United States.

International research suggests driver suicides may account for up to 8–9% of all fatal road crashes. But studies indicate up to half of these cases may go unreported.

So what do we know about these cases? Why are they so difficult to identify and what patterns exist in these incidents?

How bad is the problem?

Between 2001 and 2017, the rate of suicide involving a road vehicle collision in Australia nearly doubled from 0.125 per 100,000 people to 0.25 per 100,000.

These suicides take several forms.

Some involve single-vehicle crashes, where a driver deliberately collides with a tree, pole, or concrete barrier.

Others are multiple-vehicle collisions, where a driver or rider intentionally steers into oncoming traffic, often targeting trucks.

There are also pedestrian suicides, where people step or lie in front of moving vehicles.

Among driver suicides, single-vehicle crashes are the most common, with studies estimating more than half of driver suicides involve collisions with fixed objects (some studies suggest the figure is more than 70%).

For multiple-vehicle collisions, almost 82% of cases involve colliding with an oncoming truck.

More than half of pedestrian deaths by suicide also involve trucks.

While there are variations in research findings, current evidence suggest males make up between 78% and 91% of those who die by road transport suicide.

Certain demographics have been found to be more likely to die in a road suicide in Australia compared to other methods of suicide:

This includes those who are:

• male (15% more likely than females)
• younger than 25 (nearly five times more likely than those older)
• non-Indigenous (three times more likely than First Nations people)
• born overseas (40% more likely than those born in Australia)

The ripple effects

Unlike most other suicide methods, road vehicle collisions pose a significant risk to others.

Intentional crashes can involve unsuspecting drivers, passengers and pedestrians, turning a personal act of self-harm into a broader public safety issue.

Studies show that when a suicide collision involves vehicles with a large weight disparity — such as a car colliding with a truck — nearly 30% result in injury to another person and almost 4% result in the death of another person.

Beyond the immediate loss of life or injury, these incidents leave lasting psychological scars on the drivers involved.

Why is it difficult to establish suicide on the road?

Determining whether a fatal road crash was intentional or unintentional is fraught with challenges. Unlike other suicide methods, there is often no definitive proof of intent.

Coroners and crash investigators rely on a patchwork of evidence: eyewitness accounts, vehicle behaviour before impact, the driver’s psychological history and physical crash characteristics.

Even when red flags are present — such as high-speed impacts with no signs of braking, the driver not wearing a seat belt, collisions with trucks, or cases where drivers abruptly veer into oncoming traffic — these alone are not always enough to confirm intent.

Investigators must also navigate the cultural and social sensitivities surrounding suicide, which can lead to hesitation in formally classifying a death as intentional. Families, religious beliefs and even financial factors such as life insurance claims can influence how these cases are handled.

In many instances, those who use this method do so in a way that obscures their intent, deliberately staging a crash to appear unintentional.

Without conclusive evidence, such as a documented history of suicidality or a suicide note, these cases often remain in statistical limbo — unconfirmed, unclassified, and possibly unreported.

What can be done?

While broader suicide prevention efforts are always relevant, reducing suicide-related road crashes requires targeted, practical interventions that make vehicles less likely to be used for suicide. Some ideas include:

1. Vehicle safety features that reduce lethality, such as automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance systems, can make intentional high-speed crashes less likely to be fatal. As such, they could discourage the use of vehicles as a suicide method. Airbags, in particular, can play a crucial role, as they can make the outcome of a crash less predictable for people attempting suicide.

2. A national standardised process for classifying intentional crashes would improve detection and data accuracy. Incorporating psychological autopsies and mandating coroners consider behavioural indicators (such as lack of evasive action) could help identify cases that currently go unreported.

3. Heavy vehicle drivers and first responders should receive specialised training to recognise potential suicide crash indicators and manage the psychological toll of being involved in such incidents.

Together, these measures can make vehicle-related suicide, as a very complex issue, less likely and more detectable.

If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. In Australia, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14 for confidential support.

Angela J Clapperton receives funding from Suicide Prevention Australia.

Lay San Too receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for a fellowship.

Matthew J. Spittal receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for an Investigator Grant (GNT2025205).

Milad Haghani 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. Suicide or accident? The hidden complexities of intentional road crashes in Australia – https://theconversation.com/suicide-or-accident-the-hidden-complexities-of-intentional-road-crashes-in-australia-248673

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

Federal parliament has passed the biggest changes to Australia’s electoral funding laws in decades.

The Albanese government’s Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 cleared the Senate on Wednesday night after just two hours of debate on amendments agreed to earlier by the Coalition. In blatant disregard for democracy, the government refused to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny.

The amendments fail to address numerous deficiencies in the original bill that was introduced last November. Transparency has been wound back and hollow contribution caps have been locked in.

In significant respects, however, the package is an improvement on the status quo, which has seen unrestricted donations and spending flourish. So, too, secrecy.

We need to penetrate the sound and fury of partisanship and assess the substance of these laws. This will yield a much more nuanced picture than conveyed by cross bench claims of a major party stitch up.

Some improvement to transparency

The government originally proposed lowering the disclosure threshold for donations from $16,000 to $1,000. The revised bill settles on a new threshold of $5,000.

The amendments fail to plug a loophole that allows a donor to give separately to all of the branches attached to a political party if each individual contribution is just under the threshold. For example, a donor could spread almost $45,000 to the nine state and federal branches of the ALP without being required to declare the amounts.

But the new laws will usher in near-real time disclosure and substantially reduce “dark money”, a seismic shift from the secrecy and lack of timeliness in the regime it replaces.

Hollow donation caps

Under the reforms, a series of contribution caps have been introduced to curb the influence of big money in politics.

In my assessment of the original bill, I highlighted how the caps would prevent multi-million dollar contributions from cashed-up individuals.

The amendments go further by closing a number of sizeable loopholes. Self financing candidates, such as Clive Palmer and Malcolm Turnbull will be subject to the contribution caps. The current exclusions for membership and affiliation fees to associated entities – “disguised donations” – will also be caught by the caps.

But any positives are emphatically outweighed by the “annual gift cap” more than doubling to $50,000. The same “spreading” loophole that applies to the disclosure obligations would allow a donor to to give just shy of this amount to each of a party’s state and federal branches across the country. The major parties could reap up to almost $450,000 per annum from a single donor.

And the “overall gift cap” on total donations made to political parties and candidates is a generous $1.6 million, which means large contributions will still be permissible under the new framework.

The government has also failed to remove the patently unfair provisions relating to “nominated entities”, which are likely to be used by the major parties as investment vehicles.

As the Victorian Electoral Review Expert Panel has rightly noted, such entities:

provide some (parties) with significantly more funds, creating a risk that those (parties) drown out other voices.

Election spending contained and fairer

The spending caps in the new finance laws are fundamentally unaltered by the government’s amendments.

The $800,000 per electorate limit, and $90 million per party nationally, will contain the “arms race” that has necessitated “big money” fundraising and fuelled unfair contests.

However, the limits are set too high and will benefit the established parties due to the narrow scope of the spending caps in individual electorates. This means the major parties will be able to shift funding to must-win seats without being caught by the electorate caps.

This shortcoming has been seized upon as clear evidence that Labor and the Liberals are seeking to kneecap Teal election campaigns. While having some force, these criticisms should be viewed in the context of the current situation where the major parties have an unfettered ability to direct spending to marginal seats, a situation which the Teals are ironically defending with their opposition to spending caps.

The importance of public funding

The new regime includes a substantial jump in public funding from $3.50 to $5 per vote.

Crossbenchers, such as Kate Chaney, are opposed, to the increase, saying it will entrench the might of the majors while making it harder for new independents:

The effect of increasing public funding is that political parties don’t have to fundraise because they’ve got their war chests. But any challengers do have to fundraise.

While there is a clear risk of unfairness, the crossbench position throws the baby out with the bathwater. It romanticises the role of private funding, skating over the risks of corruption and undue influence via large donations.

The public funding of political parties and candidates is warranted. But there should be a conversation about the design and scope of taxpayer support.

The political finance laws could be made considerably fairer by fixing the structural bias that favours incumbents, including teal MPs. And they don’t need to be as generous given the large flows of private funding that will continue under the shallow contribution caps.

Unfinished business

Bad processes tend to make bad laws. The government’s actions have cast a pall of illegitimacy over its political finance regime. The new framework is unfair and ineffectual in significant ways and yet democracy enhancing in others.

We are all trustees of democracy, with an obligation to protect and deepen democratic practices. An urgent task in that continuing struggle is to protect the strengths of these laws while jettisoning the elements that are egregiously bad.

Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stitch up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy – https://theconversation.com/parliament-has-passed-landmark-election-donation-laws-they-may-be-a-stitch-up-but-they-also-improve-australias-democracy-249588