Australia’s horse racing industry is in the spotlight after recent allegations of tranquilliser use on horses so they can be “worked” (exercised) between race days.
A recent ABC report stated workers in the Australian racing industry allege horses are being routinely medicated for track work at the peril of rider and horse safety.
Using tranquillisers on horses during training and management may not be illegal but this could breach nationwide racing rules.
The prevalence of the practice is not clear but many industry insiders report it as common.
Racing Australia had “recently become aware” of the use of acepromazine for track work and had begun collecting data about the practice, but had not been made aware of any complaints or concerns.
What medications are horses given?
Horses may be given a low dose of a tranquilliser, most commonly acepromazine. This makes their behaviour easier to control in certain situations, such as when they’re being examined by a veterinarian.
This drug must be prescribed by an attending veterinarian, and it can calm unfriendly and apprehensive animals. This could assist with making excited, hyperactive horses easier to control and less likely to buck, rear or put people at risk of injury from uncontrolled flight responses.
But proprioception – the way horses feel the world around them, notably the ground beneath them – is likely to be compromised. So, from a work health and safety perspective, the risk of tripping and falling is front of mind.
In the racing industry, tranquillisers are given to reduce the difficulties that come from riding and handling very fit, young horses that have been bred, fed and managed to be highly reactive and move at very high speeds.
This combination of selective breeding and only basic training can make them very difficult to control both during trackwork, when speeds of over 60 kilometres per hour can be reached, as well as during routine management.
Thoroughbreds’ diets, intensive management and relative lack of behavioural conditioning can be a dangerous combination.
The diets and confinement make them excitable and likely to take off; if they do, the lack of appropriate training makes them difficult to stop.
What makes race thoroughbreds hard to handle?
All horses have three fundamental needs – friends, forage and freedom, known as the “three F’s”.
Friends: horses have evolved to spend time with large mixed groups. They feel safer in these groups and this safety is highly valued: mutual grooming with preferred conspecifics (other equids) can calm them. In contrast, most stabled horses have no choice about who their neighbours are and can usually only have minimal physical interactions. Once out on the track, horses are highly motivated to stay with other horses and are more likely to be distracted rather than to attend to the rider.
Forage: horses are trickle feeders that graze on high-fibre, low-nutrient forages for up to 16 hours a day. In contrast, racehorses are fed high-energy diets that can be quickly consumed, leading to risk of digestive disturbances, such as gastric ulcers and long periods during which, confined to their stables, they have nothing to do.
Modern racehorse management and training often denies them access to these “three F’s”, which leads to behavioural problems that are then sometimes managed by tranquillising the horse.
Collectively, these factors create horses that are not having their fundamental needs met. It’s no wonder that, once free of the confinement of their stables, they can become excited and hard to control, putting their riders and even themselves at risk of injury.
A band-aid solution
There is no textbook that advises vets on how to diagnose or treat horses that are hyperactive, nor are there any data on how horses can be safely tranquillised before being ridden.
However, a UK government data sheet for the most common equine tranquilliser globally, acepromazine maleate, states: “do not, in any circumstances, ride horses within the 36 hours following administration of the product”.
In Australia, racing trainers must keep records of all medications given to horses. Unfortunately, the veterinarians who supply this medication to trainers for use on racehorses are usually doing so without a specific diagnosis or treatment plan.
Routine use of tranquillisers is a band-aid solution to an industry-wide practice of confining, over-feeding and under-training fit, young horses that have been bred to run.
If this practice is ever policed, there will likely be enormous repercussions for the sustainability of racing.
As a first step to addressing this issue, the industry could commit to monitoring and publishing annual data on the routine use of tranquillisers.
Paul McGreevy has received funding from the Australian Research Council, RSPCA Australia and animal welfare focussed philanthropy. He is a Fellow of the International Society for Equitation Science, a member of the British Veterinary Association and currently sits on the NSW Veterinary Practitioners Board.
Cathrynne Henshall receives funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Welfare Foundation. She is a trustee and council member of the International Society for Equitation Science.
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, a top contender for the title of Great American Novel, turns 100 on April 10.
A century later, it is invoked to help make sense of a world that still confuses “material enterprise with moral achievement” – as critic Sarah Churchwell wrote in the foreword to Gatsby’s centennial edition.
A Meta insider’s memoir takes its title, Careless People, from Fitzgerald’s novel. The same phrase circulated on social media and in The New York Times during Donald Trump’s first presidency, referring to his administration’s downplaying of COVID-19.
In 2018, The Atlantic compared Trump to Tom Buchanan, one of Fitzgerald’s “careless people”, describing “an eerie symmetry […] as if the villain of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel had been brought to life in a louder, gaudier guise for the 21st century”. More recently, others have compared Trump to Gatsby himself.
The Great Gatsby tells the tale of a lovesick man striving for social acceptance, believing personal reinvention and riches can help to rewrite the past. It is a story of longing: not just for lost love, but for an unattainable ideal.
The centenary couldn’t be more timely for this literary masterpiece, preoccupied by the same things we are: immense affluence, privilege, the limits of social mobility and the hidden underbelly of the American Dream. The Great Gatsby, while a relative literary failure in Fitzgerald’s lifetime, is enduringly popular today, with at least 25 million copies sold to date, numerous film and stage adaptations (and literary riffs), and a staple position on school and university reading lists.
“What we think about Gatsby illuminates what we think about money, race, romance and history,” wrote The New York Times’ A.O. Scott recently. “How we imagine him has a lot to do with how we see ourselves.”
The Great Gatsby is set against the backdrop of Roaring Twenties America: an era Fitzgerald famously dubbed the Jazz Age.
Fuelled by the infectious rhythms of jazz, driven by the economic forces of market prosperity and mass consumerism, and heady on the alcoholic vapours and illicit thrills associated with Prohibition-era nightlife, the 1920s were a decade where American fortunes were made and lost.
It was also, as Fitzgerald’s novel outlines, a period where individual ambition burned as fiercely as desire.
Picryl
The plot follows the enigmatic Jay Gatsby, a spotlight-eschewing, self-made millionaire whose seemingly breezy approach to life masks a singular obsession: the rekindling of a lost romance with a beautiful woman from his past.
Born James Gatz, Fitzgerald’s charismatic protagonist reinvents himself in the hope of winning back the love of his life, wealthy socialite Daisy Buchanan. Taken at face value, Gatsby’s world is one of incredible luxury and dazzling excess – lavish parties, fast cars and ostentatious attire – all designed to lure Daisy back into his arms.
But as we begin to scratch beneath the surface, the glittering facade Gatsby has constructed gives way to something far more fragile and tragic: an impossible fantasy driven by jealously, obsession and self-deception.
As the reader comes to appreciate, Gatsby’s accumulated gains may grant him partial access to the world of old money, but he will never truly be accepted by America’s elite. No matter how hard he might try, he cannot surmount the barriers of class and entitlement.
Ultimately, Gatsby’s misguided belief that he can somehow crowbar his way into the upper echelons of high society while simultaneously turning back the hands of time leads to his downfall. In Fitzgerald’s words, he ends up paying “a high price for living too long with a single dream”.
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel is still invoked to help make sense of a world that often confuses ‘material enterprise with moral achievement’. Nickolas Muray/Picryl
F. Scott Fitzgerald, literary celebrity
Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 24 1896. The son of middle-class Catholic parents, he spent much of his youth living in upstate New York. In 1913, he enrolled at Princeton University, where he formed a lasting friendship with future literary critic Edmund Wilson.
More absorbed in literary and dramatic endeavours than his studies, Fitzgerald’s grades suffered and he dropped out in 1917 – though not before falling deeply in love with Ginevra King, an heiress who would leave an indelible imprint on his writing. She would inspire many of his fictional female characters, including Daisy Buchanan.
Fitzgerald first encountered King during a winter vacation in St. Paul in January 1915. The debutante daughter of a wealthy Chicago stockbroker, she quickly became the object of Fitzgerald’s intense devotion (much to the disapproval of her family, who thought him beneath her).
In the wake of his heartbreak after the relationship broke down, Fitzgerald enlisted in the United States Army, earning a commission as a second lieutenant. During his military service, he met Zelda Sayre, the woman he would eventually marry. Meanwhile, he began work on his first novel, This Side of Paradise.
Released in 1920, Fitzgerald’s formally adventurous debut was a critical success and cultural sensation, capturing the restless energy and shifting moral landscape of a cohort coming of age in the wake of World War I.
The novel’s transparently autobiographical narrative centres on Amory Blaine, a young Midwesterner whose intellectual and romantic adventures at Princeton – especially a doomed affair with the beautiful, elusive Isabelle Borgé – struck a chord with readers. It turned Fitzgerald into a media celebrity and unofficial spokesman for his generation.
Two years later, Fitzgerald published The Beautiful and Damned. It details the disintegration of a wealthy, aimless couple – Anthony and Gloria Patch – whose hedonistic lifestyle and misplaced belief in their own brilliance leads to ruin.
Fitzgerald’s tonally pessimistic second novel was again shaped by his own experiences, drawing heavily on his tempestuous marriage to Zelda, who was exhibiting symptoms of profound mental instability.
However, in stark contrast to This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned sold well, but received a lukewarm reception from reviewers. Some found its characters unappealing and its plot depressing.
By then, the Fitzgeralds had grown accustomed to the finer things in life. Which meant they needed money. Lots of it. To keep up with their lavish spending, Fitzgerald started to churn out short stories for popular magazines at a rapid pace. While this move provided him with a degree of financial security, some critics and contemporaries questioned whether he was squandering his literary gifts. Ernest Hemingway, for one, was “shocked” by his friend’s willingness to pander to commercial tastes and imperatives.
‘I want to write something new’
That said, while he was generating copy for mass-market publication, Fitzgerald was also hard at work on The Great Gatsby. In July 1922, he declared:
I want to write something new – something extraordinary and beautiful and simple + intricately patterned.
Determined to prove his worth as an artist, Fitzgerald, who wanted “to write a novel better than any ever written in America”, began to play with “form and emotion”. As his ideas for the new novel – which at one point bore the working title Trimalchio – took shape, Fitzgerald set up shop in Great Neck, Long Island. This location became the inspiration for East and West Egg, the fictionalised island communities that are the novel’s primary setting.
Fitzgerald, clearly not lacking in confidence, set his sights high for his third novel, taking inspiration from James Joyce’s Ulysses and T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land.
Departing from conventional realism, Fitzgerald experimented with modernist techniques, layering his narrative with symbolic depth, synesthetic imagery, fragmented storytelling and complex characterisation.
The result was a work both lyrical and impressionistic. Here’s a vivid, illustrative excerpt:
The lights grow brighter as the earth lurches away from the sun, and now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music, and the opera of voices pitches a key higher. […] The groups change more swiftly, swell with new arrivals, dissolve and form in the same breath; already there are wanderers, confident girls who weave here and there among the stouter and more stable, become for a sharp, joyous moment the center of a group, and then, excited with triumph, glide on through the sea-change of faces and voices and color under the constantly changing light.
Fitzgerald’s Midwestern narrator, Nick Carraway, is describing one of Gatsby’s legendary West Egg parties. He is renting the house next to Gatsby’s mansion,
“a colossal affair by any standard”, with “a marble swimming pool, and more than forty acres of lawn and garden”.
At first, Nick is fascinated by his enigmatic neighbour, drawn in by the sheer force of Gatsby’s optimism and his unrelenting faith in the transformative power of love and the trappings of wealth. But as the novel progresses, events lead Nick to reevaluate. He describes his charming friend as possessing “one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life”.
He continues, outlining attributes essential to a good confidence man:
It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey.
When he isn’t with Gatsby, Nick is often with his cousin Daisy and her husband, Tom, the embodiment of American aristocracy and snobbery. They are, in Nick’s damning estimation, “careless” and “rotten” people.
An unreconstructed white supremacist prone to casual displays of extreme prejudice and physical violence, the adulterous Tom – who wouldn’t be out of place in the more dismal real-world and online recesses of today – is, in particular, deeply suspicious of Gatsby, regarding him as an interloper with dubious intentions.
The Atlantic wrote that Tom, “the Yale man, the football star, the spender of old money, the scion of what he calls the Nordic race – embodies the peak of social status in his century”. And that “Trump – the former Playboy-cover subject, the billionaire celebrity, the most powerful man in America – does the same for his”.
And their shared personality traits are the product of their shared relationship to power – the casual unreflective certainty that comes from inheritance, and enables its holders to wield its blunt force as both a weapon and a shield.
Tom’s “little investigation” into Gatsby’s background and finances reveals they are not what they seem. This leads to unintended, disastrous consequences.
Nick, our disillusioned observer, doesn’t quite know what to make of it all. We take leave of him at the end of the novel, on “the beach and sprawled out on the sand”, reminiscing about “Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock”.
‘A flying leap into the future’
Fitzgerald knew he had achieved something special with The Great Gatsby. His peers did too. T.S. Eliot considered it “the first step” forward “American fiction has taken since Henry James”. Edith Wharton concurred, calling it “a flying leap into the future.”
Yet, for all this critical acclaim, The Great Gatsby failed to resonate with the reading public – much to Fitzgerald’s dismay. By October, the book had sold less than 20,000 copies. (By comparison, This Side of Paradise had sold nearly 50,000 copies, across multiple printings.) As his biographer Arthur Mizener observed, by February 1926, “a few thousand more copies had been sold and the book was dead”. It was a blow the writer never really recovered from.
Fitzgerald’s personal life was tumultuous, marred by alcoholism, Zelda’s mental health issues and financial debt. This had a negative effect on his work. While he completed one more novel in 1934 – the excellent, darkly romantic Tender is the Night, arguably his best book – Fitzgerald struggled to be productive.
Following several failed suicide attempts, in 1940 he died of a heart attack, believing himself an abject failure and his career a total write-off. His most recent royalty cheque had been for $13.13. He was 44.
In the immediate aftermath of his death, writers and critics began to reassess Fitzgerald’s accomplishments. This effort was initially spearheaded by his friends, notably Edmund Wilson, who, in 1941, organised a series of tributes to be published in The New Republic.
In 1945, Viking Press released The Portable F. Scott Fitzgerald, edited by Dorothy Parker, which brought Fitzgerald to the attention of a new generation of readers. At the same time, the US military distributed 150,000 copies of The Great Gatsby to American servicemen during World War II as part of their Armed Services Editions.
Before long, The Great Gatsby made its way into the classroom, where it remains a staple of countless high school and university syllabuses. It continues to inspire readers, many of whom encounter it at a formative stage in their lives.
Amazon
It has been adapted for the screen on multiple occasions – with mixed results. Jack Clayton’s 1974 version, starring Robert Redford as the eponymous Gatsby, was faithful to Fitzgerald’s vision, but utterly lifeless, while Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 adaptation, a hollow exercise in audiovisual bluster, failed to do justice to the novel’s subtleties. For all their shortcomings, these films helped cement Gatsby’s place in the popular imagination.
An ‘uncannily prescient’ enduring classic
Novelist Jesmyn Ward suggests Fitzgerald’s novel is
a book that endures, generation after generation, because every time a reader returns to The Great Gatsby, we discover new revelations, new insights, new burning bits of language.
I agree – and I think Fitzgerald would have had rich material to work with, had he been alive today. Ours, lest we forget, is a world where ersatz robber barons hoard nearly all our shared available assets and resources, where racist discourse resounds, and where rampant consumerism remains unchecked.
Last year America magazine argued Gatsby himself “gives the greatest insight into why Mr. Trump is still popular”, comparing Trump’s “fraudulent real estate deals” to Gatsby’s nefarious way of making his money, and Gatsby’s huge parties to Trump’s rallies. Both, the writer argued, are nouveau riche outsiders, “hell-bent on being accepted by the Manhattan set”, and scorned by the elites. (Though Trump’s second presidency seems to be ushering in a new elite.)
Thinking aloud, perhaps it’s more accurate to say Trump is a weird combination of characters. On one hand, he resembles Gatsby: a self-mythologising social climber, nostalgic for a past that never really existed. On the other, he shares much with Tom Buchanan: unscrupulous, self-interested and protected by his wealth.
In a historical moment that mirrors his own in many ways, Fitzgerald’s essentially tragic masterwork, which ends suggesting we are all forever “borne back ceaselessly into the past”, strikes me as uncannily prescient and relevant today.
Alexander Howard 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.
Good health care depends on evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They translate the best available research into recommendations that shape diagnosis, treatment, and prevention strategies.
But what happens when the studies underpinning these guidelines are flawed?
Evidence suggests scientific misconduct – from fabricated or manipulated data to methodological errors and ethical concerns – is a growing problem. In some disciplines, estimates suggest as many as 40% of studies included in systematic reviews may have issues with their integrity.
This is not just an academic issue. When flawed studies are used to guide real-world health care, the consequences for health-care providers and ultimately patients can be serious. They include unnecessary or even harmful treatments, delay or denial of other effective treatments, wasted resources and a loss of public trust in science and health care itself.
Yet until recently, there has been no formal method to identify and manage flawed studies, before they make their way into clinical recommendations. We recently helped develop a framework that addresses this crucial gap. Published in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine, this framework provides a step-by-step process for evaluating the integrity of studies used in clinical guidelines and systematic reviews.
In an era of increasing concern about research misconduct, it’s a timely and much-needed advance.
Clinical care relies on research integrity
Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard in medical research.
Their results often underpin clinical guidelines that shape day-to-day decisions in health care. But what if a randomised controlled trial contains fabricated data? Or is conducted without ethics approval? Or is retracted after being used in a previous guideline?
A 2020 study found 44% of randomised controlled trials submitted to a major medical journal between 2017 and 2020 contained problematic or false data.
Compounding the problem is the fact that journal editors and publishers can be very slow to respond to concerns about research integrity.
For example, between November 2017 and April 2024, a group of researchers wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At the time their study was published earlier this year, only 30% of the papers they flagged had received an outcome – 58% of which were retracted.
Notably, it took a median time of 38 months for editors and publishers to make a decision. In only 13% of the flagged cases was a decision made within 12 months.
The ripple effects of this can be enormous. A review by the independent Cochrane Collaboration of nutrition interventions in pregnancy found that removing studies with integrity concerns changed the conclusions of 72% of reviews. One third (33%) needed to be updated because their guidance was no longer reliable.
Despite this, most guideline development tools — including those from the World Health Organization — assess methodological quality, not the trustworthiness or integrity of the studies that are included.
When flawed studies are used to guide real-world medical advice, the consequences for doctors and ultimately patients can be serious. Yuri A/Shutterstock
A practical framework for safeguarding integrity
Our framework features a six-step process for safeguarding research integrity:
Review: conduct a standard systematic review to identify eligible studies
Exclude: remove studies that have been formally retracted or are flagged with serious concerns
Assess: use available tools and checklists to assess the integrity of the remaining studies
Discuss: convene an independent integrity committee to review ratings and vote on each study
Establish contact: reach out to authors of high-risk studies to clarify issues or provide missing information
Reassess: based on responses (or lack thereof), determine whether a study should be included, excluded, or held in limbo.
The integrity committee is central to this approach. It is a multidisciplinary group responsible for assessing studies objectively, without preconceived judgements or biases around which studies to exclude.
Polycystic ovary syndrome is a common hormonal, reproductive and metabolic condition affecting 8–13% of women of reproductive age, depending on the diagnostic criteria used. It can cause irregular menstrual cycles, elevated androgen levels, and an increased number of small follicles in the ovaries, visible on ultrasound. It is a leading cause of infertility.
The guideline was developed with input from diverse professional and consumer groups. It was endorsed by 39 organisations across six continents.
In making recommendations on infertility treatment in polycystic ovary syndrome, 101 studies were initially identified. After applying our framework, 45 studies were not included due to concerns about integrity. Only three authors responded to clarification requests. This illustrates the problem with transparency after publication.
Without our framework, these problematic studies may have directly shaped recommendations and health care for women with polycystic ovary syndrome around the world.
Our framework was incorporated into the National Health and Medical Research Council review process that approved the guidelines. It has since been applied to other guidelines in women’s health. Further scale up is planned.
A 2020 study found 44% of randomised controlled trials submitted to a major medical journal between 2017 and 2020 contained false data. T.Schneider/Shutterstock
Some drawbacks
While our framework offers a much-needed solution, it’s not without drawbacks.
Second, older studies (conducted before trial registries were common) or those from countries with different ethics standards, may be unfairly penalised.
There is also a risk that valid research could be excluded simply because authors do not respond to integrity enquiries.
Implementing the framework can also take time. In resource-limited settings, this may be a barrier.
But failing to assess integrity will likely cost more in the long run. It could lead to flawed recommendations, misplaced public confidence and patient harm.
Aya Mousa receives funding from NHMRC.
Ben W. Mol receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF as well as international competitive grants.
Helena Teede receives funding from NHMRC and MRFF as well as international competitive grants. She is President of International Endocrine Society.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally ended weeks of speculation and named the election date for the national parliament.
After months of unofficial campaigning, Australians will now be treated to a festival of democracy as promises are made, policies are announced, and the leaders travel the country to rally support.
Much of the campaigning by the parties will be focused on the House of Representatives. This is to be expected as the lower house is where government is formed by the party that wins the majority of seats in this chamber, and the leader of this party becomes prime minister.
While the election for the lower house dominates the campaign, the contest for the Senate is rarely mentioned.
This is a bit unfair as the Senate is an immensely powerful chamber.
The power of the Senate
Barring its inability to initiate or amend supply bills, the Senate has almost the same powers as the House of Representatives. Senators can introduce their own bills, as long as they’re not supply bills.
For any proposed bill to become law, it must be passed by the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.
All states have equal representation in the chamber. Currently, every state is represented by 12 senators, each with six-year terms.
This means half the Senate is up for election at every general election.
The territories are represented by two senators each and they face re-election at every general election. The current number of senators is 76.
Winning a majority in the Senate has no bearing on who forms government (it’s the result of the lower house – the House of Representatives – which determines this). It does, however, make it easier for the government to pass bills to become law if it enjoys a majority in this chamber.
Who wins seats in the Senate?
The voting system in the Senate is very different to the House of Representatives. To win a seat in the House of Representatives, a candidate must win 50% +1 of the votes cast in the district.
In the Senate, however, a candidate must win a proportion (approximately 14.3%) of the state-wide vote.
This makes it a bit easier for minor parties to win representation as they can rely on broad support from across the state to reach the required threshold.
Changes introduced in 2016 mean Australians have choice on how to complete their Senate ballot paper. They can either number six or more candidates of their choice above the black line, or vote below the line by numbering 12 or more candidates.
While parties will organise their own preference deals to benefit them, voters are ultimately in control of where their preferences go.
Thanks to the voting system used in the Senate, it is rare for a government to hold a majority of seats in the upper house. The last time this occurred was in 2004 when the John Howard-led Coalition enjoyed a majority in the chamber.
The current Senate
Following the 2022 election, both major parties lost ground in the Senate. To have a majority in the chamber, a party must have 39 seats. Currently, Labor has 25 representatives, while the Coalition has 30.
The remaining seats are held by the Greens with the third highest number of representatives (11), One Nation (2), Jacqui Lambie Network (1), United Australia Party (1), and six Independents.
Several high-profile senators are up for election in 2025. In Queensland, for example, Malcolm Roberts from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will be up for re-election, Jacqui Lambie will be recontesting in Tasmania, while Independent Senator David Pocock from the ACT will be seeking another term.
There will also be some other prominent senators hoping to be re-elected from established parties.
These include Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (Country Liberal Party) and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy (ALP) from the Northern Territory, Liberal James Paterson from Victoria, Sarah Hanson-Young from the Greens in South Australia, and Jordan Steele-John from the Greens in Western Australia.
The 2025 contest
Fewer people have been voting for the major parties in recent years. In 2022, the vote for non-major party candidates reached a high of 35.7% (which, as Antony Green reminds us, was higher than the primary vote for both the Coalition and Labor).
Since the 1980s, Australians appear to have become open to supporting non-major party candidates contesting the Senate. If this continues as expected in 2025, whoever becomes prime minister will have to deal with the diverse interests and policy demands from those in the upper house.
While the campaign for the Senate may go under the radar over the next few weeks, who is elected to the Senate will have a massive impact on Australian politics for years to come.
Zareh Ghazarian 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.
standardised tobacco pack and cigarette stick sizes, no more novelty pack sizes or cigarette lengths
updated and improved graphic health warnings and quitting advice inserts within all tobacco packs
warnings printed directly on cigarettes
banning ingredients that make tobacco taste better and easier to smoke, including menthol.
Retailers have a three-month grace period to sell any old stock already in their stores by July 1.
Here’s what’s behind these changes – and what needs to happen next.
Packs warn about the harms of smoking. Department of Health and Ageing
New graphic health warnings
Cigarette packaging requirements have been stagnant since 2012, when Australia introduced plain packaging laws that banned the use of all on-pack logos and branding. This was a world-first.
New warnings replace those from 2012. Department of Health and Ageing
Cigarette packages must carry one of ten new health warnings. Fresh warnings that smoking doubles the risk of cervical cancer and leads to diabetes will be new information for many smokers.
There are also warnings for roll-your-own, cigar, bidi and shisha tobacco packaging.
The size, shape, and colour of cigarettes has also been standardised to prevent tobacco companies from using unique cigarette designs to attract new users. Long, thin cigarettes, for example, have been marketed to women as a fashion accessory and diet tool for nearly a century.
Warnings will now be on the sticks themselves. Department of Health and Ageing
The ingredients permitted in cigarettes are also changing, with ingredients that enhance the flavour of tobacco being now banned. The long list of prohibited ingredients includes everything from cloves, to sugar, to probiotics and vitamins.
Until now, the tobacco industry has had free reign to add ingredients that increase the palatability and attractiveness of cigarettes. This banned list also captures menthol and any ingredients that mimic the cooling properties of menthol.
Why ban menthol?
Menthol masks the harshness of smoke. Just like cold lollies that contain menthol to soothe sore throats and tame coughs, menthol in cigarettes prevents inexperienced smokers from reacting to the rough effects of tobacco smoke in the throat. This helps to make smoking a more pleasant experience that young users will return to.
The introduction of crushable menthol capsules in cigarette filters has proven very popular with Australian teenagers. Teens who use these products are more likely to have recently smoked and have higher smoking intentions in the future. The new laws also explicitly prohibit these “crush balls” or “flavour beads.”
Other counties that have banned menthol have seen drops in tobacco sales and use and increases in quitting behaviours.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule banning menthol in 2022, and a 2024 US Surgeon General report highlighted that menthol products increase addiction and are:
disproportionately used by Black people, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander people, women and people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
Under the Biden Administration, the FDA delayed issuing the final rule which meant the ban was not properly enacted before Trump was elected.
Organised criminals are operating in Australia’s tobacco supply chain to illegally import and sell tobacco products. Government action to step in and gain control of that supply system is long overdue.
Until this year, Australia’s two most populous states didn’t even require tobacco sellers to be licensed, and Queensland only introduced licensing last year.
Australia will need to change how tobacco is sold. It should not be so easy and commonplace to sell such an addictive and deadly product.
Both state and national governments need timely and transparent reporting on the size and scope of the illicit market, and strict licensing of the entire tobacco supply chain.
Businesses that sell illicit tobacco must face real consequences – not only large fines and loss of licences to operate, but also criminal charges.
All aspects of the tobacco supply chain – from wholesalers to retailers – must be tightly controlled.
Becky Freeman is an expert advisor to the Cancer Council tobacco issues committee and a member of the Cancer Institute vaping communications advisory panel. She has received relevant competitive grants from the NHMRC, MRFF, NSW Health, the Ian Potter Foundation, VicHealth, and Healthway WA.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Frew, Lecturer in Mycorrhizal Ecology, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University
If you’re walking outdoors, chances are something remarkable is happening under your feet. Vast fungal networks are silently working to keep ecosystems alive.
These fungi aren’t what you might picture. They are not mushrooms, or brightly coloured growths on tree trunks. Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi look like spools of thread wrapped around plant roots.
What makes these fungi remarkable is the deal they struck almost half a billion years ago with another kingdom of life – plants.
AM fungi make threads of hyphae thinner than spider silk and weave them through plant roots. Then, they begin to trade, offering plants water and phosphorus, a vital plant nutrient in soils. In return, plants offer carbon-rich sugars and fats from photosynthesis. Fungi can’t photosynthesise, but plants can.
This symbiotic relationship can help plants survive periods of drought and live in nutrient poor soils. More than 80% of all plant families rely on these fungi, while AM fungi cannot live without plants.
Without these fungi, many of Australia’s plants — and the soil they grow in — would be in real trouble. Our continent is ancient, dry, and nutrient-poor. But while we monitor the fate of plants and animals in response to human impact and climate change, we haven’t been tracking the fungi who support it all. We don’t even know how many species there are, let alone if we’re losing them.
To help fill this gap, I have developed the first dedicated database recording species and distributions of AM fungi in Australia – AusAMF.
The underground economy of roots and filaments
AM fungi deserve to be better known. These essential companions to most of the world’s plants maintain plant diversity, suppress invasive species, store carbon, cycle nutrients and prevent soil erosion.
Here are five remarkable things about AM fungi:
1. They’re older than roots
Incredibly, this fungus-plant symbiosis emerged before plants evolved roots some 360–420 million years ago.
AM fungi have been around for 475 million years, partnering with very early land plants such as the ancestors of today’s liverworts – which have no roots. This ancient alliance actually helped plants colonise land.
2. They can boost native plants and reject invasives
AM fungi do more than transport nutrients, carbon and water. They shape entire plant communities. Some plants benefit more than others, influencing competition and species co-existence. By giving some species a competitive edge, AM fungi allow some plants to survive which might otherwise be lost.
When AM fungal diversity declines, it can lead to a loss of native plants and open the door to invasive plant species.
But with the right management — such as reducing pesticides or reintroducing locally adapted fungi — AM fungi can boost plant nutrition and ecosystem restoration. They can help native vegetation recover and stop invasive species from gaining a foothold.
3. They run an invisible underground economy
The fungi-plant trade is more organised than you might think.
In some instances, plants reward the fungi giving them the most phosphorus with more carbon, while the fungi prioritise plants offering them the most carbon – a bit like a marketplace. Some plants have figured out how to cheat the fungi, taking resources without giving anything in return.
This high-magnification video shows water and nutrients flowing inside the hyphae of the AM fungus Rhizophagus irregularis. Source: Oyarte Galvez et al. (2025) Nature
4. They boost plant defences against pests and disease
Fungi don’t just help plants grow, they help them fight. As AM fungi colonise a plant’s roots, they boost its defences against threats such as diseases and plant-eating insects by strengthening and speeding up chemical responses. My research shows the size of this fungal-defence boost for plants can depend on what AM fungi are present.
And if one plant is attacked, it puts out chemical signals which can move through the fungal network and let other plants know to ready their defences.
5. They take in vast amounts of carbon
Plants take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in their leaves, roots and wood. But AM fungi store carbon from plants too.
Because mycorrhizal fungi are found wherever there are plants, their underground networks are vast – and so is their carbon impact. Recent research estimates the annual figure is more than a third of global fossil fuel carbon emissions.
Vitally important, all but unknown
If AM fungi vanished, many plant species would likely follow suit. Others would become more vulnerable to drought, disease, and pests. Soil would erode more easily, and nutrient and carbon flows would shift dramatically.
Are they in trouble? We don’t know. AM fungi are out of sight, out of mind. No federal or state government agency seem to be tracking them. Our current National Soil Action Plan doesn’t mention fungi at all, despite their importance to soil health.
Other than Antarctica, Australia is the least sampled continent for soil AM fungi, with just 32 sites in global databases. Europe, by comparison, has data from more than 1,200 sites.
AM fungi help plants grow better. On the left is grass in symbiosis with AM fungi with visible white hyphae. On the right is grass without the fungi. Soil Ecology Wiki, CC BY
That’s where I hope the AusAMF database will help. I partnered with landholders and research networks to gather soil samples. So far, the database has data from 610 locations, with about 400 more on the way.
But this is still scratching the surface. AM fungal communities can differ between neighbouring fields or habitats, depending on land management methods and types of vegetation. Virtually all current records are a single snapshot in time — we lack the long-term monitoring needed to track seasonal or annual changes.
It would be a mistake to remain in the dark about AM fungi. The more we learn, the more we see their importance, not only in supporting biodiversity, but in helping our crops and ecosystems cope with a changing world. If they are in decline, we need to know – and set about protecting them.
Adam Frew receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the British Ecological Society.
The future of Australia’s key climate policy is uncertain after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said a Coalition government would review the measure, known as the “safeguard mechanism”, which is designed to limit emissions from Australia’s largest industrial polluters.
According to the Australian Financial Review, if the Coalition wins office it will consider relaxing the policy, as part of its plan to increase domestic gas supplies.
Evidence suggests weakening the mechanism would be a mistake. In fact, it could be argued the policy does not go far enough to force polluting companies to curb their emissions.
Both major parties now accept Australia must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. This bipartisan agreement should make one thing clear: winding back the safeguard mechanism would be reckless policy.
What’s the safeguard mechanism again?
The safeguard mechanism began under the Coalition government in 2016. It now applies to 219 large polluting facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities are in sectors such as electricity, mining, gas, manufacturing, waste and transport. Together, they produce just under one-third of Australia’s emissions.
Under the policy’s original design, companies were purportedly required to keep their emissions below a certain cap, and buy carbon credits to offset any emissions over the cap. However, loopholes meant the cap was weakly enforced.
Labor strengthened the safeguard mechanism after it won office, by setting a hard cap for industrial emissions. The Coalition voted against the reforms.
Dutton has since labelled the safeguard mechanism a “carbon tax”
– a claim that has been debunked. Some members of the Coalition reportedly believe the policy makes manufacturers globally uncompetitive.
Now, according to media reports, a Coalition government would review the safeguard mechanism with a view to weakening it, in a bid to bolster business and increase gas supply.
Why the safeguard mechanism should be left alone
Weakening the safeguard mechanism would lead to several problems.
First, it would mean large facilities, including new coal and gas projects, would be permitted to operate without meaningful limits on their pollution. This threatens Australia’s international climate obligations.
Second, if polluters were no longer required to buy carbon offsets, this would disrupt Australia’s carbon market.
As the Clean Energy Regulator notes, the safeguard mechanism is the “dominant source” of demand for Australian carbon credits.
In the first quarter of 2024, about 1.2 million carbon-credit units were purchased by parties wanting to offset their emissions. The vast majority were purchased by companies meeting compliance obligations under the safeguard mechanism or similar state rules.
If companies are no longer required to buy offsets, or they buy fewer offsets, this would hurt those who sell carbon credits.
Carbon credits are earned by organisations and individuals who abate carbon – through measures such as tree planting or retaining vegetation. The activities are often carried out by farmers and other landholders, including Indigenous organisations. Indigenous-led carbon projects have delivered jobs, cultural renewal and environmental benefits.
The safeguard mechanism, together with the government pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, also provides certainty for the operators of polluting facilities. Many in the business sector have called for the policy to remain unchanged.
And finally, winding back the safeguard mechanism would send a troubling signal to the world: that Australia is stepping back from climate action.
Now is not the time to abdicate our responsibilities on climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since 1960. This increase is driving global warming and climate change, leading to extreme weather events which will only worsen.
A hard-won policy
The safeguard mechanism has not had time to deliver meaningful outcomes. And it is far from perfect – but it is hard-won, and Australia needs it.
The 2023 reforms to the mechanism were designed to support trade-exposed industries, while encouraging companies to invest in emissions reduction.
Undoing this mechanism would risk our climate goals. It would leave the government limited means to curb pollution from Australia’s largest emitters, and muddy the roadmap to net-zero. It would also create uncertainty for all carbon market participants, including the polluting facilities themselves.
Felicity Deane 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.
Drowning in streaming choices? If so, you’re not alone – as our experts have a particularly wide range of picks this month.
From musicals and comedy, to serial killers and twisted fictional corporations, there’s plenty to get stuck into.
The Pitt
Binge (Australia), Neon (NZ)
The Pitt is best described as a cross between ER and 24. The series follows an emergency room in Pittsburgh in real time across a 15-hour shift. Each one hour episode is an hour of their shift. Creator R. Scott Gemill and executive producer John Wells both worked extensively on ER, as did Noah Wyle who plays Michael “Robby” Robinavitch, the senior attending.
The day in question falls on the anniversary of the death of Robby’s mentor during the COVID pandemic and he experiences several flashbacks throughout the shift. The ER ward is chaotic due to the nursing shortage and failing American healthcare system. The series regularly cuts to the overcrowded waiting room of desperate people, waiting to receive care.
The large ensemble is fantastic and it’s great to see a medical show that actually includes nursing staff as key characters (take note, Grey’s Anatomy!). By unfolding in real time, we get a sense of how chaotic their work is, with several doctors jumping between patients. Several key cases also unfold across several episodes, with many building to dramatic effects.
It should also be noted that due to having its home on a streaming platform, the show is allowed to depict graphic and sometimes gruesome medical scenes without intruding soundtracks or montages, which only adds to the realism.
– Stuart Richards
Severance, season two
Apple TV
In absurdist psychological thriller Severance, individuals working for the multinational biotech corporation Lumon Industries can have their work-selves surgically “severed”, separating the memories and experiences of their workplace “innies” from those of their “outies”.
The second season, three years in the making, looks at the fallout from season one’s cliffhanger finale, in which the innies of Macrodata Analysis, Helly R (Britt Lower), Irving B (John Turturro) and Dylan G (Zach Cherry), led by Mark S (Adam Scott), staged a revolt and busted briefly into their outies’ worlds. In doing so, they exposed shocking secrets about Lumon – including that outie Mark’s wife, thought dead, is somehow alive but being held by Lumon.
This season has been as stylish and weird as the first, revelling in striking cinematography, impeccable direction, quirky scripting and inspired world-building. It also becomes increasingly eerie, focusing more on Lumon’s bizarre, cult-like history and culture, and the unsettling nature of the innies’ jobs.
Although lore-heavy, the show has avoided many of the pitfalls of “puzzle box” shows, balancing revelations with astonishingly good performances, particularly from Trammell Tillman as Lumon floor manager Mr Milchick. This uncanny and perversely funny season deserves its status as a water cooler hit. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait three more years for a resolution.
– Erin Harrington
Happiness
ThreeNow (New Zealand) from April 3
With their new show Happiness, airing on Three and Three Now, Kip Chapman and Luke Di Somma have created a welcome New Zealand answer to the popular style of “backstage” musical TV show.
The protagonist is stage director Charlie (Harry McNaughton), who has returned from New York to his hometown of Tauranga having been dismissed from helming a Broadway revival of Cats. In a desperate attempt to demonstrate competency for a renewal of his visa, and to please his mum Gaye (Rebecca Gibney), Charlie decides to help out the local amateur musical theatre society Pizzaz (“the finest large-scale yet boutique classical musical theatre company in Tauranga”) with its latest production, an original musical called The Trojan Horse.
While the story is fairly predictable, the show blessed with an engaging pastiche score by Luke Di Somma that references a variety of fun musical theatre tropes. It is a welcome addition to the “let’s put on a show” backstager genre, and will appeal to fans of musical theatre as well as workplace comedies.
Happiness paints New Zealand musical theatre talent in a positive light – showing what the locals can do – while being highly entertaining in its own right.
– Gregory Camp
Running Point
Netflix
Running Point is writer-producer Mindy Kaling’s return to her roots with an office-family comedy. After spending some time in high-school with Never Have I Ever and college with Sex Lives of College Girls, Kaling returns to where she started her TV career with The Office and The Mindy Project. Based very loosely on the real-life story of Los Angeles Lakers President Jeanie Buss, this Kate Hudson vehicle is ripe with satire, family dynamics and absurdity.
When her older brother (Justin Theroux) goes to rehab, he names his sister (Hudson) as the new president of their family business: basketball empire the Los Angeles “Waves”. Running Point feels like a more fully-realised version of Kaling’s previous short-lived family sports comedy Champions.
The cast is stacked with TV comedy MVPs including Brenda Song, Drew Tarver, Scott MacArthur, Jay Ellis, Max Greenfield and Jon Glaser. Hudson is at her most Goldie Hawn-like here, mixing physical comedy with goofiness and heart. It’s easy and enjoyable watching, even if (like me) you are not a big sports fan!
– Jessica Ford
Gone Girls: The Long Island Serial Killer
Netflix
True crime documentaries, particularly those concerned with serial killers, are often criticised for their silencing of the victims, while elevating the perpetrator and perversely celebrating their crimes.
Gone Girls: The Long Island Serial Killer bucks that trend. Its focus is on the women who were murdered by Rex Heuermann, and the families and friends who band together in their shared suffering and pursuit of justice over a period of more than two decades. In particular, it is the disappearance of Shannan Gilbert, and her mother’s dogged perseverance in keeping the police department’s attention on her missing daughter, which leads to the discovery and identification of the bodies of another six women.
Like his namesake, the “Long Island Ripper”, Heuermann relied on the fact that his victims were sex workers – assuming their deaths would be of little consequence to law enforcement, or that their disappearances wouldn’t even be noticed. For some time this was true, as one interviewee observes: “knowing that sex workers might be afraid to come forward with information, police were not active in reaching out to them and making them feel comfortable coming forward”.
But these women were mothers, daughters, sisters and friends. Gone Girls rejects the marginalisation of the victims, just as their communities had worked so hard to do.
– Jessica Gildersleeve
Adolescence
Netflix
Why do children kill other children? What makes an intelligent boy from a loving suburban family borrow a knife from a school friend and, on a casual Sunday evening, stab another child to death? When someone so young commits a horrific act, who is to blame – the child, the family, or society?
With its technical mastery and gut-punch power, Adolescence is a tour de force. The series tracks the story of 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper) after he is arrested and later charged with the murder of his classmate, Katie. Co-creator Stephen Graham stars as Jamie’s father, Eddie.
The series is a harrowing take on male violence and rage, and the misogynist radicalisation of vulnerable boys. Trapped in the dark mirrors of the manosphere, and allured by the grim logic of Andrew Tate, Jamie represents a generation of boys tragically and perhaps permanently lost to incel culture.
Skilfully filmed in Philip Barantini’s signature one-shot style, the series pushes the limits of television production. The high-wire act of timing and trust amplifies the message that one misstep can lead to failure. In Adolescence, however, there are no easy outs. Just as the continuous filming style offers no reprieve, the show refuses to offer a simple explanation for why Jamie did it.
Adolescence is not an easy watch, but for those parenting teens, it is a necessary one.
Edutainment at its finest, The Role of a Lifetime approaches contemporary parenthood with good humour and even better, good research. Informative without being preachy, the short series focuses on parenting tweens (children in late primary school) and above, with a sympathetic approach to the pressures of modern life. In a nutshell: social media is everywhere, what can and should we do about it?
Leads Kate Ritchie and Nazeem Hussain serve as part-segment presenters and part-parent role players in this mixture of magazine show and sitcom, while the steady hands of Amanda Keller and Maggie Dent provide context and permission to get it wrong.
Aimed very squarely at a nuclear heterocentric Australian middle class, there are moments that still stray into cliché. For instance, why is mum still in charge of dinner even though she’s also worked a full day, often still in full work clothes, until late at night? Nonetheless, the warm dynamic between the family members and the chosen experts makes the show really engaging and invites further discussion rather than dictating rules and failures.
The featured “young experts” who participate in the casual panels are also excellent. If they are anything resembling Australia’s future, we are in good hands.
– Liz Giuffre
Nickel Boys
Prime Video
Nickel Boys, a new film adaptation of Colson Whitehead’s novel, follows Elwood Curtis – a studious, law-abiding teenager who is sent to the Nickel Academy in mid-1960s Florida after he unwittingly accepts a ride in a stolen car and is unjustly convicted as an accessory to the theft.
The Nickel Academy, based on the real-life Dozier School for Boys, is a segregated reform school operating as a front for the coercion of unpaid labour from the boys detained there. These boys are subject to beatings, rapes and psychological torture. And their efforts to run away or resist often prove fatal.
At Nickel, Elwood bonds with another 17-year-old inmate, Turner, whose cynicism provides a foil to Elwood’s idealism. A second timeline follows the adult Elwood’s efforts to build a life and maintain relationships in the aftermath of his imprisonment and escape.
You don’t watch Nickel Boys so much as experience it – seeing and hearing what Elwood and (later) Turner see and hear. The film’s first-person approach can sometimes be distracting, not least because of the impulse to compare it with your own sense of what looking looks like.
That said, the film honours Whitehead’s ambivalence, developing a visual style that amplifies a major plot twist in the novel. It turns the darkest events into a luminous fable of endurance.
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.
One year after Video Ezy opened its first store in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Broadcasting Act 1989 was introduced. It established frameworks and funding for local content that largely still exist.
But in 2025, New Zealanders’ viewing and listening habits are radically different. We’ve shifted from local broadcasters to international streaming and online media services. Video and music streaming platforms now reach more people than local TV and radio.
This brings convenience and access to a world of film, TV, news, and music. But it also means local content risks being swamped on its own shores. A recent discussion document from Manatū Taonga/Ministry for Culture and Heritage is the latest attempt to address the problem.
Among the suggested changes to local content funding, promotion, and distribution are:
requiring newly manufactured smart TVs to pre-install New Zealand apps
the merger of NZ On Air with the NZ Film Commission
changes to the Broadcast Standards Authority
increased captioning and audio description
and requiring local and global media providers to invest in and promote New Zealand content.
Some of these are welcome – and long overdue. But broader media reform must also take this opportunity to create future-proofed policy; one that’s responsive to where local audiences are consuming content, and which supports the media sector to adapt to a rapidly changing landscape.
Why local content struggles
New Zealand media, already hit by wider platform choice and the movement of advertising revenue offshore, has experienced deep job cuts, including at state-owned TVNZ, and the complete closure of Newshub.
While that might seem positive, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram each individually outperform TVNZ+ viewership. And many global video-on-demand platforms have fewer than ten local titles available for New Zealand audiences to watch.
These figures might suggest New Zealanders aren’t interested in local content – but that isn’t necessarily true. If we compare local media structures to overseas markets, we see major differences in the opportunities for local content to reach audiences.
Unlike other comparable countries, New Zealand lacks government-owned and fully-funded platforms for locally produced content to find local audiences. Where these platforms exist overseas, engagement with local content is higher.
Announcing his government’s creative sector strategy last year, Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith said it aims to “nurture talent and support a pipeline to provide sustainable career opportunities”.
Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith. Getty Images
The strategy also speaks of “modernising and streamlining government regulation to enable our cultural sectors to thrive”.
But there are significant omissions in the latest discussion document. Video gaming, for example, is largely missing from the proposals, although research suggests the industry could represent up to 44% of global consumer entertainment spending by 2040.
Addressing those omissions and strategically embracing new opportunities offers a chance to support local producers in two key ways: enhancing the global presence of New Zealand content, and ensuring local audiences see themselves in the media they enjoy.
This would require an ambitious rethink around media infrastructure and investments, focused on what can have the biggest impact long term. This might include:
investing in a fully-funded youth radio station
changing the revenue structure of TVNZ to be primarily state funded
legislating global video sharing platforms like YouTube and TikTok to promote New Zealand content
or developing a progressive, industry-informed video game policy.
It’s vital that any proposed policy changes are fit for purpose and adaptable for years to come.
Past attempts at media reform in Aotearoa New Zealand have often been reactive to changing environments, rather than proactive. But there’s an opportunity now to consider more meaningful changes, addressing current challenges while looking to the future.
Jesse Austin-Stewart has completed commissioned research for NZ On Air and participated in focus groups for Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He has received competitive funding from Creative New Zealand, NZ On Air, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Hertiage, and the NZ Music Commission. He is a writer member of APRA AMCOS and a member of the Composer’s Association of New Zealand
Catherine Hoad has previously completed research in partnership with or commissioned by APRA AMCOS, Toi Mai Workforce Development Council, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Heritage, ScreenSafe, and NZ On Air.
Dave Carter is a writer member of APRA AMCOS and has previously received funding from Manatū Taongao Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
Oli Wilson has previously completed research in partnership with or commissioned by APRA AMCOS, Toi Mai Workforce Development Council, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Heritage and the NZ Music Commission. He has also received funding, or contributed to projects that have benefited from funding from NZ on Air, the NZ Music Commission and Recorded Music New Zealand. He has provided services to The Chills, owns shares in TripTunz Limited, and is a writer member of APRA AMCOS.
This election is already shaping up as very much about energy. But notably, ambitions for and debate about combatting climate change have receded in recent times.
Peter Dutton has his proposal for an east coast gas reservation scheme at the centre of his campaign. Then of course there is that much-contested nuclear policy. But the government has declined to produce a 2035 emissions reduction target before polling day and, apart from its commitment to net zero by 2050, the Coalition won’t talk targets in opposition.
John Connor, CEO of the Carbon Marketing Institute, says “probably not since 2004 has climate been so much in the shadows, at least at this stage”. It’s a matter of the “energy wars” rather than the “climate wars” so far, he says.
The climate change issue was potent in 2022, especially in helping the “teal” candidates get elected. It probably is still cutting through in their sort of seats. And climate change demonstrators are targeting election events.
Unsurprisingly, cost of living was a mile ahead of anything else, at 74%. Then came housing (37%), healthcare (27%), economy (26%), crime (25%) and tax (19%). Climate change followed seventh, with 18%, ahead of immigration (15%) and defence (13%).
When asked who would be best to respond to concern about climate change, Labor held a solid lead, 35% to the 22% who nominated the Coalition, but 43% said neither or were unsure.
The Morgan poll early this year compared issues of most importance to people in the September quarter of 2024 and the June quarter of 2022. Just under a third nominated global warming and climate change in 2022 (32%); by 2024 this was down to less than a quarter (23%).
The cost-of-living crisis is the most obvious reason why climate change has faded in many voters’ minds. That has pushed almost everything else aside, as families struggle with financial practicalities.
(The Carbon Market Institute says, however, that polling it commissioned, to be released later this week does show the public understand the link between climate change and the cost of living, even if the politicians are reluctant to go there just now. 62% of respondents agreed impacts of climate change – such as more frequent and severe bushfires and flooding – worsen the cost of living through insurance cost increases and grocery prices, with just 13% disagreeing.)
Now we are deeply into the transition to a clean economy the inevitable downsides are more to the fore. However necessary, they are painful, including high power bills (that have had to be subsidised by the government) and local arguments about transmission lines and wind farms blighting parts of the landscape.
After it was elected Labor highlighted the importance of climate change by legislating its 2030 43% emissions reduction target. But it has become reticent when asked to talk about the 2035 target for Australia.
That was initially due to be submitted under the Paris agreement by February, but now it won’t be announced until closer to the September deadline. Nor will the Climate Change Authority, headed by former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, produce its recommendation to the government before the election. The government’s explanation for its delay is that it can’t act before the the authority’s recommendation.
Dutton remains committed to the Paris agreement and the zero emissions by 2050 target. But he flagged at the weekend that he would not proceed with Australia’s bid to host COP31 in 2026.
The opposition says it would keep the safeguards mechanism that regulates emissions from large emitters, but we don’t know what changes it would make to it.
Nor do we know what would happen under a Dutton government to the various framework institutions around climate change policy. But Kean and his authority are certainly in the gun sights. Opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume has said, “I don’t think that we could possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so badly politicised”.
Peter Dutton wouldn’t live in The Lodge (though it was good enough for Robert Menzies)
What is it about some modern conservative leaders and The Lodge?
Peter Dutton on Monday declared that, if he became PM, he would live at Kirribilli House, not The Lodge.
“We love Sydney, we love the harbour, it’s a great city, and so yes. You’ve got the choice between Kirribilli or living in Canberra. I think I’ll take Sydney any day over living in Canberra,” he said.
The opposition leader’s disdain for Canberra was obvious. Then again, perhaps when you’re planning to get rid of tens of thousands of Canberra-based public servants, Kirilly Dutton might find a browse around the Manuka shops potentially awkward.
From the way he extolled the virtues of Sydney, it doesn’t seem that Dutton wishes he could stay in his home city of Brisbane, prevented from doing so only by the lack of an official residence there.
As prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull didn’t just stay living in Sydney – he chose to remain in his own house. It was certainly more glam than The Lodge.
Yet The Lodge was good enough for the leader to whom the Liberals all pay homage. Robert Menzies and his family lived there quite happily for a very long time. Menzies’ daughter Heather Henderson, in her book A Smile for My Parents, tells of life in the bush capital, when her mother kept a shanghai in the wisteria to take potshots at the currawongs.
They were simpler days. The security-conscious Dutton would be appalled at the anecdote about the intruder who appeared one night in the Lodge kitchen. Pattie Menzies, who happened to be carving the roast for dinner at the time, walked into the kitchen, armed with the knife. The intruder fled. There was no official inquiry – just a reprimand for the maid for not snibbing the door.
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.
When a jury in the New South Wales Supreme Court found Kristian White guilty of manslaughter, it was the first verdict of its kind in recent Australian history.
The verdict is significant because it offered a rare opportunity for the community to have a prominent say in what should and shouldn’t be regarded as reasonable use of force by police.
The sentence of a two-year community-based order means White won’t spend any time behind bars – a judgement that surprised some legal scholars.
Clare Nowland, aged 95, died after she was tasered by White, a police officer, in a nursing home in 2023. Nowland had approached White in distress while holding a steak knife. She fell after being tasered and died a week later in hospital.
In finding White guilty, the jury drew an important line in the sand around the appropriate use of tasers, and use of force more generally, by police in Australia.
It follows an emerging international trend, suggesting community expectations around police use of force are shifting. Recent convictions of Derek Chauvin in the United States and Benjamin Monk in the United Kingdom demonstrate this.
We don’t know much about what the public thinks about this issue. While this case is highly specific, it’s the first major window into what everyday people think police should and shouldn’t be able to do in the line of duty.
Excessive force: what are the rules?
Excessive use of force by police is notoriously difficult to define.
“Situational use of force” models, such as that used in the NSW Police, offer little insight, for officers or juries, about what level of force is appropriate for what level of resistance.
Officers in NSW are reminded that “the decision to apply force, including use of a Taser, is an individual one for which every officer will be held accountable”.
In this model, any officer who carries an array of weapons (as White did on that fateful evening) must be an expert in how to use those weapons proportionately to the threat they face.
But what tangible guidance do they have about what constitutes excessive force? Given persistent concerns among police scholars about deficiencies in training and other policy documents, it can be hard to discern what is reasonable or excessive force legally.
Every critical incident carries specific and different dynamics, and officers cannot realistically be trained for every possible scenario. Much depends on their individual decision-making.
So can we reach a definition?
How then can we find a universal way to recognise “excessive force”?
One of the better definitions of such force comes from North American police ethics scholar Carl Klockars, who suggested in 1996 excessive force was “any force that a police officer of the highest skill might find a way to avoid”.
This definition encourages us to think (and talk) more about what a police officer of the highest skill looks like. This is important in an era when ideas about what police can and should do are strongly shaped by Hollywood fantasies.
In the tragic set of circumstances that unfolded in the Cooma aged care home, we can ask ourselves: what might an officer of the highest skill have done?
Notably, a recently retired senior officer answered this question in the media the day after the events unfolded. He said “they could have thrown a blanket over her”.
Evidently, the jury agreed there were other options available that didn’t involve the use of a taser.
Modern policing must reckon with what a highly skilled officer looks like, especially as the profession adopts so-called “less lethal” force technologies such as tasers. What characteristics do we really want in a police officer’s “skills armoury”? Do we want a good aim, a strong physical presence, high levels of empathy or perhaps ethical decision-making? What should be prioritised?
The Nowland case has asked these questions. The jury’s verdict set the stage for a sentence that established a higher standard for policing vulnerable people, which made it surprising that a non-custodial sentence was ultimately imposed.
Justice Ian Harrison found there were mitigating factors, such as White’s claim he felt “justified” in his actions. As a police officer, this likely carried significant weight to reduce moral culpability and the need for “punishment”.
Justice Harrison also found White’s actions fell at the lower end of objective seriousness for manslaughter.
But what about ensuring the sentence reflects community ideals about policing standards, as reflected in the guilty verdict?
Many may now wonder whether there is any kind of police misuse of a taser that could be deemed worthy of the ultimate penalty of imprisonment.
But the case nevertheless remains a watershed moment. It provides an insight into what the public expects of police, and how strongly courts choose to reinforce those expectations.
Emma Ryan 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.
People are being asked to check the use-by dates of bagged salad products they’ve purchased recently after a number of Australian supermarkets issued recalls due to potential bacterial contamination.
Recalls issued over the past week have affected bagged and pre-packaged salad products sold at supermarkets around the country including Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and IGA.
The potential contaminant is shiga-toxin-producing E. coli or STEC. But so far, no cases of illness have been reported.
So what is this bacterium and how could it affect the salad leaves in your dinner or lunch?
E.Coli and STEC
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a bacterium that normally lives in the intestines of healthy people and animals. Fortunately most strains of E. coliare harmless and don’t cause symptoms.
But there are certain strains that can lead to symptoms such as abdominal cramping, diarrhoea, fever and vomiting. In some cases a severe infection can even result in kidney failure.
STEC is one strain that can cause gastrointestinal symptoms. It’s called “shiga toxin-producing” because the toxin from this strain of E. coli is very similar to that produced by the Shigella bacterium.
Shigella causes shigellosis, a gastrointestinal infection which can involve similar symptoms to STEC. Both can cause abdominal cramping, bloody diarrhoea, fever and vomiting.
Most people recover within ten days of the onset of symptoms. People suffering from STEC infection should stay hydrated and seek medical care if symptoms are serious or don’t resolve.
E. coli normally lives in our bodies without causing harm. But some strains can make us sick. Ezume Images/Shutterstock
How common is it?
One estimate suggests at least 2.8 million STEC infections occur globally every year.
In general STEC infections in Australia are very rare with less than four people per million affected annually.
The diagnosis of STEC infection is made by testing a sample of a person’s stool for the presence of the bacterium.
Children under five, adults aged over 65 and people with weakened immune systems are at an increased risk of STEC infection and of getting very sick with it.
Why are bagged salads often a culprit?
The current recalls are not the first time bagged salads have been subject to food safety issues in Australia or elsewhere. These products can be vulnerable to bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella.
Contamination in bagged salads can occur at various stages, from farm to table. It can begin early during growing when leafy greens can be exposed to bacteria from contaminated water, soil or manure.
During harvesting, handling and processing, cross-contamination can happen if the equipment or surfaces are not properly disinfected. Finally, packaging can contribute to contamination if it comes into contact with contaminated surfaces or hands.
The current outbreak
Health authorities sometimes test for the presence of food-borne bacteria by culturing bacteria from packaged foods in the lab as part of a proactive public health surveillance program.
If they identify the presence of concerning food-borne bacteria they will work with retailers to undertake recalls of that food product as a precaution to protect public health.
To date there have been no cases of illness linked to the current recalls. The presence of STEC doesn’t necessarily mean people will get sick from eating the salad product, but this is an early detection aimed to prevent food-borne illness.
Members of the public have been urged not to consume any of the recalled products, and to throw them away or return them to where they bought them for a refund. Anyone who has consumed the products and has health concerns should seek medical advice.
Many bagged salad products come with a selling point along the lines of “washed and ready to eat”. Given the current recalls, you might ask whether it really is safe to eat pre-packaged salads without giving the leaves a wash yourself.
Unfortunately, research shows using tap water to wash bagged leafy salads isn’t effective in removing bacteria. But washing your raw vegetables is still helpful in getting rid of any clinging dirt that may contain clumps of bacteria.
Fortunately the risk of getting sick from eating bagged lettuce is generally very low. It’s also important to wash your hands before handling food, check the expiry dates of bagged salads and pay attention to health alerts.
Vincent Ho 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.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would withdraw Australia’s bid to co-host next year’s global climate summit if the Coalition wins the federal election.
Australia has lobbied hard for the right to host the talks, known as COP31, in conjunction with Pacific nations. Australia has emerged as a leading contender, and has the backing of most countries in its United Nations grouping, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand.
However, Dutton on Sunday described the idea of hosting the UN climate conference as “not something we are supporting — it is madness”. He also falsely claimed it would cost Australia “tens of billions” of dollars to host the event.
Australia would reap big benefits by hosting the high-profile global talks. It would likely attract considerable investment in renewables and clean energy export industries, and strengthen Australia’s national security during a time of increasing geo-strategic competition in the Pacific. To pull out now would be a costly move.
Decison deferred until June
The decision on who will host COP31 in 2026 was expected at last year’s summit in Azerbaijan. But it was deferred until June this year – after Australia’s next federal election.
Hosting rights are shared between five UN country groupings on a rotational basis. The final decision is made by consensus.
Australia’s bid to host with Pacific nations has considerable support. But Turkey, the only other country in the running to host COP31, has so far resisted lobbying efforts to persuade it to drop out.
An economic boost for Australia
Hosting the UN climate talks is a massive economic opportunity for Australia.
COP31 would be one of the biggest diplomatic summits Australia has ever hosted. Tens of thousands of people could be expected for a fortnight of negotiations, with satellite events held across the nation and the Pacific.
Adelaide is in the box seat to play host. The South Australian government estimated hosting the UN talks could generate more than A$500 million for the state. But economic benefits would be much wider, and longer-lasting, than tourism receipts from those attending. The talks are a chance to attract investment for Australia’s energy transition and for clean energy industries of the future, including critical minerals and green iron.
The UK government’s assessment of the value of hosting the UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021 found the net economic benefit was double that spent – around A$1 billion. That includes benefits from trade deals and foreign investment. With abundant critical minerals, and excellent wind and solar resources, Australia has even more to gain.
Hosting the world’s largest climate summit is a chance to attract the investment needed to replace ageing and unreliable coal-fired power stations. According to the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents the capital behind large-scale renewables, more than 70% of the investment in clean energy comes from international sources.
Dutton says he plans to replace coal with nuclear power (and to rely on gas until nuclear plants are built decades from now). The Coalition’s nuclear plan would require hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer support.
Securing our place in the Pacific
Working with Pacific nations to address climate change is key to Australian national security.
Australia aims to be the security partner of choice for Pacific island countries. And Pacific island countries are crystal clear: climate change is their “single greatest threat”.
The Albanese government has looked to cement Australia’s place in the Pacific by working with island nations to address climate change. In July 2022, Albanese joined Pacific leaders to declare a Pacific climate emergency and launched bid to co-host a UN climate summit with Pacific nations. In 2023, Australia signed a climate migration deal with Tuvalu that also prevents Tuvalu from pursuing a security deal with China.
Pacific leaders have welcomed Australia’s plans to host the UN climate talks and have agreed to work together to advocate for the joint bid. Walking away now could do real damage to Australian strategy in the region.
Embracing our clean energy future
Hosting COP31 is a chance to set up Australia’s economy of tomorrow, signalling the shift from fossil fuel heavyweight to clean energy superpower.
Australia is leading the clean energy transition. This is a story to tell the world. One in three households have rooftop solar. Already 40% of the main national power grid is powered by wind, solar and storage. We are on track for 80% renewables by 2030.
Australia is the world’s largest exporter of raw iron ore, but is well positioned to export more-valuable, and lower-polluting, green iron to major economies in our region. The potential export value of green iron is estimated to be $295 billion a year, or three times the current value of iron ore exports.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would withdraw Australia’s bid to co-host next year’s global climate summit if the Coalition wins the federal election.
Australia has lobbied hard for the right to host the talks, known as COP31, in conjunction with Pacific nations. Australia has emerged as a leading contender, and has the backing of most countries in its United Nations grouping, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand.
However, Dutton on Sunday described the idea of hosting the UN climate conference as “not something we are supporting — it is madness”. He also falsely claimed it would cost Australia “tens of billions” of dollars to host the event.
Australia would reap big benefits by hosting the high-profile global talks. It would likely attract considerable investment in renewables and clean energy export industries, and strengthen Australia’s national security during a time of increasing geo-strategic competition in the Pacific. To pull out now would be a costly move.
Decison deferred until June
The decision on who will host COP31 in 2026 was expected at last year’s summit in Azerbaijan. But it was deferred until June this year – after Australia’s next federal election.
Hosting rights are shared between five UN country groupings on a rotational basis. The final decision is made by consensus.
Australia’s bid to host with Pacific nations has considerable support. But Turkey, the only other country in the running to host COP31, has so far resisted lobbying efforts to persuade it to drop out.
An economic boost for Australia
Hosting the UN climate talks is a massive economic opportunity for Australia.
COP31 would be one of the biggest diplomatic summits Australia has ever hosted. Tens of thousands of people could be expected for a fortnight of negotiations, with satellite events held across the nation and the Pacific.
Adelaide is in the box seat to play host. The South Australian government estimated hosting the UN talks could generate more than A$500 million for the state. But economic benefits would be much wider, and longer-lasting, than tourism receipts from those attending. The talks are a chance to attract investment for Australia’s energy transition and for clean energy industries of the future, including critical minerals and green iron.
The UK government’s assessment of the value of hosting the UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021 found the net economic benefit was double that spent – around A$1 billion. That includes benefits from trade deals and foreign investment. With abundant critical minerals, and excellent wind and solar resources, Australia has even more to gain.
Hosting the world’s largest climate summit is a chance to attract the investment needed to replace ageing and unreliable coal-fired power stations. According to the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents the capital behind large-scale renewables, more than 70% of the investment in clean energy comes from international sources.
Dutton says he plans to replace coal with nuclear power (and to rely on gas until nuclear plants are built decades from now). The Coalition’s nuclear plan would require hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer support.
Securing our place in the Pacific
Working with Pacific nations to address climate change is key to Australian national security.
Australia aims to be the security partner of choice for Pacific island countries. And Pacific island countries are crystal clear: climate change is their “single greatest threat”.
The Albanese government has looked to cement Australia’s place in the Pacific by working with island nations to address climate change. In July 2022, Albanese joined Pacific leaders to declare a Pacific climate emergency and launched bid to co-host a UN climate summit with Pacific nations. In 2023, Australia signed a climate migration deal with Tuvalu that also prevents Tuvalu from pursuing a security deal with China.
Pacific leaders have welcomed Australia’s plans to host the UN climate talks and have agreed to work together to advocate for the joint bid. Walking away now could do real damage to Australian strategy in the region.
Embracing our clean energy future
Hosting COP31 is a chance to set up Australia’s economy of tomorrow, signalling the shift from fossil fuel heavyweight to clean energy superpower.
Australia is leading the clean energy transition. This is a story to tell the world. One in three households have rooftop solar. Already 40% of the main national power grid is powered by wind, solar and storage. We are on track for 80% renewables by 2030.
Australia is the world’s largest exporter of raw iron ore, but is well positioned to export more-valuable, and lower-polluting, green iron to major economies in our region. The potential export value of green iron is estimated to be $295 billion a year, or three times the current value of iron ore exports.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong
Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has doubled down on using trade measures – mostly tariffs – to reshape global trade. He plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on what he has labelled “Liberation Day”, April 2.
The Trump administration claims US producers face higher tariffs and more restrictions abroad than foreign producers when they export to the US.
The administration also examined tax systems such as Europe’s Value Added Tax and Australia’s GST, import regulations and other factors. It believes – mostly wrongly – these unfairly disadvantage American businesses and contribute to the US trade deficit.
As with many Trump initiatives, actual tariffs often change significantly between announcement and implementation, if they are implemented at all.
His reciprocal tariffs have been narrowed to imports from the US’ largest trading partners instead of imports from all countries. There may also be tariffs on specific sectors. Last week, Trump announced 25% tariffs on cars from overseas. At the weekend said he “couldn’t care less” if this made cars more expensive for US consumers.
Coercive control, revenue and re-shoring
President Trump has raised a myriad of puzzling arguments in favour of tariffs. They largely fall into three categories:
The first is the use of tariffs as a coercion tool against other countries. In the first Trump presidency, trading partners were pressured to renegotiate trade agreements such as the renamed but largely identical US-Mexico-Canada agreement.
Similarly, the Trump administration used the threat of tariffs to gain market access, elicit better trade terms or as a form of weaponised trade to achieve unrelated foreign policy goals.
Last week, Trump suggested he would consider a reduction in tariffs on China in exchange for a sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner.
The second category is the use of tariffs as a source of revenue. The Trump administration envisions tariffs to be collected by a yet-to-be-created External Revenue Service. This would form the flip side of the powerful and much-maligned Internal Revenue Service.
Trump claims tariffs will be paid by the exporting country. This would be in theory to finance future tax cuts. In practice, tariffs are almost always paid by the importer of goods and usually get passed on to consumers.
There is a potential contradiction between these two rationales. It appears the Trump administration wants to make at least some tariffs permanent. But doing so would almost nullify the use of tariffs as a bargaining chip and coercion tool.
The final category is to encourage companies to “re-shore” production to the US to avoid tariffs and to support US jobs.
This would signal a reversal of what 1994 presidential candidate Ross Perot, speaking of the North American Free Trade Agreement, called the “giant sucking sound going south”. Some manufacturing may return to the US. But the high costs of building new factories, re-routing supply chains and uncompetitive US labour costs will hinder large-scale re-shoring efforts.
A long-term plan?
The Trump administration’s trade moves can be seen as part of a larger strategy to reshape the US domestic and the global economic system.
Vance warned “deindustrialisation poses risks both to our national security and our workforce”. Vance himself sums up this approach by characterising tariffs as a “necessary tool to protect our jobs and our industries”.
This line of argument overlooks a number of critical factors. Tariffs lead to higher prices for consumers. Unless currencies adjust, the inflationary impact could disadvantage the very people that can least afford it.
The same is true if other countries respond to US trade measures by responding in kind, as Canada and the European Union already have.
American farmers and other export-oriented industries will be hard hit. From a strategic perspective, the US position as global leader has suffered a severe blow. Some countries are openly pivoting to its geopolitical and economic rival, China.
If this scenario comes to pass, the US pullback – an outright withdrawal is unlikely – from the highly integrated international trading system might end up a more chaotic version of the UK’s pursuit of Brexit.
A step back in time
The world of liberalised trade that followed the end of the Cold War in 1990 is ending. Countries will turn inwards, prioritising their economic security and resilience. The costs of this turn away from multilateralism and international institutions, however, are not just economic.
A return of the “beggar thy neighbour” policies of the 1930s would be a dangerous path, with the world inching closer to the abyss. “Liberation Day” might push the world over the edge.
Markus Wagner 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.
Once yelled at women seen to be pestering or annoying – or at feminists questioning and threatening the status quo – “harpy” has long been used as a derogatory term targeting women.
But have you ever wondered what a harpy was in the first place?
Much like similar derogatory titles “siren” and “fury”, the term “harpy” is derived from a group of monstrous female figures from ancient Greek and Roman mythology.
This picture depicts the harpies being driven from the table of King Phineus, a story told in the Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes, in which Jason and the Argonauts search for the golden fleece. The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Rogers Fund, 1967
Who were the harpies?
In Greek and Roman myth, the harpies were a group of animal-human hybrid monsters on par with other such mythological creatures like the sirens, the sphinx, and the centaurs.
Harpies were commonly imagined as an amalgam of a bird’s body, such as wings and claws, with a woman’s head.
The ancient story of the Aeneid, by Latin poet Virgil, describes the story’s hero Aeneas encountering harpies on his quest to found Rome, saying:
Maiden faces have these birds, foulest filth they drop, clawed hands are theirs, and faces ever gaunt with hunger.
In Greco-Roman myth, the harpies were typically tasked with meting out justice on behalf of Zeus and other gods by using their great speed from their wings and sharp talons.
The importance of their claws was likely a result of their name, which was derived from the Ancient Greek word for “snatching” (ἁρπάζω or harpazdo).
As was common of many mythological figures with hybrid features, the way their animal features were portrayed tended to vary across different media (art or literature), different narrative purposes, and over time.
Sometimes the claws were emphasised; other times it was their supernaturally swift wings and voracious hunger.
The harpies were not nice people. They existed in myth to dish out punishments from the gods.
Their primary target? Phineus, a seer and king of Salmydessus in Thrace, a city believed to have been located on the Western coast of the Black Sea near the modern day Turkish town of Kıyıköy.
His story is told in the Argonautica by ancient Greek author Apollonius of Rhodes. This tale centres on the journey of Jason and the Argonauts in search of the golden fleece.
In the story, Phineus is said to have abused his powers as a seer by sharing too many of the gods’ secrets with mortals.
This was among the most egregious of crimes in the eyes of the gods, so an especially awful punishment was decided upon.
Phineus was blinded and given the dubious gift of immortality while still allowed to age endlessly. And worst of all, he was set upon by the harpies.
Every time Phineus picked up and tried to eat food, the harpies would burst out from the clouds, moving as fast as lightning, and
with their crooked beaks incessantly snatched the food away from his mouth and hands.
The harpies brought a further gift for Phineus: their smell. This supernaturally “intolerable stench” could putrefy food, so any scraps the harpies didn’t grab were left rotting on the table. You couldn’t even stand near it, “so foully reeked the remnants of the meal”.
And while the harpies swooped in and out in seconds, their smell stuck to the rotting food (and probably poor Phineus).
Some ancient poets add a little extra zest and disgust by also suggesting the harpies may have been defecating on the food, and presumably Phineus.
Most notable is Virgil in his text the Aeneid who wrote about “foedissima ventris proluvies”, meaning:
the foulest discharges from their bellies.
This was likely an exaggeration of their bird-like qualities, used to emphasise how disgusting and monstrous they were.
Phineus was eventually given a reprieve from the harpies, by order of Zeus, so he could help the hero Jason on his quest for the golden fleece.
Having completed their job, the harpies then flew to Crete to live in a cave far away from annoying mortals – only being disturbed once by Aeneas on his meandering path to Rome.
The story of Phineus helped harpies become a metaphor for greed.
Those compared to harpies could include greedy house-guests overstaying their welcome, people living extravagantly or frivolously, or even family members taking advantage of wealthy relatives.
Although the harpies were female monsters, the term was not exclusively applied to women, but used to describe groups of greedy people.
Happily, today the title of “harpy” is falling out of favour as a derogatory term. But the hordes of monstrous, snatching, winged women live on in modern books, games, comics, movies and TV shows.
From video games with swathes of harpy-like creatures snatching and clawing at the protagonist, like the 2020 video game Hades, to characters in stories inspired by Greek and Roman myth, the harpies are sticking around – like a bad smell.
Kitty Smith is a member of the Australian Society for Classical Studies.
Gaia has been the most successful ESA space mission ever, so why did they turn Gaia off? What did Gaia achieve? And perhaps most importantly, why was it my favourite space telescope?
Running on empty
Gaia was retired for a simple reason: after more than 11 years in space, it ran out of the cold gas propellant it needed to keep scanning the sky.
The telescope did its last observation on 15 January 2025. The ESA team then performed testing for a few weeks, before telling Gaia to leave its home at a point in space called L2 and start orbiting the Sun away from Earth.
L2 is one of five “Lagrangian points” around Earth and the Sun where gravitational conditions make for a nice, stable orbit. L2 is located 1.5 million kilometres from Earth on the “dark side”, opposite the Sun.
L2 is a highly prized location because it’s a stable spot to orbit, it’s close enough to Earth for easy communication, and spacecraft can use the Sun behind them for solar power while looking away from the Sun out into space.
It’s also too far away from Earth to send anyone on a repair mission, so once your spacecraft gets there it’s on its own.
Gaia used its thrusters for the last time to push itself away from L2, and is now drifting around the Sun in a “retirement orbit” where it won’t get in anybody’s way.
To do this, it measured the precise positions and motions of 1.46 billion objects in space. Gaia also measured brightnesses and variability and those data were used to provide temperatures, gravitational parameters, stellar types and more for millions of stars. One of the key pieces of information Gaia provided was the distance to millions of stars.
A cosmic measuring tape
I’m a radio astronomer, which means I use radio telescopes here on Earth to explore the Universe. Radio light is the longest wavelength of light, invisible to human eyes, and I use it to investigate magnetic stars.
But even though I’m a radio astronomer and Gaia was an optical telescope, looking at the same wavelengths of light our eyes can see, I use Gaia data almost every single day.
I used it today to find out how far away, how bright, and how fast a star was. Before Gaia, I would probably never have known how far away that star was.
This is essential for figuring out how bright the stars I study really are, which helps me understand the physics of what’s happening in and around them.
A huge success
Gaia has contributed to thousands of articles in astronomy journals. Papers released by the Gaia collaboration have been cited well over 20,000 times in total.
Gaia has produced too many science results to share here. To take just one example, Gaia improved our understanding of the structure of our own galaxy by showing that it has multiple spiral arms that are less sharply defined than we previously thought.
Not really the end for Gaia
It’s difficult to express how revolutionary Gaia has been for astronomy, but we can let the numbers speak for themselves. Around five astronomy journal articles are published every day that use Gaia data, making Gaia the most successful ESA mission ever. And that won’t come to a complete stop when Gaia retires.
The Gaia collaboration has published three data releases so far. This is where the collaboration performs the processing and checks on the data, adds some important analysis and releases all of that in one big hit.
And luckily, there are two more big data releases with even more information to come. The fourth data release is expected in mid to late 2026. The fifth and final data release, containing all of the Gaia data from the whole mission, will come out sometime in the 2030s.
This article is my own small tribute to a telescope that changed astronomy as we know it. So I will end by saying a huge thank you to everyone who has ever worked on this amazing space mission, whether it was engineering and operations, turning the data into the amazing resource it is, or any of the other many jobs that make a mission successful. And thank you to those who continue to work on the data as we speak.
Finally, thank you to my favourite space telescope. Goodbye, Gaia, I’ll miss you.
Laura Nicole Driessen is an ambassador for the Orbit Centre of Imagination at the Rise and Shine Kindergarten, in Sydney’s Inner West.
One year after the government banned cellphones from schools to help students focus and reduce distractions in class, we’re beginning to see how it has been implemented and how successful it’s been.
As part of that process, our new research asked young people about the ban. Unsurprisingly, they had a lot to say.
Schools around the world, including in Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, China and parts of the United States, have implemented similar bans. The guiding principle everywhere has been to help students do better in school.
But studies have shown these bans often don’t work as planned. For example, recent research from the UK involving over 1,200 students found no significant difference in academic grades or wellbeing between schools with strict phone bans and those with more relaxed policies.
With so many questions at the time of the ban about how it would be enforced, we wanted to hear what was going on in schools and what young people really thought. We spoke to 77 young people aged 12 to 18 from 25 schools around the country. Some liked the bans, some didn’t and some weren’t sure.
Mixed feelings
Many students had mixed feelings about the bans. Some admitted the bans helped reduce distractions and gave them a break from using their phones. As one explained,
otherwise, we’ll be on our phone all day, all afternoon, all night, and it won’t be healthy for our minds.
But other students said the ban had created new problems.
First, some students felt stressed and anxious when they couldn’t contact their parents or caregivers during the day. Second, they said the rules weren’t always clear or fair. Some teachers were strict, others weren’t. And sometimes, teachers used their phones in class, but students couldn’t.
That perceived double standard – where teachers can use phones but students can’t – left many of our respondents feeling frustrated and unfairly treated. In some cases, it even made them more secretive about their phone use. One student said,
Even though we’re not allowed to use our phones, everyone is sneaky and uses it anyway.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the cellphone ban would cut distractions so kids could learn and achieve. Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
A lack of consultation
A lot of students said they weren’t asked what they thought before the bans were introduced. They felt as if adults made the rules without asking them or listening to them. One of our interviewees said,
It feels like they just ban everything, thinking it will fix the problem.
Many didn’t understand the purpose of the ban, especially since they still have to use laptops and other technology in class.
Examples like this show bans don’t always change behaviour the way they’re intended to. It can simply make students feel as though adults underestimate how tech-savvy they really are.
Young people as active problem solvers
The young people in our research offered some alternatives to the ban.
Many suggested allowing phones at break and lunch times. That way, they could stay connected without interrupting class. They also said adults needed to model healthy digital habits, not just set the rules.
Based on student responses, it does appear that learning and teaching how to use phones in healthy ways would be more helpful than banning them altogether.
Research from the Digital Wellness Lab supports this balanced approach, emphasising skill building over restriction. But for this to work, adults need support too. Teachers and parents need training and resources to help guide young people – and should also be surveyed on how they feel about the ban.
Banning phones doesn’t fix the bigger issue of helping young people to use technology safely and responsibly. If schools really want to support students, they need to move beyond one-size-fits-all rules.
Our research shows young people aren’t just passive users of technology. They’re active problem solvers. They want to be part of the conversation – and part of the solution.
This would involve replacing top-down bans with meaningful conversations involving young people and adults to build fair and practical digital guidelines, where everyone benefits.
Cara Swit received funding from The Oakley Mental Health Foundation, InternetNZ and the University of Canterbury’s Vision Mātauranga Development Fund to conduct this research.
Aaron Hapuku received funding from The Oakley Mental Health Foundation, InternetNZ and the University of Canterbury’s Vision Mātauranga Development Fund to conduct this research.
Helena Cook received funding from InternetNZ, Oakley Mental Health Foundation and UC Vision Mātauranga Development Fund.
Jennifer Smith received funding from Internet New Zealand and The Oakley Mental Health Foundation.
Every now and then an athlete comes along who makes people wonder, “how are they so fast?”
Let me introduce you to Gout Gout.
Gout is a 17-year-old sprint sensation from Australia, whose blistering 100m and 200m times have drawn comparison to none other than Jamaican sprint legend Usain Bolt.
While he was edged out over 200 metres in Melbourne last weekend by 21-year-old Lachlan Kennedy – recent 60-metre world indoor silver medallist who is a rising sprinter poised to break the ten-second barrier for 100 metres – Gout’s performances continue to signal a bright future on the track.
In a seven-month period since last August, Gout has:
won silver in the 200m at the World Junior Championships (20.60 seconds, -0.7 metres/second wind)
two weeks ago in Brisbane, smashed through the magical 20-second barrier for the 200m, recording a world-leading 19.98 seconds (+3.6m/s), albeit wind-aided (anything greater than 2.0 metres/second is considered wind-aided).
But what makes Gout so fast?
Is it his explosive start, long stride, top speed or smooth technique?
The answer, as with all athletic outliers, is likely a combination of several unique attributes.
Let’s dive into the science.
The science of sprinting
Sprinting is an ongoing battle of force and mass.
Gravity is pulling the athlete’s body mass down. Meanwhile, the athlete must apply muscular force into the track to keep the body upright.
Research suggests the world’s fastest sprinters generate the highest ground reaction force relative to their body mass and apply it in the shortest period, in the right direction (more horizontally in acceleration and more vertically at top speed).
At 5’11” (180cm) and 66kg, Gout does not display the muscular physiques of past champion sprinters including Asafa Powell (Jamaica), Justin Gatlin (the USA), or Australia’s own Matt Shirvington. Yet his performances suggest is he redefining the archetype of elite sprinting.
For anyone who has run at school, you know the difficulty of holding your top speed for the duration of a 200-metre race.
But Gout defies logic. His speed endurance (maintaining speed) sets him apart from nearly all athletes.
And not just compared to his age group, although he currently sits second on the all-time under-18 200-metre list behind US runner Erriyon Knighton.
Gout’s speed endurance is up there with the best in 200-metre history: Bolt, Michael Johnson or Noah Lyles. Each of them has won multiple Olympic medals.
The fastest official 100-200 metre segment (the final 100 metres of the race) ever run in a 200-metre event is 9.16 seconds by American Lyles, on his way to winning the 2022 world athletics championships in Oregon (19.31 seconds overall).
In Gout’s recent performance in Brisbane, he completed this segment of the race in 9.31 seconds. Bolt and Johnson’s best 100-200 metre segment is 9.27 and 9.20 seconds respectively.
This statistic puts Gout in elite company.
The magic of Gout
Closer analysis of Gout’s performance highlights some sprinting anomalies.
He covers the first 100m of the race in 10.67 seconds, which is quite slow relative to his finishing time of 19.98.
For comparison, when Bolt broke the 200-metre world record in 2009 (19.19 seconds), he ran 9.92 seconds on the curve (and 9.27 seconds on the straight).
But once Gout enters the straight, his magic is on full display.
This allows Gout to take between 3.75-4 steps for each ten-metre segment, which he covers at an average speed of 10.8m/s (or 38.8km/h). Like Bolt, his step length is a huge advantage over his competitors.
However, there is a trade-off with step length and step frequency.
Gout’s longer-than-average step length reduces his average step frequency to 4.15Hz (steps per second), much lower than Bolt who averaged 4.47Hz when at his best.
However, research highlights elite sprinters are reliant on either step length or frequency, and athletes should train to their strengths, rather than fixing their weaknesses.
So this may not be an area of concern for the teenager.
Gout also displays a unique coordination pattern in how he interacts with the ground: the way he strikes the track with his feet almost makes it look like he has springs in his spikes.
Longer Achilles tendon length and stiffness play a huge role in sprint efficiency. This allows athletes to move at faster speeds for longer periods at a reduced energy cost, and may be another one’s of Gout advantages over his contemporaries.
A bright future
At 17, Gout’s performances are out of this world.
The way he generates and maintains speed challenges some conventional paradigms in sprinting – namely that raw power and muscle mass are the primary determinants of speed.
With most elite sprinters peaking in their mid-20s, Gout’s performances at this stage of his career are even more noteworthy.
His success likely highlights the role of his unique coordination patterns, biomechanics, technical efficiency, hard work and great coaching all bundled together.
Gout has already rewritten Australian sprinting history. Next up, he’s taking on the world.
Just don’t blink – he’s that fast, you might miss him.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sugumar Mariappanadar, Senior Academic Researcher – Human Resource Management and Management, Australian Catholic University
For young people in the early stages of their career, the idea of waiting 40 years or more to retire might feel like a marathon. For those already feeling burnt out, it can be an excruciating thought.
So – why not take a break or two somewhere along the way?
The concept of “micro-retirement” is having a moment. While the term appears to have been first coined in 2007, it’s recently found new popularity on social media.
The idea is that retirement doesn’t have to be a fixed, clearly defined period at the end of your working life. Rather, it’s possible to restore your human energy and levels of wellbeing by dipping in and out of it, with small or large career breaks.
Many onlookers have pointed out that the underlying concept is not a new idea. Sabbaticals and other kinds of career breaks have been a feature of the workforce for a long time.
However, the trend gripping some of the Gen Z workforce on social media appears to be slightly different. And while it’s trying to solve some legitimate problems, it could also carry some unique risks.
Taking a break
The notion that rest is crucial – that humans shouldn’t just work themselves into the ground – is very old indeed.
Major religions around the world have long preached the importance of rest and restoration for human beings to survive the hardship of paid work.
Letting employees get burnt out isn’t a good outcome for anyone. fizkes/Shutterstock
Career breaks, however, are a bit different from the ordinary rest opportunities we get such as weekends, public holidays and annual leave. There are a few different types.
The first is the full-time career break, such as a sabbatical. This is where an employee, in consultation with their employer, hits pause for an extended period.
This might be to enjoy travel, develop new hobbies or complete training necessary for career progression. However, the company typically continues to pay a salary (or a percentage of it) during the mutually agreed period.
In Australia, many employees are entitled to paid long service leave after serving between seven and 10 years with the same employer, depending on which state or territory they’re in.
Taking a full-time job part-time, can also constitute a kind of career break for some. This is where an employee reduces their working hours or days and earns reduced pay compared to full-time work.
Other types of long-term leave can include parental leave and leave for medical assistance.
In Belgium, a government scheme allows employees to take a career break of up to a year, during which they receive a paid allowance from the government. Previous research into the scheme showed 76% of employees taking full-time career breaks from both public and private sectors were aged between 25 and 49.
When Gen Z is talking about micro-retirement, they often aren’t talking about exactly the same thing as a paid, mutually agreed sabbatical.
For many, micro-retirement is a voluntary choice to terminate their employment and support their living through personal savings or government support.
But they are trying to solve similar problems: the health and wellbeing risks associated with pushing too hard – or for too long – at work.
Research by the World Health Organization found the number of deaths from heart disease and stroke that could be attributed to long working hours increased by 29% between 2000 and 2016.
My own previous research has examined the “ceiling effect” of human energy. This is when an employee’s energy depletion reaches a tipping point due to their work and begins to affect their wellbeing.
When employees reach the tipping point, or ceiling effect at work, they often use coffee and alcohol as a coping mechanism. This has long-term negative impacts on health.
Sleep also becomes a problem, which can lead to “presenteeism” – where employees show up physically to work but function poorly. This can cost businesses in lost employee productivity.
Flexible or hybrid work can be a double-edged sword that leads to intrusion on home life.
Like any extended break, micro-retirement is a way to replenish or restore the energy depleted. Research into Belgium’s career break scheme found it did improve individual physical and mental health – but it’s important to remember this scheme paid an allowance.
What are the risks?
Micro-retirement might be a new label. But drawing parallels from research into career breaks, there is evidence of so-called “scarring” effects.
This is where the future wages of an individual attempting to re-enter the job market after a career break may be lower than if they had an uninterrupted career.
This can impact physical and mental health, and lead to lower income levels in retirement.
Businesses may not be too inclined to develop policies to implement paid career breaks such as sabbaticals. That may lead more young people to take their own unpaid breaks.
Outside of taking extended breaks, there’s a broader discussion to be had about increasing productivity by redesigning the way we work every day with sustainability and flexibility in mind.
It’s crucial there are ways for employees to disengage from work on a daily basis to restore and replenish their energy.
In addition to his academic post at Australian Catholic University, Sugumar Mariappanadar is a senior sustainability advisor at InSync Australia, where he has advised businesses on environmental, social and governance (ESG) sustainability business strategy.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danny Kingsley, Visiting Fellow, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University
In December 2001, a small but lively meeting in Budapest, Hungary, launched a whole new international movement. The resulting Budapest Open Access Initiative opened with the words: “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good”.
This was the first definition of open access and referred to harnessing the internet to make scientific research openly available, without a subscription. It was a “statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment”.
More than two decades later, the open access movement has broadened beyond simply research articles. It now incorporates research data, protocols, software and all aspects of the research process. The universal term for this is “open science”.
With its focus on transparency, open science offers part of the solution to the growing problem of scientific misconduct.
A system that enables misconduct
Academic institutions and researchers are focused on a very narrow set of metrics for success. These come down to authorship on a publication being the most valued currency in academia because this is the primary measure towards career progression and academic prestige.
Another industry resulting from these metrics is the international university ranking systems. These are run by commercial organisations that publish lists of universities, which in turn promote their institution as being in the “top X%” of whichever list they have done well in.
Despite widespread criticism, these systems continue to give institutions incentive to reward their academics for publishing in certain journals for the purpose of raising their rank.
With its focus on transparency, open science offers part of the solution to the growing problem of scientific misconduct. ssi77/Shutterstock
For example, it has opened up several exploitative industries, such as predatory publishers. These are entities that exploit authors by charging fees for publication without providing adequate editorial services.
Also on the rise are covert entities known as “paper mills”, which manufacture academic articles (either using a human or a machine) and submit them to journals on behalf of paying researchers. This causes serious issues for editors who need to work through an increasing number of rubbish articles to choose which ones are genuine before sending them out for review by other researchers.
These paper mills create major problems for the scientific record. Some experts believe they are also illegal.
Many of the current problems with research integrity were highlighted by a 2024 study, which estimated that as many as one in seven papers is based on suspect data. A whole new area of research called forensic scientometrics has developed to try to identify some of these questionable publishing practices.
Science does have a way of correcting itself through retractions, where a problematic paper is withdrawn from the journal and a retraction notice put up instead. But identifying problem papers is only part of the solution. For example, one 2024 study found less than 5% of all papers identified as retracted were actually removed from journal websites.
University ranking systems give institutions incentive to reward their academics for publishing in certain journals. Olga Kashubin/Shutterstock
Working openly improves science
So how can making science more open and transparent help?
When we talk about research integrity, we often look to the integrity of the researcher – expecting them to show “moral character”. However, ultimately it is the integrity of the research itself that really matters.
Making the data used for the work freely available means the work can be better scrutinised. This is something that would have helped prevent the publication of the now-retracted study in The Lancet examining whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was effective at treating COVID. The study was retracted after investigations revealed the data the research was based on was deeply flawed and unable to be verified.
Reviewing the “instruction manuals” of how research studies are going to be conducted, called the protocols, before the studies are undertaken also ensures more rigorous research. That’s because the quality of the protocols determines the robustness of the work.
These are just a few of the ways open science creates an environment where poor research practice is much harder to undertake.
Working openly won’t necessarily stop bad actors. But it will make it much harder for them to operate without being noticed.
Despite this, there is some hope for open science in Australia.
For example, in 2024, the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia convened a roundtable event to discuss how to transition to a fair and equitable open research system. This led to the formation of the National Open Science Taskforce, which is currently co-ordinating open activity in Australia.
The EU-funded Open and Universal Science is being implemented by a consortium of 18 organisations across the world. It’s due to be completed this year.
Open science is a radical departure from traditional research practices. As the summary report of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia’s roundtable event says, transitioning to it requires “a true paradigm and cultural shift”.
But for the sake of improving research integrity, this shift is urgently needed.
Danny Kingsley is a member of the National Open Science Taskforce, a Board member of FORCE11 (Future of Research Communications and eScholarship) and a member of the Royal Society Advisory Group on the Future of Scientific Publishing.
Now that the election has been called for May 3, parliament has been dissolved and the caretaker government period has commenced. During this period, the caretaker conventions require the government to exercise self-restraint. It must stick to routine government business and not embark on major new commitments.
There are commonly claims in the media that various actions by the government breach the caretaker conventions. Before the accusations start flying, here are the basics to help you make your own assessment.
Why do we have caretaker conventions?
There are two reasons for caretaker conventions. First, once parliament is dissolved, the government can no longer be called to account by parliament. It should therefore be more restrained in its actions while not under parliamentary scrutiny.
Second, as a matter of fairness, the government should not be entering into binding commitments immediately before an election, if they will burden an incoming government. It is unfair for an outgoing government to stack important statutory positions with its own people or enter into contracts that commit a new government to policies it opposes.
When do the caretaker conventions apply?
The caretaker conventions commence from the moment parliament is dissolved. They continue until the election result shows the existing government has been returned to office or a new government is formed.
If there is a hung parliament, it may take a few weeks before we know who will form the new government. If important matters have to be resolved during that prolonged caretaker period, the opposition may be consulted to try to get a cooperative outcome. The existing government, however, retains full legal power to act at all times.
How do the caretaker conventions restrict government actions?
Before each federal election, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet issues a document called Guidance on Caretaker Conventions. It sets out the rules for ministers and public servants.
During the caretaker period, a government must avoid:
making major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government
making significant appointments
entering into major contracts or undertakings, such as entry into treaties or other international agreements.
Whether a decision, appointment or policy is major, is a matter of judgement. In making this assessment, consideration is given to whether it is likely to be controversial or a matter of contention between the government and the opposition. The cost of the decision and its impact on future resources and policies will also be considered.
Both the government and the opposition can still, of course, make election commitments about future action. The caretaker conventions only apply to actions taken within the caretaker period. They also do not apply to decisions made and actions taken before the caretaker period commenced, even if they are only announced after it has commenced.
The public service and the caretaker period
Rules have also developed on the fair use of the public service and public resources before and after elections. Technically, these are not part of the caretaker conventions, which concern self-restraint by ministers. But because they concern fairness in relation to elections, they are often lumped in with the caretaker conventions and they are included within the official guidance document.
These rules are based upon obligations imposed on public servants by statutes and other instruments, such as the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), and APS Code of Conduct. They require public servants to behave in an impartial and apolitical manner. They also require that public resources not be used to advantage political parties during an election campaign.
It is also customary to restrict the use of government advertising during the caretaker period to necessary matters, and those that do not highlight the role of ministers or promote the achievements or policies of the government.
Two recent examples show how these rules can become controversial during an election campaign. In 2013, the Rudd Labor government was criticised by the opposition for breaching the caretaker conventions by running ads, within Australia, about asylum-seekers not being settled in Australia. The ads were reluctantly approved by public servants under a ministerial direction that they were obliged to obey.
The opposition was happy for the ads to be run in overseas countries, as a source of information and deterrence, but regarded their publication in Australia as partisan and breaching the rules. Opposition spokesperson Scott Morrison called it a “shameless and desperate” grab for votes, with the government spending taxpayers’ money to advertise to the vote-people, rather than the boat people.
On the day of the 2022 election, the Morrison Coalition government instructed the Department of Home Affairs to publish a statement that a boat containing asylum seekers had been intercepted.
It requested that this information be emailed immediately to journalists and tweeted by the Australian Border Force. The issue was highly political. Prime Minister Scott Morrison told a press conference before any announcement had been made that:
I’ve been here to stop this boat. But in order for me to be here to stop those that may come from here, you need to vote Liberals and Nationals today.
Officials published a factual statement about the boat, because they were required to act as directed by the minister. But, as a subsequent investigation revealed, they refused requests to amplify the controversy by sending material to journalists and to publish it on social media, as this would breach their obligations to be apolitical.
Who enforces the caretaker conventions?
The caretaker conventions are not legally binding and cannot be enforced by a court. But some governors-general have given effect to the conventions by deferring action on anything that would breach them. Then, when the election is over, a new government can decide whether to proceed with the matter.
Breaches by public servants of their obligations under codes of conduct and the Public Service Act can have real consequences, such as disciplinary action being taken against them.
While conventions are not legally enforceable, they ordinarily work because there is agreement among political actors that these rules are fair and politically binding on them. Controversy in the media about breaches of conventions can raise public anger. Punishment is left in the hands of the voters.
Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments, parliaments and inter-governmental bodies.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
Tony Abbott was once unelectable. So were Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.
And so was Peter Dutton, not so long ago. But opinion polls over much of 2024 and early 2025 indicated otherwise, and a nightly assault of pre-election political advertising – as my wife and I watched reruns of Law & Order: Criminal Intent – suggested that the Liberals had done their research and needed to humanise their man.
Devotees of Detectives Goren and Eames in that venerable program were able to enjoy briefly reviewing Detective Senior Constable Dutton’s time as a Queensland cop, as well as his splendid business career (which has received some closer scrutiny since) and his more recent meeting and greeting of ordinary Australians as a likeable everyman and all-round good guy.
The ad sometimes played twice in a particular break: the saturation coverage suggested that the Liberals had done rather well with donors. Unfortunately for Dutton, we later gained a deeper insight into the very high priority he attaches to rattling the can for the Liberal Party. Dutton’s decision to attend a fundraiser in Sydney while a cyclone was descending on Queensland did him immense damage, recalling his predecessor’s “I don’t hold a hose, mate” response to the Black Summer bushfires of 2020-21.
If historical precedent is any guide, Dutton’s task should be somewhere between formidable and impossible. When Australians elect their national governments, they can normally assume they are doing so for at least two terms. The last one-termer was the Labor government of James Scullin, elected in October 1929 and sent into oblivion via an election held a few days before Christmas in 1931.
Scullin was a victim of the century’s greatest international economic crisis; governments everywhere faltered or disintegrated under similar pressures. The economic challenges faced by the present Labor government have been more modest. But will it suffer a similar fate to Scullin’s Depression-era administration?
Normally, the rarity of one-termers might have provided Anthony Albanese with a measure of reassurance. But we live in an era where historical precedent seems to count for little.
That was clear enough even at the 2022 election. It was unprecedented in several respects. There was nothing resembling the atmosphere of excitement of 1972, 1983 and 2007 – or, for that matter, 1929 – which had brought Labor governments to power from opposition and awarded them solid or large majorities.
Labor’s majority on the floor of the House of Representatives following the 2022 election was piddling – a mere three seats, and just two after the election of a speaker. Its primary vote was about 32%. It won just five of the 30 available seats in the third most populous Australian state, Queensland.
There had never been a Labor victory like this one. Its exceptionalism haunts Labor’s efforts to gain re-election in 2025.
Labor won in 2022 rather like many state Labor oppositions have won in recent decades. The margin was narrow. The unpopularity of a government, and its leader, was there to be exploited. Again and again, state Labor oppositions have fallen over the line at an initial election, sometimes able only to form minority government: Bob Carr, Mike Rann, Peter Beattie, Steve Bracks and Annastacia Palaszczuk were all examples.
Voters seemed at best grudging in their support, but enough were willing to give Labor a go and then look over the results when a new election came round a few years later. In each case, governments were able to consolidate, sometimes winning landslide victories by establishing their credentials, exploiting incumbency, and building new constituencies.
There were signs Albanese might do the same after May 2022. His slim three-seat majority became a five-seat advantage when Labor’s Mary Doyle won the Aston byelection on April 1 2023 – a seat deep in the traditional Liberal heartland. As late as the Dunkley byelection of March 2 2024, also in Melbourne, the base of electoral support that had seen Albanese into office almost two years before looked to be more or less intact.
Part of the problem for the Coalition seemed to lie with Dutton himself. Would Australians vote for him? Or to put it more precisely: would the kinds of voters in the mainland capital cities who had turned so sharply against Scott Morrison in 2022 shift their votes to a figure as conservative and as bleak as Dutton?
That bleakness always struck me as being a bigger problem than the conservatism. Australians routinely elect conservative prime ministers. They elected Malcolm Fraser when they thought he was a conservative (as indeed he was). Then they elected him twice more. They elected John Howard, who had proudly called himself the Liberal Party’s most conservative leader ever. Then they elected him another three times. They elected Abbott, even if buyer’s remorse quickly followed. They elected Morrison when the Coalition had seemed dead in the water.
But leaders such as Howard and Morrison were much more optimistic than Dutton. They both seemed to think Australia was a pretty good place full of pretty good people and that all things being equal, the future was likely to be pretty good too while there were pretty good blokes in charge (but, of course, it would be much better under a Coalition government, which had the best blokes).
Abbott, to be sure, was more pessimistic – his description of the Syrian conflict as a struggle between “baddies” and “baddies”, and his references to “death cults”, said more about his habit of reducing complexity to melodrama than it did about that Middle East. Yet Abbott’s outlook, at least as expressed publicly while in office, was nowhere near as dismal as Dutton’s.
For Dutton, the enemy is close to home, menacing us in the dark. His bleakness is in a league of its own.
Lech Blaine’s portrait in his Quarterly Essay Bad Cop was convincing: Dutton was a man formed and perhaps damaged by his experience as a policeman, and a political hardman in the habit of painting whole groups of people – commonly politically vulnerable – as a threat to society. Dutton evokes a vision of good people besieged by bad, of the decent and law-abiding as in constant danger of being swamped by the immoral and the criminal – or possibly mugged on their way home from a Melbourne restaurant.
As 2024 unfolded, no one doubted there was sufficient dissatisfaction with Labor building, especially in many outer Australian suburbs, to do the government serious damage at an election. Persistently high interest rates had increased the cost of a mortgage. Inflation had moderated, but living standards had taken a beating. The chattering classes started talking of the inevitability of minority government, but they usually meant minority Labor government. Then they started talking about minority Coalition government, as the polls turned nastier for Labor.
Labor spirits have revived in recent weeks after Dutton’s missteps over Cyclone Alfred, a comfortable victory in the Western Australian election, and opinion polling that shows the ALP ahead on a two-party preferred count. Still, uncertainty abounds.
Albanese often campaigned poorly last time: will he again falter? Dutton, meanwhile, is untested as leader in an election campaign, has little policy on the table, and has a habit of going missing when there are hard questions to be answered.
For me, the key to this election is whether there is a sufficient number of voters, concentrated in the right places, who share enough of Dutton’s pessimism about their own circumstances and, to a lesser extent, about the general state of the country. If, indeed, there is enough congruence between Dutton’s bleakness and theirs, Australia may well have a new government and a new prime minister by winter.
But Dutton’s blessed run might well have now come to an end. Inflation has moderated, the Reserve Bank has made a cut to interest rates, and a sense of scepticism seems to have settled in about Dutton among voters taking a serious look at him as a potential prime minister a few weeks ago.
He now looks more like Old Mother Hubbard with a bare policy cupboard, desperately seeking to shore up the hard right vote against depredations from Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer, than Australia’s answer to Donald Trump.
Frank Bongiorno 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.
The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest.
In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive.
Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee.
But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time.
A quiet retreat from climate positive
Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development.
This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment.
Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations.
It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024.
The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee
Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”.
But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”.
It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”.
Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed:
to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023.
Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games.
But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”.
Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement.
A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY
Aiming high, yet falling short
Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short.
In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures.
Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes.
Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual.
Victoria Park controversy
In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games.
It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”.
But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park.
Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance.
Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”.
Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge.
The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park
What next?
The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy?
Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin.
Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.
School principals around Australia are responsible for about 4.5 million staff and students in almost 10,000 schools. Not only do they oversee students’ progress, but they are also responsible for the performance of staff and the wellbeing of everyone at their school. Their jobs are huge.
As we have previously tracked in our annual survey of principals, their jobs are also extremely stressful and they are subject to regular abuse – often from parents.
Our latest survey shows these trends are not changing. And more than 50% of those we surveyed are seriously thinking about quitting.
Our research
Since 2011, we have surveyed Australian school leaders. This includes principals, deputy principals, and other school leaders such as heads of junior or senior schools.
In our new report, we surveyed almost 2,200 people, which is more than 20% of Australian school leaders. In 2024, we surveyed primary and high school leaders from government, independent and Catholic schools all around the country.
This makes it the most comprehensive data set on principals’ health and wellbeing in Australia. It is also the longest-running survey of its type in the world.
The survey asked almost 2,200 school leaders about their jobs and wellbeing. Sol Stock/ Getty Images
High workloads and stress
Previous surveys have shown school principals face unsustainably high workloads and high levels of stress. Unfortunately, these trends continue in our latest 2024 results.
School leaders work an average of 54.5 hours a week during term time and 20.6 hours during holidays. They nominated the “sheer quantity of work” as the biggest source of their stress.
This was closely followed by “lack of time to focus on teaching and learning” and “student-related issues”.
As a high school principal from Western Australia told us:
I do love what I do however it is a seriously difficult role and only getting harder.
Generalised anxiety and depression reports have also increased from last year’s survey. Severe anxiety was reported by 14.8% of participants, up from 11.4% in 2023. Moderate depression is reported by 11.1% of participants, up from 10.6%.
Critical incidents
For the first time, our 2024 survey asked principals about the number of “critical incidents” they have to deal with. These are defined as an “often unexpected event that may involve loss or threat to wellbeing or personal goals”.
Nearly three-quarters (73.7%) said they had experienced a critical incident while in their role. The most common type of incident was violence and security threats (43.9%). Suicide and suicidal threats represented 12.6% of reported incidents. Participants also reported medical emergencies (10.3%) and custody or child-protection incidents (7%).
As one NSW principal told us:
I think it is untenable for principals to continue to be under constant stress at this level and am aware that many of my colleagues are also retiring or considering retiring. I have only just turned 59 and would like to work for another 5-10 years but can’t continue due to the ridiculous workload and pressure.
Schools are not safe for principals
An increasing number of principals report being subject to offensive behaviours that are unacceptable in any workplace – let alone one that involves children and young people.
Nearly 55% reported they are subjected to threats of violence, 57% are subjected to gossip and slander, and 35% are subjected to cyberbullying. These are the highest levels we have ever reported.
When asked “from whom”, more than 65% of school leaders said parents and caregivers. Students also contribute, but unfortunately, so do staff. They were the source of 29% of “gossip and slander” reported by school leaders.
As one ACT school leader told us:
The major cause of distress are parents. Parents behave in an unreasonable manner, have ridiculous expectations and think that because they went to school they can therefore run a school. Principals are constantly defending staff from parents. Parents are rarely told to stop and desist by Education Support Offices.
While many principals report loving their jobs, stress and abuse are constant features. Rawpixel.com/ Shutterstock
Many prinicpals want to leave
In 2023, we first asked the question whether school leaders seriously consider leaving their job. More than half (56%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
It’s pleasing to report this has reduced slightly to 53% nationally, but the trend is, unfortunately, not consistent across the country.
For example, the figure in NSW has dropped from 63% to 51%, but in Victoria it has increased from 48% to 54%. Policymakers across jurisdictions could benefit from working together to address these findings, to see what is working and what is not.
How can we help?
The demands on today’s school principals are significant – the work takes an emotional toll – and this means we need different approaches to supporting them.
It’s why we recommend education departments and school boards provide “reflective supervision” for school leaders. This gives professionals a regular chance to reflect on what they are doing with a confidential and experienced practitioner in the field, which in this case would be another experienced school leader.
Schools and education departments should also explore alternative models to make the job more sustainable. This could include co-principals or job sharing models.
Without change, too many leaders will leave too quickly, without anyone left to replace them.
Herb Marsh receives funding from ARC research grant funding
Theresa Dicke has received funding from ARC and still receives funding from several peak principal associations to complete this research.
Paul Kidson 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.
When Auckland mayor Wayne Brown said in 2022 that the Auckland Art Gallery had the foot traffic of a corner dairy and cast the institution as an “uneconomic” entity, he conceded he was at risk of “being seen as something of a philistine”.
But the mayor’s comments also highlighted a very real challenge. How can New Zealand cultural organisations secure their future when the value of art and culture is seen through the economic lens of profit?
And does an overemphasis on profit make cultural groups wary of market and strategy, hampering innovation in the art and culture sector?
Our research proposes a concept we call “generative coexistence”. We suggest that when market approaches are integrated thoughtfully, market forces and cultural missions can work together and enable each other.
Why the market vs. culture debate is changing
For years, cultural organisations were shielded from the market by state funding. But while government support remained relatively consistent, there was no consistent funding strategy. With each budget round being akin to a lottery, calls for change are becoming louder.
The 2024 budget included significant reductions in arts funding. Cultural organisations were expected to find new ways to stay viable. However, as art institutions turn to practices like sponsorship, ticketed events and merchandising to boost revenue, there’s understandable concern about a potential loss of artistic integrity.
Yet, market principles and cultural values can be aligned.
In 2023, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra launched a digital platform, NZSO+, to stream performances, open rehearsals and artistic talks. Later that year, the NZSO performed to a flock of farm chickens, to support ethical farming and, simultaneously, modernise its brand image.
The moves raised questions about whether the orchestra’s essence could be nurtured outside of concert halls. At the same time, they showed a possibility for cultural organisations to blend their authentic mission with commercial acumen, without compromising their intrinsic values.
The NZSO’s streaming strategy didn’t just address a budget shortfall. It allowed the orchestra to reach wider, younger and more diverse audiences who might not otherwise engage with classical music. Through this market-driven approach, the symphony orchestra sustained its core mission of bringing music to all New Zealanders.
Our research includes examples of cultural groups from around the world. It captures how, rather than seeing commercialisation as a “necessary evil” undermining the arts, cultural groups can use the tensions that come from the competing demands to produce creative solutions.
Here, generative coexistence allows cultural organisations to adapt in ways that not only keep the lights on but also broaden their impact.
Wellington’s Te Papa Museum uses blockbuster ticketed exhibitions to attract a wider audience while maintaining its cultural status. travellight/Shutterstock
Generative coexistence in the arts
We identified three main strategies for organisations in the arts and culture sector designed to help them thrive in a world where financial and cultural goals can seem at odds with each other.
First, organisations need to embrace the commercial potential of cultural products.
When approached thoughtfully, the strong commercial appeal of cultural products can support an organisation’s core mission and create a democratic counterbalance against sponsorship dependency.
Wellington’s Te Papa Museum, for example, creates value through blockbuster ticketed exhibitions that attract a wider audience – such as last year’s Dinosaurs of Patagonia. By using selective commodification processes, Te Papa maintains its educational and cultural status and generates the revenue needed to innovate and expand its reach.
Cultural organisations also need to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset.
Organisations worldwide experiment with innovating existing business models to allow for creative and operational freedom. For example, performing art organisations are increasingly moving away from legacy models – such as venue-based events with tickets as the key revenue stream – into hybrid and digitally-led ones.
Similarly, galleries and art spaces are opting for nomadic models, eschewing permanent locations but maintaining a strong online presence. This enables cultural actors to adapt and lower reliance on funding while creating cultural value.
Finally, cultural organisations need to look into cross-disciplinary collaborations that align on shared goals. Finding a balance between financial stability and cultural integrity requires recognising opportunities to work together.
How market and cultural values can coexist
The New Zealand arts sector is still cautious about non-intuitive collaborations with adjacent fields, such as gaming, fashion or advertising. But partnering with the tech industry holds the promise of new levels of visitor engagement, while staying rooted in the commitment to community enrichment.
Cultural organisations have to navigate a complex landscape where financial pressures and cultural missions intersect and create tensions.
Our concept of generative coexistence encourages a more flexible view. Examples from around the globe show it isn’t about choosing between culture and commerce. It’s about turning tensions into a foundation for innovation, accessibility and resilience.
Arts and culture are neither luxuries nor commodities, but integral parts of a thriving society. We are certain that New Zealand’s creative sector, which is unique, resilient and economically viable, can secure its place in a future that honours both the power of art and the realities of financial sustainability.
Ksenia Kosheleva receives funding from The Foundation for Economic Education, Finland.
Julia Fehrer and Kaj Storbacka 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.
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
Labor’s regaining of polling momentum has continued into the first week of the formal election campaign. A national Newspoll, conducted March 27–29 from a sample of 1,249, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. This is Labor’s first Newspoll lead since July 2024.
Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down two), 33% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (down one) and 12% for all Others (up two). By 2022 election preference flows, Labor would have led by about 51.5–48.5.
Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -9, with 52% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval slid four points to -18. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 49–38 (47–38 previously).
This is Albanese’s best net approval in Newspoll since September 2024, Dutton’s worst since October 2023 and Albanese’s biggest better PM lead since May 2024. Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term with a trend line.
The budget itself was not well received, with a net 10 points saying it would be bad for the economy (zero for the previous budget in May 2024) and a net 19 points bad for you personally (two previously). However, a net nine points said the Coalition would not have delivered a better budget (six previously).
There have been three polls released since the budget, with Labor gaining the lead in Newspoll, making a big gain for a tie in Resolve, but not gaining in Freshwater. The trend in the polls to Labor prior to the budget was clear, and Newspoll and Resolve confirmed this trend. Here is the poll graph.
The gains for Labor are probably in spite of the poorly rated budget. I believe US President Donald Trump is the most important reason for Labor’s gains in the last month, owing to his tariffs and associated stock market falls.
Resolve poll: Labor makes big gain from outlier for a tie
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted March 26–29 from a sample of 3,237 (double the usual sample size), had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, a five-point gain for Labor from the previous Resolve poll in late February, a pro-Coalition outlier.
Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down two), 29% Labor (up four), 13% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (down two), 9% independents (steady) and 5% others (up one). By 2022 election flows, Labor led by 51–49, a three-point gain for Labor.
Albanese’s net approval was up 11 points since February to -11, with 49% saying his performance was poor and 38% good. Dutton’s net approval slumped 15 points to -10. Albanese led Dutton by 42–33 as preferred PM, a reversal of Dutton’s 39–34 lead in February. This is Albanese’s biggest lead since April 2024.
The Liberals led Labor on economic management and keeping the cost of living low, but their leads were much reduced. They led on economic management by 36–29 (41–24 previously). On cost of living, the Liberals led by 31–27 (37–25 previously). Treasurer Jim Chalmers had a net +6 approval, while shadow treasurer Angus Taylor was at net -6.
Freshwater poll steady at 51–49 to Coalition
A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted March 28–30 from a sample of 1,059, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the previous Freshwater poll two weeks ago. An unrounded figure of 50.6–49.4 to the Coalition was provided.
Primary votes were 39% Coalition (steady), 32% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (down two) and 17% for all Others (up one). By 2022 election flows, this poll would be about a 50–50 tie.
In contrast to trends in other polls, both leaders were at -11 net approval, which was down one for Albanese and up one for Dutton. Albanese led Dutton by 46–45 as preferred PM (45.9–42.5 previously).
The Coalition led Labor by six points on cost of living, a two-point gain for Labor. They led on the economy by 11 points, a two-point gain for the Coalition.
The polls below were all conducted before Tuesday’s budget.
YouGov MRP poll puts Labor just one seat short of a majority
YouGov conducted a national MRP poll (multi-level modelling with post-stratification) from February 27 to March 26 from an overall sample of 38,629. 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 Labor winning 75 of the 150 lower house seats, one short of a majority. The Coalition would win 60 seats, the Greens two, independents 11 and others two. Since YouGov’s previous MRP poll that was taken from late January to mid-February, Labor is up nine seats, the Coalition down 13 and independents up four.
The high forecast for Labor is 80 seats and 68 for the Coalition, while the low forecast is 69 for Labor and 55 for the Coalition. This poll is not a prediction of the election result, as the polls could change before the election.
The overall vote share in this MRP poll was 50.2–49.8 to Labor, a 1.9% swing to the Coalition since the 2022 election, but a 1.3% swing to Labor since the last MRP poll. Primary votes were 35.5% Coalition (down 1.9), 29.8% Labor (up 0.7), 13.2% Greens (up 0.5), 9.3% One Nation (up 0.2), 8.3% independents (down 0.6) and 3.9% others (up 1.1).
Although Labor’s share of Greens and One Nation preferences has risen since the last MRP poll, by 2022 election flows this poll would have Labor further ahead, by 51.5–48.5.
Redbridge poll: Labor maintains narrow lead
A national Redbridge poll, conducted March 13–24 from a sample of 2,039, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the previous Redbridge poll in early March. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up one), 34% Labor (up two), 11% Greens (down one) and 17% for all Others (down two).
By 54–29, voters were unable to identify something the Labor government had done since its election in May 2022 that had made their lives better. Of those who could identify something, 36% selected electricity rebates, with 11% for the next most popular.
By 35–23, voters opposed the government placing tariffs on goods imported into Australia. By 68–24, voters were concerned about Chinese naval ships sailing down Australia’s east coast and conducting live fire drills.
Seat polls of teal-held Kooyong and Goldstein
The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that JWS polled the Victorian teal-held seats of Kooyong and Goldstein “a fortnight ago” from samples of 800 each for Australian Energy Producers. In Kooyong, teal Monique Ryan led the Liberals by 51–49, while in Goldstein the Liberals led teal Zoe Daniel by 54–46.
The Kooyong poll agrees well with the YouGov MRP, but the YouGov MRP had Daniel leading by 54.5–45.5 in Goldstein. The March 8 WA election indicated the Coalition would do worse in swing terms in affluent inner city seats.
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.
Peter Dutton is a tease when it comes to the fine print of policies. At least that’s the benign explanation. Critics have a harsher take on why we’re always being told to wait for the detail. They would claim his policies are often thin, or unfolded on the run.
Right now, we’re into the first week of the campaign and we’re still waiting for more on the Coalition’s gas reservation policy, announced in Dutton’s budget reply, as well as precision on its immigration policy and for how much extra it would spend on defence.
Dutton said on Sunday we’d get information on the gas policy in the next “couple of days”.
Danny Price, of Frontier Economics, has been hard at work, putting some modelling together. Price did the modelling for the opposition’s controversial nuclear policy, finding it much cheaper than the government’s energy transition plan. But those numbers depend on the assumptions. That modelling was contested, and no doubt so will be the gas policy analysis.
Whatever the numbers that come out, they won’t include one key figure: what you would (arguably) save on your power bill. The opposition has learned something from Labor’s debacle of promising, before the last election, that its energy policy would save households $275 by 2025.
At the weekend Albanese dismissed Labor’s modelling before the 2022 election as “RepuTex modelling based on the circumstances at the time”. Indeed.
Dutton has, however, suggested his gas policy would reduce the wholesale domestic price from $14 per gigajoule to under $10 a gigajoule. More gas would mean cheaper prices, is its logic.
The opposition’s thinking is that it lands the generality of a policy first, lets the public absorb that, and then produces detail. But the trouble with releasing the detail so late is the Coalition is likely to get bogged down in a confusing and damaging debate over what opponents will say are dodgy numbers and assumptions.
This can lose a day or more and there aren’t that many days in a five-week campaign, especially when pre-polling starts a fortnight before the end.
While Dutton was batting off questions about gas at the weekend, Anthony Albanese swung into his campaign stride in a comfort zone – at attack on supermarkets.
He announced that if re-elected, Labor will legislate against supermarkets being able to price gouge. Not immediately though. There’d be a taskforce to work out the detail.
There’s more than a touch of chutzpah here. We’ve just seen the report of a long inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into supermarkets. It found they were very profitable but it didn’t find price gouging. Its raft of recommendations did not include legislation on price gouging.
This hasn’t deterred the PM, who provided his own definition of the problem. “I got asked today by someone … ‘how do you know what price gouging is?’ Price gouging is when supermarkets are taking the piss off Australian consumers. That’s what it is. That’s what price gouging is. Everyone out there knows. Consumers know. We’ll take action here.”
He did give the rather less colloquial EU definition.“In the EU, a price is unfair and excessive if, and to quote their law, ‘it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied’.”
After a fairly ordinary start to the campaign, this week Donald Trump will step right into the centre of it, with his much-anticipated tariff announcement. Australian officials continue to lobby the US; no one is confidently predicting whether or not we’ll be escape the firing line.
Before the Trump announcement will come Tuesday’s first meeting of the new monetary policy board that has been set up under Labor’s changes to the Reserve Bank.
Unlike February, when all the heat was on the bank’s governor to deliver that rate cut (which did come), nobody is expecting another cut yet. Michele Bullock can relax this week.
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.
Global press freedom organisations have condemned the killing of two journalists in Gaza this week, who died in separate targeted airstrikes by the Israeli armed forces.
And protesters in Aotearoa New Zealand dedicated their week 77 rally and march in the heart of Auckland to their memory, declaring “Journalism is not a crime”.
Hossam Shabat, a 23-year-old correspondent for the Al Jazeera Mubasher channel, was killed by an Israeli airstrike on his car in the eastern part of Beit Lahiya, media reports said.
Video, reportedly from minutes after the airstrike, shows people gathering around the shattered and smoking car and pulling a body out of the wreckage.
Mohammed Mansour, a correspondent for Palestine Today television was killed earlier on Monday, reportedly along with his wife and son, in an Israeli airstrike on his home in south Khan Younis.
One Palestinian woman read out a message from Shabat’s family: “He dreamed of becoming a journalist and to tell the world the truth.
“But war doesn’t wait for dreams. He was only 23, and when the war began he left classes to give a voice to those who had none.”
Global media condemnation In the hours after the deaths, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Palestinian press freedom organisations released statements condemning the attacks.
“CPJ is appalled that we are once again seeing Palestinians weeping over the bodies of dead journalists in Gaza,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s programme director.
“This nightmare in Gaza has to end. The international community must act fast to ensure that journalists are kept safe and hold Israel to account for the deaths of Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Mansour.
“Journalists are civilians and it is illegal to attack them in a war zone.”
Honouring the life of Al Jazeera journalist Hossam Shabat – killed by Israeli forces at 23 and shattering his dreams. Image: Del Abcede/APR
In a statement, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed it had targeted and killed Shabat and Mansour and labelled them as “terrorists” — without any evidence to back their claim.
The IDF also said that it had struck Hamas and Islamic Jihad resistance fighters in Khan Younis, where Mohammed Mansour was killed.
In October 2024, the IDF had accused Shabat and five other Palestinian journalists working for Al Jazeera in Gaza of being members of the militant arm of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Al Jazeera and Shabat denied Israel’s claims, with Shabat stating in an interview with the CPJ that “we are civilians … Our only crime is that we convey the image and the truth.”
In its statement condemning the deaths of Shabat and Mansour, the CPJ again called on Israel to “stop making unsubstantiated allegations to justify its killing and mistreatment of members of the press”.
The CPJ estimates that more than 170 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the war began in October 2023, making it the deadliest period for journalists since the organisation began gathering data in 1992.
However, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate says it believes the number is higher and, with the deaths of Shabat and Mansour, 208 journalists and other members of the press have been killed over the course of the conflict.
Under international law, journalists are protected civilians who must not be targeted by warring parties.
Israel has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in its genocide in the blockaded enclave since October 7, 2023.
The Israeli carnage has reduced most of the Gaza to ruins and displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population, while causing a massive shortage of basic necessities.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants last November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its war on the enclave.
New Zealand protesters wearing mock “Press” vests in solidarity with Gazan journalists documenting the Israeli genocide. Image: Del Abcede/APR
In early 2021, after a decade of political and economic reforms, Myanmar looked like it was finally beginning to shake off the hangover of decades of military rule. Foreign investment was growing, and standards of living were gradually improving.
In February that year, however, the military again grabbed power after ousting Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government in a coup. This sent the country spiralling towards civil war and social and economic collapse.
In the latest addition to the daily misery of Myanmar’s long-suffering people, a huge 7.7-magnitude earthquake hit the centre of the country on Friday. Its epicentre was just outside Mandalay, the county’s second-largest city.
The Thai capital of Bangkok, more than 1,000 kilometres from the epicentre, experienced extensive damage too. Video images showed a collapsing building under construction and sloshing rooftop infinity pools causing waterfalls down high-rise condominiums.
Information on the extent of the damage in Myanmar was slower to emerge, given the junta has largely banned social media and communications apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal and X.
The death toll has now passed 1,000 at the time of writing. US Geological Survey modelling, however, suggests there could be more than 10,000 deaths and economic losses potentially exceeding the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).
Unusually for the isolationist military juntas of Myanmar, its leader, Min Aung Hlaing, immediately issued a call for international assistance.
The junta, however, has full control of as little as 21% of the country in the ongoing civil war, with the rest contested or controlled by ethnic armed groups and resistance fighters. This indicates some hard-hit areas of the country may be inaccessible to international aid.
Compounding these difficulties, the Trump administration has decimated the US Agency for International Development (USAID) activities in the country. This will make it far more challenging to determine the areas most in need and distribute any aid on the ground.
Natural disasters in Myanmar
Along with its history of brutal and authoritarian military rule since gaining independence in 1948, Myanmar is also regularly afflicted by natural disasters.
At least 430 people are believed to have died in floods last September due to the remnants of Typhoon Yagi. In 2023, Cyclone Mocha reportedly killed about 460 of the Rohingya ethnic minority, who are largely confined to government camps in Rakhine state in inhuman conditions.
The worst natural disaster in living memory, however, was Cyclone Nargis in 2008, which left at least 140,000 dead. On that occasion, the military junta resisted international assistance, likely resulting in many unnecessary deaths.
At that time, there was no independent media in Myanmar and it was almost impossible to find out what was actually happening on the ground.
Fortunately, the proliferation of mobile phones in the last decade has allowed information to spread much more widely, even with the junta’s internet blocks and other methods of censorship currently in place.
When Cyclone Nargis occurred – the year after the iPhone was launched – only around 1% of the Myanmar’s population had mobile phones. By the time of the coup in 2021, Myanmar had a smartphone penetration rate of 114%. (This means the country has more smartphones than people.)
Foreign assistance has been compromised
While Min Aung Hlaing has gone farther than his predecessor in 2008 in asking for international help, US President Donald Trump’s actions have ensured that any aid will be far less effective than it would have been two months ago.
On Friday, the same day the earthquake hit, the Trump administration told Congress it would cut nearly all remaining jobs at USAID and shut the agency, closing all USAID missions worldwide.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former USAID official, called the move “a total abdication of decades of US leadership in the world”. He argued the firings would cut “the last remnants of the team that would have mobilised a USAID disaster response” to the earthquake.
In 2024, USAID spent US$240 million (A$380 million) in Myanmar, around one-third of all multilateral humanitarian assistance to the country.
However, since Trump’s inauguration in January, the number of USAID programs in Myanmar has shrunk from 18 to just three. Several NGOs and at least seven US-funded hospitals operating along Myanmar’s border with Thailand have been shut down.
Myanmar’s exiled independent media outlets, which shine a light on the military’s atrocities, have also seen their funding slashed by the Trump administration’s USAID cuts.
What happens now?
The day before the earthquake, Min Aung Hlaing addressed troops at the 80th anniversary of Armed Forces Day Parade. He announced national elections would go ahead in December – a vote that human rights groups are already calling a “sham”.
There is no conceivable way elections of any integrity can be held in the country under military rule or while the civil war continues to rage.
Military-backed parties have been overwhelmingly rejected by Myanmar’s electorate in every remotely free or fair election over the last four decades. This includes the most recent elections held in 2020, won by the National League of Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi.
While the world should welcome – and urgently respond to – Min Aung Hlaing’s invitation for international assistance, this doesn’t mean the past is forgotten. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost as a result of the military’s unnecessary and destructive 2021 coup.
If the NLD had remained in government, the country would be infinitely more prepared to deal with consequences of this earthquake. Once again, the military’s brutal rule – and Trump’s draconian aid cuts – will no doubt cause more unnecessary suffering and deaths.
Adam Simpson 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.
Dozens of Filipinos and supporters in Aotearoa New Zealand came together in a Black Friday vigil and Rally for Justice in the heart of two cities tonight — Auckland and Christchurch.
They celebrated the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) earlier this month to face trial for alleged crimes against humanity over a wave of extrajudicial killings during his six-year presidency in a so-called “war on drugs”.
Estimates of the killings have ranged between 6250 (official police figure) and up to 30,000 (human rights groups) — including 32 in a single day — during his 2016-2022 term and critics have described the bloodbath as a war against the poor.
But speakers warned tonight this was only the first step to end the culture of impunity in the Philippines.
Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, son of the late dictator, and his adminstration were also condemned by the protesters.
Introducing the rally with the theme “Convict Duterte! End Impunity!” in Freyberg Square in the heart of downtown Auckland, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan’s Eugene Velasco said: “We demand justice for the thousands killed in the bloody and fraudulent war on drugs under the US-Duterte regime.”
She said they sought to:
expose the human rights violations against the Filipino people;
call for Duterte’s accountability; and
to hold Marcos responsible for continuing this reign of terror against the masses.
Flown to The Hague The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Duterte on March 11. He was immediately arrested on an aircraft at Manila International Airport and flown by charter aircraft to The Hague where he is now detained awaiting trial.
“We welcome this development because his arrest is the result of tireless resistance — not only from human rights defenders but, most importantly, from the families of those who fell victim to Duterte’s extrajudicial killings,” Velasco said.
Filipina activist Eugene Velasco . . . families of victims fought for justice “even in the face of relentless threats and violence from the police and military”. Image: APR
“These families fought for justice despite the complete lack of support from the Marcos administration.”
Velasco said their their courage and resilience had pushed this case forward — “even in the face of relentless threats and violence from the police and military”.
“‘Shoot them dead!’—this was Duterte’s direct order to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). His death squads carried out these brutal killings with impunity,” Velasco said.
Mock corpses in the Philippines rally in Freyberg Square tonight. Image: APR
But Duterte was not the only one who must be held accountable, she added.
“We demand the immediate arrest and prosecution of all those who orchestrated and enabled the state-sponsored executions, led by figures like Senator Bato Dela Rosa and Lieutenant-Colonel Jovie Espenido, that led to over 30,000 deaths, the militarisation of 47,587 schools, churches, and public institutions — especially in rural areas — the abductions and killings of human rights defenders, and the continued existence of National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict or NTF-ELCAC.”
A masked young speaker tells of many victims of extrajudicial killings at tonight’s Duterte rally in Freyberg Square. Image: APR
Fake news, red-tagging Velasco accused this agency of having “used the Filipino people’s taxes to fuel human rights abuses” through the spread of fake news and red-tagging against activists, peasants, trade unionists, and people’s lawyers.
“The fight does not end here,” she said.
“The Filipino people, together with all justice and peace-loving people of Aotearoa New Zealand, will not stop until justice is fully served — not just for the victims, but for all who continue to suffer under the Duterte-Marcos regime, which remains under the grip of US imperialist interests.
“As Filipinos overseas, we must unite in demanding justice, stand in solidarity with the victims of extrajudicial killings, and continue the struggle for accountability.”
Several speakers gave harrowing testimony about the fate of named victims as their photographs and histories were remembered.
Speakers from local political groups, including Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez, and retired prominent trade unionist and activist Robert Reid, also participated.
Reid referenced the ICC arrest issued last November against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Gaza genocide, saying he hoped that he too would end up in The Hague.
Mock corpses surrounded by candles displayed signs — which had been a hallmark of the drug war killings — declaring “Jail Duterte”, “Justice for all victims of human rights” and “Convict Sara Duterte now!” Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte is currently Vice-President and is facing impeachment proceedings.
The “convict Duterte” rally and vigil in Freyberg Square tonight. Image: APR
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised a Coalition government would spend an extra A$400 million on youth mental health services.
This is in addition to raising the number of subsidised psychology sessions from ten to 20, which had been previously announced.
While extra funding for youth mental health is welcome, it’s important to target this in ways that will make a real difference to young people.
In our recent research, we asked young people about their experiences of waiting for mental health support, how they coped in the meantime, and what would really make a difference while they waited.
Rates of mental illness rising
An estimated one in seven Australian children and adolescents had a mental illness in the past 12 months. Rates of mental illness have also increased over time, particularly among younger generations.
The COVID pandemic led to a rapid rise in the number of children and young people seeing their GP for mental health problems. Visits for depression rose by 61% and eating disorders by 56% compared with before the pandemic.
The number of visits to the emergency department in New South Wales for self-harm, or plans or thoughts about suicide, have also increased since COVID.
The annual Mission Australia Survey reveals young Australians see mental health as one of their biggest challenges, with thousands calling for more support.
But there are long waits for care
Despite the greater demand for mental health treatment in Australia, there is very little information on how long young people wait to access it.
The Australian Psychological Society reported that during the pandemic, 88% of psychologists increased their wait times and one in five were not taking on new clients. This meant about half of people waited more than three months to begin psychological treatment. But this is for clients of all ages.
There is also little information on how young people experience the wait for treatment.
We asked young people about the wait for care
We recently published research on the wait times for mental health treatment for Australian teens.
We asked 375 young people aged 13–17 about the mental health care they have tried to access for their anxiety and depression and how long they waited to start treatment. We also asked them about their mental health while they waited, what helped them cope, and the types of support they received.
We found that on average, teens were waiting more than three months for their first session of treatment. Most teens waited to access psychologists and psychiatrists after a GP referral.
While their wait times varied, nearly all teens felt they waited “too long”.
Longer wait times were linked to poorer mental health, with more than 90% of teens reporting high distress while they waited. Many of the teens felt their feelings of worry and sadness had worsened and they had used risky and unhealthy ways to cope, such as spending more time alone, sleeping more, self-harming, and using alcohol and other drugs.
Most teens did not receive any support from their health-care providers during the wait time, despite wanting it.
One female 17-year-old had waited six months for treatment and told us:
It felt like I was hanging over a cliff and was just told to hold on.
Teens also felt their parents would benefit from greater support during the wait time. But we need more research to better understand how to help families.
Together, these findings show we desperately need to address wait times for young people’s mental health treatment.
Teens know the support they need
If teens are to wait for mental health treatment, they told us they need support while they do so.
Young people wanted more regular contact and “check-ins” from their service providers, someone to talk to during the wait, as well as more useful information on positive ways to cope.
Most teens in our study used digital mental health tools – such as mental health websites, online mental health checks, mobile apps, online chat services and forums – while they waited.
We’re developing digital mental health tools, in consultation with young people and GPs, to support doctors to care for their teen patients when treatment isn’t available right away. We’re testing the system of short digital mental health programs, supportive text messages and peer support in NSW this year.
But not all teens we surveyed found digital mental health tools helpful. So we need to offer teens a range of supports – from their family, their GP, and from their referred service provider – to help them cope while they wait for treatment.
What can governments do?
We must carefully consider when, where and how mental health funds are invested. If governments wish to see more young people treated for their mental health problems, then we need to look at how our health-care system will cope with the growing demand.
We also need national, transparent benchmarks for how long young Australians wait for mental health treatment. Only some health services in Australia have this. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have something similar to minimise the health risks of young people waiting too long for care.
Ultimately, though, we need to prevent mental health issues from starting in the first place. That would reduce the need for treatment, the very type young Australians are waiting too long for.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800 or Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Bridianne O’Dea is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Investigator Fellowship (1197249) and a MRFF Millions Minds Mental Health Grant (2035416). Bridianne O’Dea received funding from the Buxton Family Foundation, Australian Unity, the Frontiers Technology Clinical Academic Group Industry Connection Seed Funding Scheme and the UNSW Medicine, Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction Theme and SPHERE Clinical Academic Group Collaborative Research Funding to conduct this research. Bridianne O’Dea is a member of the Australian Society for Mental Health Research and the International Society for Research on Internet Interventions. Bridianne O’Dea’s current work has received pro bono support from Deloitte Digital Australia.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney
Tuesday night’s federal budget revealed a sharp drop in what was once a major source of revenue for the government – the tobacco excise.
This financial year, the government expects to earn revenue from the tobacco excise of A$7.4 billion. That’s down sharply from $12.6 billion in 2022–23, and an earlier peak of $16.3 billion in 2019–20.
The government expects this downward trend to continue. Australia’s heavy tobacco taxation has driven many consumers towards illicit cigarettes.
But this is more than just a problem for government coffers accustomed to revenue from the tobacco tax.
It presents a major challenge for a public health policy that has long relied on increasing tobacco excise duty as its primary tool to reduce smoking.
If government revenue from tobacco is falling, it isn’t because we aren’t trying to tax it. Cigarette prices in Australia are among the highest in the world, with taxes making up a substantial chunk of the price.
About $1.40 of the cost of each cigarette represents excise duty. GST is payable on top of that.
Australia’s tobacco excise is indexed every March and September, in line with average weekly ordinary-time earnings.
On top of indexation, the excise rate is currently being increased by an additional 5% each year, for a period of three years that began in September 2023.
This policy is grounded in the principle that higher costs deter smoking.
And smoking rates have fallen in recent decades. About 8% of Australians aged 14 and over still smoke daily, down from almost 20% in 2001.
Some of that fall has been offset by the rapid ascent of vaping. About 7% of Australians use e-cigarettes – about half of whom vape daily.
But while legal cigarette prices are prohibitively high for some, illegal alternatives are widely available and significantly cheaper. That’s because these unregulated products bypass excise and GST entirely.
The estimated value of illicit tobacco entering the Australian market has soared, from $980 million in 2016–17 to more than $6 billion in 2022–23. Of this $6 billion, almost $3 billion entered the market undetected.
The actual decline in tobacco excise revenue, as exposed in the latest budget papers, has been much more significant than previously forecast.
To make things worse, the cost of enforcement is rising. The 2025–26 federal budget allocates an additional $156 million over the next two years to combat illicit tobacco — on top of the $188 million committed in the previous budget.
There are other broader impacts on overall tax revenue. Convenience stores lose legitimate sales to illegal tobacco vendors, resulting in less corporate tax income.
Holding back broader public health efforts
On other measures, Australia has long been a global leader in tobacco control. The first health warnings on cigarette packets appeared in 1973.
In 2006, graphic health warnings were introduced. And in 2011, Australia pioneered plain packaging laws.
Such public health measures are set to get even stronger this year, with new requirements for every individual cigarette sold to have an “on-product” health warning such as “causes 16 cancers” or “shortens your life”.
These new regulations come into effect on April 1 2025, but retailers will have a three-month transition period to phase out existing stock.
The tight transition period may prove challenging for the legitimate cigarette trade.
But it is unlikely those who ply the unlawful trade in illegal tobacco – or their customers – will be particularly bothered by this latest attempt to wean the public off the habit.
No easy solution
The increasing heavy tobacco excise and the new law requiring warning messages on individual cigarettes have the potential to reduce tobacco consumption among those who purchase the product legally.
However, suppliers of black-market cigarettes – who now comprise an estimated 18% of market share – are unlikely to allow this initiative to affect their illegal trade.
The widespread move to vaping, with poor regulation, has further fuelled the black market for both products.
It is going too far to draw parallels with the prohibition era in the United States, when the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol was illegal. This was a brief but disastrous experiment in social engineering with unfortunate and, in retrospect, arguably predictable consequences.
But there are some unfortunate similarities when it comes to Australia’s tobacco tax policy, which has inadvertently encouraged black markets, criminality and organised crime.
Yet for the government, lowering the excise tax to encourage smokers back to legal cigarettes would be completely out of step with its public health objectives. Legal or illegal, black-market cigarettes and vapes still contribute to health risks, undermining the public health goals behind regulatory controls.
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.
Digital Storytelling Team does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ants are among nature’s greatest success stories, with an estimated 22,000 species worldwide.
Tropical Australia in particular is a global hotspot for ant diversity. Some researchers believe it could hold some of the richest ant biodiversity on the planet, with an estimated 5,000 species in the tropics alone.
But if ants are so successful out in nature, why do they so often turn up in our homes and even upper-level apartments?
And what can we do to keep them out?
There’s probably an ant near you right now
Ants dominate the planet in terms of sheer abundance.
At any given moment, there are an estimated 20 quadrillion ants alive — that’s 20 followed by 15 zeros.
In fact, for every human being, there are roughly 2.5 million ants.
There are about 22,000 ant species worldwide. This one is called the Green tree ant (Oecophylla smaragdina). Tanya Latty
So the short answer to “Why are there ants in my house?” is simply this: there are a lot of ants.
We live on a planet where ants outnumber us by an almost unimaginable margin. The fact that a few occasionally wander into our homes shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Ants work from home (yours, that is)
Ants owe much of their success to their highly social nature.
Within the colony, some individuals (female queens and male drones) are responsible for reproduction, while others (workers) are busy caring for the young, cleaning or foraging for food. Workers ants are always female.
Ants may start off outside but at least some will probably eventually end up inside. Tanya Latty
Ant colonies do not have leaders. They are an excellent example of collective behaviour and swarm intelligence, where individuals following relatively simple rules can collectively achieve far more than any individual could alone.
Just as the individual neurons in your brain can’t compose music, play football, or read articles, the brain as a whole can achieve all these feats and more.
Colonies of co-operating ants are capable of amazingly sophisticated behaviours such as:
“farming” fungi and aphids (small, sap-sucking insects that feed on plants).
Ants even outperform humans on some cooperative cognition tasks.
Credit: Wonder World.
The highly social nature of ants is a big part of their success — and a key reason why they are so good at finding their way into our homes.
Each colony contains thousands of intrepid workers, many of which are constantly searching for new food sources. If even a single ant discovers a valuable resource in your home, it can quickly share that information with its nest mates.
Different ant species use different methods of communication, but the ones that most often invade our homes tend to use “pheromone trails”.
When an ant finds a food source, she returns to her nest leaving little drops of pheromones as she goes; this trail guides other ants from their nest directly to the food source.
This highly efficient communication system means a single ant can rapidly recruit thousands of its nest mates to any food it finds.
Ants may also come inside in search of water, particularly when the weather is hot.
Some species prefer to build their nests in humid environments, which might explain why they are often found in bathrooms.
I once discovered an entire colony of sugar ants nesting inside my aquarium filter! The combination of high humidity and an enclosed structure made it an ideal place to build a nest.
On the flip side, heavy rains can flood ant nests, prompting colonies to seek drier ground — sometimes leading them straight into our homes.
I live in an upper-floor apartment. How did ants get in?
Many ant species are exceptional climbers, thanks to tiny adhesive pads and fine hairs on their feet.
These specialised structures allow ants to stick to walls and find footholds even on surfaces that appear smooth to the human eye.
Remarkably, some canopy-dwelling ants have evolved a behaviour known as “controlled descent” which protects them when they fall. By adjusting the position of their abdomens, falling ants can steer their trajectory, directing themselves back toward the tree trunk and safety.
Ants often have tiny adhesive pads and fine hairs on their feet, which help them stick to walls. Mob_photo/Shutterstock
How do I keep ants out of my house?
Well, good luck. No matter what you do, ants will probably enter your house at one time or another.
Finding a few ants in your home doesn’t mean your house is dirty. We simply live on a planet that is absolutely teeming with ants.
To minimise unwanted ant visits, start by eliminating any potential food sources that could feed a hungry ant.
Store all food in sealed airtight containers, clean behind the fridge and inside/under the toaster, avoid leaving pet food out longer than needed and make sure your bins are securely sealed.
Ants have tiny stomachs, so even small crumbs or the residue from spilled sugary drinks can be enough to entice them back.
If ants seem to be following each other in a line, try disrupting their chemical trail using vinegar or bleach. Be warned, however: ants are very good at repairing broken trail networks.
Seal any small cracks or entrance points that might allow ants to get into your home and make sure your windows and doors have well-fitting fly screens.
Insecticidal baits can kill ant colonies, but before you deploy the nuclear option, ask yourself: what harm are the ants really doing?
Most common home-invading ants do not sting and are pretty harmless. They can usually be redirected simply by removing their food source.
Ants are nature’s clean-up crew, tirelessly scavenging waste and helping to maintain a healthy, balanced ecosystem.
They also play important roles as predators and seed dispersers.
Before reaching for insecticides, consider whether a few ants in your house are truly a problem.
Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the Education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia.
On March 26 NSW Health issued an alert advising people to be vigilant for signs of measles after an infectious person visited Sydney Airport and two locations in western New South Wales.
The person recently returned from Southeast Asia where there are active measles outbreaks in several countries including Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia.
If you’re travelling overseas soon, you could be at risk of measles. Here’s what to know to ensure you’re protected.
First, what is measles?
Measles is one of the most contagious viral illnesses. It spreads through the air when a person breathes, coughs or sneezes. On average, one person can infect 12 to 18 others who are not immune.
Initial symptoms include fever, a runny nose, cough and conjunctivitis. Then a non-itchy rash usually starts around the hairline before spreading around the body.
Measles is most common in children, and they’re also most vulnerable to getting very sick with the virus. Measles is severe in around one in ten children. Complications can include ear infection, diarrhoea and pneumonia, and, more rarely, encephalitis (brain swelling).
However, adults can also catch and spread the disease, making up 10–20% of measles cases during outbreaks.
The measles vaccine is free through Australia’s National Immunisation Program. It’s routinely given at 12 and 18 months of age. The first dose is combined with mumps and rubella (the MMR vaccine) and the second adds protection against chickenpox, or varicella (MMRV).
False suggestions the measles vaccination is linked with disorders such as autism have been thoroughly disproven. The vaccine is very safe and highly effective.
However, because the vaccine is made from a live virus, people with weakened immune systems (for example, those receiving chemotherapy for cancer or pregnant women) cannot have the vaccine even though they’re at higher risk of severe measles. Their safety depends on high community immunisation rates to reduce the spread of the virus.
Because measles is so infectious, at least 95% of the population needs to be immune to prevent its spread.
Immunity occurs from either two doses of measles vaccine or past infection. Measles vaccination was introduced in Australia in 1968. Most adults born before the mid-1960s would still be immune from a past infection. But vaccination is recommended for everyone else who is not immune.
In 2023 only 83% of the world’s children received at least one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday, down from 86% in 2019. This is not enough to halt spread.
The withdrawal of US government funding from many global health programs, including a measles surveillance network that supports testing and outbreak responses, is throwing fuel on the fire.
In Australia, small but progressive declines in the uptake of childhood vaccines over the past five years and immunity gaps in other age groups means our risk of outbreaks in increasing.
For example, coverage of the MMR vaccine at 24 months declined 0.4 percentage points between 2022 and 2023 (from 95.3% to 94.9% in Indigenous children and 95.1% to 94.7% in children overall).
On-time vaccination rates – within 30 days of the recommended age – are also falling. The proportion of children who had their MMR vaccine on time dropped from 75.3% to 67.2% for non-Indigenous children and 64.7% to 56% for Indigenous children between 2020 and 2023.
Measles outbreaks are increasing in Australia and across the world
Measles cases are rapidly rising across the globe and more cases are arriving from overseas into Australia. So far in 2025, 37 cases have been reported compared to 57 in all of 2024, 26 in 2023 and seven in 2022. Most cases have been imported from overseas, but we’ve ascertained eight cases so far in 2025 were locally acquired.
Many of the countries experiencing the largest measles outbreaks are popular travel destinations for Australians, including India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam.
As the incubation period – the gap between exposure and symptoms – is around seven to ten days, travellers may enter the country without knowing they’re about to become ill and potentially spread the virus to others.
Protecting yourself and your family
Although the usual age for the first measles dose is 12 months, the MMR vaccine can be given to babies as young as six months who are travelling to measles hotspots or during outbreaks.
This early measles vaccine dose does not replace those given at 12 and 18 months, but will help protect the infant in the interim.
It’s important all adults, particularly those planning overseas travel, know their vaccination or infection history. If you don’t, talk to your health-care provider about being vaccinated.
Everyone who doesn’t have immunity from an infection should have two lifetime doses. Some adults, including those who have migrated from overseas, may have had none or only one dose when they were younger. If you’re unsure, there’s no harm in receiving a vaccine if you’ve had measles or have been fully vaccinated already.
If you come back from overseas and need medical care, inform your health-care provider about your symptoms and recent travel before attending a clinic in person.
Archana Koirala has worked on projects funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW Health. She is the chair of Vaccination Special Interest Group and a committee member of Australian and New Zealand Paediatric Infectious Diseases Group of the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases.
Kristine Macartney is the Director of the Australian National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS). NCIRS receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, NSW and other state and territory health departments, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, the World Health Organization, the NHMRC, the MRFF and the Wellcome Trust.
Excoriating is the word that may best describe expat Canadian James Grenon’s 11-page critique of NZME. His forensic examination of the board he hopes to replace and the company’s performance is a sobering read.
You may not have seen the letter. At the time of writing, it was still sitting behind The New Zealand Herald’s Premium paywall. It is, however, available through the New Zealand Stock Exchange. You can access it here.
Grenon is highly critical in a number of areas that he breaks down into sections in the letter. The headings include:
“The combined performance of the two core businesses has been mediocre, to sliding, for the past eight years, despite a temporary period of covid gains.”
“There has been a consistent pattern of over promising and under delivering since covid.”
“Public disclosure is weak, with a slant that I interpret as supporting the status quo.”
Grenon’s letter includes an analysis of NZME’s share price in relation to the perceived value of its OneRoof real estate marketing arm, and the company’s dividend policy. He claims “the disclosure on these two critical elements is, in my opinion, lacking or even misleading”. He also criticises levels of management-level remuneration and high levels of staff turnover which he says “does not suggest a happy working environment”.
NZME’s board has yet to respond to the letter stating — in a note to the New Zealand Stock Exchange accompanying the release of Grenon’s letter — that it will do so in its notice to shareholders before the annual general meeting on April 29.
Were that the sum total of his challenge to the present board, it might be characterised as simply a move to improve the group’s financial performance and its return to shareholders. Much of what he says will, in fact, resonate with ordinary shareholders worried about the group’s financial performance and direction. It may well attract even more votes at the April AGM than he currently commands.
However, there is an enormous caveat hanging over any support for Grenon’s initiative.
He states categorically in his letter that he does not propose to act as a passive board chair (yes, there is an assumption that he will head an entirely new board). Instead, he leaves a strong impression he will be an executive chairman, in effect if not in name.
“I propose to be very active at the management level, leading a board and team that will delve into the operational details so as to be able to challenge management . . . This approach to governance is the only realistic way to ensure NZME gets a fresh set of eyes questioning every aspect of operational effectiveness and shareholder value creation.” The italics are mine and are highlighted for reasons I will return to shortly, but the import is clear: James Grenon and his team will have a finger in the pie.
The second reason for exercising caution on any endorsement of the Canadian’s move relates to the three paragraphs he groups under the heading “Journalism”.
On the surface, he promises better journalism, saying his intention is that “more quality content should be produced, not less”.
In contrast to NZME’s recent announcement to “set a new tone and build positive social momentum for New Zealanders”, our proposal will lift the company’s journalistic standards, resulting in the production of higher quality news content, characterised by independent, trustworthy and balanced perspectives. There will also be material for entertainment value as well. Then all the content will be used in any number of ways to generate profit.
He also applauds the “audience leading ratings of NZME’s audio segment”.
All of this sounds laudible, until one asks the simple question: How?
He has yet to give any specific answers. A request from the journalists’ union E Tū for assurances simply led to Grenon asking more questions about what the union meant by “editorial independence”.
However, let’s return to what Grenon means by his references to NZME’s journalism.
If he means the board will limit itself to supporting an annual budget that will allow NZME’s editors to independently produce the sort of content to which his letter alludes, all well and good.
If he means the aims set out in his letter will be transmitted to editors as an expectation of their approach to journalism, no problem.
However, when read in conjunction with the intentions I italicised above, there are strong indications that he intends to be at least meddlesome and, at worst, to dictate editorial direction and content. There is a signal to his editorial preferences in the fact that he applauds radio ratings that are firmly anchored by NewstalkZB’s right-leaning content.
Nowhere in Grenon’s letter is there any undertaking to observe the principles of editorial independence that certainly permeated The New Zealand Herald when I was editor a couple of decades ago and which I inherited from a long list of predecessors. Nowhere is there recognition that NZME has responsibilities to the general public. Declining trust is seen only in terms of the impact on profits.
Responsible and accountable journalism is something editors and their staff hold in trust on behalf of society. They seek audiences for the dual purposes of spreading that journalism to the general public and, in the process, producing the profits that ensure its ongoing sustainability. Done well, it is a virtuous circle.
However, like all circles, once any part of it is fractured it collapses. If Mr Grenon views the editorial department in the same way he sees every other aspect of NZME’s business, he would be in boots and all. Then it would be only a matter of time before the circle falls in on itself.
James Grenon’s bid deserves support only if he gives cast-iron guarantees of editorial independence, and that requires more than a letter of reassurance. Mere words are not enough.
Well-founded concerns for the future of a vital component of our journalistic infrastructure will be allayed only by changing the constitution of NZME to prevent directors from instructing any employee on editorial policy or operational matters. That protection would be all the more vital if now-stalled discussions over the purchase of Stuff’s titles and associated digital outlets are resumed after NZME’s board battle is resolved.
Both Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand have statutory protection against ministerial interference in editorial matters. The community deserves the same protection from board interference in private sector media in the public interest.
That, however, has never been a given and many news media enterprises rely on a mixture of tradition and peer pressure to ensure their journalists are insulated from undue influence.
The New York Times, for example, has a proud tradition of editorial independence but that owes more to the Salzberger family than to the company’s articles of association. The Daily Mail and General Trust have a tradition whereby its editors are appointed by the editor-in-chief in consultation with the board chairman, who also by tradition has been Viscount Rothermere (currently the fourth holder of the title). Each editor then controls the content of the respective titles. The editor-in-chief of The Guardian is not appointed by the board but by the Scott Trust, which owns the newspaper group, and reports directly to it.
I commend to Grenon and his fellow board aspirants an essay on editorial independence by the chairman of the New York Times Company, A G Salzberger. You can access it here.
For NZME to have effective guarantees of editorial independence, its articles would need to have a failsafe mechanism to prevent the sort of override that Rupert Murdoch affected with his news acquisitions. Such a mechanism might be special recourse to the Media Council in the event of an attempt by directors to interfere. The council could then independently investigate whether there had been a breach of the company constitution. Disclosure of such a breach could be damaging to both directors and the company.
The combination of protective governance plus an independent review process would allay most of the fears generated by Grenon’s utterances and his past brief encounters with news media — a former shareholding in the right-wing aggregator site The Centrist, and financing of legal action against mainstream media.
NZME shareholders and the public of New Zealand should be very wary if no such undertakings are forthcoming.
Disclosure: I was formerly a shareholder in the previous parent company of the group but do not currently hold shares in NZME.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes the website knightlyviews.com where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Café Pacific with permission.
Last week, Queensland Health alerted the public about the risk of Australian bat lyssavirus, after a bat found near a school just north of Brisbane was given to a wildlife carer group.
The bat later died, but it was not confirmed whether it carried the virus.
This is not unusual. Volunteer wildlife carers respond to thousands of calls from the public every year after encountering sick, injured and orphaned bats. And testing them all routinely for the virus is not warranted or feasible.
Here’s what you need to know about the risk of catching Australian bat lyssavirus and how it can be treated.
What is bat lyssavirus?
Australian bat lyssavirus belongs to the same group of viruses that includes rabies – one of the most notorious diseases humans can catch from animals. Rabies causes about 59,000 deaths worldwide a year, mainly after dog bites. It is almost always fatal once symptoms appear.
Australian bat lyssavirus was discovered in 1996. There have been only three confirmed cases of the virus in humans in Australia, the most recent in 2013. All three were fatal.
Fortunately, because Australian bat lyssavirus and rabies are so closely related, the preventative measures that have been developed internationally against rabies can also protect humans from the effects of Australian bat lyssavirus.
Australian bat lyssavirus and rabies have a long incubation period (the period between exposure to infection and appearance of symptoms). If preventative treatments are given during the incubation period, they are highly effective in preventing disease and saving lives.
Such treatment reduces what is already a very low risk of illness and death to effectively zero.
The virus is present in the saliva of some Australian bats, including the large flying foxes (fruit-eating bats) and some smaller bats that eat insects. But the proportion of bats infected by the virus is normally very low – less than 0.5%.
Infected bats may become sick and die, but some may appear unaffected. In other words, you can’t always tell just by looking at a bat whether it’s infected or not. However, there is evidence the virus is present at a higher level in sick bats than in healthy ones.
You cannot be exposed to the virus by being under a flying fox roost, even if the bats poo on you. You cannot be exposed by having bats in your roof or in a shed.
No, you can’t catch Australian bat lyssavirus from bat poo. Anna Evangeli
But the virus can be transferred to a human via either a scratch or bite. That’s if an infected bat scratches or bites you, or if their saliva is transmitted to an existing wound.
So you do need to be careful if you come across a sick or injured bat, or you find a child playing with a bat.
There is no evidence the virus regularly infects dogs and cats, although rabies does.
Nevertheless, given that Australian bat lyssavirus is a close relative of rabies and that rabies will infect most mammals, the possibility that it may sometimes spill over to mammals other than humans cannot be eliminated.
For example, in 2013 two horses in the same paddock became infected and had to be euthanised. The source of infection was not identified.
So you should also seek advice if you see an animal such as a dog or cat play with a dead or injured bat. Contact a wildlife care group for advice about the bat and a vet to discuss post-exposure treatment for your pet.
If your dog plays with a dead or injured bat, seek advice from your veterinarian to be on the safe side. Lazy_Bear/Shutterstock
How great is the risk?
It is important to put the risk posed by Australian bat lyssavirus into perspective.
Although each of the three deaths known to have been caused by the virus since 1996 is tragic, in 2017-2018 alone, 12 people in Australia died from bee or wasp stings.
Bats play an important role in our ecosystems. Without the pollination and pest control services bats provide, our increasingly fragmented native forests would struggle to recover after fires, and we’d need to use more pesticides on our crops. There is also no evidence bat lyssaviruses are increasing in Australian bat populations.
Is the risk to humans changing?
However, as we encroach upon natural habitats via land clearing we are likely to have increased contact with wildlife, including bats.
Mass mortality events in bats in Australia – such as those in recent years caused by extreme heat or bat paralysis syndrome (thought to be caused by bats ingesting an environmental toxin) – are likely to lead to increased contact between people, their pets and vulnerable bats.
The risk to human health is therefore likely increasing, albeit from a very low level.
What should I do?
First, don’t panic. Infection is extraordinarily rare and will continue to be so.
Second, don’t interfere with bat populations. Do not pick up sick or injured bats and do not allow your children or pets to play with them. Keep your pets inside at night to minimise potential contact with bats.
Third, if you or a member of your family is bitten or scratched by a bat, or suspect you have been, seek medical attention, including post-exposure treatment. People who regularly handle bats, such as wildlife carers or researchers, should be vaccinated in advance. They are also trained to handle bats safely and use appropriate personal protection equipment.
If you find a sick or injured bat, contact your local wildlife rehabilitation group or veterinarian.
Hamish McCallum receives funding from the US NSF and fron the EU Horizons program. His work on bat virus disease ecology has previously been funded by the US NSF and DARPA
Alison Peel receives funding from the US NIH. Her work on bat virus disease ecology has previously been funded by the ARC, US NSF and DARPA
Cinthia is a volunteer wildlife carer for a not-for-profit organisation based in Southeast Queensland that works with bats.
Owing to its violent political history, West Papua’s vibrant human past has long been ignored.
Unlike its neighbour, the independent country of Papua New Guinea, West Papua’s cultural history is poorly understood. But now, for the first time, we have recorded this history in detail, shedding light on 50 millennia of untold stories of social change.
By examining the territory’s archaeology, anthropology and linguistics, our new book fits together the missing puzzle pieces in Australasia’s human history. The book is the first to celebrate West Papua’s deep past, involving authors from West Papua itself, as well as Indonesia, Australasia and beyond.
The new evidence shows West Papua is central to understanding how humans moved from Eurasia into the Australasian region, how they adapted to challenging new environments, independently developed agriculture, exchanged genes and languages, and traded exquisitely crafted objects.
Archaeological evidence shows that people migrating from Eurasia into the Australasian region came through West Papua. Dylan Gaffney, CC BY-SA
Early seafaring and adaptation
During the Pleistocene epoch (2.5 million to 12,000 years ago), West Papua was connected to Australia in a massive continent called Sahul.
Archaeological evidence from the limestone chamber of Mololo Cave shows some of the first people to settle Sahul arrived on the shores of present-day West Papua. There they quickly adapted to a host of new ecologies.
The precise date of arrival of the first seafaring groups on Sahul is debated. However, a tree resin artefact from Mololo has been radiocarbon dated to show this happened more than 50,000 years ago.
Genetic analyses support this early arrival time to Sahul. Our work suggests these earliest seafarers crossed along the northern route, one of two passages through the Indonesian islands.
Human dispersal to West Papua during the Pleistocene epoch (about 50,000 years ago) and during the Lapita period (more than 3,000 years ago). Dylan Gaffney, CC BY-SA
Interestingly, the first migrants carried with them the genetic legacy of intermarriages between our species, Homo sapiens, and the Denisovans, a now extinct species of hominins that lived in eastern Asia. Geneticists currently dispute whether these encounters took place in Southeast Asia, along a northerly or southerly route to Sahul, or even in Sahul itself.
In the same way modern European populations retain about 2% of Neanderthal ancestry, many West Papuans retain about 3% of Denisovan heritage.
As the Earth warmed at the end of the Pleistocene, rising seas split Sahul apart. The large savannah plains that joined West Papua and Papua New Guinea to Australia were submerged around 8,000 years ago. Much of West Papua’s southern and western coastlines became islands.
Social transformations during the past 10,000 years
As environments changed, so did people’s cuisine and culture.
We know from sites in Papua New Guinea that people developed their own agricultural systems between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, at a similar time to innovations in Asia and the Americas. However, agricultural systems were not universally adopted across the island.
New chemical evidence from human tooth enamel in West Papua shows people retained a wide variety of diets, from fish and shellfish to forest plants and marsupials.
One of the key unanswered questions in West Papua’s history is when cultivation emerged and how it spread into other regions, including Southeast Asia. Taro, bananas, yams and sago were all initially cultivated in New Guinea and have become important staple crops around the world.
Moses Dialom, an archaeological fieldwork collaborator from the Raja Ampat Islands, examines excavated artefacts at Mololo Cave. Tristan Russell, CC BY-SA
The arrival of pottery, some 3,000 years ago, represents movements of new people to the Pacific. These are best illustrated by iconic Lapita pottery, recorded by archaeologists from Papua New Guinea all the way to Samoa and Tonga.
Lapita pottery makers spoke Austronesian languages, which became the ancestors of today’s Polynesian languages, including Māori.
New pottery discoveries from Mololo Cave suggest the ancestors of Lapita pottery makers existed somewhere around West Papua. Finding the location of these ancestral Lapita settlements is a major priority for archaeological research in the territory.
Rock paintings provide evidence of social change in West Papua. Tristan Russell, CC BY-SA
Other evidence for social transformations includes rock paintings and even bronze axes. The latter were imported all the way from mainland Southeast Asia to West Papua around 2,000 years ago. Metal working was not practised in West Papua at this time and chemical analyses show some of these artefacts were made in northern Vietnam.
At all times in the past, people had a rich and complex material culture. But only a small fraction of these objects survive for archaeologists to study, especially in humid tropical conditions.
People settled diverse environments around West Papua, including montane cloud forests (upper left), lowland rainforests (upper right), mangrove swamps (lower left) and coastal beaches (lower right). Dylan Gaffney, CC BY-SA
Living traditions and the movement of objects
From the early 1800s, when West Papua was part of the Dutch East Indies, colonial administrators, scientists and explorers exported tonnes of West Papuan artefacts to European museums. Sometimes the objects were traded or gifted, other times stolen outright.
In the early 1900s, many objects were also burned by missionaries who saw Indigenous material culture as evidence of paganism. The West Papuan objects that now inhabit museums in Europe, America, Australia and New Zealand are connections between modern people and their ancestral traditions.
Sometimes these objects represent people’s direct ancestors. Major work is currently underway to connect West Papuans with these collections and to repatriate some of these objects to museums in West Papua. Unfortunately, funding remains a central issue for these museums.
Many West Papuans continue to produce and use wooden carvings, string bags and shell ornaments. Anthropologists have described how people are actively reconfiguring their material culture, especially given the presence of new synthetic materials and a cash economy.
A montage of images showing West Papuan archaeologists in the field. (A) Klementin Fairyo, left, is setting up a new excavation. (B) Martinus Tekege excavating pottery. (C) Sonya Kawer with wartime archaeology. (D) Abdul Razak Macap, right, sieving for archaeological artefacts at Mololo Cave. Klementin Fairyo, Martinus Tekege, Sonya Kawer, Abdul Razak Macap, CC BY-SA
Despite our new findings, West Papua remains an enigma for researchers. It has a land area twice the size of Aotearoa New Zealand, but there are fewer than ten known archaeological sites that have been radiocarbon dated.
By contrast, Aotearoa has thousands of dated sites. This means West Papua is the least well researched part of the Pacific and there is much more work to be done. Crucially, Papuan scholars need to be at the heart of this 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.
Amazon has disabled two key privacy features in its Alexa smart speakers, in a push to introduce artificial intelligence-powered “agentic capabilities” and turn a profit from the popular devices.
Starting today (March 28), Alexa devices will send all audio recordings to the cloud for processing, and choosing not to save these recordings will disable personalisation features.
How do voice assistants work?
A voice assistant works by constantly listening for a “wake word”, such as “Alexa”. Once woken, it records the command that is spoken and matches it to an action, such as playing a music track. Matching a spoken command to an action requires what computer scientists call natural language understanding, which can take a lot of computer power.
Matching commands to actions can be done locally (on the device itself), or sound recordings can be uploaded to the cloud for processing. On-device processing has improved substantially in recent years, but is still less accurate than using the cloud, where more computer power is available.
Amazon is making two changes today
Alexa devices send recordings to the cloud by default. However, some high-end Echo models previously supported a setting called “Do not send voice recordings”.
If this setting was enabled, all recordings were processed locally. In practice, only a tiny fraction of Echo users (around 0.03% had this turned on.
In the first change, this setting is being disabled, and all recordings will be sent to the cloud.
Once in the cloud, recordings can be deleted or saved.
Alexa users also have a setting called “Don’t save recordings”, which, if enabled, deletes cloud recordings once they’re processed. In the second change, if the “Don’t save recordings” setting is enabled, Voice ID will stop working, and with it, access to personalised features such as user-specific calendar events.
This two-step change means Alexa users need to make a trade-off between privacy and functionality.
Alexa loses a lot of money
Put simply, Amazon needs Echo devices to start making money.
As US voice assistant expert Joseph Turow has detailed, Amazon began selling Echo devices very cheaply as a “loss leader”. Amazon says it has sold more than 500 million Alexa devices, but between 2017 and 2021 alone the company lost more than US$25 billion on the project.
Amazon has invested US$8 billion in AI developer Anthropic. Amazon
In February, Amazon launched a new AI-powered Alexa+ system. It promises more natural interaction and the ability to carry out tasks such as booking flights. Alexa+ is currently only available in the United States.
“Agentic capabilities” such as booking flights require detailed profile information about the user on whose behalf they are acting. This would include details such as preferred products or services.
Voice ID and data from spoken commands assist Amazon in tying preferences to a particular person.
An AI-powered intermediary
How will Alexa+ help Amazon make money? The first way is via direct subscription fees: the service will eventually only be available to Amazon Prime members or people who pay US$19.99 per month.
But what may prove more important is that it will help Amazon to position itself as an intermediary between buyers and sellers. This is what Amazon already does with its existing e-commerce platform.
It’s easy to see the system in action when you search for a product on Amazon’s website. Alongside items sold directly by Amazon, you are presented with products from multiple sellers, each of whom pays Amazon to be listed.
Everybody pays the platform
Agentic capabilities are likely to have a similar business model. Service providers – such as airlines or restaurant reservation companies – would pay Amazon when Alexa+ refers customers to them.
Amazon’s move is part of a broader phenomenon termed “platform capitalism”. This takes in the crowdsourced content of social media platforms, “sharing economy” businesses such as AirBnb, and the automated gig work of the likes of Uber.
Platform capitalism has delivered benefits for consumers, but in general the greatest benefits flow to those who own the platforms and design their infrastructure, services and constraints.
The settings can be viewed and changed from the Alexa app on your smartphone, under “More > Alexa Privacy”. Alexa users may wish to review the settings in “Manage
your Alexa Data” to choose how long recordings are saved for and which
voice recordings to delete. Recordings may also be deleted using a voice
command.
As Alexa+ becomes available more widely, users will need to decide whether they are comfortable sharing data about their preferences with Amazon to enable agentic capabilities.
Some Alexa privacy settings are still available. Amazon
What are the alternatives?
For users who are uncomfortable with the privacy settings now available with Alexa, a private voice assistant may prove a better choice.
The Home Assistant Voice Preview is one example. It gives people the option to have voice recordings processed on-device, but offers less functionality than Alexa and can’t work with as many other services. It’s also not very user-friendly, being aimed more at technical tinkerers.
Users may face a trade-off between privacy and functionality, both within Alexa itself and when considering alternatives. They may also find themselves grappling with their own place in the increasingly inescapable systems of platform capitalism.
Kathy Reid receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program (AGRTP) for her doctoral work and is a recipient of the Florence Violet McKenzie scholarship.
She currently contracts on a part-time basis to Mozilla Common Voice as a linguistic engineer. She is a past President of Linux Australia, Inc., an organisation dedicated to supporting open source communities and practices in the region. She was previously Director of Developer Relations at Mycroft.AI, a privacy-focused voice assistant, and held shares in the company, which is now dissolved. She has previously contracted with NVIDIA as a speech data specialist. NVIDIA provided hardware for Echo devices prior to 2021.
