Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University

When the newspapers delivered their standard election-eve editorials, there were few surprises. Former Fairfax papers and smaller outlets offered qualified support for Labor, while the News Corp papers unashamedly championed the Coalition. In Adelaide, The Advertiser ran a curious line recommending a majority government of whatever persuasion, “lest our futures be in the hands of the mad Greens, self-serving teals or the independent rabble.”

How must those editors feel this morning? On the one hand, they got the majority government they wished for, and then some. The 2025 election will be mythologised in Labor circles for decades to come.

On the other hand, the “independent rabble” defied the expectations of some, and the best efforts of others, holding their seats and making gains in Sydney and Canberra, and potentially Melbourne and Perth as well. New crossbenchers will certainly be welcomed into the 48th parliament. And with the Coalition reeling from an historic defeat, they may all play a critical role in policy the debates to come.

Weathering the storm

The election campaign put all of the incumbent independent MPs through their paces. Coalition candidates and some of their outspoken media allies applied enormous personal pressure, with accusations of weakness on the issue of antisemitism and piercing questions from conservative news outlets about the transparency of some independent MPs’ donations.

Vast sums of money were also involved. In the Perth-side seat of Curtin, for example, independent MP Kate Chaney’s supporters and the Liberal Party allegedly spent $1 million each on their respective campaigns.

In the end, incumbent independents benefited from the historic pattern in federal politics: that a good independent is a tough proposition to beat. At election time, successful independent MPs benefit from the advantages of incumbency, the ability to point to specific policy or project victories arising from greater political competition for the seat, and the flexibility to adapt more quickly to changing voter attitudes, unencumbered by any party machinery.

Zali Steggall in Warringah and Helen Haines in Indi enjoyed their third successive wins, Rebekah Sharkie in Mayo a fourth general election win (she won a competitive byelection in 2018), Andrew Wilkie in Hobart a sixth victory on the trot, and north Queensland’s Bob Katter yet another term after 50 years of parliamentary service.

At the time of writing, all of the independents who won their seats in 2022 appear to have been returned. (The exception was Kylie Tink, whose electorate was abolished last year.) The closest count is in Goldstein, where incumbent Zoe Daniel narrowly leads her Liberal predecessor Tim Wilson. Other incumbents, such as Sophie Scamps in Mackellar, Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Monique Ryan in Kooyong and Kate Chaney in Curtin, have enjoyed distinctive swings toward them. In the formerly safe Labor seat of Fowler, where the party hoped to win, independent MP Dai Le enjoyed a handsome primary vote swing of around 6% in her favour.

Changing hands

The picture has been more mixed for the rest of the crossbench and other minor parties. The Greens seem set to lose two of their Brisbane seats, but a close race in the formerly safe Labor seat of Wills in Victoria may yet provide a win. Another record spendathon from Clive Palmer will see the Trumpet of Patriots win zero seats. One Nation may keep Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts in his place, but there do not appear to be any other gains for Pauline Hanson’s team.

Coalition defectors fared poorly, too. Monash MP, independent and former Liberal Russell Broadbent, appears to have secured just 10% of the primary vote, placing him behind both major parties and the community independent candidate.

In the Perth seat of Moore, Liberal defector Ian Goodenough has fallen behind Labor, Liberal and the Greens, with preferences flowing mainly to Labor candidate Tom French. Right-wing LNP defector Gerard Rennick appears unlikely to win his contest for a Queensland senate seat. In the regional NSW seat of Calare, ex-National MP Andrew Gee appears the only one able to buck the trend, coming second on primary votes and benefiting from a stronger flow of preferences than his National Party opponent.

New crossbench faces?

A series of close contests may yet result in extra independent members of parliament. Despite a bitter campaign, community independent Nicolette Boele appears likely to win in the north Sydney seat of Bradfield. In the Victorian seat of Flinders, independent Ben Smith has enjoyed a 5.4% swing toward him, and away from Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie, though preferences have not yet been published in that seat. In Fremantle, where the Australian Electoral Commission is yet to report any preference flows, independent candidate Kate Hulett may still be in with a shot to beat Labor’s Josh Wilson. The competitive result follows an impressive campaign from Hulett at the state election earlier this year.

After five weeks of vicious debates about the public service and Canberra, voters in the ACT sent clear messages to both major parties. Voices for Bean candidate Jessie Price appears to have taken one of the three ACT electorates from Labor, and independent Senator David Pocock enjoyed an easy victory. Labor received less than a third of the primary vote in that Senate race, and barely one in seven ACT residents voted Liberal.

Not burning down the house

Despite that qualification, Labor’s victory is historic by several measures. It is one of only four occasions over the past 30 years where its primary vote actually grew at a federal election. It looks to have won a lower house majority comparable with that of the Howard government’s final term, and maybe even with the Coalition’s 2013 victory (when it won 90 seats, more than double the figure it is likely to have won this time). The two-party preferred vote shows Albanese securing the kind of victory that made John Curtin a Labor hero in 1943.

So what role does that leave for independents in the 48th parliament?

Returning crossbenchers will regard their impressive primary votes as confirmation their voters want them to keep doing politics differently. The Liberal and National parties, on the other hand, will be consumed for much of the parliamentary term with introspection and institutional reckoning. Given how unhelpful their studied unity over the past term ultimately proved, it may be there’s more infighting within the Coalition during the next parliament.

Does it matter that the crossbenchers will not hold the balance of power in the lower house? Not necessarily. In the event of a serious policy misstep from the Albanese government during this term, the crossbenchers may prove to be the more influential voices of opposition in the lower house.

Sometimes a solo voice speaks with powerful volume. In 2001 the rural independent for Calare, Peter Andren, proved to be a singularly powerful voice against the Howard government’s draconian offshore detention program for asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Andren defied the national trends (and the local opinion polls) and was returned with an increased primary vote, and again in 2004. When he died, some said his opposition to the Howard government showed “more guts and decency” than “all the other Coalition and ALP candidates combined”.

Several of the current independents have earned themselves a national profile and are trusted advocates on issues such as public integrity and accountability, climate and energy policy and even foreign and security affairs. There will certainly be few MPs left on the opposition benches who can speak with compelling authority on some of these issues. In the face of an emboldened Labor government, their opposition to contentious legislation may sometimes have outsized influence.

In pragmatic political terms, it is arguably in the Labor Party’s interests to negotiate, and to be seen to negotiate, with the crossbench. The independents in formerly safe Liberal seats are some of the biggest obstacles in any future Liberal pathway back into office.

Newly-elected Labor MPs may also depend on preferences from community independent candidates next time they go to the polls. The Menzies government owed part of its longevity in the late 1950s and 1960s to its ability to win the preferences of the Democratic Labor Party, an anti-communist breakaway party from Labor.

Independents are nothing like the DLP, and many run open tickets instead of strictly recommending preferences on their how to vote cards. But in some seats, including the leader of the opposition’s seat of Dickson, independent and Greens voters’ preferences will have proven crucial for Labor’s success.

‘Every day is minority government in the Senate’

The other crucial reason independents still have a role to play is the Senate. Pocock recently remarked that “every day is minority government in the Senate”. Albanese’s victory, no matter how impressive, does not extend to a majority in the red chamber.

The last time a party won a majority in the Senate was in 2004. Before that, it was 1977. No matter how large a lower-house majority, negotiation and compromise are simply unavoidable for laws to get passed in the federal parliament.

The Greens will continue to exercise their crucial balance of power role in the Senate. So too will Pocock and, assuming she is re-elected as the sixth senator for Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie. During the 47th parliament, Pocock and Lambie often proved decisive in shaping, amending and sometimes postponing legislation they felt needed improvement.

Both will bring a range of priorities to the 48th parliament. They may also collaborate more routinely with lower house crossbench colleagues to make those critical votes in the senate count for everything that they are worth. That would be a good thing. After all, both chambers really do matter in our parliamentary system.

Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

– ref. Independents will not help form government – but they will be vital in holding it to account – https://theconversation.com/independents-will-not-help-form-government-but-they-will-be-vital-in-holding-it-to-account-255517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

While counting continues nationally, the federal election result is definitive: a pro-Labor landslide and an opposition leader voted out.

But beyond the headline results, how did Australians in the key seats in each state vote, and how did it shape the outcome?

Here, six experts break down what happened in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

New South Wales

Swing to Labor: 3.4%

David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney

The election results showed, in NSW as with the rest of Australia, a stronger than predicted swing to the government, returning it with a solid majority.

Not only did Labor hold all its NSW marginals, many with increased margins, but it appears to have gained from the Liberals the seats of Banks and Hughes in suburban Sydney. Labor’s Jerome Laxale has retained Bennelong which was notionally Liberal after the redistribution.

The Liberals appear likely to lose Bradfield to Teal Nicolette Boele and former National Andrew Gee seems likely to retain Calare in the central west as an independent.

The three sitting Teals were all easily re-elected and right wing independent Dai Le held Fowler.

At the time of writing, Labor has won 28 seats in NSW to the Coalition’s 12, a gain of three, with four independents so far and the probability of two more.

The ALP two-party preferred vote in NSW was 54.8%, a swing towards it of 3.4%.

Labor’s primary vote was 35.0% to the Coalition’s 31.8%, a swing against the latter of 4.7%.

Albanese staged a Houdini-like escape from what seemed to be, in 2024, a steady decline in his prospects. Although only an average campaigner in 2022, he ran an almost flawless campaign three years later. The prime minister had a consistent, resonant message about Labor’s record, appealing policies for the future, and projected an image of stability in government.

Given the bite of the cost of living, particularly in Western Sydney, the government should have been vulnerable. Instead, Albanese transformed this into a strength by persuading voters he was best placed to deal with the crisis.

Queensland

Swing to Labor: 3.9%

Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University

I long argued Queensland would be inconsequential as to who would win the keys to The Lodge at this election.

I was partly right. If Labor, as projected, wins 93 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the six Queensland Labor appears to have seized from the Liberal-National Party (LNP) are but a small fraction of the government’s national haul. Even with no Labor gains in Queensland, Albanese could still have governed with a comfortable majority.

But I was also partly wrong. The fact there were primary swings of up to five percentage points away from the LNP across Queensland (even in very safe seats like Maranoa), and the fact Labor appears to have captured two seats (Brisbane and Griffith) from the Greens, suggests the state has behaved very differently from expectations and, for the first time in more than a decade, become one of real consequence.

Labor now looks to hold 13 of the state’s 30 seats, the LNP 15, the Greens one, and Bob Katter returned in Kennedy for the KAP. Few would be surprised that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots failed to win any House seats, although PHON’s Malcolm Roberts is likely to be returned to the Senate.

Nor is it unexpected that Dickson, held by the LNP by a tiny 1.7% margin, should have been in play this election. But that fact Dickson was lost by an opposition leader – the first such occurrence at federal level – is astonishing.

So, too, are the LNP losses in the outer-suburban “battler” seats of Forde and Petrie (held by the LNP since 2010 and 2013 respectively) that embraced former Liberal PM Scott Morrison, even when he was at his nadir.

The additional reality of an LNP losing such contrasting seats as Leichhardt in far north Queensland and Bonner in middle Brisbane suburbia now points to a deep existential crisis for conservatives even in their Queensland heartland.

In the Northern Territory, Labor’s Marion Scrymgour has retained the seat of Lingiari and strengthened her position, with a 6.6% swing in her favour.

So, what happened? How did Queensland, like the rest of Australia, defy electoral gravity? Was it that angry Queenslanders, stinging from a cost-of-living crisis, had already vented their wrath on a state Labor government six months ago? Or did the state finally warm to an Albanese it now concluded was a more competent economic manager? Or did Queensland, like every other state, reject a hard-right Peter Dutton – offering little in meaningful policy amid a ramshackle campaign – as out of touch with a moderate, centrist Australia?

After defeats at local and state elections in 2024, Labor is back in Queensland.

South Australia

Swing to Labor: 5.1%

Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University

On first glance, South Australia did not seem to be at the centre of the Albanese government’s landslide win. Of the ten electoral seats in the state, only one changed hands – the seat of Sturt which Labor’s Claire Clutterham won from the Liberals’ James Stevens. Yet, this was a massive win for Labor, with a 57–43 two-party preferred vote.

This is a seismic result and exemplifies all of the Coalition’s electoral problems. Sturt was a classic Liberal blue ribbon seat which the Liberals had held since 1972. The Teal candidate in Sturt, Dr Verity Cooper, might well be disappointed not to have scored a higher primary vote than her 7.2%.

Elsewhere, Labor handsomely improved its position in the hitherto marginal seat of Boothby. A 8% swing to Louise Miller-Frost saw the Liberals’ Nicolle Flint easily routed.

To confirm the Liberal misery in the state, the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie consolidated her place in Mayo. The scale of Labor’s performance also brought into scrutiny the Liberal regional seat of Grey, where long-standing member Rowan Ramsay retired. The Liberals will retain it despite a swing against them.

Overall, this is now a solidly Labor state, and the party holds a remarkable seven of the ten seats. Those with long memories, will know seats like Kingston and Adelaide, traditionally bellweather, are now solidly safe Labor seats.

The Liberals’ loss of Sturt confirms the party now has only two seats in the state, and no representation at all in the major cities around the country. It might well be a long road back for the centre-right.

Tasmania

Swing to Labor: 8.1%

Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

If the Liberal Party’s ranks were thinned out on the mainland, in Tasmania they have been clear-felled. The state elected four Labor candidates out of five, and notably, all women.

In Braddon, Labor’s Anne Urquhart overturned the 8.3% margin enjoyed by retiring Liberal MP Gavin Pearce. It looks like the swing to Labor will be around 15%, with Urquhart’s pro-salmon farming and pro-jobs position resonating in the traditionally conservative electorate.

A swing of around 10% to Labor in Bass was more than enough for first-time candidate Jess Teesdale to defeat Liberal MP Bridget Archer. Labor’s messaging that “a vote for Archer is a vote for Dutton” successfully neutralised Archer’s personal popularity in the electorate and reputation for standing up to her party.

Lyons was Tasmania’s most marginal seat after the 2022 election. That’s no longer the case, with Rebeca White, former state Labor leader, securing a swing of around 10%. White’s popularity as a state MP transferred smoothly to the federal level – Labor’s primary vote in the seat looks to have jumped by more than 14%.

So why was the swing to Labor in these Tasmanian seats so much greater than on the mainland? Astute candidate selection played a role – in particular, White and Urquhart were well-known in their communities.

It is also possible the ongoing travails of the state Liberal government played a part. Northern Tasmanians are strongly opposed to the controversial AFL stadium in Hobart, and the ongoing Spirit of Tasmania ferry fiasco has involved prominent mismanagement of port upgrades in Devonport in the state’s north-west. State politics isn’t usually considered to have a big impact on federal elections, but these issues may have been high profile – and long running – enough to make a difference.

The southern seat of Franklin was a focal point for a lot of drama during the campaign. In the end, Julie Collins, Tasmania’s only cabinet minister, received a bit of a scare. She slightly increased her primary vote, but the ABC currently projects her overall margin will be cut in half. Anti-salmon farming independent Peter George achieved the second highest primary vote, but wasn’t close enough to Collins for preferences to get him over the line.

As expected, independent Andrew Wilkie won the Hobart seat of Clark for a sixth time, with a margin of just over 20%. He increased his primary vote, but it looks like Labor will shave a tiny amount off his margin.

Victoria

Swing to Labor: 1.8%

Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University

The Liberal Party’s fortunes in Victoria went from bad in 2022 to much worse in 2025.

The ALP’s primary vote increased by about 1% while the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by about 2.5%. While the percentages are smaller than in other states, this performance had a significant affect on the representation of the parties in Victoria.

The Liberal Party lost Deakin in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Held by Michael Sukkar since 2013, the seat has been marginal for several elections. The primary vote swing against the Liberal Party was 4.2%. In a two-party preferred outcome, Deakin now appears to be a relatively safe seat for Labor.

The Liberal Party primary vote also went backwards in Kooyong which was held by independent Monique Ryan. High profile Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer could not reclaim the seat which had previously been held by then-Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

Goldstein, the other inner metropolitan seat won by an independent at the last election, looks to be a closer contest with the Liberal Party’s Tim Wilson experiencing a rise in the primary vote but it may not be enough to defeat incumbent Zoe Daniel.

Compounding the problems for the Liberal Party was that it could not make any inroads in other key seats across the eastern suburbs in Melbourne. This was where the party needed to win seats if it was to be competitive in forming government. In Aston, the seat the party lost at a byelection in 2023, the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by 5%. The party’s primary vote also went back in Chisholm and McEwen.

In short, this was a disastrous result for the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria.

Western Australia

Swing to Labor: 1.2%

Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University

WA didn’t disappoint for Labor. Although the two-party swing was more muted than in other parts of the country, it came off the back of a more much stronger electoral position entering this contest. On a two-party preferred basis, Labor gained 56.2% of the vote.

Labor has retained the nine lower house seats it won in 2022, and it has also managed to make decent, even if not spectacular, gains in the party’s share of the primary vote in Tangney (+4.9%), Hasluck (+5.93), Swan (+3.5%), and Perth (+4.7%).

One of the unexpected wins for Labor was the former Liberal held seat of Moore. Labor won the seat on the back of +0.9% increase in the party’s primary vote. Assisting Labor’s electoral fortunes was a former Liberal incumbent who ran as an independent, and whose vote accounts for much of the -10.4% swing against the Liberal candidate.

But it wasn’t all good news for Labor, going backwards on primary votes in Fremantle (-4.48%) Brand (-5.96%) and Pearce (-0.01%).

The Liberals’ performance affirms just how much trouble the party in the West. The Liberals recorded a swing of -5.66% in their primary vote, winning only 28.5% of the first preference vote.

In addition to the loss of Moore, the party failed to win back the once-prized seat of Curtin, despite a heavy investment of resources into the contest. The Liberals also have a fight to retain the seat of Forrest, where is registered a -13.4% swing in its primary vote. The Liberals are, however, expected to win it.

There were very few bright spots for the Liberals. The Liberals did achieve an increase in their two-party preferred vote in O’Connor (+6.3%) and Canning (+3.8%). And at last check, the Liberals are still in the hunt for the new seat of Bullwinkel.

In the senate, the swing against the Liberals on primary votes was even more pronounced (-7.36%) although the party are on track to elect two senators. The Greens senate primary vote held up, enjoying a very slight increase (+0.74%) and comfortably returning a senator. Although recording a -0.04% swing, Labor has two senators confirmed and the possibility of the election of a third.

Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.

David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Rob Manwaring, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. State of the states: 6 experts on how the election unfolded across the country – https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-6-experts-on-how-the-election-unfolded-across-the-country-255508

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

The Albanese government has been re-elected with a substantially increased majority, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his seat, in a crushing defeat of the Coalition.

As of late Saturday night, there was a two-party swing to Labor of about 3.4%, with two-party vote of 55.5%-44.5%

It was sitting on about 86 seats (up from 78), and in the hunt for more. The Coalition, which went into the election with 57 seats, has won 41, and may pick up one or two more.

The Labor primary vote was 34.7%, up 2.1%; the Coalition primary vote was 31.1%, down 4.6%.

Among the Liberal losses is frontbencher Michael Sukkar in his Victorian seat of Deakin. Shadow foreign minister David Coleman is likely to lose his Sydney seat of Banks. Outspoken Liberal backbencher Bridget Archer has lost her Tasmanian seat of Bass.

It was all over by 8.30PM, as it became increasingly clear a big swing to Labor was underway.

A trumphant and emotional Anthony Albanese told a jubilant Labor crowd: “Australians have chosen a majority Labor government”.

“Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values. For fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. For the strength to show courage in adversity and kindness to those in need.

“And Australians have voted for a future that holds true to these values, a future built on everything that brings us together as Australians and everything that sets our nation apart from the world.

“Australians have chosen to face global challenges the Australian way, looking after each other while building for the future.

“I make this solemn pledge. We will not forget that we will never take it for granted, repaying your trust will drive a government each and every day of the next three years.”

Albanese, who has used a Medicare card as a prop through the campaign, produced it once again. “We will be a government that helps every Australian who relies on Medicare.”

According to the ABC, seats changing hands from the Liberals to Labor are Banks and Hughes in NSW; Forde, Bonner, Dickson, Petrie, Leichhardt in Queensland; Deakin in Victoria; Braddon and Bass in Tasmania; Sturt in South Australia, and Moore in Western Australia.

It was a bad night for the Greens. They are likely to lose two of their three Queensland seats, Griffith, held by high profile MP Max Chandler-Mather, and Brisbane held by Stephen Bates.

The Greens’ expected losses occurred despite roughly holding its primary vote, which is 12.5%, up 0.2%. Their leader Adam Bandt is in trouble in his seat of Melbourne.

Dutton said in his concession speech he had called Albanese and congratulated him. “I said to the prime minister that his mum would be incredibly proud of his achievement tonight, and he should be very proud of what he’s achieved.”

Dutton said he had also spoken to Ali France, the Labor candidate who has beaten him in Dickson. “She lost her son Henry, which is a tragic circumstance that no parent should ever go through. And equally I said to Ali that her son Henry would be incredibly proud of her tonight and that she’ll do a good Local member for Dixon.”

He expressed his sorrow for the Liberal MPs and candidates who had lost.

All the teals have held their seats. The teal candidate in Bradfield, Nicolette Boele, is ahead of her Liberal opponent. The teal Jessie Price is also ahead in the ACT Labor seat of Bean.

Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath said it was a brutal night for Peter Dutton and the Coalition. “We have got to make sure we take stock of why we lost this election and have a serious review into those reasons.”

As the Liberals prepare to review their disastrous loss and choose a new leader, their Senate leader Michaelia Cash is backing fellow West Australian Andrew Hastie. “I think Andrew Hastie is an outstanding member … I’m a very good friend of his. Andrew’s always been seen as leadership material.”

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

– ref. Albanese increases majority and Dutton loses seat in stunning election landslide – https://theconversation.com/albanese-increases-majority-and-dutton-loses-seat-in-stunning-election-landslide-255616

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

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

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

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

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

How was this new antivenom made?

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

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

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

How is antivenom usually made?

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

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

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

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

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

Why has it taken so long to improve antivenom production?

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

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

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

How else can we treat snakebite?

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

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

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

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

Why do we need antivenom?

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

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

Will this new medicine reduce snakebite deaths?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labor takes 51.5–48.5 lead in final Freshwater poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two DemosAU final week polls

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

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

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

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

Labor retains 53–47 lead in final Morgan poll

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

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

More from the Spectre poll

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

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

Vote counting for the election

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK byelection and local elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than 240 million observations worldwide

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

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

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

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

Finding the unusual

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

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

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

iNaturalist can be used to track invasive species

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

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

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

But how safe are the observations?

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

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

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

Observations on iNaturalist can be helpful for forensics

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

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

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

Should I worry about my location data on iNaturalist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fake information is real

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

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

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

• issues and candidates

• election procedures

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

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

An array of falsehoods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we be alarmed?

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting falsehoods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what can we make of his latest claims?

There’s no fetal debris in the MMR vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there fragments of DNA in the MMR vaccine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does a river usually get its carbon?

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

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

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

The carbon of the Condamine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

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

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

Paul McInerney receives funding from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Packing Room Prize goes to Abdul Abdullah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A suite of diverse storytelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An intractable problem

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

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

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

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

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

My study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women seeing potential in other women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clean slate and the labour market

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

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

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

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

Limited benefits of clean slate scheme

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

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

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

Global patterns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different pathways

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Medicare
• Centrelink
• English-language classes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A range of services

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

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

These specialised services provide holistic support including:

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

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

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

Barriers to access

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

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

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

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

When refugees thrive, we all do.

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

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

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

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