Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Todd Farrell, Senior Tutor, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

With South Australia in its final week of campaigning ahead of the state election, you may have noticed while there’s been a few scandals around mistaken identity of hospital patients and controversial candidates’ opinions, accusations of politicians lying are muted.

That’s partly because SA elections operate under a previously little-known law called truth in political advertising.

As governments across the world despair over misinformation turbocharged by AI and publish guides to spot misinformation, this law has attracted renewed interest 40 years after its adoption.

It sounds simple enough, but what is it? How is it enforced – and more importantly, does it actually stop politicians lying?

What is SA’s truth in political advertising law?

Section 113 of SA’s Electoral Act (1985) makes it an offence for anyone to publish an electoral advertisement that “contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent”.

Importantly, it only captures officially authorised electoral advertisements. That means political speech, commentary or opinion are not captured.

So while it sounds broad, the law applies to a narrow selection of material, and only to facts that are demonstrably misleading.

This is different from other jurisdictions, where the laws only apply to misleading voters about the literal act of voting. Advance’s bold “CCP says Vote Labor” campaign during the 2022 federal election attracted the Australian Electoral Commission’s warning, as the campaign used a tick on the ballot square. Advance had to change it to a number – not because the ad had outrageous content, but because it implied a tick on a ballot paper was a formal vote.

How does the SA law work?

If an objection is lodged, it falls to the state’s electoral commissioner to judge whether the material is inaccurate or misleading. If the commissioner determines it is, they can order the party to withdraw the advertisement and publish a retraction. The consequences of refusal include fines or even voiding an election’s results.

A simple example can be found from the 2022 state election. The Labor Party published an advertisement that ambulance ramping “is worse than ever”. The Liberal Party launched an objection as this was untrue – ramping rates in February 2022 (1,522 hours) were 47% lower than in October 2021 (2,868 hours).

So ramping was, in fact, not worse than ever.

Labor was ordered by the commissioner to withdraw the advertisement and publish a retraction.

Does it work?

While it does not prevent all dubious campaigning, research involving former political staffers has noted the tone of SA campaigns is better than in other jurisdictions. This is because parties must scrutinise every statement and provide evidence that the advertisement is verified before publication.

The electoral commission is trusted to be a fair umpire, but political parties have increasingly weaponised their rulings in their campaigns. In 2010, only 63 objections were lodged, resulting in just two requests for removal. 2022 saw this nearly doubled to 122 objections, with 12 requests for removal.

There does not appear to have been any reported retraction or even any objection lodged in 2026 (so far).

If it works, why doesn’t everyone do it?

So far, only the Australian Capital Territory has followed SA in adopting truth in political advertising laws. Beyond lack of political consensus, there is reluctance from electoral commissions to wade into the murky world of political fact checking.

Another concern is constitutional. The implied right to freedom of political communication uncovered by the High Court is a possible barrier to further implementation.

There’s been considerable jurisprudence of what this “implied right” entails since truth in political advertising was upheld over 30 years ago in the SA Supreme Court. In 2022, for example, academic Kieren Pender wrote that laws that regulate “the truth” may unnecessarily burden this right.

More practically, the law is difficult to administer and labour intensive. Previous SA electoral commissioners estimated it took almost all their time to evaluate whether there had been a breach. The current commissioner has planned to double the number of staffers to investigate claims for 2026.

A global leader

Nonetheless, the law is popular. The Australia Institute has found nearly nine in ten voters across political parties want some kind of law to regulate truth in political advertising.

The law has also been lauded by international scholars as a global leader in regulating political speech.

People clearly want to know more, as the commissioner fields calls from other nations at least once a month about this curious law.

While not a silver bullet, truth in political advertising laws foster a culture where parties must think twice about their messaging. Its overall limited use this election and support among campaigners suggest it does work, to borrow a popular federal phrase, to turn the heat down during election campaigns.

– ref. South Australians have truth in political advertising laws. Why doesn’t everyone else? – https://theconversation.com/south-australians-have-truth-in-political-advertising-laws-why-doesnt-everyone-else-278194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard J. Buning, Research Lead, UQ Micromobility Research Cluster, The University of Queensland

E-bikes have been increasing in popularity – they make cycling more accessible than ever. However, they’ve also been linked to tragic accidents.

In response, the Queensland government has conducted a parliamentary inquiry on e-mobility devices, including e-scooters and e-bikes.

The inquiry aimed to improve safety and address community concerns. It examined benefits, risks (crashes or battery fires), existing regulations compared to other jurisdictions, enforcement approaches, and importation laws.

The resulting report recommends banning all e-bikes for riders under 16, and requiring at least a learner driver’s licence to operate them.

If implemented, Queensland would become only the second jurisdiction in the world to mandate a driver’s licence for riding a standard e-bike, joining New Jersey, which passed similar legislation in January to much condemnation.

If Queeensland adopts this rule, it will quickly become the worst state for cycling in Australia – and set a dangerous precedent.

How risky are legal e-bikes?

Legal e-bikes (also known as pedelecs, short for “pedal electric cycles”) don’t pose greater risks than conventional bicycles. On average, e-bike crashes are equally as likely and severe as conventional bike crashes. And research from Denmark even shows e-bike riders are more likely to follow traffic laws and are more safety oriented than conventional cyclists.

A pedelec is defined under the European Union EN 15194 standard as a bicycle in which the motor provides assistance only when the rider pedals, power is limited to 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed is 25km/h. This is the standard recognised in Australia.

To be clear, 250 watts is roughly the power an avid cyclist can generate with their body. Professional cyclists easily produce well over 400 watts.

The injury stats only become troubling when these standard pedelecs get mixed in with more powerful devices that can have a max pedal-assisted speed of 45km/h or more. The problem of increased danger doesn’t lie with EN 15194 compliant e-bikes.

Who would be impacted by licensing requirements?

About 7.5% of Queenslanders aged 16 and over – more than 340,000 people – don’t hold a driver’s licence. Across Australia, an estimated 1.5 million adults are without a licence.

These include:

• people with certain types of disabilities (visual, neurological or cognitive)
• children under 16 riding to school
• migrant workers from countries with licences not recognised in Australia, or who are in the process of transferring overseas licences. Many delivery riders fall in this category
• urban youth, who increasingly rely on alternative transport and delay obtaining a learner’s permit
• older people who have given up driving for age-related reasons
• low-income people for whom the costs associated with lessons, testing, and car ownership are prohibitive
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in regional and remote areas. These communities often face practical barriers to licensing, such as high cost, difficulties obtaining identity documents, and limited access to training
• individuals who are car-free by choice for lifestyle or environmental reasons
• people who have temporarily lost their driver’s licence, such as for speeding.

In short, legal e-bikes provide an important way to get around and maintain independence for many people. They can travel to work, education, or social activities without relying on a car.

For Queensland locals, even requiring a learner’s licence would impose a significant burden. Obtaining one costs about A$77 and requires passing an online test which typically takes four to six hours. Test questions focus on motor vehicle laws, not rules specific to cycling or e-mobility. The test is offered only in English and requires proof of identity and residency in Queensland.

Visitors from countries where driver’s licences are far less common than in Australia would be impacted too. For example, only about half of Chinese adults have a licence.

Queensland hosts more than 2 million international visitors annually, and Brisbane is expected to welcome more than 100,000 international visitors during the 2032 Olympic Games. Unless they hold a licence from their home country, these visitors would be forced to rely on ride-hailing services or risk penalties for using a legal e-bike.

What should be done instead?

A more effective approach would focus on clear vehicle classification, targeted regulation, safe cycling infrastructure, and education. This is the model used in the European Union.

Regulators should maintain a clear distinction between standard e-bikes and higher-powered devices.

EN 15194 compliant e-bikes should be legally treated as ordinary bicycles and integrated into everyday mobility. They shouldn’t require a driver’s licence, registration, or insurance. Riders should simply follow the same rules that apply to cyclists.

Only the more powerful models should require licensing and insurance. E-bikes that reach up to 45km/h should be classified as mopeds. In this way, regulation can reflect the actual risk level of the vehicle.

Enforcement is key. Authorities should focus on ensuring that devices sold in the market actually comply with power and speed limits. Regulators should keep targeting non-compliant imports and illegal modifications.

Read more: That e-bike you bought your teen might be an illegal electric motorbike – and the risks are real

We all share the road

Beyond product standards, much more emphasis should be placed on infrastructure. Investments in protected bike lanes, traffic calming, and well-designed intersections are crucial to improving safety for all road users.

Finally, Australia should start investing heavily in education and communication campaigns. Cycling education should be provided through schools, local councils, and road safety programs. These should focus on responsible riding, interaction with pedestrians, and visibility in traffic.

Importantly, they should also encourage a mindset that moves away from an “us versus them” stance between drivers and cyclists. Children should learn early that, as adults, they may occupy both roles – sometimes driving, sometimes cycling.

In combination, these policy approaches would allow e-bikes to expand while remaining a safe, accessible and inclusive mobility option.

– ref. Should e-bike riders be required to have a driver’s licence? – https://theconversation.com/should-e-bike-riders-be-required-to-have-a-drivers-licence-278207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eylem Altuntas, Researcher, Speech & Language Development, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University

Anyone who has spent time with a baby knows how unpredictable the first year can feel. One week a baby suddenly seems to “get” something new. The next week, that same response may disappear.

Parents often describe this as progress coming in bursts rather than in a straight line. These changes can be exciting to watch, but they can also raise questions. Did my baby forget? Did something go wrong?

Our new research, published in Language Learning and Development, suggests early language learning unfolds in much the same way. We found babies can pick up how speech sounds are made as early as four months old.

But this early ability does not simply grow stronger month by month. Instead, as babies move through the first year, the way they show what they know can change, even while learning continues quietly in the background.

Learning about speech

In earlier research, we showed babies as young as four months can learn patterns about how speech sounds are made.

After a short game involving two made-up “mini-languages”, four-month-olds could link what they had heard with what they later saw, even when the test was completely silent.

This told us babies were not just remembering individual sounds. They were picking up something more general about speech, such as whether sounds were made with the lips or with the tongue tip.

For many researchers, and for parents following this work, that raised a natural question: if babies can do this so early, what happens next?

Watching learning change over time

To find out, we followed the same babies over time and tested them again at seven and ten months. We also tested a separate group of ten-month-olds who had never seen the task before.

This allowed us to watch how learning changed within the same children, while also seeing how babies at the same age responded when everything was new.

The task itself was designed to be simple and engaging. Babies first learned links between made-up words and cartoon animals. For example, a word like “buviwa”, made using the lips, might always appear with a kangaroo, while a word like “dazolu”, made using the tongue tip, appeared with a kookaburra. Each “language” followed a clear pattern based on how its sounds were made.

Later, babies watched silent videos of a person speaking new words and then saw an animal image. Because the videos were silent, babies had to rely on what they had learned earlier, rather than matching sound and sight in the moment.

At four months, babies showed a clear response, paying closer attention when the talking face matched the animal they had learned. At seven months, this clear response was no longer there, which at first surprised us.

But at ten months, a different pattern emerged. Babies paid more attention when something did not match what they had learned. This response was especially clear in babies who were seeing the task for the first time, and became stronger when results from both ten-month-old groups were considered together.

Reorganising language systems

When we look at these findings together, the pattern starts to make sense.

Younger babies often prefer what feels familiar, while older babies tend to focus more on what is new or unexpected. Seven months appears to be a transitional period. Learning is still happening, but it is not expressed as a clear preference in either direction. Rather than signalling a loss of ability, the shift we see reflects a change in how babies respond as they mature.

This period of change fits with what is happening more broadly in babies’ lives. Between about seven and ten months, babies are becoming increasingly tuned to the sounds of the language they hear every day. They are also beginning to recognise common words and link sounds to meaning.

During this time, their language system is not just growing, it is reorganising. When that happens, learning can look uneven from the outside.

Many parents notice similar moments at home. A baby who once turned immediately toward a familiar voice may suddenly seem less responsive, only to show new signs of understanding weeks later.

These moments can be worrying, especially when progress is expected to be steady. Our findings suggest some of these changes may reflect learning in motion rather than learning lost.

Behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story

For parents, this work is a reminder that behaviour does not always tell the full story. If a baby doesn’t show a clear response at a particular age, it does not necessarily mean they have stopped learning or missed an important step.

For researchers and clinicians, the findings highlight the limits of relying on single tests at single ages. Early language learning is flexible and changing. To understand it properly, we need to look at how babies develop over time, not just how they perform at one moment.

Importantly, the results show babies don’t learn in a straight line, and quiet moments are not empty ones. Even when progress is hard to see, learning may still be unfolding, preparing the ground for what comes next.

– ref. Babies learn a lot in their first year. But their behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story – https://theconversation.com/babies-learn-a-lot-in-their-first-year-but-their-behaviour-doesnt-always-tell-the-full-story-274032

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney

The number of Australians using medicinal cannabis has surged over the past five years. Around 700,000 Australians have used cannabis for their health in the past year.

And since 2022, medicinal cannabis sales have increased four-fold. But the majority of products prescribed in the Australian market are not registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This means they have not been rigorously tested.

So, is medicinal cannabis safe? And is it actually effective?

Our new research, published today in Lancet Psychiatry, is the largest ever review to look at the safety and effectiveness of medicinal cannabis for mental health and substance use disorders.

These make up six of the top ten reasons cannabis is prescribed, specifically: anxiety, sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), insomnia, depression, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

But we found little evidence medicinal cannabis effectively treats these conditions. And while most side effects were mild to moderate, some serious questions about safety remain.

What evidence was available?

Between 1980 and 2025, we found 54 randomised controlled trials that looked at whether medicinal cannabis reduced or treated mental health disorders (including psychotic disorders, anxiety, insomnia, anorexia and PTSD) or substance use disorders (including cannabis, cocaine and opioids). This kind of trial is the gold standard for understanding the direct effects of a medicine.

The most common cannabinoid being evaluated was cannabidiol (CBD), followed by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and a combination of THC and CBD.

CBD is non-intoxicating and typically safe, whereas THC is psychoactive, and linked to harms in the short term, such as paranoia, and longer term, such as the development of a cannabis use disorder.

Cannabis may help people quit cannabis

We found cannabis medicines were no more effective than a placebo at treating symptoms of psychotic disorders (such as schizophrenia), anxiety, PTSD, anorexia or opioid use disorder.

However, there were promising findings that medicinal cannabis may be effective in reducing cannabis use among those with a cannabis use disorder.

While this may sound strange, the medicines largely consisted of an oil-based combination of CBD and THC that was taken orally. As these medicines reduce craving, patients may use less of their usual cannabis. So for people who regularly smoke high-THC cannabis, using medicinal cannabis instead may reduce their risk of related health problems, such as lung conditions.

But there are limitations

We must be careful when interpreting the positive findings.

For example, some evidence suggested medicinal cannabis could help treat symptoms associated with tic or Tourette’s syndrome, insomnia, and autism spectrum disorder. But only a small number of studies focused on these conditions and many were low quality.

In randomised controlled trials, we don’t want participants to know whether they are consuming the medicine or placebo. But as cannabis is often intoxicating, participants may be aware of what they have been given, and this can introduce bias.

Some of these studies also reported conflicts of interest, which may have influenced their results. So it may be too soon to tell whether medicinal cannabis is effective in treating these conditions.

How about safety?

The combined data showed cannabis medicines were linked to mild side effects such as nausea, dry mouth and fatigue.

But the risk of serious side effects, such as a psychotic episode, was no greater among those taking cannabis medicines or a placebo.

The data alone seems to suggest cannabis medicines are relatively safe. But this may not be reflected in real-world use.

The average length of treatment in these studies was only five weeks – and we know regular cannabis use can cause long-term harms.

One 2024 review found around one-quarter of those using medicinal cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder. This is similar to the rate among those using cannabis for non-medical use.

The cannabis medicines used in these studies were also low in THC. But data from the TGA shows Australians have access to a wide range of cannabis medicines that are often high in THC content. Chronic consumption of high THC cannabis has been linked to a greater risk of worsening mental health symptoms, particularly among young people.

So what does this mean?

Similar reviews have been conducted in the past. But many focus on a smaller number of health conditions and have not combined data to reveal a single estimate.

Reviews have also commonly drawn conclusions on cannabis as a treatment for mental health when it was being used to treat other conditions, such as chronic pain.

Nevertheless, our findings are largely consistent with previous reviews: there is little evidence medicinal cannabis is an effective treatment for mental health and substance use disorders.

Currently, there is a mismatch between the research evidence on medicinal cannabis – mainly short-term trials and CBD formulations – and real-world use, which is longer term and often using high-THC products.

We need more research on cannabis medicines, particularly for conditions with limited alternative treatments, and monitoring over longer periods.

As the TGA conducts a review of medical cannabis prescribing in Australia, these findings should inform future regulation. The long-term use of these medicines could result in harm and delay the use of more effective treatments.

The takeaway

For those who believe their medicinal cannabis is beneficial for these conditions, our review does not mean to contradict your experience.

However, we encourage you to regularly discuss your circumstances with a doctor, and if possible, consider alternative evidence-based treatments.

– ref. Does medicinal cannabis work for depression, anxiety or PTSD? Our study says there’s no evidence – https://theconversation.com/does-medicinal-cannabis-work-for-depression-anxiety-or-ptsd-our-study-says-theres-no-evidence-278303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Canterbury

Six years after COVID-19 first reached New Zealand, the country is experiencing its ninth wave of infections.

But the virus we are living with today behaves very differently from the one that caused the global emergency in 2020–22.

Large outbreaks can still occur, but thanks to widespread immunity built through vaccination and infection, COVID now behaves more like other respiratory viruses that circulate each year in our communities.

Hospital admissions are currently around half the level seen during most of last winter, which itself was below earlier waves.

Wastewater monitoring – which tracks fragments of the virus shed into sewage – similarly points to a longer-term year-on-year decline in COVID activity.

New Zealand no longer publishes up-to-date reporting of COVID-attributed deaths, but earlier data showed a clear downward trend. Deaths fell from a high of 2,766 in 2022 to 664 in 2024 and were tracking well under that level before reporting stopped in mid-2025.

Right now, there is no notable variant of the virus driving the bump in cases.

Instead, wastewater surveillance shows a “soup” of subvariants of the still-dominant Omicron strain circulating in the community, with NB.1.8.1 accounting for just over half of positive samples.

This means the current wave likely reflects a combination of waning immunity, increased indoor contact in schools and workplaces, and the continued evolution of variants that can partially evade existing immune protection.

How does COVID-19 now compare?

In terms of overall population impact, recent seasons suggest the burden of COVID in many countries is broadly similar to seasonal influenza. Both viruses cause substantial illness each year and place pressure on health systems.

For example, influenza is estimated to cause about 135 deaths per million people in an average year in New Zealand – roughly 700 deaths annually, although the impact varies considerably between seasons.

In the United States, data shows influenza has caused more hospitalisations than COVID since 2024.

None of this means COVID is harmless. Even relatively small waves can still cause many people to become sick and take time off work.

But it is no longer the threat it was in 2022. Both COVID and influenza remain dangerous viruses that cause significant illness and still pose a risk of severe disease and death in high-risk groups.

COVID-19 has become less severe over time largely because the population has built high levels of immunity over the past five years. At first this protection came mainly from vaccination, which played a crucial role in ending the acute phase of the pandemic and the need for disruptive lockdowns.

Since then, population protection has increasingly come from a combination of vaccination and previous infection – often referred to as “hybrid immunity”. Most people have now encountered the virus at least once, and many more than once, which broadens immune responses across different variants.

This has strengthened population immunity and reduced the likelihood that new variants will cause the same level of severe disease seen earlier in the pandemic. However, the virus continues to evolve and periodic waves of infection are likely to remain a feature of COVID for the foreseeable future.

Infection-acquired immunity to reinfection is neither perfect nor permanent. But, as with other endemic respiratory viruses, accumulated immunity from both vaccination and infection now plays the main role in reducing severe outcomes and limiting the scale of outbreaks.

However, as for any pathogen, gaining immunity through infection carries risks.

There is still a risk of severe illness, particularly for older adults and those with underlying conditions, and some people develop Long COVID, where symptoms can persist for weeks or months after infection.

Who should get boosted?

While it is impossible to eliminate the risk of infection entirely, vaccination remains a far safer way to boost immunity.

This is especially important for people at higher risk of severe illness, such as older adults and those with compromised immune systems.

In New Zealand, people aged 80 and over are more than 10 times as likely to be hospitalised for COVID than those under 60, and account for the majority of COVID deaths.

For these reasons, the Immunisation Advisory Centre recommends adults aged 75 and over, people over 65 living in residential care, and those who are severely immuno-compromised get their booster shots every six months.

Annual vaccination is recommended for other high-risk groups, including adults aged 65–74, Māori and Pacific people aged over 50, and anyone with underlying health conditions that increase the risk of severe disease.

Healthy adults aged 30–64 might also consider an annual vaccination, especially if they live with or care for vulnerable people. Most children do not need routine vaccination unless they have severe immune compromise or other high-risk conditions.

While “real-world” effectiveness data for the latest booster is still emerging, it is designed, like earlier vaccines, to better match circulating variants and uses the same vaccine platform with a strong safety record.

As with influenza, vaccination remains the best tool we have to reduce the spread of infection and the risk of severe sickness.

For those of us who develop symptoms, the message remains the same: stay home to protect your friends, colleagues and the wider community.

– ref. NZ’s 9th COVID-19 wave: why infections are rising – and how booster shots still help – https://theconversation.com/nzs-9th-covid-19-wave-why-infections-are-rising-and-how-booster-shots-still-help-278075

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon Dunphy, Associate Professor in Marine Biology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Some seabirds breeding in New Zealand’s largest marine park struggled to raise chicks this summer, most likely because climate change is forcing them to travel too far in search of food.

The Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana is a global hotspot for seabirds. About 70 species breed and forage there, and five breed nowhere else in the world.

Our team has been monitoring nests of diving petrels and fluttering shearwaters in the gulf since October last year. We observed a 50% failure rate in the 13 fluttering shearwater nests we monitored at Tāwharanui, north of Auckland, compared to the usual rate of 36%.

In 2019, fluttering shearwaters in the gulf were foraging and returning to the nest daily, but in December 2025, they were disappearing for as long as 12 days. The adult birds left their nests for so long, we wondered if the colony could be wiped out.

Four of the adult shearwaters abandoned their nesting boxes, typically a sign they can’t find enough food to survive and feed their chicks. GPS tracking showed birds were making foraging trips as far as North Cape, more than 200 kilometres away.

Usually, shearwater parents rotate shifts, with one sitting on the egg, while the other flies out to forage, then swapping every day or two. But if there’s not enough food, the parent sitting on the egg can get too hungry to stay and will go to sea to feed.

Without a parent incubating the eggs, the development of chicks slows down because it is cooler for longer periods. Fluttering shearwater chicks in the gulf usually hatch between late October and the end of November, but this season hatching didn’t begin until late November.

Some shearwaters were sitting on eggs until mid-December, possibly because the eggs had been left to cool more often while the parents searched long distances for food.

This unusually late hatching is concerning because it is so different from what has been recorded previously for the species in the Hauraki Gulf. Our monitoring studies this summer show the outlook for these seabirds is bleaker than expected.

Late hatching, smaller chicks

We also observed diving petrel chicks hatching up to a month later than usual on Tiritiri Matangi Island.

We recorded lower than average weights among the 15 diving petrel chicks we monitored. They were a lot lighter than normal when they left their nests and therefore had less energy reserves. This may reduce their survival rate.

Seabirds are sensitive to changes in the ocean and offer an early warning of shifts that will affect other species in the Hauraki Gulf.

The global ocean is taking up more than 90% of the excess energy generated by rising carbon emissions, equal to 25 billion Hiroshima bombs since the 1960s. Marine heatwaves are already occurring more frequently, including in the Hauraki Gulf.

Warmer seawater affects zooplankton (tiny, drifting animals) in a number of ways. It drives them further south as they seek cooler waters and they become smaller and less nutritious.

This change in zooplankton disrupts the whole food web, including fish and seabirds. The impacts on seabirds are easy to observe, but everything in the gulf reliant on zooplankton will be affected.

We’re hoping some species will be able to cope with the higher ocean temperatures, but the warming already has a dramatic impact on the species we’ve monitored.

More and longer heatwaves in the gulf

If current emissions of carbon dioxide continue unabated, the World Meteorological Organisation projects global average temperatures will exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in the next five years.

Since 1982, the global ocean surface has been warming by up to 0.26°C per decade on average.

New Zealand has some of the fastest warming waters on the planet and the number of marine heatwaves has been rising in the Hauraki Gulf since 2012. In 2022, the gulf experienced its longest marine heatwave thus far and the warming trend continues.

Apart from ocean warming and changes to zooplankton, seabirds are also affected by fisheries, particularly commercial fishing with purse seine nets that strip life from the sea.

While recently introduced legislation almost triples the protected area in the Hauraki Gulf and the Coromandel peninsula, some forms of commercial fishing will continue in some of the newly protected areas.

Large shoals of big fish such as trevally and kahawai used to push up small fish and zooplankton to the surface frequently in the gulf. Seabirds could feast on these “boil-ups” but they have dwindled in size and frequency, making it harder for seabirds to feed themselves and growing chicks.

Coastal marine reserves work wonders, but many of the large fish that push prey to the surface are migratory. In order to protect migratory fish, marine protection would need to be mobile and seasonal. GPS tracking could indicate where seabirds are feeding and where temporary protection is needed.

Some change in the gulf is likely inevitable. But it is important to make these waters as naturally resilient as possible by minimising other human impacts, including sedimentation, pollution and overfishing.

We would like to acknowledge the contribution by Isabella Brown, who monitored diving petrels during the breeding season as part of her MSc research, and the Explore Group for supporting her access to Tiritiri Matangi.

– ref. Seabirds struggled to raise chicks in the Hauraki Gulf this summer. What happened? – https://theconversation.com/seabirds-struggled-to-raise-chicks-in-the-hauraki-gulf-this-summer-what-happened-278086

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Allan Elton, Doctoral researcher, Australian National University

Without fanfare, the Australian government has published the latest snapshot on its progress toward halting and reversing the loss of Australia’s biodiversity – our unique wildlife, plants and nature – by 2030. This report on Australia’s progress under the Global Biodiversity Framework is a self-assessment, and the Australian government has given itself a glowing report card.

We examined the claims in this report, called the Seventh Report to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity. And we found the government has been unjustifiably optimistic, rewarding itself for “intentions” and promises so it can claim we are on track.

This is wrong. Ecosystems are being left to degrade, rare and precious species are sliding toward extinction, and billions of dollars are being used to quietly fund subsidies, including for fossil fuels, which contribute to the very destruction the government claims to be fixing.

Our last national report into Australia’s State of the Environment found the condition of the environment was poor and deteriorating. It is more pressing than ever the government drops the spin and gets on with the hard work of addressing the existential threat of biodiversity loss.

Here are four key targets in the report that expose the real story:

1. Restoration: not enough done, and the report knows it

Target 2 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for the restoration of degraded ecosystems, is one of only two targets the report rates below “on track”. The target requires at least 30% of degraded ecosystems to be under effective restoration by 2030. The report does not even quantify how much Australia is falling behind this target. This is a significant omission: data and modelling tools exist to estimate the extent of degraded ecosystems across Australia, and independent research has done exactly that.

The government also says it is spending hundreds of millions on restoration. But independent research puts the annual cost of restoring Australia’s terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems in the billions.

2. Protected areas: national figures mask failures

The report claims Australia is “on track” to meet Target 3, or the 30 by 30 target, which aims to protect 30% of Australia’s land by the end of the decade. It states 25% of land and 52% of ocean are under some form of protection. But these figures are seriously misleading.

The framework does not just require 30% protection measured nationally. The protected area system is also supposed to be ecologically representative and “well-connected”, not simply a national land area target.

Australia’s marine protected areas illustrate this issue perfectly. While 52% of Australia’s ocean is formally protected, only 24% is zoned for high protection. Many marine ecosystems remain inadequately represented, for example temperate rocky reefs and kelp forests along the Great Southern Reef.

In 2018, the Commonwealth systematically downgraded marine park protections, reducing the extent of highly protected “no-take” fishing zones and reopening areas to commercial fishing. The more recent shift to a 30% highly protected marine target is welcome, but it reframes the goal without ensuring a variety of marine environments are included.

3. Threatened species: declining, not recovering

Australia is on track to prevent new extinctions under Target 4, the report claims. This is largely anchored in the fact no species are known to have become extinct since the 2022 “no new extinctions” commitment. This is a weak basis for the rating.

Australia already holds the world’s worst record for modern mammal extinctions – 38 species lost since colonisation, more than any other country. Against that grim inheritance, having no further extinctions (that we know about) is a remarkably low bar.

4. Harmful fossil fuel subsidies hidden, conservation spending inflated

Target 18 requires nations to identify subsidies harmful to biodiversity by 2025. The Australian government’s response? It explicitly excludes fossil fuel subsidies from its assessment, and identifies roughly $1.1 billion across agricultural and fisheries categories.

For the first time, research published this year, identified 36 federal subsidies worth $26.3 billion annually that are potentially harmful to biodiversity. Fossil fuel subsidies alone account for $14.1 billion. It is extraordinary the Australian Government believes it can exclude fossil fuel subsidies on the basis of a technicality. Meanwhile, independent estimates place federal biodiversity conservation spending at below $1 billion annually.

The arithmetic is stark: the government spent more than $26 billion a year on harming nature, less than $1 billion conserving it. No government serious about halting biodiversity loss would preside over such an imbalance and say they were “on track”.

Australians deserve an honest account

Serious weaknesses have previously been identified in Australia’s 2022 Strategy for Nature. It is full of vague intentions without clearly defined targets, accountability, timelines and measures of progress. A promised implementation plan is also still missing, more than three years later.

This new report confirms those weaknesses extend to Australia’s self-assessment, which lacks the rigour and ambition the nature crisis demands.

The reforms of Australia’s nature laws, passed in late 2025, are the most significant in a generation, and we welcome them. But legislation without implementation, adequate funding or a delivery plan is not enough.

This important report – with its hidden subsidies, inflated spending figures, missing implementation plan, and a definition of “on track” that mistakes promises for progress – is not worthy of a nation with both the means and the obligation to lead.

– ref. Australia claims it is ‘on track’ to save nature. We disagree – https://theconversation.com/australia-claims-it-is-on-track-to-save-nature-we-disagree-278081