Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Slade, Associate Professor of Fashion, University of Technology Sydney

Fashion is one of the most powerful tools we have for understanding ourselves and the world around us. Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Black American tailoring and the legacy of the Black dandy.

Inspired by scholar Monica L. Miller’s groundbreaking book Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of Black Diasporic Identity, the theme of The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute spring 2025 show is Superfine: Tailoring Black Style.

The exhibition charts the evolution of the Black dandy from the 18th century to today. The story it tells is about more than suits. It’s about power, pride, resistance and joy.

Each year, the Met Gala takes its dress code from the institue’s spring exhibition. This year’s is “Tailored for You”. So who is the Black dandy, why are they so important to fashion today, and what can we expect to see on the red carpet?

The birth of the Black Dandy

“Black dandy” is a modern term. Figures like American abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1818–95) or Haitian revolutionary leader Toussaint Louverture (1743–1803) would not have called themselves dandies, but they used style with similar effect: as a tool of resistance, self-fashioning and cultural pride.

French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821–67) first wrote about dandies in 1863, describing them as individuals who elevate style to a form of personal and aesthetic resistance.

Baudelaire’s dandy was not just stylish but symbolic. He was an emblem of modernity itself: a time marked by fluid identities, liminal spaces and the collapse of clear boundaries between gender, authenticity and social order.

Dandyism among Black men took root in the 18th and 19th centuries in both the United States and the Caribbean. Tailoring became a way to reclaim dignity under enslavement and colonialism.

Dandies take the clothing of an oppressor – aristocratic, colonial, segregationist or otherwise – and turn it into a weapon of elegance. Through meticulous style and refinement, dandies make a silent yet striking claim to moral superiority.

Douglass famously appeared in immaculate Victorian suits when campaigning for abolition, consciously dressing in the same style as those who denied his freedom.

Louverture used perfectly tailored French military uniforms during the Haitian Revolution against French colonial rule.

In the 1920s, Harlem dandies wore fine tailoring and flamboyant colours, rejecting the idea that poverty or discrimination should dictate presentation.

In perfectly tied cravats, polished shoes and sharply tailored coats, Black dandies refashion power on their own terms.

Presence through style

Dandies also challenge the narrow rules of masculinity.

Conventional menswear often demands restraint, toughness and invisibility. Dandies dare to embrace beauty, self-adornment and performance. This masculinity can be expressive, creative and even flamboyant.

The luxurious silk suits and carefully groomed appearance of American Jazz pioneer Duke Ellington (1899–1974) projected glamour rather than austerity.

The elegantly tailored overcoats and scarves of American poet Langston Hughes (1901–67) suggested a masculinity deeply entwined with creativity and softness.

Figures in Harlem’s ballrooms and jazz clubs blurred gender boundaries decades before mainstream conversations about gender fluidity emerged.

A tradition of Black tailoring

In a world where Black self-presentation has long been scrutinised and politicised, tailored clothing asserted visibility, authority and artistry. Dandies transformed fashion into a political declaration of dignity, resistance and creative power.

Black American tailoring practices blossomed most visibly in the zoot suits of the Harlem Renaissance, though they also had strong roots in New Orleans, Chicago and the Caribbean.

As seen in the Sunday Best of the Civil Rights era, Black tailoring walked the line between resistance and celebration: beautiful but with clear political intent.

In the 1970s, the Black dandy became more flamboyant, wearing tight, colourful clothes with bold accessories. He transformed traditional suits with exaggerated shapes, bright patterns and plaids inspired by African heritage.

Artists popular with a white audience like Sammy Davis Jr (1925–90), Miles Davis (1926–91) and James Brown (1933–2006) embraced the aesthetic, contributing to its widespread acceptance.

Meanwhile, a super stylish contingent of Black men in the Congo, La Sapeur, refined their look so spectacularly they would become the benchmark of the Black dandy for generations to come.

The 1990s saw a new era of Black dandyism emerge through luxury sportswear and hip-hop aesthetics.

Designer Dapper Dan (1944–) revolutionised fashion by remixing luxury logos into bold, custom streetwear, creating a distinctive Black aesthetic that bridged hip-hop culture and high fashion.

Musician Andre 3000 (1975–) redefined menswear by blending Southern Black style with bold colour, vintage tailoring and theatrical flair.

Today, the tradition thrives in the style of influencer Wisdom Kaye, the elegance of LeBron James, and the risk-taking of Lewis Hamilton.

Dressing for the red carpet

Tailored for You invites guests to interpret the dandy’s legacy in personal, bold and boundary-pushing ways.

Whether conforming to tradition, subverting expectations or creating something entirely new, this theme is a celebration of the freedom to dress – and be – on your own terms.

The Black dandy is a figure of defiance and desire, of ambiguity and brilliance, of resistance and beauty. Dandyism blurs boundaries between masculinity and femininity, artifice and authenticity, conformity and rebellion. It unsettles fixed identities and reflects broader tensions within modern life.

Black dandies have shocked, amused, offended, delighted and inspired society since their inception. In the sharp defiance of Douglass’ Victorian suits, the flamboyant spectacle of Harlem ballrooms, and the logo-laced rebellion of Dapper Dan’s streetwear, the Black dandy has continually forced the world to reckon with the politics of presence, pride and performance.

Despite being overlooked by mainstream fashion history, they’ve shaped the way we see elegance, masculinity and self-expression. This Met Gala and the accompanying exhibition are not just a celebration – they are a long-overdue recognition.

Dijanna Mulhearn receives funding from Australian Government Research Training Stipend.

Toby Slade 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. Tailoring and the Black dandy: how 250 years of Black fashion history inspired the 2025 Met Gala – https://theconversation.com/tailoring-and-the-black-dandy-how-250-years-of-black-fashion-history-inspired-the-2025-met-gala-250650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.

The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.

As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.

How can we maintain our critical security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?

And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?

With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.

Read more:
Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton

Trump 2.0 is not the same as 1.0

We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.

The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.

At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.

A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.

For example, the US has voted with Russia against UN Security Council resolutions condemning the Ukraine war, withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and World Health Organization, and damaged relations with NATO allies, among many other actions.

As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.

Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.

A second difference is there are few “adults left in the room” in the Trump administration.

The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.

The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.

An idealistic vision for the future

We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.

Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.

Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.

As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.

This debate should be guided by what we call “pragmatic idealism”.

Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.

We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.

We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.

Practical steps

As a first step, the Albanese government urgently needs to commission an integrated National Security Strategy that considers all the tools of statecraft Australia can use to respond to these challenges.

This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.

The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.

On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.

This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.

It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.

But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. Australia can no longer take a ‘business as usual’ approach to the US. On security, it’s time for courage and confidence – https://theconversation.com/australia-can-no-longer-take-a-business-as-usual-approach-to-the-us-on-security-its-time-for-courage-and-confidence-255598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University

This year’s election campaign marked a turning point in Australian politics. TikTok has emerged not just as another tool, but as a main battleground.

Although it played a part in the 2022 election, this was the first time the two major parties and the Greens embraced short-form video as a serious campaign strategy.

These videos may seem silly or nonsensical, but for many Gen Z voters, they may have been the only political messages they encountered in the entire five-week campaign. Given the dominance of Gen Z and Millennial voters, social media videos are increasingly important.

A blend of trends, podcasts and thirst traps

The Australian Labor Party’s campaign leaned heavily into TikTok culture, crafting a multi-pronged strategy to reach younger voters where they scroll. This included meme engagement like this absurdist #italianbrainrot trend.

#brainrot refers to deliberately absurd, low-effort videos that thrive on chaos and nonsensical repetition.

It’s an existing TikTok trend that started in early 2025 and is designed to capture attention in an oversaturated feed. In other words, don’t try to understand, just watch and enjoy.

Another standout is a now-viral video of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese edited with the stylistic flair typical of TikTok “thirst trap” content. The editing style and music choice are both characteristic of this sub-genre of video designed to make the subject appear attractive.

It walked a fine line between irony and sincerity: an intentional nod to the platform’s unique language and humour. While some lapped it up as clever, others question whether such tactics undermine the seriousness of politics.

Labor also heavily invested in podcasting, with Albanese appearing on youth-oriented shows with the likes of Abbie Chatfield and Ozzy Man. These long-form interviews were mostly promoted by the podcasters themselves, which was a clever use of their existing audiences. It contributed to a strategy that prioritised personality as much as policy.

Combined with a coordinated influencer outreach, including briefings with popular creators, Labor’s campaign showed a keen understanding of the algorithmic economy. Whether it was cringey or clever, it was undeniably calculated.

Trendsetters with turbulence

The Liberal Party started its TikTok campaigning back in December 2024. These early videos, many AI-generated, saw remarkable traction. The highest-viewed video, an AI voice-change take on a scene from “The Grinch”, has been viewed 2.8 million times.

Then came “Tim Cheese”, a trending fictional character they used to blur the lines in political storytelling. A “bad guy”, Tim Cheese was used by the Liberals to highlight that the known bad guys aren’t always bad.

One standout video was the introduction of “Cheesy Albanese”, which merged political satire with platform-native humour that resonated with the audience.

The Liberals also tapped into trending sounds and aesthetics such as #brainrot and #italianbrainrot. In fairness, they were the first to use it before the official campaign started.

But with any innovative campaign comes risk.

A notable misstep was the repurposing of influencer content, including that of Holly MacAlpine.

Topham Guerin, the strategy company behind the campaign, has a reputation for provocative approaches that can come close to, but don’t actually break, the law. However, this use of content did wear thin for some followers, sparking early signs of disengagement.

The campaign’s second major stumble came on election day.

US-based TikTok creator Ray William Johnson, who has more than 18.5 million followers, called out the Liberals for blocking his account when they clearly used his video and animation style.

Johnson said he had no issue with the mimicry, but the party’s pre-emptive blocking of him fuelled backlash. His response video, now seen more than 12 million times, ends with a blunt directive: “I hope everyone goes out and votes for the other guy.”

It was a viral moment that undid much of the earlier momentum, and demonstrates the high stakes of campaigning in the age of creator culture.

Despite a clever response video from the Liberals, it was overshadowed by the sheer scale of the backlash.

With these lows there was still highs, including a highly effective and trending video game that saw players “Escape Albo”.

The Liberals were early trendsetters, creating boundary-pushing content for all users, even those without strong political views. They experimented with styles that went on to be mimicked, particularly with Labor’s #brainrot-inspired content.

Greens go from giant toothbrushes to DJ sets

In a bid to connect with the gaming community, Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim took to livestreaming sessions of the popular game Fortnite. Donning comfortable clothes and a headset, McKim engaged viewers with gaming lingo and humour, aiming to make politics more relatable to younger audiences.

These videos were a huge success, with this one being viewed 1.4 million times.

A central feature of the Greens social media campaign was the deployment of a giant toothbrush prop, symbolising the party’s commitment to integrating dental care into Medicare. It featured across various platforms and was a nice link to events in Brisbane and Melbourne.

These events featured the support of big-name influencers and prompted spinoff videos launching Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ career.

But despite the flashy props, influencer cameos and party vibes, the Greens’ campaign often felt more like a collection of stunts than a cohesive digital strategy: memorable in moments, but ultimately lacking impact.

Did it make any difference?

While many labelled the 2025 election dull, the TikTok campaign told a different story. It was unpredictable, occasionally “cringe”, but deeply entertaining.

It’s too soon to know if any of this shifted votes or even opinions. Party officials, campaign strategists and academics will all be watching closely to find out.

While social media is ubiquitous in our lives, using it to campaign is still relatively new in our political history. There are no best-practice guidelines or proven approaches. Of all this content thrown at the wall, it will be fascinating to see what sticks.

But to the millions of Australians on TikTok, politics has never looked or sounded quite like it did in 2025.

Susan Grantham 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. Thought the election campaign was boring? Maybe you’re just not on TikTok – https://theconversation.com/thought-the-election-campaign-was-boring-maybe-youre-just-not-on-tiktok-255847

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

More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this share is expected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050.

It’s no wonder “smart cities” have become a buzzword in urban planning, politics and tech circles, and even media.

The phrase conjures images of self-driving buses, traffic lights controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) and buildings that manage their own energy use.

But for all the attention the term receives, it’s not clear what actually makes a city smart. Is it about the number of sensors installed? The speed of the internet? The presence of a digital dashboard at the town hall?

Governments regularly speak of future-ready cities and the promise of “digital transformation”. But when the term “smart city” is used in policy documents or on the campaign trail, it often lacks clarity.

Over the past two decades, governments around the world have poured billions into smart city initiatives, often with more ambition than clarity. The result has been a patchwork of projects: some genuinely transformative, others flashy but shallow.

So, what does it really mean for a city to be smart? And how can technology solve real urban problems, not just create new ones?

What is a smart city, then?

The term “smart city” has been applied to a wide range of urban technologies and initiatives – from traffic sensors and smart meters to autonomous vehicles and energy-efficient building systems.

But a consistent, working definition remains elusive.

In academic and policy circles, one widely accepted view is that a smart city is one where technology is used to enhance key urban outcomes: liveability, sustainability, social equity and, ultimately, people’s quality of life.

What matters here is whether the application of technology leads to measurable improvements in the way people live, move and interact with the city around them.

By that standard, many “smart city” initiatives fall short, not because the tools don’t exist, but because the focus is often on visibility and symbolic infrastructure rather than impact.

This could be features like high-tech digital kiosks in public spaces that are visibly modern and offer some use and value, but do little to address core urban challenges.

The reality of urban governance – messy, decentralised, often constrained – is a long way from the seamless dashboards and simulations often promised in promotional material.

But there is a way to help join together the various aspects of city living, with the help of “digital twins”.

Digital twin (of?) cities

Much of the early focus on smart cities revolved around individual technologies: installing sensors, launching apps or creating control centres. But these tools often worked in isolation and offered limited insight into how the city functioned as a whole.

City digital twins represent a shift in approach.

Instead of layering technology onto existing systems, a city digital twin creates a virtual replica of those systems. It links real-time data across transport, energy, infrastructure and the environment. It’s a kind of living, evolving model of the city that changes as the real city changes.

This enables planners and policymakers to test decisions before making them. They can simulate the impact of a new road, assess the risk of flooding in a changing climate or compare the outcomes of different zoning options.

Used in this way, digital twins support decisions that are better informed, more responsive, and more in tune with how cities actually work.

Not all digital twins operate at the same level. Some offer little more than 3D visualisations, while others bring in real-time data and support complex scenario testing.

The most advanced ones don’t just simulate the city, but interact with it.

Where it’s working

To manage urban change, some cities are already using digital twins to support long-term planning and day-to-day decision-making – and not just as add-ons.

In Singapore, the Virtual Singapore project is one of the most advanced city-scale digital twins in the world.

It integrates high-resolution 3D models of Singapore with real-time and historical data from across the city. The platform has been used by government agencies to model energy consumption, assess climate and air flow impacts of new buildings, manage underground infrastructure, and explore zoning options based on risks like flooding in a highly constrained urban environment.

In Helsinki, the Kalasatama digital twin has been used to evaluate solar energy potential, conduct wind simulations and plan building orientations. It has also been integrated into public engagement processes: the OpenCities Planner platform lets residents explore proposed developments and offer feedback before construction begins.

We need a smarter conversation about smart cities

If smart cities are going to matter, they must do more than sound and look good. They need to solve real problems, improve people’s lives and protect the privacy and integrity of the data they collect.

That includes being built with strong safeguards against cyber threats. A connected city should not be a more vulnerable city.

The term smart city has always been slippery – more aspiration than definition. That ambiguity makes it hard to measure whether, or how, a city becomes smart. But one thing is clear: being smart doesn’t mean flooding citizens with apps and screens, or wrapping public life in flashy tech.

The smartest cities might not even feel digital on the surface. They would work quietly in the background, gather only the data they need, coordinate it well and use it to make citizens’ life safer, fairer and more efficient.

Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Research Council & The Australian Government.

Abbas Rajabifard receives funding from Victorian Government via Land Use Department.

Benny Chen 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 a ‘smart city’ and why should we care? It’s not just a buzzword – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-smart-city-and-why-should-we-care-its-not-just-a-buzzword-255419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators all over the world have pointed out the parallels.

In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.

On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.

Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.

US President Donald Trump was undoubtedly a factor in both elections. Even Trump’s most ardent Australian fans admit the reversal of the Coalition’s fortunes in the polls seems to have been precipitated by Trump’s actions, particularly his chaotic tariff announcements and his White House humiliation of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.

But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.

A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada

So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.

Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.

Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.

This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.

The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.

Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.

The Liberals, meanwhile, barely won the popular vote and fell three seats short of a majority.

Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.

That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.

Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.

Dutton’s mistakes were bigger

It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.

Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.

From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.

Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.

This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.

The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.

The Coalition should resist seeing Trump as a natural disaster over which they had no control. Dutton consciously positioned himself as part of the global populist right that Trump leads. Voters recognised this, even when Dutton half-heartedly tried to distance himself from Trump.

Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.

Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.

David Smith 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. Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton – https://theconversation.com/blaming-donald-trump-for-conservative-losses-in-both-canada-and-australia-is-being-too-kind-to-peter-dutton-255599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

Among the many lessons to be learnt by the Liberal-National Coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation Australia.

Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?

The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the Coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.

Last Thursday, in her eponymous program on Sky News Australia, Markson said:

For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.

After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sun admonishing voters:

No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies. That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.

The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the Coalition in their election eve editorials.

The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error. The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline Coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.

Read more:
Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

But they were either voting for the Coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the Coalition desperately needed to keep onside – the moderates who already felt disappointed by the Coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.

Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the Coalition no longer represented their values.

Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message. But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.

What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing – which voters desperately wanted to hear – were little more than sound bites.

This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.

The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.

On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some Coalition supporters might assume.

He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.

Instead, the Coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.

Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.

If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.

The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief of staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.

Andrew Dodd has been the recipient of Australian Research Council funding

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

– ref. In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media – https://theconversation.com/in-its-soul-searching-the-coalition-should-examine-its-relationship-with-the-media-255846

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

On February 1, on The Conversation’s podcast, Anthony Albanese not only declared that Labor would retain majority government, but held out the prospect it could win the Victorian Liberal seats of Menzies and Deakin.

This was when the polls were still bad for Labor and the Coalition was confident of gaining a swathe of seats in Victoria.

Now Liberal Michael Sukkar has lost Deakin to Labor’s Matt Gregg, while fellow Liberal Keith Wolahan says it is “more likely than not” he’ll be ousted from Menzies.

Obviously Albanese’s political judgement was better than most. Two other points are notable. The first is how quickly things turned around. But there’s a counterpoint: maybe they didn’t turn around in quite the way they seemed. Perhaps a few months ago, voters were expressing their frustrations, but many were always going to be reluctant to endorse Peter Dutton when decision-time came.

Even so, the extent of the decimation of the Liberals was nearly unthinkable. Labor minister Don Farrell said that two days out, Labor’s polling showed a majority but not this result. The Liberals are a rump, without a leader, with no obvious successor, and no clue of what direction to take a party left with hardly any urban seats and the prospect of another two terms, at least, in the wilderness.

First, however, to the government. Albanese is basking in golden days. But he knows Labor must avoid hubris. As he enjoyed Sunday morning at a local coffee shop, he said “we will be a disciplined, orderly government”.

To state the obvious, the win will boost Albanese’s authority. But it will also open him to pressures, externally and internally.

In Labor’s first term, many commentators and stakeholders argued the government was too cautious. Some urged it should tackle more robust economic reform; others wanted it to shift left. Those voices will strengthen now Labor has the numbers to flex its muscles more vigorously. But Albanese is wary of breaking promises – it took a long time for him to go back on his word over the stage three tax cuts – or surprising the electorate.

The person to watch is Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

On Saturday night, the treasurer said, “We do believe we’re an ambitious government but we know there is a sense of impatience as well when it comes to some of our big national challenges”.

Chalmers told the ABC on Sunday, “The best way to think about the difference between our first term and the second term that we won last night [is the] first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.

This is a very big aspiration. Australia’s productivity performance is dreadful. If that’s to improve significantly, Chalmers may have to take on battles in some policy areas, such as industrial relations, that are very sensitive for Labor and the unions.

The win, but more particularly the issues ahead, which focus on the economy here and overseas, will give Chalmers an even more central voice, as well as present even tougher tests for him. Chalmers was lavish in his praise of Albanese on Saturday night and Sunday; he said he had rung the PM during Saturday, before the result, and “I said his was an extraordinary campaign, he’s got a lot to be proud of and we are certainly proud to be part of his team”.

For all that, Chalmers is, and sees himself as, Albanese’s most credible successor, although other aspirants are in the mix. Despite Albanese indicating he will serve a full term and the result leading people to say he will be well placed to lead into the 2028 election, that is not inevitable.

Who will lead the Liberals into that election is absolutely unknowable. The potential field for the post election leadership vote is lacklustre, and whoever wins that vote could be a seat warmer.

That field includes shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, deputy leader Sussan Ley, shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan, and defence spokesman Andrew Hastie.

Taylor, an economic conservative, has faced immense criticism for his performance over the past three years. Ley, who is more towards the centre, has been guilty of overreach, although she’s toned down somewhat recently. Hastie has not broadened out from his defence comfort zone. Tehan is experienced but does not present well to voters.

Dutton had a weak team around him; the next leader will have an even thinner one.

Even more diabolical than who the Liberal Party should choose is where it should go in its positioning. The party has become an identity vacuum. It has lost its more genteel urbanites, and failed to win the aspirational suburbanites. These constituencies have different priorities but to revive themselves the Liberals have to thread the needle between them, which looks, at the moment, an impossible task.

Then there are the problems with women and younger voters. The Liberals’ “women problem” has been debated for years; they seem further than ever from grappling with it. The failure ranges from candidate selection to policy blindness.

On the latter, the working-from-home debacle was a classic example of disconnect with many women’s lives. The policy (later dumped) to bring public servants back to the office five days a week was driven by a woman, shadow finance minister Jane Hume. It wasn’t properly workshopped, but surely it was obvious that running this policy would be a disaster, especially with female voters. You wouldn’t need a focus group to tell you that.

As the baby boomers, already outnumbered, fade further, how are the Liberals to connect with the younger voters who are now the dominant demographic? These voters are increasingly progressive. For them, the Liberals need generational change. But the only new generation contender in the present leadership list is Hastie, and he is a conservative.

Another complication for the Liberals is that the Nationals have done well. This means they’ll have a bigger say in the Coalition, including a bigger share of the frontbench. This might push the Coalition further to the populist right. A few will argue the Coalition parties should separate, but this is not the answer – it hasn’t worked in the past.

There’ll be a policy overhaul, and that could involve a tricky argument over nuclear, to which the Nationals especially are deeply committed. And will the Coalition commitment to the Paris agreement and the 2050 net zero emissions target come under assault?

The Liberals are in an extraordinarily bad place. Politicians in such circumstances search for so-called “narrow goat tracks” to better ground. Debris is littering any track in sight for the Liberals. Their only comfort can be that politics is volatile.

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. Second-term Albanese will face policy pressure, devastated Liberals have only bad options – https://theconversation.com/second-term-albanese-will-face-policy-pressure-devastated-liberals-have-only-bad-options-255618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxine Newlands, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Cairns Institute, James Cook University

Minor parties were all the rage at the last election when, along with independent candidates, they secured almost a third of votes.

But they have failed to build on that success at this election. The biggest and best funded of the minor parties – the Greens, One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots – have all had disappointing results.

Few green shoots

The Greens are the largest party outside of the traditional two-party system. But they failed to launch on Saturday night.

In 2022, the Greens secured 12.2% of the primary support which returned a record four members to the lower house. This time around, their nationwide vote is up – but only marginally and not where it matters.

The party has lost big in Queensland, with Stephen Bates in Brisbane and Max Chandler-Mather in Griffith relinquishing their seats to Labor. Elizabeth Watson-Brown could hold on in the neighbouring seat of Ryan, though preference flows will be critical.

Peter Dutton might not be the only party leader to lose his seat, with Adam Bandt on a knife’s edge in Melbourne, which he has held for 15 years. Again, it will come down to the spread of preferences.

The Greens had high hopes for two other Melbourne-based seats. They remain a chance in Wills, but got nowhere near it in Macnamara.

And it is unlikely to snatch the New South Wales seat of Richmond from Labor despite running a close second on primary vote.

Balance of power

The Greens have performed much better in the Senate, where they will once again be the largest cross bench party with a predicted 11 seats.

While the ALP will clearly dominate the lower house in the 48th parliament, the Senate is looking to be more of a two-way spilt between Labor and the Coalition.

The Albanese government will likely require only the support of the Greens to pass legislation. This is a much better scenario for Labor than the previous parliament when it needed to stitch together all the Greens and four independents to navigate the Senate.

Once again, the Greens will effectively hold the balance of power. However, Labor will have other crossbench options, such as independents David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and Fatima Payman if the Greens obstruct bills that are also opposed by the Coalition.

Minor party fizzers

Despite their disappointing result in the lower house, the Greens easily outperformed the right-wing minor parties, most of which flopped.

None more so than Clive Palmer’s newly registered Trumpet of Patriots, which fielded candidates in most lower house seats and in the Senate. It scored 1.8% of the vote, the highest positive swing of all the minor parties.

But it misfired everywhere, despite Palmer’s reported $A50-60 million advertising spend. While Senate votes are still being counted, Trumpet of Patriots is lagging behind both One Nation and the Legalise Cannabis Party.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation recorded just over 6% of first preference votes, up only slightly on its 2022 result and nowhere near enough to win any lower house seats. However, there are enough disaffected voters in Queensland to return Malcolm Roberts to the Senate. Hanson won’t be up for reelection until 2028.

Hanson’s daughter Lee Hanson is an outside chance of securing a Senate spot for One Nation in Tasmania. Her main rivals are Jacqui Lambie and Legalise Cannabis, which is also in the mix to win the final Senate seat in Victoria.

Gerard Rennick’s People First party also failed to make an impression. So too, Fatima Payman’s Australia’s Voice.

What next for the minor parties?

Minor parties play an important role in the Australian political landscape, and have long been players in federal parliament.

The previous two elections have seen shifts away from the two-party system, with one in four voters preferring minor parties or independent candidates in 2019, and one in three in 2022.

On the numbers counted so far in this election, voters have favoured either the traditional major parties or the array of independent candidates.

The trend towards minor parties has been halted, at least for now.

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

– ref. Election flops – a night to forget for minor parties on the left and the right – https://theconversation.com/election-flops-a-night-to-forget-for-minor-parties-on-the-left-and-the-right-255623

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