According to a study from the United States, women experience weight stigma in maternity care at almost every visit. We expect this experience to be similar in Australia, where more than 50% of women of reproductive age live in larger bodies.
Weight stigma can present as stereotyping, negative attitudes and discriminatory actions towards larger-bodied people.
It occurs in other areas of health care and in society at large. But our research is focused on weight stigma in maternity care, which can cause significant harm for larger-bodied women and their babies.
What does weight stigma look like in maternity care?
Sometimes weight stigma is explicit, or on purpose. Explicit weight stigma includes health-care professionals having negative attitudes towards caring for larger-bodied pregnant women. This might present, for instance, when health professionals make negative comments about weight or accuse women of dishonesty when they discuss their dietary intake.
Sometimes weight stigma is implicit, or unintentional. Implicit weight stigma includes maternity care providers avoiding physical touch or eye contact during consultations with larger-bodied women.
Policies, guidelines and environments also contribute to weight stigma. Women in larger bodies frequently report feeling stigmatised and unable to access the type of maternity care they would prefer. Lack of availability of adequately fitting hospital clothing or delivery beds are other notable examples.
In a review published last year, we looked at weight stigma from preconception to after birth. Our results showed larger-bodied women are sometimes automatically treated as high-risk and undergo extra monitoring of their pregnancy even when they have no other risk factors that require monitoring.
This approach is problematic because it focuses on body size rather than health, placing responsibility on the woman and disregarding other complex determinants of health.
One doctor told me I was terrible for getting pregnant at my weight, that I was setting up my baby to fail […] I was in tears, and he told me I was being too sensitive.
A 2023 Australian paper written by women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care recounted their care as hyper-focused on weight and dehumanising, robbing them of the joy of pregnancy.
According to one woman, “there was no compassion or conversation, just blame”.
Beyond making women feel humiliated and disrespected, weight stigma in maternity care can affect mental health. For example, weight stigma is linked to increased risk of depressive symptoms and stress, disordered eating behaviours and emotional eating.
One of the key reasons why weight stigma is so damaging to pregnant women’s health is because it’s closely linked to body image concerns.
Society unfairly holds larger-bodied women up to unrealistic ideals around their body shape and size, their suitability to be a mother, and the control they have over their weight gain.
Self stigma occurs when women apply society’s stigmatising narrative – from people in the community, the media, peers, family members and health-care providers – to themselves.
Larger-bodied pregnant women can face stigma from health-care professionals and society at large. antoniodiaz/Shutterstock
While we know these things can also be linked to higher body weight, emerging evidence shows weight stigma may have a stronger link with some outcomes than body mass index.
There are a variety of possible reasons for these links. For example, weight stigma may result in delayed access to and engagement with health-care services, and, as shown above, poorer mental health and reduced confidence. This may mean a woman is less likely to initiate and seek help with breastfeeding, for example.
In turn, the adverse effects of weight stigma can also affect the baby’s health. For example, gestational diabetes has a range of potential negative outcomes including a higher likelihood of premature birth, difficulties during birth, and an increased risk of the child developing type 2 diabetes.
But the burden and blame should not fall on women. Pregnant and postpartum women should not have to accept experiences of weight stigma in health care.
Weight stigma in maternity care has been linked to a higher likelihood of caesarean birth. photosoria/Shutterstock
What can we do about it?
While it’s essential to address weight stigma as a societal issue, health services can play a key role in undoing the narrative of blame and shame and making maternity care more equitable for larger-bodied women.
Addressing weight stigma in maternity care can start with teaching midwives and obstetricians about weight stigma – what it is, where it happens, and how it can be minimised in practice.
We worked with women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care and midwives to co-design resources to meet this need. Both women and midwives wanted resources that could be easily integrated into practice, acted as consistent reminders to be size-friendly, and met midwives’ knowledge gaps.
The resources included a short podcast about weight stigma in maternity care and images of healthy, larger-bodied pregnant women to demonstrate the most likely outcome is a healthy pregnancy. Midwives evaluated the resources positively and they are ready to be implemented into practice.
There is a long road to ending weight stigma in maternity care, but working towards this goal will benefit countless mothers and their babies.
Briony Hill receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Some research reported in this article was funded by the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre was supported through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme with the Australian Government Department of Health, ACT Health, Cancer Council Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Wellbeing SA, Tasmanian Department of Health, and VicHealth. It is administered by the Sax Institute.
Haimanot Hailu 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.
While many Australians have already voted at pre-poll stations and by post, the politicking continues right up until May 3.
So what’s happened across the country over the past five weeks?
Here, six experts analyse how the campaign has looked in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.
New South Wales
David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney
The campaign in NSW is concluding much as it began, largely mirroring the Australia-wide trend with little evidence of localism.
The main themes of both sides remain similar: cost-of-living alleviation, improved health care and housing affordability. Both leaders quickly matched each other’s promises: it could be described as the “Albanutton” campaign.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign continued to be hampered by slip-ups and a lack of focus, detail and discipline. Although the government’s record had given him plenty of scope, Dutton struggled to land a blow.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had his share of gaffes, but appeared more coherent and convincing. Labor’s negative campaign to portray Dutton as a local Trump clone seems to have been effective.
Some in the Liberal Party argue there’s pent-up resentment against the government in Western Sydney that hasn’t been picked up by opinion polls. Whether this hypothetical backlash turns into seats on polling day remains to be seen.
Bennelong (notionally Liberal after the redistribution) and Gilmore, seem the most likely Liberal gains. Parramatta, Reid, Paterson, Robertson and Werriwa are also in play. There is speculation about an independent threat in the safe Labor seat of McMahon.
The Coalition has a fight on its hands to retain Cowper and Bradfield, with strong independent challenges in both seats. There is a tight three-way contest in Calare between former National turned independent, Andrew Gee, a National and a Teal.
As there is little real policy differentiation between the major parties; it seems to come down to which side the voters find more credible and trustworthy in uncertain times.
According to a Newspoll published on April 27, Albanese led Dutton as preferred prime minister by 51% to 35%. Only 39% of those surveyed believed the government deserved to be re-elected. However, 62% believed the Coalition was not ready to govern.
An aggregate of polling data showed in NSW, as at April 28, Labor’s two-party preferred vote was 53.0%, an increase since the March Budget of 2.8% and of 1.6% since the 2022 election.
Queensland
Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University
In the campaign’s closing week, Queensland remains largely inconsequential as to whether Albanese or Dutton will call The Lodge home.
But that doesn’t mean the Liberal National Party (LNP) isn’t concerned about its prospects north of the Tweed.
While the LNP still leads Labor in the two party-preferred vote, 54 to 46, across Queensland – roughly the 2022 result – last week’s YouGov poll found that result to be a three-point fall for the LNP from the previous week.
While Labor is hardly going to blitz Queensland, some LNP seats are nonetheless more vulnerable than at any time over the past decade. These include the regional seats of Leichhardt (3.4 %) and Flynn (3.8%), the outer suburban seats of Dickson (held by Dutton by just 1.7%), Longman (3.1%), Forde (4.2%) and Petrie (4.4%), and the middle-suburb mortgage-belt seat of Bonner (3.4%).
Independent Suzie Holt might also worry the LNP in the usually safe seat of Groom, around Toowoomba.
But the last-minute “rescue” of the LNP by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) – Hanson (reciprocating the LNP’s preferencing of PHON) pulped existing how to vote cards and printed new ones placing the LNP second in most seats – might just save the opposition.
However, the campaign has offered little clarity on the prospects in other key Queensland contests: the battles for three Greens-held inner-urban seats of Brisbane, Ryan and Griffith.
But a mid-April DemosAU poll found the Greens’ primary vote falling by 1.7 points to 29%, a figure exactly tied with Labor’s, which has risen 2.7% since 2022.
Problematically for Dutton, the LNP, whose primary vote remains locked at 36%, appears not to have capitalised on cost-of-living angst in inner Brisbane.
Despite 58% of inner Brisbane leaning centre-left, these figures suggest the LNP may fail to win any Greens seats, with the contest a close one between the Greens and Labor only. The result rests on who runs third: Labor or the Greens. There could be a mere 100 votes in these must-watch seats.
In the Northern Territory, the seat of Lingiari, which takes in Alice Springs and Katherine, is held by Labor’s Marion Scrymgour by 1.7%. In 2022, just one in three enrolled voters cast a ballot in the electorate, prompting the Australian Electoral Commission to try to increase voter turnout. In the wash-up, it will be interesting to see if this improves.
South Australia
Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University
Given SA is home to only a handful of marginal seats, it’s not a well-trodden part of the campaign trail. That’s typical of most federal elections.
What’s not so typical is the overall feel of the campaign. The rhythms of Australian elections are changing. On one level, there are the familiar tropes and activities; TV debates, campaign launches and letter box blitzes in key marginal seats.
Yet, on the other hand, voters behave differently than they used to. Data from the Australian Election Study(AES) tells us far fewer voters have made their decision “a long time ago” (55% in 2007, down to 36% in 2022).
This means the number of “soft” voters is probably much higher as major parties have fewer “lifetime voters”. Voters are much more transactional.
Voters are more distanced from parties, too. The study shows fewer voters use how to vote cards (51% used them in 2007, 31% in 2022). We can’t rely on traditional metrics in the same way, such as the national two-party preferred vote given the number of “non-traditional seats”.
In short, it’s now harder to more know how the campaigns are tracking. So while the Coalition campaign has been beset by a number of mis-steps, how this is playing out is far less clear.
Further, a strange paradox of the emergence of the Teals and other independents is there is a stronger local focus on representation, rather than broader policy debates. Again, AES data suggests most voters tend to vote for policy reasons (like the economy or health) but the current media focus on the major parties, especially through the TV debates, actually seems to narrow the broader policy discussions.
So while the proof will be in the pudding when the votes are counted, it may be high time to reflect on what campaign strategies work best for politics in 2025.
Tasmania
Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania
In Lyons, Tassie’s most marginal electorate (ALP by 0.9%), the latest polls have swung behind the ALP’s Rebecca White. Her popularity as a state MP for the electorate has been bolstered by some crucial slip ups from Liberal candidate Susie Bower.
One potentially vote-winning policy announcement that has gone under the radar nationally is Labor’s commitment of $24 million to guarantee the continued operation of the Boyer Paper Mill in Lyons, an important employer and regional symbol of economic activity.
Franklin has been full of drama. 19-year-old Greens candidate Owen Fitzgerald had to withdraw his candidacy after it emerged that he is likely to still be a New Zealand citizen. It seemed like the Greens would encourage their voters to preference independent anti-salmon candidate Peter George.
However, when the party’s how to vote cards were published, they said “Vote 1 – Owen Fitzgerald”.
According to the Greens, this was to make sure that voters completed their ballot correctly. The Liberal Party argued the Greens were just trying to secure public funding.
The result is likely to rest on how Liberal voters feel about salmon farming and how this influences their preferences. Are they so anti-Labor that they will preference Peter George ahead of Julie Collins despite his anti-salmon stance? Or will they put Collins ahead of George based on Labor’s support for the industry?
In Braddon, where salmon farming is again a key issue, Labor’s Anne Urquhart has been more visible on the campaign trail than Liberal Mal Hingston. Although the margin at the last election was 8% in favour of the Liberals, last-minute polling (albeit with a small sample size) has offered Labor hope of winning the crucial seat.
Bridget Archer, Liberal MP for Bass, has had a solid if unspectacular campaign. She was helped by Labor selecting a low-profile first-time candidate, Jess Teesdale, who the party sees as “one for the future”. Teesdale revealed her “greenness” – in both senses of the word – by accidentally contradicting the ALP’s position on native forest logging, which is always a flashpoint in Tassie.
Victoria
Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University
With just days to go in this campaign, Victoria still looks like a key state that will determine who governs for the next three years. Many seats across the state have new boundaries following the AEC redistribution.
Victoria is also home to the most marginal seat in the country. Deakin, which covers the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, is held by Liberal Michael Sukkar with a margin of just 0.02%, according to ABC Election Analyst Antony Green.
Deakin will be the seat to watch on election night. If the Liberal Party can’t hold on to Deakin, it would be unlikely to be able to win government.
There are also other seats that will provide a fascinating contest on Saturday night. Labor will face its own test in trying to retain Chisholm and Aston, both in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.
Chisholm is a swinging seat. It has been won by both Labor and Liberal parties over the past 40 years and is currently held by Labor with a margin of 3.3%. It has had a significant redistribution, losing strong Labor booths in the north and south parts of the electorate.
Aston is also on a similarly slim margin of 3.6% and was famously won by Labor at the by-election in 2023. Holding onto Aston will be a crucial test for Labor. Losing this seat may threaten Labor’s chances of forming a majority government after the election.
There are also the two seats held by the independents which promise to be tight contests. The previously safe Liberal seats of Kooyong and Goldstein, which were won by Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel respectively, have been targeted by the Liberal Party. The independents will face a significant battle and, if successful, will demonstrate a significant shift in voting behaviour has occurred in these electorates.
Western Australia
Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University
The idea that WA would determine the outcome of government has been a persistent theme throughout the campaign, reinforced by four visits from Albanese and three from Dutton. The amount of attention WA has received from the major party leaders was more than any state or territory other than the three big population states: NSW, Victoria and Queensland. Even then, Albanese made one more visit to WA than he did Queensland at the time of writing.
Both major parties brought their big guns on the campaign trail. Former Liberal PM John Howard visited Curtin, Tangney and Bullwinkel. The newly re-elected WA Labor Premier Roger Cook campaigned heavily with Albanese during his visits. And in the final days of the campaign, Mark McGowan, the popular former premier, was seen on the hustings with Labor candidates in four marginal seats.
Neither major party leader ventured to places where they might receive an unwelcome reception. Dutton’s intention to steer clear of the Shire of Collie, particularly the town of Muja, the proposed site of the one of the seven nuclear power plants, was signalled early in the campaign. Albanese avoided electorates in the state’s southwest opposed to coastal wind farms.
There were no significant candidate blunders. However, questions were raised about the whereabouts of Andrew Hastie, shadow defence minister and (putative) future Liberal leader. Hastie was also questioned about the missing party logo (as against party authorisations) on his campaign materials.
The competition between the Nationals and Liberals in the seat of Bullwinkel was without major media incident. This includes when the Nationals’ candidate, Mia Davies, broke with the federal coalition over support for Labor’s production tax credits plan.
The contest for Curtin attracted outsized local media attention. In the final days of the campaign, there were renewed efforts to link the independent incumbent, Kate Chaney, to the Greens. All the proof the West Australian newspaper required was Chaney’s connection to a senior Greens party official, evidenced by a 2024 donation totalling $104, a photo and an author’s credit.
To what extent has the leader visits and the campaign moved the needle? A recent study found party leader visits make only a modest impact on the vote. Polling for Labor and the Liberals in WA has remained very steady. This doesn’t mean some seats won’t change, but to which party or candidate remains unclear.
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.
Complicating the economic picture for the government are Donald Trump’s tariffs and his trade war with China. In early April, financial services company J.P. Morgan Research said there was a 60% probability of the United States experiencing a recession in 2025 — with a 40% chance of a global recession.
Despite this uncertain economic future, the idea that New Zealand’s debt-to-GDP ratio requires immediate and drastic austerity-like measures is not supported by the evidence.
The ratio measures the government’s debt compared to its gross domestic product (GDP). Currently, New Zealand’s ratio is about 47%. This is substantially higher than before the pandemic (32% in 2019) and higher than Australia (35%).
But it is at the lower end compared with other advanced economies. The 2023 debt-to-GDP ratio in the US was 112%, 101% in the United Kingdom, and about 50% in Canada, Ireland and South Korea.
Rather than tightening the belt to reduce debt and increase fiscal balance, New Zealand needs to focus on boosting productivity, investing in education, building strong and resilient infrastructure and supporting health and wellbeing.
Lowering debt and creating fiscal space are legitimate goals. But they should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
A necessary medicine
Austerity is often presented as necessary medicine during an economic crisis. The logic is seemingly straightforward: reduce government spending and debt to not overstimulate the economy, create fiscal resilience for future shocks, support low and stable inflation, and signal fiscal responsibility to international markets.
Several countries adopted austerity measures in response to high deficits following the global financial crisis.
Greece implemented deep spending cuts, tax hikes and pension reforms under the terms of a bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This reduced its deficit but caused a severe economic contraction and social unrest.
Italy’s austerity measures involved pension reforms and tax hikes, achieving modest fiscal improvement but sparking political instability.
The UK focused on reducing public spending and welfare support, significantly lowering its deficit while putting pressure on public services and increasing inequality. Research found UK’s austerity measures led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths.
While in many cases austerity helped restore fiscal balance, it often came with heavy economic and social costs, particularly in terms of unemployment, growth and public welfare.
In March, people in the United Kingdom took to the streets to protest ongoing austerity measures. Mike Kemp/Getty Images
Productivity is the key
Research indicates that debt-to-GDP ratios above about 80% tend to be associated with lower growth. But below this threshold, the ratio tends to be associated with increases in growth.
It is clear that deficits are neither always bad for economic growth, nor that they always lead to inflation, when combined with a credible fiscal strategy to return to surpluses in the future.
To raise the future wellbeing of all New Zealanders we need to avoid the heavy costs of austerity and rather focus on stimulating economic growth. And this comes with a price tag.
Using debt to finance investments into capital, which in turn increases our productivity, is key to fostering economic growth. This goes hand-in-hand with targeted industrial policies, reduction in regulation, increases in government efficiency and trade liberalisation
Importantly, public investment boosts economic growth mainly through two channels: efficiency (how much infrastructure is actually delivered for the money spent) and productivity (how well that infrastructure supports economic activity).
Research from the IMF suggests an increase in public investment of one percentage point of GDP is associated with an increase in output of about 0.2% in the same year and 1.2% four years later.
All-of-government focus
What New Zealand needs is a long-term growth strategy and an all-of-government focus on lifting productivity. This must be grounded in fiscal responsibility – one that boosts government efficiency. But not at the cost of delaying high-impact investments or leaving growth opportunities on the table.
Maintaining discipline while strategically investing in the drivers of long-term prosperity is essential for securing New Zealand’s economic future.
The path ahead requires careful navigation, not a rush towards austerity.
By thoughtfully balancing the need for fiscal prudence with the importance of investing in our productivity, human capital and infrastructure, we can ensure a more resilient and prosperous future for all New Zealanders.
Dennis Wesselbaum 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
Labor leads by between 52–48 and 53–47 in four new national polls from Resolve, Essential, Morgan and DemosAU. While Labor’s vote slumped from a high 55.5–44.5 in Morgan to 53–47, such a slide hasn’t been seen in any other poll. Labor remains the likely winner of the election this Saturday.
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted April 23–28 from a sample of 2,010 by online and telephone polling, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the mid-April Resolve poll. Telephone polling by Resolve appears to only be used for their final polls before a federal election.
Primary votes were 35% Coalition (up one), 31% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one), 7% One Nation (up one), 8% independents (down four) and 5% others (steady). The 53–47 two-party result was achieved whether preferences were allocated as at the 2022 election or by respondents.
In this poll, Resolve is using seat-specific candidate lists, which Morgan and YouGov are now also doing. This resulted in a drop in the independent vote, as not all seats have viable independents.
Here is the graph of Labor’s two-party share in national polls. There was a 2.5-point drop for Labor in Morgan, but no other poll this week has had such a large change. Although Labor is slightly down, they are likely to win Saturday’s election. This graph does not include the DemosAU poll.
Anthony Albanese’s net approval in Resolve was steady at +1, with 45% saying he was doing a good job and 44% a poor job. Peter Dutton’s net approval slumped six points to -24. Albanese maintained a 47–31 lead over Dutton as preferred PM (46–30 previously).
The change in voting intentions and leaders’ ratings since the late February Resolve poll is dramatic. The February poll had given the Coalition a 55–45 lead by respondent preferences. Albanese’s net approval was -22, Dutton’s was +5 and Dutton led Albanese as preferred PM by 39–35.
The Liberals led Labor on economic management by 37–29 (36–31 previously). On keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 31–28 (tied at 30–30 previously).
Final Essential poll: Labor leads by 52.1–47.9
The Guardian reported Tuesday that the final Essential poll, conducted April 23–27 from a sample of 2,241 gave Labor a 52.1–47.9 lead by respondent preferences with undecided removed, from primary votes of 34% Coalition, 32% Labor, 13% Greens, 10% One Nation, 2% Trumpet of Patriots and 9% for all Others,
In Essential’s usual methods that include undecided, Labor led by 49.6–45.6 (50–45 in mid-April). Primary votes were 32% Coalition (steady), 31% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (down one), 9% One Nation (steady), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (steady), 9% for all Others (steady) and 5% undecided (up one). By 2022 election flows, Labor would lead by about 52.5–47.5.
Albanese’s net approval was steady at -3, with 47% disapproving and 44% approving. Dutton’s net approval dropped three points to -12, a record low for him in this poll. By 52–31, voters thought Australia was on the wrong track (50–33 previously).
A total of 81% rated cost of living one of the top three most important issues, including 49% who rated it the top issue. By 68–32, voters did not think the elected government would make a meaningful difference on cost of living.
Morgan poll: Labor drops to a 53–47 lead
A national Morgan poll, conducted April 21–27 from a sample of 1,524, gave Labor a 53–47 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since the April 14–20 Morgan poll.
Primary votes were 34.5% Coalition (up 0.5), 34% Labor (down 0.5), 13% Greens (down 1.5), 7.5% One Nation (up 1.5), 1.5% Trumpet of Patriots (up one), 2% teal independents and 7.5% for all Others. By 2022 election flows, Labor led by 54–46, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition.
By 52.5–34, voters thought the country was going in the wrong direction (48–34 previously). Morgan’s consumer confidence index was down 2.1 points to 83.4, its lowest for more than six months.
DemosAU poll 52–48 to Labor with low major party primary votes
A national DemosAU poll, conducted April 22–23 from a sample of 1,073, gave Labor a 52–48 lead after a forced choice question for the 14% who were initially undecided.
Primary votes after forcing were 31% Coalition, 29% Labor, 14% Greens, 9% One Nation, 7% independents and 10% others. DemosAU used seat-specific polls, reading the candidate list as it appears on the ballot paper. Other pollsters get higher primary votes for the major parties as those parties are listed first on seat-specific polls.
Albanese led Dutton by 43–34 as preferred PM.
DemosAU poll of outer metro Brisbane seats
DemosAU collectively polled the five seats of Longman, Dickson, Petrie, Bonner and Forde on April 18–23 from a sample of 1,053 for The Financial Review. The Liberal National Party led Labor by 53–47 (53.4–46.6 to the LNP across these five seats at the 2022 election).
Primary votes were 40% LNP, 27% Labor, 13% Greens, 7% One Nation, 2% Trumpet of Patriots and 11% for all Others.
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.
Labor will be encouraged by the Liberals’ victory in Canada’s election, undoubtedly much helped by US President Donald Trump.
Trump’s extraordinary attack on the United States’ northern ally, with his repeated suggestion Canada should be the 51st American state, galvanised voters. Former banker Mark Carney, seen as best able to deal with Trump, won the internal race to succeed Justin Trudeau as PM, and now has clinched the election. The Conservatives, favourites a few months ago, couldn’t compete.
The Trump factor is not so dramatic in our election, but it is present and working for Labor. In a time of instability, some potential swinging voters are more inclined to opt for the status quo.
Anthony Albanese said on Tuesday, “Mark Carney has stood for Canada’s national interests, just as I stand up for Australia’s national interest”.
Australians don’t like Trump or his policies. A recent Lowy poll found people’s trust in the US to act responsibly in the world has dropped 20 points in a year, although they were nearly equally divided on whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better to handle the US and Trump.
After initially thinking Trump’s election could assist the Coalition, Dutton has not been able to shake off the “Trump factor” since it became clear it was a drag.
Meanwhile, Dutton was having another difficult day on the campaign trail on Tuesday. His electorate office had been vandalised (again) in the early hours. Then, when he visited a sporting ground in the highly marginal seat of Gilmore on the NSW south coast, three local unionists, outfitted in protective gear, turned up to play for the cameras at finding a spot for a nuclear reactor.
In Gilmore former NSW transport minister Andrew Constance is making another run, after being narrowly pipped by Labor at the 2022 election.
Dutton had planned to hold his news conference at the ground, but cancelled it and moved on. When the press conference finally happened, it was short but not sweet. Both leader and press pack were, by that stage, tetchy.
Unlike his unfortunate experience on Sunday with the price of eggs, Dutton did pass the test when asked the inflation rate. He quickly answered 2.7%. This is not the headline rate, which is 2.4%, but it is the trimmed mean rate. That’s the rate preferred by the Reserve Bank, so he would get a tick from Governor Michele Bullock, even if his choice caused some confusion in the media. On Wednesday we get the March quarter CPI figures.
How the leaders’ debates rated
Nine won by a whisker the “ratings” contest among TV stations in the leaders’ debates, followed by the ABC. These are considered high figures for election debates. What we don’t know is how many viewers watched all four debates. Now that took some stamina!
How voters rate former PMs
Essential Research’s latest poll has an interesting table of people’s ratings of former prime ministers, with John Howard and Bob Hawke filling the first two spots.
Howard, 85, remains in demand for Liberal campaigning. Speaking to The Conversation, he reels off quite a round of seats he’s visited, including Curtin, Tangey, Bullwinkel and Hasluck in Western Australia (all in a day and a half); Wentworth, Mackellar, Robertson, Warringhah and Bennelong (his old seat) in NSW, and Bruce in Melbourne. He agrees the campaign cycle is faster these days, but he obviously still relishes the smell of the political grease paint.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, Professor of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology
The lights are mostly back on in Spain, Portugal and southern France after a widespread blackout on Monday.
The blackout caused chaos for tens of millions of people. It shut down traffic lights and ATMs, halted public transport, cut phone service and forced people to eat dinner huddled around candles as night fell. Many people found themselves trapped in trains and elevators.
Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has said the exact cause of the blackout is yet to be determined. In early reporting, Portugal’s grid operator REN was quoted as blaming the event on a rare phenomenon known as “induced atmospheric vibration”. REN has since reportedly refuted this.
But what is this vibration? And how can energy systems be improved to mitigate the risk of widespread blackouts?
How much does weather affect electricity?
Weather is a major cause of disruptions to electricity supply. In fact, in the United States, 83% of reported blackouts between 2000 and 2021 were attributed to weather-related events.
The ways weather can affect the supply of electricity are manifold. For example, cyclones can bring down transmission lines, heatwaves can place too high a demand on the grid, and bushfires can raze substations.
Wind can also cause transmission lines to vibrate. These vibrations are characterised by either high amplitude and low frequency (known as “conductor galloping”), or low amplitude and high frequency (known as “aeolian vibrations”).
These vibrations are a significant problem for grid operators. They can place increased stress on grid infrastructure, potentially leading to blackouts.
To reduce the risk of vibration, grid operators often use wire stabilisers known as “stock bridge dampers”.
What is ‘induced atmospheric vibration’?
Vibrations in power lines can also be caused by extreme changes in temperature or air pressure. And this is one hypothesis about what caused the recent widespread blackout across the Iberian peninsula.
Due to extreme temperature variations in the interior of Spain, there were anomalous oscillations in the very high voltage lines (400 kV), a phenomenon known as “induced atmospheric vibration”. These oscillations caused synchronisation failures between the electrical systems, leading to successive disturbances across the interconnected European network.
In fact, “induced atmospheric vibration” is not a commonly used term, but it seems likely the explanation was intended to refer to physical processes climate scientists have known about for quite some time.
In simple terms, it seems to refer to wavelike movements or oscillations in the atmosphere, caused by sudden changes in temperature or pressure. These can be triggered by extreme heating, large-scale energy releases (such as explosions or bushfires), or intense weather events.
When a part of Earth’s surface heats up very quickly – due to a heatwave, for example – the air above it warms, expands and becomes lighter. That rising warm air creates a pressure imbalance with the surrounding cooler, denser air. The atmosphere responds to this imbalance by generating waves, not unlike ripples spreading across a pond.
These pressure waves can travel through the atmosphere. In some cases, they can interact with power infrastructure — particularly long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines.
These types of atmospheric waves are usually called gravity waves, thermal oscillations or acoustic-gravity waves. While the phrase “induced atmospheric vibration” is not formally established in meteorology, it seems to describe this same family of phenomena.
What’s important is that it’s not just high temperatures alone that causes these effects — it’s how quickly and unevenly the temperature changes across a region. That’s what sets the atmosphere into motion and can cause power lines to vibrate. Again, though, it’s still unclear if this is what was behind the recent blackout in Europe.
Understanding how the atmosphere behaves under these conditions is becoming increasingly important. As our energy systems become more interconnected and more dependent on long-distance transmission, even relatively subtle atmospheric disturbances can have outsized impacts. What might once have seemed like a fringe effect is now a growing factor in grid resilience.
Under growing environmental and electrical stress, centralised energy networks are dangerously vulnerable. The increasing electrification of buildings, the rapid uptake of electric vehicles, and the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources have placed unprecedented pressure on traditional grids that were never designed for this level of complexity, dynamism or centralisation.
Continuing to rely on centralised grid structures without fundamentally rethinking resilience puts entire regions at risk — not just from technical faults, but from environmental volatility.
The way to avoid such catastrophic risks is clear: we must embrace innovative solutions such as community microgrids. These are decentralised, flexible and resilient energy networks that can operate independently when needed.
Strengthening local energy autonomy is key to building a secure, affordable and future-ready electricity system.
The European blackout, regardless of its immediate cause, demonstrates that our electrical grids have become dangerously sensitive. Failure to address these structural weaknesses will have consequences far worse than those experienced during the COVID pandemic.
Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
India and Pakistan are once again at a standoff over Kashmir. A terror attack last week in the disputed region that killed 26 tourists – mostly Indian – has brought the two nuclear-armed South Asian rivals close to a devastating conflict.
India claims the incident was an act of cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan and has vowed to hunt down and punish the perpetrators. In retaliation, it has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty to deprive Pakistan of water from the Indus River, which runs through the Indian-controlled region of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan has condemned India’s action as an “act of war”.
Both sides have put their forces on alert as low-level clashes have broken out along the “Line of Control”, the de facto border established in the region following the first Indo-Pakistan war in 1947–48.
Pakistan’s defence minister now says a “military incursion” by India is imminent. Can all-out war between the two sides be averted?
A long-simmering dispute
At the time of the painful partition of British India in the 1940s, the country’s Muslim minority were given the option of joining the newly created state of Pakistan. Kashmir’s Hindu ruler initially wanted independence for the region, but in fear of invaders from Pakistan, decided to join India.
This laid the foundations for an enduring, bitter dispute over control of the Muslim-majority region. Attempts at a resolution have been hard to come by.
The dispute has also become intrinsically linked to the political and strategic postures of the two protagonists.
New Delhi has vehemently opposed any nationalist demands for independence in Jammu and Kashmir. It fears this would set a precedent for many other minorities who want autonomy in multi-ethnic India.
Initially, the region was given a special autonomous status under Article 370 of the Indian constitution. But since 2014, the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has forcefully sought to bring Jammu and Kashmir under New Delhi’s control.
In 2019, it revoked Article 370 and isolated the region from the rest of India and the outside world.
Modi’s government argued this was necessary to bring progress and prosperity to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In reality, it was aimed at squashing separatist movements and easing the way for more Hindus to move to the territory.
Pakistan condemned the scrapping of Article 370, exacerbating the tensions between the two regional powers.
New Delhi has also accused Pakistan of involvement in cross-border terrorist acts over the years. Islamabad has refuted New Delhi’s claims and castigated it for human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir and for denying the people their right to self-determination.
Nuclear deterrence has been effective
India and Pakistan fought two wars in 1965 and 1971, the latter resulting in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of the state of Bangladesh.
In 1999, the two rivals came very close to a nuclear exchange in the limited Kargil War in Kashmir, but pulled back from the brink. As I wrote at the time, the consequences of a nuclear war played a crucial role in both sides eventually backing down.
This is also the main reason the protagonists have not fought another all-out war in five decades, notwithstanding periodic clashes along the Line of Control and the Kargil conflict. And nuclear deterrence may once more prove effective in preventing the two sides from escalating the current conflict.
Pakistan is also going through a very politically, economically and socially fragile period in its history.
The country has been in political turmoil since the ousting and arrest of popular Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2023. The economy is in the doldrums. And the government faces a renewed threat from the Pakistani Taliban, amid growing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The main force holding Pakistan together is the military and the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.
India is facing its own challenges, despite being in a more stable position. The Modi government’s Hindu nationalism has marginalised minority groups, in particular the country’s Muslim population. And income inequality is growing, with the richest 1% of the country holding 58% of the wealth.
Neither country can afford a war right now – particularly one with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Many Australians struggle to keep themselves cool affordably and effectively, particularly with rising electricity prices. This is becoming a major health concern, especially for our most vulnerable people such as the elderly, pregnant women and people with cardiovascular diseases.
Air conditioning is often seen as the only solution to this problem. But relying too heavily on aircon has major downsides. These include hefty electricity bills, increased greenhouse gas emissions, strain on an already weak electricity grid, and dumping heat from buildings to the outside – further heating the outdoor air.
Our latest research, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, highlights a simple yet effective solution: a “fan-first” cooling approach.
The approach is simple: use electric fans as your first cooling strategy, and only turn on air conditioning when the indoor temperature exceeds 27°C.
Fan-First Cooling: The Smart Way to Beat Australia’s Heat Crisis (Federico Tartarini)
The solution: ‘fan-first’ cooling
Electric fans can make you feel more comfortable on a hot day simply by moving the air around you. This helps our body release heat in two ways: improving the transfer heat from your body into the air, and increasing the evaporation of sweat from your skin.
A gentle breeze can make you feel up to 4°C cooler, even when the weather is very hot and humid.
This allows you to increase the aircon set-point (the temperature at which cooling turns on) from 23-24°C to 27-28°C. This simple change can significantly reduce the amount of time your aircon is running, leading to substantial energy savings.
For example, in our previous research we showed raising the office air conditioning set-point from 24 to 26.5°C, with supplementary air movement from desk and ceiling fans, reduced energy consumption by 32%, without compromising thermal comfort.
Don’t fans still use electricity to run?
Yes fans still use electricity, but it’s as little as 3% of the electricity used to run air conditioning. That means you can run more than 30 fans with the same amount of energy it takes to run a single aircon unit.
A basic pedestal fan is cheap to buy (A$20 to $150), requires no installation and minimal maintenance, and can be easily moved around to keep you cool in any part of your house. Simply turn on the fan as soon as you start feeling slightly warm.
We also previously showed that using fans rather than airconditioning is a more effective emissions reduction strategy than switching from old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs to LED lighting.
Beyond the financial burden, the environmental impact of aircon is substantial. In Australia, electricity mainly comes from burning fossil fuels, creating greenhouse gas emissions. Even with the growth of renewable energy, the sheer demand for aircon cooling could strain the transition and the grid.
Furthermore, the refrigerants used in most aircon units are potent greenhouse gases. It will also take time to replace older and less efficient aircon units.
Aircon units also release heat into the outdoor environment, worsening the urban heat island effect – the phenomenon where cities are significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas.
Annual sales of air conditioning units have more than tripled globally since 1990. aapsky, Shutterstock
Using fans safely and effectively
While fans offer numerous benefits, it’s important to use them correctly, especially in very hot indoor conditions.
There’s a common misconception that fans should be turned off above 35°C because they might blow hot air onto the skin. This ignores the crucial role fans play in evaporating sweat.
Based on our field and lab research, we suggest five simple steps to using fans for managing heat at home:
consider buying pedestal or ceiling fans
point the fan at your body and adjust the speed to your liking
wear light clothing and stay hydrated
if you have aircon, increase the set-point to 27-28°C
enjoy a reduced energy bill and increased comfort.
You may also want to ask your employer to install fans at your workplace and share this “fan-first” cooling strategy with family and friends.
Let’s work together towards a more sustainable future by reducing our reliance on energy-intensive air conditioning. This will lead to lower electricity costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and increased resilience to heat.
Federico Tartarini is affiliated with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).
Angie Bone is a Board Member of Doctors for the Environment Australia.
Ollie Jay receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Wellcome Trust (UK).
But they show indecision on two key matters – the legal framework and the agency that would be in charge.
The plan relates primarily to conventional carbon capture and storage technologies, which remove carbon dioxide from an industrial gas flow and dispose of it deep underground.
It also covers some methods of carbon dioxide removal, an emerging but as yet commercially untested suite of technologies such as enhanced rock weathering, bio-energy capture and direct air capture.
The latter technologies are not predicated on fossil fuel consumption and could operate in many different situations.
Neither kind of carbon removal is a simple answer to the climate challenge and the priority remains on cutting emissions. But we need to have regulatory frameworks in place for both reduction and removal technologies of all kinds, and soon.
Earning credits from emissions trading
Both types of technologies will benefit from the government’s decision to allow companies to get credits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the disposal of carbon dioxide from any source. Credits will not be tied to any one technology, according to the released policy discussion documents.
It’s also a positive development that an operator can get credits as a separate removal activity, not merely as a reduction of an existing emissions liability (although official advice was initially against separate credits). This allows for diversity in the players and the systems for removals.
The government has decided it will assume liability for any carbon dioxide leaks from geological storage, but only after verification that fluids in the subsurface are behaving as expected after closure, and no sooner than 15 years after closure.
Leaks this long after injection are unlikely, but we nevertheless need strong regulation, financial assurance to guarantee remedial action and clear liability rules.
Companies will be able to earn credits for the permanent disposal of carbon dioxide. Shutterstock/VectorMine
The government also states ETS credits will only be available for removals that can be recognised internationally against New Zealand’s commitments to cut emissions. This would apply only to geological storage but not deep-ocean deposition or rock weathering.
But that’s not quite right. The general international rules already allow the inclusion in a national greenhouse gas inventory of removals from any process. Detailed methodologies for carbon dioxide removal are likely to become available within the next few years.
With change underway, New Zealand’s new regime should allow a wide range of removal methods to receive credits.
A new regulatory regime
The documents acknowledge that New Zealand needs a broader regulatory regime, beyond the ETS, to cover the entire process of carbon dioxide removal. The suitability of a disposal site must be verified, a detailed geological characterisation is required and the project design and operation need to be approved.
Approval is also required for closure and post-closure plans, and systematic monitoring. Monitoring is everything; it must be accurate and verifiable but also cost effective. The operator will have to pay for monitoring for decades after site closure.
In agreeing on these features, the government is following the examples of many countries overseas, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU.
However, it is intriguing that the government hasn’t decided where this new regime should sit in the statute book, and who should manage it. Much of the apparently relevant text in the documents has been redacted.
Given that carbon dioxide would be stored underground, the Crown Minerals Act is one possibility. But this legislation is all about extraction, not disposal. Although the New Zealand petroleum and minerals unit at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has expertise in regulating subsurface operations, it focuses largely on oil and gas, not on innovative climate projects.
The Resource Management Act certainly provides a regulatory approval regime, but it is awaiting reform and would need much more than the currently proposed changes to deal with carbon capture and storage or removal properly. So would legislation covering activities within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.
Indeed each act would require a whole new part to be added, with its own principles and procedures. There is a lot to be said for a standalone new act, in a form that would fit with the emerging Natural Environment Act that will replace the Resource Management Act.
The new legislation and regulation regime could be administered by the Environmental Protection Authority, which is already involved in Resource Management Act call-ins and fast-track approvals, the legislation covering the exclusive economic zone and the ETS.
One can only guess there might be tensions between contending factions in government. What we should ask for is a legislative and institutional arrangement that allows carbon capture and storage or removal technologies to evolve and grow without being a mere offshoot of the oil and gas industry or any other existing sector.
As part of our efforts to reduce emissions, we must make sure all kinds of removal technologies are available that truly suit New Zealand.
Barry Barton is part of the project “Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa” which is funded by the MBIE’s Endeavour Fund. In the past, he has received funding from MBIE and the gas industry for research on CCS legal issues.
He is a director of the Environmental Defence Society.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney
Any doubts that Australia’s growing housing challenges would be a major focus of the federal election campaign have been dispelled over recent weeks.
Both major parties announced strikingly ambitious housing initiatives as campaign centrepiece offers. So how do they compare?
What’s the Coalition offering?
The Coalition had already pledged several significant housing initiatives, should it form government. Among those, the biggest ticket item is the $5 billion program for enabling infrastructure to “unlock up to 500,000 new homes”.
In the absence of underpinning detail, both the wording of this pledge and its alleged potential impact have generated some scepticism.
Also announced well ahead of the campaign was the Coalition’s plan to allow first home buyers to draw down on their superannuation. They could withdraw up to $50,000 to help fund mortgage deposits.
Likewise, the Coalition’s newly unveiled plan to allow mortgage interests for first home buyers to be tax-deductible has been fiercely criticised for its likely inflationary and regressive effects.
Such arrangements are novel in Australia, but exist in some other countries. These include the Netherlands, where their impact has been recently described as damaging to both housing affordability and public finances.
What’s Labor offering?
Labor’s two new offers are to enable access to a mortgage with only a 5% deposit, and its $10 billion “Build to Sell” program.
As a demand-side instrument, the first of these could have some inflationary impact. But given the modest nature of the assistance provided, and that it only expands the existing Home Guarantee Scheme from its current maximum annual quota of 50,000 to an expected take-up of around 80,000, this is likely to be limited.
The Build to Sell plan would see collaboration with state and territory governments to commission 100,000 new homes in eight years. These would be for first home buyers only and, likely, for cost-price sale.
In further details of the plan, released just days out from polling day, Labor says the plan would be progressed partly via $2 billion in concessional loans to the states.
The whole build-to-sell idea revives the practice of the 1950s and 1960s where, in addition to constructing public housing for rent, state governments commissioned homes for sale. This contributed to the rapid rise in home ownership during that period.
As a supply-side measure, the new plan builds on the 2022 National Housing Accord. The accord aims to expand overall housing industry output to 1.2 million new homes in the five years to 2029.
Much about the Build to Sell plan has yet to be revealed. But from what we know, it looks like a bold initiative in challenging conventional modern thinking about the proper limits of direct state involvement in supplying a commodity largely provided through the market.
By expanding overall housing production, it could help in slightly moderating prices market-wide, as well as benefiting the homebuyers directly involved.
One-eyed agendas
When it comes to helping first home buyers, both parties have put forth some ambitious new propositions. But social housing and homelessness pledges have been glaringly absent from their proposals.
Neither Labor nor the Coalition has announced any significant new initiative to relieve rental stress at the lower end of the housing market, affecting millions of Australians. Measures that might, at least indirectly, help stem the rising tide of homelessness that now sees more than 10,000 newly homeless people being taken on by support agencies every month.
Given its numerous initiatives to increase assistance to low-income and otherwise disadvantaged renters already enacted since 2022, Labor has a somewhat stronger excuse here.
But while Albanese government measures, such as increased rent assistance, have eased the situation for some hard-pressed tenants, many other measures will only start to help in the next term of parliament.
That’s especially true for the Housing Australia Future Fund and all of Labor’s other post-2022 federal programs to expand social and affordable housing construction. Pledged commitments during the current parliament should add 55,000 new social and affordable homes to the national portfolio.
In combination with the Build to Sell initiative, this would see state-commissioned or otherwise funded housing construction perhaps equating to as much as 10% of all home-building later this decade. While short of the 16% achieved in the 1945-70 period, that would be a giant increase over the 1-2% typically recorded during the 2010s.
Even so, social and affordable housing investment so far pledged by Labor is limited in relation to demand. It’s estimated 640,000 households have an unmet need for social or affordable housing.
The Coalition says if it wins the election, it would abolish the housing future fund. When asked how he would replace it, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor declared it unnecessary because “there’s billions of dollars that [already] goes to the states for social housing”.
While narrowly true, this is also disingenuous. The relatively modest funds referenced here – paid annually under the National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness – are entirely swallowed up in balancing the operating budgets of state public housing authorities.
With public housing systems otherwise mired deep in deficits, it’s been decades since this funding stream has been sufficient to generate any new housing supply.
In this respect, the Coalition’s 2025 housing pitch foreshadows a resumption of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison stance: nine years of federal subsidy drought for new social and affordable housing.
What else is missing?
Many have also criticised the recent major party offers as ignoring the overdue need for fundamental housing tax reform.
That’s true for Labor. But the Coalition’s pitch on mortgage interest would, in fact, amount to a major property tax reset.
Unfortunately, though, this so-called “negative gearing for first home buyers” would pile yet another damaging “market distortion” on top of all our existing property ownership tax breaks.
These concessions have, over decades, contributed to today’s housing affordability problem, as their value is capitalised into higher prices.
As observed by researcher Peter Mares, this new Coalition foray only goes to shine an even brighter light on the rational case to confront that problem head-on.
Hal Pawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Crisis UK. He is a part-time unpaid advisor to Senator David Pocock.
Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney is projected to have pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.
Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.
The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”
Poilievre’s messaging
The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.
This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.
The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.
The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.
Advance voting in a gendered election
Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.
Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.
While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?
This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.
Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.
The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.
These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.
Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.
Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.
Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.
Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.
This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.
These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.
Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Another election, another wave of unsolicited political texts. Over this campaign, our digital mailboxes have been stuffed with a slew of political appeals and promises, many from the new party Trumpet of Patriots (backed by Clive Palmer, a veteran of the mass text campaign).
The practice isn’t new, and it’s totally legal under current laws. It’s also non-partisan. Campaigns of all stripes have partaken. Behold, the Liberal Party’s last-minute SMS to voters about asylum seekers before the 2022 federal election, or Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” text before the 2016 poll. Despite multiple cycles of criticism, these tactics remain a persistent feature of Australian election campaigns.
A recent proposal to update decades-old rules could help change things – if a government would put it into practice.
What does the law say about political spam?
Several laws regulate spam and data collection in Australia.
First, there is the Spam Act. This legislation requires that organisations obtain our consent before sending us marketing emails, SMSs and instant messages. The unsubscribe links you see at the bottom of spam emails? Those are mandated by the Spam Act.
Second, the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) Act. This Act establishes a “do not call” register, managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which individuals can join to opt out of telemarketing calls.
Finally, there is the Privacy Act, which governs how organisations collect, use and disclose our personal information. Among other things, the Privacy Act requires that organisations tell us when and why they are collecting our personal information, and the purposes for which they intend to use it. It restricts organisations from re-purposing personal information collected for a particular purpose, unless an exception applies.
This trio of laws was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. It does not, however, stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago.
The Spam Act and DNCR Act apply to marketing for goods and services but not election policies and promises, while the Privacy Act contains a carve-out for political parties, representatives and their contractors.
The upshot is that their campaigns are free to spam and target voters at will. Their only obligation is to disclose who authorised the message.
How do political campaigns get our information?
Secrecy about the nature and extent of campaign data operations, enabled by the exemptions, makes it difficult to pinpoint precisely where a campaign might have obtained your data from.
There are, however, a number of ways political campaigns can acquire our information.
One source is the electoral roll (though not for phone numbers, as the Australian Electoral Commission often points out). Incumbent candidates might build on this with information they obtain through contact with constituents which, thanks to the exemptions, they’re allowed to re-purpose for campaigning at election time.
Another source is data brokers – firms which harvest, analyse and sell large quantities of data and profiles.
We know the major parties have long maintained voter databases to support their targeting efforts, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the years.
Other outfits might take more haphazard approaches – former MP Craig Kelly, for example, claimed to use software to randomly generate numbers for his texting campaign in 2021.
What can be done?
Unwanted campaign texts are not only irritating to some. They can be misleading.
This year, there have been reports of “push polling” texts (pseudo surveys meant to persuade rather than gauge voter options) in the marginal seat of Kooyong. The AEC has warned about misleading postal vote applications being issued by parties via SMS.
This election campaign has seen a flood of texts from Trumpet of Patriots among others. The Conversation, CC BY-SA
Generative AI is hastening the ability to produce misleading content, cheaply and at scale, which can be quickly pushed out across an array of online social and instant messaging services.
In short, annoying texts are just one visible symptom of a wider vulnerability created by the political exemptions.
The basic argument for the political exemptions is to facilitate freedom of political communication, which is protected by the Constitution. As the High Court has said, that freedom is necessary to support informed electoral choice. It does not, however, guarantee speakers a captive audience.
In 2022, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed narrowing the political exemptions, as part of a suite of updates to the Privacy Act. Per the proposal, parties and representatives would need to be more transparent about their data operations, provide voters with an option to unsubscribe from targeted ads, refrain from targeting voters based on “sensitive information”, and handle data in a “fair and reasonable” manner.
The changes would be an overdue but welcome step, recognising the essential role of voter privacy in a functioning democratic system.
Unfortunately, the government has not committed to taking up the proposal.
A bipartisan lack of support is likely the biggest obstacle, even as the gap created by the political exemptions widens, and its rationale becomes flimsier, with each election cycle.
Tegan Cohen has received funding from the Australian Research Council (FT210100263). She has volunteered for not-for-profit groups and parties, including the Wilderness Society and the Australian Greens.
The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards.
It’s a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers’ strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions.
But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect.
What the new rules say
The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination.
What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work.
This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films.
At this year’s Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor’s Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez – the most nominated film, with 13 nods – also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production.
The Oscars update isn’t introducing AI to Hollywood. It’s simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use.
Do audiences mind?
To understand how audiences respond to AI’s creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people’s reactions to AI-generated film ideas.
For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film “pitches” in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming).
Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime.
The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved.
AI-assisted versus AI-produced
It’s important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas – the initial pitch for a film – and not the final product. This distinction matters.
AI’s role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film.
As we note in our paper, AI’s limited involvement likely shaped participants’ responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product.
This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated.
Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI’s contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product.
That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too.
What it means for the industry
Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation.
While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn’t mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how – and who gets to decide the terms.
If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship.
This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions – including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems.
The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When refugees flee their home country due to war, violence, conflict or persecution, they are often forced to leave behind their families.
For more than 30,000 people who have sought asylum in Australia since arriving more than a decade ago, that separation has stretched into more than a decade. This group of people – known in policy circles as “the legacy caseload” – need a clear pathway to reunite with family members.
Refugees separated from family are plagued by guilt and worry for their family members’ safety. This makes it extremely difficult to focus on education, work or getting settled.
The right to family unity is a basic human right and vital to any humane refugee policy.
However, tensions arise between refugees’ conceptions of family and the restrictive definitions embedded in Australian law.
High costs, complex administrative requirements, and lengthy processing times often delay or prevent families from reuniting.
The legacy caseload: more than a decade in limbo
The so-called “legacy caseload” refers to approximately 30,000 people who arrived by boat between 2012 and 2014, and who were placed on Temporary Protection Visas.
For more than a decade, they were denied a pathway to permanency and barred from sponsoring family members to join them in Australia.
That policy made life so unbearable, more than 6,500 people from this group “chose” to return home despite the risks they face. This raises serious concerns about whether they were genuinely able to make a free choice, or were pushed into returning to danger.
Since the Albanese government’s 2022 commitment to end temporary protection, almost 20,000 people have been eligible to transition to permanent visas through the Resolution of Status process.
This is a crucial step. Without a permanent visa, they could not sponsor family members.
Even with permanency, however, family reunion remains out of reach for many “legacy caseload” refugees. This is due to outdated laws, harsh policies and bureaucratic delays.
Many of these refugees have not seen their spouses or children since before their arrival. Because they arrived by boat, they are barred from proposing family members through the humanitarian visa program and must use the family migration program.
That’s significant because the humanitarian program has a much broader definition of “family”, and grants people access to settlement services after they arrive.
Still unresolved is the fate of some 7,000 people who were refused protection under the flawed fast track system (a now abandoned policy that was supposed to speed up processing but actually introduced delays and unfairness).
The main barriers to family reunification for refugees include:
high visa fees (partner visa application charges, when they include children, can cost more than A$20,000)
strict legal definitions (children over 23 are not classified as “dependents”; a child who was 12 when their parent fled may now be 24 — legally an adult, but still dependent and at risk)
barriers to documentation (war and instability can make it difficult or dangerous to obtain documents, such as passports or identity papers)
limited access to embassies
technical issues with online applications
repeated health checks (there is a visa requirement health checks but they are only valid for 12 months, so may need to be repeated if visa processing is delayed)
unclear rules around exemptions.
These uncertainties further delay the process and add emotional and financial strain.
introducing visa application charge concessions for refugees
allowing people to pay fees in instalments
adapting visa processing to reflect realities faced by refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, such as challenges obtaining identity documents
establishing a dedicated unit in the Department of Home Affairs for processing visas from refugee families
prioritising families where children may “age out”.
They have also called for changes to the legal definitions of “dependent” and “member of the family unit”. This is to reflect the diverse familial structures in many refugee communities.
For many refugees, family extends beyond the Western concept of the nuclear family. It may also encompass, for instance, adult daughters and parents (who often play pivotal care-giving roles).
Another big issue for many refugee families is single young women in Afghanistan being left behind because they have aged out.
Reuniting families
Australia can learn from other countries.
Canada’s refugee sponsorship program actively supports family reunification.
New Zealand offers a more affordable and flexible system. Their definitions of family are broader and visa fees are lower.
Without family reunion, a refugee’s safety remains incomplete.
I’m partly safer [in Australia], but inside I’m not safe […] I’m always afraid for the future of my family.
Thousands of refugees in Australia are still waiting. Their families remain in danger. The legal and policy tools to fix this already exist. What’s missing, for now, is the political will.
Reforming Australia’s family reunion system would mean more efficient refugee resettlement and integration, ultimately benefiting broader Australian society.
Mary Anne Kenny is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and an affiliate of the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She was on the Ministerial Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention (an independent advisory body) between 2012 and 2018.
This was a response from a 16-year-old boy in one of our recent studies when asked what he would say to the prime minister about gambling in Australia.
Even before they can legally gamble at the age of 18, young people recognise the harms that the gambling industry (and those who profit from gambling, such as sporting codes) can cause to Australians.
And they are frustrated by a lack of government action to protect them from these harms.
They tell us that rather than prioritising the wellbeing of the community, the government is prioritising the profits of a harmful business.
Politicians are also hearing concerns about gambling from the young people they represent in their communities.
Talk to parents and young people. They’ll name all the gambling companies. They’ll be able to recite odds. They’ll talk about the odds for the upcoming games of their favourite teams. What I’m hearing from people here in the ACT that I represent is that this is not the direction they want to go in.
Gambling has become a costly pastime for many young Australians.
Starting young
For more than a decade, our team has been talking to young people and their parents about the normalisation of gambling in Australia. We have carried out multiple studies that show how pervasive marketing tactics are normalising gambling for young Australians.
Young people tell us they see innovative marketing strategies for different gambling products (including betting, lotteries and casinos) everywhere, including during family-friendly television shows, through watching and attending sport and even while walking down the street.
They increasingly see promotions on social media sites such as TikTok and Snapchat.
They can name multiple gambling brands from a young age, and think gambling gives you a reason to watch sport.
When asked why, they say gambling adds to the fun and excitement of the game. Some tell us they would be convinced to gamble if they got a good “deal” from a company.
Newer forms of app-based gambling also make it is easier for young people to gamble anywhere, anytime when they turn 18.
As an example, a young person couldn’t sit in a classroom and drink alcohol when they reach the legal age, but it is not unusual for young people to tell us that classmates use apps to bet on major events while at school.
Some researchers have also documented the extent to which young people gamble before the age of 18.
One study found 31% of 12- to 17-year-olds had ever gambled and 6% had gambled in the past month. They found 8% were at some level of risk of gambling harm.
It’s no wonder parents are worried.
Their concern about the risks of gambling are similar to their concerns about alcohol: 70% are at least somewhat concerned about the risks associated with gambling for their children, and 27.7% are extremely concerned.
They comment that gambling products are “highly accessible”, “attractive” and “in your face”.
When parents try to talk to their children about gambling, they say it is almost impossible to “get the message across” given the constant exposure to ads that their children see in their everyday lives. As one father told us:
It’s advertised to children every day of the week when they watch their favourite sport stars, so they think it’s normal.
It’s time to act
Government decisions about how to respond to the gambling industry will have a major impact on young people’s futures. But young people have rarely (if ever) been given an opportunity by the government to put forward their views.
Research shows when they are given the opportunity to comment on gambling policy (and gambling industry tactics), they carefully consider the issues. They are also able to use their own experiences to suggest strategies that would help protect them and other young people from gambling industry harm.
Young people have been central actors in the climate justice movement, and have been key stakeholders in initiatives to respond to the tactics of the junk food and tobacco industries.
While we talk a lot about the impact of the gambling industry on young people, governments rarely consult them about the policies that are needed to protect them from harm.
Yet their message to the government in our research is clear. They:
are concerned about the influence of gambling marketing on the normalisation of gambling for young people, and its short and long-term impacts
believe current restrictions aimed at protecting young people are ineffective
are critical of the overwhelmingly positive messages about gambling they are exposed to, with very limited information about the risks and harms associated with the industry and its products.
The wellbeing of the population is more important than the revenue that comes in from these sorts of businesses.
Dr Hannah Pitt has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Department of Social Services, ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.
Grace Arnot has received funding for gambling related research from the ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, VicHealth, and Deakin University. Grace is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Health Promotion International.
Professor Samantha Thomas has received funding for gambling and related research from the Australian Research Council, ACT Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Social Services, VicHealth, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Healthway, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Deakin University. She is currently Editor in Chief for Health Promotion International, an Oxford University Press journal. She receives an honorarium for this role.
Dr Simone McCarthy has received funding for gambling and related research from ACT Office of Gaming and Racing Commision, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, Department of Social Services, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.
As the world’s only surviving egg-laying mammals, Australasia’s platypus and four echidna species are among the most extraordinary animals on Earth.
They are also very different from each other.
The platypus is well adapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle, spending up to 20 hours a day swimming in Australian waterways to forage for freshwater invertebrates. Echidnas, on the other hand, live entirely on land. They are widely distributed across Australia and New Guinea, and adapted for feeding on termites, ants and earthworms.
How did these differences emerge? Some researchers think echidnas evolved from a swimming, platypus-like ancestor. This hypothesis is based on evidence from aspects of their genes and anatomy, and from hypotheses about their evolutionary history.
However, this idea is controversial because fossil evidence for such a profound evolutionary transformation has been lacking – until now.
In our study published today in PNAS, we gleaned new data from a 108-million-year-old mammal humerus (arm bone), found 30 years ago at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, by a team from Museums Victoria.
This arm bone, from a species called Kryoryctes cadburyi, belongs to an ancestral monotreme – a semi-aquatic burrower like the platypus. Our findings support the hypothesis that land-living echidnas evolved from a swimming ancestor.
Kryoryctes lived during the Age of Dinosaurs (the Mesozoic), when monotremes and monotreme relatives were more common than they are today. Glimpses of this past diversity are found in the fossil record in southern Victoria and Lightning Ridge, New South Wales.
Nevertheless, Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils are exceedingly rare, and mostly consist of teeth and jaws. Kryoryctes is the only one known from a limb bone, which provides significant information about its identity, relationships and lifestyle.
Reconstruction of Kryoryctes cadburyi and a small dinosaur (above) at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, Australia ~108 million years ago. Peter Schouten
Tiny clues inside bones
In order to test the evolutionary relationships of Kryoryctes, we added it to a broader data set of 70 fossil and modern mammals. From there, we calculated an evolutionary tree. This showed Kryoryctes is an ancestral monotreme.
We also compared the external shape of the Kryroryctes humerus bone to living monotremes. These analyses indicated the bone is more like those of echidnas, rather than platypuses.
But it was a different story on the inside. When we looked at the internal structure of the Kryoryctes humerus with several 3D scanning techniques, we uncovered microscopic features of this arm bone that were actually more like those of the platypus.
Such tiny features inside bones yield crucial clues about the lifestyle of an animal. Numerous previous studies link bone microstructure in mammals and other tetrapods (four-limbed animals) with their ecology.
Using the wealth of data available for living mammals, we compared characteristics of the Kryoryctes humerus microstructure to those in platypuses, echidnas and 74 other mammal species.
These analyses confirmed that the Kryoryctes humerus has internal bone features found in semi-aquatic burrowing mammals (such as the platypus, muskrat and Eurasian otter), rather than land-living burrowing mammals such as the echidna.
The Kryoryctes humerus we studied. Museums Victoria
From water to land
This discovery suggests that a semi-aquatic lifestyle is ancestral for all living monotremes. It also suggests the amphibious lifestyle of the modern platypus had its origins at least 100 million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs.
In this scenario, the modern platypus lineage has retained the ancestral semi-aquatic burrowing lifestyle for more than 100 million years. Echidnas would have reverted to a land-based way of life more recently.
For echidnas, a return to land appears to have resulted in adaptations such as their long bones becoming lighter, as shown in our study.
They possibly also lost several other features more useful for spending time in the water rather than on land, including the loss of a long tail, reduction of webbing between fingers and toes, reduction of the duck-like bill to a narrow beak, and a reduced number of electroreceptors on that beak.
However, precisely when this evolutionary transformation occurred is not yet known. The answer must wait until early echidna fossils are found – so far, nothing definitive has turned up anywhere.
The modern habitats of monotremes are increasingly under threat from environmental degradation, interactions with humans and feral predators, and climate change. This is especially true for platypuses. To ensure the survival of this ancient lineage, we need to better understand how their unique features evolved and adapted.
Sue Hand receives funding from the Australian Research Council
Laura A. B. Wilson receives funding from the Australian Research Council
Robin Beck receives funding from the UK’s National Environmental Research Council, and the Australian Research Council.
Camilo López-Aguirre 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.
We’ve discovered that a meteorite struck northwest Scotland 1 billion years ago, 200 million years later than previously thought. Our results are published today in the journal Geology.
This impact now aligns with some of Earth’s earliest known, land based, non-marine microbial fossils, and offers new insights into how meteorite strikes may have shaped our planet’s environment and life.
A rocky treasure trove
The Torridonian rocks of northwest Scotland are treasured by geologists as some of the finest archives of the ancient lakes and river systems that existed a billion years ago.
Those water bodies were home to microbial ecosystems consisting of eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are single-celled organisms with complex internal structures that are the ancestors of all plants and animals.
But the Torridonian environments and their associated microbial communities were dramatically disrupted when a meteor slammed into the planet.
A drone’s-eye view of the Stac Fada Member reveals towering blocks of sandstone preserving a meteorite impact frozen in time. Look closely and you’ll spot figures for scale, dwarfed by the chaotic jumble of rock fragments encased in impact-smashed debris. Tony Prave
The record of this event is preserved in a geological unit known as the Stac Fada Member. It is comprised of unusual layers of rock fragments broken and melted by the impact.
Also, crucially, there are shock-altered minerals that closely resemble those found in famous impact sites such as Chicxulub (Mexico) and Sudbury (Canada).
In the case of the Stac Fada, these minerals were engulfed in high-energy, ground-hugging flows of smashed rock triggered by the impact that spread across the ancient landscape.
What is exciting about our new date for the Stac Fada impact is that it now overlaps in age with microfossils preserved elsewhere in the Torridonian rocks.
This raises some interesting questions. For example, how did the meteorite strike influence the environmental conditions those early non-marine microbial ecosystems relied on?
Finding out the date
Determining when a meteorite struck is no easy task.
We can use minerals to constrain the age, but they have to be the right kind. In this case it means something that wasn’t overly altered by the intense heat, pressure and fluids generated by the impact, yet robust enough to survive the ravages of deep geological time.
Suitable minerals are extremely rare, but we found a few in the Stac Fada rocks. One was reidite, a mineral that only forms under extreme pressure. The other was granular zircon, a uranium-bearing mineral formed by immense impact temperatures.
Electron microscope image of a shocked zircon: blue is granular zircon, red is reidite formed under extreme pressure from a meteorite impact. Timmons Erickson
These minerals are, in effect, tiny stopwatches whose clocks start “ticking” at the time they form. Although these clocks are often damaged during the impact and the ensuing pulse of heat, we used mathematical modelling to determine the most probable time of impact.
Together, these techniques consistently pointed to an event 1 billion years old, not 1.2 billion years old as previously suggested. Given such vast spans of time, a 20% change in age might not seem dramatic.
However, the new age shows the timing of the impact coincides with early non-marine eukaryotic fossils. It also lines up with a major mountain-building event. This means the Torridonian lifeforms had to cope with significant, environment-altering phenomena.
Why this is important for you, me, and life in general
The origin of life is a deeply complex process that likely began with a series of pre-biotic chemical reactions.
While much remains unknown, it is intriguing that two ancient meteorite impacts, the 3.5-billion-year-old North Pole impact in Western Australia and now the 1-billion-year-old Stac Fada deposit in northwest Scotland, occur close in time to major milestones in the fossil record.
The North Pole impact occurs in a sequence of rocks containing stromatolites, some of the oldest-known fossils considered to be indicative of microbial life.
These rippled layers in the Torridon rocks were built by ancient microbial communities, evidence of some of the earliest life on land. Tony Prave
All life requires energy. The earliest forms of life are thought to be associated with volcanic hydrothermal springs. Impacts offer a plausible alternative. The immediate aftermath of a meteorite strike is extreme and hostile, and would ruin your day. But the long-term effects could support key biological processes.
Meteorite strikes fracture rocks, generate long-lived hydrothermal systems and form crater lakes that enable the concentration of important ingredients for life, such as clays, organic molecules and phosphorus. The latter is a key element for all forms of life.
In Scotland, the Stac Fada impact lies within an ancient river and lake environment that housed microbial ecosystems colonising the land. What makes the Stac Fada impact deposits fascinating is that, unlike most other impacts on Earth, they preserve the environments in which those pioneering organisms lived immediately prior to the impact.
Further, the impact deposits were subsequently buried as non-marine microbial habitats became reestablished. So, the Stac Fada rocks provide an opportunity to see how microbial life recovered from impact.
Extraterrestrial visitors in the form of meteorite collisions may not just have scarred Earth’s surface, but shaped its future, turning catastrophic events into natural crater-cradles of life.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Have you ever used ChatGPT to draft a work email? Perhaps to summarise a report, research a topic or analyse data in a spreadsheet? If so, you certainly aren’t alone.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the world of work. Released today, our global study of more than 32,000 workers from 47 countries shows that 58% of employees intentionally use AI at work – with a third using it weekly or daily.
Most employees who use it say they’ve gained some real productivity and performance benefits from adopting AI tools.
However, a concerning number are using AI in highly risky ways – such as uploading sensitive information into public tools, relying on AI answers without checking them, and hiding their use of it.
There’s an urgent need for policies, training and governance on responsible use of AI, to ensure it enhances – not undermines – how work is done.
Most employees report performance benefits from AI adoption at work. These include improvements in:
efficiency (67%)
information access (61%)
innovation (59%)
work quality (58%).
These findings echo prior research demonstrating AI can drive productivity gains for employees and organisations.
We found general-purpose generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are by far the most widely used. About 70% of employees rely on free, public tools, rather than AI solutions provided by their employer (42%).
However, almost half the employees we surveyed who use AI say they have done so in ways that could be considered inappropriate (47%) and even more (63%) have seen other employees using AI inappropriately.
One key concern surrounding AI tools in the workplace is the handling of sensitive company information – such as financial, sales or customer information.
Nearly half (48%) of employees have uploaded sensitive company or customer information into public generative AI tools, and 44% admit to having used AI at work in ways that go against organisational policies.
This aligns with other research showing 27% of content put into AI tools by employees is sensitive.
Check your answer
We found complacent use of AI is also widespread, with 66% of respondents saying they have relied on AI output without evaluating it. It is unsurprising then that a majority (56%) have made mistakes in their work due to AI.
Younger employees (aged 18-34 years) are more likely to engage in inappropriate and complacent use than older employees (aged 35 or older).
About a third (35%) of employees say the use of AI tools in their workplace has increased privacy and compliance risks.
‘Shadow’ AI use
When employees aren’t transparent about how they use AI, the risks become even more challenging to manage.
We found most employees have avoided revealing when they use AI (61%), presented AI-generated content as their own (55%), and used AI tools without knowing if it is allowed (66%).
This invisible or “shadow AI” use doesn’t just exacerbate risks – it also severely hampers an organisation’s ability to detect, manage and mitigate risks.
A lack of training, guidance and governance appears to be fuelling this complacent use. Despite their prevalence, only a third of employees (34%) say their organisation has a policy guiding the use of generative AI tools, with 6% saying their organisation bans it.
Pressure to adopt AI may also fuel complacent use, with half of employees fearing they will be left behind if they do not.
Almost half of respondents said they had uploaded company financial, sales or customer information into public AI tools. Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock
Better literacy and oversight
Collectively, our findings reveal a significant gap in the governance of AI tools and an urgent need for organisations to guide and manage how employees use them in their everyday work. Addressing this will require a proactive and deliberate approach.
Investing in responsible AI training and developing employees’ AI literacy is key. Our modelling shows self-reported AI literacy – including training, knowledge, and efficacy – predicts not only whether employees adopt AI tools but also whether they critically engage with them.
This includes how well they verify the tools’ output, and consider their limitations before making decisions.
We found AI literacy is also associated with greater trust in AI use at work and more performance benefits from its use.
Despite this, less than half of employees (47%) report having received AI training or related education.
Organisations also need to put in place clear policies, guidelines and guardrails, systems of accountability and oversight, and data privacy and security measures.
There are many resources to help organisations develop robust AI governance systems and support responsible AI use.
The right culture
On top of this, it’s crucial to create a psychologically safe work environment, where employees feel comfortable to share how and when they are using AI tools.
The benefits of such a culture go beyond better oversight and risk management. It is also central to developing a culture of shared learning and experimentation that supports responsible diffusion of AI use and innovation.
AI has the potential to improve the way we work. But it takes an AI-literate workforce, robust governance and clear guidance, and a culture that supports safe, transparent and accountable use. Without these elements, AI becomes just another unmanaged liability.
This research was supported by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia and funding from KPMG International. The research was conducted independently by Professor Nicole Gillespie and Dr Steve Lockey and their research team at Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, and published in collaboration with KPMG.
The Australian screen industry is often associated with fun, creativity and perhaps even glamour. But our new Pressure Point Report reveals a more troubling reality: a pervasive mental health crisis, which could see the screen industry lose a significant number of workers in the near future.
The two-year study led by Griffith University found burnout levels mirroring those found among healthcare workers.
Of the 864 survey responses we analysed, 72% said the screen industry is not a mentally healthy place to work, 36% frequently considered quitting in the past six months, and 25% said they would likely quit within the next six months.
The human toll of creativity
Working in film and television industry has been glamourised, with many aspiring creatives willing to endure difficult conditions to be part of making screen magic.
In a fast-paced environment, where budgets and timelines are squeezed, half of the survey respondents reported facing constant unreasonable deadlines, and 57% described themselves as completely drained by the end of the day.
Even more alarming, 59% struggled with work-life balance, having “little to no life outside of work”, and 62% felt pressured to not claim basic entitlements such as sick leave or holiday pay.
As one participant told us:
I’ve missed birthdays, weddings, and my kid’s school events because of impossible deadlines that could have been managed better with proper planning.
Historically, the industry has relied on workers’ passion to offset poor conditions. However, we’re now seeing a breaking point where even the most dedicated professionals are questioning if it’s worth the personal cost.
A culture of silence
The concerning statistics from our study uncover an underlying culture of misconduct by both practitioners and supervisors. Almost half of respondents experienced bullying in the past year, while 35% encountered sexual harassment or discrimination.
More troubling still, 36% of victims never formally reported incidents. They feared career damage, or that nothing would be done.
One respondent confided:
after witnessing how others were treated when they spoke up, I decided to stay quiet about my own experiences. It feels like complaining is career suicide in this industry.
This response echoes many of the other voices we heard from. Such experiences can lead to a toxic cycle in which unchecked workplace behaviours further damage people’s mental health across the industry.
Inequality compounds the problem
Our research demonstrates the mental health burden falls disproportionately on already marginalised groups.
Women face higher rates of unmanageable workload (54% compared to 38% for men) and poorer work/life balance. They also reported sexual harassment at more than triple the rate of men.
LGBTQIA+ practitioners are significantly worse off, too. They experience elevated rates of depression and sleep issues.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse practitioners, and those living with a disability also face significantly higher rates of negative experiences.
The highest rates of adverse interactions were experienced by neurodivergent professionals and those with pre-existing mental health conditions. Many of them told us that others routinely disregard their professional opinions.
Beyond ‘wellness workshops’
“This industry needs more than a quick fix — it needs real, lasting change,” one veteran crew member emphasised. “That means calling out toxic behaviour, backing workers with proper support, and creating fair conditions where people are treated with respect.”
Our study highlights that surface-level solutions, such as isolated mental health workshops, can’t address the industry’s systemic problems.
Three-quarters of industry workers reported needing mental health support specifically because of their work. We have also found deep flaws in how productions are structured – and a need for the entire industry to see film sets as workplaces just like any other.
Genuine structural change is needed to stop the talent drain currently facing the screen industry.
The summit discussed potential reform models from other high-stress industries, including the construction industry’s MATES program and the UK Film and TV Charity’s Whole Picture Toolkit.
Doing more for Australia’s screen industry matters, not just because it produces entertainment for us — but because it captures our national identity and gives us a global voice.
An exodus of talent would threaten both the quantity and quality of local content. Australia has worked hard to position itself as a global production hub, attracting major international projects and Hollywood blockbusters that create jobs and build expertise.
If nearly a quarter of the workforce exits, the industry would severely diminish its capacity to capitalise on these opportunities.
Peter Hegedus receives funding from Screen Queensland for developing and producing documentaries.
Bobbi-Lea Dionysius receives funding from Screen Queensland for developing and producing documentaries and VR projects. She is affiliated with Women in Film & TV (WIFT).
If you’ve ever tried to build a new habit – whether that’s exercising more, eating healthier, or going to bed earlier – you may have heard the popular claim that it only takes 21 days to form a habit.
It’s a neat idea. Short, encouraging and full of promise. But there’s just one problem: it’s not true.
The 21-day myth can be traced back to Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon in the 1960s, who observed it took about three weeks for his patients to adjust to physical changes. This idea was later picked up and repeated in self-help books, eventually becoming accepted wisdom.
But as psychologists and behavioural scientists have since discovered, habit formation is much more complex.
How long does it really take?
A 2010 study followed volunteers trying to build simple routines – such as drinking water after breakfast or eating a daily piece of fruit – and found it took a median of 66 days for the behaviour to become automatic.
We recently reviewed several studies looking at how long it took people to form health-related habits. We found, on average, it took around two to five months.
Specifically, the studies that measured time to reach automaticity (when a behaviour becomes second nature) found that habit formation took between 59 and 154 days. Some people developed a habit in as few as four days. Others took nearly a year.
This wide range highlights that habit formation isn’t one-size-fits-all. It depends on what the behaviour is, how often it’s repeated, how complex it is, and who’s doing it.
Habit strength plays a key role in consistency. A 2021 systematic review focused on physical activity and found the stronger the habit (meaning the more automatic and less effortful the behaviour felt) the more likely people were to exercise regularly.
It’s not entirely surprising that easy, low-effort behaviours such as drinking water or taking a daily vitamin tend to form faster than complex ones like training for a marathon.
But whatever the habit, research shows sticking to it is not just about boosting motivation or willpower. Interventions that actively support habit formation – through repetition, cues and structure – are much more effective for creating lasting change.
For example, programs that encourage people to schedule regular exercise at the same time each day, or apps that send reminders to drink water after every meal, help build habits by making the behaviour easier to repeat and harder to forget.
Our research, which drew on data from more than 2,600 people, showed habit-building interventions can make a real difference across a range of behaviours – from flossing and healthy eating to regular exercise.
But what stood out most was that even small, everyday actions can grow into powerful routines, when repeated consistently. It’s not about overhauling your life overnight, but about steadily reinforcing behaviours until they become second nature.
8 tips for building lasting habits
If you’re looking to build a new habit, here are some science-backed tips to help them stick:
Give it time. Aim for consistency over 60 days. It’s not about perfection – missing a day won’t reset the clock.
Make it easy. Start small. Choose a behaviour you can realistically repeat daily.
Attach your new habit to an existing routine. That is, make the new habit easier to remember by linking it to something you already do – such as flossing right before you brush your teeth.
Build in rewards, for example making a special coffee after a morning walk or watching an episode of your favourite show after a week of consistent workouts. Positive emotions help habits stick, so celebrate small wins.
Morning is best. Habits practised in the morning tend to form more reliably than those attempted at night. This may be because people typically have more motivation and fewer distractions earlier in the day, making it easier to stick to new routines before daily demands build up.
Personal choice boosts success. People are more likely to stick with habits they choose themselves.
Repetition in a stable context is key. Performing the same behaviour in the same situation (such as walking right after lunch each day) increases the chances it will become automatic.
Habits practised in the morning tend to form more reliably than those attempted at night. Ground Picture/Shutterstock
Why the 21-day myth matters
Believing habits form in 21 days sets many people up to fail. When change doesn’t “click” within three weeks, it’s easy to feel like you’re doing something wrong. This can lead to frustration, guilt and giving up entirely.
By contrast, understanding the real timeline can help you stay motivated when things feel slow.
Evidence shows habit formation usually takes at least two months, and sometimes longer. But it also shows change is possible.
Our research and other evidence confirm that repeated, intentional actions in stable contexts really do become automatic. Over time, new behaviours can feel effortless and deeply ingrained.
So whether you’re trying to move more, eat better, or improve your sleep, the key isn’t speed – it’s consistency. Stick with it. With time, the habit will stick with you.
Ashleigh E. Smith receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and a Dementia Australia Research Foundation Henry Brodaty Mid-Career Fellowship.
Ben Singh 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.
Arsenic is a nasty poison that once reigned as the ultimate weapon of deception. In the 18th century, it was the poison of choice for those wanting to kill their enemies and spouses, favoured for its undetectable nature and the way its symptoms mimicked common gastrointestinal issues like stomach pain, diarrhoea and vomiting.
One of the most famous deaths believed to be due to arsenic poisoning was that of French general Napoleon Bonaparte in 1821. While there’s still considerable controversy over the definite cause of Napoleon’s death, there is enough evidence that arsenic did at least contribute.
Analysis of Napoleon’s hair in 1961 found it contained more than ten times the normal concentrations of arsenic. The most likely source of exposure was from an arsenic compound used as a pigment in wallpapers in the 18th century.
Centuries later, arsenic is still widespread in the world, and causing major health problems. But thankfully scientists – including myself – are developing more effective ways of measuring arsenic to reduce the harm it causes to people.
A tasteless poison
Arsenic in its elemental state is a grey, brittle solid. Its nucleus has 33 protons and 42 neutrons, giving it similar chemical properties to phosphorus.
The elemental form of arsenic is actually non-toxic; it is the compounds of arsenic that are poisonous. Pure elements have a tendency to bond to other elements and form compounds, because this provides elements with more stability.
When arsenic combines with oxygen, it forms an extremely toxic compound called arsenic trioxide. Only 70mg of this odourless and tasteless compound is needed to kill an adult human.
When arsenic enters our bodies, it can have major impacts on DNA. Phosphorous is an essential component of the backbone of DNA, but arsenic can replace it. This can lead to genome instability and a higher risk of genetic mutations, which can ultimately increase the risk of developing cancer.
Arsenic also inhibits the enzymes necessary for bodily functions.
But that process takes time. So if you are exposed to high levels of arsenic, your body will not be able to eliminate it fast enough and damage will occur.
One of the most famous deaths believed to be due to arsenic poisoning was that of Napoleon Bonaparte. Jacques-Louis David/Wikipedia
Arsenic is everywhere
The main environmental sources of arsenic are volcanoes and the erosion of mineral deposits. This can contaminate groundwater sources, as happened in Bangladesh where the building of tube wells for irrigation and drinking water from the mid 20th century onwards accidentally caused the “world’s worst mass poisoning”.
Human sources of arsenic in the environment are predominantly from smelters of copper, gold and iron ores. These smelters often use arsenic compounds such as copper arsenate to treat and preserve wood. They also use pesticides and antiparasitic chemicals, some of which contain arsenic.
The most common sources of exposure to arsenic are from cigarettes and food products. Foods grown in arsenic-contaminated soil or exposed to contaminated water will absorb arsenic.
For example, rice is very susceptible to absorbing elements from soil and water, so can contain high levels of arsenic if grown in contaminated areas. However, rice is generally safe to eat and rinsing it removes most of the arsenic it might have absorbed.
Groundwater in Bangladesh is heavily contaminated with arsenic, posing a major public health risk. HM Shahidul Islam/Shutterstock
Detecting arsenic
Being able to detect and monitor arsenic concentrations in our environment and in our bodies is important for our health.
However, common analytical techniques for arsenic detection are laboratory-based and require complicated infrastructure – such as constant access to argon gas to produce a plasma – and a specifically trained chemist or lab technician.
Thankfully scientists are developing new techniques. These are not only reliable and accurate, but highly portable and simple enough to be used outside laboratories to test for arsenic in environmental, biological and industrial samples.
One of these is an electrochemical technique, known as “anodic stripping voltammetry”.
This technique can detect trace amounts of arsenic. It works by measuring the minute electric current produced by the poison. The amount of current produced is directly proportional to the concentration of arsenic in the sample.
Being able to quickly, simply and accurately detect arsenic in, say, drinking water, could reduce people’s exposure to it. In turn, this would help reduce the likelihood of future health problems, such as skin cancers.
It is impossible to eliminate arsenic from our environment. So constant monitoring of arsenic levels in the environment and food products is the best way to reduce our exposure to this notorious poison.
Magdalena Wajrak does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The most significant development in the period leading up to the meeting had been the significant rise in uncertainty about global trade policy, although the effect of this on sentiment and economic developments in Australia was not yet clear.
A key feature of the survey, which distinguishes it from other business surveys, is its focus on uncertainty about the future, not just expectations about the most likely outcome.
The most recent survey was conducted between April 10–17, after the announcement of the US “liberation day” tariffs on April 2. The results are concerning, but not yet alarming.
Big rise in uncertainty
The results suggest there has been a significant increase in business uncertainty stemming from the tariff and geopolitical tensions.
Our survey asks roughly 500 Australian businesses about their expectations for, and perceptions of uncertainty about, key business and macroeconomic conditions.
Running since June 2024, it tracks a sample that is representative of Australian businesses. It surveys key decision makers, such as chief financial officers and business owners, who have a detailed knowledge of their own business, and a general knowledge of the broader economy.
The jump in uncertainty is leading to an increase in pessimistic views about businesses’ prospects. Moreover, these expectations are surrounded by elevated uncertainty.
While this has yet to translate into plans to reduce employment and investment, businesses on average expect their costs will rise, and plan to counter the effect through increasing prices.
More importantly, uncertainty generally leads people to defer decisions, and we see evidence of that in the April survey. Firms on average are not expecting to reduce investment or employment – but neither are they planning on increasing it.
Inflation worries are off the boil
When asked about the main source of uncertainty over the next 12 months, businesses used to point to inflation. In June 2024, more than 65% of businesses cited inflation as the main source of business uncertainty. While this is still a significant concern, it has fallen to 48% of respondents.
More dramatically, however, geopolitical risk and tariffs combined were nominated by 52% of businesses in April as one of the main sources of uncertainty. This is up from about 20% of firms in June last year.
This global uncertainty is translating into uncertainty about individual business conditions. There is an increase in the percentage of businesses that expect deteriorating conditions for their business. And there is also an increase in uncertainty about the likely outcomes for their industry conditions, product demand, and access to credit and business inputs.
Risks for hiring and investment
While deteriorating expectations are a source of concern, the rise in uncertainty is like a one-two punch. Businesses that are uncertain about the future will stop hiring or investing until they have a better idea of what the future holds.
Indeed, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, uncertainty about the future exacerbated the initial downturn and helped turn it from a recession into a depression. This paralysing uncertainty is what led US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to utter the famous line “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
While the situation in Australia is not nearly that dire, you can see the consequences of the uncertainty in businesses’ expectations for both their own businesses and the economy more generally.
In light of the tariff tensions, the majority of businesses are adopting a “wait and see” approach and expect to keep employment and investment unchanged in the next 12 months. The majority (62%) also expect their costs will be higher and, consequently, that they will have to raise their prices.
What it means for the RBA
Most businesses surveyed also anticipate higher inflation and lower economic growth in Australia. That is, stagflation.
This has important consequences for the next Reserve Bank board meeting in May.
The March quarter consumer price index, to be released on April 30, is unlikely to show the effects of the trade tensions. But monetary policy needs to be set in a forward-looking manner. That means business expectations of higher costs, prices and inflation over the next 12 months could argue for higher interest rates than otherwise.
Complicating the picture is the expectation of slower economic growth, which would usually argue for lower interest rates.
On balance, the majority of businesses surveyed in April expect the Reserve Bank to lower the cash rate in response to the trade war.
Regardless, what is undeniable is that uncertainty has increased in the last few months. And that means that policymakers need to deal with the uncertainty itself. Slightly lower interest rates or a little extra government spending cannot, of themselves, overcome the paralysing effects of uncertainty.
As such, the Reserve Bank and the government need to talk about not just their central expectations, but their strategy for dealing with the uncertainty around those expectations.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Our backyards should be safe and inviting spaces all year round, including during the summer months.
But the choices we make about garden design and maintenance, such as whether to have artificial turf or real grass for a lawn, can have serious consequences. Children, elderly people and pets are particularly susceptible to burns from contact with artificial turf on a hot day.
Watering your lawn or planting a shady tree can also dramatically change how hot your backyard feels in summer. Ultimately, these factors will influence how much time you and your family spend outside.
No matter where in the world you live, it is never too late to find out how to make your backyard safer and cooler next summer.
The case against artificial turf
Artificial turf or synthetic grass, commonly used on sports fields, has become popular in private outdoor spaces such as backyards.
People may think it’s cheaper and easier to maintain than real turf. Perhaps they like the idea of saving water and having the look of lawn without the hassle of mowing and fertilising it.
But this type of plastic surface is known to become very hot on a sunny day.
We wanted to find out just how hot artificial turf can get in a suburban backyard over summer.
So we set up an experiment to compare the temperatures of artificial turf, dry natural turf, and watered natural turf in Melbourne. We took surface temperature measurements continuously for 51 days during the summer of 2023–24.
The research was part of a project demonstrating the benefits of green space in residential properties. The project received funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, a grower-owned not-for-profit research and development corporation. That funding, in part, came from three water authorities.
Thermal imaging reveals artificial turf is hotter than natural turf on a hot sunny day. Pui Kwan Cheung
Feeling the heat
In adults, irreversible burns occur when the skin is in contact with a surface that is 48°C or hotter for ten minutes.
The temperature needed to cause skin burns in children is approximately 2°C lower, because their skin is thinner and more sensitive.
Contact skin burns due to the high surface temperature of artificial turf has been identified as a health risk.
In our latest research, the artificial turf reached a scorching 72°C, which is sufficient to cause irreversible skin burns in just ten seconds. In contrast, the real turf was never hot enough to cause such burns (maximum temperature of 39°C).
Over the course of our experiment, the artificial turf was hot enough to cause adults irreversible skin burns for almost four hours a day. While adults might be expected to move away from the heat before it burns, vulnerable people such as babies and the elderly, as well as pets, are most at risk because they may be unable to move away.
We also took measurements in real backyards on a hot sunny summer’s day. We compared the risk of skin burns on four different surfaces: artificial turf, mulch, timber and real turf. The only surface that did not get hot enough to cause skin burns in adults was real turf.
Watering the grass can cool your backyard in more ways than one. Stephen Livesley
Why should I water the lawn?
Grass and other plants release water vapour from little holes in their leaves into the atmosphere. This process helps the plant maintain a liveable leaf temperature on a hot day, but it also cools the air around the leaves.
If you’re worried about wasting drinking water on your lawn, you can install a rainwater tank or household water recycling plant. Having access to alternative water sources will become increasingly important as the world warms and the climate dries.
More shade will cool your backyard. Stephen Livesley
What about shade?
The most effective way to make you feel cooler in your backyard is to provide adequate shade. This reduces the amount of sun energy hitting your body or the ground, heating the surface and warming the surrounding air.
A single tree can lower the level of heat stress from extreme to moderate. This may be the difference between wanting to spend time outside on a hot day and avoiding your backyard altogether.
Even small trees can still make you feel cooler, if they provide some shade.
However, too-dense tree canopy cover may prevent air flow – so there is a happy medium. Air flow is necessary to move the heat away from your backyard and cool your body down.
Taking all the above measures will keep your backyard safe and cool throughout summer. This will allow you and your family to spend more quality time in your backyard, cool your home, and improve your quality of life.
Pui Kwan Cheung receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation) for the research project “demonstrating the benefits of increasing available green infrastructure in residential homes”, which is relevant to this article.
The project involves co-investment from South East Water, Greater Western Water, Yarra Valley Water, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Victoria), Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (New South Wales), The University of Melbourne, and the Australian Government. Hort Innovation is the grower-owned, not-for-profit research and development corporation for Australian horticulture.
Stephen Livesley receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, the Australian Research Council and various water authorities.
In my time researching political advertising, one common communication method that often generates complaints is the proliferation of campaign corflutes.
Politicians love them. Not so, many members of the general public. People are so fed up with candidate posters that there are numerous tales of late night vandalism, including deliberate acts of road rage aimed at destroying them.
And yet, at every single election – local, state and federal – the hated signs spring up once again to populate front gardens, streetscapes and open spaces.
Given how divisive they are, why do politicians persist with them? What are the laws around their use? And is South Australia on the right track by banning corflutes in public places?
It’s a jungle out there
To begin with, all corflutes must comply with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which includes displaying a “written and authorised” statement
that enables voters to know the source of the electoral or political communication.
Posters can’t mislead voters regarding candidates’ political affiliation. In 2022, corflutes authorised by Advance Australia in the ACT were ruled misleading because they strongly implied independent Senate candidate David Pocock was running for the Greens.
But in terms of size, number, and placement – welcome to the wild west of Australian political communications.
Size varies from the standard 60cm x 90cm corflute, to much larger signs like the one promoting Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer that was stolen by the husband of Teal MP Monique Ryan in the seat of Kooyong.
Neither the number nor the placement of signs are regulated by electoral law, other than a requirement they not be placed within 6 metres of a polling place.
Corflutes are governed by local council laws and regulations relating to political signage. This leads to a wide variation around Australia. Some areas have no rules on number or placement, which is where you usually find the issues.
By contrast, corflutes are strictly regulated in South Australia. Laws passed last year banned election posters from public infrastructure, though they are still permitted on private property.
Democracy on show
Corflutes have several purposes, especially for new candidates.
Independent Jessie Price, who is running for Bean in the ACT, tells me corflutes are important for her to quickly achieve name and face recognition in the campaign.
Then there is their design. Campaign corflutes have traditionally incorporated faces, colours and slogans. These days, they can also include QR codes, URLs, and social media handles. These formal elements also aid differentiation and awareness.
Next is the strategy of placement. Being an offline method, you can’t hit “skip” when you see one. And they are often used as a way of marking out turf, especially when placed in front yards.
For minor parties and independents, they are an affordable way to help level the playing field against Labor and the Coalition. In a way, they act as a basic barometer of the strength of our democracy.
Do they work?
Yes. And no.
When it comes to design, corflutes that closely follow the same principles used for road signs work the most effectively. This is because of the speed at which we process information.
Research has found that around two seconds is needed to absorb the details printed on signs. Up to five seconds’ exposure is needed to commit the information to short-term memory. Repeated exposure to the same sign helps when it comes to recall.
That is why colour, font size and word count are all important. The bigger the font, the better the chances of it being seen from further away, and hitting that two-second count. For example, on a 100km/h road, letters need to be at least 35cm in size.
The same rules apply to election posters. Ideally, an effective corflute would have a single name in 70cm white font on a red background. Two colours for contrast, large lettering and using only two or three words, would have the best chance of being remembered.
Being novel with design, such as independent candidate Kim Huynh’s striking corflute in the 2016 ACT election, can also boost awareness and differentiation.
Just an eyesore
Corflutes will only work if the voter is already predisposed to the candidate being promoted. If that’s not the case, the sign may have the opposite affect by repeatedly reminding the voter of a person they don’t like.
For some, they will hate corflutes regardless of the candidates. That is because the outdoors is the last true escape from political communications in an era of digital and online advertising that runs up until election day. Some also dislike how politicians can get away with it, while most others would be fined.
Do they actually change behaviour? Not directly, but they raise awareness and change perceptions towards candidates and parties, which is their ultimate objective.
Time for a rethink
There is a case to reform the electoral laws to regulate the size, placement, and number of corflutes.
One proposal worth considering would be a strict limit of 50 standard-sized signs per candidate, per electorate and erected in designated places. This would mean more equal opportunity for minor parties and independents, and help reduce public anger over the visual pollution we see at election time.
No matter how much people hate corflutes, they do serve a higher purpose post election. Come Sunday, they will be much sought after as tomato stakes and flooring for chook pens.
Andrew Hughes 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee Morgenbesser, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University
Secret police are a quintessential feature of authoritarian regimes. From Azerbaijan’s State Security Service to Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organisation, these agencies typically target political opponents and dissidents through covert surveillance, imprisonment and physical violence.
In contrast to the regular police and armed forces, secret police primarily use preemptive repression to thwart threats to the government.
In Nazi Germany, for example, Gestapo informants penetrated all levels of society, producing an atmosphere of distrust among those against Adolf Hitler. In Uganda, Idi Amin’s State Research Bureau employed sophisticated spying equipment and intercepted mail at the post office to root out supposed saboteurs.
In Syria, Bashar al-Assad relied on the General Intelligence Directorate to oversee a network of torture centres. And in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro has used the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin) to spy on opponents overseas, often running operations out of diplomatic missions.
Since US President Donald Trump took power in January, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become a far more visible and fearsome force on American streets.
Though ICE is ostensibly still bound by constitutional limits, the way it has been operating bears the hallmarks of a secret police force in the making.
As an expert on authoritarian regimes, I’ve studied historical and contemporary secret police forces extensively across Africa, Asia and Europe. They typically meet five criteria:
they’re a police force targeting political opponents and dissidents
they’re not controlled by other security agencies and answer directly to the dictator
the identity of their members and their operations are secret
they specialise in political intelligence and surveillance operations
they carry out arbitrary searches, arrests, interrogations, indefinite detentions, disappearances and torture.
How close is ICE to becoming a secret police force? Let’s consider each of these criteria.
Targeting dissidents
ICE has used the pretext of combating antisemitism to target dissidents. A branch of the agency previously used to target drug smugglers and human traffickers has reportedly been directed to scan social media for posts sympathetic to Hamas.
On March 8, ICE arrested the prominent pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident. It was a similar story for Rumeysa Ozturk, a university student grabbed off the street on March 25 by ICE agents.
Trump has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the legal pretext for ICE’s actions in these cases and others. The law allows the US government to deport anyone whose presence has “adverse foreign policy consequences” for the country.
Because Khalil and others are being targeted for their activism, legal scholars say the government appears to be “retaliating” against constitutionally protected free speech it disagrees with.
Directly controlled by a dictator
While ICE does not report directly to Trump, the agency is controlled by people who have shown intense loyalty to him.
ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which is overseen by stalwart Trump ally Kristi Noem. She is supported by Tom Homan, a former ICE director who Trump appointed as his “border czar” in November 2024.
Despite a court order barring the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, Homan has remained defiant:
We are not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.
The pertinent question now is whether Noem or Homan would refuse to follow a dictate from Trump in the face of a direct court order.
Opaque operations
ICE agents are increasingly operating in secret. The individuals who took Ozturk off the street in a widely shared video claimed to be police officers, even though they were in plain clothes and face marks.
Similarly, ICE agents in plain clothes detained two men during a raid on a courthouse in Charlottesville, Virginia, on April 22. When two bystanders asked to see a warrant, they were ordered not to “impede” the agents’ lawful duties. ICE later said the two women would be prosecuted.
Also last week, ICE agents attempted to arrest a man at a Wisconsin courthouse without a warrant. After a judge intervened, she was arrested herself by the FBI and charged with two felonies.
Its Homeland Security Investigations arm includes an intelligence division, while its Enforcement and Removal Operations arm uses third-party companies such as Geo Group, Giant Oak, and Palantir to conduct mass surveillance.
Most worryingly, ICE is trying to procure greater intelligence and surveillance capabilities by soliciting pitches from private companies to monitor threats across the internet.
According to a procurement document, contractors would be directed to focus on the backgrounds of social media users and use facial recognition capabilities to gather information on people. Criticisms of ICE itself would be monitored, too.
Unlawful policing
There has been a stream of reports exposing how ICE is conducting arbitrary searches, arrests, interrogations, and indefinite detentions.
Some of the most egregious reported examples include:
Overall, the evidence shows ICE meets most of the criteria for being a secret police force. It has yet to target political opponents, which I define narrowly as members of the Democratic Party. And it is not directly controlled by Trump, although the current structure provides him with plausible deniability.
While the agency is far from resembling history’s most feared secret police forces, there have so far been few constraints on how it operates.
The worst may be yet to come. A budget bill making its way through Congress would provide ICE with up to US$175 billion (A$274 billion) in funding over the next decade. (Its current annual budget is US$9 billion, or A$14 billion.) This would supercharge its use of surveillance, imprisonment and physical violence.
When combined with a potential shift towards targeting US citizens for dissent and disobedience, ICE is fast becoming a key piece in the repressive apparatus of American authoritarianism.
Lee Morgenbesser 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.
Climate breakdown poses immense threats to global economies, societies and ecosystems. Adapting to these impacts is urgent. But many cities and countries remain chronically unprepared in what the UN calls an “adaptation gap”.
Building climate resilience is notoriously difficult. Economic barriers limit investment in infrastructure and technology. Social inequities undermine the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt. And inconsistent policies impede coordinated efforts across sectors and at scale.
My research looks at how cities can better cope with climate change. I have identified five ways to catalyse more effective – and ultimately more progressive – climate adaptation and resilience.
Though understandable, resilience doesn’t just entail coping with the effects of climate change. Instead of “bouncing back” to a pre-shock status, those in charge of responding need to encourage “bouncing forward”, creating places that are at less risk in the first place.
After the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011, the New Zealand authorities “built back better”, improving building codes and regulations and relocating vulnerable communities. Critics suggested reconstruction provided too much uncertainty and failed to acknowledge private property rights. But the rebuild did encourage better integration of planning policies and land use practices.
Swales and sustainable urban drainage in Gorton climate resilient park, Manchester, UK. Paul O’Hare, CC BY-NC-ND
2. Informed by risk
It can be difficult to predict what the consequences of a crisis might be. Cities are complex, interconnected places. Transboundary risks – the consequences that ripple across a place – must be taken into account.
The best climate adaptation plans recognise that vulnerability varies across places, contexts and over time. The most effective are holistic: tailored to specific locations and every aspect of society.
Assessments must also consider both climatic and non-climatic features of risk. In 2015, in the UK, a flood affected one of Lancaster’s electrical substations, causing a city-wide power failure that took several days to rectify. In this instance, as with so many others, people had to deal not just with the direct impacts of flooding, but the ‘cascading’ or knock-on impacts of infrastructure damage.
Many existing assessments have limited scope. But others do acknowledge how ageing infrastructures and pressures to develop land to accommodate ever intensifying urban populations exacerbate urban flood risk. Others too, such as the recently published Cambridge climate risk plan, detail how climate risk intersects with the range of services provided by local government.
Good risk assessments will, for example, take note of demographics, age profiles and the socio-economic circumstances of neighbourhoods, enabling targeted support for particularly vulnerable communities. This can help ensure communities and systems adapt to evolving challenges as climate change intensifies, and as society evolves over time.
Complex though this might be, city leaders can access advice about improving risk assessments, including from the C40 network, a global coalition of 100 mayors committed to addressing climate change.
Progressive climate resilience looks beyond the immediacy of shocks, attending to the underlying root causes of vulnerability and inequality. This ensures that society is not only better prepared to withstand adverse events in the future, but thrives in the face of uncertainty.
Progressive climate resilience therefore demands tailored responses depending on the population and place. In Bangladesh, for instance, communities are building floating gardens to grow crops during floods. These enhance food security and provide a sustainable livelihood option in flood-prone areas.
Effective climate resilience demands collective action. Sometimes referred to as a “whole of society” response, this entails collaboration and shared responsibility to address the multifaceted challenges posed by a changing climate.
The most effective initiatives avoid self-protection, of people, buildings and cities alike, and consider both broader and longer-term risks. For instance, developments not at significant risk should still incorporate adaptation measures including rainwater harvesting or enhanced greening to lower a city’s climate risk profile and benefit local communities, neighbouring authorities and surrounding regions.
So, progressive resilience is connected, comprehensive and inclusive. Solidarity is key, leveraging resources to address common challenges and fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual support.
Solar panels on the surface of a reservoir not only provide a source of renewable energy but also provide shade and therefore help conserve water. Tom Wang/Shutterstock
5. Exploiting co-benefits
The most effective resilience projects exploit co-benefits – what the UN calls “multiple resilience dividends” – to leverage additional benefits across sectors and policies, reducing vulnerability to shocks while addressing other social and environmental challenges.
In northern Europe, for example, moorlands can be restored to retain water helping alleviate downstream flooding, but also to capture carbon and provide vital habitats for biodiversity.
In south-East Asia solar panels installed on reservoirs generate renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while providing shade to reduce evaporation and conserve water resources during droughts.
As we enter the final days of campaigning, Labor leads with its nose in front on most polls, but the devil is in the detail of particular seats.
To help get a read on what the voters are feeling at this late stage, we’re joined by RedBridge director Kos Samaras.
RedBridge – a political research company, whose directors include both former Labor strategists like Samaras and former Liberal strategist Tony Barry – has been conducting focus groups and polling throughout the campaign.
On Labor’s polling lead, Samaras says
At the moment we’re looking at a situation where Labor will end up possibly forming minority government, with an outside chance of majority.
On the large number of soft voters, Samaras says soft voters are more likely to represent people shifting from the majors to the minor parties, rather then from Liberal to Labor.
The best way we can describe soft voters is it’s a permanent state of mind, and again we go back to talking about younger voters here, or those under the age of 45 in particular, who have very low levels of values connection to party politics in this country.
Very low numbers of people switch from the majors these days. So I think a lot of political strategists, particularly on the Coalition side, still think they are living in the world of 20 years ago where a large soft vote means people will just transfer their entire support over to the other major party. That no longer is the case.
By Saturday April 27, more than 2.3 million Australians (more than 13%) had already voted with a week to go to election day, according to analyst Antony Green. More than half a million votes were cast on the first day alone – a new record.
On that early voting trend, Samaras says while it’s “standard practice now” that people vote early, both major parties have been too slow to adapt to this change.
I would say, we haven’t seen any real evidence of the major parties really understanding the importance of starting early, although I would say Labor did start very early in the beginning of March. But you saw that the Coalition was very late to the game.
I think there’s a way to go before the majors fully wrap their heads around that Australians are now voting very differently, and they need to actually alter their campaign to suit those practices.
After a lacklustre campaign, voters are seeing Albanese as “the least worst option”:
The best way we can capture it is they view Anthony Albanese as the least worst option and we can see that in our quantitative analysis as well. Both major parties and both leaders are still in the negative territory but Labor and Albanese have improved their position dramatically, whilst at the same time the Coalition and Peter Dutton’s ratings have actually dropped.
And on political candidates lying in elections, Samaras says Australians think
They all lie. That’s fundamentally what most Australians will tell you. They all lie and they don’t live the lives we live. That’s the sort of saying we hear all the time.
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.
The government has dug out last-minute savings of more than
A$7 billion, to ensure its election commitments are more than offset in every year of the forward estimates.
Its costings, released Monday, include savings of $6.4 billion from further reducing spending on consultants, contractors and labour hire, as well as non-wage expenses including travel, hospitality and property.
The second saving is $760 million from increasing the visa application fee for primary student visa applicants to $2000 from July 1.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers told a news conference Labor’s costings “show that we will more than offset our election campaign commitments in every year of the forward estimates”.
“We will finish this election campaign with the budget in a stronger position than at the start of the election campaign”.
“We have improved the budget position by more than $1 billion, comparing the pre-election outlook to the costings that we release today,” he said.
With its costings out, Labor is piling the pressure onto the opposition to produce its numbers.
“We call on the Coalition now to come clean on their cuts. We’ve made it very clear what our costs are and how we will pay for the commitments that we have made in this election campaign,” Chalmers said.
The opposition “need to come clean on what their secret cuts for nuclear reactors means for Medicare, for pensions and payments, for skills and housing and other essential investments.
“They have committed more than $60 billion in this election campaign and in their policy commitments, and that’s before we get to their $600 billion of nuclear reactors.”
Chalmers said if the opposition costings did not include the cost of the nuclear reactors they “will not be worth the paper they are written on”.
Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said opposition costings, coming later this week, would project a stronger budget position than Labor’s. He also said if the Coalition was elected it would have an economic statement later this year.
As the costings war ramps up, ratings agency S&P warned Australia’s AAA credit rating could be threatened if election promises resulted in larger structural deficits, and debt and interest expenses increased more than expected.
Given deficits and international circumstances, “how the elected government funds its campaign pledges and rising spending will be crucial for maintaining the rating”, the agency said.
Asked about the comments, Chalmers said: “I say to that particular agency, indeed, all of the ratings agencies, that in our time in office, we’ve engineered the biggest positive turnaround in a budget of any parliamentary term ever”. He pointed to the improvement in the budget numbers during the campaign to underline Labor’s credentials.
The fresh impact of Labor’s promises on the bottom line has also been limited because most of them were already factored into the budget.
After the savings and spends are netted out the deficit for 2025-26 is estimated to be $41.9 billion compared to the $42.2 billion in the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.
Chalmers says Dutton to build nuclear reactor in his own seat
Jim Chalmers must carry off the prize for the most brazen “scare” of a campaign full of attempted scares.
Chalmers picked up on Anthony Albanese’s question to Peter Dutton in Sunday’s debate, when the PM asked the opposition leader whether he’d be willing to have a nuclear power plant in his seat of Dickson. Dutton said he would.
Chalmers’ message to voters in “that wonderful part of southeast Queensland” is: “your local member wants to build a nuclear reactor in your suburbs.”
“[The Labor candidate,] Ali France, is not going to build a nuclear reactor in your local community but Peter Dutton wants to.
“I would encourage you to think about that […] as you choose your local member,” Chalmers told his news conference.
The treasurer kept a straight face while delivering this warning to Dickson voters.
Dutton questions Welcome to Country ceremonies at Anzac Dawn services
Peter Dutton has widened his criticism of the extent of Welcome to Country ceremonies by saying he does not believe they belong at Anzac Day dawn services.
He said that listening to veterans, “I think the majority view would be that they don’t want it on that day”. But he said it was an individual decision up to the RSLs.
Discussion of the Welcome to Country ceremonies has come to the fore after a group of neo-Nazis heckled the ceremony at the Shrine of Remembrance service on Friday. It also came up in Sunday’s debate between the leaders, when Dutton said the ceremonies should be reserved for significant occasions such as the opening of parliament.
Questioned by reporters on Monday, Dutton said the acknowledgment to country given by Qantas when planes landed was “over the top”.
“We are all equal Australians,” he said. “I believe we should stand behind one flag united to help Indigenous Australians deal with disparity around health outcomes, around education outcomes, around housing, around safety […] I want to provide support for practical reconciliation. The prime minister’s policy is to please inner city Greens, which is not something we signed up to.”
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.
With the May 3 federal election less than a week away, voters have only just received Labor’s costings and are yet to hear from the Coalition.
At the 2022 election, the costings were not released for nearly two months after polling day.
Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley last week told Sky News the Coalition costings will be “released in the lead up to election day and will be able to be fully interrogated”.
This is now too late for the voters who have already cast their ballots. We have seen a record number of pre-poll votes this election, with more than 2.3 million as of Saturday. This means a sizeable percentage of the electorate has voted without knowing what their votes will cost.
Voting without all the facts
Whichever side wins, taxpayers eventually pay to implement policies. So knowing at least in broad terms the costs of the policies would be helpful.
The Coalition has probably had many of its policies costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. This process is thorough and impartial.
Importantly, the Parliamentary Budget Office costs policies over ten years. This allows the full costs of policies to be understood better. Some policies such as large infrastructure take many years before the full impact on the budget is felt.
Labor has already published the costs of many of its policies in the March 25 federal budget. This only covered the forward estimates, three years into the future, but is reliable for most policies. But we still need the costings for policies announced post-budget.
The true picture?
Even when we see the costings from both of the main parties, we can have no confidence their lists are accurate and complete. Parties may omit costings that might attract criticism.
They may also present costings prepared by consultants rather than the Parliamentary Budget Office. You may recall controversy late last year over private modelling of the Coalition’s plans for nuclear power.
Unfortunately we have to wait until after the election for a comprehensive and independent set of costings.
The Parliamentary Budget Office does not publish its full list of costings (in the election commitments report) until well after the election. This is either 30 days from the end of the caretaker period or seven days before the new parliament first sits, whichever comes later.
The election commitments report has some accountability value in relation to the party that forms government but does not help inform voters. It is a mystery why anyone would be interested in the costs of policies of the losing side. But they still must be published, according to electoral law.
The report must include the major parties, although minor parties and independents can also be included in the report if they wish.
Are there other approaches?
By contrast, in New South Wales the state Parliamentary Budget Office publishes a complete set of costings five days before the election. Policies announced after this date miss out but these rarely affect the budget bottom line.
Although, as occurs federally, many voters cast their ballots in advance, at least NSW’s approach gives most voters a chance to see the costs. This encourages the major parties to compete to produce a fiscally responsible total.
The NSW approach is self-policing. Each major party studies the statements and if the other side omits something – large or small – they rapidly and loudly complain. Parties therefore try to make their policy lists as accurate as possible.
Federally, the budget office takes on the time-consuming job of tracking down all the policy announcements to cost and include in its post-election report.
The differences arise from the different legislation that applies to each PBO.
NSW has arguably an easier job because it costs policies only for the premier and leader of the opposition. The federal budget office costs for all members of parliament.
The federal system requires policies submitted during the caretaker period, and their costings, must be published “as soon as practicable”. But major parties are highly unlikely to submit a policy only to have it and its costing released at a time not of its choosing.
The requirement is likely motivated by transparency, but clashes with political reality. In NSW costings remain confidential until the leader advises the budget office the policy has been announced. This gives parties a way to have policies costed with a low risk of their premature release.
DIY assessments
Federally, there are other ways to estimate the costs of policies. The budget office has a Build your Own Budget Tool, and a tool for modelling alternative
income tax proposals (SMART), both available online.
These provide a fair approximation and are often used by journalists trying to get behind political announcements.
The OECD lists 35 independent fiscal bodies in 29 OECD countries responsible for assessing election costings. Some are tiny, with just a few analysts. Some are
huge and influential, like the US Congressional Budget Office. Few have the same focus on costing election policies that applies in Australia.
Costs are a big deal here. Both parties have run advertisements attacking the other side on the question of whether their policies are affordable.
On major policies such as the Coalition plans for nuclear power there are massive differences between cost estimates put forward by each side. Such differences could be resolved by an independent and impartial costing. This is why Australian voters deserve to see such costings as soon as possible.
Stephen Bartos was NSW Parliamentary Budget Officer for the past three NSW general elections. He is now a professor at the University of Canberra.
The federal budget will be stronger than suggested in last month’s budget, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers who released Labor’s costings on Monday.
Many of the policies included in the costings were already detailed in either the 2025 Budget or the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook, so are shown as having a net zero cost.
But that does not mean they are costless. It means simply that their costs were included in previously published budget updates.
Monday’s media announcement is akin to the reconciliation table published in each update, prepared by the Treasury and Finance departments setting out how the numbers have changed.
It seems likely this media release drew on the same methodology.
It includes two savings measures. One is relatively small: $700 million from increasing the visa application charge for primary student visas. The big saving is $6.4 billion from further reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire, and non-wage expenses such as travel, hospitality and property.
Travel, hospitality and property expenses are small bikkies. Undoubtedly departments could make savings on these, but they won’t get anywhere near the total. The bulk of the savings will come from reducing spending on consultants and contractors.
Labor has shown that such savings on consultants are possible; it did it in its first term. However, counterbalancing this, we saw increased spending on the public service.
It is the same problem as with the Coalition’s promise to make savings by cutting public servants. Without cuts to programs and activities, work remains to be done. People have to be employed to do that work, leading either to more spending on the public service (Labor) or bringing back consultants (Coalition).
There was no independent signoff suggesting Monday’s release included all of Labor’s policy announcements. We won’t get that until the Parliamentary Budget Office does its election commitments report.
But this full list of costings is not released by the PBO until well after the election. This is either 30 days from the end of the caretaker period or seven days before the new parliament first sits, whichever comes later.
However, Monday’s costings release does appear comprehensive, including not only the large headline announcements but several announcements of less than a million dollars a year.
What are missing, though, are costings of items that are off-budget because they are balance sheet adjustments – for example, the reduction in student HECS debt.
These do have a financial impact but due to their accounting treatment are not disclosed as hitting the budget balance. Ideally, these should be disclosed as well.
Stephen Bartos 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
