Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

There’s little worse as a pool lifeguard than hearing the words “code brown” come through your radio. For swimmers on a hot day, there’s also little worse than being told to immediately get out of the water because there’s poo floating in the pool.

During hot summers, public pools in Australia are often crowded with families and children. The risk of “code brown” incidents at your local pool is probably substantial.

So how is a public pool cleaned after poo or vomit accidentally ends up in the water – and how long before it’s safe to get back in?

The short answer is: it depends. Let’s dive in.

The dangers of poo in the pool

Contaminated swimming pools are hazardous for swimmers. They have been linked to outbreaks of “crypto”, short for cryptosporidiosis. It’s a highly contagious gastric illness and has unpleasant symptoms including diarrhoea, stomach cramps, fever, nausea and vomiting.

New crypto cases are monitored as it’s a notifiable disease in Australia. If multiple cases are traced to a swimming pool, the pool will be closed for extra cleaning and chlorine treatment.

There are other pathogens, such as viruses, that can infect swimmers using pools exposed to poo or vomit incidents. For example, one study in the United States found rapid onset vomiting and diarrhoea (acute gastroenteritis) affect 28% of swimmers who’d used a norovirus-contaminated swimming pool.

Dealing with an ‘aquatic incident’

Responses for a code brown or vomit follow the official health guidelines for public swimming pools under state or territory public health laws.

However, the specific protocol for the staff will also differ depending on the age of the pool, the type of filtration system, chemicals used for disinfecting the water, and … the type of the poo.

Broadly speaking, if a solid stool or vomit is found, the pool is closed and the poo or vomit must be scooped out using a pool scoop or bucket. Then, it should be discarded down the sewer.

When all the particulates have been removed, a pool vacuum is placed in the water for additional cleaning, and the chlorine concentration is raised for an extended period to disinfect the entire pool.

A pool can be reopened once all of the water has been through the pool’s filtration system. This is known as pool “turnover”. How long this takes depends on the age of the pool and its filtration system. Older pools may take eight hours or longer, but newer pools can be as quick as 25 minutes.

Generally, when staff have followed all the proper guidelines, you can assume the water is safe to swim again when the pool is reopened.

Sometimes, you need superchlorination

The protocol changes for loose stool or diarrhoea. The pool is still closed to the public and the particles are scooped out as best as possible.

Then, the chlorine levels are raised and kept at a higher-than-normal level for a bit over a day. This is called shock superchlorination. After this the chlorine levels fall back to safe swimming levels, the other pool chemicals are rebalanced, and the pool reopened.

Chlorine is one of the most common types of disinfectants used in public swimming pools. You might hear lifeguards talk about free chlorine and total chlorine when referring to pool water quality.

Free chlorine is the “active” part of chlorine. Once it makes contact and kills potentially harmful germs (such as bacteria, protozoa or virus), the chlorine is “inactivated” upon reacting with various compounds, and turns into combined chlorine.

In fact, that strong chlorine smell around swimming pools comes from combined chlorine products called chloramines. These are produced when free chlorine reacts with substances such as urine or perspiration in the water.

Lifeguards also monitor pool water quality throughout the day, performing manual checks and keeping an eye on automatic measurements.

On busy days chlorine might be checked every three hours to ensure levels are maintained within specific ranges to maintain optimal pool water quality. This is known as “balancing the water”.

Don’t go to the pool when sick

It’s important to take precautions when visiting a pool to ensure that you and everyone around you stays healthy during and after your visit.

The best way to do this is to not visit the pool if you’re feeling unwell or have had diarrhoea in the past two weeks, or if you have been diagnosed with cryptosporidiosis or infections such as E. coli, shigella or viruses.

Swimming can be fun and exciting for kids who might forget about a bathroom break. Parents should take their babies and toddlers to the toilet every 20–30 minutes to prevent accidents from occurring.

For babies and toddlers, swim nappies are encouraged to prevent accidental code browns. However, the disposable option are usually not effective at containing urine or poo. Reusable swim nappies are a far better option, designed to provide a snug fit.

If you see a poo or vomit at the pool, get out of the water and tell a lifeguard or staff member immediately. Then, follow all directions given by staff members and seek medical attention if you feel unwell in the days following the incident.

– ref. After ‘code brown’, how long before the pool is safe again? Water quality experts explain – https://theconversation.com/after-code-brown-how-long-before-the-pool-is-safe-again-water-quality-experts-explain-274856

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/after-code-brown-how-long-before-the-pool-is-safe-again-water-quality-experts-explain-274856/

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

After a coup by the Liberals’ conservative faction, the party has dumped its first female leader Sussan Ley, who had dire polling, in favour of Angus Taylor.

Jane Hume, from the moderate side of the party, won the position of deputy leader. Before entering politics Hume worked in the financial sector. Her win in last week’s ballot came after a turbulent year for her, with mistakes in the election campaign, and then being removed from the frontbench by Ley.

Now back in a big way, Hume takes the shadow portfolio of employment, industrial relations, productivity and deregulation, which will give her a major role in the economic debate.

On her new roles, Hume says she wants to get Australia’s industrial relations system working for employees and employers:

I can understand why previous Coalition governments have been timid on industrial relations reform. They are still scarred by WorkChoices back in 2007. And that’s an easy slogan, I think, for Labor governments to throw, or Labor oppositions to throw, at Liberals and at the Coalition. I’m really not interested in revisiting WorkChoices.

I’m very much interested in looking at job opportunities and career opportunities. What is it that my kids and their kids are going to be looking for in a workplace? […] How do we get our industrial relations system working for both employees and employers? And to some extent, I think that requires a new level of imagination. We want workplace flexibility.

On what a Coalition childcare policy may look like, Hume points to restoring choice and rejecting “dependency” in Labor’s one-size-fits-all approach to childcare:

I do think that there has been an objective, if you like, of dependency that has been part of the Labor Party’s tactics of government, but that’s not healthy. And we can see it in something like childcare.

We need to make sure that we encourage innovation and aspiration, that we reward effort so that when people want to step up and say, hey, I’d really like to start a business, I’d like to really start a family, I’m going to work really hard so that I can send my child to the school that I choose, that there are opportunities for families and individuals to do exactly that.

[A] one-size-fits-all approach [makes] the place a little greyer. I’d like to inject some optimism and some colour back into the Australian economy and to society.

On women in the Liberal party, Hume says the party needs to attract more women but rejects the idea of quotas, saying she’s proud to have made it on merit alone:

I fundamentally believe that we need more women in parliament from every party, not just the Liberal Party. Women’s voices are more than 50% of the Australian population. It’s really important that their voices are heard loudly and clearly in the places where decisions get made about their lives. And I have always been a champion of women within my party.

When we talk about female representation, it’s almost like people say the word “quotas” in the same breath and it’s not that binary. […] There are so many different ways of doing this and quotas is only one way. And it’s one that doesn’t necessarily suit the culture or the nature of the Liberal Party.

I think that the women that I know within the Liberal Party, both those that aspire to be in parliament and those that are already there, would feel a level of insult if they felt that they needed special dispensation just for their presence. […] I love the fact that I know that I got to where I am on merit alone and that my female colleagues did the same. It makes us more powerful, more confident and more able to do our jobs.

Asked whether the Liberals need to run a female candidate in the Farrer by-election to maximise their competitiveness, Hume says a women candidate be “terrific” but stresses the decision is up to the party organisation.

There’s no doubt that female candidates are hard workers, they’re great communicators, they feel very representative of the community and they tend to know their communities extremely well.

I’d like to see female candidates in every seat across the country because the more women we have in parliament, the better represented women’s voices are.

Reflecting on how she has changed in her nearly 10 years in parliament Hume said she was surprised how little of her business experience translated to politics:

I think I’m far less naive. I did come in bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, nothing but a ponytail and a dream. And I did feel at that stage too that perhaps my business experience would translate over easily to politics. They are very different beasts.

In business, when teams work together, […] you can be part of the boat that rises on the tide. Politics is a little bit more of a zero-sum game, one in one out. You’re either the party of government or the party of opposition, you’re in the ministry, or you are out of the ministry. […] Because of that, it can create interesting relationships, challenges that perhaps I hadn’t expected before I entered parliament. But I love it. […] What I didn’t realise, but I love most about the job, is that every single day is different.

I think it’s a far better workplace now than it was when I first arrived. It’s far more welcoming to newcomers and to those that might not necessarily fit the cookie-cutter mould of an Australian politician.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: New Liberal Deputy Jane Hume on why she wants a woman contesting every seat – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-new-liberal-deputy-jane-hume-on-why-she-wants-a-woman-contesting-every-seat-276271

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/politics-with-michelle-grattan-new-liberal-deputy-jane-hume-on-why-she-wants-a-woman-contesting-every-seat-276271/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johra Kayeser Fatima, Senior Lecturer, Marketing, University of Canberra

In Australia, around 16% of major road accidents (such as multi-vehicle crashes and pedestrian collisions) involve distracted driving.

Distracted driving happens when people shift their attention from the primary task of driving to a secondary task such as using a mobile phone or eating.

We recently examined the specific effects of different distraction types on driving performance – and discovered some carried a greater risk than others.

What we studied

Driving distractions that cause accidents can happen for any of these reasons:

• auditory distractions, such as listening to music, having a conversation or hearing a baby cry

• visual distractions, such as looking at a navigator or passengers

• cognitive distractions such as thinking, daydreaming, or future planning

• behavioural distractions such as texting, calling, fixing a mirror or eating/drinking.

In our study we used a driving simulator in a controlled laboratory setting to systematically manipulate distraction conditions and assess their impact on driving.

The simulator had three screens with nearly 180° peripheral vision in a driving scenario.

We distracted participants in four ways. We:

• called their mobile phone while they were driving (auditory distraction)

• asked them to locate a specific key of a computer keyboard located in front of them, which was a part of the driving simulator (visual distraction, as drivers need to look at the key by moving their eyes from road on the screen)

• engaged them in a conversation (cognitive distraction)

• instructed them to move a cup from one side of their driving seat to the other (behavioural distraction).

We studied 103 Australian drivers aged 16–82 in the Australian Capital Territory, using a road deviation measure to reflect the “sway” of the vehicle.

How did these distractions impact driving?

Participants’ driving was worse when they were involved in listening (auditory distraction) and when they were asked to do a task (behavioural distraction) compared with the other two types of distractions (cognitive and visual).

The reason is likely to be that our brains struggle to concentrate on driving and deal with these distractions at the same time. The result? An increased risk of making a mistake on the road.

The results did surprise us. Before the study, we assumed visual distractions would impact drivers most but that was not the case with our results.

A possible explanation is that when drivers intentionally look away from the road, they mentally predict what will likely to take place during the next few seconds. This is an internal decision.

That is not the case for most auditory distractions – these are largely created by others and often happen unexpectedly, like a baby crying or hearing a favourite song on the radio. Drivers may not be mentally prepared for this type of distraction.

Also, audio distractions can happen any time, even in a complex driving moment (such as high traffic or merging). Drivers are less likely to take their eyes off the road in these complex moments.

It must be noted these four distractions can be interrelated (a phone ringing is mainly an auditory distraction but it also sparks the brain to do something, which is cognitive). And you may also look at your phone, which is is a visual distraction.

In our study, we used verbal conversations as a measure of cognitive distractions but drivers can also be cognitively distracted by thinking about problems or being in a hurry.

Our study supports previous research investigating in-vehicle distractions.

Mobile phone usage is the big one – a United States study found using (not just hearing it ring) a phone while driving increases the chances of a collision by up to four times.

Australian research found non technology-based activities – such as eating, drinking, smoking and interacting with passengers – all have the potential to increase crash risk as well.

So, how do we make our roads safer?

Our findings suggest there are a few key takeaways for drivers, educators, government bodies and road safety organisations.

On an individual level, drivers need to be aware of the auditory and behavioural distractions they face, and the potential impact on road safety. We found people often don’t know which distractions negatively influence their driving the most.

While many drivers talk with passengers, it can affect their locus of control and driving behaviour. They therefore need to be mindful of the level of noise inside the vehicle and try to avoid arguments or noisy conversations.

Podcasts and audio books can have a similar effect on driving performance.

Inside vehicle distractions are increasing with the rapid growth of technologies such as smartphones, smart watches and navigation systems. It is therefore essential drivers are also aware of how to use (or not to use) these gadgets safely.

---

Read more: Yes, those big touchscreens in cars are dangerous and buttons are coming back

---

Road safety organisations and government bodies must develop road safety promotions that highlight inside vehicle distractions (in particular, auditory and behavioural types). Often, these promotions only focus on external distractions such as poor weather, road conditions and pedestrian behaviour.

---

We would like to acknowledge Hilmi Khan, research assistant in this project for his contribution.

– ref. Using your phone while driving is dangerous. What about listening to music or eating? – https://theconversation.com/using-your-phone-while-driving-is-dangerous-what-about-listening-to-music-or-eating-273236

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/using-your-phone-while-driving-is-dangerous-what-about-listening-to-music-or-eating-273236/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Troy McEwan, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

In 2024, 38 Australian women were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. Thankfully, new data show the number of women killed by intimate partners has reduced to 32 over the most recent reporting period. The annual rate to June 2025 was among the lowest on record.

Nonetheless, more needs to be done to get the number of intimate partner homicides to zero. Thanks to tireless advocacy by many, the federal government has a target to reduce female victims of homicide by 25% per year. It’s part of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

One common way of trying to prevent intimate partner and family homicide is through risk assessment and management. Risk assessments are used by police, family violence sector agencies and others to prioritise cases where harm seems most likely.

Sadly, our new research, published in the Journal of Family Violence, suggests it’s almost impossible to use these risk assessments to accurately predict who will attempt to kill their partner.

How do we assess risk?

Completing a risk assessment involves identifying the presence of “risk factors” in a potential perpetrator: characteristics that are thought to be associated with increased risk of homicide.

Past research has found women who are killed by a partner are more likely than abused women generally to have experienced things like strangulation, stalking, controlling behaviour and threats to kill.

Because they are more common in homicide cases, many people believe these kinds of characteristics are risk factors that can help them predict future homicide. Unfortunately, that’s not true.

Homicide is (thankfully) extremely rare. In Victoria, there were about 18 family violence-related homicides for every 100,000 family violence reports made to police in 2024–25.

Because it’s so rare, it’s virtually impossible to predict who might be a victim of homicide, or who will commit a homicide, even when lots of risk factors are present.

Our research

Our recent research showed this in a population of nearly 40,000 family violence reports recorded by Victoria Police.

We followed every person for 12 months in police databases to see who was involved in a subsequent family violence homicide or an incident that could have resulted in death (such as a very serious assault).

We tested the most commonly identified risk factors for intimate partner homicide to see if any of them alone, or combined, could predict a fatal or near fatal outcome.

We found none of them could. More than 99% of people with these risk factors were not involved in a fatal or near fatal attack in the 12 months we followed them.

For example, police recorded that 7,337 people had, in the past, threatened their partner or family member with serious harm or death. Among those who did go on to very seriously harm or kill, about 22% had previously made such threats.

However, 99.84% of those who had made a threat did not kill or attempt to kill a partner or family member in the 12 months after the police risk assessment.

The same is true of those who used jealous and controlling behaviour towards a partner or family member. Police recorded 12,123 people as having done this, and of those who very seriously harmed or killed, 29% had a history of jealous and controlling behaviour.

But again, 99.87% of people with jealous and controlling behaviour at the time of the original police report did not go on to kill or seriously harm.

The same was true of strangulation, stalking, and other risk factors for homicide.

We then tested whether combinations of these risk factors could predict homicide, with similar outcomes. Whichever way we looked at the data, the result was the same – every previously assumed risk factor or combination of risk factors got it wrong more than 99% of the time.

It’s possible we could have made more accurate predictions if we followed people for a longer period, say ten years.

But, while more homicides would have occurred, the overall rate of lethal and near lethal violence would have still been extremely low. Even more importantly, the results would not mean much in practice because risk assessments tend to guide responses in the short to medium term, not over many years.

What’s behind this?

We got these results because fatal or near fatal violence is very rare. It was only present in 55 cases in our sample of nearly 40,000 police reports.

While 55 deaths are of course 55 too many, all the risk factors we examined were unfortunately much more common.

Access to firearms was the least common factor, recorded in about 1,300 family violence cases. The most common factor, the perpetrator having identified mental health problems, was present in around 13,500 family violence cases.

Together, this means that even when a risk factor is present, most of those with it do not go on to use fatal or near-fatal violence.

These results don’t mean we should stop paying attention to strangulation, stalking or threats to kill. They do mean we should stop thinking these behaviours can help us predict homicide.

Of course, we must respond when these awful behaviours are identified and prevent people who’ve done such things from causing further harm.

But risk management should not be based on the idea that all people who act in this way are likely to kill, when the reality is that the overwhelming majority will not.

In some circumstances, very intrusive risk management is warranted to ensure immediate safety (such as remanding the person who has been violent). But in most cases, the presence of these risk factors doesn’t indicate that a homicide is imminent.

Rather, they indicate the need for interventions that can reduce family violence and its harms. Examples include psychological treatments that can change emotions and thoughts linked to violence, mental health and substance use treatment where it is required, effective multi-service collaborations, and wrap-around victim support services.

The evidence suggests while prediction is not possible, prevention is. The best way forward is not to create a false expectation that we can ever know who will kill.

Instead, we must adopt evidence-based preventative strategies and fund them fully, so they are available to everyone who needs them. Perhaps then the goal of zero intimate partner or family homicides will be closer to a reality.

---

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

– ref. Can we predict domestic homicide? New research suggests we can’t – https://theconversation.com/can-we-predict-domestic-homicide-new-research-suggests-we-cant-268290

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/can-we-predict-domestic-homicide-new-research-suggests-we-cant-268290/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

While the world is focused on the fate of a ruined Gaza, Israel has accelerated its creeping annexation of the West Bank.

Israeli legislative moves, security operations, settlement expansion and support of settlers’ violence are forcing the Palestinians out of their lands at an unprecedented rate.

US President Donald Trump has publicly opposed Israel’s annexation of the occupied territory, but he may not be able to stop it – unless he acts now and acts decisively.

Creeping annexation

Last July, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a resolution in support of the annexation of the West Bank. It was non-binding, but clearly signalled where the legislative body stood on the issue.

Then, when US Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel in October, the Knesset approved two bills calling for the formal annexation of the territory. Vance called the move a “very stupid political stunt” intended to embarrass him.

The bills were aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s avowed opposition to the creation of an independent Palestinian state on his watch.

Then, earlier this month, the Israeli security cabinet approved a series of measures that furthered the de facto annexation of the West Bank.

The measures, pushed by the far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and Defence Minister Israel Katz, are designed to remove any “legal obstacles” to the expansion of Israeli power across the territory, in violation of international law.

The measures provide more immunity for Israelis – the settlers, in particular – to purchase and own land in the West Bank.

They also give the Israeli state control over some historical and religious sites and limit further the Palestinian Authority’s administrative functions in the zones that are supposed to be under its jurisdiction under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Netanyahu’s broader ambitions

The moves came at a crucial time in US-Israel relations. In January, the Trump administration announced the start of phase two of the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza. Immediately after the measures were approved, Netanyahu made his sixth visit to the United States in a year to ensure Trump remains aligned with his course of action.

Netanyahu wants the fate of the Gaza Strip to be shaped according to his vision of Israel’s interests. He has been very vocal about his ambition for a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Netanyahu also remains adamant Israel stays the most powerful actor in the region. Israel has already degraded the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, the two main regional proxies of its chief adversary, the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has also widened its military footprint in both Lebanon and Syria.

Now, Netanyahu is determined to see a favourable regime change in Tehran. While Trump wants a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, Netanyahu is significantly less supportive of such an outcome.

He has repeatedly stressed the need for a US-led military campaign to not only dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, but also degrade its missile capability and force it to severe ties with its proxies.

He regards this as the only way to remove the “existential threat” posed by the Iranian regime.

What will Trump do?

The new Israeli measures in the West Bank will no doubt embolden settlers to engage in more violent acts against the Palestinians. The stories coming out of the territory show how Israel is rapidly slicing away the Palestinians’ territorial, social and cultural existence.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says more than 37,000 Palestinians were displaced in the West Bank in 2025, with record-high levels of violence.

The United Nations and the European Union have strongly condemned the new Israeli measures and settler violence.

However, Netanyahu and his extremist ministers have, as usual, brushed aside international criticisms and ignored the illegality of Israeli occupation under international law.

They have instead accelerated efforts to make the internationally backed two-state solution an impossibility. The recent measures help establish deeper “facts on the ground” that render the annexation of the West Bank a fait accompli. This would give Trump no other option but to go along with it.

Yet, Trump has the power and leverage to restrain Netanyahu. And he can stand firm behind his own stated opposition to West Bank annexation.

As an unpredictable, transactional leader, the president may even go so far as to attack Iran on behalf of Netanyahu in return for Netanyahu holding back from formal annexation of the West Bank.

Trump now faces the biggest tests of his presidency. The first is how he will manage Netanyahu, whom he has praised as a “war hero”. The second is how he will settle the conflict with Iran – whether it will be a deal or yet another devastating war.

– ref. Israel is accelerating its creeping annexation of the West Bank. Can Donald Trump stop it? – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-accelerating-its-creeping-annexation-of-the-west-bank-can-donald-trump-stop-it-276074

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/israel-is-accelerating-its-creeping-annexation-of-the-west-bank-can-donald-trump-stop-it-276074/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matevz (Matt) Raskovic, Professor of International Business & Strategy, Auckland University of Technology

On the face of it, New Zealand’s positive placing in a newly-released scorecard of perceived corruption seems reassuring.

The country remains among the world’s least corrupt in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually by global civil society organisation Transparency International.

But the 2025 rankings hide a more troubling story. New Zealand’s score has been falling for a decade, even as its position near the top holds.

The index scores more than 180 countries on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean. With a score of 81, New Zealand now sits joint fourth with Norway, after a two-point drop from last year.

That pattern reflects not just mounting challenges at home, but a wider global shift that is dragging down even top-performing countries.

A decade ago, a dozen nations would have earned “A-grade” rankings at the top of the board. Today, that group – including Denmark (scoring 89), Finland (88), Singapore (84), Sweden (80) and Switzerland (80) – has nearly halved.

Some might argue a top-four ranking is still strong, especially when two-thirds of countries receive failing grades (below 50). But that misses the broader point.

New Zealand’s score has fallen from 91 in 2015 to 81 today. If that trend continues, it risks slipping out of the top tier altogether.

A global slide

At a global level, the picture is also deteriorating. The average CPI score fell by one point this year to a historic low of 42. That may not sound like much, but it is the first drop in a decade – and from an already low baseline, even small declines are notable.

There is now a clear pattern of gradual but noticeable slips among top performers, including New Zealand, Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom. The United States is the only other country near the top to have seen a drop as steep as New Zealand’s, with its score falling from 76 in 2015 to 64 today.

For Aotearoa, that global slide has real-world consequences. Falling in the corruption rankings weakens “Brand New Zealand” and makes the country potentially less attractive to investors, tourists, skilled migrants and trading partners.

Around 30% of New Zealand’s exports go to countries with CPI scores above 70, including Australia, Japan, Singapore and the UK – markets where reputation and trust carry weight.

At the same time, about a third of New Zealand’s exports go to countries with CPI scores below 50, including China and several Southeast Asian nations.

In those markets, strong domestic integrity systems and robust safeguards in trade relationships are even more important, to ensure foreign corrupt practices do not spill back into New Zealand.

NZ’s lingering weak points

Several reports have laid out where New Zealand’s anti-corruption framework is falling short.

They point to the absence of a national anti-corruption strategy and a central agency. This comes alongside lax lobbying rules, inadequate reporting on political donations and gaps in electoral safeguards.

Successive governments have been slow to address these issues. The current government has faced scrutiny over the role of well-resourced lobby groups – including the tobacco and gun lobbies – and millions of dollars in political donations from the property industry.

Several high-profile fraud cases have rattled sectors ranging from construction and building inspection to infrastructure, health, procurement and IT. There have also been concerns about judicial appeal processes being bypassed through ministerial approval or alternative resolution mechanisms.

More recently, local election breaches and allegations of misuse of personal data in national elections have further eroded public trust in politics – something playing out alongside declining trust in news media.

Formulas and fixes

To stop sliding further down the global rankings, New Zealand requires a dedicated anti-corruption strategy – one focused more on prevention than response.

New Zealand is now the only one of its four other key security partners without a central anti-corruption agency, after Australia established its own in 2023. Since then, Australia’s CPI score has risen by two points.

A similar body in New Zealand could strengthen information-sharing, improve early-warning systems and provide ongoing oversight of integrity risks.

There is also a need for more competitive markets and stronger checks and balances to help counter the influence of special interest groups.

It is ironic that much of New Zealand’s drop in the 2025 CPI index has stemmed from growing concern from business leaders about public sector conduct, including how public contracts and licences are awarded.

While the government pitches itself as “business friendly”, limited competition across retail, construction and banking helps explain why more business leaders feel the market is not working for everyone.

US academic Robert Klitgaard, a leading authority on anti-corruption, devised a simple formula: “corruption equals monopoly power plus discretion minus transparency”. By that equation, New Zealand would need to address monopoly power across several sectors, reduce ministerial discretion and fast-tracking processes, and increase political transparency.

In an election year, politicians should understand that the public’s satisfaction with the political system is mainly driven by the interplay between how well the economy is performing and perceptions of injustice and corruption.

There are of course trade-offs between the two. But given the steady drop in New Zealand’s index score over the past decade, any government will need to pay more attention to fighting real or perceived corruption more effectively.

– ref. NZ is slowly slipping on the global corruption index. Is it time for an anti-corruption agency? – https://theconversation.com/nz-is-slowly-slipping-on-the-global-corruption-index-is-it-time-for-an-anti-corruption-agency-275781

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/nz-is-slowly-slipping-on-the-global-corruption-index-is-it-time-for-an-anti-corruption-agency-275781/

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on February 19, 2026.

Ads are coming to AI. Does that really have to be such a bad thing?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilayaraja Subramanian, Lecturer in Marketing, University of Canterbury American artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic this month attracted applause – and a surge in users – for clever advertisements poking fun at its competition. In the commercials, an AI assistant awkwardly breaks away mid-conversation to push products such

‘I feel I’m making a difference’: how Blak women are working to build safer workplaces
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, Director, Indigenous Business Hub, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland Blak women make up a growing part of the Australian workforce, with 57% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women aged 15 to 64 employed in 2022-23 (the latest figures we have). That’s a

Racing enjoys special treatment under NZ gambling laws. Why?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Marriott, Professor of Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Despite the harm it is known to cause to a significant number of New Zealanders, the gambling industry as a whole is commonly defended for its contribution back to the community. Lotto NZ, for

Gambling for children? Why Australia should consider regulating blind box toys like Labubu
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By César Albarrán-Torres, Associate professor, Swinburne University of Technology If you walk through any major shopping mall in Australia, chances are you’ll encounter products and experiences that are uncomfortably similar to gambling – yet they are available to anyone, including children. Our soon-to-be-published research has found claw machines,

Labour’s Chris Hipkins accuses Winston Peters of ‘pure racism’ in Parliament
By Craig McCulloch, RNZ News deputy political editor Winston Peters has been accused of “pure racism” in Parliament by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who has called out National ministers for failing to combat or challenge it. The Greens say Peters is scapegoating migrants, while ACT’s David Seymour — his own Cabinet colleague — says Peters

Remembering Frederick Wiseman: the filmmaker who changed documentary cinema forever
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Moran, Lecturer in the Department of English, Creative Writing and Film, Adelaide University Frederick Wiseman, who died yesterday at the age of 96, was an American filmmaker whose carefully observed works changed documentary cinema forever, shedding light on institutions, individuals and everyday life. Born into a

Fiji’s president warns against sowing ‘seeds of fear’ ahead of elections
By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor Fiji President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has urged legislators not to sow seeds of “fear and division” as the country moves towards a general election later this year. Speaking at the opening of the fourth and final session of Parliament before the polls, Ratu Naiqama called on political leaders and

Real wages have gone backwards. Even earning $100,000 isn’t what it used to be
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Hoy, McKenzie Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne Figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that over the year to December, wages grew by 3.4%. For households, however, the number that really matters is what happened to wages after inflation. Over the

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-february-19-2026/