For a country with a record of large deforestation projects, Indonesia’s current activities in the far southeastern corner of the republic, South Papua province, surpass all.
With 2.5 million hectares of land being cleared for sugarcane and rice production for food and biofuel projects, alongside large oil palm concessions, Indonesia’s government has created a hugely consequential project right on Papua New Guinea and Australia’s doorsteps.
It is transforming the shape of an otherwise forest and swamp-dominated region, as well as the environment, culture and health of local Papuan communities.
New film on West Papua highlights ‘ecocide’. Video: RNZ
“The world should notice this. It’s not the Amazon, it’s just in our front door, in the Pacific here,” said Dandhy Dwi Laksono, director of Pesta Babi (Pig Feast): Colonialism in our Time, a new documentary film about the impacts of the deforestation in South Papua, the agri-business schemes behind it and the role Indonesia’s military plays in it all.
Laksono has been in New Zealand this week promoting the film with its producer, West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor, who said few people in other parts of the world know about what’s going on there.
“Maybe they only know [of] the conflict, military conflict, armed conflict in West Papua. But they never know the conflict like that,” he said.
The film sheds new light on the response by local Papuans in the wider Merauke region and its remote bush communities to an agri-business master plan attempted by several Indonesian presidents now.
Papua has some of the world’s largest remaining tracts of native rainforest — and clearing this large region of forest and swamp systems is likely to add to carbon emissions, pollution haze and biodiversity loss. Image: Mighty Earth/RNZ Pacific
Prabowo accelerated project The current president, Prabowo Subianto, has accelerated the project and committed military support for it, saying the military is needed to secure the agri-business projects in Papua because of their scale and importance to Indonesia’s national food and energy security.
However, Mambor said the presence of Indonesian troops in Papua had long been problematic for Papuans, and was growing.
“This is the problem in West Papua. There will be more troops, and then of course because of more troops there will be more conflict. More troops, more conflict, more problem.”
Given the ongoing armed conflict between West Papuan independence fighters and Indonesia’s military in other parts of Papua region (known internationally as West Papua), this film offers a useful insight into a struggle that is less known, but no less concerning.
Papua has some of the world’s largest remaining tracts of native rainforest — and clearing this large region of forest and swamp systems is likely to add to carbon emissions, pollution haze and biodiversity loss.
According to the NGO Mighty Earth, estimates of the CO2 emissions from so much land clearance range from 315 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (Indonesia’s first state-owned inspection, testing, certification, and consultancy company) to more than double that, according to a report by the Indonesian independent research institute.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Only one of these four paths protects humanity — the other three are likely destroy it.
ANALYSIS:By Qasim Rashid
This week Donald Trump threatened more war crimes on the people of Iran.
We are now in the most dangerous phase of this crisis, and pretending otherwise is reckless.
As a human rights lawyer, I do not view war as an abstraction, a chessboard, or a television spectacle. I view it in terms of law, civilian life, state accountability, and foreseeable human devastation.
If we are honest about the present moment, there are only four plausible scenarios from here. Three are catastrophic.
The fourth is the only one consistent with constitutional government, international law, and basic human survival. It is also the one Donald Trump appears least willing to accept — but one our Congress must rally to ensure happens.
As of today the United States’ and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has killed more than 1300 Iranians, mostly civilians. Up to one third of them are children — including the near 175 children killed by a US military Tomahawk missile.
Iran’s response has targeted military bases, resulting in reportedly 8 US soldiers killed and 13 Israelis. Now, Trump is promising “Death, Fire, and Fury” and “twenty times” the damage if Iran does not unconditionally surrender.
In other words, we are running out of time to end this illegal war and prevent global and irreparable catastrophe. Right now we have four possible paths ahead of us. It is critical we rally and demand Congress act to enact Option Number Four.
Option One The first scenario is that Trump eventually admits defeat and withdraws from Iran. In purely human terms, that would be preferable to escalation, but it would still come after an illegal war already launched without constitutional authority and under a pretext that has not been substantiated.
The geopolitical consequences would be significant.
A failed American war would further erode US credibility and likely accelerate a broader shift in influence toward China and Russia. Iran, having survived direct US-Israeli assault, would emerge emboldened.
Oil may no longer be pegged to the US dollar as the global currency, devastating the US economy. None of this is favourable, though this is the bed Trump has made so far. But also, compared with what comes next, it is survivable.
Trump has shown interest in ground troops. Image: Screenshot/www.qasimrashid.com
Option Two The second scenario is a ground invasion. Trump has not ruled that out. He has not ruled out a draft either. The Pentagon is already reportedly preparing to seek roughly $50 billion in supplemental funding for Middle East operations, a strong indication that the administration is contemplating a longer and more expensive war footing.
A quick reminder that politicians lie when they say we cannot afford to fund universal healthcare, free public college, free school lunches, or affordable housing.
Anyone speaking casually about invading Iran is either ignorant of the facts or indifferent to the lives that would be destroyed. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was already catastrophic. As I’ve cited before, a Brown University study documents an estimated 4.6 million civilians killed by Western wars since 2001.
And Iran is not Iraq. Iran is about 1.63 million sq km — which is triple the size of Iraq. I has a population that recent estimates place in the low 90 million range — which is double that of Iraq. It’s largest city, Tehran, has a population of 9.6 million — larger than New York City. It is geographically vast, heavily populated, politically complex, and militarily formidable.
Iran is geographically vast, heavily populated, politically complex, and militarily formidable. Map: Wilson Center/www.qasimrashid.com
A US ground invasion would not be a quick operation. It would be a regional inferno. Potentially millions could die. The global economy would likely be pushed into a prolonged recession. And because major powers would not passively watch such a war unfold, the risk of a broader world war would rise dramatically. Thus, option three.
Option Three The third scenario is the use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the United States. That is the scenario many people still resist discussing openly because it sounds too horrible to contemplate. But refusing to contemplate it does not make it less real.
This is not hyperbole. Research published in Nature Food and highlighted by Rutgers found that a large-scale nuclear war could kill more than 5 billion people through famine and system-wide collapse, even apart from the immediate blast deaths. In ordinary language, that means the deaths of four to six billion human beings within a relatively short period are well within the range of expert projections in a full nuclear exchange.
It would be worse than any Hollywood film can imagine because movies still assume that civilisation survives in recognisable form. Nuclear war does not promise survival. It promises planetary ruin. Thus, we must push for Option Four.
On August 6, 1945, the US became the first and only nation to use atomic weaponry when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Image: Universal History Archive/www.qasimrashid.com
That leaves the fourth scenario, which is the only morally serious option:
Option Four Trump resigns or is impeached, the war is halted, and actual peace negotiations begin. With Trump removed from power, there is at least a possibility of returning to diplomacy, de-escalation, and meaningful non-proliferation efforts. History gives us a model. In the mid-1980s, the United States and Soviet Union moved from existential nuclear hostility toward negotiations that helped reduce the risk of annihilation.
That kind of diplomacy is still possible, but only if the men driving this escalation are stopped. The obstacle, of course, is political cowardice. This would require the Republican Party to develop a spine and fulfill its constitutional duty. It would require Corporate Democrats to grow a spine and demand an end to this war. Instead, Hakeem Jeffries refuses to rule out funding this illegal attack on Iran with another $50 billion.
Hakeem Jeffries refuses to rule out funding this illegal attack on Iran. Image: www.qasimrashid.com
At present, it seems unlikely that Republicans and Corporate Democrats will grow a spine or a conscience. But unlikelihood is not an excuse for silence when the alternative is mass death.
Here’s the bottom line. This is not red versus blue. This is not left versus right. This is working people versus billionaires, civilians versus war planners, constitutional government versus authoritarian impulse. This is why the culture wars must stop. Because as bad as things are, they can get much worse.
Trump has not ruled out the worst options. He has not ruled out sending American troops into a catastrophic ground war. He has not ruled out escalating further. He has already shown that he will ignore constitutional limits, and too many members of Congress still behave as though strongly worded statements are an adequate response to an unlawful war.
There is also a deeper pattern here that should disturb every serious observer. In 2013, Trump claimed Obama would bomb Iran to distract from his failures. In 2023, J.D. Vance warned against repeating in Iran the same mistake made in Iraq.
Now they are doing exactly what they accused others of doing. That is not irony. It is the operating logic of fascist politics: accuse the other side of the crime you are preparing to commit yourself.
The legal and moral stakes are immense. Congress must act now to stop this war, cut off funding for unauthorised escalation, and reassert that the Constitution is not optional. Military service members must also remember that “I was just following orders” did not excuse unlawful conduct at Nuremberg, and it will not excuse it now.
To those cheering this war from a distance, understand what you are cheering for: possible nuclear confrontation, higher prices for families already struggling, and the deaths of ordinary soldiers while the sons of powerful men remain far from the battlefield.
We need option four, and we need it immediately. Trump must be removed from the machinery of war before his recklessness becomes irreversible. If we fail to stop this now, history will not say we were uninformed. It will say we were warned and did too little.
Qasim Rashid is a Pakistani-born American author, activist, and human rights lawyer. He is a member of the Democratic Party. His Substack page is Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid.
By personality and at his stage in life, Dennis Richardson is a man who, on occasion, stands on his dignity.
Richardson, 78, has a stellar public service career behind him. As a former head of ASIO, and former secretary of the defence and foreign affairs departments, who also served as ambassador to Washington, Richardson has plenty of experience in handling complicated assignments and relationships. But he’s also willing to say when enough is enough.
This week he reached that point, quitting the inquiry into the security issues around the Bondi massacre that he was conducting within the antisemitism royal commission.
Richardson declared he’d become a “fifth wheel” and not worth the $5,500 a day he was being paid.
“I was surplus to requirements,” he told Sky News, in one of several interviews he did on Thursday explaining his decision. “If you enjoy tough jobs, it’s very difficult to go back to what is essentially a research officer. When that happens, it does eat into you over time, and there’s not the job satisfaction there.”
As soon as the royal commission was announced, Richardson must have known his situation was going to be tricky.
Initially, in December, the government had charged him with investigating the federal law enforcement and security agencies, in the wake of Bondi. His review would look at whether the bodies had the “right powers, structures, processes and sharing arrangements” to keep Australians safe.
It was to be a standalone inquiry – at that stage Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was holding out against calling a royal commission.
But by January Albanese was pushed into the commission by political and public pressure. When he eventually gave in, he folded the Richardson inquiry into the wider commission, headed by former High Court judge Virginia Bell. He could have made Richardson a commissioner (and perhaps added one more) but chose not to do so.
Richardson, who was to report in April, soon found the legalistic constraints of a royal commission rubbed up against the more freewheeling approach that a former bureaucrat, who knows personally virtually all the key players, would bring to an inquiry.
Once his report was to be part of the royal commission, “it needed to conform to the way the royal commissioner and senior counsel saw it. That was no longer a flexibility for me,” he explained.
His inquiry “became a different animal. And over time, what I could add became less and less, and it reached a point where I saw no point in staying around.”
Richardson raised his issues with Bell “a couple of weeks ago”, and a short-term settlement was reached. But the problem persisted because it involved a fundamental difference of approach, arising from the inherent nature of a royal commission, especially one run by an ex-judge.
He did not talk with Albanese about his concerns, “because a royal commission sits outside of government […] it would have been quite wrong of me to talk to the prime minister”, seeking intervention, which anyway he didn’t think would have occurred.
He did consult some former bureaucrats as he mulled on his situation and what to do.
He would have found sympathetic ears. Some former senior public servants are known to have doubts about judicial figures presiding over inquiries into government agencies and departments, believing they may take a too legalistic approach, not understanding the multiple issues and pressures those in charge of these bodies may have to juggle.
Richardson’s resignation is a major blow to Albanese, who in December said of him: “Dennis Richardson […] has a lifetime of service going back to the Howard government, the Hawke government, the Rudd government, the Abbott government, right through every government here for 30 years. He is someone of integrity. He will have enormous power.”
This week’s debacle reflects on Albanese’s initial decisions in setting up the process, inviting the question: would it have run more smoothly if Richardson had been made a commissioner or, alternatively, if his inquiry had remained autonomous?
Richardson himself says he and Bell needed a deeper discussion at the start about how things would operate. There is no guarantee, however, that this would have prevented their two worlds colliding.
The security report, still due in April, will now be more general and less immediately definitive than originally planned.
Richardson has adamant that any recommendations relating to intelligence and law enforcement by definition go to questions of community safety and should be presented to government at the first opportunity, and well before the final report.
Bell said in a Wednesday statement that work on the interim report “is well advanced”. She said senior members of the Richardson team – Tony Sheehan, the former Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and Deputy Director-General of ASIO and Peter Baxter, a former deputy secretary in the defence department – would stay working on the interim report.
Richardson’s high profile departure may remove what has been a point of friction for Bell, but it puts more pressure on her – and there’s plenty there already.
Richardson has been careful to be publicly highly supportive of Bell and the commission generally. “Virginia Bell is an outstanding jurist. She has excellent senior counsel and other people working with her,” he said.
“I understand all the questions people raise about the credibility of the royal commission. [But] I’m totally relaxed that at the end of the day the credibility of the royal commission will be steadfast.”
Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson’s claim that it is “a disaster” for the commission’s ultimate findings and recommendations that Richardson will no longer be involved is hyperbolic.
Nevertheless Richardson’s departure will reinforce questions about a royal commission that has a timeframe squeezed into under a year, and very broad terms of reference including looking at social cohesion, with a sole commissioner who, however eminent, necessarily has a limited range of expertise.
The seventh narco sub in Pacific waters was discovered last week as the wave of methamphetamine becomes the latest crisis challenging the region.
1News Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver has spent decades reporting on the region from this country, including the drug battle and subsequent HIV epidemic in some countries.
She was detained and deported from Fiji before being blacklisted and not allowed to return for many years during former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s reign.
Bainimarama was recently charged with inciting mutiny over allegations they encouraged senior Fiji Military Forces officers to act against the military commander in 2023.
She is a well known face within in Aotearoa, and in much of the Pacific where 1News is screened.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Dalton, Lecturer in Musical Theatre, Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, Edith Cowan University
During a recent interview to promote his film Marty Supreme, Best Actor-nominee Timothée Chalamet said “no one cares about” opera and ballet anymore.
The actor’s comments, labelled both a slight and swipe by news outlets has provoked swift rebuke from prominent individuals and opera and ballet companies worldwide. Some have suggested the furore may affect his chances of winning the top award at the Oscars ceremony.
Why have Chalamet’s comments hit such a nerve? Is it because his mother and sister both danced with the School of American Ballet? Or is it the hurtful realisation, as dance critic Gia Kourlas notes in her piece for the New York Times, that the only way for ballet to get noticed in the mainstream media is to be dissed by a celebrity?
A health check on ballet
Dance Australia tried a positive spin on the situation. They suggested Chalamet’s comments “may prove unexpectedly useful […] to articulate, once again, why the artform continues to matter”.
Meanwhile, Queensland Ballet Artistic Director Ivan Gil-Ortega wrote of the challenges of “honouring the heritage of ballet while ensuring it remains alive and relevant for audiences today”.
Former dancer-turned-critic Emma Sandall argued ballet has moved “repeatedly in and out of fashion” and “always existed through one form of patronage or another”.
Australia’s national ballet company, The Australian Ballet, has faced a recent decline in attendance. Total live performances fell from 248 in 2023 to 200 in 2024, while attendance dropped from 305,364 to 225,771.
Live Performance Australia, which incorporates ballet and dance into a single national figure, reported a 10.4% decline in attendance over the same period – and a drop of almost 30% from 2010 to 2024.
Reflecting on its A$9.1 million loss in 2024, Chair of The Australian Ballet, Richard Dammery wrote:
without philanthropy, the Australian Ballet would be in a dire financial position. The company only exists […] because of generous donors.
An analysis of the American sector showed half of the 150 ballet companies surveyed were operating in a deficit in the 2023 financial year. Attendancelevels for ballet and other forms of live dance in the US almost halved between 2017-2022.
What about opera?
Opera faces a similar dilemma. Opera companies are vexxed by the question of how to remain loyal to artistic values while embracing market economics.
Research suggests they should look for alternate sources of revenue and overhaul traditional approaches to programming. But this comes with risks, such as alienating core audiences and potential donors.
Opera Australia’s forays into musical theatre previously “allowed the company to grow income at a faster rate than expenditure”.
However, programming Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Sunset Boulevard in 2024 coincided with a A$10 million operating loss and 23% drop in attendance. Former CEO Craig Hassall (CEO from 2013-16) was scathing. He labelled Sunset Boulevard as “disastrous” – and the 2025 follow-up Guys and Dolls as “crazy”.
Reflecting on his final year with the company, Hassall observed that total performances of the musical My Fair Lady rivalled “all of the main-stage operas combined”. He warned:
this addiction to musicals dangerously deprecated the company’s assumed raison d’être: first and foremost, to present opera. Musicals are not opera.
The newly minted CEO, Alex Budd, thanked Chalamet for bringing attention to the art form, and invited him to join the company’s under-35 program. This initiative sold 1,110 tickets when it was launched in 2024. For reference, the capacity of the Joan Sutherland Theatre is 1507.
Budd boasted that Opera Australia has one million seats on sale in 2026. But, in a season that includes three musicals – Anastasia, The Phantom of the Opera and My Fair Lady – he doesn’t say how many of the one million seats are actually for opera.
Multiple articles published by the New York Times have reported salary cuts, layoffs and a drained deficit fund at the Met Opera. And this is against the backdrop of a tentative deal with Saudi Arabia to secure US$200 million in lifeline funding.
The sale of two Chagall murals owned by the company (valued at US$55 million by Sotheby’s) was also reportedly under consideration.
Labor economist Christos Makridis – who studies the economics of art and culture – recently argued the future is dire for opera companies who concentrate on the preservation of their art form rather than popularising, monetising and growing what they do.
Locally, the Australian Research Council is supporting research to investigate how performing arts companies can increase accessibility and expand audiences. But practical advice will be slow to arrive, and will take time to implement.
The bigger picture
The last National Arts Participation Survey undertaken by Creative Australia found weekly attendance across all art forms dropped from 5% in 2019 to 3% in 2022. This suggests a broader, sector-wide issue.
The opera and ballet sectors continue to argue of their inherent relevance. Popularity, or a lack thereof, does not determine the inherent value of an art form. But a more circumspect position would be to acknowledge and confront the scale of the huge task ahead.
What will opera and ballet organisations do, and change, to ensure their survival?
Chalamet’s words may have galvanised a community. But the community’s response has highlighted a prevalent disconnect between artists’ and administrators’ feelings, and their ability to address the conditions threatening their industries.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brandon Michael Sideleau, PhD student studying human-saltwater crocodile conflict, Charles Darwin University
Recent crocodile sightings in floodwaters in the Northern Territory have prompted widespread concern, particularly in the town of Katherine and along the Daly River.
Katherine Mayor Joanna Holden told media she had never seen so many crocodiles in local flood waters before:
“There was actually a saltwater crocodile on the AFL oval last night”, she said. “It just adds another element of danger to the whole cleanup”.
Despite what you might assume, this isn’t about a surplus of crocs. In fact, there has been no significant growth in crocodile numbers in the Top End as a whole in more than a decade. But this is the highest flood in 30 years for Katherine, meaning crocodiles can more easily swim to areas they do not usually go.
And not every crocodile brings the same level of risk, which is why it’s useful to know more about the two crocodile species that call the Top End home.
[embedded content]
One territory, two species of croc
The NT is home to two native crocodilians, the name for the large, predatory and semi-aquatic reptiles belonging to the order Crocodilia, which includes alligators, crocodiles, caimans and gharials.
These are the saltwater crocodile, Crocodylus porosus, and the freshwater crocodile, C. johnstoni, known colloquially as “salties” and “freshies”, respectively.
Freshies are slender animals that rarely exceed three metres, with a thin snout evolved for catching fish. They pose no real danger to humans, though they can certainly inflict a painful bite. Freshies are found in greatest numbers in freshwater habitat such as rivers, swamps and lakes, rather than tidal areas. And they are abundant in the Top End.
Salties are a different matter entirely. Male salties can exceed six metres on rare occasions. One 6.2m individual was found drowned in a fishing net in the Fly River of Papua New Guinea in 1980. It weighed more than a tonne. These reptiles can prey on virtually anything that enters their territory — including humans — and can be found in tidal and freshwater habitat throughout the Top End.
Salties were hunted almost to extinction during the postwar hide-hunting era. But legal protection introduced in the early 1970s allowed the population to recover dramatically.
Long-term spotlighting surveys for both types of crocodiles have been carried out across the NT’s major tidal rivers, using powerful lights to find the reflective eyes of half-submerged crocs. These have documented a recovery now approaching pre-exploitation levels, with a population of around 100,000 non-hatchlings. Growth is now levelling off as the wild population reaches its maximum size. The population has not significantly increased for more than a decade.
Despite their name, salties are not a marine species. They are freshwater animals and found in large numbers in tidal rivers and freshwater swamps. They get their name from the fact that they can, and do, move long distances at sea and along the coast.
[embedded content]
Floods accelerate their range
Across their range, salties have been recorded travelling considerable distances up major river systems. In Papua New Guinea they are found far inland along the Fly and Sepik river basins, and in Borneo they have been documented more than 900km up the Kapuas river system.
Closer to home, salties have been recorded moving progressively further up freshwater rivers as the population has recovered. Animals have been recorded up to 235km inland.
Flooding can accelerate this process by allowing salties to move into new areas. A striking example occurred in 2019 when a 4m saltie was found at Kalkarindji, roughly 550km up the Victoria River from the NT coast. It had apparently moved inland during flooding the previous wet season.
Saltwater crocodile are dangerous even in shallow water. People should not attempt to wade through floodwaters that might containDavid Clode/Unsplash, CC BY
What happened in Katherine?
The Katherine River is predominantly freshie habitat. Freshies are found in rivers, lagoons and billabongs upstream and away from the coast, including in elevated escarpment country.
Safety information at the NT government’s Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park notes both saltwater and freshwater crocodiles inhabit the park. This area is designated as a “managed removal zone” under the NT Saltwater Crocodile management plan — meaning salties do periodically enter and are actively removed.
Salties had been absent from the freshwater Katherine River for more than two decades before beginning to reappear in the mid-1990s as the recovering population expanded its range upstream.
It’s likely most crocodiles being sighted around Katherine, which is 320km south of the coast, during the current flooding are freshies — including some large individuals.
But salties are also likely present to be there, albeit in fewer numbers. Residents and visitors should remember to be “crocwise” at all times. All flooded waterways in the Top End could potentially contain salties unless confirmed otherwise.
The situation near Nauiyu, south of Darwin on the Daly River, is very different. Salties of all sizes are common in the Daly River in large numbers. Their presence has been monitored since 1975. Attacks on humans in the Daly River region have occurred historically, so this area must be considered high-risk during current flooding.
Staying safe around crocodiles
Residents in affected areas should avoid all contact with floodwater wherever possible, and evacuation remains the safest option. If evacuation is not possible, maintain distance from floodwater. Large salties can attack in very shallow water, making wading through floodwater dangerous.
If access to floodwater cannot be avoided, do not use the same location repeatedly. Salties are known to observe and learn predictable human routines at the water’s edge. Livestock, pets and organic waste attract crocodiles and should be kept well away from floodwater.
Regardless where you are in the NT, treat floodwater as if a saltie could be in it.
Parts of northern Australia are battling record-breaking floods, after heavy rain caused majorrivers across Queensland and the Northern Territory to break their banks.
In some communities, residents and first responders are still bracing for more flooding. Meanwhile, authorities are starting to assess the damage done to homes, farms and businesses.
But these floods have also impacted key infrastructure, including the pumping system at Darwin’s main dam. This led NT Health to issue a “boil water alert”, which remains in place for parts of the Northern Territory.
So should residents be concerned about water contamination? And what can you do to make sure water is safe to drink?
How do floods affect drinking water?
Floods can significantly reduce water quality in both urban and regional or remote communities.
In urban areas, flooding can damage key water infrastructure. If pumps or other machinery are impacted, this disrupts daily water operations which ensure water is disinfected and safe to drink. Floods can also cause wastewater, particularly from sewage, to become mixed with drinking water.
In regional and rural communities, floods may cause other contaminants to enter drinking water supplies. These may include waste from livestock or other agricultural processes. Many rural residents also have their own water tank and sewage systems, such as a septic tank. During a flood, the contents of these two systems may become mixed.
In both situations, floodwaters can become a “bacterial soup” of harmful pathogens.
What pathogens should I be concerned about?
It depends on what is actually contaminating the water supply. In cities it may be household rubbish or domestic pets, while in rural areas it may be agricultural waste.
But the biggest danger is human waste from sewage systems. Sewage systems are usually built in low-lying areas, which means they are usually the first type of infrastructure to flood.
Sewage contains various microbes, including viruses, bacteria and protozoa, which can cause disease in humans. One example is cryptosporidium, a parasite found in the poo of infected people and animals. If it enters your intestine, this parasite can cause long-lasting diarrhoea and stomach cramps.
Other harmful microbes include giardia, a parasite which is particularly common in children, and strains of Escherichia coli. Sewage may also contain norovirus, a highly contagious virus that causes diarrhoea and vomiting.
Authorities earlier this week issued a “boil water alert” for Darwin and surrounding areas. This means residents should use boiled or bottled water for drinking, cooking, preparing baby formula and brushing their teeth. It is rare to have a city-wide boil water alert in place. The last time this happened was during Sydney’s 1998 water quality crisis, where flooding led to a spike in levels of cryptosporidium and giardia in the city’s water supply.
If in doubt, boil it out
So does boiling water actually help?
Yes, because boiling kills any harmful pathogens which may be in water. This includes microbes such as cryptosporidium and giardia which are quite resistant to chlorination, a common way of treating water.
But boiling is only effective if you:
keep the water on a rolling boil, meaning it should be bubbling or simmering, for at least one minute
cool the water by putting it in a covered container in the fridge
store any previously boiled and cooled water below five degrees Celsius for up to a week, before discarding it.
You can also look out for visual signs of contamination by filling a clear glass with tapwater. If the water looks cloudy or discoloured, it’s best to boil and cool it in a container in the fridge. That way any sediment will fall to the bottom of the glass. You can contact your water supplier so they can check for any potential contaminants.
You can also use a filter to get rid of sediment. But given microbes are extremely small, they may still pass through the filter. So to be safe, it’s best to boil water even after using a filter.
Is there anything I should avoid?
There may be a low risk of getting sick from using contaminated water, but it’s best to reduce your exposure to it.
So if your water supply isn’t safe to drink, you should avoid:
swallowing any tapwater while showering or brushing your teeth
giving children a shower, instead washing them using a sponge or in a bath
washing your hands with tapwater, instead washing them in a bowl of previously boiled and cooled water.
However, if you accidentally swallow contaminated water, you don’t need to panic. But if you have adverse symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, or stomach cramps, it’s best to speak to a doctor. This is particularly important for children, the elderly, and people with weaker immune systems.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bob Bowker, Honorary Professorial Fellow, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University
When the US-Israeli war on Iran finally ends, the Middle East will be even less predictable than it was before it started.
The decision by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to go to war – and the Iranian response – may be a watershed moment for the region. It is highly unlikely the Persian Gulf states will be prepared to pay a similar price again for the US to pursue its own interests.
When the war began, these countries quickly found that neither their alignment with the US security umbrella, nor their recent diplomatic engagement with Iran, prevented them from being targeted.
Where does the region go once the bombs stop dropping? Will the Gulf countries recalibrate their relations with the US, and if so, to what extent?
Firefighting crews working to contain a fire after a drone attack at Ras Tanura oil refinery in Saudi Arabia.Vantor/AP
A balancing act with the US
After the war ends, there is no reason to expect tensions between Washington and Tehran will subside to the point where the US can draw down its military assets in the Gulf.
Instead, the Iranian attacks have only underlined the importance to the Gulf states of having ready and reliable access to US defence systems.
Beyond the immediate need to protect their citizens, these countries need to assure energy markets that their reliability as oil and gas suppliers will be maintained. They need to reassure nervous investors that their capital is safe. And they need to ensure that transit through the region by ships and commercial aircraft remains secure and protected.
At the same time, popular opinion in these countries matters, no matter how draconian most rulers are in dealing with dissent.
The Gen Z residents of the region, in particular, are more educated, globally connected, and proud of their Arab heritage than previous generations. They are also much more sceptical of US hegemony. And their leaders are aware of this.
The staff at Al Farooq Mosque in Dubai arrange food items before sunset during the holy month of Ramadan.Ali Haider/EPA
Few people are likely to be sympathetic toward Iran, either. Whether Iran wins or loses, many will be even more deeply distrustful of the Shia minorities (or in the case of Bahrain, the Shia majority) in their own countries.
Nevertheless, a large number of people in the Gulf will lay the blame for the war – and the impact on their societies – on the US and Israel.
There’s already a great deal of antagonism toward the United States over its complicity in the catastrophe in Gaza. And despite the Abraham Accords that established formal relations between Israel and some Gulf Arab states, Israel remains anathema to populations across the region.
Simply put, Persian Gulf leaders will face a dilemma after the war: how to deal with an America that simultaneously remains a strategic partner of necessity and a source of enormous popular discontent.
Charting a careful course with Iran
Before the war broke out, Iran and the Gulf states had taken tentative steps toward rapprochement. Attacks on Saudi oil installations and tankers in 2019 nearly led to war with Iran, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE opted for diplomacy instead.
If the Iranian regime survives the war, these Gulf leaders will have to decide how best to deal with it. Under the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khameini, it is certain to be more hardline than it was before.
In doing so, the Gulf countries will need to tread carefully in making choices that privilege – or damage – relations with the United States.
There are likely to be many points of divergence or friction with the US. The UAE, Oman and Qatar can be expected to urge caution in aligning with any US-led attempts to isolate the regime, rather than re-engaging pragmatically with it.
Israel has been largely unrestrained by Washington since the Gaza war began in 2023. As such, it is seen as a regional threat, not an ally.
Any moves by Israel and the US to support non-state actors in Iran to rise up against the regime, including Kurdish separatists, would deeply alarm Arab governments facing their own separatist movements. A government collapse and civil war in Iran – both acceptable outcomes from an Israeli perspective – would be a disaster for the region.
The Saudis would also be deeply concerned at the prospect of the US allowing Israel to reoccupy southern Lebanon. And without significant changes in the Trump administration’s approach to Israel, the nightmare in Gaza will drag on.
Major questions moving forward
Leaders in the region have agency. They are much more secure than they were in the past, and their economies are more robust. Three Arab countries alone (the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) have invested US$315 billion (A$441 billion) in US Treasury securities. This affords them leverage, should they choose to use it.
Given this, any moves toward a greater assertiveness of national interests would present obvious challenges for US strategy and diplomacy.
In theory, this is a time when the US ought to be shaping or at least influencing how the key players in the region will engage with Iran for years to come. But there is no US “day-after” plan for Iran, or the region, should the Islamic regime collapse.
There is also fear in the Gulf states of further impetuous actions by the Trump administration. Gulf countries remain concerned about being left high and dry by the US once again in their future dealings with Iran, as well.
Importantly, the distrust and political antagonism toward the US across the Arab world cannot be ignored.
In this unprecedented moment for the region, it is doubtful the Trump administration has the diplomatic skills, insight, commitment and credibility to shape a future strategic environment to best serve the interests of the US going forward, as well as the interests of the Arab countries themselves.
Despite being one of the world’s top exporters of fossil fuels (coal and gas), Australia has little left of its own oil. Neither does New Zealand.
Both Australia and New Zealand sit at the end of a long supply chain for their transport fuels. The US-Israel war on Iran has led to this supply chain being squeezed. Iran’s move to shut down the crucial Strait of Hormuz has effectively frozen 20% of the world’s oil trade. Three ships were hit by projectiles in the strait yesterday.
When supply reduces, we expect prices to rise. That’s why petrol and diesel prices have shot up. Farmers and trucking companies are worried about possible fuel shortages, especially for diesel.
Many people will wonder why governments aren’t acting. But they are not sitting idly by. Australia and New Zealand are among the 32 member nations in the International Energy Agency (IEA) that have agreed to release reserves of oil to tackle price spikes, though it’s unclear how much this will help.
New Zealand’s fuel reserves could last perhaps four weeks if all new supply was completely cut off, while Australia has a little more after recent expansion of fuel reserves.
It’s important not to panic. Losing 20% of oil supply affects prices. But the other 80% of oil is unaffected by the war. Current price spikes are likely to be more affected by panic buying and perhaps even price gouging than by an actual supply shortage.
What are authorities doing?
Yesterday, the IEA announced its members would release a collective 400 million barrels of oil onto the market to try to bring oil prices down – the sixth and largest release in the agency’s history.
Globally, oil prices have spiked 25% since the Iran conflict began on February 28. In turn, petrol and diesel prices have risen at the pump.
Some have asked whether prices rose before supplier costs increased. This is something the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is watching. Commissioner Anna Brakey has said:
we are closely watching market behaviour and if there is conduct that is collusive or misleading or deceptive, we will investigate it and take action where appropriate
New Zealand’s Commerce Commission is watching closely as well. This scrutiny won’t fix supply problems, but it could avoid price gouging.
Australia has just two oil refineries left in operation, down from eight about 20 years ago. New Zealand’s last refinery closed in 2022. As refineries have closed, their fuel storage capacity has gone too.
This is one reason why Australia has long fallen short of the goal set by the IEA to have 90 days’ worth of stored fuel. In 2018, diesel reserves fell as low as 16 days. To counter this, the Morrison government arranged in 2020 to store more fuel in the United States, while the Albanese government has been expanding domestic reserve capacity – especially for diesel, which fuels trucks moving freight around the country.
After the Ukraine conflict began, the government introduced minimum stockholding levels for fuel companies.
So while 36 days of petrol, 32 days of diesel and 29 days of aviation fuel sounds low, it’s more than it has been for a long time.
As wars and tensions increase around the world, the Australian government may have to expand these reserves again.
Diesel is a particular concern for Australia, given the country’s reliance on trucks for freight.Lukas Coch/AAP
What else can authorities do?
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has blamed price spikes on panic buying. This is a big factor – many people are filling up ahead of expected price surges.
If petrol and diesel prices stay high, we can expect to see more calls for action.
The problem is, the government can’t do too much in the short term. It can’t easily increase supply into Australia. If it moves to cap petrol prices, this would quickly send suppliers broke. If suppliers are profiting excessively by raising prices well above the higher costs, this is something the ACCC will examine.
Releasing reserves onto the domestic market could temporarily drop prices. But Australia and New Zealand’s reserves are not huge, which limits how effective this could be. If the Iran conflict drags on, it could even prove a bad move.
Over time, unaffected oil producers such as the US will likely raise their output. Embargo limits on Russian oil are being loosened.
Don’t forget gas
Gas from Qatar – the world’s second-largest producer – has also stopped flowing. Gas prices have risen far more than oil in Europe and Asia – up by 50%.
After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, gas prices skyrocketed globally. While Australia is a major gas exporter, domestic gas prices usually follow international prices. In response, the Australian government put a domestic price cap on gas of A$12 a petajoule. This, it turned out, didn’t do much to lower prices. But over time, prices fell back.
Right now, Australian gas exporters are profiting hugely as the supply from Qatar has stopped. But windfall profits at the expense of Australian consumers can – and, I argue, should – be taxed.
What’s next?
This fortnight has shown how vulnerable Australia and New Zealand’s supply chains are for their transport fuels. This crisis should prompt policymakers to take a hard look at how else we can boost our resilience in what is becoming a very uncertain world.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeleine Stirling, Research Assistant, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society, The University of Melbourne
Recently, the federal government released a consultation paper seeking input on whether it should introduce legislation to prevent or restrict infant formula marketing in Australia. The consultation is open for submissions until April 10.
Until February 2025, Australian formula brands were under a voluntary agreement not to advertise formula products for babies aged 0 to 12 months, in order to support and protect breastfeeding.
With recent data revealing lower-than-desired rates of breastfeeding in Australia, the government has chosen not to renew the voluntary arrangement and is exploring tougher measures.
These moves don’t explicitly promote breastfeeding. Rather, they aim to curtail marketing practices that position formula as an equivalent or preferable alternative.
Our analysis of online formula ads targeting parents in Australia reveals how companies prey on parents’ anxiety – and the problems with having a voluntary agreement.
What’s wrong with advertising formula?
Breastfeeding has extensive health benefits for both mother and child. These include protection against gastrointestinal and respiratory infections for newborns, reduced risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life, and reduced risk of mothers developing ovarian and breast cancer.
Because of this, Australianguidelines recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months. The World Health Organization recommends continued breastfeeding for the first two years.
However, while breastfeeding rates are high at birth in Australia, they quickly drop. Only 37% of babies were reported to have been exclusively breastfed by six months in 2022.
Formula is valuable. It’s often an essential option for those unable to breastfeed. However, it’s also expensive and can financially strain families, particularly during the first year of a child’s life.
Online advertising also operates very differently from traditional ads. Online, ads target people based on their searches, browsing histories or life events. They can reach new or expecting parents precisely when they might be most uncertain or vulnerable to suggestion.
In 2022 we collected ads from 1,200 Australian adults who voluntarily installed a plug-in on their browser to scrape ads while they were scrolling Facebook. From 2025 we’ve been collecting ads from around 300 Australians. They use an app to share the ads that appear while they scroll Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube on their phones.
Screenshots of various formula ads collected by the Australian Ad Observatory.Supplied
For this analysis, we examined ads collected in both years, and identified a total of 158 ads promoting formula products from local and international brands.
We found brands used various tactics to appeal to parents. Some highlighted positive customer reviews or offered free downloadable cookbooks and “house baby proofing” guides.
Other ads were in partnership with prominent retailers, directing people to online shopping interfaces through “buy now” buttons.
Most formula brands made some kind of claim regarding the nutritional or behavioural benefits of their products. These claims prey on the anxiety parents commonly feel to ensure their children are meeting nutritional, sleep and developmental milestones.
Some manufacturers claimed their product was fortified with vitamins and prebiotics that would “improve gut health” or help a toddler sleep longer at night.
Others claimed their formula would provide mothers with “a moment of calm” or strengthen their toddler’s immune system. This is despite scientific evidence that shows breastmilk can provide necessary antibodies to a sick child in real time.
Starting them young
Many of the ads used pictures of very young toddlers who could easily be mistaken for infants aged 12 months or under. In one instance we discovered an ad clearly promoting formula designed for babies under 12 months.
This, alongside the use of images of very young children to promote “toddler milk” (formula marketed for children aged 1–3 years), highlights some of the issues with a voluntary advertising agreement.
Since toddler milk marketing was exempt, brands could target parents of newborns. They’d gain brand awareness and consumer trust, which could then result in a parent choosing to start their child on formula instead – or earlier than they otherwise would.
Enforcement has also been an issue. The consequences for breaching the agreement – publishing the breach on the Department of Health website – are not considered meaningful enough by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
At the same time, the digital advertising environment provides very little visibility into what marketing is actually circulating or who is exposed to it.
Outside of specialised research tools, such as our Ad Observatory and the Australian Internet Observatory, there’s no systematic way to observe infant formula ads that appear on personalised social media feeds.
What might the government end up doing about it?
The government is considering the following options:
keep the status quo – no regulation
introduce legislation that mirrors the former voluntary agreement, preventing infant formula (0–12 months) from being promoted
introduce legislation that also limits toddler milk marketing (1–3 years).
We’ve provided all our data to the government to aid the decision-making process. However, while the ads we found are a peek behind the curtain, they likely underrepresent the scale of formula marketing happening online.
Infant formula can be an essential and sometimes life-saving intervention for families who need it. But health interventions don’t depend on persuasive advertising to fulfil their purpose.
The real policy question is whether a product designed to support infants should be promoted through the same marketing systems that sell snack foods, cosmetics and financial products.
Acknowlegement: The Australian Ad Observatory is a team effort. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Khanh Luong, Giselle Newton, Phoebe Price-Barker, Lara Skinner, Abdul Obeid and Dan Tran.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 12, 2026.
Sick of spam marketing texts and emails? This is how to stop them Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Lecturer, Faculty of Business & Law, Queensland University of Technology Unwanted, unsolicited marketing emails, texts and instant messages feel like an unavoidable fact of modern life. But there are actually legal restrictions on spamming that apply to every business selling to
NRL and AFL wage growth is off the charts – what about other Australian athletes? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Hartley, Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania Elite athletes can earn huge money from playing contracts, prize money, sponsorship, endorsements, appearance fees and media work. This is especially the case for Australia’s two major football codes – the Australian Football League (AFL) and
Which nut butter is healthiest – peanut, almond or cashew? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland Once, the only nut butter on the supermarket shelf was peanut butter. Now you can also buy almond, cashew, hazelnut and macadamia nut butters, or blends. So which is the healthiest nut butter to spread
After a summer of weather disasters, will Kiwis make climate an election issue? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Crawley, Teaching Fellow, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Extreme weather-related events in early 2026 – including the fatal landslides in Mount Maunganui and Tauranga – have raised a logical question: will climate change and
Trump-aligned think tank proposes ‘Pacific Charter’, greater US involvement in the region By Kaya Selby, RNZ Pacific journalist An American right-wing think tank is proposing a “Pacific Charter” that advocates for a greater United States presence in the region. The Heritage Foundation, closely associated with the ruling Republican Party, wrote that China is “covetously” looking to the Pacific nations while they are vulnerable to major security threats,
Rising CO₂ levels are reflected in human blood. Scientists don’t know what it means Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Larcombe, Associate Professor and Head of Respiratory Environmental Health, The Kids Research Institute Australia; Curtin University Humans evolved in an atmosphere containing roughly 200–300 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Today, that figure sits above 420 ppm, higher than at any point in the
Is cancer more common in women after IVF? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Raymond Walker, Research Fellow, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW Sydney Since fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) began, there has been concern they could cause cancer. Concerns have included whether aspects of treatment – such as taking hormonal medications, or puncturing
As NAPLAN suffers technical problems, why are major tests done online? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Tognolini, Director, Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment, University of Sydney NAPLAN testing started with a technical glitch on Wednesday morning. Schools were advised to pause the first day of assessments while a “widespread issue affecting students being able to log on to the online platform”
What 2.5 million Australian company directors need to know about the scathing Star judgement Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Harris, Professor of Corporate Law, University of Sydney It’s one of the most important corporate governance cases in the past 20 years, involving organised crime inside Australia’s second-biggest casino. The Federal Court ruled last week that Star Entertainment Group’s former chief executive and its general counsel
Too many ‘stupid rules’, too little authority: how organisations create their own red tape Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Hamilton-Hart, Professor in Management and International Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau “Dress appropriately.” Soon after becoming General Motors’ vice president of global human resources in 2009, Mary Barra used those two words to replace a clunky employee dress code that had grown to ten
Indie coffee shops are meant to counter corporate behemoths like Starbucks – so why do they all look the same? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Conrad Kickert, Associate Professor of Architecture, University at Buffalo Like many young, urban professionals, we run on coffee. We especially enjoy frequenting independently owned cafes that pride themselves on ethically sourced beverages, strong local ties and a hip aesthetic. They’re the kinds of places that sneer at
Ramzy Baroud: Israel’s greatest weapon was fear – and it’s now failing Israel’s war on Iran reveals a deeper crisis: the collapse of a psychological doctrine built on fear and invincibility. The Palestine Chronicle reports. ANALYSIS: By Ramzy Baroud Israel’s military strategy has long relied on psychological dominance and deterrence built on overwhelming violence. Massacres during the Nakba helped establish fear as a strategic tool to weaken
Electric trucks are finally ready for prime time. Could high oil prices speed up the shift? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology For years, long-range electric trucks seemed impossible. But much has changed in a short time. Rapid improvements to batteries and chargers mean battery electric trucks are already viable for urban and short-range trucks. In December,
French Polynesia urges Pacific to unite amid rising global tensions By ‘Alakihihifo Vailala of PMN News French Polynesia’s President Moetai Brotherson says growing global instability is a reminder that Pacific nations must strengthen cooperation within the region. Speaking to PMN News in an exclusive interview, Brotherson said the Pacific must focus on deeper partnerships with neighbours such as New Zealand to build resilience against external
Help for athletes, bans for others: unpacking Australia’s complex, chaotic migration developments Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Phillips, Lecturer, Western Sydney University The past 48 hours in Australia has showcased the dramatic complexities of the country’s migration and asylum landscape, and the power of ministerial intervention in this federal portfolio. On the one hand, the federal government pulled out all stops to safeguard
View from The Hill: it’s now Canavan v Joyce after the Nationals opt for the radical leadership option Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Matt Canavan was once Barnaby Joyce’s staffer, and later his closest ally and most vociferous spruiker. Not to mention his best political friend. Now, in selecting Canavan as their new leader, the Nationals have chosen him to spearhead the party’s
NACC investigation into Robodebt reveals public service corruption, but it will take much more to fix the system Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has released its much-anticipated investigation into the six people referred by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. The report reveals the identity of the referred people, which was previously not public knowledge:
The reporting on Iran and Gaza the US-Israel war machine can’t control Drop Site News Right now, the United States and Israel are continuing their bombardment of Iran. As the confirmed death toll climbs past 1330 and hospitals, schools, and residential neighborhoods are hit daily, the media apparatus that sold you the Iraq war and denied Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians for the last two years is
Your cat is likely to live longer if you don’t let them roam – new study Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Calver, Associate Professor in Biological Sciences, Murdoch University Warning: some readers might find images in this article disturbing We all know cats represent a major threat to native animals and birds. Australia’s 5.3 million domestic cats kill a total of 546 million animals each year in
Keith Rankin Analysis – UAE, Israel, and The Hexagon Alliance Analysis by Keith Rankin, 10 March 2026. There is a widespread perception in Aotearoa New Zealand that the ‘Gulf States’ are similar, and closely aligned to each other. The States most familiar to New Zealanders are United Arab Emirates (‘Dubai’ to the many New Zealanders who do not appreciate that Dubai is just one of
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Lecturer, Faculty of Business & Law, Queensland University of Technology
Unwanted, unsolicited marketing emails, texts and instant messages feel like an unavoidable fact of modern life. But there are actually legal restrictions on spamming that apply to every business selling to Australian shoppers.
Clothing company Lululemon Athletica Australia just paid a A$702,900 penalty for infringing those rules when it sent more than 370,000 emails without an unsubscribe option.
This is how you can stop or report persistent marketing spam – and why we need to tighten those rules even further.
What do Australia’s anti-spam rules say?
The rules of the Spam Act are fairly straightforward.
First, the law prohibits a person or business from sending unsolicited commercial “electronic messages”: emails, texts or instant messages. That means a business must have a person’s consent before sending them marketing messages.
Second, the Spam Act makes it a rule for any person or business sending a commercial message to include an option to unsubscribe from future messages.
The unsubscribe function has to be clear and work for at least 30 days. And it mustn’t require a person to provide additional personal information, or login or sign up for a user account, to opt out.
The rules apply when the sender or recipient of the message is located in Australia.
However, there are some exceptions. The rules don’t apply to messages from certain kinds of entities: registered charities, educational institutions, government bodies and, most controversially, registered political parties.
Anyone who thinks they’ve received a message that doesn’t meet the rules can complain to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
Even if you don’t want to make a complaint, you can still report it by:
forwarding email spam to report@submit.spam.acma.gov.au (do not change the subject line or add any text)
forwarding SMS or MMS spam to 0429 999 888 (standard message charges apply).
If ACMA finds a business has violated the rules, they can face hefty fines.
Last year, Tabcorp was fined $4 million for non-compliant SMS and WhatsApp messages to its VIP customers.
Telstra also paid a $626,000 penalty for sending more than 10 million text messages that did not comply with Australia’s spam laws.
The year before, the Commonwealth Bank landed a $7.5 million fine for sending millions of marketing messages without people’s consent or a working unsubscribe option. It was the bank’s second major breach of the spam rules, after it was fined $3.55 million in 2023.
Why Lululemon was fined
In its latest case, announced this week, ACMA foundLululemon Athletica Australia failed to provide an unsubscribe option in thousands of messages sent between 1 December 2024 and 5 January 2025. (The company is a local subsidiary of global “athleisure” brand Lululemon, based in Canada.)
As a result, Lululemon here in Australia was fined $702,900. It also agreed to take steps to ensure future compliance, including appointing an independent consultant to review its procedures, training personnel, and reporting on compliance to ACMA.
Which messages are covered by the Spam Act?
Interestingly, Lululemon initially argued its messages were not subject to the anti-spam rules.
The rules only apply to commercial messages: when one of the purposes of the message is to advertise, promote or offer to supply goods or services. This won’t include purely factual communications about a good or service you’ve purchased, such as delivery updates, payment reminders, notices of product faults.
Lululemon pointed out that its messages contained factual information, sent for transactional purposes.
Importantly, however, they also contained links back to Lululemon’s website and social media pages. The links had titles like “shop accessories”. That was enough to trigger the Spam Act rules.
The line between factual, marketing and entertainment content is increasingly hard to discern online.
However, as ACMA’s recent actions make clear, the Spam Act is clear on this point. A message may have multiple purposes – but if one is to advertise, promote or offer goods or services, the rules will apply.
Still, the kinds of messages captured by the spam legislation are a mere drop in the ocean of digital advertising we encounter everyday elsewhere online including our social media feeds. Ads are tailored and targeted to each of us in real-time, using vast amounts of data.
Back in 2022, the federal Attorney-General’s department recommended updating Australia’s privacy laws to adapt to modern digital advertising.
If implemented, those changes would give consumers more choices to opt out of the broader range of targeted advertising we see. It would also improve transparency about the use of profiling in advertising, and add restrictions on using sensitive information.
The current Spam Act has been in place since 2003. The online advertising ecosystem has shifted dramatically over the past 20 years.
While ACMA’s recent enforcement actions demonstrate the continued relevance and need for education about anti-spamming laws, updating those laws is now long overdue.
Once, the only nut butter on the supermarket shelf was peanut butter. Now you can also buy almond, cashew, hazelnut and macadamia nut butters, or blends.
So which is the healthiest nut butter to spread on your toast?
As we’ll see, the healthiest is not just about the actual nut. It’s also about what else goes in the jar.
What do they all have in common?
All nut butters are made from ground nuts that provide healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, plant-based protein, fibre. They also provide essential minerals, such as magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron.
Across decades of research, regularly eating nuts is associated with a lower risk of heart disease and premature death. That benefit appears whether the nut is peanut, almond or cashew or any other type of nut.
But many commercial products contain vegetable oils, palm oil, salt, sugar, or stabilisers to improve texture and shelf life. These added ingredients dilute the nutritional quality and increase salt or kilojoules without providing any health benefits.
Choosing a nut butter made only from nuts (or nuts with minimal salt) means you get the full nutritional value.
How do I choose a nut butter?
Check the ingredients list. The healthiest options contain just one ingredient – nuts. Some added salt is fine, if minimal. But avoid products with seed oils (such as canola oil), palm oil, fillers or added sugars.
Looking at the nutrients in each nut butter per serve (a tablespoon, about 16 grams) can highlight how they differ. The numbers vary slightly by brand. But when the product contains 100% nuts, the numbers don’t generally change dramatically between nuts.
To keep things simple, we’ve focused on peanut, almond and cashew butters:
protein: peanut butter wins slightly for protein content, at 3.84g per tablespoon, making it a solid choice for post-workout snacks or adding extra protein to your day. However, almond (3.36g) and cashew butters (2.82g) aren’t far behind. So they still contribute meaningful protein to your diet
fat: almond butter takes the top spot for healthy fats (8.88g per tablespoon), followed closely by peanut (7.98g) and cashew butter (7.9g). The fats in nuts are mainly heart-healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, which have been associated with improved cholesterol levels and reduced inflammation
carbohydrates: cashew butter contains the most carbohydrates (4.42g per tablespoon), which might be important if you’re looking for quick energy before a workout or if you have type 1 diabetes and are adjusting your medication based on your carbohydrate intake. Then comes peanut butter (3.49g), followed by almond butter (3.01g)
fibre: almond butter takes the lead for fibre (1.65g per tablespoon) followed by peanut butter (1.06g). Cashew butter lags significantly behind (0.32g), about one-fifth of the almond butter’s content. This makes cashew butter the weakest option if you’re relying on nut butter to contribute to your daily fibre intake
calcium: almond butter dramatically outperforms the others for calcium, with 55.5 milligrams per tablespoon. This offers about eight times more than peanut butter (6.56mg) and cashew butter (6.88mg). This makes almond butter an excellent choice for bone health, especially if you avoid dairy
potassium: both peanut and almond butter tie for potassium content (120mg per tablespoon). This makes them useful for supporting healthy blood pressure and muscle function. Cashew butter contains 87.4mg
iron: cashew butter leads the pack for iron (0.805mg for tablespoon), followed by almond butter (0.558mg) and peanut butter (0.304mg). This is particularly relevant for people with higher iron needs, such as those menstruating, pregnant or breastfeeding, or people following plant-based diets. But overall, nut butters are not a meaningful source of iron
zinc: cashew butter (0.826mg per tablespoon) offers nearly twice the zinc of peanut butter (0.445mg). Almond butter’s zinc content is in the middle (0.526mg). This makes cashew butter valuable for immune function and wound healing
selenium: cashew butter provides the most selenium (1.84 micrograms per tablespoon), an important antioxidant mineral that supports thyroid function. Peanut butter comes in second (1.2µg), while almond butter contains notably less (0.384µg)
magnesium: almond butter leads for magnesium (44.6mg per tablespoon). Close behind is cashew butter (41.3mg), then peanut butter (25.4mg). This mineral is crucial for muscle relaxation, sleep quality and energy production.
In a nutshell
Each nut butter has distinct nutritional advantages:
peanut butter leads in protein and ties with almond butter for potassium, making it ideal for muscle support and feeling full
almond butter is the standout for calcium, and is also higher in fibre, magnesium and heart-healthy fats. This makes it an excellent choice for bone health, digestion and cardiovascular support
cashew butter is naturally sweet and is the strongest source of minerals such as iron, zinc and selenium. These are essential for immune function, energy production and thyroid health. However, it is the lowest in both protein and fibre. So while it contributes valuable micronutrients, it’s better suited as an occasional option rather than a primary protein source.
Any concerns?
Often, almond and cashew butters are processed on equipment that’s been used to process peanuts or other nuts. So traces of one nut may appear in another nut butter, which is stated on the label. So if you have a specific nut allergy, check labels carefully.
The cost also varies. Almond and cashew butters are usually slightly more expensive (at around A$2.40 per 100g) compared with about $1.82 per 100g for peanut butter.
What now?
No single nut butter reigns supreme as each brings different nutritional strengths.
The smartest approach would be to keep more than one on hand, choose versions made from 100% nuts, and let your taste preferences and nutritional goals guide you.
Elite athletes can earn huge money from playing contracts, prize money, sponsorship, endorsements, appearance fees and media work.
This is especially the case for Australia’s two major football codes – the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL), which began last weekend.
However, a 2023 report showed 46% of Australia’s elite athletes over 18 earn less than $23,000 annually, placing them below the poverty line.
While athletes in major professional leagues benefit from strong revenues and collective bargaining agreements, many outside of these profitable competitions – and most women athletes – can be left earning much less, despite competing at the highest level of their sport.
The AFL
Athletes in Australia’s most popular sports often receive sizeable playing contracts influenced by collective bargaining agreements.
There’s been a dramatic jump in top-end earnings in recent years. In 2024, 25 players earned at least $1 million but in 2025 that number more than doubled (58).
For the first time, two players were paid more than $1.6 million, and 22 earned beyond $1.2 million.
Those numbers will again increase in 2026 with multiple $2 million-per-season contracts being forecast.
NRL
NRL salaries have also increased, although not as rapidly as the AFL.
In 2027, the league’s salary cap will be $12.1 million per club – an increase of more than 5% since 2023.
This equates to an average player salary of about $400,000, while base playing contracts will be $145,000 in 2027.
This year also marks the beginning of the largest contract in NRL history, with Newcastle Knights’ Dylan Brown signing a ten-year deal worth more than $13 million.
In 2025, Brown was among 19 players believed to be earning above $1 million.
NRLW and AFLW
Salaries in the women’s leagues for the AFL and NRL are much lower in comparison.
NRLW player wages are growing but still sit below those of the AFLW.
The NRLW annual salary cap has grown by 68% from 2023 ($900,000) to 2027 ($1.518 million). Across the same period, the AFLW’s total player payments will increase from $1.79 million to $2.46 million.
The NRLW average salary will be more than $60,000 in 2027, while the AFLW average salary is expected to increase to $82,000 in the same year.
Additionally, cricketers can hold contracts to play matches for their state and/or country. The average men’s Cricket Australia contract is nearly $1 million a year, plus match payments.
Top Australian women cricketers can also earn up to $1 million a year when their national contracts are combined with their earnings from T20 tournaments overseas.
Basketball
Australia’s National Basketball League (NBL) has a team salary cap of just more than $2 million. However the current marquee system allows for a proportion of top players’ salaries not to be included in the cap.
This means some of the league’s star players can earn more than $1 million a season. The minimum salary is around $80,000.
Netball Australia and the code’s players’ association reached a landmark deal in 2025 involving a revenue share model and around a 40% pay increase over three years.
Netball Australia also agreed to a new three-year collective player agreement that would see Super Netball’s average player salary jump to close to $90,000, with a minimum salary of $46,000 in 2026.
The enhanced financial security and investment in players’ welfare are likely to underpin Australia’s potential success at the 2026 Commonwealth Games and the 2027 Netball World Cup in Sydney.
Tennis
Australia’s highest ranked male tennis player Alex De Minaur has been professional since 2015. In this time, he has amassed almost $24 million in prize money, with $1.4 million coming in the first two months of 2026 alone.
Australia’s highest ranked female player Maya Joint has collected almost $1.7 million since turning professional at the end of 2024.
While the top tennis players in the world can rank among sports’ highest earners, many players struggle financially if they’re not in the top 50-100 rankings.
Golf
Golf is defined by substantial prize money.
Australia’s top-ranked male golfer, Min Woo Lee, currently sitting 30th in the world, has already amassed almost US$3 million (A$4.3 million) in 2026.
Australia’s current top female golfer – his sister, Minjee Lee, ranked fourth in the world – has earned US$18.8 million in prize money (A$26.53 million) since joining the LPGA Tour in 2015.
Similar to tennis, golfers ranked outside the top tier may face significant financial pressure due to inconsistent prize money.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Crawley, Teaching Fellow, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Extreme weather-related events in early 2026 – including the fatal landslides in Mount Maunganui and Tauranga – have raised a logical question: will climate change and infrastructure resilience be big issues come the election in November?
More to the point, will climate change be pivotal enough to affect the result?
Anyone who has watched climate politics and coverage over time may have noticed a pattern: once the extreme weather passes, the news moves on to more immediate concerns and discussions about climate change fade.
News reports don’t necessarily affect election results, however. People have their own rankings of issues – separate from, but shaped by, media coverage.
It’s these rankings that influence how people vote and which could ultimately tilt an election. So it’s useful to look at the data on where people rank climate change relative to other issues, and how that might change over time.
While some may be hoping for a climate election in 2026, the data suggests it probably won’t be.
Climate and voting behaviour
Most New Zealanders accept the science of climate change, with surveys showing only around 2% of the population don’t believe it is real. More than 60% of the population would like the government to do more to address it.
But wanting action on an issue does not necessarily mean it will change how you vote. For most people, only two or three issues guide their vote.
What we’re interested in, then, is not how much people want action on climate change, but how climate change ranks against other issues.
One way of measuring this is to ask people to rank a list of issues from most to least important. This was the purpose of my 2022 survey of New Zealand and Australian voters which asked respondents to rank climate change relative to seven other issues: health, education, crime, immigration, the economy, terrorism and poverty.
At the time, climate ranked most important with 9% of respondents, and least important with 22%. Overall, 36% placed it in their top four most important issues, but 64% had it in the bottom four.
The New Zealand Election Study – a survey run after every election to understand what voters were thinking – asks an open-ended question about people’s most important issue.
After the 2023 election, 4% said climate change was their most important issue, up from 2% in 2020. In contrast, the economy was the most important issue for 16% of respondents, and the cost of living for 15%.
More recently, we can refer to data from global polling company IPSOS, which regularly publishes an issues monitor report for NZ. In February 2026, even after the deadly summer weather disasters, climate change was only the eighth most important issue.
Trends over time
Is climate change becoming more important to the public over time, and does that importance change in response to weather events? These questions are hard to answer and require frequent surveys over long periods.
We can go back a few years with New Zealand Election Study data, which shows mentions of climate change by respondents as their most important issue increasing over time, partly offset by declining mentions of the environment (see graph below).
IPSOS also measures longer-term trends. Climate change peaked as most important issue with 27% of people after Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. That declined to 19% just before that year’s election in October. It has hovered around 15% ever since.
This kind of response to extreme weather – where the importance of climate change fades not long after the event – has been widely studied. There is a clear pattern showing people’s concern levels spike when weather catastrophes hit, but return to base levels within a few months.
What this means in 2026
From what we know of public opinion patterns, there’s no reason to think 2026 will be a climate election in New Zealand.
A relatively small section of the public cares very deeply about climate change, and will tend to vote for the Green Party (which partly explains its relatively consistent support over time).
And the number of people who cast their vote with climate change in mind seems to be growing – but slowly.
There is undoubtedly enough public concern about the climate that we’ll hear about it during the election campaign, in debates and in party manifestos. But as a pivotal issue it is likely to be eclipsed by the cost of living and healthcare.
Perhaps if a weather event on the scale of Cyclone Gabrielle hits a month or two out from the election, things will be different (not that anyone one wishes for that).
But the reality is, most New Zealand voters are not thinking about climate change when they enter the voting booth.
The author publishes regular data-based analysis of New Zealand public opinion, electoral behaviour and the politics of climate change at Three Long Years.
An American right-wing think tank is proposing a “Pacific Charter” that advocates for a greater United States presence in the region.
The Heritage Foundation, closely associated with the ruling Republican Party, wrote that China is “covetously” looking to the Pacific nations while they are vulnerable to major security threats, such as the transnational drug trade.
The think tank holds significant influence with US President Donald Trump, best encapsulated in its “Project 2025” platform that guided conservative policy leading up to the 2024 presidental election.
Pacific countries are asked to “align” their policy agendas, while the US establishes a “Pacific Partners Commission” and installs a “Pacific Advisor” on their National Security Council.
“Broader intra-Pacific affiliations are being superseded by the interests of external actors, and the Pacific agenda is at risk of being shaped by powerful outside forces,” the report states.
Without Western involvement, it postulated that China, with its “willingness to use political leverage and intrigue to advance its narrow interest” would monopolise their hold.
‘Reaffirm fundamental ideals’ Rather than letting that happen, co-authors Allen Zhang and Brent Sadler proposed a non-binding Charter, not to “impose values and dictate outcomes” but rather to “reaffirm fundamental ideals and strengthen regional solidarity”.
It was noted this would pressure nations to resist the influence of Chinese cash, for example infrastructure deals. Further, the mood would be set for island nations and US defence forces to come closer together.
“The foregoing principles are frequently bypassed in favour of lucrative bilateral proposals … compromised when it is personally or locally expedient.
“When regional nations accede to a charter, they accept a standard of conduct beyond the mere expression of aspiration … overtime, states begin to rationalise strategic decisions against a set of baseline principles.”
The Heritage Foundation’s proposed Pacific charter published in ‘A charter of Pacific values for a prosperous Pacific future’. Image: Edited by RNZ Pacific
The White House has only recently turned its attention to Pacific countries in any public sense, hosting a business summit in Honolulu in early February.
Trump has also asserted his interest in critical minerals at the bottom of the Pacific ocean, leading to deep-sea mining talks with the Cook Islands and Tonga.
It’s one of the most important corporate governance cases in the past 20 years, involving organised crime inside Australia’s second-biggest casino.
The Federal Court ruled last week that Star Entertainment Group’s former chief executive and its general counsel both broke the law under the Corporations Act, but remaining board members had not.
The case is a disappointment for the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). It had sought to use the court case to increase the responsibilities of public company directors. ASIC is yet to decide whether it will appeal.
But even after only a partial win, ASIC’s chairman Joe Longo has since declared:
nothing in this judgement has changed our appetite to hold corporate leaders to account for their governance failures.
Longo also predicted the case “will be studied by directors, executive management, and their advisers for years to come”.
With around 2.5 million directors of large and small Australian companies, Longo is right: this case is essential reading.
has been enabling suspected money laundering, organised crime, large-scale fraud and foreign interference within its Australian casinos for years, even though its board was warned its anti-money-laundering controls were failing.
[embedded content]
Among a series of official inquiries and investigations, the NSW Independent Casino Commission found Star was unsuitable to hold a casino licence. Independent administrators were put in charge.
In 2022, corporate watchdog ASIC sued 11 former directors and executives of Star. ASIC argued they had breached their legal duty of care to the company.
At the heart of this case were two questions: can a board leave it to management to handle compliance risks, especially when running something as risky as casinos?
And do non-executive directors on boards – who aren’t employees, but are paid to offer part-time oversight – have the same responsibilities to act on “red flags” as someone like a chief executive?
so dysfunctional and unethical that senior management was tardy in preventing junket operators from behaving inappropriately, and lied to its bankers to secure an ongoing commercial advantage. Ultimately, it fell to investigative journalism and then a statutory inquiry to expose the extent of the problems.
Lee concluded Star Entertainment’s former chief executive Matt Bekier and former chief legal and risk officer, Paula Martin, were liable for breaching their duty of care under section 180 of the Corporations Act.
Lee found Bekier and Martin had credible information the company was not properly managing its money-laundering risks, yet they failed to take reasonable action to address those problems over several years.
The pair will have to appear at a future hearing, where they could face millions of dollars in potential fines. ASIC has also said it will ask for Bekier and Martin to be disqualified from managing corporations for a period of time.
But in a setback for the regulator, the court rejected ASIC’s case against the remaining non-executive directors.
The court distinguished between failures of operational management and failures of oversight by the board.
Management underplayed the significance of the risks. So it was not clear to the board that ongoing criminal behaviour was occurring.
While Lee found the non-executive directors were not “actively pressing management with difficult questions as to whether the business was being conducted ethically, lawfully, and to the highest available standard”, they were not responsible for managing day-to-day business operations. The executive management team was.
Lee also warned Australian boards were being overwhelmed with “oppressive” and “heroically vast” board packs. Lee suggested AI might be able to help directors evaluate such large volumes of information. However, he stressed AI couldn’t replace the need for each director to review what’s presented to them as “a core function of a board”.
Importantly, Lee didn’t accept ASIC’s argument that directors should be assumed to be aware of everything presented to them in the board papers. It was up to ASIC to prove their knowledge with evidence.
ASIC was unable to prove Star’s non-executive directors were fully aware of all of the risks involved in the business. This meant they couldn’t be held to be negligent for failing to act on information they didn’t have.
Key lessons for directors and managers
Responding to the court’s findings, ASIC chair Joe Longo said:
This judgement, in my view, is not a backwards step for directors’ duties – quite the opposite in fact.
However, ASIC’s argument that reasonable directors would have done more, and double-checked management decisions on key matters, has been rejected by the court.
The Star case confirms non-executive directors are entitled to rely on management to provide them with regular updates on important matters. It also reaffirms all directors need to take an active role in monitoring the management of the company.
Star’s senior management was found liable for failing to keep the board properly informed of important risks. All senior company officers, at large or small Australian companies, have been put on notice.
If there are red flags that key risks aren’t being managed properly, senior management has to act – then keep the board informed of their progress in a timely manner.
NAPLAN testing started with a technical glitch on Wednesday morning.
Schools were advised to pause the first day of assessments while a “widespread issue affecting students being able to log on to the online platform” was investigated. As at 11.30 AEDT, testing could resume.
Test administrators said there were measures to ensure students were not disadvantaged as a result of the glitch. But they also acknowledged it had “caused disruptions in a significant number of schools”.
NAPLAN has been done fully online since 2022. Why is this?
Remind me, what is NAPLAN?
NAPLAN tests Australian students’ literacy and maths skills in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. There are four tests: writing, reading, conventions of language (which involves grammar, punctuation and spelling), and numeracy.
There is a nine-day testing window for schools, that began on March 11 this year.
On the first day of testing, schools need to prioritise writing tests. Students are given an idea or topic and asked to write a response in a particular text type (narrative or persuasive writing).
Year 3 writing is the only component of the test still done on paper, so was not impacted by the IT pause.
Why are the tests online?
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (also known as “ACARA”) administers NAPLAN. On its website, the authority explains the online tests are designed to “provide precise results and be engaging for students”.
This means the tests adapt to the student taking the test, and will ask questions that will be more or less difficult depending on a student’s responses.
“This helps students remain engaged with the assessment,” the authority says.
A student’s overall NAPLAN result is based on both the number and complexity of questions they answer correctly.
Isn’t paper better?
When a major online test runs into technical difficulties, I am often asked, “would it be better to stick with paper-and-pencil tests for high-stakes tests?”
Last year, there was chaos when NSW selective entrance exams suffered technical problems.
But it is hard to make the case that important tests should be done on paper when students now do significant amounts of school work online and on devices – particularly as they progress through high school.
We currently have the bizarre situation in which some senior students have to stop working online part way through Year 12. This is to strengthen their wrists to write in their three-hour paper-and-pencil final exams.
What is useful?
Research shows online testing can produce more useful evidence than a simple paper test.
It can improve feedback, involve richer tasks, and better fit with how students learn. Although to do so, it needs clear criteria and robust design.
So good online testing is not using technology for technology’s sake. It can improve the fairness (or validity) of the evidence available to schools, systems and parents.
What about Year 12 exams?
Currently, most year 12 exams in states such as Victoria and New South Wales are conducted with pen and paper.
There has been some movement towards the online delivery of HSC examinations in NSW. For example, in 2027 Extension English will be done online.
Here the reasons for the relatively slow progress are structural rather than technological or educational.
Given the high-stakes nature of Year 12 exams, it’s not surprising school systems prioritise stability, security and equity before changing the delivery mode.
But the circumstances for NAPLAN are different. NAPLAN moved online because the focus was on quick results and providing information to improve students learning.
Year 12 exams cater for a wide range of different subjects and so are more challenging and risky to do online. Any transition would require a multi-year, carefully staged plan with extensive piloting and equity safeguards.
But whatever the challenges and the technical glitches we might face along the way, the journey towards online testing will continue. This is where our children are continuing to learn and it is also where they will work.
Since fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) began, there has been concern they could cause cancer.
Concerns have included whether aspects of treatment – such as taking hormonal medications, or puncturing the ovaries to retrieve eggs – could stimulate the growth of cancer cells.
Now, our new study, published on Wednesday, has found women who underwent fertility treatments had a comparable overall rate of cancer to similarly aged women.
However, there were some differences: they had more uterine, ovarian, and melanoma cancers, and fewer lung and cervical cancers. Let’s take a look at what this means.
What we did
Our study wanted to find out whether women who underwent fertility treatments had a different rate of cancer from the general population.
We used individual records from Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to find women who had fertility treatments between 1991 and 2018. We linked this data to the Australian Cancer Database to find cancer diagnoses.
We found 417,984 women who received fertility treatments and followed them for about a decade on average:
274,676 women had treatments where the egg was removed from the women’s body (IVF and similar treatments)
120,739 women had treatments with a specialist where the egg was not removed (mainly intrauterine insemination)
175,510 women received a prescription for clomiphene citrate (also known as Clomid), a medication that induces ovulation.
One woman could have had multiple types of treatment.
Their median age (the midpoint of their ages) was 32–34 years. Compared to the general population, fewer lived in disadvantaged areas.
We compared these women’s rates of cancers to women in the general population, by statistically matching them on factors such as age and the state they lived in.
What we found
Women who received fertility treatments, either with or without egg removal, had close to the exact total number of cancers we would expect in the general population of women.
But women who used clomiphene citrate had 1.04 times the rate of cancer, or 8.6 extra cancers for every 100,000 women treated each year.
Rates of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer (except for those who used clomiphene citrate), and melanoma were 1.07–1.83 times higher, depending on treatment type. This means about three to seven more of these cancers for every 100,000 women treated each year.
Across all treatments rates of cervical cancer and lung cancer were 1.43–1.92 times lower. This translates to around two to six fewer cancers for every 100,00 treated women each year.
These decreases could be due to women receiving fertility treatment being less likely to smoke. Women who receive fertility treatment may also be more likely to be screened for cervical cancer, as clinicians often encourage them to get screened before treatment. But this is anecdotal – we don’t yet have data on this.
What this means
Overall, these findings are reassuring for women who have received or are planning fertility treatments.
The number of people undergoing fertility treatments is increasing worldwide. These findings deepen our understanding of the types of cancers diagnosed in women who receive fertility treatment.
Our study shows some cancers are more common in women who received fertility treatments than in the general population of women.
However, the absolute numbers of these cancers are small, similar to those observed for women using some other medical interventions (including the contraceptive pill).
It is normal to see differences in cancer risk in specific populations when compared to the general population.
So, does this mean IVF does not cause cancer?
This study design cannot determine if fertility treatments themselves cause or prevent cancer.
Though fertility treatments may contribute to cancer risk, women who receive fertility treatments have a different health and socio-demographic profile to the general population of women. These factors may affect cancer risk.
We did not have any data on why women were using fertility treatments to get pregnant and whether this is connected to their cancer risk. For example, we don’t know if they were receiving treatment for medical infertility, or for another reason (such as same-sex couples trying to conceive).
Our study also only followed women for around ten years, and the cancer risk profile may change as these women age.
The takeaway
As with every medical treatment, it is important for women and their health-care practitioners to make informed decisions before and after fertility treatment, including considering potential changes in cancer risk.
Women considering fertility treatment, and those who’ve used fertility treatment, should continue to participate in the routine cancer screening programs they’re eligible for.
If women are worried about their risk of cancer, they should consult their doctor to understand the steps they can take to reduce their risk.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Larcombe, Associate Professor and Head of Respiratory Environmental Health, The Kids Research Institute Australia; Curtin University
Humans evolved in an atmosphere containing roughly 200–300 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Today, that figure sits above 420 ppm, higher than at any point in the history of our species.
We know this extra CO₂ is contributing to climate change, but could it also be changing the chemistry of our bodies?
In our recently published research we looked at two decades of information from one of the biggest health datasets in the world to start answering this question. We found some concerning trends.
What we found
We analysed blood chemistry data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which collected samples from about 7,000 Americans every two years between 1999 and 2020. We looked at three markers: CO₂, calcium and phosphorus.
When CO₂ enters the blood, it is converted to bicarbonate. This process largely occurs inside red blood cells, and also produces hydrogen ions.
During short-term exposure to increased CO₂, this can make blood more acidic, and result in a modest increase in bicarbonate levels in the blood (to reduce acidity).
If the exposure continues for a long time the kidneys reduce the amount of bicarbonate lost in urine and also produce more bicarbonate. This has the net effect of higher bicarbonate levels in the blood, to counteract the persistent acidity.
Levels of calcium and phosphorus in the blood may also be affected, as they too play a role in regulating acidity in the blood. These processes are completely normal.
Over the 21 years from 1999 to 2020, we found that average blood bicarbonate levels rose by about 7%. Over the same period, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations rose by a similar proportion.
Meanwhile, blood calcium levels dropped by about 2% and phosphorus by around 7%.
If these trends continue, blood bicarbonate levels may exceed healthy levels in around 50 years. Calcium and phosphorus levels may fall below healthy levels, too, by the end of the century.
Our hypothesis is that rising CO₂ exposure could be contributing to these trends.
What’s causing the changes?
It’s important to be clear about what this study does and doesn’t show. It identifies population-level trends in blood chemistry that parallel rising atmospheric CO₂.
But correlation is not causation. The study does not adjust for factors such as diet, kidney function, diuretic use or obesity, which can influence the measurements and should be considered in future analyses.
There are other plausible contributors. One important consideration is indoor air.
Participants in the NHANES study likely spend most of their time indoors, where CO₂ concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm in poorly ventilated spaces. Other studies show time spent indoors has increased over the past two decades.
The NHANES dataset doesn’t capture this parameter, so we can’t directly assess this contribution. However, if more time indoors is contributing, it means total CO₂ exposure is rising even faster than atmospheric trends suggest. This arguably reinforces rather than alleviates the concern.
Other factors, such as shifting dietary patterns, changing rates of obesity, differences in physical activity and even variations in sample collection or processing across survey cycles, could also be important.
Can our bodies cope?
Some critics have argued that, based on what we know about how our bodies manage blood chemistry, we should have no trouble compensating for future increases in atmospheric CO₂, even under worst-case climate scenarios. For example, the lungs can increase ventilation and the kidneys can adjust to produce more bicarbonate.
For most healthy individuals, small long-term increases in outdoor CO₂ are not expected to meaningfully change the levels of bicarbonate, calcium or phosphorus in the blood.
This makes the population-level trends we observed puzzling. They could reflect a confounding rather than a direct CO₂ effect, but they do highlight how little data we have on long-term, real-world exposure.
A lack of long-term data
The argument that we can cope easily with higher CO₂ is based on short-term responses. Whether the same reasoning applies when CO₂ levels are higher across a person’s entire life remains largely untested.
There is, however, a growing body of evidence across many species which shows that even modest, environmentally relevant increases in CO₂ can produce subtle but measurable physiological effects.
In humans, short-term exposure at concentrations commonly found indoors (1,000–2,500 ppm) has been linked to reduced cognitive performance and changes in brain activity, though the mechanisms aren’t fully understood.
These new findings highlight a gap in evidence about long-term, real-world CO₂ exposure and human physiology. Unfortunately, there simply aren’t any studies assessing the physiological effects of breathing slightly elevated CO₂ over a lifetime.
This is particularly important for children, who will experience the longest cumulative exposure. And that’s why it’s vital to investigate this area further.
What this means
Our findings are not suggesting people will become suddenly unwell when atmospheric CO₂ reaches a certain level. What the data show is a signal that warrants attention.
If rising atmospheric CO₂ is contributing to gradual shifts in blood chemistry at a population level, then the composition of the atmosphere should be monitored alongside traditional climate indicators as a potential factor in long-term public health.
Reducing CO₂ emissions remains crucial for limiting global warming. Our findings suggest it may also be important for safeguarding aspects of human health that we’re only just beginning to understand.
