Category: Evening Report

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing around the time of surgery and long-term prescribing in aged care are among a mixed bag of findings of a recent report into antibiotic use and resistance in Australia.

The report shows while fewer antibiotics are prescribed in the community than a decade ago, there is still room to improve antibiotic prescribing in hospitals.

We are both involved in antibiotic stewardship programs, primarily in hospitals, which aim to improve the use of antibiotics to improve patient care and reduce the potential for antimicrobial resistance.

Here’s why antibiotic resistance is so concerning and what the latest report tells us.

Why is antibiotic use and resistance important?

Factors driving antibiotic use tend to be different in hospitals and in the community.

In hospitals, there are more patients with infections, and these are also places where patients come to with resistant infections. Here, a common dilemma is making sure sick patients receive antibiotics quickly, balanced with not overusing them unnecessarily.

In the community, GPs often have to use careful clinical judgement to determine whether antibiotics are required, or if the patient will recover without them.

If we think of this issue at the level of individual patients, the risks may feel small. But at the population level, using the wrong antibiotic, or using it when it’s not needed, or for too long increases the risk of antibiotic resistance.

This is where bacteria become resistant to the usual treatment options, so infections may continue to progress despite treatment.

This occurs due to “selection pressure”. This means the bacteria acquire changes that enable them to evade the effect of antibiotics, and these resistant strains continue to grow and spread.

---

Read more: The rise and fall of antibiotics. What would a post-antibiotic world look like?

---

Why are antibiotics used in surgery?

Antibiotics are mostly used around the time of surgery as one way to prevent, rather than treat, an infection.

They are generally needed only for procedures where there is a higher risk of infection and for a short period (mostly a single dose before surgery or for up to 24 hours afterwards).

This report shows that just under half (42.7%) of antibiotic use for surgical procedures was not appropriate. The main areas that we need to work on are:

• only using antibiotics for surgery where there is a high risk of infection

• the time we administer the antibiotic dose, ideally within an hour before the skin is cut

• the choice of antibiotic – sufficient to cover the organisms that could cause infection, but not unnecessarily broad that it may cause side effects or antibiotic resistance.

Inappropriate antibiotic use in surgery may have several consequences.

Giving the antibiotic at the wrong time (too early, or too late) reduces its effectiveness. Giving it for surgery where there is a low risk of infection, or for too long unnecessarily exposes patients to the risk of antibiotic side effects such as diarrhoea, as well as increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance.

How about aged-care facilities?

The report shows residents of aged-care homes receive high amounts of antibiotics.

Two striking statistics were that four in five residents (79.5%) received at least one antibiotic prescription each year. About one in three patients (34.7%) were given an antibiotic for more than six months.

Aged-care residents are at a higher risk of developing infections and it can sometimes be harder to spot the signs and symptoms of an infection.

So using antibiotics to prevent infection can sometimes be appropriate but should be a last resort. This is because infections that “break through” to cause infection despite preventative antibiotics are more likely to be resistant.

What else did the report find?

The report also included critical antimicrobial resistances. These microorganisms are a serious threat to some of our last-line antibiotics. These are very difficult to treat and require specialised antibiotics and medical care.

The reported number of these organisms more than doubled from 2022, to 3,389, or more than nine cases each day, in 2024.

The report also highlights that many of these organisms are acquired overseas, reinforcing the regional and global context of antibiotic resistance.

What can we do to reduce antibiotic resistance?

We’ve previously written about actions we can take to reduce antibiotic use. This latest report reinforces that we should:

• raise awareness that many infections will get better by themselves, and don’t necessarily need antibiotics

• for aged-care residents, regularly review medications, including antibiotics, and check if they are still needed

• use the antibiotics we have more appropriately and for as short a time as possible, supported by appropriate oversight in hospitals, and at state and national levels

• continue to monitor for infections due to resistant bacteria to inform control policies

• reduce cross-transmission of resistant organisms in hospitals and in the community

• prevent infections by other means, such as clean water, sanitation, hygiene and vaccines

• continue to develop new antibiotics and alternatives to antibiotics, and ensure the right incentives are in place to encourage a continuous pipeline of new antibiotics.

The wider context

This report is only one part of the picture of how and where antibiotics are used in Australia.

We have previously estimated that around 60% of antibiotics in Australia are used in animals.

This issue was highlighted by recent use of the antibiotic florfenicol in Tasmanian salmon farms. This is closely related to chloramphenicol, an antibiotic used in humans.

This reinforces the need to take a co-ordinated strategy across different sectors, an approach that has worked before in Australia.

There would also be benefits from responding to antibiotic resistance in a similar way to how we respond to other public health threats. So bringing the national response into the Australian Centre for Disease Control, which was launched officially at the start of 2026, should strengthen our efforts.

– ref. Almost half of antibiotic prescribing for surgery is inappropriate, new report shows – https://theconversation.com/almost-half-of-antibiotic-prescribing-for-surgery-is-inappropriate-new-report-shows-276156

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/almost-half-of-antibiotic-prescribing-for-surgery-is-inappropriate-new-report-shows-276156/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Schofield, Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability in Faculty of Science), The University of Melbourne

Space junk returning to the Earth is introducing metal pollution to the pristine upper atmosphere as it burns up on re-entry, a new study has found.

Published today in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, the study was led by Robin Wing from the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany. Using highly sensitive lasers, he and his team of international researchers observed a plume of lithium pollution, tracking it back to the uncontrolled re-entry of a discarded Space X Falcon 9 rocket upper stage.

This is the first observational evidence that re-entering space debris leaves a detectable, human-caused chemical fingerprint in the upper atmosphere. This was also the first time a pollutant plume from a specific space junk re-entry event has been monitored from the ground.

With many more satellite launches planned for the future, this event won’t be the last. It highlights the urgent need for governments and the space industry to tackle this problem before it gets out of hand.

A part of the atmosphere we barely understand

The region that comprises the upper stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere (around 80 to 120 kilometres above Earth) is one of the least studied parts of the Earth system. It’s too high for balloons, too low for satellites, and too harsh for aircraft.

Yet this region is crucial for radio and GPS communications, upper atmospheric weather patterns, and stratospheric ozone.

The upper atmosphere is largely unpolluted by humans. But the new space age is injecting growing quantities of metals and other pollutants from satellites, rocket bodies and space debris.

The impact this will have on the stratospheric ozone layer, which is crucial to protecting life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, is as yet unquantified. But early findings are cause for concern.

For example, research from 2024 suggests aluminium and chlorine emissions related to rocket launches and re-entries may slow the ozone layer’s recovery.

Soot from rocket launches is also likely to cause warming in the upper atmosphere.

Finding lithium with lasers

For the new study, the researchers used a highly sensitive laser-based sensor to detect the fluorescence of trace metals in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. This is not an off-the-shelf and readily available observation system, but it could be.

On February 20 2025, they captured a clear, sudden enhancement in lithium ions from lithium batteries and human-made metal casings used in satellites. These are quite distinct from natural meteor material.

Using atmospheric trajectory modelling, they traced the timing and altitude of the lithium plume directly to the re-entry path of a discarded Falcon 9 rocket stage as it burnt up through the lower thermosphere into the mesosphere over the Atlantic Ocean, west of Ireland.

A rapidly escalating problem

The number of satellites in orbit has exploded from a few thousand a couple years ago to roughly 14,000 right now, driven largely by megaconstellations.

There are many more satellites planned. In fact, SpaceX has applied to launch a megaconstellation of up to one million satellites to power data centres in space. Every one of these satellites will eventually re-enter the atmosphere. So too will the rockets that launch them.

Current estimates suggest that by 2030, several tonnes of spacecraft material will burn up in the upper atmosphere every single day.

So far, there is no regulatory framework for these emissions, few monitoring options and limited scientific understanding of the likely impacts.

The new lithium detection demonstrates that pollutants from re-entry are measurable and can be traced back to individual re-entry events. This is an important step when it comes to holding companies involved in space accountable.

International regulatory bodies need to be set up to liaise with governments and scientists to establish monitoring networks and instruments to track changes to our atmosphere from this emerging threat.

As the space industry skyrockets, our efforts to understand, monitor and regulate upper-atmospheric emissions must keep pace.

– ref. SpaceX rocket left behind a plume of chemical pollution as it burnt up in the atmosphere – https://theconversation.com/spacex-rocket-left-behind-a-plume-of-chemical-pollution-as-it-burnt-up-in-the-atmosphere-276266

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/spacex-rocket-left-behind-a-plume-of-chemical-pollution-as-it-burnt-up-in-the-atmosphere-276266/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milton Speer, Visiting Fellow, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Over the past decade, southern Australia has suffered numerous extreme weather and climate events, such as record-breaking heatwaves, bushfires, two major droughts and even flash flooding.

While Australia has always had these disasters, our research reveals these new extremes are the result of dramatic climate-driven changes in the upper atmosphere above Australia.

Eight to ten kilometres above the ground, the fast-flowing jet stream air currents have shifted further southwards, dragging rain-bearing winter weather systems away from Australia’s southern coastline.

This means southern Australia has experienced at least 25% less annual rainfall and is currently gripped by a continuing drought. Our findings should be a wake-up call for governments, primary producers and residents of some of Australia’s largest cities: the hotter, drier weather is here to stay.

Drought in the south, wet in the east

Southern Australia comprises the coastal and adjacent areas in the south of the continent, stretching about 4,000 kilometres from Perth to east of Melbourne. This region is home to ten million people, or about 35% of Australia’s population.

The two most recent droughts in southern Australia were the Tinderbox drought, from 2017 to 2019, and the present drought, which has not been named. It began in 2023 and is continuing into February 2026.

Drought is primarily a meteorological, or weather-related, phenomenon. It is defined by intense rainfall deficiencies over three months or longer, which severely impact agricultural production, water supplies and ecosystems.

Notably, six of the past ten years were dry, tipping much of southern Australia into drought. In marked contrast, eastern Australia, including Sydney and Brisbane, experienced moderate to extreme wet conditions, including flash flooding. The map below shows drought in southern Australia in 2023–25.

The meteorological factors that drive drought in southern Australia, and the shift from dry to wet conditions in eastern Australia, can be explained by shifts in the upper atmospheric jet streams. These are fast-flowing, narrow air currents high in the atmosphere, about 8–10km above Earth.

Major changes to the jet streams

Our research reveals dramatic changes to the jet streams in the Australian region, particularly in the past decade. Put simply, jet streams are fast-moving belts of westerly winds in the upper atmosphere. They steer cold fronts and low-pressure systems across southern Australia, from west to east, determining rainfall and temperature patterns.

In the Australian region there is a subtropical jetstream over northern Australia and a polar jet stream in the mid-latitude westerly winds south of Australia. Historically, the jetstreams have steered the rain-bearing systems over southern Australia.

We discovered the subtropical jet stream, which brings rainy weather systems, has shifted about 10 degrees of latitude (roughly 1,000km) southwards towards the pole, since 2015.

This shift has caused traditional rain-producing weather systems to track south of the continent, completely missing southern Australia. Our previous research comparing 1965 to 1992, and 1993 to 2020, also showed the jet streams had shifted towards Antarctica.

This shift is due to climate change from increased greenhouse gas emissions that continues to warm the oceans and atmosphere. As the world keeps warming, the jet streams will be pushed further poleward.

Hence the jet stream changes are responsible for both the current drought, and the Tinderbox Drought (2017–19). Each drought was caused by below-average winter rainfall from April to October. And the greatest relocation of Australian region jet streams occurred in the past decade.

Where were the droughts?

Between 2023 and 2025, almost all of southern Australia experienced a serious to extreme lack of rain, causing severe to exceptional drought conditions. Drought has affected Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, straining existing water supplies.

Brief winter rainfall in July 2025 provided some local relief, however, the impact was short-lived. Recently, the summer months from December 2025 to February 2026 brought extreme heat and record low rainfall. Consequently, drought continues into January and February 2026. In striking contrast, parts of eastern and northern Australia received record rainfall and flash floods.

In southern Australian, coastal and inland areas, river systems and dams are experiencing greatly reduced water supplies. This reflects the continuing long-term impacts of global warming.

In Adelaide, three extremely dry years have reduced water inflows to reservoirs. The city’s single desalination plant quadrupled its output from January last year, to meet demand. Perth has experienced a long-term rainfall decline since 1970. It has two desalination plants and is building a third.

After briefly recovering during the La Niña years from 2021 to 2023, Melbourne’s dams are at their lowest levels since the Tinderbox Drought. Melbourne received well below average rainfall through to October 2025. Its desal plant was activated briefly in 2022, and was reactivated in April 2025. A second Melbourne plant is planned, but will take almost a decade to complete.

Primed to burn

Droughts and low winter rainfall means southern Australia is very susceptible to bushfire. Heatwaves and dry vegetation at the beginning of this summer brought catastrophic bushfire conditions, bolstered by dry, westerly wind changes. This caused catastrophic bushfires in southern Australia. More than 430,000 hectares have been burned in Victoria.

These conditions should be a jolting wakeup call. A possible El Niño, or warming climate pattern, later in 2026 is likely to worsen existing drought conditions in southern Australia. Melbourne’s water storage is at 70% capacity and is in danger of falling much lower. Southern Australia needs to ready itself for a hot, dry year.

– ref. Dramatic changes in upper atmosphere are responsible for recent droughts and bushfires: new research – https://theconversation.com/dramatic-changes-in-upper-atmosphere-are-responsible-for-recent-droughts-and-bushfires-new-research-275792

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/dramatic-changes-in-upper-atmosphere-are-responsible-for-recent-droughts-and-bushfires-new-research-275792/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Virginia Raguin, Distinguished Professor of Humanities Emerita, College of the Holy Cross

Michelangelo’s fresco of “The Last Judgment,” covering the wall behind the altar of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, is being restored. The work, which started on Feb. 1, 2026, is expected to continue for three months.

The Sistine Chapel is one of the great masterpieces of Renaissance art. As the setting where the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church meets to elect a new pope, it was decorated by the most prestigious painters of the day. In 1480, Pope Sixtus IV commissioned Domenico Ghirlandaio, Sandro Botticelli, Pietro Perugino and Cosimo Rosselli to paint the walls. On the south are six scenes of the “Life of Moses,” and across on the north are six scenes of the “Life of Christ.”

In 1508, Pope Julius II commissioned Michelangelo to paint the ceiling. The theme is the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The images show God creating the world through the story of Noah, who was directed by God to shelter humans and animals on an ark during the great flood. The ceiling’s most famous scene may be “God Creating Adam,” where Adam reaches out his arm to the outstretched arm of God the Father, but their fingers fail to meet.

At the sides, the artist juxtaposed the male Hebrew prophets and the female Greek and Roman sybils who were inspired by the gods to foretell the future. It was completed in 1512; then in 1536, Michelangelo was asked to create a painting for the wall behind the altar. For this immense work of 590 square feet (about square meters), filled with 391 figures, he labored until 1541. He was then nearly 67 years old.

As an art historian, I have been aware how, from the beginning, Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” sparked controversy for its bold and heroic portrayal of the male nude.

Many layers of meaning

Michelangelo liked to consider himself primarily a sculptor, expressing himself in variations of the nude male body. Most famous may be the Old Testament figure of David about to slay Goliath, originally made for the Cathedral of Florence.

The artist’s ceiling for the Sistine Chapel had included 20 nude males as supporting figures above the prophets and sibyls. Originally, Michelangelo’s Christ of “The Last Judgment” was entirely nude. A later painter was hired to provide drapery over the loins of Christ and other figures.

“The Last Judgment” scene also contains multiple references to pagan gods and mythology. The image of Christ is inspired by early Christian images showing Christ beardless and youthful, similar to the pagan god of light, Apollo.

At the bottom of the composition is the figure of Charon, a personage from Greek mythology who rowed souls over the river Styx to enter the pagan underworld. Minos, the judge of the underworld, is on the extreme right.

Giorgio Vasari, a fellow artist and historian who knew Michelangelo personally, later recounted the criticism by a senior Vatican official, Biagio da Cesena. The official stated that it was disgraceful that nude figures were exposed so shamefully and that the painting seemed more fit for public baths and taverns.

Michelangelo’s response was to place the face of Biagio on Minos, the judge of the underworld, and give him donkey’s ears, symbolizing stupidity.

Michelangelo included a reference to his own life in a detail connected to the Apostle Bartholomew, who is located to the lower right of Christ. The apostle was believed to have met his martyrdom by being flayed alive. In his right hand, he holds a knife and, in his left, his flayed skin whose face is a distorted portrait of the artist.

Michelangelo thus placed himself among the blessed in heaven, but also made it into a joke.

Thought-provoking imagery

The Last Judgment is a common theme in Christian art. Michelangelo, however, pushes beyond simple illustration to include pagan myths as well as to challenge traditional depiction of a calm, bearded judge. He uses dramatic imagery to provoke deeper thought: After all, how does anyone on Earth know what the saints do in heaven?

In these decisions, Michelangelo displayed his sense of self-confidence to introduce new ideas and his goal to engage the viewer in new ways.

A digital reproduction of the painting will be displayed on a screen for visitors to the Sistine Chapel during this period of restoration. Behind the screen, technicians from the Vatican Museums’ Restoration Laboratory will work to restore the masterpiece.

– ref. Why Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ endures – https://theconversation.com/why-michelangelos-last-judgment-endures-275323

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-michelangelos-last-judgment-endures-275323/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston

Public debate about artificial intelligence in higher education has largely orbited a familiar worry: cheating. Will students use chatbots to write essays? Can instructors tell? Should universities ban the tech? Embrace it?

These concerns are understandable. But focusing so much on cheating misses the larger transformation already underway, one that extends far beyond student misconduct and even the classroom.

Universities are adopting AI across many areas of institutional life. Some uses are largely invisible, like systems that help allocate resources, flag “at-risk” students, optimize course scheduling or automate routine administrative decisions. Other uses are more noticeable. Students use AI tools to summarize and study, instructors use them to build assignments and syllabuses and researchers use them to write code, scan literature and compress hours of tedious work into minutes.

People may use AI to cheat or skip out on work assignments. But the many uses of AI in higher education, and the changes they portend, beg a much deeper question: As machines become more capable of doing the labor of research and learning, what happens to higher education? What purpose does the university serve?

Over the past eight years, we’ve been studying the moral implications of pervasive engagement with AI as part of a joint research project between the Applied Ethics Center at UMass Boston and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. In a recent white paper, we argue that as AI systems become more autonomous, the ethical stakes of AI use in higher ed rise, as do its potential consequences.

As these technologies become better at producing knowledge work – designing classes, writing papers, suggesting experiments and summarizing difficult texts – they don’t just make universities more productive. They risk hollowing out the ecosystem of learning and mentorship upon which these institutions are built, and on which they depend.

Nonautonomous AI

Consider three kinds of AI systems and their respective impacts on university life:

AI-powered software is already being used throughout higher education in admissions review, purchasing, academic advising and institutional risk assessment. These are considered “nonautonomous” systems because they automate tasks, but a person is “in the loop” and using these systems as tools.

These technologies can pose a risk to students’ privacy and data security. They also can be biased. And they often lack sufficient transparency to determine the sources of these problems. Who has access to student data? How are “risk scores” generated? How do we prevent systems from reproducing inequities or treating certain students as problems to be managed?

These questions are serious, but they are not conceptually new, at least within the field of computer science. Universities typically have compliance offices, institutional review boards and governance mechanisms that are designed to help address or mitigate these risks, even if they sometimes fall short of these objectives.

Hybrid AI

Hybrid systems encompass a range of tools, including AI-assisted tutoring chatbots, personalized feedback tools and automated writing support. They often rely on generative AI technologies, especially large language models. While human users set the overall goals, the intermediate steps the system takes to meet them are often not specified.

Hybrid systems are increasingly shaping day-to-day academic work. Students use them as writing companions, tutors, brainstorming partners and on-demand explainers. Faculty use them to generate rubrics, draft lectures and design syllabuses. Researchers use them to summarize papers, comment on drafts, design experiments and generate code.

This is where the “cheating” conversation belongs. With students and faculty alike increasingly leaning on technology for help, it is reasonable to wonder what kinds of learning might get lost along the way. But hybrid systems also raise more complex ethical questions.

One has to do with transparency. AI chatbots offer natural-language interfaces that make it hard to tell when you’re interacting with a human and when you’re interacting with an automated agent. That can be alienating and distracting for those who interact with them. A student reviewing material for a test should be able to tell if they are talking with their teaching assistant or with a robot. A student reading feedback on a term paper needs to know whether it was written by their instructor. Anything less than complete transparency in such cases will be alienating to everyone involved and will shift the focus of academic interactions from learning to the means or the technology of learning. University of Pittsburgh researchers have shown that these dynamics bring forth feelings of uncertainty, anxiety and distrust for students. These are problematic outcomes.

A second ethical question relates to accountability and intellectual credit. If an instructor uses AI to draft an assignment and a student uses AI to draft a response, who is doing the evaluating, and what exactly is being evaluated? If feedback is partly machine-generated, who is responsible when it misleads, discourages or embeds hidden assumptions? And when AI contributes substantially to research synthesis or writing, universities will need clearer norms around authorship and responsibility – not only for students, but also for faculty.

Finally, there is the critical question of cognitive offloading. AI can reduce drudgery, and that’s not inherently bad. But it can also shift users away from the parts of learning that build competence, such as generating ideas, struggling through confusion, revising a clumsy draft and learning to spot one’s own mistakes.

Autonomous agents

The most consequential changes may come with systems that look less like assistants and more like agents. While truly autonomous technologies remain aspirational, the dream of a researcher “in a box” – an agentic AI system that can perform studies on its own – is becoming increasingly realistic.

Agentic tools are anticipated to “free up time” for work that focuses on more human capacities like empathy and problem-solving. In teaching, this may mean that faculty may still teach in the headline sense, but more of the day-to-day labor of instruction can be handed off to systems optimized for efficiency and scale. Similarly, in research, the trajectory points toward systems that can increasingly automate the research cycle. In some domains, that already looks like robotic laboratories that run continuously, automate large portions of experimentation and even select new tests based on prior results.

At first glance, this may sound like a welcome boost to productivity. But universities are not information factories; they are systems of practice. They rely on a pipeline of graduate students and early-career academics who learn to teach and research by participating in that same work. If autonomous agents absorb more of the “routine” responsibilities that historically served as on-ramps into academic life, the university may keep producing courses and publications while quietly thinning the opportunity structures that sustain expertise over time.

The same dynamic applies to undergraduates, albeit in a different register. When AI systems can supply explanations, drafts, solutions and study plans on demand, the temptation is to offload the most challenging parts of learning. To the industry that is pushing AI into universities, it may seem as if this type of work is “inefficient” and that students will be better off letting a machine handle it. But it is the very nature of that struggle that builds durable understanding. Cognitive psychology has shown that students grow intellectually through doing the work of drafting, revising, failing, trying again, grappling with confusion and revising weak arguments. This is the work of learning how to learn.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the greatest risk posed by automation in higher education is not simply the replacement of particular tasks by machines, but the erosion of the broader ecosystem of practice that has long sustained teaching, research and learning.

An uncomfortable inflection point

So what purpose do universities serve in a world in which knowledge work is increasingly automated?

One possible answer treats the university primarily as an engine for producing credentials and knowledge. There, the core question is output: Are students graduating with degrees? Are papers and discoveries being generated? If autonomous systems can deliver those outputs more efficiently, then the institution has every reason to adopt them.

But another answer treats the university as something more than an output machine, acknowledging that the value of higher education lies partly in the ecosystem itself. This model assigns intrinsic value to the pipeline of opportunities through which novices become experts, the mentorship structures through which judgment and responsibility are cultivated, and the educational design that encourages productive struggle rather than optimizing it away. Here, what matters is not only whether knowledge and degrees are produced, but how they are produced and what kinds of people, capacities and communities are formed in the process. In this version, the university is meant to serve as no less than an ecosystem that reliably forms human expertise and judgment.

In a world where knowledge work itself is increasingly automated, we think universities must ask what higher education owes its students, its early-career scholars and the society it serves. The answers will determine not only how AI is adopted, but also what the modern university becomes.

– ref. The greatest risk of AI in higher education isn’t cheating – it’s the erosion of learning itself – https://theconversation.com/the-greatest-risk-of-ai-in-higher-education-isnt-cheating-its-the-erosion-of-learning-itself-270243

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/the-greatest-risk-of-ai-in-higher-education-isnt-cheating-its-the-erosion-of-learning-itself-270243/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes after the US government released files that appeared to indicate he had shared official information with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a trade envoy for the UK. But the police have not given details of exactly what they are investigating.

It is important to be clear that the arrest is not related to accusations of sexual assault or misconduct. In 2022, Mountbatten-Windsor reached a settlement with the late Virginia Giuffre for an undisclosed sum that did not include an admission of liability.

Being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing in his association with Epstein and and has previously rejected any suggestion he used his time as trade envoy to further his own interests.

What was Mountbatten-Windsor’s official role and why did he lose it?

In 2001, Tony Blair’s government made the then-prince the UK’s special representative for trade and investment. According to the government at the time, his remit was to “promote UK business internationally, market the UK to potential inward investors, and build relationships in support of UK business interests”. He did not receive a salary, but he did go on hundreds of trips to promote British businesses.

Members of the royal family are often deployed by the government on international missions to promote trade. When negotiating with other countries, particularly those which are also monarchies, sending a prominent figure like a royal may help seal the deal. Indeed, the then-government claimed that the former Duke of York’s “unique position gives him unrivalled access to members of royal families, heads of state, government ministers and chief executives of companies”.

It is not unusual for members of the royal family to be deployed by the government for diplomatic missions. Royals often host incoming state visits and lead similar visits abroad, and can be deployed to lead delegations on more specific missions.

However, Mountbatten-Windsor had an official role as trade envoy. He stepped down from this role in 2011 following reports about his friendship with Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences in 2011.

---

Read more: What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?

---

Are royals protected from prosecution?

The monarch is protected by sovereign immunity, a wide-ranging constitutional principle exempting him from all criminal and civil liability. According to the leading 19th century constitutionalist Alfred Dicey, the monarch could not even be prosecuted for “shooting the Prime Minister through the head”. The Prince of Wales also enjoys immunity as Duke of Cornwall, which protects him from punishment for breaking a range of laws.

The State Immunity Act 1978, which confers immunity on the head of state, also extends to “members of the family forming part of the household”. However, this phrase has been interpreted narrowly to apply to a very tight circle of people and does not appear to apply to the monarch’s children in general. For example, in 2002 Princess Anne was prosecuted (though not arrested) for failing to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park after they bit two children.

Nevertheless, there has often been a perception that members of the royal family are held to a different standard when it comes to the law. In 2016 Thames Valley Police were criticised by anti-monarchy groups for not prosecuting the then-prince after newspaper reports alleged he had driven his car through the gates of Windsor Great Park. In 2019 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute Prince Philip for causing a car crash which injured two people.

The monarch also cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. For example, prosecutors were unable to summon the late queen to give evidence in the trial of Princess Diana’s former butler, who was accused of stealing her jewellery.

In response to Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the king said: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

When was the last time a royal was arrested?

You have to go back quite a long way to find the last time that a member of the British royal family was arrested. This was during the English civil war, when Charles I was taken prisoner for treason before being found guilty and ultimately executed in 1649.

A number of royals, including Princess Anne, have committed driving-related offences, including speeding. But this arrest makes Mountbatten-Windsor the first member of the royal family to be arrested in modern times, though it should be noted that he is no longer a royal – he was stripped of all his official titles in October 2025 as his friendship with Epstein came under even more scrutiny.

What limits do police have on investigating royal estates?

Sovereign immunity also prevents police from entering private royal estates to investigate alleged crimes without permission. This can, theoretically, protect members of the royal family from arrest and prosecution. The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 also bans police from searching royal estates for stolen or looted artefacts.

In 2007, two hen harriers were illegally shot at Sandringham estate. However, Norfolk Police first needed to ask Sandringham officials for permission to enter the estate, by which time the dead birds’ bodies had been removed. Police questioned Prince Harry, but did not bring charges.

Other incidents have allegedly led to Sandringham being accused of becoming a wildlife crime hotspot, with at least 18 reported cases of suspected wildlife offences taking place between 2003-23 – yet only one resulting in prosecution.

Another longstanding legal precedent is that no one may be arrested in the presence of the monarch or within the precincts of a royal palace. It was thought that this rule could protect other members of the royal family and royal employees. However, Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest at Sandringham suggests that this antiquated principle may no longer hold true today.

– ref. Why has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor been arrested, and what legal protections do the royal family have? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-do-the-royal-family-have-276466

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-do-the-royal-family-have-276466/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Hebert-Losier, Associate Professor in Sports Biomechanics, University of Waikato

Universities play a crucial role in achieving gender equality, but persistent disparities in leadership, pay and research opportunities continue to shape women’s careers in academia.

Globally, only 36% of senior academics are women.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, research revealed striking gender imbalances in both pay and leadership appointments across all eight universities during the period between 2002 and 2017.

All universities have since worked to address the issue and now have equity frameworks. As a group of women working at five different universities, we analysed publicly available data to assess progress.

We found universities are closing the pay gap, slowly. But men are still more likely to fill senior leadership roles in the highest pay brackets.

Academic pay gap shrinking, slowly

Research published in 2020, looking at data from the early 2000s, found women at New Zealand universities experienced a lifetime gender pay gap of an estimated NZ$400,000.

The odds of women reaching senior (associate or full professor) ranks were less than half those of men. In senior roles, only 37% of heads of department and 25% of deans were women.

Since then, the national median pay gap across all sectors has dropped from 9.4% in favour of men in 2017 to 8.2% in 2024 and 5.2% in 2025, although the most recent drop could be largely due to the recession driving low-paid women out of work.

How do universities compare? As of February 2026, only three of eight universities (Otago, AUT, Auckland) have released recent pay gap reports. The median pay gap ranged between 9.8% and 11.9% in 2024.

However, a closer look reveals the data are skewed by differences between professional and academic staff. For academics, the gap ranged from 14.1% (Auckland) to 18% (Otago) in 2024, and widened at Otago in 2025, to 20%.

Historical data are not available for most institutions, but the median academic pay gap appears to be narrowing slowly, from more than 25% in 2017 to 20% in 2025 (at the University of Otago).

Despite this improvement, men still dominate at the highest pay brackets, with three to six times more men than women earning above $210,000 at one university, unequal pay in favour of men among professors and more men than women at associate professor or professor levels at others.

But there are visible signs of progress, including the rise in the proportion of female professors from 25% in 2019 to 34% in 2024 at one institution (Waikato).

Equity requires support

We wondered if women have become bolder and less risk averse than they were a decade ago.

We often hear of women in academia being discouraged to apply for promotion. A review of research reinforces that women are less likely to take up leadership positions after becoming mothers, internalising barriers and hence sacrificing career aspirations.

Women’s career progression is surely hindered by the relatively weak support for new parents at universities in New Zealand, which offer only six to 12 weeks of paid parental leave at full pay.

This is well below the minimum 14 weeks (recommended at least 18 weeks) of parental leave defined by the World Health Organization and mandated by the International Labour Organization.

In contrast, the Group of Eight universities in Australia offer at least 26 weeks of full-pay equivalent; in many cases, they also provide funding for return-to-work support schemes.

Promisingly, the scales have recently tipped in favour of women in senior leadership teams at New Zealand universities, with 56.3% of vice chancellors, deputy vice chancellors, provosts, pro vice chancellors and executive deans now being women.

However, we observed some disparities between roles, with over-representation of women in senior leadership in academic (83.3%), Māori (71.4%) and health (66.7%) roles, and under-representation in the top vice chancellor role (37.5%). None of the heads of science divisions are currently women.

Impact of changing funding priorities

The research funding context in New Zealand is evolving. The 2025 budget emphasised science and innovation, with a near exclusive focus on research that has direct economic impact.

In 2024, women were principal investigators for 47.8% of projects funded by the Marsden Fund, which supports fundamental research. But this plunged to 34.2% in 2025 following government reform. We speculate this could be linked to the disestablishment of funding for social science and humanities.

Disciplines with higher female representation – including education, anthropology, sociology and criminology – already experience lower funding success rates, for both women and men.

We are concerned the shift in government research priorities will disproportionately affect women’s opportunities for leading research in New Zealand, their chance for research career awards and their academic progression. Success in securing major grants is a key criterion for professorial appointments, but the playing field is not level.

Diversity in leadership is critical for institutional success. Women often show high levels of organisation, resilience, relationship building, boundary setting, flexible approaches and conflict resolution with equitable outcomes for all parties.

We welcome the positive steps universities in Aotearoa New Zealand are taking, but more needs to happen to create an equitable playing field.

– ref. More women are professors, but gender gaps continue to plague NZ universities – https://theconversation.com/more-women-are-professors-but-gender-gaps-continue-to-plague-nz-universities-275656

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/more-women-are-professors-but-gender-gaps-continue-to-plague-nz-universities-275656/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis

The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire and kill protesters.

All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.

In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses – and even the protest songs the two events inspired.

Protests and shootings, then and now

In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.

In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.

[embedded content]

With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four students and wounding nine others.

After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students. Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”

Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.

As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.

Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.

The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.

Different public reactions

After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat the students in what became known as the “hard hat riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.

In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.

The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.

Free speech in protests, recordings and songs

What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.

The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.

Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.

In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.

In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.

Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.

In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.

Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”

[embedded content]

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.

Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.

Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 – just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.

The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”

Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.

At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.

– ref. Why the ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ have echoed with public support – unlike the campus of Kent State in 1970 – https://theconversation.com/why-the-streets-of-minneapolis-have-echoed-with-public-support-unlike-the-campus-of-kent-state-in-1970-274917

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-the-streets-of-minneapolis-have-echoed-with-public-support-unlike-the-campus-of-kent-state-in-1970-274917/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adewumi Badiora, Senior Lecturer, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University

Nigeria is urbanising at a remarkable speed. Some of the world’s fastest growing cities are in the west African country.

With the current rate of urbanisation, Kano, Ibadan, Abuja and Port Harcourt will surpass the 10 million inhabitants mega city threshold by 2050. According to United Nations estimates, Lagos will be the largest city in the world by 2100, accommodating more than 88 million people, up from the present population of about 25 million.

The rapid urbanisation and other issues, such as climate change, limited public finance and extreme poverty, are putting pressure on the government to provide better basic public infrastructure, especially in informal settlements.

Street lighting is one area of public infrastructure where there is a clear need, and potential, for improvement.

Street lighting plays a crucial role in public safety and security, and it promotes inclusive social and economic development by boosting local commerce, street businesses and community engagement.

Conventional grid-based street lights and other technologies like LED lights powered by solar energy have been installed in parts of Nigeria but are still lacking in many cities.

I have been researching various aspects of urban and community safety in Nigeria, particularly in the country’s south-west. I currently lead the African Cities Research Consortium safety and security domain action research in Lagos.

I co-authored a recent research report about the condition of street lights in Lagos. I interviewed 17 key informants in a bid to understand the provision, challenges, quality and impact of street lighting in Africa’s foremost mega city. Respondents included residents and community associations, state agencies, private sector companies, and nongovernmental agencies.

We found that street light provision by the state has been orientated towards elite neighbourhoods, while households in disadvantaged settlements have less access.

Nevertheless, low-income communities across the city have come together to drive progress. They have enabled residents to achieve some level of street light infrastructure in their neighbourhood by working with the local government, civil society organisations and NGOs.

We argue that solutions will only be found through inclusive engagements that push against established approaches to infrastructure development.

Multiple paybacks of street lighting

Research was conducted in three selected communities: Ilaje-Bariga on the Mainland, Brazilian Quarters on the Island and Ajegunle-Ikorodu in the peri-urban area. The three communities have either past or ongoing street light projects being delivered via sponsorship or collaboration between the Community Development Association, state or nonstate institutions.

Economic and social benefits were particularly prominent. Residents feel safer going out after dark when streets are well lit, while workers feel safer walking to and from their homes early in the morning and at night.

Businesses on newly lit streets have seen increased revenue as a result of vendors and traders being able to operate for longer after nightfall.

A previous case study established that extending trading times beyond daylight hours could add tens of thousands of working hours daily to the economy.

A respondent commented: “Policing work is now better in the night and we do not need to rely on battery-powered torchlight while on street patrol or checks.”

Another added: “We used to have cases of robbery, but the street light makes everywhere lit like daytime … the hoodlums are no longer able to perpetrate their act.”

Hurdles of street light provisions

Some obstacles remain, however. Our research uncovered many reasons as to why street light projects are not long-lasting or are unsuccessful. Limited budgeting and politically driven procurement are key challenges.

We found that the high costs and limited state budgets mean that certain areas of the city are prioritised and other areas neglected. The ruling class receives more political and economic support.

Across the three communities researched, the average cost of installation of one solar street light pole is US$200-800, compared to US$1,150 for a conventional grid powered streetlight. The difference in operating costs is where the economics of solar powered, compared to conventional, street lighting becomes most compelling.

Politically driven procurement spotlights the need to favour cronies on the selection, awarding and implementation of street light infrastructure. Projects are awarded in favour of individuals (usually party members and not necessarily an expert) in exchange for political support.

The lack of technical expertise at the local and state levels remains a critical barrier, according to our study. This is displayed in poor procurement processes, infrastructure maintenance issues and inefficient use of limited public funds.

Because of corruption, the full value of project allocation is rarely received by suppliers. As one respondent explained: “In most cases, the money allocated for projects does not get to us. There are bottlenecks here and there that will drain off most of the project fund.” This leaves limited capital to deliver quality infrastructure and streetlight projects are poorly delivered or abandoned before completion, for want of funds.

Other street lighting projects are abandoned because succeeding regimes refuse to continue predecessor projects.

There is also the challenge of vandalism and theft involving street light equipment. There have been situations where “area boys” – Lagos street gangs – restricted street light installation and where equipment parts were stolen.

Overcoming the obstacles

The solutions can only be found through inclusive engagements. Our study recommends the following steps:

• Involve a wide range of players, particularly local communities, in planning and delivering street lighting.

• Build an enabling environment for private-sector-led renewable solutions and investment in sustainable lighting technologies, such as LED lights.

• Create a robust regulatory framework to produce sustainable lighting technologies locally.

• Improve state budget and investment funding for street lighting.

• Develop capacity in the public sector to plan, design, finance and deliver projects.

• Support low-income neighbourhoods and informal communities.

• Separate political, personal interests from good governance and ensure transparency in the procurement process in practice.

So far, the large-scale initiative involving the deployment of over 22,000 solar street lights has engaged with residents in areas like Ikotun, Alausa, Ketu, Kosofe, Marina, Lekki and Surulere. Community feedback on the safety and environmental benefits has been integrated into the project. The project adopted LED lighting, which is more cost effective and energy-efficient.

– ref. Streetlights in Lagos can boost safety and grow the economy. Why not everyone benefits – https://theconversation.com/streetlights-in-lagos-can-boost-safety-and-grow-the-economy-why-not-everyone-benefits-275581

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/streetlights-in-lagos-can-boost-safety-and-grow-the-economy-why-not-everyone-benefits-275581/

By Margot Staunton, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

Fiji’s former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and ex-police commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho are out on bail after appearing in court, charged with inciting mutiny.

The pair appeared for a first call before the Suva Magistrates Court yesterday and were granted bail under strict conditions.

Magistrate Yogesh Prasad also issued a stop departure order, meaning they cannot leave Fiji.

The state requested time to provide a full set of disclosures to the defence and the matter was adjourned until March 5.

Prosecutors allege that in 2023 the two encouraged senior military officers to arrest and overthrow their commander, Ro Jone Kalouniwai.

They are alleged to have spoken with high-ranking military officers during a meeting and “grog session” in July that year at Bainimarama’s Suva home.

Bainimarama also faces a second charge relating to text messages he allegedly sent between January and July 2023 to Brigadier General Manoa Gadai urging him to take command.

Night behind bars
The long-serving former prime minister, who is also a former head of Fiji’s military, spent Wednesday night behind bars with Qiliho before their court appearance.

They were arrested, handcuffed and driven to Totogo police station following lengthy questioning that day.

The Opposition leader Inia Seruiratu said the timing of their arrest suggested it was politically-motivated.

The former FijiFirst MP claims Bainimarama is still a threat to Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.

“Political opponents, of course Bainimarama and [Aiyaz Sayed-] Khaiyum and a few others are a big threat to the current government.

There may be political reasons behind this because of the elections in 2026.” Seruiratu said.

Party rebranded
The opposition leader has rebranded the deregistered FijiFirst party and set up a new political party, People First, to contest the general election.

Seruiratu said he had hoped Bainimarama would back the new party, but he did not.

He still believes Bainimarama has political currency.

“Although people may think they [Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum] are just minor players, they can be involved to some extent, given their past achievements and popularity. They still have support, they still have sympathisers, Seruiratu said.

RNZ Pacific has sought comment from military spokesperson Lieutenant-Colonel Eroni Duaibe and the government’s information director Samisoni Pareti.

Serious allegations
Fiji Labour party leader, Mahendra Chaudhry is questioning why it took the government so long to deal with the allegations.

“The charges and allegations are serious. If such attempts were made to incite mutiny, they should have been investigated much earlier and disposed of, rather than coming right toward the end of the term of the current government.”

Seruiratu added that their arrest reflects well on Fiji.

“No-one is above the law, this is the rule of law in action. Of course everyone, regardless of who you are in society, is answerable to the law and it is happening in Fiji right now.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/former-fiji-prime-minister-and-ex-police-commissioner-on-bail-in-inciting-mutiny-case/

From curbing protests to controlling what can be said in Australia, state and Federal Labor governments are becoming authoritarian. Next in line is the thought police entering campus. Nick Riemer reports for Michael West Media.

ANALYSIS: By Nick Riemer

In December, the NSW Labor government gave itself the power to ban street marches for an indefinite period. We saw what that meant on February 9 as violent police charged, maced, beat and arrested protesters against Herzog’s visit.

In January, the federal ALP introduced new hate speech laws, which confer unprecedented discretion on the government to criminalise speech and groups to which it objects.

Now, in a further stride down its authoritarian road, the federal government is reported to be proceeding with plans for “political training” for Australian university staff.

According to several recent reports, the federal government has agreed that “antisemitism training” will be a “key” area in which universities’ response to antisemitism will be assessed.

University employees will, apparently, be required to undergo indoctrination in the ideology of the pro-Israel lobby, which identifies Zionism and Judaism and treats critics of Israel as likely antisemites.

The training will involve “understanding of Jewish peoplehood, their attachment to Israel and identity beyond faith” — the characteristically unclear phrasing of the government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who is responsible for the “Antisemitism report card” plan.

The thought police
Compulsory training in a political ideology befits a police state, not a notional democracy — a status that NSW Premier Chris Minns, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the rest of the political establishment are undermining like none before them.

Amidst the uproar over Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit, the move has not had the discussion it deserves. Requiring university staff to undergo “training” in the ideology of Israeli apartheid is as unacceptable as it would have been to require training in that of South African apartheid or Hindu supremacism.

Compulsory training in any particular ideology — Zionism, fascism, liberalism — is a body blow against university independence.

Segal’s plan has been roundly criticised by the progressive side of politics, including by Jewish organisations, but has the support of the entire Zionist establishment and the major parties.

Stopping free inquiry
The plan was originally devised in mid-2025, but was put on hold after Segal was discredited by revelations of her family’s connections, through generous donations, with the far-right, anti-immigrant group Advance.

Now, the ALP appears to be implementing it. Under the obligatory cover of combating antisemitism, the training is clearly intended to further attack genocide opponents in higher education.

The measure shows a flagrant contempt for the basic role of universities in a supposedly liberal society — the necessary cliché that the campus is a place where controversial ideas can be expressed and discussed, no matter what powerful political actors they alienate.

Academic freedom is an ideal, not a reality, but it is still an essential principle of true intellectual work.

The extent to which it is observed is an indicator of the overall state of democracy in a country.

Little is currently known about how the antisemitism training will work in practice. Segal’s blueprint is — no doubt intentionally — extremely vague.

Regardless of the form it takes, the training is designed to elevate anti-Jewish hate above all other kinds of racism as especially deserving of redress — what other form of racism has its own training? — and to enforce Zionists’ chauvinistic insistence that they are the only Jews worthy of the name.

Both intentions are profoundly racist.

How the training will be assessed is also unclear. We have no knowledge of what the consequences would be for the many university staff who will refuse to participate in Zionist indoctrination. We also have no inkling of the size of the financial penalties against non-compliant universities that Segal, in full Trumpian mode, wants to apply.

According to Times Higher Education, they will be “significant”.

To the right of Trump
The current US administration has already mandated widespread student training designed to vilify Palestine solidarity as antisemitic. The Australian proposal of something similar for university staff puts Albanese and his government to the right of Trump.

The government has appointed Greg Craven, the former VC of the Australian Catholic University, as the political commissar responsible for the training and other elements of Segal’s “report card” process.

Craven has pooh-poohed the idea that cracking down on anti-Zionist speech could constitute any threat to civil liberties. The issue, he writes, is fundamentally one of “national defence”.

Albanese’s new hate speech laws, for example, are needed because our current legal and constitutional arrangements

are based on the assumption that our commonwealth faces no deadly external or internal threats.

Read that again. We are, Craven thinks, essentially at war. This means that we have to be the ones to suspend the basic democratic norms we love so much, because otherwise the jihadists will do it for us.

He sees pro-Palestinian critics of the hate speech laws as spreading “morally bankrupt intellectual effluent”.

“A couple of decades’ house arrest for Louise Adler,” he writes, is “appealing”. This is kind of right-wing trolling that, in 2026, equips someone to be entrusted by the ALP with the future of academic freedom in Australia.

University leaders can’t be trusted
Mass defiance of the training is the only feasible response. University authorities certainly cannot be trusted to push back. They have made it clear that they are perfectly willing to turn their institutions into Zionist propaganda mills.

Universities Australia welcomed Segal’s recommendations when they were first made in July; the supine Group of Eight has not raised a peep of protest against the political training proposal.

The training will, however, pose serious headaches for university managers. But, far from protesting, they might even welcome the opportunity to discipline Palestine-supporting staff, who are usually also at the forefront of union and other progressive campus activism.

Last year’s gratuitous purge of academics at Macquarie University disproportionately targeted Palestine supporters, union activists and women.

As decades of their imposition of cuts and austerity in the sector show, many vice-chancellors and their deputies are more than ready to sacrifice higher education wholesale, at any price. Their rewards are the prestige and salary that come with a career in senior university management.

In this year’s Australia Day honours, Professor Annamarie Jagose, the provost of the University of Sydney, was rewarded with an Order of Australia medal for “service to tertiary education”. She was far from the only university executive to get a gong.

Awarding this honour, at this moment, to the second-highest office holder at Sydney, which has led the way in its repression of anti-genocide activism, is not anodyne, and it is hard not to read it as a federal

reward for the university’s readiness to politically and ideologically serve the cause of genocide.

Police state on campus
Not content with feting Israel’s bomb-signing terrorist-in-chief, Albanese is also destroying the notional independence of the university system, imposing a political standard to which teaching and administrative staff must conform, and delivering campuses into the hands of a far-right lobby that is milking the 2025 atrocity at Bondi for all it is worth.

After Bondi, no authoritarian bridge seems too far for the ALP and Coalition. Crossing dangerous new frontiers in political repression will be the principal legacy of Anthony Albanese and his Labor colleagues.

Their reforms threaten to fundamentally alter the character of society, which will become more autocratic, more racist, less rational and less free.

Everyone who supports the reckless and bankrupt Labor Party is accountable.

During the genocide, universities have played the role of being a testing ground for repressive policies that were soon rolled out more widely.

Before the NSW government restricted street protests, Australian vice-chancellors restricted them on campus. The federal government’s hate speech laws were prefigured by crackdowns on anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian expression in universities.

Under their supposedly “liberal” leadership, campuses have consistently trialled the next features of the Australian police state. Once Zionist political training has become established in universities,

there is nothing to stop it from being rolled out more widely.

Nick Riemer is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney and academic vice-president of the university’s National Tertiary Education Union branch. A long-time Palestine activist, he is the author of Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine. Available here. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/antisemitism-training-at-universities-labors-march-to-authoritarianism/

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

This week we pressed the rewind button on the Pauline tape, back to Hanson maxing out with inflammatory statements about Muslims, attracting a blaze of publicity and widespread outrage.

Or, given One Nation’s surging polls, have we pushed the fast forward button, to when Hanson’s party joins the big league? The March 21 South Australian election, followed by the Farrer byelection for Sussan Ley’s seat, will provide clues.

Hanson told Sky on Monday, “I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because of what it says in the Quran. They hate Westerners and that’s what it’s all about. You say, ‘Oh well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ I’m sorry, how can you tell me there are good Muslims?”

She subsequently only partially qualified her blanket condemnation of Muslims.

Her extreme comments left Barnaby Joyce, her new recruit, uncomfortable. They also brought notable pushback from prominent Nationals senator Matt Canavan. The Liberals and Nationals will be going head-to-head against One Nation in Farrer. They will need to take it on robustly.

Hanson is exploiting rifts in Australia’s social cohesion while tearing further a fabric in its poorest shape in recent memory. As the Muslim community this week entered Ramadan, with threats made to the Lakemba Mosque, Hanson’s outbursts will make the security agencies even more nervous.

The Middle East conflict took a big toll on our cohesion. The Jewish community suffered attacks amid soaring antisemitism, culminating in the horrific Bondi massacre. Incidents against Muslims increased. Demonstrations divided the public. Many Australians are on edge. Tensions have escalated, tolerance has plummeted.

We see this in the blow up over the so-called ISIS brides and their children, who want to come to Australia.

The debate isn’t new. It stretches back to the prime ministership of Scott Morrison, and the repatriation of a handful of children. Morrison condemned the parents for a “despicable” act in putting them in harm’s way, but said “the children can’t be held responsible for that”.

The Coalition, eyeing voters lost to One Nation, is demanding the brides and their families never get here. Asked about the children, Liberals admit their situation but say it is their parents’ fault.

For his part, Anthony Albanese has now toughened his rhetoric, declaring, “My mother would have said if you make your bed, you lie in it”.

“Shut the door!” says Taylor, offering to support fresh legislation if necessary. The keep-them-out chorus will play well with many people, especially in the present climate. The women joined terrorists fighting against Australia’s interests and values.

Moreover, there are increasing questions about how honest the government has been in what it said and did in reacting to lobbying to get them home. It still has much to answer.

But on the substantive issue, these are Australian citizens and as such are entitled to come to Australia. (Though there are legal provisions for exclusion orders on security advice and the government has taken that route with one person. There are also some other legal loopholes in relation to granting passports).

Australia claims the right to demand that countries should take back their citizens when we deport them under our laws. Legislation was passed last year to potentially penalise those that refuse to do so.

In the same way, Australia should recognise its obligations to accept its own citizens, however much it mightn’t want to do so. This goes beyond legality – it is also a moral responsibility.

But, the critics shout, they pose a risk. To a degree perhaps, including because some of the older children may have been radicalised. But whatever risk there might be is one that could be managed. The cohort is fewer than three dozen. Women who have broken Australia’s law by their actions should be charged when they return; the others, including minors where necessary, should be monitored by police and ASIO. It’s not ideal but if you admit the moral argument, it’s the price we pay.

It’s against the background of today’s hyped-up community feeling that Angus Taylor will craft an immigration policy that, presumably, he will release ahead of the Farrer byelection. Devising the policy will be harder than his slick slogan condemning the government’s policy – “numbers too high, standards too low” – as he is pulled between good policy and populist politics.

The policy has two dimensions: the size and composition of the intake and the issue of ensuring people accept and fit with Australian “values”.

The government already has migration numbers coming down. Net overseas migration was 306,000 in 2024-25, compared to 429,000 a year before. The budget projected 260,000 in 2025-26. The opposition wants it lower.

But it is tricky when it comes to the details. Cutting the permanent skilled migration intake would be bad for business and the economy – although the points system seems totally out of whack, when people get points for characteristics that have nothing to do with their likely economic and social contribution to Australia.

Reducing those on temporary visas is also difficult. The care economy and many businesses rely heavily on these workers. Are there too many students? Perhaps – but universities need their fees: in 2024 they provided more than a quarter of their revenue. Education is also a huge export industry. What about backpackers? But how would many farmers cope without them? There are multiple stakeholders Taylor’s policy will have to consider in slicing numbers.

The “values” side of the policy will be even harder. A draft policy prepared in the Ley office proposed designating regions where terrorist organisations have sustained control, banning people coming from them for a period. Home affairs and immigration spokesman Jonno Duniam says this is not part of the policy now being worked on.

Whatever the scope for toughening the scrutiny for migrant entry, permanent residency and citizenship, ensuring people have the right values is an elusive quest. One of the Bondi shooters came from India decades ago and was an Australian citizen; his son, who faced court this week, was born an Australian. There are no guarantees, and sometimes it’s a matter of vigilance.

The values people arrive with are important, but values need constant reinforcement, in all parts of society, including through the education system and the political system.

As part of this, a lot more political attention should be paid to our multiculturalism which is at risk of a serious unravelling. Multiculturalism requires social licence and among some Australians that is diminishing before our eyes.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Can Angus Taylor get beyond slogans to craft a sound immigration policy? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-can-angus-taylor-get-beyond-slogans-to-craft-a-sound-immigration-policy-275911

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/grattan-on-friday-can-angus-taylor-get-beyond-slogans-to-craft-a-sound-immigration-policy-275911/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Hart, Associate Professor, Film Screen & Animation, Queensland University of Technology

Members of the Australian screen industry have been shocked to learn one of the nation’s most successful and prolific production companies, Matchbox Pictures – and its subsidiary Tony Ayres Productions – will shut their doors this week.

Matchbox was closed by its parent company, Universal International Studios, and the closure has resulted in the loss of 30 full-time equivalent positions.

The reasons cited by Universal are vague. According to a media release, “extensive evaluation of the business and the broader production landscape” influenced the decision. The global production arm of NBCUniversal has said it will take on new business and talent on a case-by-case basis from here on.

This is crushing news for the local screen industry, which finds itself increasingly beholden to decisions made by overseas corporations.

18 years in the making

Matchbox Pictures was founded in 2008 by screen industry stalwarts Tony Ayres, Penny Chapman, Helen Bowden, Michael McMahon and Helen Panckhurst.

Together, they have made some of Australia’s most iconic television series including The Slap (2011). This series changed how the world perceived Australian drama, as an innovative, gritty morality play remade in the United States.

The Matchbox team was also responsible for other critically acclaimed and AACTA Award winning projects, such as Secret City (2016–19), Stateless (2020) and Glitch (2015–19), among others.

More recently, they gave us The Survivors (2025), the best performing local TV drama on Netflix in 2025.

[embedded content]

As one of the bigger employers of local talent and crew, one might ask how this happened.

Acquisition by Universal

In 2011, Matchbox sold a majority stake to NBCUniversal. At the time it seemed like a shrewd move. It meant the company, which is headquartered in Sydney with offices in Melbourne and Singapore, would get better access to international markets, stronger global distribution channels, and the ability to upscale productions.

However, it also meant Matchbox was subject to global winds of change, rather than local breezes. And the wind is blowing. Comcast, which owns NBCUniversal, is in downturn, reporting a significant revenue decline and job cuts in 2025. This means they’re probably eager to lighten the load.

Another reason is the changing nature of streaming content regulation in Australia. The Labor government’s move last year towards regulating local content quotas for media giants such as Netflix was a big win for advocates.

But it also introduces uncertainty, which means international companies may choose to withdraw from the region instead of investing in Australian content.

There is no law requiring overseas content providers to maintain a presence in Australia. Although Universal has said it will continue to do business here, the new environment arguably makes maintaining a fully-staffed production arm less attractive.

The Matchbox closure is the first clear example of this.

---

Read more: New laws will force streaming giants to invest in local content – but it’s too soon to celebrate

---

A big step back

So, where does the recent closure leave the local industry? For one thing, we’re likely to see reduced capacity to nurture in-depth, large-scale local productions.

It also makes the future uncertain for up-and-coming practitioners, especially those from diverse backgrounds, which Matchbox was well-known for championing. The shutdown means the loss of salaried jobs and a consistent commissioning pipeline.

Matchbox was also a steady source of contract work for freelancers – whose situation is now even more precarious.

It’s possible the closure will lead to more opportunities for mid-size producers pitching their projects to broadcasters, studios and streaming platforms – especially with the introduction of new streaming quotas for local content.

There are some left in Australia that may step in to fill the gap: Hoodlum Entertainment, CJZ, Curio Pictures, Endemol Shine Australia, See-Saw Film, Beyond International and Goalpost Pictures spring to mind.

Then again, some of these are also owned by overseas interests. It’s a “watch this space” situation.

– ref. Why one of Australia’s most successful TV production companies is being shut down – https://theconversation.com/why-one-of-australias-most-successful-tv-production-companies-is-being-shut-down-276371

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/why-one-of-australias-most-successful-tv-production-companies-is-being-shut-down-276371/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Member of Deakin Cyber and the Centre for Law as Protection, Deakin University, Deakin University

In the wake of the Bondi terror attack, multiple state governments have passed laws to restrict mass protests. Most notably, the New South Wales government introduced controversial legislation giving police the power to restrict public protests for up to 90 days after a terrorist incident.

This unprecedented restriction was tested when thousands took to the streets to protest against the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

The protest was followed by widespread allegations of police brutality. These are currently being investigated by the state’s police watchdog.

The organisers of the protest are also challenging the constitutional validity of the laws in the NSW Court of Appeal.

This latest round of law reform follows long-running concerns about whether the right to protest in Australia is under threat. Two years ago, the Human Rights Law Centre found “protest is in peril”. Little has changed since.

So, what do these state laws do, and how might they affect people’s democratic right to protest? How can lawmakers strike the right balance between human rights and the protection of public safety?

States tightening anti-protest laws

The right to protest has been restricted in many of Australia’s states and territories over recent years through increased fines and sentences for acts such as traffic obstruction.

These laws have been further tightened in the past year.

In NSW, the government passed legislation in December 2025 to allow the police to make a “Public Assembly Restriction Declaration”, following a terrorist attack.

As the name suggests, such a declaration means specific areas are restricted places for protest. If the police make this declaration, it grants them additional powers to:

• move people on

• close specific locations

• search people inside a designated area

• and issue orders to prevent disruption or risks to public safety.

A number of these declarations were made by NSW Police during the protests against Isaac Herzog’s visit.

The declarations have now lapsed, so they’re no longer in operation. However, the legislation allowing police to make them remains in force.

What about in other states?

In Queensland, draft legislation is currently before parliament. It will, among other things, allow the Queensland government to ban certain protest slogans.

If passed, it will be an offence to publicly use a prohibited expression in a way that “might reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended”. This offence carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

Under this legislation, the government has announced they intend to ban two phrases: “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”.

[embedded content]

In Western Australia, the government has introduced a bill allowing police to refuse a protest permit if they believe the protest is likely to promote hate based on factors such as religion, race, disability, gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

While various protest restrictions have existed for some time, the recent use of police “declarations” is concerning. They may lead to disproportionate use of force or discriminatory policing practices.

Some of the new hate speech offences are also problematic as they exclusively restrict protest slogans used by some pro-Palestinian protesters. These laws can therefore be seen as targeting particular political causes.

Protesters pushing back

A number of challenges to government restrictions have been lodged with varying success in recent months.

In Victoria, protesters challenged a “designated area” declaration prior to the 2026 Invasion Day rallies. The Federal Court found in favour of the protesters, dismissing the declaration as unlawful.

The declaration gave police the power to search a person or vehicle without a warrant and to direct a person to leave the designated area if they refused to remove a face covering when requested to do so.

The court found the declaration unlawful for a number of reasons. First, the assistant police commissioner did not apply the correct legal criteria and did not satisfy key requirements under the relevant legislation. This meant there was a legal error in the way the decision was made.

Second, the assistant commissioner failed to give proper consideration to the right to privacy under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights.

In NSW, the Palestine Action Group recently tried to overturn a government declaration that Israeli President Herzog’s visit would qualify as a “major event” under the Major Events Act.

That declaration was significant because it granted police many of the additional powers outlined above.

That challenge, which had to be brought to court at short notice, did not succeed.

What can we do?

While governments in Australia are correct to address the perils of hate speech and consider public safety, there is a real concern that current legislation is weighted too heavily on the side of protest restriction.

One way lawmakers can strike a balance between the right to protest and other considerations is to adopt a human rights charter. This would include a formal process for considering the right to protest (and other rights).

Importantly, this should also enforce an obligation on police to consider the right to protest when making decisions (as occurs in Victoria under its state charter).

There have also been calls for a federal human rights act, as well as the introduction of human rights charters in states and territories that do not have one.

Combined, this would enshrine important legal recognition of our right to protest, which is fundamental to the functioning of a healthy Australian democracy.

– ref. With more restrictive laws across the country, how can we protect the right to protest? – https://theconversation.com/with-more-restrictive-laws-across-the-country-how-can-we-protect-the-right-to-protest-276070

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/with-more-restrictive-laws-across-the-country-how-can-we-protect-the-right-to-protest-276070/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tammy Williams, Lecturer, University of New England

There is a growing number of “serious incidents” in Australian early childhood services, including day cares.

A serious incident is one that seriously compromises the health, safety or wellbeing of a child. There were 160 such incidents per 100 services in 2024–25. This is up from 148 and 139 in the previous two years.

These figures follow explosive revelations of safety issues and abuse in the sector.

In response, there are several new national child safety measures. These include banning personal phones in early childhood services, improving recruitment, and making sure parents can see a service’s compliance history.

But one key area has not received the attention it needs. This is educator-to-child ratios.

How are ratios supposed to work?

Ratios are presented as a simple numerical safeguard to ensure enough qualified educators are present and working directly with children.

These can differ between states and territories, the type of service and the age of the children. However, for children aged under 24 months at daycare, there needs to be one educator for every four children. As children get older, the ratios change. For example, in New South Wales for children over 36 months, it is 1:10.

Tammy Williams’ recent PhD research interviewed 16 early childhood educators about their workplaces, which were a mix of for-profit services. Some were small, standalone services; others were part of large corporate chains.

They reported how ratios operate in practice can be very different from how they look on paper. This raises serious questions about how safe the system really is.

‘Under-the-roof’ ratios

The “under-the-roof” ratio is a common term in early learning services. Some services use this to calculate ratios based on the total number of children and educators across the building, rather than within each child’s regular room.

For example, an educator might have 12 children in their room instead of the regulated 1:10. But the room next door might have just eight, so on average, the ratio is met in theory. In the PhD study, one educator said:

There are times when you have two or three children over in your room, but they fit in another room, which I don’t understand. It puts so much more stress on the people in that room. I don’t even get why that is allowed.

Or educators might still be counted if they are having a break. This can be permitted in certain situations under some state regulations if the break is short and the educator is still in the same service as the children.

But media reports suggest this is overused by some services. Staff may also be counted when they are working in the office, or cleaning elsewhere in the service. Other staff, such as chefs and might also be included in the official count, even though this isn’t permitted.

As another educator noted:

Ratios, half the time, are not right […]

What are the rules?

Despite its widespread use, the term “under the roof” does not appear in the national laws or regulations. They clearly state staff counted in the ratios must be “working directly” with the children, and they must be “educators”.

So there is a mismatch between the law and how it is applied in practice. Regulators are increasing their inspections – including more unannounced visits. But regulators are also understaffed and services can go years between inspections. For planned inspections, services can “put on an act”, as one educator described.

‘There is a lot of stress’

When educators are stretched, this obviously limits their ability to provide safe, high quality education and care. In the PhD study, one educator also described how not having enough staff can lead to stress, which can flow on to the children.

I feel there is a lot of stress and […] they’re going to pick up on that and they’re going to feel it as well. I feel they miss out on things because there’s so much stuff that educators need to do.

If educators are too busy, it can also interfere with children’s relationships with educators and disrupt their daily routines and sense of security.

Despite Australia needing another 21,000 educators, educators constantly report wanting to leave, because of burnout and workplace conditions. As one interviewee explained:

The people who are passionate about being here are very, very passionate and they’re getting tired. They’re looking at moving into retail positions and cleaning positions.

What happens now?

Some flexibility when using ratios helps services adapt to unexpected day-to-day changes such as sick leave. However, the research suggests some services are using loopholes as a standard way of operating, rather than for emergencies. This leaves children at risk, without adequate supervision.

The following ideas are based on recommendations from the Productivity Commission, other studies and our research:

1. Increase staffing ratios to accommodate daily realities. These include child illness, breaks, hygiene and additional educational needs. The Productivity Commission has suggested 1:3 for babies, and we recommend 1:4 for toddlers and 1:8 for ages three to five. There also needs to be a “floater” – an educator who covers breaks and staff shortages.

2. Create funded cleaning and administrative positions. This would improve educators’ status and job satisfacton, allowing them to use their training to educate and care for children.

3. Tighten the rules. Make sure staffing rules reflect the rooms in which children belong, including only those staff actively working with the children.

Policymakers and the community rightly expect services to strengthen safety. But unchanged ratios leave educators responsible for delivering more under the same minimum staffing rules. This can lead to educator burnout and attrition. Educators need real support to ensure they are in turn, supporting children and families.

– ref. Childcare centres may have clear rules for staff numbers, but there are loopholes to get around them – https://theconversation.com/childcare-centres-may-have-clear-rules-for-staff-numbers-but-there-are-loopholes-to-get-around-them-275075

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/childcare-centres-may-have-clear-rules-for-staff-numbers-but-there-are-loopholes-to-get-around-them-275075/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neeraj Sharma, Scientia Associate Professor of Chemistry and ARC Future Fellow, UNSW Sydney

You might have heard the common claim that electric cars aren’t really green – that their lithium-ion batteries rely on “blood” minerals such as cobalt, mined in terrible conditions.

The critique had some truth to it. But this claim is no longer accurate. Electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers have been shifting away from cobalt because it’s expensive, toxic and ethically fraught.

What’s replacing it? Cheaper lithium-ion battery chemistries based on lithium iron phosphate (LFP), which avoid cobalt entirely. If you remember high-school chemistry, you’ll remember batteries have an anode and a cathode. The anode is nearly always graphite. But the cathode can be made from many different minerals and compounds.

This means battery makers have a great deal of choice over which minerals to include. There’s huge innovation taking place in batteries, as the market grows and diversifies across vehicles and energy storage. Even cheaper chemistries are emerging based around salt (sodium-ion), while high-performance solid state batteries are coming close to reality.

What happened to cobalt?

For years, cobalt has been a mainstay in cathodes due to its useful properties, including how much energy it can help store.

When the first commercial lithium-ion batteries arrived in the 1990s, the chemistry relied on cobalt (lithium cobalt oxide). Over time, lithium nickel mangananese cobalt (NMC) oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminium (NCA) oxide came to dominate the market, as their high energy density made them ideally suited for portable electronics.

As demand for lithium-ion batteries accelerated, sourcing cobalt began to be a problem. Three quarters of mined cobalt comes from one country: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has half the world’s reserves. Australia is second, with 20%.

Cobalt is toxic. In the DRC, many people risk their health in small mines under conditions often described as slave-like. Illegal and legal mines can do huge environmental damage.

This and other issues led researchers to begin working on reducing or cutting cobalt out altogether. This led to low-cobalt chemistries, in which most of the cobalt was swapped for nickel, manganese or aluminium. To date, it’s been difficult to remove cobalt entirely, given how much of a boost it gives to battery capacity and stability.

In parallel, US researchers found the mineral olivine – made of lithium, iron and phosphate (LFP) – was a good candidate for battery cathodes. This discovery gave rise to cobalt-free LFP batteries. LFP chemistry is cheap, non-toxic and safe, though slightly less energy-dense.

These batteries have had a meteoric rise. Last year, 50% of all EV batteries and more than 90% of stationary home and grid batteries used this chemistry.

Given world-leading battery makers now rely heavily on this chemistry, it’s likely LFP batteries will dominate the market for EV and stationary storage applications in the near term.

What’s on the horizon?

The global market for lithium-ion batteries has risen sixfold since 2020 and strong growth is projected to continue. EVs are taking more and more market share – especially in developing nations – and huge grid-scale batteries are proving essential in modern power grids.

What’s next?

Many next-generation batteries nearing the market are being developed for specific jobs – such as powering drones – or to outcompete current technology. Here are four new types to watch:

Sodium-ion: The world’s biggest battery maker, CATL, and other manufacturers are exploring an entirely different chemistry – sodium-ion – in a bid to eventually replace lithium-ion batteries as home or grid batteries. Sodium-ion batteries are typically heavier and less energy-dense than lithium-ion, so they wouldn’t work well in vehicles. But the chemistry has real promise for stationary energy storage.

Lithium-sulfur: These batteries rely on lithium and sulfur or sulfur-carbon composites. They can currently store four to five times more energy than traditional lithium-ion batteries, making them particularly useful for drones and other technologies where maximum power is needed. The challenge is giving them longevity, as the reactions in these batteries are harder to reverse. That means these batteries are harder to recharge many times at present. Several Australian companies are active in this space.

Solid state: Until now, lithium-ion batteries have relied on a liquid electrolyte as the medium for ions to shuttle between anode and cathode. Solid state batteries do away with the liquid, making them inherently safer. They could potentially lead to a drastic boost to energy storage. They’re not mainstream yet because it’s still tricky to get them to work at room temperature without using high pressure. If engineers figure this out, an EV using solid state batteries might travel 1,000km on a single charge.

Flow batteries: In the 1980s, Australian engineers at UNSW invented the vanadium redox flow battery. A cross between a conventional battery and a fuel cell, these typically larger batteries can feed power back to the grid for 12 hours or more, much longer than current lithium-ion battery systems.

These batteries are likely to be useful in renewable-heavy power grids. Lithium and sodium-ion batteries could provide shorter bursts of power to the grid, while flow batteries could kick in for longer periods.

So do we still need cobalt?

These developments are promising. But they don’t mean an end to cobalt entirely. Smaller amounts of cobalt will still be in the lithium-ion batteries in portable devices and EVs for the foreseeable future.

What we are likely to see is more recycled cobalt coming into the mix, as governments accelerate recycling of lithium-ion batteries and promote recycled minerals to be used in new batteries. Over time, the role of “blood cobalt” could disappear.

– ref. ‘Blood cobalt’ is disappearing from batteries – and cheaper, cleaner batteries are arriving – https://theconversation.com/blood-cobalt-is-disappearing-from-batteries-and-cheaper-cleaner-batteries-are-arriving-263808

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/blood-cobalt-is-disappearing-from-batteries-and-cheaper-cleaner-batteries-are-arriving-263808/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

This plan will decimate hotels across South Australia, wiping out many of the 26,000 jobs it directly creates.

Australian Hotels Association (South Australia) chief executive Ian Horne, quoted in The Guardian, February 21, 2018

… a majority of pub employees (over 26,000 in SA!) will likely lose their jobs.

Letter signed by the McCallum family, owners of The Lonsdale Hotel, February-March, 2018

SA Best leader Nick Xenophon has said that if his party wins the balance of power in this Saturday’s South Australian state election, poker machine reform would be “a key issue in any negotiations” about the formation of the next government.

Among other reforms, Xenophon has proposed a reduction in the number of poker machines in some pubs by 50% over five years, and the introduction of a $1 maximum bet per spin for machines in all venues other than the Adelaide casino.

The South Australian branch of the Australian Hotels Association (AHA SA), led by chief executive Ian Horne, says the SA Best policy would “decimate hotels across South Australia, wiping out many of the 26,000 jobs it directly creates”.

A letter signed and shared by the owners of one Adelaide hotel went further, saying “a majority” of 26,000 South Australian pub employees would “likely lose their jobs”.

Is that right?

Checking the source

In response to a request for sources to support the claim made in the Lonsdale Hotel letter, Keith McCallum referred The Conversation to the AHA SA.

A spokesperson for the AHA SA pointed The Conversation to a February 2018 newsletter from Ferrier Hodgson Adelaide partner David Kidman, and the ‘No Way Nick’ website, authorised by AHA SA chief executive Ian Horne.

The Conversation asked the AHA spokesperson to quantify what the association meant by “many” jobs, but did not receive a response to that question.

---

Verdict

The claim made by Australian Hotels Association of South Australia that proposed poker machine reforms would wipe out “many of the 26,000 jobs” in the South Australian hotel industry appears to be grossly exaggerated.

The Australian Hotels Association did not provide modelling or evidence to show how “many” jobs might be affected.

The number of gaming related jobs in South Australian hotels in 2015 was around 3,000. In the same year, less than 20% of the South Australian hotel industry’s revenue came from gaming.

The reforms proposed by SA Best aim to reduce the number of poker machines in some hotels, and reduce maximum bet limits, rather than removing the machines entirely.

Based on these factors, the Australian Hotels Association claim greatly overstates potential job losses.

In addition, at least some of the money not spent on poker machines would be spent on other recreational activities.

This means that potential job losses due to poker machine reforms may be partially offset by increases in employment elsewhere in the economy – or even within the same hotels.

---

What changes is SA Best proposing?

Among a suite of reforms, the SA Best party wants to reduce the number of poker machines in pubs with 10 or more machines by 10% each year over the next five years. This reduction wouldn’t apply to not-for-profit community clubs or the Adelaide Casino.

SA Best is also proposing the introduction of a $1 maximum bet per spin and a maximum win of $500 for machines in pubs and and not-for-profit community clubs.

SA Best leader Nick Xenophon said these reforms would reduce the number of poker machines in South Australia from around 12,000 to around 8,000, and reduce potential personal losses on pokies in pubs and community clubs from around $1,200 an hour to around $120 per hour.

The policy includes a poker machine buyback scheme, a “jobs fund” to assist affected employees, and the possibility of compensation for smaller poker machine operators.

Would ‘many of 26,000 jobs’ be wiped out?

First of all, let’s look at how many people work in the hotel industry in South Australia, and how many of those jobs are related to gaming.

This information is not available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

However, in January 2016, the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies published a report that examined the economic contribution of the hotel industry in South Australia.

The report was commissioned by the AHA SA, but it adopts a sound statistical approach to measuring employment in the hotel sector.

According to that report, a total of 26,250 staff were employed in hotels in South Australia in 2015. Of those, 3,048 were classified as gaming staff (or 11.6% of total employment).

Of the 26,250 people employed across the industry, the majority were casual staff (rather than permanent or part-time staff).

The SA Best proposal is to reduce poker machine numbers and maximum bets in some venues, as opposed to removing pokies entirely. So it’s clear that not all 3,000 gaming staff would be at risk.

However, the AHA SA is arguing that reduced revenue from pokies would threaten other jobs.

According to the same report, in 2015, 17% of the South Australian hotel industry’s annual revenue came from gaming. Around 80% of revenue came from liquor sales, food and beverage sales and accommodation.

So even in light of reduced gaming revenue, assertions that “many” or “the majority” of 26,000 pub employees would be affected appear to be unsubstantiated.

Jobs may be shifted elsewhere

To understand what might happen if Xenophon’s proposed reforms were introduced, we need to take two factors into account.

On the one hand, if less money is spent on poker machines, then the number of hours requested to service gaming activities decreases. This could result in less demand for labour, and hence a potential reduction in the number of those roles.

On the other hand, money not spent on gaming could be redirected to other recreational activities – like going to cafes, restaurants and cinemas – or to the retail sector. This would mean that new jobs would be created in other parts of the economy.

Spending diverted to food and beverage sales and other forms of entertainment could also see new jobs created within the same venues.

Another report conducted in 2006 by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, commissioned by the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority, found that following the introduction of electronic gaming machines in South Australia, employment in hotels did increase.

However, most of this increase came at the expense of other businesses, like cafes and restaurants. This shows that there is a strong substitution effect in employment between gaming activities and other recreational activities.

Having been published in 2006, the exact numbers in the report are dated. But the qualitative argument is unlikely to have changed. This conclusion is also supported by more recent studies.

In summary, while some of the 3,000 gaming-related jobs in the hotel industry may be lost as a result of the proposed poker machine reforms, claims that “many” or “the majority” of 26,000 jobs would be lost are grossly exaggerated, and not supported by available evidence or existing research. – Fabrizio Carmignani

Blind review

I agree with the conclusions of this FactCheck.

The assertions that “a majority” or “many” of the 26,000 jobs in the South Australian hotel industry would be lost if the proposals put forward by SA Best were to be implemented are gross exaggerations.

They might not be quite as gross an exaggeration as the analogous assertions made in Tasmania during that state’s recent election campaign, but they are an exaggeration, nonetheless. – Saul Eslake

---

The Conversation is fact-checking the South Australian election. If you see a ‘fact’ you’d like checked, let us know by sending a note via email, Twitter or Facebook.

The Conversation thanks The University of South Australia for its support.

---

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more here.

Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link or a photo if possible.

– ref. FactCheck: would pokies reform in South Australia wipe out ‘many’ of 26,000 jobs? – https://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-pokies-reform-in-south-australia-wipe-out-many-of-26-000-jobs-93189

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/factcheck-would-pokies-reform-in-south-australia-wipe-out-many-of-26-000-jobs-93189/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Barrie, Deputy Director of the Australian Migration and Population Research Centre, University of Adelaide

Nick Xenophon: The key issue here – and what I find most galling and emblematic of what is wrong – is we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer.

Jay Weatherill: And Nick – you’ve done it before. You’ve said that there are fewer young people here than there were in 1982. You know what you need to do to actually reach that conclusion?

You take the high point in 1981 – it falls all the way to 2002. Since 2002 to now, it’s grown by 36,000.

Sure, it’s less than 1981-82 now, but you have to ignore the fact that, under the entire life of this government, it has actually grown, the number of young people has grown.

– SA Best leader Nick Xenophon and Premier Jay Weatherill, speaking at the SA Votes: Leaders’ Debate, Adelaide, March 5, 2018

In a leaders’ debate ahead of the South Australian election, Premier Jay Weatherill and SA Best leader Nick Xenophon disagreed over the extent to which young people were leaving the state in search of better opportunities.

Xenophon claimed that “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer”.

Weatherill agreed that there are fewer young people in South Australia now than there were in 1981-82, but said that in quoting that figure, Xenophon had ignored “the fact that, under the entire life of this [Labor] government … the number of young people has grown”.

Were the leaders right? And what’s behind these trends?

Checking the sources

In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Xenophon pointed The Conversation to the 2017 Deloitte report Shaping Future Cities: Make it big Adelaide, which states:

Fewer people aged between 15 and 34 live in South Australia today than in the mid-1980s, despite the fact that the population has increased by around 340,000 people in that time.

The claim Xenophon made during the debate echoed a quote from an SA Best policy document, which states that there are “fewer young people – 18-to-34 year olds – living in South Australia today than 35 years ago”, and that this is “emblematic of the state’s decline”. So we’ll take 18-34 as Xenophon’s reference point.

A spokesperson for Jay Weatherill referred The Conversation to a 2018 report from the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, and pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics data showing that in the 0-24 age group, there was a decrease of 53,395 people between 1982 and 2002, followed by an increase of 36,742 people between 2002 (when Labor was returned to office under) and June 2017.

You can read the full response from Weatherill’s spokesperson here.

---

Verdict

During a South Australian leaders’ debate, SA Best leader Nick Xenophon and Premier Jay Weatherill provided different narratives about youth population trends.

Xenophon said “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer” – a statistic he said was “emblematic” of employment issues in the state.

Both leaders used different definitions of “young people”.

Using SA Best’s own definition, Xenophon was incorrect. There were more people aged 18 to 34 in South Australia in 1982 than today. However, based on Weatherill’s definition (people 0 to 24 years), and another relevant definition (people 15 to 24 years), Xenophon’s statement is correct.

Weatherill was correct to say that since 2002, “under the entire life of this [Labor] government … the number of young people has grown”.

The proportion of young people in South Australia’s total population (across all three definitions) has declined since the early 1980s, but the decline has slowed since 2002.

However, none of the numbers are a simple reflection of the failure or success of government policies. There are also a number of longer term economic and social trends at play.

---

---

How do we define ‘young people’?

There’s no single definition of “young people” – and as you would expect, different definitions provide different outcomes.

During the campaign, the relevant policy document from Xenophon’s SA Best party described “young people” as being between the ages of 18 and 34.

Weatherill used a definition of young people as those aged between 0 and 24. (Keeping in mind that young people aged 0-17 are unlikely to leave the state of their own accord).

Each leader chose to highlight the numbers that best supported their own narrative.

Another way of examining this issue is to look at young people aged 15-24.

This is an age when many young people become independent, and may move away from South Australia to finish their education or find employment.

So here are the age ranges we’ll be looking at:

• 0-24 year olds (Weatherill’s definition)
• 15-24 year olds (highly mobile demographic), and
• 18-34 year olds (Xenophon’s definition).

Did the leaders quote their numbers correctly?

Xenophon said “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer”.

According to Census data, South Australia’s population in 1981 was 1,285,042. In 2016, the Census recorded 1,676,653 people – a difference of 391,611.

Given that Xenophon was speaking in a live debate, rounding this number up to 400,000 is understandable.

In 1982, there were around 378,000 people aged 18-34 in South Australia, compared to just over 390,000 in 2017. In terms of raw numbers, that’s an increase of around 12,000 people. So on those calculations (using his own definition), Xenophon was incorrect.

However, based on the numbers for 0 to 24 year olds (Weatherill’s definition), and 15 to 24 year olds, Xenophon’s statement is correct.

The proportion of 18-34 year olds also fell from around 28% of the total population in 1982, to around about 23% in 2017.

Do Weatherill’s numbers stack up?

Weatherill pointed to 1981 as being a “high point” in youth population in South Australia.

It’s true that in the early 1980s, youth population numbers and youth as a proportion of the total population were higher.

It’s also true that the raw numbers of young people in South Australia then declined until the early 2000s. As the first chart in this FactCheck shows, after 2002 there was growth in the numbers of young people across all three definitions.

(Labor was returned to office in 2002, led by Mike Rann. Weatherill became premier in 2011.)

So, in terms of raw population numbers, Weatherill was correct to say that “under the entire life of this government … the number of young people has grown”.

Using Weatherill’s own definition (0-24 year olds), there was an increase of 36,742 people (in line with his original quote of 36,000).

The proportion of young people across all three definitions has declined since the early 1980s (though that decline has slowed since 2002).

Interestingly, as the chart shows, the decline in the proportion of 0-24 year olds has been greater than the proportions of the 15-24 and 18-34 cohorts, which have stayed relatively static under the four terms of the Labor government.

This is where the numbers tell us a new story – the biggest decline has been in the proportion of younger children. This suggests that falling fertility rates may have been a driver.

As you can see from the chart below, total fertility rates in South Australia did fall between 2008 and 2016.

What’s driving these trends?

The leaders were discussing these numbers in the context of the viability of South Australia as a place where young people can find work and affordable housing, and preventing the so-called “brain drain” that occurs when young people leave the state in search of opportunities elsewhere.

During the debate, Xenophon (and SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall) painted a picture of increasing numbers of young people leaving South Australia, while Weatherill told the story of youth population growth “under the entire life of this [Labor] government”.

None of the numbers are a simple reflection of the failure or success of government policies that may help to retain youth populations. There are larger historical trends at play.

Understanding the ‘Baby Boomer’ effect

We cannot fully understand why South Australia had more young people in the 1980s and 1990s than it does today without looking back to the postwar period of 1946 to 1964 – the years when the “Baby Boomer” generation was born.

The baby boom was particularly pronounced in South Australia, and coincided with a strong manufacturing sector that attracted young people from other states, and migrants during a period of high immigration rates (migrants also tend to be young).

This convergence meant that the early 1980s was a unique time in South Australian population trends.

The first wave of the Baby Boomers (born in the late 1940s and early 1950s) were having children, and those children would have been counted in the 1981 Census. At the same time, the late cohort of Baby Boomers (those born in the late 1950s and 1960s) would still have been included in the 20-24 year old Census cohort.

This was followed by a “baby bust”, or falling fertility rate. From a peak in the early 1960s, family sizes declined, reflecting national trends.

Economic factors are also at play

A number of economic events that took place in the early 1990s also had an impact on South Australia’s population profile.

A 2018 report published by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES) noted that, in addition to the national recession, South Australia was affected by:

• the collapse of State Bank in 1991
• the loss of headquartered companies around the same time, and
• the loss of “mass manufacturing” employment, which began in the 1980s and accelerated in the early 1990s.

The SACES report found that between 1993-94 and 2001-02, South Australia’s population growth was affected by “sharply reduced overseas immigration and increased outward migration to interstate”. The authors added that:

The dominant cohorts of those who left South Australia were young people and young families.

They did not return and they married and/or had children adding to other states’ younger aged profile while depleting our own.

It would be interesting to see how the numbers of international students in South Australia affect the composition of youth populations. People on student visas who are residents of South Australia are captured in Census data, but the data we need to properly analyse this factor are not readily available. – Helen Barrie

Blind review

The author offers a sound consideration of the available evidence.

The proportion of young people in South Australia has declined since the early 1980s – whether defined as those aged 0-24, 15-24, or 18-34 years.

Despite the decline in the proportion of young people, population momentum means that the South Australian population is still growing, albeit not as strongly as the Australian population overall. – Liz Allen

The Conversation thanks Liz Allen for providing the data used to create the charts in this FactCheck.

---

The Conversation thanks The University of South Australia for supporting our FactCheck team during the South Australian election.

---

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more here.

Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

– ref. FactCheck: is South Australia’s youth population rising or falling? – https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-south-australias-youth-population-rising-or-falling-92995

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/factcheck-is-south-australias-youth-population-rising-or-falling-92995/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, The University of Melbourne

The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via Twitter using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on Facebook or by email.

---

[embedded content]

Now, the consequence of [Jay Weatherill’s] policies was that South Australians faced the highest electricity charges, the highest retail electricity charges, in the country.

– Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher, speaking on Q&A, March 19, 2018

During an episode of Q&A, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher said that South Australia has the “highest retail electricity charges in the country”. That statement in itself is correct.

But Fletcher went on to say that the high prices were “the consequence” of former SA Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies, which included the introduction of a 50% renewable energy target, met in 2017.

Was Fletcher right?

Checking the source

In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Fletcher pointed The Conversation to the Australian Energy Market Commission’s 2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends report, wholesale electricity price data from the Australian Energy Market Operator, and a 2017 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report, which stated that:

… the combination of significant network investment over the past decade, recent increases to gas prices, more concentrated wholesale markets, and the transition from large scale synchronous generation to variable and intermittent renewable energy resources has had a more pronounced effect on retail prices and number of offers in South Australia than any other state in the National Electricity Market.

You can read the full response from Fletcher’s office here.

---

Verdict

Paul Fletcher was correct to say that South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.

Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). The Australian Capital Territory has the lowest retail electricity prices in Australia, at around 23.68 c/kWh.

But there are many factors that affect retail electricity prices. Increasing levels of renewable energy generation is just one.

Other factors include network costs, gas prices, changes in supply and demand dynamics and market competition issues.

Therefore, Fletcher’s assertion that South Australia’s high retail electricity prices are “the consequence” of former Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies is incorrect.

---

Read more: FactCheck: does South Australia have the ‘highest energy prices’ in the nation and ‘the least reliable grid’?

---

Does South Australia have the highest retail electricity prices in the nation?

First, a quick terminology reminder. “Energy” is a broad term that includes sources such as petrol, diesel, gas and renewables, among other things. “Electricity” is a specific form of energy that can be produced from many different sources.

The “retail electricity price” is what you’ll typically see in your home electricity bill, and is usually expressed in cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh).

According the Australian Energy Market 2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends report, South Australia does indeed have the highest retail prices in the nation. Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79c/kWh.

The lowest retail electricity prices in the country are in the Australian Capital Territory, where the typical customer pays around 23.68c/kWh.

---

---

The retail electricity price includes the wholesale price of the electricity, the network costs (or the “poles and wires” that bring the electricity to your home), retailing costs, and levies related to “green schemes” (such as the renewable energy target or solar feed-in tariffs).

The chart below shows how the different components contributed the electricity price increase in South Australia between 2007-08 and 2015-16.

---

---

For many years the drivers for retail prices have been network costs – which have very little to do with renewables.

But over the past 18 months, there has also been a increase in wholesale electricity prices across the entire National Electricity Market – the interconnected power system that covers Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

A range of factors have contributed to this.

These include the increase in gas prices, and the tightening of the supply-demand balance.

The closures of South Australia’s Northern Power Station in 2016 and Victoria’s Hazelwood Power Station have contributed to a reduction in electricity supply (capacity).

The ACCC is also investigating “transfer pricing” – which is when a business that’s an energy generator as well as a retailer shifts costs from one part of its business to another.

Are the prices ‘the consequence’ of Weatherill’s renewable energy policy?

No. Even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables.

Increased renewable energy generation may have contributed to decisions for some power plants to close. But so would other factors – such the A$400 million safety upgrade required for the Hazelwood power plant to have stayed open.

As mentioned above, other factors such as gas prices and competition issues have also contributed to increases in wholesale electricity prices. And as shown below, these are not confined to South Australia.

---

---

Gas prices are particularly important in the South Australian context, which is the most gas-dependent region in the National Electricity Market.

In addition, the South Australian market is the most concentrated in terms of competition.

So, Fletcher was not correct to say that South Australia’s high electricity prices are “the consequence” of Weatherill’s renewable energy policies.

Indeed, a large proportion of the existing renewable investment in South Australia has been financed as a result of the federal Renewable Energy Target, introduced by the Howard government, rather than state policy. – Dylan McConnell

---

Blind review

I agree with the verdict.

The price question is not contentious. South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.

But no single factor or decision is responsible for the electricity prices we endure today.

The prices are the result of many different policies and pressures at every step of the electricity supply chain. – David Blowers

---

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more here.

Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

– ref. FactCheck Q&A: are South Australia’s high electricity prices ‘the consequence’ of renewable energy policy? – https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-high-electricity-prices-the-consequence-of-renewable-energy-policy-93594

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-high-electricity-prices-the-consequence-of-renewable-energy-policy-93594/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith University

… the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44 is violence by a partner or former partner …

– Extract from an editorial in The Age, March 13, 2018

The latest available data shows that the top five causes of death, disability and illness combined for Australian women aged 15-44 years are anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia.

Violence (let alone the subset of family violence) doesn’t make the list.

– Statement published on the One in Three Campaign website, March 2018

Violence within intimate and domestic relationships in Australia is a serious social problem that has devastating consequences.

The statement that intimate partner violence or family violence is the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged between 15 (or 18) to 44, has been quoted by numerous media outlets and advocacy groups.

But the One in Three Campaign, an advocacy group focused on the male victims of family violence, says these statistics are misleading.

Who is correct?

Checking the sources

In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, a spokesperson for The Age pointed The Conversation to the website of the Victorian health promotion agency, VicHealth.

A VicHealth spokesperson told The Conversation VicHealth’s 2004 report The health costs of violence: Measuring the burden of disease caused by intimate partner violence focused on Victorian women aged 15 to 44.

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) did a follow-up report in 2016 using similar methodology, but on a national scale. The ANROWS report focuses on Australian women aged 18 to 44, which corresponds to The Age’s statement.

A spokesperson for the One in Three Campaign pointed to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003 (the current source cited on their website). The spokesperson also pointed to the more recent Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011.

You can read the full response from The One in Three Campaign here.

---

Verdict

The Age editorial used the words “leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44”. This is incorrect.

It’s important to make a distinction between cause and contributor to death and illness.

If The Age editorial used the words “contributor to”, it would be correct, i.e. “leading preventable contributor to death and illness for women aged 18 to 44”.

The One in Three Campaign has correctly quoted the AIHW Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003. But it is not accurate to say the 2003 report is the “latest available data”, as the Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011 is the most recent data.

The findings, however, did not change a great deal between the 2003 and 2011 Australian Burden of Disease reports, in terms of the top causes of death, injury and illness.

If One in Three used the words “previous and current data shows”, and updated its reference, the claim would be correct.

While both of these claims are close to being correct, neither is complete.

---

Cause versus contributor

To give the full picture of how domestic violence is related to death, injury and illness, we need to look at causes of death, injury and illness, and the contributors to those causes.

If we were talking about lung disease, for instance, we would treat that as a “cause” of illness, but we would also consider whether a person was a heavy smoker (a contributor).

Likewise, if we were to look at the number of people whose deaths were due to type 2 diabetes (the cause), we would be interested in knowing whether those people had an unhealthy diet (a contributor).

Intimate partner violence can be treated as either a cause of death, injury and illness in its own right (as a subset of violence), or a contributor to other causes, such as depression and anxiety.

Intimate partner violence can be a leading contributor to death, injury and illness among women, without being among the leading causes. Looking at it from one perspective alone doesn’t provide a complete picture.

---

Read more: FactCheck: is there a link between early and easier access to violent TV and domestic violence?

---

One in Three: causes of illness and death

The claim by the One in Three Campaign is based on the AIHW Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003. This looks at the burden of death, injury and illness for all Australians, as well as providing breakdowns by age and sex.

The 2003 AIHW report is not the latest available data but the more recent Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011 contains basically the same results, in terms of the top causes of death, injury and illness.

The report used a range of data sources to look at different types of death, injury and illness, and considered how each of those contributed to the total “burden of disease”.

The “burden of disease” is based on a calculation of the number of years lost across a specified population due to premature death and years of “healthy” life lost due to disability arising from injury or illness. These years are called “disability-adjusted life years”.

According to that report, intimate partner violence was not among the top causes of death for women. Homicide and violence is the 26th highest cause of death, disability and illness.

The One in Three Campaign talked about the top five causes of death, disability and illness. The illnesses they referred to were the leading causes of “disability-adjusted life years”.

So this claim is about intimate partner violence as a cause of death, injury and illness rather than as a contributor to other causes.

---

---

It is important to note, however, that the 2003 AIHW report also estimated the contribution of intimate partner violence to the development of burdens such as depression and anxiety.

The report found intimate partner violence to be a leading risk for the development of depression and anxiety.

---

Read more: FactCheck Q&A: is domestic violence in Australia on the decline?

---

The Age: contributors to illness and death

The Age appears to be referring to a 2016 report commissioned by the not-for-profit group Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), which superseded the 2004 VicHealth burden of disease report.

The ANROWS report, Examination of the burden of disease of intimate partner violence against women in 2011: Final report, examined the prevalence and health impacts of intimate partner violence on Australian women. It found intimate partner violence and emotional abuse, in both cohabiting and non-cohabiting relationships:

contributes more to the [disease] burden than any other risk factor in women aged 18-44 years, more than well known risk factors like tobacco use, high cholesterol or use of illicit drugs.

The ANROWS report draws very strongly on methods and data used in the AIHW Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011, and focuses on intimate partner violence victimisation as a risk factor for death and other outcomes, such as mental and physical illness.

In other words, The Age claim is based on a report looking at the contribution of intimate partner violence to other causes of death, injury and illness – rather than as a cause in itself.

The report suggests intimate partner violence contributes to around 5.1% of the total “burden of disease” among women aged 18-44, making it the largest single contributor to the “burden of disease” for that group of women.

---

---

The estimates reported are generally similar to other estimates (including those provided by AIHW reports) in terms of the magnitude of the burden, the diseases contributing to it and its ranking among other risk factors.

However, they may be slightly different due to the ANROWS report using a broad definition of intimate partner violence which includes emotional, as well as physical, abuse.

---

Read more: FactCheck: are ‘up to 21 fathers’ dying by suicide every week?

---

Different perspectives

Both claims rest on information drawn from very similar sources: the AIHW Burden of Disease Study 2011 and the previous study from 2003. Although all datasets and methods come with caveats and cautions, there is no reason to believe that those sources are inaccurate.

The inconsistency between the claims arises from different ways of looking at the question, and different interpretations of essentially the same data.

Based on the reports above, a more accurate thing to say is that although intimate partner violence is not a leading cause of death, injury and illness among Australian women aged 18-44, it does appear to be a leading contributor. – Samara MacPhedran

---

Blind review

I agree with the conclusions of this FactCheck. It is a balanced examination of the alternative claims about the impact of domestic violence on women’s health, and highlights the differences in the direct claims of causation, as against the more indirect claims of contribution.

The FactCheck also rightly highlights that the definition of domestic violence has been expanded widely to move beyond physical violence, to capture more abstract forms such as emotional, psychological and financial abuse. – Terry Goldsworthy

* This article has been updated after publication to clarify the data in the first chart.

---

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more here.

Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

– ref. FactCheck: is domestic violence the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44? – https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-domestic-violence-the-leading-preventable-cause-of-death-and-illness-for-women-aged-18-to-44-94102

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/19/factcheck-is-domestic-violence-the-leading-preventable-cause-of-death-and-illness-for-women-aged-18-to-44-94102/