Johansen.se

When the first cases of COVID began to spread around the world in early 2020, people in Iquitos, a remote city in the Peruvian Amazon, weren’t unduly worried. They assumed their isolation would protect them. It didn’t. Peru, and Iquitos, were hit fast and hard.

In many wealthier parts of the world, states stepped in to help people whose livelihoods had disappeared. Not in Iquitos. The pandemic led to an extreme case of societal breakdown. In a surreal situation, people were left to fend for themselves, fighting to get hold of oxygen on the black market for their loved ones and forced to put themselves in danger to survive.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to a researcher who spent a year living in Iquitos, trying to understand what happened there during the pandemic. It serves as a warning that even after facing multiple crises, five years later, few places are ready for the radical reckoning needed to avoid the same thing happening again.

When Japhy Wilson began asking people in Iquitos of their memories about the first wave of COVID in March 2020, many mentioned the story of one man: Juan Pablo Vaquero, known locally as Uncle Covid.

 This man who had been taken to the main hospital in the city at the height of the first wave, was pronounced dead. His sister wasn’t allowed to see his body. She had to return home and three days later he appeared at her front door, supposedly stinking of death. She asked what had happened to him, and he told her that he’d awoken in a pile of black garbage bags out in the jungle and had found his way home from there.

In 2022, Wilson, a lecturer in human-environment interactions at Bangor University in Wales, went to live in Iquitos for a year. He recently published research based on interviews he did with people in the city about their memories of the early stages of the pandemic.

 I knew there’d been this huge disaster, but everyday life was just carrying on as normal. It was being kind of deliberately forgotten, and as soon as I started talking to people about it all kinds of extraordinary stories emerged. Almost everybody had lost at least one close family member during this first wave. I’ve done research in a lot of difficult, conflict situations in the past. But never had I encountered so many people breaking down in tears as they did in this case.

Listen to the conversation with Wilson on The Conversation Weekly podcast and read an article about his research.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from Al Jazeera English, AP Archive, NBC News, The Guardian and CityNews. Thanks to Japhy Wilson for sharing audio clips from life in Iquitos, and from one of his interviews in the city.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. Läs mer…

It was not a given that petrol-powered cars would come to dominate the world. In fact, back in 1900, just 22% of cars produced in the US were powered by gasoline (also known as petrol, benzine or various other names). The rest split between electric and steam cars.

There is no consensus on what explains the success of the petrol car and the historical demise of the electric. Some zoom in on the technical inferiority of electric cars, even though they had an average range of about 90 miles (135 kilometres) in the 1910s and eventually became cheaper to drive.

Others, including my colleague Hana Nielsen and I, argue that technological limitations could have been counteracted if electricity grids and charging station infrastructure had been rolled out in the early years of the 20th century.

But this does not rule out explanations based on social or cultural factors. Specifically, do gender roles decide what technologies we end up with? In the 1990s, US historian Virginia Scharff broke new ground when she suggested that electric cars had been labelled “women’s cars”, and that this image “took hold early and tenaciously”. Similar claims have been made for the UK.

A 1916 ad for Baker Electric.
GRANGER – Historical Picture Archive / Alamy

In a new study I used American electric car advertisements from motorist journals and comprehensive vehicle statistics between 1900 and 1919 to examine these claims. I found it is undeniable that electrics were, in fact, considered to be women’s cars.

They were not marketed that way at first, however. I found that only 22% of electrics between 1900 and 1904 were marketed towards women.

In these very earliest days, electric car ads were rather addressed to businessmen and family men, countering the “adventure machine” vision of cars that was popular at the time. Electric car manufacturers imagined electrics as clean and reliable cars for the business commute in the cities the grid kept them restricted to. This was a valid argument since gasoline cars were prone to break down and had to be manually restarted with a crank.

‘EVs for women’ was a response to petrol’s success

But petrol-powered cars were taking over, accelerated by the iconic, cheap and mass-produced Ford Model T. It was only then that electric vehicle makers began marketing them as “women’s cars” to keep market share.

This advert, published during the first world war, urged women to ‘be patriotic’ and buy an electric car as petrol was needed for the war effort.
Early Advertising of the West Collection / wiki

During the 1910s, 77% of electric vehicles directly appealed to female consumers. This reflected traditional gender roles and the Victorian idea of “separate spheres”, promoting the idea that women had limited mobility needs and needed safe, easily operated vehicles.

In the short term, this was a successful strategy: car manufacturers that advertised to female consumers survived much longer. One of the most well-known examples, the Detroit Electric, produced more than 13,000 cars during its lifetime and was the only major electric car producer to survive into the 1920s.

A 1910 Detroit Electric ad states the ‘well-bred woman’ could ‘preserve her toilet immaculate, her coiffure intact’ and ‘drive… with all desired privacy, yet safely’.
Country Life in America, 1910

A significant shift occurred when prolific inventor Charles Kettering introduced electric starting ignition in the 1912 (petrol-powered) Cadillac. These electric starters were initially conceived as “effeminate”. But practicality won and they were introduced as a standard in the immensely popular 1919 T-Ford.

When petrol cars emulated “feminine” qualities such as windscreens and electric starters and made them appeal to both men and women, the electric was in a tough spot. It had become heavily invested in traditional gender roles that were becoming increasingly obsolete.

So, did gendered marketing doom the electric car? Not at first. Arguably, the lack of infrastructure was the biggest problem, initially, and differences in range and speed became increasingly problematic with the rise of countryside touring. Gendering came as a response to these developments.

However, gender did matter once we ask why the electric car did not exist longer. In particular, the link of electric cars to a conservative gender order helps explain why they did not bounce back despite being cheaper to operate due to falling electricity prices. Reducing technology choice to a question of gender meant that the electric lost the battle in the public imagination of what cars and mobility could become.

The most useful ‘feminine’ features were adopted

As the historian Virginia Scharff pointed out, US petrol car makers simultaneously saw that windscreens, the starting ignition, and other “feminine” additions to the car were not just good for women, but universal.

Windscreen wipers were invented by a woman in 1903 and eventually became standard, as shown in this 1955 General Motors ad.
adsR / Alamy

Things are now quite different: women buy half of all new cars in the US. Meanwhile, there is a widening gender gap in political attitudes towards sustainability and renewable technology, as evidenced in several studies, where sustainability is often viewed as feminine.

In this context, it is a curious irony of history that the CEO of one of the world’s leading electric car producers has been so vocal in favour of bringing back masculinity and traditional gender roles, amid a rise of what some have termed “technofascism”.

The history of electric vehicles rather illustrates that social constructions of feminine and masculine can be barriers to progress and innovation. It also poignantly shows that we do not always end up with socially optimal technology and that “tech leaders” are as unable to foresee the long-term consequences of technology choice as anyone else.

If history is any guide, innovation needs to be based on principles of universal access and inclusion. Democratic influence can help ensure that technological transitions benefit a large majority of people regardless of their gender, class or ethnicity.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

Many analysts have interpreted Trump’s protectionist stance, and the United States’ imposition of tariffs, as economically irrational. If the liberal motto was once that “under free trade everybody wins”, it is now logical to think that, under protectionism, everyone will lose. It would also mean the end of globalisation, which would come at a great economic cost for the US.

In just the last few days, the US-Canada tariff crisis has escalated significantly. The Ontario government responded to Trump’s threats with a 25% tariff on electricity serving the states of Minnesota, New York and Michigan, prompting Trump to announce that he would raise tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium to 50%. Shortly after, Ontario authorities suspended the electricity rate hike, and Trump has now also walked back his retaliatory tariff hike.

Similar events are taking place on the other side of the Atlantic as well, as the European Commission has responded to US tariff threats on steel exports with its own package of measures targeting a range of American goods.

Read more:
How the EU is preparing to play hardball in the face of Donald Trump’s tariff threats

Trump’s narrative pivot has caused turmoil, and seems to run contrary to US business interests. However, a critical look at the benefits of free trade – and the US’ unique position in relation to it – can help us understand the resurgence of protectionist discourse, and the US’ trade war with China.

Free trade serves US interests

Economic history shows that, once the US’ technological development outstripped its competitors, it was able to turn free trade into an instrument that protected its own interests. At this point it, along with its allies, began to promote free trade as vital to the development of less advanced economies.

This resulted in globalisation, which was what made it possible to manufacture goods in China at lower costs, thus keeping US wages and inflation in check and increasing the profits of US companies. As long as this remained the case, free trade with China served the interests of US companies, and was therefore justifiable.

However, in recent years China has shifted its economic strategy towards producing and exporting high-tech, value-added products (as South Korea and Taiwan have also done). Chinese-produced mobile phones, electric cars and artificial intelligence have subsequently conquered the US market.

The longer this shift goes on, the more useful and legitimate tariffs and protectionism become as a way to shield the economic interests of US businesses.

Read more:
US-China tensions are an opportunity – the EU could become the world’s third great power

How far will the US go?

Protectionist rhetoric and trade wars were already trumpeted by the first Trump administration. However, the KOF globalisation index – which measures the global connectivity, integration and interdependence of countries – showed the same value in 2021 as it did in 2017.

While the growth experienced since 1970 ground to a halt, the index’s indicators disprove any claim that globalisation receded during Trump’s first term in office.

This second term may well be different because, according to some experts, the president has learned to bypass political counterweights, to surround himself with like-minded people, and to free himself from partisan ties in order to implement his own agenda.

Others, however, question the very existence of his own agenda beyond the interests of big business, because it is precisely this alignment of interests that allows him to:

Impose tariffs on developed countries, and on products competing for the same markets.
Make political use of tariffs to threaten other countries and secure access to vital resources for the technology race (mainly due to the US’ position of being the world’s largest buyer and military power).
Launch a new arms race that will boost the profits of US industry.
Use a nationalist and anti-globalisation narrative to justify the growing precariousness of the US working class. He aims to unite US citizens behind the flag, dilute their class consciousness, and offer up new scapegoats in the form of immigrants.

In reality, Trump’s agenda is unlikely to be compatible with any meaningful de-globalisation process. Reversing globalisation would be contrary to the interests of US capital, which needs to expand – into both new territories and sectors – to ensure its own survival.

In light of all this, why would US multinationals want to stop making huge profits in other countries? What could lead them to give up producing in territories with lower production costs, cheaper labour, and a guaranteed supply of raw materials?

The dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’

According to IMF data, in the third quarter of 2024 the US dollar still accounted for more than 57% of total international reserves, and more than 80% of international trade financing.

When a country’s domestic currency acts as a reserve asset or is the currency in which most international payments are made, the financing of persistent current account deficits does not carry major risks of either devaluation or currency crisis. Every year since 1982, with the sole exception of 1991, the US current account balance has been negative.

These conditions for financing its debt – which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Charles de Gaulle’s Minister of Economy, defined in 1964 as an “exorbitant privilege” – improve even in times of crisis. The dollar’s status as a safe haven asset (much like gold) means that international demand for it actually increases in times of uncertainty.

So why would the US be in favour of shifting its trade balance, thereby renouncing the privilege of issuing the international reserve currency?

Globalisation, democracy, sovereignty: the great trilemma

In his 2012 book The Globalisation Paradox, Turkish economist Dani Rodrik puts forward his theory of the “trilemma”. This theory states that democracy and national sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with globalisation.

Only those who accept the existence of this trilemma, and understand the tensions that arise from it, can then begin to pick apart one of its components. This is where Trump seems to have the upper hand. He is playing a game of illusions, one where he publicly pretends to dynamite globalisation while, behind the scenes, he stealthily dismantles the pillars of democracy. Läs mer…

Many analysts have interpreted Trump’s protectionist stance, and the United States’ imposition of tariffs, as economically irrational. If the liberal motto was once that “under free trade everybody wins”, it is now logical to think that, under protectionism, everyone will lose. It would also mean the end of globalisation, which would come at a great economic cost for the US.

In just the last few days, the US-Canada tariff crisis has escalated significantly. The Ontario government responded to Trump’s threats with a 25% tariff on electricity serving the states of Minnesota, New York and Michigan, prompting Trump to announce that he would raise tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium to 50%. Shortly after, Ontario authorities suspended the electricity rate hike, and Trump has now also walked back his retaliatory tariff hike.

Similar events are taking place on the other side of the Atlantic as well, as the European Commission has responded to US tariff threats on steel exports with its own package of measures targeting a range of American goods.

Read more:
How the EU is preparing to play hardball in the face of Donald Trump’s tariff threats

Trump’s narrative pivot has caused turmoil, and seems to run contrary to US business interests. However, a critical look at the benefits of free trade – and the US’ unique position in relation to it – can help us understand the resurgence of protectionist discourse, and the US’ trade war with China.

Free trade serves US interests

Economic history shows that, once the US’ technological development outstripped its competitors, it was able to turn free trade into an instrument that protected its own interests. At this point it, along with its allies, began to promote free trade as vital to the development of less advanced economies.

This resulted in globalisation, which was what made it possible to manufacture goods in China at lower costs, thus keeping US wages and inflation in check and increasing the profits of US companies. As long as this remained the case, free trade with China served the interests of US companies, and was therefore justifiable.

However, in recent years China has shifted its economic strategy towards producing and exporting high-tech, value-added products (as South Korea and Taiwan have also done). Chinese-produced mobile phones, electric cars and artificial intelligence have subsequently conquered the US market.

The longer this shift goes on, the more useful and legitimate tariffs and protectionism become as a way to shield the economic interests of US businesses.

Read more:
US-China tensions are an opportunity – the EU could become the world’s third great power

How far will the US go?

Protectionist rhetoric and trade wars were already trumpeted by the first Trump administration. However, the KOF globalisation index – which measures the global connectivity, integration and interdependence of countries – showed the same value in 2021 as it did in 2017.

While the growth experienced since 1970 ground to a halt, the index’s indicators disprove any claim that globalisation receded during Trump’s first term in office.

This second term may well be different because, according to some experts, the president has learned to bypass political counterweights, to surround himself with like-minded people, and to free himself from partisan ties in order to implement his own agenda.

Others, however, question the very existence of his own agenda beyond the interests of big business, because it is precisely this alignment of interests that allows him to:

Impose tariffs on developed countries, and on products competing for the same markets.
Make political use of tariffs to threaten other countries and secure access to vital resources for the technology race (mainly due to the US’ position of being the world’s largest buyer and military power).
Launch a new arms race that will boost the profits of US industry.
Use a nationalist and anti-globalisation narrative to justify the growing precariousness of the US working class. He aims to unite US citizens behind the flag, dilute their class consciousness, and offer up new scapegoats in the form of immigrants.

In reality, Trump’s agenda is unlikely to be compatible with any meaningful de-globalisation process. Reversing globalisation would be contrary to the interests of US capital, which needs to expand – into both new territories and sectors – to ensure its own survival.

In light of all this, why would US multinationals want to stop making huge profits in other countries? What could lead them to give up producing in territories with lower production costs, cheaper labour, and a guaranteed supply of raw materials? Why would the United States be in favour of rebalancing its trade deficit, and thus give up the privilege of issuing the benchmark currency for international reserves?

The dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’

According to IMF data, in the third quarter of 2024 the US dollar still accounted for more than 57% of total international reserves, and more than 80% of international trade financing.

When a country’s domestic currency acts as a reserve asset or is the currency in which most international payments are made, the financing of persistent current account deficits does not carry major risks of either devaluation or currency crisis. Every year since 1982, with the sole exception of 1991, the US current account balance has been negative.

These conditions for financing its debt – which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Charles de Gaulle’s Minister of Economy, defined in 1964 as an “exorbitant privilege” – improve even in times of crisis. The dollar’s status as a safe haven asset (much like gold) means that international demand for it actually increases in times of uncertainty.

So why would the US be in favour of shifting its trade balance, thereby renouncing the privilege of issuing the international reserve currency?

Globalisation, democracy, sovereignty: the great trilemma

In his 2012 book The Globalisation Paradox, Turkish economist Dani Rodrik puts forward his theory of the “trilemma”. This theory states that democracy and national sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with globalisation.

Only those who accept the existence of this trilemma, and understand the tensions that arise from it, can then begin to pick apart one of its components. This is where Trump seems to have the upper hand. He is playing a game of illusions, one where he publicly pretends to dynamite globalisation while, behind the scenes, he stealthily dismantles the pillars of democracy. Läs mer…

Australian politicians on both sides of the house say protectionist policies are bad, right? That Australia, as a country, believes in and benefits from trade being as free as possible.

But what about some voluntary protectionism in the wake of the government’s failure to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs? Not counter tariffs of course – the government has ruled out that brand of retaliation. But it is looking to find ways to encourage consumers to buy locally-produced products rather than defaulting to (often cheaper) imports.

Anthony Albanese flags this will be a feature of the March 25 budget. All in the name of supporting “Team Australia”.

“I would urge Australians, if they’re in a local shop, to look to buy Australian,” the prime minister said on Thursday. “That’s one way that consumers can assist to create jobs here and to support our local industries.”

Despite the unfortunate circumstances in which it comes, this exhortation actually fits with the government’s pre-Trump policy of “Future Made in Australia”, with its incentives for projects especially in the clean energy area. Critics thought the policy was too interventionist, indeed protectionist. The government argued it was securing Australia’s place “in a changing global environment”.

Just as he seems to be wreaking havoc around the world, Donald Trump is now embedded in Australia’s domestic politics in the run-up to the election. Both sides are struggling to deal with the consequences of that.

Albanese is trying to contain the damage of the exemption failure, while pinning the “Trumpist” label on Dutton, accusing him of being “a cheer squad” for the Trumpites. “He had a choice yesterday of backing in the Trump administration in this decision or backing Australia. He chose to not back Australia”

Dutton is attempting to exploit the government’s inability to sway Trump but duck the accusation of not being on the national team.

The opposition says the tariff affair shows Albanese is weak, using this latest problem to feed into a general theme it is running about the PM. Dutton (though without evidence) claims he could get the Americans across the line. Kos Samaras from the political consultancy Redbridge, which does extensive research, says voters do think Dutton would be the better leader to deal with Trump.

Dutton’s challenge on the tariff issue is to criticise the government while not appearing to exult in Australia’s misfortune. It’s just one of the fine lines the Opposition leader is needing to walk at the moment.

Dutton is tantalisingly close to power, but the last steps will be the hardest.

A Newspoll finding published the week must give him cause for worry. More than half (55%) doubted the Coalition was ready for government. The poll found while this feeling was strongest among young voters, 61 % of those aged 35 to 49 doubted its readiness.

No wonder some Coalition MPs are worrying Dutton has left it too late to release and flesh out much of his policy,

He contests claims of a policy vacuum, pointing to the nuclear policy, housing measures and some other initiatives.

Nevertheless, because Dutton has run a basically small target strategy (nuclear apart) there will be a feeling among some voters that in government he could be a surprise packet. We know more of what he is against than what he is for, what he would do.

Many voters would recall Tony Abbott going out of his way to reassure people in the 2013 election campaign, and then unleashing the shock 2014 budget. A logical (and reasonable) question is, what would Dutton’s first budget be like?

If Dutton wouldn’t act like Abbott, would he follow the example of John Howard, whom he highlights as a role model?

Howard promised before the 1996 election that there’d “never ever” be a GST under him, then unveiled one (which he took to the following election).

In such uncertain times, it will be particularly important for Dutton to be able to reassure voters that they will get what they vote for, not something completely unexpected.

For an opposition, especially one with the smell of possible victory in its nostrils, there is always a tension between spelling out what it would do in office, and leaving itself flexibility.

For example it’s clear that Dutton has strong views on education policy. He told the Conversation’s podcast he thought this was “one of the most important areas”, and pointed to declining school completion rates and the need for a more back-to-basics approach.

But what would this mean in detail? How much would he seek to impinge on the states, which have prime responsibility for government schooling?

The more general point is that it is not clear whether Dutton would be an incrementalist or have his eyes on radical reform in government. Yet voters want more signals. Samaras says Dutton in recent weeks has been looking “flat-footed”, that he is not going to be able to get away with the small target strategy. “He needs to build a case for change.”

In some areas, the Coalition is leaning to potential heavy intervention. It has said it would break up supermarkets if they exploited their market power.

More recently Dutton has ventured further, saying (and re-confirming on the podcast) that insurance companies could also face divestiture.

But on the insurance issue there has been open division and confusion.

Some Liberals were unhappy with the supermarket divestiture policy, which was substantially driven by the Nationals.

On insurance companies, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and deputy leader Sussan Ley both asserted divestiture was not opposition policy, before Dutton brought the team into line.

That raises another problem Dutton has. His team remains weak. Taylor still can’t stack up effectively against treasurer Jim Chalmers. This is a potential vulnerability in the election campaign.

Politicians facing elections often liken their situation to climbing Everest. For Dutton the last stage will be treacherous. Läs mer…

Many children in Queensland and northern New South Wales have had their lives disrupted by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

Schools were closed (about 14 were still shut as of Thursday afternoon), families hunkered down and then the clean-up and repair efforts began.

For students in Lismore, the past week will have likely brought back memories of the catastrophic floods in the area in 2022.

Our research on the Lismore floods (which is awaiting publication in two peer-reviewed journals) contains key lessons for how communities and schools can support young people after Cyclone Alfred and other disasters.

Read more:
How can parents talk to their kids about Cyclone Alfred?

Our research

Between late February and March 2022, the northern NSW town of Lismore and surrounding region faced two catastrophic flooding events. Almost 1,000 schools in the broader area were temporarily closed and in some cases, schools were relocated or permanently shut.

In the Floods + Me project, we worked with young people in Lismore to understand the impact of the floods on their lives and education.

Twenty-nine young people aged five to 17 documented their experiences through art, poetry and stories. The project also surveyed 107 students (aged 11–17) at a Lismore school in December 2024.

A Lismore child writes about their experiences after the 2022 floods.
The Floods + Me project, Author provided (no reuse)

Profound experiences

Young people told us how their worlds were upended by the floods. As Aisha said:

My mum told me to pack a bag, and we went to my aunty’s house for a couple of hours as we had nowhere to go. We then stayed at my grandma’s house in Alstonville for around three-four months.

Lovely told us how the flood made its way up to the second level of the home, and her Dad and dog had to escape through the roof.

Until evening, we kept going back to the last reachable place near our house on the hill to observe the flood level. I went to bed with a lot of stress and couldn’t sleep properly.

Wanting more emotional support

The young people in our study said there were many kinds of support after the flooding. This ranged from rebuilding and cleaning houses to donations of food and clothes. But almost a quarter of those in the survey said they didn’t observe any support.

Young people also said they wanted more emotional and mental support. Or, as one young person put it:

comfort, counselling, trauma management, therapy, hugs, kindness, love.

Others said they wanted specific training:

I don’t know how to be resilient – I need to be taught how to be. Don’t just tell me to be it.

There were differing experiences of “bouncing back”. While many reported being able to recover with little difficulty (36%), almost the same number reported the opposite (32%). About one fifth (21%) of respondents were unsure and 11% did not respond.

Wanting more school support

In the Lismore floods, some students reported 2022 as a “lost year” at school. As Erika told us:

There were a lot of things going on, lots of things not working, even as we tried to still get education.

Our participants said more financial and educational support such as tutoring and online schooling would have helped to fill the gaps in their learning.

ADF personnel help clean up South Lismore Primary School after the 2022 floods.
Jason O’Brien/AAP

Taking time to recover

Young people told us they didn’t necessarily want to rush back to “normal”.

They said they didn’t want to ignore what had happened. This suggests the return to learning should be well planned and structured. And include consultation with students about what they need.

Floods and their aftermath can be unsettling, frightening and sometimes traumatic. These experiences need to be processed in healthy and constructive ways.

Our participants wanted more information about disasters to be included in their formal education. About 80% of the survey respondents said teaching about flooding and disasters in schools was necessary.

The majority of students reported being worried about climate change, but this was more pronounced among girls. Half (50%) of female respondents said they were concerned, compared to 24% of boys and 3% of non-binary/gender-diverse students and those who do not disclose a gender.

Listen to young people

A key theme in our research is young people want to be listened to and want to be included in recovery and future planning efforts.

As one young person told us:

Give us hands-on jobs in the moment so we don’t feel helpless. A lot of my friends felt this, and I felt lucky that I got to help; it helped me recover.

They also raised caring for pets during floods as a key issue for communities to plan for.

As another participant explained:

there was an evacuation the night before, but we said ‘we’re not leaving unless we know our pets are going to be safe’.

What’s next?

Unfortunately, climate change means young people are increasingly likely to face disruptions to their education and their communities in the form of floods, heatwaves, bushfires and storms.

According to a 2025 UNICEF analysis, at least 242 million children and young people in 85 countries had their schooling disrupted by extreme climate events in 2024.

This means schools, teachers and communities need plans to empower children to face these crises and recover in healthy ways.

In the meantime, for those now rebuilding from ex-Cyclone Alfred, our participants advise it is important not to rush the recovery phase. As one told us:

We took a long time to come back to feeling normal.

The Floods + Me project team also includes Chantelle Bayes, Katie Hotko, Yaw Ofosu-Asare, Helen Widdop Quinton, David Rousell, Lauren Rickards, Lisa Kleyn and Blanche Verlie. Läs mer…

On current opinion polls, we are looking at a very close race at the May election. As voting day draws near, Peter Dutton will face more forensic questioning about his policies and how he would run government.

At the same time, He’s fending off Labor attempt to define him as Trumpian.

The opposition leader joined the podcast to discuss what a Dutton government would look like and how he would tackle problems both domestically and abroad.

On his main priorities would be, Dutton says;

I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership.

I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country.

I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

Asked if Australians would be better off in three years’ time under a Dutton government, Dutton says,

The short answer is “yes”.

On government waste, Dutton outlines the need to reduce the size of government:

there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance.

We’ve supported the government in cutting back on some of the concerns in [the] NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built-in save year-on-year compounding in those two areas. […] And so we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes, and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government, and that’s what we would do.

Wouldn’t consultancy fill any gap left by cutting public servants?

If you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do.

On the government’s relationship with the Trump administration, Dutton leaves the door open to replacing current US Ambassador Kevin Rudd, and doesn’t scotch the idea of appointing Scott Morrison,

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement. It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call

So what about the possibility of making Morrison ambassador?

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

Talking about the criticism from Labor and others that he is aping Donald Trump, Dutton says.

I’m my own person […] I was able to stand up to Trump [after Trump’s criticism of President Zelensky] and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all due respect to him and to other world leaders.

On fears that the American economy could fall into recession, Dutton outlines why Australia should adapt to the changing global realities,

As we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious and economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy.

So we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions and the Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her and that would be the approach I would take.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The formal election campaign was delayed by Cyclone Alfred, but the faux campaign continues at full bore, with the opinion polls showing a very close race, and now Donald Trump’s tariffs throwing a new issue into the mix.

A few weeks ago, we brought you an interview with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, on today’s podcast, we catch up with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton, Paul Keating used to say, ‘change the government, you change the country’. How would Australia be different under a Dutton Government? Can you talk about, say, just three big changes we’d see in a first term?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership. I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country. I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, just taking up the last one, you’re saying to voters that they’re worse off financially than three years ago. But can you realistically promise that they’ll be better off under a Dutton Government in three years’ time? Apart from anything else, the world is just becoming incredibly uncertain.

PETER DUTTON:

The short answer is yes, and I’d say to people, don’t look just at what politicians say, but what they do. Our track record as a Coalition in government has been a very successful one. John Howard was able to clean up Labor’s mess in 1996, and we were able to do it again after the Rudd-Gillard years, and we’ll have to do it again after the Albanese Government. We make rational economic decisions that are in the country’s best interests.

There are 27,000 small businesses who have closed their doors under this Government’s watch. That didn’t happen when we were in government. So, I think look at the report card and make judgements about who is best able to manage the economy, as you say, in very uncertain times. I honestly believe that the Coalition has a much greater capacity to manage the economy effectively, and that’s what we’ll do if we’re elected.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Trump Administration is now warning that its policies could produce a recession in the United States in the transition period to its new protectionism. What would be the implications of this for the international economy and for Australia, in particular?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, as we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious. Economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy. The Government’s ramped up spending dramatically. I don’t think inflation has been dealt with in our country by any stretch of the imagination, and there’s a great prospect of interest rates going up again under a Labor-Greens Government because they’ll spend a lot of money, which will be inflationary.

So, we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions. The Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her. That would be the approach I would take. We would default back to our instinctive economic management skills and that’s something that I’m very proud of.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But this does make it hard to give promises and guarantees of things getting better, doesn’t it?
PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think we have to have an honest conversation with the Australian public about the times in which we live. I think people instinctively get it. People know that China is in a very different place today. The Prime Minister talks about the risk of China, and he talks about the most precarious position since the Second World War, and then he takes money out of Defence. We don’t have the urgency that you would expect from a Prime Minister having made that comment.

We live in the most difficult economic circumstances if the tariffs continue to be applied and there could be another wave of tariffs against Australia. We don’t know the answer to that yet. All of that makes for an uncertain period that needs a steady hand and a reliable approach. I believe that that’s what I can deliver as Prime Minister and what a Coalition Government can deliver over the course of the term.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, on those tariffs, if you were elected, would you make an early trip to Washington? And what would you offer President Trump? And do you think you could obtain an exemption where this Government has obviously not been able to, or indeed any other government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the United States is our most important military partner. I don’t agree with what President Trump has done in relation to the tariffs, and I vehemently oppose the tariffs. But the Government has to deal with the realities before it. For the Prime Minister at the moment, not to be able to get a phone call or a detail agreed about a visit to the United States is quite remarkable.

So, absolutely, I would make it a priority to engage quickly with the Administration and not just with the President, but with others with whom we have a relationship in the Administration. We need to make sure that we’ve got every touch point covered, as we did in 2018 when the Coalition Government was able to negotiate with President Trump in his first Administration to gain an exemption.

We’re a country with a trade surplus and we have a unique circumstance because of the military alliance and the Prime Minister hasn’t been able to leverage any of that into an outcome where Australia has been exempted this time. Unfortunately, it’s jobs and economic activity that suffer in our country. So, the short answer is yes, early engagement and an early visit to discuss what a deal looks like with the US. I would make it an absolute priority in my Government.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, Labor says that in its research, people see you as being Trumpian, and don’t some of your policies, for example, your attacks on the public service and the like, reinforce this perception? And indeed, won’t your attacks on the Government over the tariff policy play into Labor’s attempt to paint you as a cheerleader for Donald Trump?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, firstly, I’m my own person, and I think you wrote a very good piece, if I might say, the other day, talking about this issue. I think the point, in part, that you made is that I was able to stand up to Trump, and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

The most important influence in my life and the values that I obtained first up in politics came from John Howard and Peter Costello and that was to spend prudently, to make sure that you manage the economy well, that you spend within your means and that you make sure that you can prepare for a rainy day. This Government has spent a lot of money, it’s why we’re behind other OECD countries, it’s why interest rates have already started to come down six or eight months earlier than what they did in Australia and it’s why the Reserve Bank Governor has pointed out that there is a spending problem with Labor in Australia, both at a state and federal level, which is fueling inflation.

So, I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all with all due respect to him and to other world leaders. That’s been my experience.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You did call Trump a ‘big thinker’ initially. What are your views on him now?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the President obviously has an America First policy, and people think that that’s an election slogan or that it’s rhetoric, but I think that they now realise that it’s being played out and that that is what we will have to negotiate over the course of the next four years. We have to make sure that we’re making decisions in our country’s best interests, that we’re respectful of the points of difference between our two Governments, but ultimately find common ground and alignment in relation to national security matters and economic matters and other matters of mutual interest.

You need the personal relationships to make that happen. Part of the reason that the Government’s faltered in the relationship is because the key players, every one of them, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Ambassador to the United States, have all made consistent derogatory remarks about the President. I don’t think that has allowed them to have the conversation that I would be able to have with President Trump or my colleagues.

In 2018, we found every point of influence within the Administration, within the private sector, within think tanks to try and influence the outcome that ultimately we were able to achieve to exempt Australia from the tariffs at that point. So, I think we can have a constructive and productive relationship with the President under a new government here in Australia. I know one thing for sure, we have to, in an uncertain time, strengthen the relationship, not weaken it. And unfortunately, through their own words, that’s exactly what Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese have done.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, on personal relationships, obviously Scott Morrison’s got a pretty close relationship with Donald Trump. Would you consider making him ambassador to the United States, if he wanted the job?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve made comment before in relation to making sure that we can put every support behind Ambassador Rudd because he’s in the job at the moment and we need to make sure that he is armed with every possible tool to see Australia exempted from the tariffs. Now, obviously that has failed and the Government needs to double down on its efforts and I hope that the Prime Minister, on our country’s behalf, is able to achieve success and that will happen if doors are opening for Ambassador Rudd.

I’m just not close enough to knowing what has been said to Ambassador Rudd and whether he’s persona non grata or whether he does have access to the Administration. I think all of that would be influential in any decision that you were making around how the Ambassador was being effective or there was a problem in the relationship. I think it’s a discussion probably for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, would you be interested in putting Scott Morrison in there at some point?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement.

It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call. There wasn’t even a courtesy phone call to the Government to say that this decision was being handed down. Penny Wong has confirmed that she found out about this through the press sec at the White House Briefing Room. That is quite remarkable. That is a real thumbing of the nose, and I think the Prime Minister’s got a real problem of his own making.

I want to make sure that we can get a better outcome for our country because we need to provide support to Australian steel workers and to economic activity in our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

As we move on, I just note that you’re not saying Scott Morrison is a ridiculous suggestion.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, a Newspoll has found that more than half the voters doubt that the Coalition is ready for government. Now, you say you’re holding policies back, essentially so they have maximum impact when they’re announced, that people don’t forget them. But isn’t the risk that this delay adds to this perception that you’re not prepared for office yet?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, all I can say is that, again, look at the track record. The track record is that in relation to the Voice, we had lots of critics to say that the Coalition should come out immediately and declare support for or against the Voice. We took our time, and in the end, we got the outcome that was the best outcome for our country. We went through it methodically.

I can point to the policies that we’ve announced already, which have been significant – a $5 billion plan to create 500,000 new homes so young Australians can achieve the dream of home ownership again. Our plan to stop foreign ownership of Australian houses so that we can put Australians first in buying those houses. The effort that we’ve done in relation to the energy policy, which would be the most significant policy an Opposition has ever taken to an election in relation to nuclear firming up renewables – that is revolutionary. We’re paying almost the highest cost for electricity in the world and the Government’s renewables only policy is a disaster.

The final point I’d make in relation to policy is that we have been working day and night over the course of the last almost three years looking at policies. We’ve had different policies costed backwards and forwards with the Parliamentary Budget Office, and we will have significant policies to announce at the right time. But we also don’t want to pretend that we’re going to rewrite the tax system or rewrite large swathes of government policy from opposition. That is not the way to achieve success at the election. We are going to have one hell of a mess to clean up given the wreckage that Labor will leave behind, but we’re going to do it in a sensible way and we’re going to get our economy and our country back on track through a proven formula that Coalition Governments always bring to the table. We’ll do that through prudent economic decisions that we can make, and we’ll make them quickly.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

That does, however, leave many people with the feeling that maybe they don’t really know what a Dutton Government would be like. That we could be in the situation where we were with the Abbott Government where he came in with a certain platform and reassurances and then we got the 2014 Budget. Are we at risk of another 2014 Budget which produces many shocks?

PETER DUTTON:

No, Michelle, I think people again can look at my track record. As Defence Minister, we negotiated the AUKUS outcome, which will underpin security for our country for the next century. As Health Minister, I invested a record amount into hospitals, established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, and we had the ability to put more money into general practice through training places, many of those doctors graduating and out practicing now. As Home Affairs Minister, I kept our country safe by deporting violent criminals and managing our borders effectively. As Assistant Treasurer to Peter Costello, I was part of an economic team which was the most successful in recent history here in Australia. So, I have a skill set to bring to the role of Prime Minister, but I’ve also learnt the lessons of Prime Ministers, both Liberal and Labor, over my term in Parliament and I intend to learn from all of that.

We’re at a period where families are cutting back in their own household budgets. As I say, there’s a record number of small businesses that have gone broke on this Government’s watch. People are tightening their belts and people are cutting the fat out of their budgets and they’re struggling to pay their bills. I think at that time, more than any other time, people expect the government to cut back on wasteful spending as well. So, we’re not going to have families who are really struggling to pay their bills working harder than ever paying their taxes and allowing waste to take place.

I want government services to be efficient so that we can get more money onto frontline services and have more GPs and have more educators and have a better outcome in terms of defence and national security in a very uncertain time.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But you wouldn’t have big shocks for the community post-election?

PETER DUTTON:

No, but we do want to identify where there is waste in the system, and I think Australians would expect us to do whatever we can to cut back on waste so that we can provide support to those Australians who are most in need.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, let’s just go through the areas of waste. Can you give some specific examples?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, in relation to the Canberra Public Service, as we’ve pointed out, there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance or making sure that we can meet the costs that we’ve got. That is one area and…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, that’s the figure you would cut. Is that right? The 36,000?

PETER DUTTON:

That’s correct, and we’ve been very clear about that. We supported the Government, for example, as John Howard did with Paul Keating over the course of this term. We’ve supported the Government in cutting back on some of the concerns in NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built in save year on year compounding in those two areas. That’s something that the Labor Party never did when they were in opposition.

So, we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government and that’s what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

How would you stop the consultancies just moving back in to fill the gap, because that’s what we saw before?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, if you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do. I want to make sure that we empower our public servants to be able to make decisions. I think sometimes, and certainly this has been my experience, if there’s not good direction and leadership from the Prime Minister and Minister, then you end up with a situation where public servants are at sixes and sevens about what they think is the government’s direction. So, providing that clarity and that understanding of purpose gives a much more efficient outcome to the public service activity as well.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On the skill set in the public service, Steven Kennedy, the head of Treasury, has been involved in some controversy with some of your front benchers. Would he be safe under a Dutton Government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think you’re about 10 steps down the track, Michelle. We’ve got to win the election first, and then we have to work out the key appointments. I’ve worked very closely with Steven Kennedy, particularly over the COVID period, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I think he’s a very capable public servant, and I think he’s done a good job, particularly over that period when we were in government. But in relation to personnel changes and who would be secretary for what department, I think that’s all saved for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Your working from home policy has created some controversy. Is your aim that almost all federal public servants should return to five days in the office? And if there are to be carve outs, what would be the circumstances?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, we want to bring it back to something akin to where it was pre-COVID. About one in five public servants, or about 21 per cent of Canberra public servants, were working from home, and it provided that flexibility. At the moment, it’s over 60 per cent. There are people who are in important roles, who have been asked to come back to work, who refuse to come back to work. Now, that is not an acceptable position when taxpayers, who are paying the wages of our public servants are out working second and third jobs just to be able to afford to pay the grocery bill. They’re seeing their tax dollars not being spent efficiently.

So, there’s a sensible approach to it. There’s an accommodation of flexible work arrangements for women and women returning back to work or taking time off – and we can accommodate that. But at the moment, six out of 10 public servants working from home in Canberra is not an efficient public service. I want to make sure that we can drive the efficiencies, and therefore, drive the better outcomes for Australians.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, your tax policy is on the wait and see list, but just in general, do you think that Australia’s taxation system needs a thorough overhaul or just some tinkering at the edges? And are more tax cuts inevitable in the next term of government, whoever wins because of inflation, putting people into higher brackets?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I don’t think they’re inevitable because in government, we introduced stages one, two and three. So that was a comprehensive reform of the way in which the tax brackets operated and the tax rates as they applied, trying to address anomalies within the system, including bracket creep. So, there was a genuine and concerted effort.

Now that’s what we did when we were in government, the Labor Party didn’t do that when they were in government. The Labor Party under Anthony Albanese tweaked the stage three, but hasn’t introduced any of their own tax cuts otherwise.

So again, it’s not inevitable that there would be tax cuts under a Labor government, and the Government’s objective, it seems, is similar to what is happening in Melbourne and in Victoria under Jacinda Allan, as it happened under Palaszczuk and Miles in Queensland, they will tax and spend, and they keep spending, and therefore they need to find new things to tax.

That is not the approach of a Coalition government. We spend efficiently, we tax at the lowest possible rate and we try and simplify the system. If we can introduce tax cuts and make the system simpler and fit for purpose, then that’s our every instinct.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On health, you took over the government’s bulk billing policy, holus bolus, but isn’t that just tactical expediency rather than good policy formation? Surely the Coalition should have some ideas on health policy itself rather than just adopting what’s been put out there?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, a couple of points. Firstly, I’m very proud that when I was Health Minister, we increased hospital funding, we created the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, as I mentioned, we invested into GP training, into regional health, and the bulk billing rate was 84 per cent when I was Health Minister, it’s now 78 per cent under Labor. So, we’ve got a good track record in relation to health.

Next point is that we have done a lot in terms of policy offering in the health space, well before the Government made its most recent announcement on Medicare. We promised an overhaul and additional investment in relation to women’s health, particularly around endometriosis and a number of other areas, including GP training – a commitment of $400 million. That was picked up, actually, by the Government in their Medicare announcement most recently.

We believe in a strong general practise Network, because primary care and early detection means that we have greater survival rates from cancers, etc, and it also means that we’re saving money down the line when people otherwise turn up with higher acuity and greater health needs in the health system, particularly in the tertiary part of the health system.

So we have seen fit to invest significantly – as we’ve announced – into general practice and into Medicare, but also we believe that mental health is a very important area of investment in the health system. The Government hasn’t yet matched the $500 million additional dollars that we say we will invest into mental health. I hope that they do, because I think there are many people who are missing out on services at the moment, because the Government cut back on mental health and we’ve restored that funding that they cut out of Medicare.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

We haven’t heard a great deal on education policy from your spokeswoman. What changes do you think are needed to the higher education system, or indeed the education system more generally that the federal government can drive?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think this is one of the most important areas, obviously, of public policy. We’ve got one in three children at the moment failing to meet basic proficiency levels in reading, writing and maths under NAPLAN, the average year 10 student is one year behind in his or her learning compared to two decades ago, the year 12 completion rates have declined from 82 per cent in 2019 under our Government to 78.7 per cent now.

So, we do need to invest, and this is why, when I spoke before about having an efficient public service and getting more money back to frontline services, this is one area that we should be looking at, where we can provide support to teachers. But we also have to have a focus on curriculum and we have to make sure that our teachers are teaching our young children the basics through explicit instruction and making reading, writing, maths and science a priority. We’ve invested more into school funding and we’ll continue to do that into the future.

So, there is a real focus, and not just on primary and secondary education, but also on apprentices and trainees. We have to make sure that we’ve got incentives and that we develop a culture again, that it’s acceptable to do a trade or a traineeship, whereas the Government’s focus seems to be solely on getting people into university degrees, which is fine if that’s the choice people make, but for a lot of young Australians, they would be probably better in a pathway with a trade.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Opposition recently has got rather tangled – to put it mildly – on the question of what it would do about insurance companies. Can you just very briefly clarify what your policy is on this? Would you go down the divestiture road if that was necessary?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think we’ve been very clear in relation to it, and I’ll spell it out very clearly now. As I move around the country, there are countless stories I’ve heard of what’s happening in the insurance space. Now, we know that people can’t get insurance coverage, we know that people are paying astronomical prices for premiums, and it is one of the great grievances that people have in their own household budgets. So, there is a significant problem.

Now, the Government says that they can’t do anything about it, and our argument is that if, in government, we’re presented with evidence that because of a concentration of market share within a big player or big players within the insurance market, and that is what is leading to a significant spike in premiums or a lack of competition in the marketplace or the inability for people to get insurance coverage, then we will act, and that does include the prospect of divestiture, because that is what happens in the United States, in the United Kingdom and frankly, it’s a statement of the obvious, that if you’ve got a market failure that is leading to people not being able to afford insurance premiums or that they’re being denied insurance, then that is a complete and catastrophic failure of the system that would need to be addressed. I’m absolutely astounded that the Government wouldn’t agree to that.

I’d also make this point, if two insurance companies decided to merge today, the ACCC would make a decision about whether or not that was in the market’s best interests. My Government will be there to serve the Australian community, not to serve the big business community or anyone else. I want outcomes for consumers, and I want to make sure that our policies are helping, not hurting consumers. If the ACCC made a decision that those two companies merging was going to compromise on competition in the marketplace and drive up the cost of premiums or make it difficult for people to get insurance cover, they wouldn’t allow the merger to take place. It’s simply an extension of that principle.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now on climate change, now that the U.S. is out, are you still definitely committed to staying in the Paris Agreement and to the net zero by 2050 target?

PETER DUTTON:

Yes, we are, and I believe that we’re the only major Party going into this election with a credible policy to achieve net zero by 2050. The Government, as they turn off coal and gas, is relying on green hydrogen. Nobody can tell you when green hydrogen will be a commercial reality, and in actual fact, all of the indicators at the moment are that money is being withdrawn from green hydrogen. So, I think the Government’s prospects of net zero by 2050 diminish as each day goes by.

The Coalition – like the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party has signed up to more nuclear, like the United States, where the Democrats and Republicans have both signed up to more nuclear – we have a credible pathway to net zero by 2050, we can bring electricity prices down. The Government’s policy of relying on green hydrogen and more hydro projects – that have not even been identified, let alone construction started – their recipe, I think, is for higher emissions and an inability to achieve net zero by 2050, which is a stark contrast to where a Coalition government would be able to take our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But on this question of bringing prices down, isn’t this really pie in the sky hypothetical, because you’re talking decades on with nuclear. There are all sorts of variables in the years to come, so where prices go is surely unforeseeable, it’s no good just using modelling?

PETER DUTTON:

But that argument can apply to the Government’s renewables only policy…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, precisely. Both sides.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, and if you look at the expert analysis, which we’ve had undertaken by Frontier Economics – the most preeminent energy economist in the country, used by Labor Governments, including in South Australia – their judgement is that the Coalition’s policy compared to Labor’s policy would be 44 per cent cheaper. It is quite a remarkable figure. But that’s the independent analysis, not analysis that we paid for, but analysis that was undertaken by a modeller used by the Labor Party.

Importantly, Michelle – I think this is a really important point, we’ve now had, what, two, three months since that analysis was handed down, since that report was released? The Government has not made one criticism of the assumptions or the outcomes. They’ve never disputed that 44 per cent figure. I think it’s telling. I think it also demonstrates that the policy we’ve put together has been thought through, it has been robustly tested and it is in our country’s best interest.

We also, in the near term, need to invest a lot more into gas and I think the Government’s starting to realise this as well. We have to make sure that there is more gas to allow for electricity production and that is how we can have some downward pressure on prices in the near term.

Also – just to pick you up on one of the points you made – the Government now is investing in an overbuilding of the system, a cost that consumers are bearing now in their electricity prices. So, the government’s renewable only policy over the period between now and 2050, the fact is that that is contributing to an increase in the cost of electricity and gas prices that consumers are paying right now.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Just on your 44 per cent figure, though, we’re talking here decades on. The Government used, before the last election, another reputable modeller, and as it turned out, it couldn’t even produce a figure that stuck for two or three years. So, it does suggest, does it not, that trying to put precision into these undertakings is a very dubious proposition?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, let’s look at the world experience – the international experience, so in Ontario, use of nuclear underpinning renewables in that system, they’re paying about a third of the electricity costs we are in this country. In Tennessee, similar story in the United States. In the United States, in towns like in the Hunter Valley or like in Collie that have no future after coal goes, they are revitalising and rejuvenating those regional centres, and we can do that here in Australia.

Out of the top 20 economies in the world, Australia is the only one that isn’t using or hasn’t signed up to nuclear. Indonesia has committed to significant investments into nuclear. I pose this question, why is it that of the top 20 economies in the world, 19 of them see the economic and environmental benefit out of using nuclear, but the Albanese Government is the only one that doesn’t? So we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here, we’re looking at a proven technology.

The Government has no concerns about safety or disposal of waste, because they signed up to the AUKUS submarine deal, which has a nuclear propulsion system, and no Prime Minister in his or her right mind would do that if they thought there was a safety concern for our sailors and the defence force personnel who will crew these submarines.

So, the only criticism that I think commentators frankly can make in relation to the nuclear debate at the moment is of the Labor Party, and why isn’t there a bipartisan position in relation to nuclear so that we can achieve it more quickly? I think Peter Malinauskas in South Australia is biting at the bit to be involved in the creation of a civil nuclear industry and he’s been very supportive of nuclear in past, as is Keir Starmer in the US, as is Joe Biden and many other significant figures who would be cited on most other days by members of the Labor Party, including Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I want to turn to the broad area of defence and foreign policy. Malcolm Turnbull’s organising a conference to look at where Australian strategic policy should be in the new Trump era. Do you think that a realignment of Australia’s security and strategic policy is needed, now that President Trump is treating alliances in Europe in a very different way than the past? Or do you have confidence in the strength of the alliance we have with the United States? And if you take the latter view, what do you base that on?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I have total confidence in the relationship with the United States when it comes to our military alliances, and I believe very strongly that our stars align with the United States as they have done historically and will do into the future, and not just the United States, but our Five Eyes partners otherwise, and new partners, particularly I speak of Japan and of India.

We live in a precarious period, there’s no question of that, and we have to do everything we can to keep our country safe, and we need strong leadership to be able to do that. The Prime Minister talks about the threats in this century and then takes money out of defence. It’s anomalous and it’s dangerous.

So, we have, what I believe is a sensible approach to the relationship, we have relationships with key players within the Administration, long standing supporters within the Congress on both sides of the aisle, and we can have, I think, a very productive relationship going forward. But it is a new world under President Trump, there’s no question, and we have to consolidate the relationships that we have. But it’s hard for relationships to be built when the United States doesn’t have any respect for our Prime Minister and when the Prime Minister and key Ministers have repeatedly used derogatory language about the President. That is not conducive to a productive relationship.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I think to be fair, we have to point out that no country’s got an exemption from the tariffs, so we don’t know that…

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Australia did in 2018.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Yes, but no countries now.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, we did that as a Coalition Government, and there’s no doubt in my mind that we could do it again as a Coalition Government. That is exactly the task that I set myself.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I see the other day that Kim Beazley said Australia should boost its defence spending to 3 or 3.5 per cent of GDP. Do you think we need to go above 3 per cent of GDP?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, firstly, I have a great deal of respect for Kim Beazley, and I have met with him and discussed defence matters before, and he was a great Ambassador for our country in Washington. I think the Labor Party, frankly, probably misses not having him in Washington at the moment. He is one of the most astute observers of matters defence here and globally. I do think we should listen to his warnings about the threats that could face Australia over the course of the next decades or century.

There is a compelling argument to invest more into defence. What that number is, that has to be considered in time, and in part, it’s a discussion that we would have to have in government with the agencies, not just defence, but with the central agencies as well, and that’s exactly what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So you won’t put a number on it before the election?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, we’ll have more to say in relation to defence, and we’ve done a lot of work in defence policy during our period in opposition. But, again, I think look at the track record in government, and in government, we were able to invest more into defence, we put $10 billion into REDSPICE, which was the beefing up of the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and not just our defensive capability, but also our offensive capability in cyber, which makes the calculation for an adversary much different if they know that we have the ability to strike in the cyber world. We do have a lot of capability that we have enhanced through that investment into Operation REDSPICE, and I’m proud to have been the Minister that made that decision. We also had, obviously, the ability, the capacity, to negotiate AUKUS, which I think has been revolutionary for our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You were quite forward leaning in criticising Donald Trump over his treatment of the Ukraine President, but unlike Anthony Albanese, you’re reluctant to contemplate Australia contributing to a peacekeeping force if one comes into being for Ukraine. Why is that?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think the Prime Minister has shot from the hip here, because it’s quite telling the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, as well as the Assistant Defence Minister, have both walked back what the Prime Minister had said. No European nation has decided to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, and yet the Australian Prime Minister is making that pledge. Now, it’s why the Prime Minister hasn’t really spoken about it since then, he hadn’t spoken to the Chief of the Defence Force about our capabilities or what that would look like, and ironically, it came at a time when the Australian Government had to rely on a Virgin pilot to advise it of naval operations from the the People’s Liberation Army Navy in our own waters and yet the Prime Minister’s talking about sending our troops to Europe. It just doesn’t make any sense.

So, we’re a strong supporter and ally of Ukraine, and I’m very proud of that and proud of the fact that as Defence Minister I was able to work with the Ukrainian Ambassador to deliver the Bushmasters, which have saved lives – the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and men and women in that country as well.

So, we’ve got a lot to work on and a lot to contribute to in relation to peace and stability and restoration of life in Ukraine, but putting boots on the ground, I think was an off the cuff remark by the Prime Minister and it just shows his lack of experience in the national security space.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, just finally, people of course these days have little trust in politicians, we see that in survey after survey, and many people probably listening to this podcast will think, ‘well, politicians don’t keep their promises and how can I believe what Peter Dutton says’. So, we will hear a lot of promises, a lot of commitments, from both sides during this election campaign. In what circumstances do you think a leader is justified in breaking a promise, a core promise, that they made during the campaign?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, the first point I should make is it’s not just politicians, it’s also, I think, journalists and used car sales people…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Point taken.

PETER DUTTON:

…Real estate agents and others who don’t bear up too well under that same scrutiny, but I think politicians, Members of Parliament, by and large, want the best for their country and whether they’re Labor or Liberal, I think people have a desire to see the best outcome for their community and their country. Sometimes they make mistakes and they should be held to account for that, but by and large people do their very best for our country and I think we recognise that.

In terms of the question you ask, I think it’s very difficult to see a circumstance where there is an excuse for breaking a promise – perhaps a national security reason, if we had to make a decision that was in our country’s best interests to save lives, that went against something we’d committed for or against before an election, then that obviously would be a circumstance where you could conceive of that. But I think if people make a commitment, as the leader of a major Party, or indeed a teal or whoever it might be, then there is a reasonable expectation that they follow through on that commitment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Peter Dutton, thank you very much for talking with us today, as we approach the more intense part of what’s been an election campaign that seems to have gone on forever!

That’s all for today’s Politics Podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but goodbye for now.

[ends] Läs mer…

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands, to face charges of alleged crimes against humanity for his brutal war on drugs in the Philippines.

Duterte and his allies attempted to fight the arrest warrant and claimed his transfer to The Hague was an “illegal act”. Yet, the former strongman could now become the first Asian head of state to be tried by the ICC.

The news has left the Philippines reeling at a critical time for the country. Some of Duterte’s supporters have rallied behind him, while other Filipinos have remembered his dark legacy.

The country is also in the midst of intense campaigning for midterm elections in May that could be pivotal for the government of the current president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Marcos had been allied with Duterte’s daughter, Sara, the country’s vice president, before they dramatically fell out last year after she publicly threatened to assassinate him. Sara Duterte was then impeached by the House of Representatives by Marcos’ allies in February.

Now, there are questions whether Marcos’ decision to sideline his chief rival and cooperate with Interpol’s arrest of her father could backfire in a country where the Dutertes still hold tremendous sway.

Relatives of victims of drug war killings attend a press conference after his arrest at Manila’s airport on Tuesday.
Aaron Favila/AP

A long-simmering political feud

At stake in May’s election are over 18,000 national and local positions, including 12 seats in the 24-member Senate, 250 seats in the House of Representatives and 63 party-list representatives, as well as 82 governorships and other local government positions across the country.

The results will certainly have significant implications for the Philippines in the short term.

In the Senate, it could determine the outcome of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial later this year. So far, eight of the Marcos administration’s candidates are likely to win, based on the latest polls. If at least two-thirds of the senators vote to convict Duterte, she will be ineligible to run for president herself in 2028 – or hold any public office.

Both Marcos and Sara Duterte have seen their public trust and approval ratings decline in recent months. Duterte’s ratings declined even further after her impeachment in the lower chamber, although she still enjoys high ratings in her home base of Mindanao.

These latest developments, however, have not stopped her from hinting at plans to run for president in 2028. She made these comments on a trip to Hong Kong over the weekend with her father, where they met with overseas Filipino supporters.

It remains to be seen whether the elder Duterte’s arrest and trial at the ICC would generate enough public sympathy for the family dynasty to boost Sara Duterte in both her impeachment trial and any future political races.

Some of the family’s die-hard supporters still view them as “underdogs” suffering from sustained political persecution by the Marcos administration. Social media posts by supporters have denounced the haste with which the government complied with the arrest warrant.

Sara Duterte will seek to rally these supporters even further as she travels to The Hague to stand by her father’s side. She has called his arrest an “affront to national sovereignty”.

Duterte supporters gather outside the prison in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, where people detained by the ICC are held.
Lina Selg/ANP/EPA

A step towards ending the culture of impunity

Beyond the Marcos-Duterte rivalry, Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and impending trial represents a sizeable moment for Filipinos at home and abroad. It shows that a former leader of the country can be held accountable for alleged crimes, no matter how popular they are or how much influence they wield.

New witnesses may surface who were reluctant to testify in trials related to Duterte-era killings in local courts. Some witnesses also refused to participate in the marathon hearings held by a House committee investigating drug-war killings.

This committee has said it would not cooperate with the ICC, as the Philippines withdrew from the court under Duterte’s rule in 2019. Nevertheless, its hearings can still be accessed by the ICC since they have all been posted online.

The ICC trial may also expose the weaknesses and inadequacies of the Philippine justice system, including the limitations of existing laws that are supposed to protect human rights, ensure the rule of law, and guarantee the accountability of government officials and law enforcers in the country.

Duterte’s trial may also persuade the Marcos administration to reconsider his predecessor’s decision to leave the ICC. (The court says it retains jurisdiction in the case against Duterte because the alleged crimes occurred when the Philippines was still a member.)

The arrest of the former strongman may not end the “culture of impunity” that has long existed in Filipino politics. Yet, it is an important milestone in building public awareness about the importance of upholding human rights protections.

It will also no doubt provide the many families of those killed during Duterte’s time in office a measure of relief. Läs mer…

It was hard to watch. In a now-deleted Instagram reel, American influencer Sam Jones is filmed picking up a young wombat, separating it from its mother, and running with it back to the car for a pose. In the background, the distressed mother tries to follow. At one point, Jones says: “Momma’s right there and she’s pissed. Let’s let him go.”

We have spent our careers working with wildlife. Seeing a joey separated from her mother for social media content was unsettling. The encounter will have made stress levels soar for the baby and mother.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a rise in people directly interacting with wildlife through feeding them or taking risks to get close to them, often driven by the pursuit of social media attention. These interactions can hurt wildlife in many different ways.

While there’s a natural tendency to want to connect with wildlife, wild animals often see humans as a threat. When we get too close, we can trigger fear responses such as increased heart rates and heightened stress hormones. Indeed, the consequences of interfering with wildlife can be far-reaching.

Jones was lucky not to have been injured – wombats weigh up to 40 kilograms and have teeth and claws they can use for defence. She could still come down with scabies – wombats often have mange, caused by the parasitic mite which gives us scabies.

Others have been less lucky. People feeding dingoes on K’Gari has brought these wild canids closer to people, leading to attacks. In response, authorities have occasionally opted to kill dingoes.

Official approvals are required to capture and handle wildlife. Engaging in these activities without the necessary permits is typically illegal. These regulations are to safeguard wildlife from harm and protect humans as well.

Instagram clip shows US influencer Sam Jones picking up a baby wombat.

What was wrong with the influencer’s behaviour?

What many people found difficult to see in the clip was the clear distress seen in both joey and mother.

Wombat joeys are fully dependent on their mothers for between 18 months and two years – one of the longest periods for any marsupial. Interfering with this bond stresses both animals.

The incident also took place on a road, increasing their risk of being hit by a vehicle – one of the biggest threats to wombats.

Wildlife are exactly that – wild life. When we interact with wild creatures, we interrupt what they are doing. This can harm the individual – and often, the group – by inducing physical or psychological stress, and changes in behaviour.

We want to connect – but it’s bad for the animals

Many of us draw a mental line between our pets and wild animals. Our cats and dogs jump up for a pat and seek our affection. Wouldn’t wild creatures enjoy the same thing?

It took thousands of years to domesticate dogs, cats and other animals. Wild animals, on the other hand, perceive us very differently – often as a potential threat.

When we feed wildlife food they are not used to, it can make them sick, or contribute to long term metabolic issues.

Visitors often feed chips to quokkas on Rottnest Island, but these salty snacks can sicken the animals, which should be eating grasses, stems and leaves.

Tourists flock to areas with wild kangaroos and often offer them food. But as they become used to our presence, they can still lash out. People have been injured, some badly.

Feeding captive animals is relatively safe, but feeding wild animals is a bad idea for them and for us.
Lubo Ivanko/Shutterstock

Touching animals comes with risks, from being scratched by koalas to being bitten by snakes. When a US wildlife expert was filmed touching a huge great white shark off Hawaii, dozens of people tried to follow suit – despite the risks.

Then there’s the disease risk. Wombats suffer from sarcoptic mange, while other marsupials may have toxoplasmosis, which can trigger miscarriages and neurological issues. Handling wild birds can give us the dangerous disease psittacosis.

If you don’t have a permit, you should stay at a safe distance and watch the animal. The goal is to avoid interfering, and respect the animal’s autonomy and what it’s trying to do, whether that’s finding food, finding a mate, sleeping, or just lounging about.

Are more people trying to interact with animals?

After the COVID pandemic, many of us have been seeking outdoor experiences. Camping is on the rise, as is ecotourism.

At the same time, some influencers are trying to interact with wildlife, perhaps mimicking famous figures such as the late Steve Irwin. Irwin’s father, Bob, recently called for harsher penalties for influencers entering crocodile territory after many close calls.

Watching trained wildlife handlers can give us false confidence. We might think: if they do it, why can’t I?

Seeing trained wildlife handlers can give us a false sense of confidence – and even entitlement. Pictured: someone holding a baby crocodile at Australia Zoo on the Sunshine Coast.
tatjanajessica/Shutterstock

The problem is, wildlife handling is risky. Bites are common, even for trained experts. When we undertake wildlife research, we use gloves, cages, hoods and so on to reduce the risk to us and the stress to the animal.

Wildlife carers who take on the role of rearing wombat joeys have to be well trained – and dedicated. Joeys need to be fed special milk suited to marsupials – cow’s milk is no good. They have to be fed round the clock in the early months.

In many cases we are aware of, untrained individuals have attempted to rescue wombats or kangaroo joeys only to discover they can’t meet their specific care needs. Unfortunately, this often results in the joeys being abandoned or handed over to wildlife carers in poor condition.

This doesn’t mean that interactions with animals are off-limits. Zoos and wildlife sanctuaries provide opportunities to handle captive animals under expert supervision. Volunteering with wildlife carers or training to become a carer are viable ways to engage with animals responsibly.

Influencers don’t have to grab an animal from the wild to show how amazing it is. You can show natural behaviour by following an animal from a safe distance or use existing footage.

If you can’t captivate an audience with the wonders of wildlife without harassing a wild animal, then perhaps it’s time to rethink and refine your social media strategy.

When we are out in the bush, it’s natural to be fascinated by the presence of wild creatures. But we must find ways of building our connection with nature without harming what we see – and without risking harm to ourselves. Läs mer…

News that a health worker at a Sydney hospital’s birth unit was infectious with hepatitis B for more than a decade has led to a health alert for mothers and babies.

The staff member worked at Nepean Hospital’s birth unit in Western Sydney while infectious with hepatitis B between 2013 and 2024.

Authorities say 223 women are in the process of being informed they and 143 of their children are at low risk of exposure. The local health district says it is not aware of any patients who had tested positive to hepatitis B as a result.

Only patients who have had certain invasive procedures are included in the health alert.

So what is hepatitis B?

Hepatitis B is a viral infection

The hepatitis B virus infects liver cells and is not to be confused with other types of hepatitis viruses, including the better known hepatitis A and C.

The virus is spread by bodily fluids, such as blood, and enters the body though penetrated skin or mucous membranes such as the mouth, genitals or eyes.

This means the virus is most commonly spread by people having unprotected sex, from mother to baby, or by using shared items such as needles or hygiene products. The virus can survive outside the body for at least seven days.

In rare cases, hepatitis B has been known to spread from a health-care worker to a patient during certain medical procedures. This is when the health-care worker may injure themselves and expose their patients to their blood.

Symptoms of acute infections include fever, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, dark urine, pale stools and jaundice.

If not cleared by the body within six months the disease can progress to its chronic (long-term) form. This can lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver failure or liver cancer.

How common is it?

Globally, hepatitis B is the most common serious liver infection. There are about 254 million people with chronic hepatitis B infection globally in 2022, with 1.2 million new infections each year. About 1.1 million people a year die from it, mostly due to cirrhosis and liver cancer. The worst infected regions are Africa and the Western Pacific.

In Australia, there were 205,549 chronic cases as of 2022. Most of the 6,000–7,000 newly detected cases in Australia each year are chronic cases.

Only 72% of hepatitis B cases in Australia are diagnosed. This means the remaining 28% could be unwittingly carrying the virus, potentially spreading it to others, and missing the opportunity for treatment.

Babies of infected mothers, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, people who engage in unprotected sex, men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users, and people receiving tattoos or piercings with unsterilised equipment are all at a higher risk of hepatitis B infection. Most chronic cases in Australia are in migrant groups from areas with higher rates of hepatitis B.

Is there a vaccine? How about treatment?

A safe and effective vaccine is recommended for all children at birth, with three doses after that. The vaccine is also recommended for adults in high-risk groups.

Acute cases can be cleared by the body, aided by antiviral drugs. However if the infection becomes chronic the symptoms of liver cirrhosis and cancer need to be monitored and treated for the rest of someone’s life. This includes having regular liver-function tests, taking antiviral medication, adopting a healthy diet and avoiding alcohol.

Due to the nature of its transmission, hepatitis B often has negative social stigma associated with it. This may lead to people being reluctant to be tested or if they test positive, they may be reluctant to share their status with others, or seek treatment.

We do not know the personal circumstances of the health worker with hepatitis B at the centre of this health alert, including details of their diagnosis and treatment. It’s also important to note that hepatitis B infection alone does not automatically disqualify health-care workers from practice. Their risk to patients depends on a whole range of factors including levels of virus in their blood.

Information about hepatitis B vaccination is available. Patients affected by the Nepean Hospital health alert can call 1800 716 662 for more information and support. Läs mer…