Johansen.se

Katy Perry is in a recording booth. She turns to the camera, smiles and begins to sing: “Badipsa frooby noop”. As if to confirm that we didn’t mishear her, she repeats “Badipsa frooby noop” and gives the camera a thumbs up.

The moment was captured in 2010, in a behind-the-scenes video of Perry recording her song Last Friday Night in Simlish – the language spoken by characters in The Sims games. It was part of her branded downloadable content (DLC) package, Sweet Treats, which was available to players of The Sims 3.

The Sims is celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2025, to the chagrin of many a millennial. From its groundbreaking approach to inclusive character creation to the surreal charm of global pop stars re-recording their hits in Simlish, The Sims has always operated at the intersection of individuality and shared culture.

Created by one of the industry’s few auteur game-designers, Will Wright, The Sims 1 was released on the cusp of the millennium and changed the video game landscape forever.

The game harks back to what game studies researcher Jesper Juul described, in his foundational book Half-Real (2005), as the “primordial game structure”. This is a game in which the player doesn’t follow a set story or structure in a linear way, but gets to design their own strategies, combining the rules in often unpredictable ways.

Sul Sul! This article is part of a mini series from The Conversation marking 25 years of The Sims franchise.

More than that, players are able to tell their own stories and build emergent narratives. These narratives are not about war, fantasy worlds or outer space, but regular people, regular homes, regular jobs and plenty of WooHoo (The Sims’ euphemism for sex).

Custom creativity

The Sims franchise provides players with a space to perform and experiment, to be cruel, silly or creative. These modes of play can take the form of machinima – using the game engine to make creative videos. Or using features like the family album, in which players can capture photos of their avatars within the game to make poignant statements about important social issues.

The base game has provided an increasingly diverse range of opportunities for customisation of characters, spaces and activities. And the large quantity of available DLCs and mods (player-made modifications to the game) has offered even more variety.

The Sims offer a diverse range of gender identities for characters.
EA Games

Many of the customisation options have been explicitly related to characters’ identities, and the series has gradually improved its representation. For instance, while the original game already included same-sex relationships, The Sims 2 included a “joined union” option which was similar to marriage. By The Sims 3, same-sex couples could marry with no distinction from opposite-sex couples. Similar developments have taken place in the diversity of skin tones and gender identities as the series progressed.

Read more:
Why The Sims 4’s new inclusion of transgender and disabled sims matters

As a result of these inclusive changes, players enjoy gaming experiences as diverse as they are.

Phillip Ring, executive producer on The Sims 4, provided an overview of the game’s demographics in a Game Developers Conference talk in 2023. Only 21% of Sims players are men, while 55% identify as heterosexual and 62% as white. Ring explained how the game’s developers, Maxis and Electronic Arts, consider equality, diversity and inclusion as part of hiring, development and engaging with the player community. Active inclusivity has become an essential part of The Sims design.

None of this touts The Sims as a digital utopia. The franchise has been criticised for its consumerist ideology, and much of its progressive content has been deeply controversial in different territories of the game’s release.

Katy Perry records Last Friday Night in Simlish.

For better or worse, the game has both reflected and shaped pop culture – which brings us back to Katy Perry. The Simlish version of her song may sound nonsensical, but it reflected a cultural moment – the post-feminist, anthemic pop of the 2010s.

That moment has now passed. In a post-Brat summer era, Perry’s Sims moment feels outdated. The Sims, however, remains relevant, evolving alongside popular culture.

In his book Understanding Video Game Music (2016), musicologist Tim Summers interprets Simlish rerecordings as satires of contemporary pop culture. I disagree. Instead, I believe Simlish is designed to let players “fill in the blanks”, using their imagination to shape meaning.

This has always been central to The Sims – allowing players to project their own stories onto a world within the cultural zeitgeist. Many of us grew up with The Sims. As we’ve evolved, so has the game – which remains a dynamic cultural artefact.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. Läs mer…

The rise of rightwing populists continues across the west, leaving many wondering how mainstream parties can respond. Part of the picture is the failure of political parties to meet voters’ views on immigration with policy responses.

Germany is a strong example here. In 2013, it had no notable rightwing populist party. Alternative for Germany (the AfD) did already exist, but it was neither populist nor strongly anti-immigrant. But immigration into Germany was increasing.

In the years prior to 2013, several hundred thousand asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East entered the country each year. Many Germans wanted lower immigration but German political parties were not offering corresponding policies. The public and parliamentarians were already on a different page.

To measure this disagreement, researchers asked representative samples of German parliamentarians and ordinary citizens the following question in 2013: “Should it be easier or harder for foreigners to immigrate?”

They could choose from 11 responses, ranging from “0 – immigration for foreigners should be much easier” to “10 – immigration for foreigners should be much harder”.

The results show that most Germans wanted to restrict immigration in 2013. Despite this public demand, nearly all parliamentarians from all the four major parties wanted to facilitate immigration.

Immigration attitudes in 2013:

How the representation gap emerged over immigration.
L Guenther, CC BY-ND

Two years later, in 2015, the refugee crisis began. Over the course of just a few years, two million asylum seekers entered Germany. In response, Germans viewed immigration as an increasingly important issue and increasingly voted based on their attitudes towards immigration. Because most Germans wanted lower immigration, this increased the demand for an anti-immigration party.

During this time, the AfD changed its policy platform to become Germany’s only party that was clearly calling for much lower immigration. As a result, the AfD became the only party to represent the will of many Germans on the issue they considered most important.

Immigration attitudes in 2017:

How the representation gap emerged over immigration.
L Guenther

From this perspective, it is not surprising that the AfD strongly increased its vote share in the 2017 election and became the first party to the right of the conservatives to ever enter the federal parliament.

In my research, I found similar patterns are evident across Europe. In 27 countries, most political mainstream parties are much more in favour of immigration than the majority of their voters and citizens demand.

The representation gap is not only systematic across countries but also across political issues and voter subgroups. On nearly all cultural issues, such as multiculturalism or gender relations, I found that voters are more conservative than their parliamentarians.

Across Europe, the difference between the average voter and parliamentarian is as large as the difference between the average conservative and socialist parliamentarian.

Even voters with the same level of education, or voters who are well-informed about politics, are much more culturally conservative than their representatives. Even immigrants themselves are much more opposed to immigration and multiculturalism than the average parliamentarian.

While these cultural representation gaps have existed for a long time, it is the increase in their salience and perceived importance that contributes to the rise of rightwing populism. This is most strongly driven by the increased importance in immigration.

These results matter because they can equip politicians with the information they need to win (back) voters. And on a deeper level, these findings raise the question whether mainstream parties need to adjust their policies on immigration.

One important argument of mainstream politicians against populists is that once populists come to power they aim to establish dictatorships and then rule against the interest of the people. However, this argument rings hollow if mainstream parties are unwilling to acknowledge and act on the issues considered most important by the people. Läs mer…

Syria’s new foreign minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, recently appeared at the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in the Swiss resort of Davos. He announced that his country is open for business and seeking foreign investment.

After more than 13 years of civil war and decades of dictatorship that saw Syria become a pariah state, the country needs all the financial support it can get. But will foreign firms set up shop in Syria?

Countries like Syria, emerging from conflict, face the challenge of convincing investors they are a safe environment for investment. Our research suggests companies look at what governments are doing in terms of aid when considering whether to invest. In general, post-war countries that receive more foreign aid subsequently receive more foreign investment.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) typically involves multinational companies building factories, opening stores or investing capital in businesses abroad. It can be highly beneficial for developing countries.

FDI is the most stable source of international financing, and generally has positive long-term effects on economic growth and poverty reduction. More importantly for incumbent governments, FDI has positive short-term effects on domestic employment, government financing and spending, and foreign exchange reserves.

It also has a potential positive effect on government approval ratings, as attracting inward FDI signifies political competence to voters. These reasons are why almost all governments compete to receive these financial flows.

FDI is especially important in post-conflict countries. Civil wars typically destroy or seriously harm the productive capacity of countries. In Syria, the conflict destroyed tens of billions of US dollars worth of infrastructure, and incapacitated more than half its electrical grid.

After 13 years of civil war, Syria needs all the financial support it can get.
Vagabjorn / Shutterstock

War often disrupts a country’s access to the international economic exchanges that help economic growth. Since the beginning of its conflict in March 2011, Syria’s annual exports have dropped from US$8.8 billion (£7.1 billion) to US$1 billion, due to the war and war-related sanctions. Its economy has shrunk by 54%.

Foreign investment can contribute substantially to rebuilding the economy. But post-conflict countries might seem risky to investors.

Foreign firms sometimes avoid countries plagued by violence, political instability, or political risk. Conflict could reemerge in Syria, and multinational corporations probably do not want their business in a place where factories could be bombed or customers killed.

Post-conflict situations are also relatively information-poor environments. Conflict often hampers data collection efforts, and governments, in desperate need of capital, may be incentivised to misrepresent the actual state of the economy or strength of the political system.

In the case of Syria, foreign observers do not know what to make of the new ruling coalition, which is led by a designated terrorist organisation in Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. While the international community seems to want to support Syria – the UK, for example, has been clear about its intention to help the country – observers are unsure about the environment and how it might change in the coming years.

In these kinds of situation, international investors look at a variety of signals. In our research, we show that one key signal is whether other governments have sent official development aid to post-conflict countries.

Following the aid

We argue that the decision to send aid to a country signals the donors’ trust of local authorities. What matters is this presence of aid, whether or not the aid achieves its intended purpose.

Examining decades of global data, we have found a robust relationship between foreign aid and subsequent investment in post-conflict countries – with one striking exception.

There does not seem to be a relationship between aid from the US and foreign investment. Because so much of US foreign aid is geostrategic – to shore up alliances or secure access to particular areas – investors do not seem to view it as a valuable signal about the recipient country.

So, Syria should perhaps not worry too much about the new US president Donald Trump’s plan to cut American foreign aid. If aid from other government donors can still flow in, this could encourage investment to follow.

Italy’s minister of foreign affairs, Antonio Tajani, meets Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Damascus, Syria, in January 2025.
Giuseppe Lami / EPA

Fortunately for Syria, some countries and international organisations have already pledged aid – including the UK, which has announced £50 million in humanitarian aid for the country and its refugees. This seems like a good sign for Syria’s future – even more so because of the signal it sends to foreign investors.

Specific domestic policies that encourage FDI and build stronger institutions will be necessary to secure investment in the longer term. Syria will need to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and property rights, while creating a stable environment for investment.

However, if the pledged aid materialises – and if more countries chip in – this could lead to substantial economic benefits for Syria. Läs mer…

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has shelved the proposed reforms to Australia’s 25-year-old environment laws, citing a lack of parliamentary support for the changes.

The decision breaks Labor’s 2022 election commitment to overhaul the protections. The Albanese government is now the latest in a string of governments that have tried and failed to reform the law known formally as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

This is despite two major independent reviews calling for wholesale change.

Labor’s capitulation does not, however, change the facts. Australia’s natural environment is deteriorating rapidly. Laws are urgently needed to protect our nation’s valuable natural assets.

Establishing effective laws is an investment that will benefit Australia’s biodiversity, economy, cultural values, health and wellbeing. Nature is now a key 2025 election issue.

How did we get here?

An independent review of the EPBC Act, known as the Samuel Review, was completed in 2020 under the former Coalition government. It found that without urgent changes, most of Australia’s threatened plants, animals and ecosystems will become extinct.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek promised to act on the review’s recommendations, via a plan Labor badged as “Nature Positive”.

The centrepiece of reform is to set national environmental standards that would be overseen by an independent regulator and watchdog called Environmental Protection Australia (EPA). But reform was split into three stages.

Stage one legislated for national markets in nature repair and expanded the requirement to assess potential impacts on water resources under the EPBC Act. The so-called “water trigger” now captures “unconventional gas” projects such as shale gas recovery in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin. The law passed in December 2023, but the markets are not yet functioning.

Stage two of the reforms, including establishing a federal EPA, came before the Senate in late 2024. Plibersek had reportedly made a deal with the crossbench to secure passage. But this deal was scuttled by Albanese at the eleventh hour.

Stage two was relisted for discussion in the upcoming first parliamentary sitting week of 2025, this week. But on Saturday, Albanese told The Conversation the government would, again, not be proceeding with the reform this term.

The reforms have been delayed for so long that we are now closer to the next statutory review of the laws, due in 2029, than to the last one.

Stage three, which covers the bulk of substantive reform recommended in the Samuel Review, is yet to be seen publicly.

What will happen after the next election?

Albanese must go to the polls by May 17, but there is speculation the election may be as early as March. So what is the likely fate of these environmental reforms in the next term?

A Roy Morgan poll on Monday found if a federal election were held now, the result would be a hung parliament. So the result is looking tight.

Government control of the Senate is rare. So whoever is in power after the election is very likely to rely on crossbench support for any reforms.

Albanese has ruled out forming a coalition with the Greens or crossbenchers in the event of a hung parliament. However, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says he would negotiate with independents to form government.

A returned Albanese majority government would probably revisit the scuttled deal on stage two. With elections in the rear-view mirror, Albanese may be prepared to wear some political pain early in the next term to secure a deal. He would also still need to roll out the bulk of the Nature Positive reforms, the detail of which remains hidden behind a vague “stage three” banner.

A minority Albanese government may face a tougher ask: demands from an environmentally progressive crossbench for major commitments to environmental reform in return for promises of support on budget and confidence.

A Coalition government would be coming from a very different angle. Dutton has painted Nature Positive as a
“disaster” for the economy, expressing particular concern about impacts on the mining sector.

The Coalition’s environmental agenda is increasingly focused on “cutting green tape” – in other words, reducing bureaucratic hurdles for developers – and repealing bans on nuclear power stations. Finding crossbench support in the Senate for this agenda could be challenging.

The Greens have vowed to make environmental protection a key election issue, urging voters to cast their ballot for nature this election.

A recent poll published by the Biodiversity Council shows 75% of Australians support strengthening national environmental law to protect nature. Only 4% are opposed and the rest are undecided.

But converting a high level of broad support into votes is another thing altogether – especially during a cost-of-living crisis.

Crystal clear consequences

The political crystal ball remains cloudy. But when it comes to the state of Australia’s environment, the picture is clear.

The environment continues to decline and the consequences are increasingly serious. These consequences extend beyond further irreversible loss and the increasing cost of environmental repair, to include the economic and social consequences of losing more of the natural assets on which our quality of life depends.

The building blocks of successful reform are all on the table, where the Samuel Review put them in 2020.

When will governments accept that kicking the can down the road is selling us all down the drain?

Logging is leaving koalas homeless.
AAP Image/Supplied by WWF Australia Läs mer…

As Australia gears up for the election, the incoming government’ Labor or Coalition, will face global challenges, geo-political and economic, especially with Donald Trump starting to impose tariffs on selected countries including China,

To discuss where Australia is placed to meet new circumstances we’re joined by two experts.

John Blaxland is Director of the ANU North America Liaison Office, based in Washington, and Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies. Richard Holden is Professor of Economics at UNSW.

Blaxland outlines how Australia should continue to support the current international norms, and how changing norms could spell trouble,

The rules based international order is something that we are going to feel the absence of quite keenly. For small and middle powers like Australia the reliance on that order has obviated the need to spend up a lot on military capabilities and that’s going to shift.

We’ve seen the United States walking away from COP-related agreements but these arrangements still have global momentum and I would contend that Australia has an interest in continuing to support them as best as possible, particularly for the sake of our partners in the Pacific, but also just for our own sake.

On who could deal with Trump better, Blaxland doesn’t think it would make a lot of difference,

I don’t think the United States pays much attention to what happens internally in Australian politics and I think the Albanese government and Penny Wong and Richard Marles and others are wise to present as small a target as possible. The ALP is playing a difficult hand well in bilateral relations with the United States. Broadly it is still strongly in our interests to make that work as best we can.

There’s no question there’s a closer Liberal-Trump alignment, and that may make it easier. But the economic and security relations are key and here it’s important to remember that the United States has a trade surplus with Australia and so that means we’re not in his [Trump’s] crosshairs immediately for having the opposite, and America is the biggest foreign direct investor in Australia by a country mile.

Holden says of the economy internationally,

The global economy is well on the way to recovering from the post-pandemic inflation, the associated increases in most advanced economies and interest rates in most of those jurisdictions, are coming down. In some of those, New Zealand is an example there’s been a real hit to the economy. But it’s generally looking reasonably positive with the one big looming thing, which is what happens to international trade as a result of the Trump tariff threats that are now starting to be put into action.

But Holden is a bit more pessimistic about Australia’s economy,

Not to be too gloomy about things, I think the news is a little less good. So the Prime Minister I heard on your podcast recently and the Treasurer talking about their last two budgets, and while they’re right that there has been two small budget surpluses, that’s really off the back of just an extraordinary windfall in terms of tax revenue.

On debt,

If you look going forward, even so far government decisions have added $78 to $80 billion to that debt and the recent mid-year update, MYEFO reports the cumulative debt for the next four years will be over $140 billion of the increase.

I think there’s a sense that our fiscal house is really being put into really good shape and I don’t think that’s accurate. Läs mer…

When you’re in a car, train or bus, do you choose a seat to avoid being in the sun or do you like the sunny side?

You can definitely feel the sun’s heat through a window. But can you get sunburn or skin damage when in your car or inside with the windows closed?

Let’s look at how much UV (ultraviolet) radiation passes through different types of glass, how tinting can help block UV, and whether we need sunscreen when driving or indoors.

What’s the difference between UVA and UVB?

Of the total UV radiation that reaches Earth, about 95% is UVA and 5% is UVB.

UVB only reaches the upper layers of our skin but is the major cause of sunburn, cataracts and skin cancer.

UVA penetrates deeper into our skin and causes cell damage that leads to skin cancer.

UVA penetrates deeper than UVB.
Shutterstock/solar22

Glass blocks UVA and UVB radiation differently

All glass used in house, office and car windows completely blocks UVB from passing through.

But only laminated glass can completely block UVA. UVA can pass through other glass used in car, house and office windows and cause skin damage, increasing the risk of cancer.

Car windscreens block UVA, but the side and rear windows don’t

A car’s front windscreen lets in lots of sunshine and light. Luckily it blocks 98% of UVA radiation because it is made of two layers of laminated glass.

But the side and rear car windows are made of tempered glass, which doesn’t completely block UVA. A study of 29 cars found a range from 4% to almost 56% of UVA passed through the side and rear windows.

The UVA protection was not related to the car’s age or cost, but to the type of glass, its colour and whether it has been tinted or coated in a protective film. Grey or bronze coloured glass, and window tinting, all increase UVA protection. Window tinting blocks around 95% of UVA radiation.

In a separate study from Saudi Arabia, researchers fitted drivers with a wearable radiation monitor. They found drivers were exposed to UV index ratings up to 3.5. (In Australia, sun protection is generally recommended when the UV index is 3 or above – at this level it takes pale skin about 20 minutes to burn.)

So if you have your windows tinted, you should not have to wear sunscreen in the car. But without tinted windows, you can accumulate skin damage.

UV exposure while driving increases skin cancer risk

Many people spend a lot of time in the car – for work, commuting, holiday travel and general transport. Repeated UVA radiation exposure through car side windows might go unnoticed, but it can affect our skin.

Indeed, skin cancer is more common on the driver’s side of the body. A study in the United States (where drivers sit on the left side) found more skin cancers on the left than the right side for the face, scalp, arm and leg, including 20 times more for the arm.

Another US study found this effect was higher in men. For melanoma in situ, an early form of melanoma, 74% of these cancers were on the on the left versus 26% on the right.

Earlier Australian studies reported more skin damage and more skin cancer on the right side.

Cataracts and other eye damage are also more common on the driver’s side of the body.

What about UV exposure through home or office windows?

We see UV damage from sunlight through our home windows in faded materials, furniture or plastics.

Most glass used in residential windows lets a lot of UVA pass through, between 45 and 75%.

Residential windows can let varied amounts of UVA through.
Sherman Trotz/Pexels

Single-pane glass lets through the most UVA, while thicker, tinted or coated glass blocks more UVA.

The best options are laminated glass, or double-glazed, tinted windows that allow less than 1% of UVA through.

Skylights are made from laminated glass, which completely stops UVA from passing through.

Most office and commercial window glass has better UVA protection than residential windows, allowing less than 25% of UVA transmission. These windows are usually double-glazed and tinted, with reflective properties or UV-absorbent chemicals.

Some smart windows that reduce heat using chemical treatments to darken the glass can also block UVA.

So when should you wear sunscreen and sunglasses?

The biggest risk with skin damage while driving is having the windows down or your arm out the window in direct sun. Even untinted windows will reduce UVA exposure to some extent, so it’s better to have the car window up.

For home windows, window films or tint can increase UVA protection of single pane glass. UVA blocking by glass is similar to protection by sunscreen.

When you need to use sunscreen depends on your skin type, latitude and time of the year. In a car without tinted windows, you could burn after one hour in the middle of the day in summer, and two hours in the middle of a winter’s day.

But in the middle of the day next to a home window that allows more UVA to pass through, it could take only 30 minutes to burn in summer and one hour in winter.

When the UV index is above three, it is recommended you wear protective sunglasses while driving or next to a sunny window to avoid eye damage. Läs mer…

As federal parliament reconvenes this week, the pre-election buzz is palpable. When will the election be called? Which policies are on the table? And who’s backing whom in this election campaign?

While the first two questions are yet to be answered, we ought to have a better sense of the third with the release of the annual political donations data.

There’s plenty to unpick in the new data but there’s one glaring problem: we are only just now learning about donations made in 2023–24. Australians are left in the dark about who is donating right now.

Here’s what happened in 2023–24

In 2023–24, Australia’s political parties collectively raised $166 million, with most of the money (85%) flowing to the major parties. In federal election years the totals can be more than double this, and donations at the past two federal elections have been heavily dominated by Clive Palmer giving to his own party (in 2019 and 2022).

The Coalition raised $74 million in 2023–24, with Labor not far behind on $68 million. The Greens were a distant third, with $17 million. Independents collectively declared just $2 million. In the lead-up to the last federal election, Labor raised $124 million, and the Coalition raised $115 million, so we would expect the major parties are raising much more right now.

The Coalition has long led the fundraising race.

The big donors

A few big donors dominate the $12 million in donations to political parties that are on the public record.

Billionaire Anthony Pratt donated $1 million to Labor (through Pratt Holdings), while the Coalition was supported by billionaires Harry Triguboff (through Meriton Property Services) and Gina Rinehart (Hancock Prospecting), to the tune of around half a million dollars each. Both Labor and the Coalition also received major donations from their investment arms (Labor Holdings and Cormack Foundation, respectively).

Other major donations included $575,000 to the Greens from Duncan Turpie, a longtime backer of the party; $474,000 from Climate 200 backing several independents (mainly Zoe Daniel and Monique Ryan); and $360,000 to the Greens from Lisa Barlow’s conservation trust.

The big donor missing here is Clive Palmer. The size of his donations – $117 million in 2022 and $84 million in 2019 – blow everyone else out of the water, but he tends only to donate in election years. We won’t know how much he’s spending on the current election campaign until February 2026.

Top five donors to Labor and the Coalition.

What needs to change

Money matters because it helps spread political messages far and wide. But when political parties are highly dependent on a small number of powerful individuals, businesses, and unions, to fund their campaigns, this dependence creates enormous risks of private influence over decision-making in the public interest.

That’s why Australians need to know – in real time – who’s funding election campaigns.

Under the current rules, it takes at least seven months and sometimes up to 19 months for a large federal donation to be made public. Yet at state level, donations must be made public within a month during election campaigns, and within six months at other times.

Introducing quicker disclosure requirements at the federal level would mean Australians would know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”.

The donations disclosure threshold should also be lowered to give Australians better visibility of substantial donors. In 2023–24, declared donations made up only 7% of political parties’ total income. There are other sources of income on the public record (including public funding), but about 45% of party income remains hidden because the disclosure threshold is so high.

There’s a lot of hidden money in Australian politics.

There is no exact science to choosing a threshold, but the current level of $16,900 is well above the amount an ordinary Australian could afford to contribute to a political cause.

This high threshold is made much worse by the fact that political parties are not required to aggregate multiple donations from the same donor. That means, for example, one donor could make many donations of $15,000, but because each is below the threshold, the party doesn’t need to declare them. The donor is expected to declare themselves to the Australian Electoral Commission, but this is almost impossible to police.

The federal government has a bill before the Senate that would reduce the donations disclosure threshold to $1,000, and make release of donations data more timely. These changes would substantially improve transparency around money in politics. But the bill also includes more complex reforms that may stall the progress of these transparency measures.

Better and more timely information on political donations is urgently needed as a public check on the influence of money in politics.

Let’s hope this is the last election Australians are left in the dark on who funds our political parties. Läs mer…

Poisoned baits are the main way land managers control foxes, feral cats and dingoes. Baiting is done to reduce livestock and economic losses, or pressure on endangered wildlife.

Millions of baits are laid annually. But we still don’t understand how effective baiting actually is. Current evidence paints a mixed picture. That’s a problem, because baiting can have unintended consequences, such as killing native animals we don’t want to target. Some research suggests baiting can actually increase attacks on livestock, or that poisoning dingoes can increase feral cat and fox numbers and worsen the damage to native wildlife.

We need better evidence on what baiting does and doesn’t do. Our new research draws on data from 34 previous studies assessing baiting effectiveness. In total, these largely Australian studies summarised the fate of more than 1,400 cats, foxes and dingoes. We used these data sets to conduct the most comprehensive analysis of baiting effectiveness to date.

Biosecurity officers drying meat baits for a baiting program in Broken Hill in 2019.
NSW Government, Local Land Services, Western Region, CC BY

Baiting is ubiquitous

Baits can be purchased commercially or produced in-house. In some states, land managers can bring meat baits to government authorities to have poison added free of charge. They are then distributed by vehicle along tracks and roads or dropped from aircraft across vast areas of Australia, New Zealand and islands worldwide.

Single baiting programs can sometimes cover areas larger than 9,000 square kilometres – a land area similar to Puerto Rico or Cyprus.

So how can we best undertake these baiting programs?

1. Baiting does work

Across the 34 studies, baiting cut predator survival in half (51.7%) – substantially higher than the death rate in unbaited areas (16%).

This finding was broadly consistent regardless of whether baits were placed along tracks and roads or scattered over broader areas.

In some cases, predator numbers can recover rapidly following baiting. Under favourable conditions, feral cat and fox populations can double in a year, while dingo populations can grow 50% annually. But, under average conditions, such high rates of population increase are likely uncommon.

Predators from outside the control area can rapidly repopulate areas after a baiting program. For example, multiple studies have found no change in fox numbers even when baiting was conducted at monthly intervals. Similar results have been found after intensive fox shooting.

But there are also examples where prolonged, broad-scale baiting has worked well. To protect the threatened yellow footed rock wallaby, researchers baited around wallaby populations in New South Wales and South Australia and largely eliminated foxes from large areas. Wallaby numbers then increased.

2. Feral cats take baits too

Feral cats are opportunistic ambush predators and hunt a wide range of prey. They’re visually driven and prefer fresh meat. For these reasons, it’s long been thought they are less likely to eat poisoned bait than foxes and dingoes.

Feral cats are silent, stealthy hunters who prefer to hunt rather than scavenge.
Vanessa Westcott, CC BY

But our analysis doesn’t support this – feral cats appeared to be just as susceptible to baits as foxes and dingoes. That’s good news for wildlife.

Significant and ongoing work has been put into designing better baits for feral cats to increase consumption rates. The most widely known of these baits is Eradicat, a sausage-style bait.

While this bait is aimed at feral cats, our analysis didn’t provide strong evidence showing Eradicat actually killed more feral cats than other poison bait recipes. This suggests any bait is more effective than no bait when it comes to cat control.

Eradicat baits have to be sweated to bring out the oils and make them more appealing.
Luke Bayley, CC BY

3. Blanket coverage works better

In land manager circles, there’s a long-running debate over how best to bait. Some advocate putting out more baits over the same area, while others suggest more frequent baiting is better.

So which is it? Our analysis shows more baits in an area is likely to equate to better control of predators, while distributing baits more frequently may not have the same effect.

Why is this? Like people, animals are individuals, with their own behavioural tendencies. Wary animals may never take baits. Some foxes are known to store baits to eat later, by which time the baits may be less toxic, sickening rather than killing the animal.

This is believed to lead to bait aversion, where foxes avoid baits in the future due to previous bad experiences – just as we might avoid foods which made us sick.

A single, more intensive application of bait is likely to work better because susceptible predators eat the bait and die, and there is limited opportunity for bait aversion to develop. In contrast, more frequent baiting in a short period of time are of limited benefit because animals learn to avoid them.

Dingoes have been routinely baited for decades.
Ian Mayo, CC BY

Fresh baits have long been believed to be eaten more readily than dry baits.

But our analysis shows this may not always be true. Overall, the type of bait had little impact on whether or not it led to reduced predator survival.

Optimising baiting

More efficient control of predators will mean fewer baits are needed to achieve the same result. That, in turn, means less risk of harming other native animals, as well as reducing how much work and money it costs to control feral cats, foxes and dingoes.

Our research shows baiting does indeed cut the number of predators prowling an area. But it also shows many factors we thought were important in making a baiting program effective may only have a limited effect.

The goal of poison baiting is to reduce the damage predators do to livestock and wildlife. Baiting is an important and effective tool in reducing predator pressure on threatened species. But its efficacy – and the risk other animals could take the bait – means we have a responsibility to continually optimise its use and ensure its application is targeted. Läs mer…

The brittle Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues against all odds, given the depth of distrust and animosity between the warring parties.

Since its enactment nearly three weeks ago, Hamas has released more than a dozen Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023, in return for some 400 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Should the process move forward as relatively smoothly as it has so far, more hostages and prisoners are set to be freed during the remainder of the first stage of the truce.

This is cause for a degree of optimism. However, negotiating the length, terms and implementation of the second and third stages of the ceasefire will prove very rocky.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, has already declared the ceasefire to be “temporary”.

During the second stage, all Israeli hostages (alive and dead) are supposed to be freed in exchange for hundreds of prisoners. Israel is also expected to withdraw all its forces from Gaza as a prelude to the reconstruction of the coastal enclave in the final stage of the ceasefire.

There are many issues that could derail the process, two of which are crucial:

Israel’s unrealised goal of wiping out Hamas and securing Gaza for itself
Hamas’ resolve to regain sovereign control over Gaza.

Another factor is the influence of the new US president, Donald Trump. While
Netanyahu has the full support of Trump, it remains unclear how much appetite the US leader has for more conflict in the Middle East.

A meeting between the two in Washington this week could be pivotal to the success of the next phase of the ceasefire – or the resumption of the Gaza war.

Palestinians pass the rubble of destroyed buildings on a road in Gaza City this week.
Mohammed Saber/EPA

Hamas’ survival at odds with Israel’s war aims

Israel has certainly degraded Hamas over the past 15 months of its scorched-earth operations in Gaza, which it launched in response to Hamas’ attacks on October 7 2023. However, it has not eliminated the group.

The appearance of well-armed and well-composed Hamas fighters in the choreographed three rounds of hostage transfers in the areas that Israel has demolished testifies to the group’s survival.

It essentially signals the failure of Netanyahu and his extremist supporters to achieve their main goals of uprooting Hamas and securing the release of the hostages through military action.

Netanyahu’s acceptance of the ceasefire at this point clearly underlines the futility of the use of force as the only means to seek vengeance against Hamas. With the conflict in a stalemate for months, he could have embraced the ceasefire much earlier, thereby securing a quicker hostage release without more lives lost or more damage to Israel’s already-tarnished international reputation.

Hamas’ survival means it is still a dangerous force, former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in mid-January. He said the group has “recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost” in the war.

Reports also indicate Hamas has also maintained its control over Gaza’s administration and security forces, despite Israel’s efforts to destroy it.

Fighters of the military wing of Hamas gather in Gaza City.
Mohammed Saber/EPA

If that is the case, Israeli citizens – who have been highly polarised between those wanting the return of the hostages via a ceasefire and those backing Netanyahu’s government to continue the war – have the right to seriously question the prime minister’s leadership.

The same applies to Israel’s outside supporters, especially the United States.

Yet, this may not happen. The war-makers may win over the peace aspirants. For Netanyahu and his backers, the job is not finished. Many observers believe the very survival of Hamas can only motivate them further to resume the war once all the hostages are freed.

What does Trump want?

The future of the ceasefire now seems to hinge on Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump in Washington. According to media reports, the Israeli leader is keen to see where Trump stands on the second phase of the deal before negotiations continue.

Trump recently doubled down on his suggestion to “clear out” Gaza’s 2.3 million citizens – though he has mentioned a figure of 1.5 million – by relocating them to Egypt and Jordan. Given the previous statements of the extremists in Netanyahu’s shaky coalition, nothing would please them more than a depopulated and annexed Gaza.

Cairo and Amman, as well as other Arab countries, have firmly rejected the idea. Hamas and the enfeebled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have outrightly condemned it.

But Trump has insisted the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders would eventually come around because the US does a lot for them – referring presumably to their dependence on substantial annual American aid.

If this plan were to transpire, it would not only be a recipe for more bloodshed and instability in the Middle East, but also more betrayal of the Palestinian cause and the two-state solution by the international community.

While a ray of hope exists for the continuation of the ceasefire and the implementation of the ceasefire’s second stage, it is still very possible that Netanyahu will return to military action to destroy Hamas and annex part or all of Gaza along the lines of what Trump has suggested.

The Trump-Netanyahu bond is so strong that it could even enable the Israeli leader to declare sovereignty over the West Bank.

Given these uncertainties, the third stage of the ceasefire regarding the reconstruction of Gaza, which is estimated to be upwards of US$80 billion (A$1.3 trillion), is at this point nothing more than words on a piece of paper. Läs mer…

The brittle Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues against all odds, given the depth of distrust and animosity between the warring parties.

Since its enactment nearly three weeks ago, Hamas has released more than a dozen Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023, in return for some 400 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Should the process move forward as relatively smoothly as it has so far, more hostages and prisoners are set to be freed during the remainder of the first stage of the truce.

This is cause for a degree of optimism. However, negotiating the length, terms and implementation of the second and third stages of the ceasefire will prove very rocky.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, has already declared the ceasefire to be “temporary”.

During the second stage, all Israeli hostages (alive and dead) are supposed to be freed in exchange for hundreds of prisoners. Israel is also expected to withdraw all its forces from Gaza as a prelude to the reconstruction of the coastal enclave in the final stage of the ceasefire.

There are many issues that could derail the process, two of which are crucial:

Israel’s unrealised goal of wiping out Hamas and securing Gaza for itself
Hamas’ resolve to regain sovereign control over Gaza.

Another factor is the influence of the new US president, Donald Trump. While
Netanyahu has the full support of Trump, it remains unclear how much appetite the US leader has for more conflict in the Middle East.

A meeting between the two in Washington this week could be pivotal to the success of the next phase of the ceasefire – or the resumption of the Gaza war.

Palestinians pass the rubble of destroyed buildings on a road in Gaza City this week.
Mohammed Saber/EPA

Hamas’ survival at odds with Israel’s war aims

Israel has certainly degraded Hamas over the past 15 months of its scorched-earth operations in Gaza, which it launched in response to Hamas’ attacks on October 7 2023. However, it has not eliminated the group.

The appearance of well-armed and well-composed Hamas fighters in the choreographed three rounds of hostage transfers in the areas that Israel has demolished testifies to the group’s survival.

It essentially signals the failure of Netanyahu and his extremist supporters to achieve their main goals of uprooting Hamas and securing the release of the hostages through military action.

Netanyahu’s acceptance of the ceasefire at this point clearly underlines the futility of the use of force as the only means to seek vengeance against Hamas. With the conflict in a stalemate for months, he could have embraced the ceasefire much earlier, thereby securing a quicker hostage release without more lives lost or more damage to Israel’s already-tarnished international reputation.

Hamas’ survival means it is still a dangerous force, former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in mid-January. He said the group has “recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost” in the war.

Reports also indicate Hamas has also maintained its control over Gaza’s administration and security forces, despite Israel’s efforts to destroy it.

Fighters of the military wing of Hamas gather in Gaza City.
Mohammed Saber/EPA

If that is the case, Israeli citizens – who have been highly polarised between those wanting the return of the hostages via a ceasefire and those backing Netanyahu’s government to continue the war – have the right to seriously question the prime minister’s leadership.

The same applies to Israel’s outside supporters, especially the United States.

Yet, this may not happen. The war-makers may win over the peace aspirants. For Netanyahu and his backers, the job is not finished. Many observers believe the very survival of Hamas can only motivate them further to resume the war once all the hostages are freed.

What does Trump want?

The future of the ceasefire now seems to hinge on Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump in Washington. According to media reports, the Israeli leader is keen to see where Trump stands on the second phase of the deal before negotiations continue.

Trump recently doubled down on his suggestion to “clear out” Gaza’s 2.3 million citizens – though he has mentioned a figure of 1.5 million – by relocating them to Egypt and Jordan. Given the previous statements of the extremists in Netanyahu’s shaky coalition, nothing would please them more than a depopulated and annexed Gaza.

Cairo and Amman, as well as other Arab countries, have firmly rejected the idea. Hamas and the enfeebled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have outrightly condemned it.

But Trump has insisted the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders would eventually come around because the US does a lot for them – referring presumably to their dependence on substantial annual American aid.

If this plan were to transpire, it would not only be a recipe for more bloodshed and instability in the Middle East, but also more betrayal of the Palestinian cause and the two-state solution by the international community.

While a ray of hope exists for the continuation of the ceasefire and the implementation of the ceasefire’s second stage, it is still very possible that Netanyahu will return to military action to destroy Hamas and annex part or all of Gaza along the lines of what Trump has suggested.

The Trump-Netanyahu bond is so strong that it could even enable the Israeli leader to declare sovereignty over the West Bank.

Given these uncertainties, the third stage of the ceasefire regarding the reconstruction of Gaza, which is estimated to be upwards of US$80 billion (A$1.3 trillion), is at this point nothing more than words on a piece of paper. Läs mer…