April 1 - 30, 2026: Issue 653

One year to go – 2027 NSW State election

2027 NSW State election: Saturday, 13 March 2027 for Election of the 59th Parliament of NSW
With one year to go until the 2027 NSW State election, the NSW Electoral Commission is encouraging voters to save the date and sign up to receive free election reminders. The state election event and countdown are now live on the NSW Electoral Commission website.

Political participants and other election stakeholders are also invited to engage with the Electoral Commission in its planning for one of the largest public participation events in Australia.

NSW Electoral Commissioner Rachel McCallum said consultation ahead of the 2027 NSW State election will be an important part of planning for a successful event. She said the Commission has already published the results of extensive independent research into voter and political participant needs, service delivery, and improvement opportunities. Commissioner McCallum encouraged people to visit the Commission’s new online Consultation hub to see that research and to participate in other planning activities for the election.

“One year out from election day, we are focussed on maximising opportunities for voters and other election stakeholders to have their say and feel confident participating in 2027,” she said.

Opportunities for community engagement in the lead up to the election
Commissioner McCallum said the Electoral Commission would be seeking feedback from election stakeholders on several initiatives over the next year to finalise its service plan for the 2027 State election.

“I encourage political participants and interested members of the community to visit the Consultation hub on our website to sign up to receive updates about upcoming consultations.”

“We are committed to listening to community views as an important part of maintaining trust in the democratic process and election outcomes. Seeking input from election stakeholders about our plans for running and regulating the 2027 State election reflects our recently released strategy of trusted delivery, informed participation and strong regulation.”

“The Electoral Commission is looking forward to engaging with voters and election stakeholders over the next year to deliver another successful general election for the people of NSW.” 

Accessibility of elections – low-sensory voting centre trial
Commissioner McCallum highlighted a specific project aimed at improving the accessibility of the 2027 State election through trialling additional supports for voters who are neurodiverse.

“A low-sensory voting trial for electors who are neurodiverse will be implemented to align with our commitment to reducing barriers to accessing democracy for people with disability. The initiative also addresses a recent recommendation from the Parliament of NSW’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on ways to increase voter engagement, participation and confidence,” she said.

The countdown to the 2027 NSW State election is now live on our website. The NSW Electoral Commission provides a free election reminder service which sends SMS and/or email reminders about NSW State and Local Government elections based on voters’ enrolled address. Voters can sign up on the Electoral Commission website.

About the NSW Electoral Commission
We conduct, regulate, and report on general elections and by-elections for the Parliament of New South Wales. We also provide electoral services to local governments. Our work includes:
  • running independent, fair and accessible elections
  • providing transparent processes and guidance to assist political participants (including candidates, parties, elected members, donors, third-party campaigners and lobbyists) to comply with their legal obligations
  • publishing political donation and expenditure disclosures and registers of political parties, candidates, agents, third-party campaigners and political lobbyists
  • engaging with the public to make it easier for people to understand and participate in the democratic process
  • investigating possible offences and enforcing breaches of electoral, funding and disclosure, and lobbying laws. 

NSW Electoral Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 2026: passed March 26 2026

Long Title: An Act to make miscellaneous amendments to the Electoral Act 2017, the Electoral Funding Act 2018, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Local Government Act 1993.
Origin: Legislative Assembly
Member with Carriage: Aitchison, Jenny (Graham, John)
Act number: 6/2026

Second Reading Speech
Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland—Minister for Regional Transport, and Minister for Roads) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 2026 amends the Electoral Act 2017 and the Electoral Funding Act 2018, among other Acts, to facilitate the 2027 New South Wales general election and to implement recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—which I will refer to as the joint standing committee—and one recommendation made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In August last year the Minister for Local Government notified the House of the Government's intention to bring the 2027 general election date forward by two weeks to avoid a clash with the Easter holiday weekend, which falls over the weekend of Saturday 27 March 2027. The bill includes special provisions to facilitate the holding of the election on 13 March 2027, which is two weeks earlier than it is due to fall otherwise.

The bill implements recommendations made by the joint standing committee in its report entitled Proposals to increase voter engagement, participation and confidence. These amendments, as well as other changes to strengthen integrity and confidence in the electoral system, support the Government's ambitious targets of 100 per cent enrolment, 100 per cent turnout and 100 per cent formality rates—and 100 per cent confidence—for New South Wales elections. The bill implements 18 recommendations made by the joint standing committee in its report entitled Administration of the 2023 NSW State election and other matters. The bill also implements two recommendations of the joint standing committee's recently tabled report entitled Annual amount distributed to minor parties from the administration fund. Finally, the bill also implements other proposals from the NSW Electoral Commission and the Government to facilitate the 2027 general election and improve the administration and enforcement of the New South Wales electoral funding and donations framework.

Before I move to the details of the bill, I will speak to the change of date for the 2027 State general election. As members are aware, the Constitution Act 1902 and the Electoral Act 2017 provide for fixed four‑year terms, with general elections held on the fourth Saturday in March every four years. Polling day for the 2027 election is due to fall on Saturday 27 March, which is during the Easter public holiday weekend. This is the first time there has been a clash with the election date on the Easter weekend since fixed-term elections were introduced. Holding an election on the holiday weekend would cause logistical issues for New South Wales electors and present operational challenges for the Electoral Commissioner's conduct of the election. The Constitution Act provides that when the election is due to be held "during a holiday period or at any other inconvenient time", the Legislative Assembly may be dissolved up to two months early by proclamation of the Governor.

The Government intends to recommend to the Governor the making of a proclamation to dissolve the Legislative Assembly on 19 February 2027. This is two weeks earlier than the Assembly would otherwise be due to expire under the Constitution Act. This will enable the next State election to be held two weeks early, on 13 March 2027. The Minister for Local Government notified the House of the proposed change of date of the election on 7 August 2025, following consultation by the Government with the Electoral Commissioner, the Governor of New South Wales, the Opposition and members of the crossbench. This bill inserts critical special provisions in schedule 1 to facilitate the change of date. The special provisions clarify that the pre-election and capped expenditure periods will commence on 1 October 2026 and end on election day, which is consistent with the usual provisions that apply to a general election. The special provisions also provide that the nomination period will commence on 15 February 2027, to provide for the usual eight business days period for the lodging of nominations with the NSW Electoral Commission.

I move now to the details of the bill and the amendments to the Electoral Act 2017 in schedule 1. Enrolment, turnout and formality rates are key indicators of voter engagement with the democratic process and the overall health of the democratic system. New South Wales should be very proud of its high rates of electoral participation, especially when compared with international examples. However, the strength of electoral systems and democratic processes across the world are regularly being challenged. The following amendments in the bill will support electoral integrity, voter participation, access and confidence. The bill implements the joint standing committee's recommendation to allow the Electoral Commissioner to deploy mobile polling booths at State elections. The joint standing committee considered that mobile polling booths may help to reduce participation barriers for people in remote and regional areas, and particularly First Nations communities in those areas. Currently, the NSW Electoral Commission cannot provide mobile early voting services other than for declared facilities, which are limited to hospitals, nursing homes, retirement villages or similar facilities. The bill adds New South Wales correctional centres to that list to ensure in-person early voting services can be provided to inmates.

The bill also provides that electors with a physical disability, illness, advanced pregnancy or other condition may vote outside of but in close proximity to the voting centre in prescribed circumstances. This is consistent with existing Federal provisions. In recognition of the importance of voter education and information for increasing electoral participation, the bill makes the NSW Electoral Commission's existing education and public awareness function mandatory instead of discretionary. This is in line with equivalent mandatory functions of the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission. Recognising the increasing use and prevalence of artificial intelligence, the bill regulates digitally generated electoral material during the period from the issue of the writs for an election until 6.00 p.m. on election day. While AI can have a significant positive impact in our society, when used maliciously it has the potential to mislead voters and undermine the legitimacy of our electoral processes.

The bill introduces a new offence to prohibit the printing, publishing or distribution of digitally generated electoral material unless it carries a statement to that effect. "Digitally generated electoral material" is defined in the bill as electoral material containing audiovisual, visual or audio content that is "generated substantially, or modified or altered significantly, by artificial intelligence". The definition expressly excludes a cartoon or animated drawing. The bill also introduces a new offence to prohibit the printing, publishing, distribution or public display of digitally generated electoral material where it depicts a simulated person performing an act that the real person depicted did not perform. It will be a defence if the written consent of the real person was obtained.

It will be a defence to both new offences if the defendant took no part in determining the content and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the content contravened the offence provision. The existing defences and exceptions in section 190 of the Electoral Act will also apply to these new offences, including that a person is not guilty of an offence if the breach was not material or not intended or not likely to mislead an elector in relation to the casting of their vote. The penalties are consistent with those for existing offences relating to electoral material during the regulated period set out in sections 183 to 184 and section 186 of the Electoral Act.

The purpose of these reforms is to safeguard New South Wales elections from the spread of misinformation by artificial intelligence, which may be used to manipulate public opinion or unfairly target specific groups of voters, potentially undermining the fairness and integrity of the entire election process. We have all seen examples where deepfakes of politicians or other public figures have been used to mislead the public into believing the depicted person said or did something that they did not. The definition of "digitally generated electoral material" also captures electoral material where, for example, a base image, video or audio is substantially or significantly altered using AI. It is not intended to capture electoral material that has been altered using AI in a minor way, such as by airbrushing or retouching photos, adding subtitles, making formatting or minor grammatical improvements, or changing the brightness or contrast of images using a software program.

These amendments support the integrity of New South Wales elections and manage the risk of false AI‑generated information negatively impacting confidence in New South Wales elections. Similar offences were recently inserted into the South Australian electoral framework. Currently, all electoral material distributed on election day in a public place must be registered with the Electoral Commissioner. The bill introduces a new offence to prohibit the distribution of electoral material in a public place on a day on which early voting is conducted unless the material is registered. The requirement will only apply where the material is distributed within 100 metres of a voting centre that is being used as an early voting centre.

Section 199 of the Electoral Act currently provides that an application may be made for the registration of electoral material only during the period starting with the nomination day and ending at 5.00 p.m. on the Friday that is eight days before election day. The bill permits an application to be made during the period commencing on the Monday before election day and ending at 5.00 p.m. on the Thursday before polling day for the registration of additional electoral material that may be used both on days on which early voting is conducted and on election day. During this period any such application must be determined by the Electoral Commissioner within 24 hours of receipt of the application.

As recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the bill increases penalties for offences relating to non-complying electoral material, particularly material that aims to mislead voters. The maximum penalty for the offence of printing, publishing or distributing non-complying electoral material in section 183 of the Electoral Act will increase from 100 to 300 penalty units for a corporation. For individuals, the maximum penalty will increase from 20 penalty units or six months imprisonment to 60 penalty units or six months imprisonment. This aligns with Victorian penalties for similar offences. The same increased penalties will apply to the offence in section 184 of displaying posters containing non-compliant electoral material. Finally, the bill modernises authorisation requirements for electoral material by removing the requirement to display the name and address of the printer on printed electoral material.

The bill makes important changes to increase safety for our election officials, who are critical to the delivery of New South Wales elections, and to ensure secrecy of the ballot. During the 2023 New South Wales election the Electoral Commission became aware that some officials were being filmed or photographed by members of the public in the course of their duties without their consent. In some cases, the footage and images that identified election officials were then published on social media, accompanied by false statements or misleading commentary. Not only does this conduct cause distress for those officials; it may also affect the capacity of the Electoral Commission to recruit willing workers over time and diminish trust in New South Wales elections.

The bill introduces a new offence to prohibit photographing or recording inside a voting centre or ballot counting place without the permission of the voting centre manager or person in charge of the ballot counting place. The other new penalty offence prohibits a person outside a voting centre or ballot counting place from recording or photographing an election official or scrutineer if it is reasonably likely to cause the official or scrutineer to be intimidated or harassed. It is a further offence if a person publishes or distributes such a photograph, audio or recording. Those amendments reflect similar offences that already apply at New South Wales local government elections. These amendments send a clear signal that the safety of election officials is a serious matter, and they deter conduct that causes intimidation or harassment.

The bill makes a number of amendments to better protect the privacy of voter enrolment information. Currently, candidates in an election may request a list of electors from the Electoral Commission under section 49 of the Electoral Act. The bill implements the committee's recommendation to ensure that candidates can only make such a request within 48 hours before the close of voting. This is to ensure that this information is used only for election-related purposes. Where persons other than parties, members and candidates apply for enrolment information under section 50 of the Electoral Act, the bill provides that the Electoral Commissioner may not make a finding that could result in the release of voters' personal information on the electoral roll unless the Electoral Commissioner has first consulted with the NSW Privacy Commissioner and identified a public interest in providing the requested information that outweighs the public interest in protecting the privacy of personal information in the circumstances.

This amendment is in response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' recommendation 19 in its report on voter engagement, participation and confidence, and it follows consultation with the Information and Privacy Commission. The bill increases safeguards in relation to the provision of electoral information that the Electoral Commissioner is required to provide to registered parties and elected members following an election under section 222 of the Electoral Act by enabling the commissioner to require an undertaking that the party or member's systems and procedures will be adequate to preserve the security of the information. The bill also increases protections for silent electors by expressly prohibiting the publication of a silent elector's address in the register of parties, and it makes changes to protect the residential addresses of elected members and registered candidates from public disclosure.

Finally, schedule 3 to the bill amends the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 to require the Electoral Commissioner to provide the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC certain electoral roll information but only for a prescribed purpose and only if certain written assurances relating to the storage, use and disposal of that information are provided by the chief commissioner. The chief commissioner has advised that the information on the electoral roll is of critical operational importance to the ICAC and is required for it to carry out its functions. The bill regulates the distribution and collection of postal vote applications. During the joint standing committee's inquiry into the 2023 State election, concerns were raised about parties and candidates distributing and collecting postal vote applications, and about the collection of voters' personal information by parties and candidates. Concerns were also raised about postal vote application forms distributed by parties and candidates being confused with official communications from the Electoral Commission.

The bill introduces amendments to address these risks by introducing new provisions to regulate the distribution and collection of postal vote applications. The bill provides that a person, other than the Electoral Commissioner, may only distribute an application to vote by post if it is in the form approved by the Electoral Commission, the form states that it must be submitted directly to the Electoral Commissioner, and no additional information or matter appears on the application. The bill also provides that it is an offence with a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units to solicit another person to return or submit their postal vote application to anyone other than the Electoral Commissioner. It is a further offence for a person other than the Electoral Commissioner to collect personal information about a voter in connection with the distribution or collection of an application to vote by post without their written consent.

This change will prevent the practice of parties and candidates embedding the Electoral Commissioner's postal vote application form in their own documents, which can then lead to confusion about which forms have been authorised and distributed by the commission. It will also prevent parties and candidates from soliciting postal vote application forms to be returned to a party, rather than directly to the Electoral Commissioner. However, the amendment would not prevent, for example, a member of Parliament providing general information to a constituent as to how to apply to vote by post.

The bill will require senior office holders of registered parties to now be enrolled in New South Wales. While party agents must be enrolled to vote in New South Wales State elections, other senior office holders of a registered party are not currently required to be enrolled or reside in New South Wales. The bill amends the Electoral Act to require that the registered officer, deputy registered officer and secretary of a registered party be enrolled to vote in New South Wales. As recognised by the joint standing committee, this change will assist the Electoral Commission in exercising its enforcement powers and ensure that these officials are New South Wales voters. Transitional provisions provide registered parties with six months to apply to update the register of parties, if required, to ensure that their registered officer, deputy or secretary's enrolment address is in New South Wales.

The bill also amends the Electoral Funding Act to provide that a registered party is not eligible for payments under two parts of the Act—part 4, which relates to public funding of election campaigns, and part 5, which relates to administrative and new party funding, unless the party's senior office holders are enrolled in New South Wales. Registered parties are required to provide the Electoral Commission with a list of the names and enrolled addresses of those senior office holders, and a summary of their roles and responsibilities, under section 98 of the Electoral Funding Act. A transitional provision provides that this amendment commences six months from the date of assent of the amending Act, which will allow time for parties to update their list of senior office holders and their enrolled addresses and summaries of the responsibilities with the Electoral Commission.

To support informed voting and reduce the possibility of confusing information on ballot papers and other election materials, the bill will strengthen restrictions on party names and logos that can be registered. The bill implements a joint standing committee recommendation that parties cannot use the word "Independent" in their registered names, abbreviations or logos. Parties will also be prohibited from registering their name, abbreviation, or logo if it consists only of an individual's name. No parties currently registered for State elections will be affected by this change. However, some parties registered only for local government elections will be affected. A transitional provision provides six months for any registered parties to apply to vary their party name, abbreviation or logo so that they are compliant.

The bill implements the joint standing committee's recommendations to better facilitate overseas voting and to simplify and adopt similar provisions for interstate voting. The bill requires the Electoral Commissioner to publish the location and operations of voting centres, including early voting centres and interstate and overseas voting centres, on the Electoral Commission's website as soon as practicable after those locations are appointed. This is consistent with recommendation 6 of the joint standing committee's 2023 election report, which recommended that these locations are published well before the 2027 State election, where possible. The bill gives the Electoral Commissioner the power to appoint a place interstate or outside Australia as an early voting centre for all electoral districts if the commissioner is satisfied it would enhance the convenience of a large number of electors.

The amendments will also improve overseas postal voting. The joint standing committee found that during the 2023 general election, international postal delays frequently prevented overseas postal votes from reaching the Electoral Commission in time to be counted. The amendments enable postal votes to be received by an election official overseas by a prescribed date and time, which will be published on the Electoral Commission's website. The votes will then be couriered by the overseas election official to the Electoral Commission. This will ensure that the commission receives overseas postal votes on time to be included in the count. As recommended by the joint standing committee, the bill enables more flexibility around who may be appointed as an overseas or interstate election official. The amendments are consistent with the special provisions that were in place for the 2023 election, which permitted the appointment of overseas election officials who the Electoral Commissioner considers has the appropriate skills and experience.

The bill extends the prohibition on the use of technology-assisted voting, other than telephone voting for blind and low-vision voters, at the 2027 State general election and at by-elections up until the 2031 State general election. The NSW Electoral Commission has advised that it will not be possible to provide internet voting before the 2031 State general election. The Government is committed to supporting all citizens, including blind and low‑vision voters, to cast their votes. The amendment in the bill will permit telephone voting by electors who are blind or who have low vision, which was also in place for the 2023 New South Wales election. The Government will continue to engage with blind and vision-impaired communities in developing technology-assisted voting solutions.

The bill will implement recommendation 7 of the ICAC's Operation Aero report that the Government amend the Electoral Funding Act to give the Electoral Commission power to publish the results of its compliance audits, investigations and regulatory actions. Section 268 of the Electoral Act was amended prior to the Operation Aero report, including to allow the Electoral Commission and Electoral Commissioner to publicly report on the progress or outcome of an investigation into possible contraventions of the Electoral Act or Electoral Funding Act, if satisfied that doing so is in the public interest.

The bill will enable the Electoral Commission and commissioner to also publicly report on the outcome of any regulatory action or compliance audit, in addition to where they are satisfied that the disclosure is in the public interest. The bill will also allow public reporting on the progress or outcomes of current or future investigations, regulatory action and compliance audits under predecessor legislation. The amendment will expressly not apply to an investigation, regulatory action or compliance audit that, in the opinion of the Electoral Commissioner or Electoral Commission, was completed before the commencement of the amending Act.

I now turn to the amendments to the Electoral Funding Act, detailed in schedule 2 to the bill. The bill will require the disclosure of reportable political donations within seven days—instead of within 21 days—of being received or made during the pre-election period. The pre-election period will commence on 1 October 2026. That will align New South Wales' disclosure requirements more closely with other Australian jurisdictions and will support increased transparency so that voters know who has contributed to a candidate or party's election campaign before casting their vote.

The bill requires parties to disclose whether reportable political donations made to it were solicited by or made for the purpose of benefiting a particular candidate endorsed by the party and, if so, the name of that candidate or candidates. That will enable the public to better scrutinise the links between donations and decisions. The amendment implements recommendation 26 of the Expert Panel on Political Donations in its 2014 report and recommendation 1 of the joint standing committee in its 2016 report on its examination of the expert panel's final report. The amendment is supported by a new regulation-making power, which enables regulations to be made for the purpose of determining whether a political donation was solicited by or made for the purpose of benefiting a particular candidate. The amendment will commence on 1 July 2026.

On 26 February 2026 the joint standing committee published a report on its inquiry entitled Annual amount distributed to minor parties from the administration fund. The bill implements two recommendations made by the committee in that recent report. As members will be aware, the Administration Fund is a statutory public funding scheme administered by the Electoral Commission. It reimburses eligible parties and Independent members of the New South Wales Parliament for administrative and operating expenditure incurred on a quarterly basis. The fund's purpose is to support the ongoing administrative functioning of parties and Independent members between elections, rather than election-specific campaigning activity. The maximum quarterly amounts available to eligible parties from the Administration Fund is dependent on the number of elected members of Parliament in the party. Independent members are also eligible for funding under section 88 (2) of the Electoral Funding Act.

The joint standing committee found that the current level of funding provided is inadequate to cover the actual costs incurred for administration and compliance requirements, and those costs are rising. That accounts for a high proportion of party spending, and the costs are disproportionately high for minor parties and Independents as compliance obligations are the same for all parties regardless of their size and funding. It is also recommended that compliance obligations will increase in response to recommendations of the working group that the Government is establishing to respond to the recommendations of the ICAC's Operation Aero. As recommended by the joint standing committee in recommendation 1 of its report, the bill will increase the quarterly maximum amounts available to be distributed to eligible parties from the Administration Fund under section 87 (3) (a) to (d) of the Electoral Funding Act.

The bill will also increase the quarterly maximum amounts available to Independent members to align with the same proportional increase for parties with only one elected member endorsed by the party. In its 2026 report, the joint standing committee noted that Independent members who also receive payments from the Administration Fund would be facing similar challenges to those faced by minor parties. Although it did not recommend an increase for Independent members as that was outside the referred terms of reference, it recommended that it be something the Government consider. The proposed changes relating to Administration Fund entitlements will commence on proclamation after implementation of any recommendations of the working group that is being established to consider Operation Aero recommendations to improve governance standards for political parties. The amended amounts will continue to be adjusted annually for inflation each calendar year as provided for in clause 5 of schedule 1.

The bill also implements recommendation 4 of the recent joint standing committee report to provide that actual administrative expenditure incurred in excess of the maximum quarterly amount can be carried over a longer period than a calendar year. Currently under the Electoral Funding Act if actual administrative expenditure incurred by a party or member in a quarter exceeds the amount they are eligible to claim for that quarter, the excess can be carried over to a subsequent quarter in the same calendar year. The joint standing committee recognised that can cause difficulties for parties that incur large administrative expenses late in a calendar year. To solve that problem, the bill amends section 90 (1) of the Act to allow for claims for actual administrative expenditure to be carried over to subsequent quarters beyond the calendar year.

I move now to changes to the Election Campaigns Fund entitlements. As members are aware, the Election Campaigns Fund is a statutory public funding scheme administered by the Electoral Commission that reimburses eligible parties and candidates for electoral expenditure incurred in connection with a State general election or a State by-election. The fund's purpose is to offset the costs of conducting election campaigns, subject to strict eligibility criteria and expenditure caps. Following an election, the payments made to eligible parties are the lesser of the total amount of actual campaign expenditure of the party and endorsed candidates, or an amount calculated in accordance with a dollar-per-vote formula for each first-preference vote received by the endorsed candidate.

The bill makes changes to that dollar-per-vote formula to decrease entitlements for one category of parties. The parties who will be affected by the change are those who meet the eligibility criteria in section 66 (3) of the Electoral Funding Act for the Legislative Council but do not meet the eligibility criteria in respect of the Legislative Assembly and who have between 10 and 24 candidates in the Legislative Assembly. To break that down further, this will only impact parties where their endorsed candidates in the Legislative Council, and all other candidates in the same group, receive at least 4 per cent of the first-preference votes in the election but their endorsed candidates in the Legislative Assembly do not receive at least 4 per cent of the total first-preference votes in the districts for which candidates were nominated and the party has between 10 and 24 candidates in the Legislative Assembly.

For those parties, the change will decrease the dollar-per-vote entitlement for parties in the Legislative Assembly from $5.30 to $3.98 per first-preference vote received by the endorsed candidates of the party in the Legislative Assembly. They will continue to also be entitled to $3.98 per first-preference vote received by the endorsed candidates in the Legislative Council. All other categories of eligible parties will remain unaffected. Those changes are intended to recalibrate public funding levels for election campaigning ahead of the 2027 State general election. Importantly, the bill does not change the way in which eligible parties are reimbursed. That will ensure that existing integrity safeguards remain in place. Finally, the bill also makes other minor miscellaneous amendments, including consequential amendments, to give effect to the objects of the bill. Schedule 4 to the bill makes minor consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1993.

The bill has been subject to extensive consultation, including with the Opposition and members of the crossbench. I thank members for their feedback during consultation, which has shaped the bill. I thank the Electoral Commissioner and staff at the NSW Electoral Commission for their valuable contributions to the development of the bill and for providing technical advice and sharing their experience in the development of these reforms. The bill represents a significant step in strengthening the integrity and transparency of our electoral system. It is the result of careful consideration of the 2023 State election, detailed inquiries led by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the advice of Electoral Commission staff in relation to the practicalities of administering elections in our State. I am confident that the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 2026 will ensure that our electoral framework is robust and capable of ensuring high levels of voter confidence and participation in the lead-up to the State election next year. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms JACQUI SCRUBY (Pittwater): 
I make a contribution to debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 2026. While the bill deals with a number of aspects relating to amending both the Electoral Act 2017 and the Electoral Funding Act, I specifically mention integrity in our electoral system and democracy, and specifically the sections of the Act that deal with postal voting and some practices whereby candidates have taken advantage of the goodwill of voters by leading them to believe they are being assisted with postal voting when their information is building the candidate's database.

I particularly mention those two aspects of the legislation because I have witnessed those practices in action. The average person who receives a letter in the mail from a candidate that indicates they are eligible for early voting will fill out the forms and send them back to the candidate's office rather than directly to the Electoral Commission. The candidate is taking advantage of voters through that process. The voters are not aware that, by providing their details, that information possibly will be retained for future marketing purposes. I believe the bill represents a positive step forward and, most importantly, finally addresses truth in political advertising. While the bill does not go as far as it could go, it is definitely a step in the right direction, particularly regarding two parts of the bill that other members referred to in this debate relating to the digital creation of advertising material.

Although I will not move amendments to the bill, in terms of how the bill has been drafted and where improvements could be made in the future, I acknowledge we are living in a world of artificial intelligence [AI] and in an era in which our democracy is under attack from misinformation. While the bill deals with digital creation, another way to address the problem—I will refer to other jurisdictions shortly—is from the concept of misleading and deceptive conduct. Businesses are not permitted to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct. In elections, candidates should also not seek to mislead or deceive voters. The Commonwealth stop the lies bill was introduced in the Federal Parliament to address misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to elections. That bill introduced provisions that are very similar to the legislative provisions applying to businesses. Similar legislation was also introduced in the State Parliaments of the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia.

Since the 1980s South Australia has had truth in political advertising. Section 113 of the South Australian Electoral Act makes it an offence to authorise or cause to be published electoral advertisements that are materially inaccurate and misleading. The South Australian Electoral Commissioner can request advertisements to be withdrawn, if required. Significantly, the Court of Disputed Returns can invalidate election results on the grounds of misleading advertising. Other jurisdictions have gone further than the bill before this House when protecting the rights of voters to be informed by accurate information. But this bill is very important because it introduces legislation to safeguard against the use of digital systems and digital advertising to protect voters from misleading information. It also protect candidates from having their image and likeness being used in digital information or apps that do not reflect reality.

We are now in an era when popularism, short sound bites, social media, and a lack of information generally is creating distrust in government and institutions and is seeking to erode the amazing democracy we have not just in New South Wales but also across Australia. I welcome the bill and some of the amendments that will be addressed later, but I particularly point out those that empower voters to make informed decisions and those that strengthen the power of voters to be protected from having their information procured from them by offers of postal voting, which I mentioned earlier. I believe the bill strengthens our democracy. It will strengthen truth in political advertising. I believe the bill is a very good first step, but there is more to do. I commend the bill to the House.

More consultation needed on costs website to avoid repeating mistakes: AMA

April 7, 2026
Greater consultation is needed on proposed changes to the Medical Costs Finder website to ensure it genuinely supports consumers and does not simply replicate the mistakes that have plagued the existing website, the AMA states. 

The Australian Medical Association’s submission on proposed changes to the health legislation amendment Bill (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) supports the intent of the Bill. However, it details serious concerns and proposes several amendments to improve the website’s operation. 

AMA President Dr Danielle McMullen said the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing had not consulted with the profession about the Bill and the AMA was very concerned about some of the concepts within it, including the proposal to publish a single annual “average fee” for each medical practitioner. 

“The Bill’s intent is good, but the proposal to publish a single figure won’t deliver meaningful or fair transparency for consumers, given the diversity of clinical practice,” Dr McMullen said. 

“This could disadvantage both consumers and medical professionals because there are so many factors impacting fees, including insurer-hospital agreements and the complexity of cases a non-GP specialist may handle. 

“Many private non-GP specialists provide discounts to some patients because of their age or financial circumstances, but not to others, so an average fee (particularly an average based on previous year’s data) may be misleading. 

“Some non-GP specialists also develop a well-deserved reputation for treating patients with more complex conditions, so they receive more referrals for these kinds of patients. Given the complexity of the cases and the additional time needed to treat these patients, their fees may be higher than other doctors’ fees. 

“It is unclear how this kind of individual circumstances can be accounted for in a single fee and we’ve yet to see the methodology that’s being used.”

The Bill also lacks clear processes for doctors to correct information if it is wrong or to have any remedy if incorrect information causes damage to their reputation or the viability of their practice.

“The department needs to stand by the accuracy of information and data on the website and must do better than an all care and no responsibility approach to publishing this information,” Dr McMullen said. 

Dr McMullen said the AMA had also consistently emphasised to the department that true transparency can only be achieved if the information published provides a complete and accurate picture of the factors driving patients’ out‑of‑pocket costs.

“The Bill enables additional information, including private health insurer rebates, to be published but this should be done at the same time other information is published, and not in tranches where medical practitioner fees are uploaded first and insurance rebates are added at an undefined later date. 

“Publishing fees in isolation risks misleading consumers by obscuring the significant role played by private health insurer benefit levels, product design, and contractual arrangements in determining what a patient ultimately pays.”

The AMA broadly supports the suggested approach to insurer product phoenixing and agrees private health insurers should be able to close or terminate products to manage prudential risk, while being prevented from using such product closures to facilitate phoenixing. 

“There needs to be legislated definitions of the terms ‘public interest’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’, neither of which are currently defined in the Private Health insurance Act 2007,” Dr McMullen said. 

“The consultation paper also makes no mention of penalties for insurers who continue the practice of product phoenixing once legislative changes to outlaw the practice are made,” she said. 

“Our submission makes constructive recommendations, including requirements for proper governance arrangements to ensure the information on the website is meaningful and accurate and includes a proper complaint handling process that practitioners can access when information published is incorrect." 

Gambling ad reforms fall short of protecting Australians from harm: AMA

April 2, 2026
The federal government’s new gambling advertising reforms fail to provide the comprehensive protections needed to reduce online gambling-related harm, particularly among children and young people, the AMA states.  

Australian Medical Association Vice President Associate Professor Julian Rait said the measures announced today acknowledge the scale of the problem but do not go far enough to address the health impacts of gambling addiction. 

“Australians lose more to gambling than any other country in the world,” Associate Professor Rait said. 

“Gambling addiction is a serious health issue linked to mental illness, substance abuse, family breakdown and severe financial distress.  

“The changes announced today are a step in the right direction, but they are not the strong, comprehensive response Australians need and deserve.” 

The government’s package includes caps on advertising volume, extended blackout periods around sporting matches, opt-out tools for social media and streaming platforms, a phased ban on stadium and jersey advertising, and restrictions on ads around school pick-up times. 

However, the AMA is concerned the reforms do not include a national independent gambling regulator or a pathway to a total ban on online gambling advertising, as recommended by the Murphy review. 

“Partial bans do not work,” Associate Professor Julian Rait said. “We have seen this repeatedly across public health. Anything less than a comprehensive ban will continue to expose Australians — especially children — to relentless gambling promotion.” 

The AMA has long warned that gambling advertising is now embedded in sport and online environments, normalising gambling for young people. Research shows children are increasingly aware of gambling brands and odds, and many report seeing gambling ads during times and in places where they should not. 

“Children should be able to enjoy sport without being targeted by gambling companies,” Associate Professor Rait said. “Relying on opt-out tools or age-restriction technologies that have already proven ineffective will not protect young people.” 

The AMA has advocated for stronger regulation of gambling since 2013, calling for a comprehensive ban on all online gambling advertising; an independent national gambling regulator; consistent, enforceable rules across all platforms; and immediate action to reduce exposure for children and vulnerable communities. 

“The government must put the health of Australians ahead of industry interests,” Associate Professor Rait said.  

“A full ban on online gambling advertising is the only effective way to reduce harm. The government must strengthen these reforms and implement a comprehensive ban without delay.” 

We surveyed more than 8,000 principals – they face violence, threats and stress in their schools

Hill Street Studios/ Getty Images
Paul Kidson, Australian Catholic University; Herb Marsh, Australian Catholic University, and Theresa Dicke, Australian Catholic University

Almost half of surveyed Australia’s school principals face physical violence in their jobs. Almost 90% say they encounter offensive behaviour from students, parents and even colleagues, according to new survey results.

The latest instalment in an annual survey of Australian principals shows how their exposure to aggression risks becoming normalised in schools.

Principals also report they work an average of 54 hours a week. They say the sheer quantity of work is their biggest source of stress. As one principal from a Catholic high school told us, “this job is getting harder every year”.

What can governments and education systems do to help?

Our research

Since 2011, our study has collected the experiences of 2,000–2,500 Australian school principals per year.

This is now the 15th year of the study and over that time, 8,100 individual school leaders have completed at least one survey. This includes principals as well as other senior teachers, such as deputy principals.

Respondents come from primary and high schools around the country, and across the public, private and Catholic sectors.

Given there are less than 10,000 schools across the nation, this is a strong sample of the people who lead our schools.

When this many leaders speak, we should listen.

Reports of violence are growing

In 2025, nearly half of school leaders reported being subjected to physical violence. Almost 54% experienced threats of violence. Students were the most common source of physical violence, while parents were the main source of threats.

As the chart below shows, these reports have increased significantly since the survey started in 2011.

Rates of violence at this magnitude would be considered unacceptable in many other professions.

Meanwhile, almost 90% of respondents say they are subject to some form of unacceptable/offensive behaviour in their jobs. This includes physical threats, sexual harassment, unpleasant teasing, cyberbullying and gossip.

As one primary school teacher told us:

When I became a principal I didn’t expect to be mired in managing adult behaviour. I thought it would be about instructional leadership and inspiring educators. I didn’t realise how I would be subject to manipulation and need to respond like a lawyer – with extreme care and explicit language which leaves no room for interpretation.

What else did we find?

School leaders continue to work long hours, averaging 53.9 hours per week during term and 19.6 hours during holidays. This is well above an average working week in Australia (about 38 hours). There has been some reduction in reported hours worked. In 2011, 27% of participants reported working 60 hours or more, which has reduced to 22% in 2025.

Unsurprisingly, principals report mental health issues and plans to leave their jobs:

  • 25% scored at least a “moderate” rating for anxiety and 23% scored at least a “moderate” rating for depression

  • 54% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I often seriously consider leaving my current job”. This is up slightly from last year.

As one respondent from a private high school told us:

The challenges of reduced funding combined with growing expectations from all stakeholders make it more and more difficult to meet the demands of the role […] I am not sure how this will be sustainable for the next generation of principals.

New rules for schools

Across the life of the project, we have seen important changes to try and improve conditions for principals.

The Victorian, Queensland, and NSW governments have introduced programs to reduce administrative loads, and public campaigns have tried to build community respect for the teaching profession.

Some states have developed programs to support aspiring principals.

Just last week, the NSW government introduced legislation to address aggressive parental behaviour, similar to Victorian laws. This will mean those who have engaged in threatening or abusive behaviour can be banned from coming within 25 metres of a school.

What else do we need?

But clearly more needs to be done to improve the conditions for school leaders.

In 2011 we also saw the release of the Australian Standard for Principals which sets out what principals are expected to “know, understand and do to achieve in their work”.

It is time to review this.

Our last three reports show student and teacher mental health have become acute sources of stress for principals – this should be reflected in a revised standard. There is not one mention of teachers’ mental health throughout the document, despite it now consistently ranking as a top source of stress for principals.

And much has changed in our wider society. Since the standard was published, we’ve had a royal commission on child abuse in school settings, COVID and growing understanding of the need to manage young people’s healthy use of screens.

It’s time to honestly and openly acknowledge the life of the school principal has radically changed – and update our expectations and support.

We know principals have a huge influence on the culture and expectations of a school. So their welfare matters not just to principals and those who aspire to these jobs. It is also vital to families who value their children’s education and governments who rely on education for our national good.The Conversation

Paul Kidson, Associate Professor in Educational Leadership, Australian Catholic University; Herb Marsh, Distinguished Professor of Educational Psychology, Australian Catholic University, and Theresa Dicke, Professor, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

To stop Australian democracy going the way of the US, here’s what we need to do

Kate Griffiths, Grattan Institute; Aruna Sathanapally, Grattan Institute, and Matthew Bowes, Grattan Institute

Around the world, democracy as a system of government is backsliding. After more than 50 years of liberal democracy in ascendancy, democratic progress plateaued around the turn of the century and is now going backwards.

In 2025, there were only 31 liberal democracies out of 179 countries assessed. And the United States – once the poster-child for democracy – was downgraded from “liberal democracy” to “electoral democracy” because of declining checks and balances on power, freedom of expression and civil rights and equality before the law.

Australia is one of the few remaining liberal democracies, and a leading one at that. But we are not immune to anti-democratic forces or the fraying international rules-based order.

A new Grattan Institute report, For the people: Future-proofing Australia’s democracy, identifies the main vulnerabilities for Australia’s democracy and opportunities to build a better, more resilient democratic system.

A bright light in a dark landscape

Australia comes from a place of strength. We are one of the world’s leading democracies, consistently ranking highly on international measures of democratic health, as well as on a suite of economic and social measures – including life expectancy, human development, employment, and GDP (gross domestic product) per capita.

This is no coincidence. Our democracy underpins our prosperity and safeguards our rights and freedoms. International evidence shows democracy supports peace and economic growth, while delivering longer lives and more education.

Social trust matters too. Countries with higher interpersonal trust – like Australia – tend to have higher economic growth and lower income inequality, which in turn support democratic resilience.

But the world order in which Australia has flourished is now being seriously tested. These are more turbulent times not just for our economy or standard of living, but for liberal democracies themselves.

Fuel for discontent is building

Our report takes stock of Australia’s greatest asset: the health of our democracy.

The good news is that Australians’ support for democracy has been consistently strong – even growing over time. Only a small share of the population is discontent or disengaged with the system, and the data do not suggest either have been spreading.

The bad news is that our social compact is under pressure. This is showing up in growing economic pessimism, worry for future generations, concern about unfairness, declining sense of belonging, and low trust in political actors.

While support for democracy remains high in Australia, satisfaction with how our democracy actually works is more fragile.

Satisfaction with democracy is typically lower among groups who are less well served by the status quo. Most obviously, our institutions have persistently failed First Nations Australians, and don’t fully support new migrants.

Lower-income Australians and those with financial concerns tend to report lower trust and satisfaction with democracy.

Renters are less satisfied than homeowners, and people in regional areas tend to be less satisfied than people in cities.

Migrants are an interesting exception here. Migrants (except for those from the United Kingdom) are typically more satisfied than people born in Australia with the way democracy works here, despite the disadvantages they often face living here. This may, at least in part, be due to direct experience with other systems.

Everyone needs confidence that the system can work for them, even if it doesn’t always. Groups who persistently lack security, opportunity, or solidarity under the current system cannot reasonably be expected to trust or defend it.

3 big risks

Where there is fuel for discontent, there is increasing risk that global challenges could spark a blaze. Three inter-related global risks are particularly testing for democracies.

First, the decline in traditional news media and the rise of online and social news sources are fragmenting our fact base, and making misinformation and extreme views more salient in people’s daily lives.

Second, global political tensions and the rise of anti-democratic forces overseas are testing Australia’s social cohesion at home.

And third, the heightened probability of economic, social, and environmental shocks increases the challenges democratic governments face to deliver better outcomes for their people.

These are risks – not eventualities. The resilience of our democracy is in its capacity to recognise challenges and collectively respond.

And 5 ways forward

Our research and consultation identified five priorities for Australia to build a better and more resilient democracy:

1. Make the most of our parliament

Our elected federal parliament sits at the centre of Australia’s democracy. An independent review should consider how to make it more representative and better functioning – to rebuild trust in politics, improve administration of government and enable better long-term decision-making.

2. Nurture belonging and engagement

We need more ways to have a say and be heard and clearer pathways to citizenship. Our public sector leaders should also be actively stitching public engagement into the fabric of our existing institutions.

3. Protect our public sphere

A healthier public sphere requires ensuring the sustainability of our news media and investing in institutions that produce trusted information. We should also experiment with responses to misinformation, to work out which approaches are effective at scale.

4. Tackle the known policy challenges

In a democracy, process matters, but so do outcomes. Australians need confidence that our system of government can work for them and build something better than the status quo.

5. Prepare for the future

Crises are the moments that build trust, or lose it, and the future will almost certainly be more volatile. Governments can prepare by reducing our vulnerability to known risks, building fiscal buffers and calibrating expectations about what governments can reasonably do to cushion the blow.

Governments can and should lead on this. But we mustn’t forget that in a democracy, we govern ourselves. This is a task for all of us.The Conversation

Kate Griffiths, Democracy Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute; Aruna Sathanapally, Chief Executive, Grattan Institute, and Matthew Bowes, Senior Associate, Economic Prosperity and Democracy, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How Australia’s mining sector locks women out of high‑paying roles

Michelle Gander, Murdoch University

Mining is a critical industry for the Australian economy and has the potential to offer secure, well-paid and meaningful careers.

But the evidence from our review of the 29 studies of 40 years of research on women working in the Australian mining sector is clear: gender inequality is built into the structures, cultures and places that define the industry.

Until those are addressed, progress will remain partial and many women will continue to decide that entering or staying in the mining industry is not worth the cost.

This is not a pipeline problem

The latest data from Workplace Gender Equality Agency, released last month, shows mining remains one of the most unequal industries in Australia when it comes to gender and pay.

In addition, under new legislation in effect from April 1 this year, employers with more than 500 staff are now required to commit to action targets to improve the gender pay gap.

Companies that are heavily involved with mining make up four of the top ten biggest companies listed on the ASX: BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue and Newmont. Although their gender pay gaps are smaller than those of the major banks, they remain substantial, ranging from 7.2% to 12.8%.

Across Australia’s mining sector, women remain significantly under-represented, making up only 23% of the total workforce according to the latest Workplace Gender Equality Agency data.

However, this hides the facts that the majority of women in mining work in the lower-paid and feminised clerical and service occupations (69% and 45%, respectively), rather than the higher-paid site-based technical or senior management roles (10% and 25%, respectively).

Gender equity in mining is often framed as a pipeline problem, meaning not enough women are entering the industry, particularly into technical and operational roles.

But this explanation is incomplete, and our review paints a different picture. The issue is not simply who enters mining; it is how mining work is organised, and who that organisation works for.

Who is the ideal mining worker?

Mining work is not neutral. Work is designed and structured around a particular model of the “ideal worker”. This is someone who is continuously available, geographically mobile and able to work long, uninterrupted shifts.

In practice, this means fly-in fly-out (FIFO) arrangements where staff fly from cities and stay on site, or drive-in drive-out (DIDO) where staff live in remote towns but still have to commute into the mine, often several hours each way.

On mine sites, operations run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. So work schedules are often based on people working 12-hour shifts for two weeks, before they can return home for a break.

These conditions are central to how mining operates. They disproportionately disadvantage those with caring responsibilities, or people who are not constantly available. This is one of the key reasons why women’s participation declines over time, even when recruitment improves.

Working in remote sites, living in camps, and being far from towns or cities can amplify both how work is organised (like job design and rosters) and the workplace culture (for example, more dominant or hyper-masculine behaviours).

Skewed gender ratios, limited access to external support networks, and the conditions of camp life can increase risks of exclusion and harassment.

These factors matter because they embed inequality into the everyday experience of work. They shape not only what work looks like, but how it feels to be there.

Hyper-masculine norms

Mining continues to be characterised by hyper-masculine norms that shape how competence, leadership and belonging are understood. These norms privilege traits such as endurance, toughness and emotional stoicism, qualities historically associated with masculine identities.

Women working in these environments frequently report exclusion, social isolation and exposure to sexist behaviour, hostility, harassment and assault. A parliamentary inquiry in 2022 was told, for example:

I had men come in to my camp room and push me on to my bed and kiss me, I was lucky that it stopped there, it didn’t for some girls and guys. I came home to my camp room on some occasions to find men passed out in my bed and others going through my underwear drawer.

These incidents, or everyday micro-aggressions such as “throwaway” comments, build over time. They are linked to lower job satisfaction, poorer mental health, and higher intentions to leave the mining industry.

Promising to make progress

Over the past decade, mining companies have made visible commitments to diversity and inclusion. Gender targets, leadership programs and reporting frameworks are now common across the sector.

Staying in mining requires both resilience and navigating environments that were not designed with women in mind.

This all helps explain why interventions that focus solely on policy or representation often fall short. They do not address the environments in which the work is actually carried out.

Key areas for reform include:

  • changing work schedules, so people can keep doing the job in a healthy and manageable way
  • allowing flexibility in operational roles, rather than treating it as an exception
  • rethinking leadership models that continue to privilege narrow definitions of competence.

It also requires greater accountability for workplace culture, including how work is allocated, how behaviour is managed, and whose contributions are recognised.The Conversation

Michelle Gander, Associate Professor, Business, Murdoch University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Injectable peptides are the new anti‑ageing trend. But what evidence do we have they’re safe for humans?

Timothy Piatkowski, The University of Queensland; Bahareh Ahmadinejad, The University of Queensland, and Samuel Cornell, The University of Queensland; UNSW Sydney

Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend sweeping the beauty industry.

These compounds are promoted on social media as tools for skin repair, collagen production and “cellular rejuvenation”. They are widely available online from overseas sellers, despite many peptides being unregulated in Australia.

But what’s in them? And are they safe?

Earlier this year, three people in the United States were fined thousands of dollars for their role in providing peptide injections, at an anti-ageing festival in Las Vegas, to two women who later became critically ill. The pharmacy board was unable to determine why they got sick, and what precisely the serums contained.

Our work with colleagues at Steroid QNECT, a hotline where people can seek confidential advice about enhancement drugs, tell us people are already injecting peptides in Australia.

But regulation is not keeping up. And there are still major gaps in the evidence about whether peptides’ anti-ageing claims stack up, and whether they are safe for humans.

What are injectable peptides, and why are they trending?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins. They act as chemical messengers in the body and play a key role in many processes. These include helping repair skin and calming inflammation.

The body naturally produces peptides. Synthetic peptides are manufactured to mimic or enhance these natural functions.

Certain peptides have clear medical uses. For example, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, such as semaglutide, are approved for diabetes and weight management – sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. This is based on strong clinical trial evidence they are effective.

But a growing number of peptides are being marketed for cosmetic and anti-ageing purposes, without approval from Australia’s therapeutic goods regulator.

Peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 are sold online with claims they can enhance collagen production, accelerate skin repair, reduce wrinkles, and even reverse aspects of biological ageing.

Grid of TikTok video thumbnails promoting peptides for anti-ageing.
Social media influencers are promoting peptides for anti-ageing to followers. TikTok

Are these products legal in Australia?

Currently, regulated injectable peptides fall under prescription-only medicine categories. This means they should only be accessed through a qualified health professional for a legitimate medical indication.

Australian regulators have already issued fines to companies for illegally promoting weight-loss injections directly to consumers.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) lists other synthetic peptides not yet approved for human consumption, such as BPC-157, as Schedule 4 poisons.

To get around this, many products circulating online are sold as “research chemicals” labelled “not for human consumption”.

Yet in practice, they are packaged, dosed and marketed in ways that clearly anticipate human use. Online sellers typically require minimal verification of age or identity, and promise rapid shipping and high purity (for example, “99%+ tested”).

This creates a parallel market operating outside clinical oversight and regulatory safeguards. While importing or possessing prescription-only peptides without authority can lead to fines or legal penalties, enforcement is challenging in global, digital markets.

At the same time, injecting appears to be becoming less taboo, particularly in the cosmetic and wellness industry. Most cosmetic injectables (including anti-wrinkle injections and dermal fillers) also involve prescription-only substances. Yet there are many clinics that offer injections with very little oversight from prescribing doctors.

This broader “injectable culture”, with simulataneous increases in steroid use, may be lowering barriers to more experimental practices, including peptide use.

What does the evidence actually say?

For many peptides promoted for anti-ageing and skin health, high-quality human evidence remains limited.

Claims peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 can help regenerate and repair tissue and calm inflammation are based on a handful of laboratory studies – in cells or animals, not humans.

For example, there is some limited evidence GHK-Cu could play a role in collagen production, and wound healing in mice. But these findings have not been confirmed in humans.

Similarly, some research suggests BPC-157 can promote new blood cell growth, reduce inflammation and heal tissue in rats.

But human evidence is extremely limited. Only three small studies have looked at BPC-157 and these were not well designed, and lacked a control group to compare the reported effects (such as improvement in knee pain). No large clinical trials exist. So its safety and effectiveness in humans remain uncertain.

A consistent pattern emerges:

  • evidence is mostly limited to animal studies

  • human studies, where they exist, are small and short-term

  • there are no high-quality trials reflecting real-world use, including combinations, higher doses or long-term administration.

So currently, we don’t have enough quality evidence to support the many anti-ageing claims made for peptides.

And there are risks

First, there is the issue of unknown product quality. Unregulated peptides may be mislabelled, contaminated or incorrectly dosed – a problem already documented in adjacent markets, such as counterfeit steroids.

Second, there are biological risks. Peptides that influence growth, repair or hormonal pathways may also stimulate unintended processes. In theory, this could include promoting the growth of existing tumours or disrupting normal endocrine function. This cancer risk is amplified by the high presence of heavy metals in illicit enhancement drug markets.

Third, injecting carries its own risks — including infections, abscesses and tissue damage, particularly when products are self-administered without sterile technique.

At Steroid QNECT, we are already seeing people seeking advice after using peptides they bought online – often unsure what they have taken, how much, or what to expect.

In some cases, dosing far exceeds anything studied in clinical trials.

What needs to change?

We need clearer, more consistent regulation of peptide supply and marketing. But this is unlikely to be enough on its own, given the global and digital reach of peptide supply chains.

A more effective response would also include clear, accessible public health information on the potential benefits and risks of peptide use.

Importantly, responses need to reflect reality: people are already using these substances.

The Conversation

Timothy Piatkowski, Senior Research Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland; Bahareh Ahmadinejad, PhD Candidate in Public Health, The University of Queensland, and Samuel Cornell, Honorary Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland; UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Social media giants are not complying with under‑16s social media ban, new report finds

There on Saturn/Pexels
Lisa M. Given, RMIT University

Nearly four months into Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, the online regulator today released its first detailed compliance update report on how the world-first policy is progressing.

eSafety’s report comes at a crucial time, with many other countries eyeing the progress of the ban. Since the ban took effect on December 10 last year, I have spoken with journalists from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Everyone asks two questions: how successful is the ban, and are children still accessing social media platforms?

The new report paints a complicated picture – and leaves other key questions about the social media ban unanswered.

A number of compliance concerns

The report acknowledges social media companies have taken “some steps” to comply with the social media legislation (which restricts account holders to those aged 16 and older). Some 4.7 million accounts were removed by mid-January and another 310,000 by early March.

However, the report also highlights “compliance concerns” in four key areas:

  1. Messaging to under-16s on some platforms encouraged children to attempt age assurance even where they declared themselves to be underage

  2. Some platforms enabled under-16s to repeatedly attempt the same age-assurance method to ultimately pass age checks

  3. Pathways for reporting age-restricted accounts have generally not been accessible and effective, particularly for parents

  4. Some platforms appear not to have done enough to prevent under-16s having accounts.

The report explains the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is now investigating Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube for “potential non-compliance”. None of these companies has yet been fined. A decision about any enforcement action will be made by the middle of the year.

The report comes a week after the Australian government registered a new legislative rule to ensure the definition of social media platforms includes those “that have addictive or otherwise harmful design features”. These include:

  • infinite scroll, which shows new content with no end point
  • feedback features, such as displaying “likes” or “upvotes”, which can pressure people to compare themselves to others, and
  • time-limited features such as disappearing “stories” that create a sense of urgency and encourage constant checking.

This rule change was implemented in the same week Meta and Google (parent companies of Instagram and YouTube) were found liable by a jury in the United States for the addictive features of their social media platforms.

A ‘constantly evolving’ landscape

The removal of more than 5 million accounts in four months sounds impressive. But this does not equal the number of social media users.

Many people hold several social media accounts. So it remains unclear how many children under 16 still remain on one or more platforms. The report also doesn’t detail how many new accounts children created since the legislation was implemented.

The report also does not estimate the number of under-16s who now use alternative platforms. However, there have been reports of a significant spike in downloads of non-mainstream platforms (such as RedNote, Yope and Lemon8) since December.

The report acknowledges the social media landscape is “constantly evolving” and that it’s impossible to maintain a complete list of platforms that fall under the age restrictions. However, eSafety does maintain a list of the initial platforms included under the ban legislation, and those that have self-identified and agreed to comply. These include Bluesky, dating platforms (such as Tinder) and Lemon8, but other platforms remain accessible to under-16s.

Since December, there have also been questions about whether Australia’s ban should extend to other platforms.

Reports point to the legislation’s “loophole” for gaming apps and exclusions for messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Messenger, as well as other platforms that include social networking features.

Roblox, which was initially considered under the ban and then exempted, has also made headlines related to child safety.

It is currently being reviewed by the government over concerns about child grooming.

Unanswered questions

As eSafety continues to investigate issues related to compliance with the legislation, several key questions remain unanswered.

One is to do with the “reasonable steps” social media companies must take to comply with social media age restrictions. The report says this is “ultimately a question for the courts to determine”. It also explains that defining what steps are reasonable must be considered “in the context of the platform’s service, technological feasibility, and the regulatory landscape”.

But if a company uses age-assurance technologies, whose inbuilt error rates allow some children to slip through the checks, will that company be considered to have taken reasonable steps to control account access?

A second question is whether eSafety will extend its compliance checks beyond the five mainstream platforms currently being investigated.

As new platforms are launched, and as children continue to seek new ways to connect with peers online, the potential spaces where they can encounter harm continues to grow. Is self-assessment by technology companies sufficient to enforce legislation intended to apply to all platforms that meet the definition of an age-restricted platform?

Finally, will the government continue to add new rules to keep kids safe?

One key limitation experts like me have highlighted since 2024 is that restricting access to accounts does not address the actual harms posed by content, algorithms and other platform features.

The government has completed consultation on its digital duty of care legislation. But it is still unclear when this legislation will be introduced.

The new report on social media restrictions shows there is a long road ahead for compliance. And if we want to fully address the harms posed by these platforms, new legislation that actually targets the root problems is needed.The Conversation

Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Google promotes ‘teacher approved’ apps for kids. Here’s what parents should know

Ron Lach/ Pexels
Chris Zomer, Deakin University and Niels Kerssens, Utrecht University

As school holidays continue around Australia, many parents are looking for educational ways to keep their children entertained.

If you own an Android device and have young children, you may find yourself browsing Google Play for educational and age-appropriate apps. If you go to the children’s section, you will be led to a page with “Teacher Approved apps & games” featuring apps for children under 13 according to different age ranges and themes.

Popular “Teacher Approved” apps such as learning app Lingokids and the game Bluey: Let’s Play have been downloaded more than 50 million times. YouTube Kids, another “Teacher Approved” app, has been downloaded more than 500 million times.

Google says “teachers and specialists” rate the “Teacher Approved” apps. But in our research we argue it’s unclear who exactly those teachers and experts are. The educational value of Google Teacher Approved apps can also be unclear at times.

What is ‘Teacher Approved’?

Google launched the “Teacher Approved” program in 2020 to set a quality standard for apps for children aged under 13.

To be included in the “Teacher Approved” section, an app needs to adhere to Google’s family policies, which includes having an easy-to-understand interface and content that is appropriate for children. Any ads, in-app purchases or cross-promotion “must be appropriate” too.

Google has an online course for developers who want to be included in the Teacher Approved section. We took this as part of our our research.

In the course, Google states “an app doesn’t have to be educational” as long as it is “enriching” and “support(s) a child’s healthy development”. At the same time, Google says teachers are assessing apps for “learning impact”. However, it is not clear how learning is assessed, especially for apps that are not educational.

Our research

In our study, we analysed how apps were presented in the children’s section on Google Play to make them seem educational.

We also interviewed five industry stakeholders (three founders/chief executives and two design specialists) from different companies developing apps for children.

We chose to involve industry rather than parents, as anecdotal evidence suggests parents have little understanding of the “Teacher Approved” program.

Confusing labels and categories

We found “Teacher Approved” apps are often categorised with vague or interchangeable labels such as “enriching apps”, “enriching games” and “games for kids”. This can make it difficult to understand the purpose of the apps, or to know whether they are educational or not.

We also found some apps with a “Teacher Approved” badge were labelled by the app developer as entertainment rather than “educational”. For example, Paw Patrol Rescue World was “Teacher Approved”, despite being labelled as “action-adventure” by the developer.

With the Teacher Approved badge Google creates the impression of educational value and trustworthiness for all sorts of apps. As one of the developers we interviewed explained:

how many people would look at a little graphical badge and go ‘oh, I trust this now, because they’ve got this badge’.

Who approves the apps?

The Teachers Approved badge implies teachers are used to evaluate the apps that appear in the children’s section on Google Play.

However, on the developer’s section of its website, Google notes it is not exclusively teachers who assess the apps. It says “teachers and children’s education and media specialists recommend high-quality [Teacher Approved] apps for kids on Google Play.”

In 2020, Google shared the names of two experts who were “lead advisers” at the time – a developmental psychologist and an education and media expert. But it is not clear who the “teachers” and “specialists” who currently rate the apps are and how many of them are actually teachers.

The Conversation asked Google where the teachers or specialists are located, whether they are paid, and what criteria non-teachers need to meet to be included in the program. The company did not respond before deadline.

What can parents do?

Our research suggests the current situation is confusing for parents. In the meantime, there are some things parents can do if they are not sure about apps their kids are using:

  • use independent sites such as Children and Media Australia that evaluate the educational content of apps

  • don’t rely on the content description on Google Play, but test the apps yourself

  • don’t use apps with advertising, as this will interrupt the learning experience.The Conversation

Chris Zomer, Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Deakin University and Niels Kerssens, Assistant Professor in Digital Media and Society, Utrecht University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Roblox is boosting safety features for young people. It’s a step in the right direction

Lisa M. Given, RMIT University

Roblox has announced significant changes to its gaming platform to enhance safety for children under 16.

The announcement comes just days after a man in the United Kingdom was jailed for 28 months for “obsessively grooming” a 14-year-old girl he met on the platform.

It also comes after the Australian government put Roblox on notice in February over ongoing concerns about online child grooming.

So what are the new safety features? And will they help keep kids safe online?

What are the changes?

Roblox is a massive virtual gaming universe which allows users to create, play and share games with others, globally. It has more than 150 million daily users and hosts more than 44 million user-created games.

The new safety features will start in May in Australia (and June, globally). They’re designed to build on features the company introduced last year, including age assurance checks, making accounts private by default, and grouping users of similar ages.

The company will introduce two new, age-based accounts: Roblox Kids for 5 to 8-year-olds and Roblox Select for 9 to 15-year-olds.

The accounts will have distinct background colours so parents can easily see what account their child is using. Users will be allocated to age-appropriate accounts through Roblox’s facial age estimation checks or via parental controls.

Roblox Kids and Select accounts share several features. These include having the chat function set to “off” by default in Australia (though chat will be “on” by default for Select accounts in most other regions).

While Australian Select accounts will gradually introduce chat for older children, both accounts will have parental controls to manage chat and block access to specific games for children under 13.

Once children turn 16 they will transition to Roblox’s standard accounts.

Successful age checks are crucial

In January, Roblox announced it would require age checks for users to access chat. It will now strengthen its approach to user age checks, using the same technology.

Access to content will be limited to a selection of minimal and mild-rated content, and with chat turned off, until age checks are complete.

Roblox says it will continuously monitor accuracy and require additional checks where player behaviour is inconsistent with the user’s registered age. Parents will be able to correct a child’s age where needed.

  1. Developer verification requires content creators to either complete a formal ID verification or maintain links to a parent’s account, use two-factor authentication, and maintain an active, paid subscription to the new Roblox Plus accounts.

  2. Real-time evaluation involves a real-time multimodal moderation system assessment to compare game content with Roblox’s rules, followed by gameplay by users over 16 to provide feedback and data on how people play the game before it’s made available to younger users.

  3. Content eligibility where only content rated “minimal” or “mild” will be available in Roblox Kids, with “moderate” content introduced for older children in Roblox Select accounts. Any content tagged as “restricted” (for example, content that has graphic and realistic-looking depictions of violence or sexual themes) will only be available on Roblox’s full platform, for users 18 and older.

Two phone screens side by side, displaying different Roblox screens. One has a bright blue background, the other a black background.
The new accounts will have distinct background colours so parents can easily see what account their child is using. Roblox

Changes to game classification

Roblox will also replace current content maturity labels with country-specific content labels under the International Age Rating Coalition. In Australia, the platform will use the Australian Classification Ratings.

This harmonisation is designed to make it easier for parents to identify age-appropriate content, using Australia’s current advisory ratings.

The new Roblox accounts are designed for children under 16. So they would exclude R18+ games, which will only be available to users 18 and older.

However, if games rated MA15+ are available on Select accounts, parents could decide to allow access for 15-year-olds.

Positive changes with some caveats

Roblox’s new account features and ratings are welcome.

But they show parents must be actively involved in managing children’s accounts, including enabling chat and assessing age-appropriateness of game content and features.

For example, the games and features included in each account will vary by region. So children may ask parents to add games to their accounts that are not included by default.

Parents may find age discrepancies between ratings when assessing games available in other countries. In the United States, for example, ratings include “Teen” (13 and older) and “Mature17+” (17 and older) that do not align easily with Australia’s PG, M, and MA15+ ratings. This means parents will need to carefully assess whether games are age-appropriate.

It’s also unclear if turning on the chat function in the new accounts in Australia will restrict chatting to others within the same age group, or whether parents can extend chat access to “trusted connections” in both accounts.

Currently, Roblox allows children under 12 to choose trusted friends, with parental approval. But children aged 13–17 can accept a friend request, directly. Creating trusted connections is not yet available in all countries. Even where it is, parents must always be extremely cautious when allowing children to chat with other people.

The inability of age assurance technologies to restrict social media accounts for as many as seven in ten children under 16 – due to age estimation errors and people’s ability to circumvent age checks – shows significant technical challenges.

Digital duty of care is needed

While some parents believe gaming apps such as Roblox should be included under Australia’s social media ban, the introduction of digital duty of care legislation is a better approach.

This would require technology companies to take steps to prevent foreseeable online harms – as Roblox is doing with their new accounts – and hold companies accountable for content and system design.

The government introduced, and later paused, digital duty of care legislation in 2024. But Minister for Communications Annika Wells has pledged the government will bring this to parliament this year.The Conversation

Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Claude Mythos and Project Glasswing: why an AI superhacker has the tech world on alert

Westend61 / Getty Images
Stan Karanasios, The University of Queensland and Saeed Akhlaghpour, The University of Queensland

New, more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) models are announced pretty regularly these days: the latest version of ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini always has new features and new capabilities that its makers are eager for customers to try out.

But now Anthropic has announced a new model with great fanfare, but is only giving access to a select handful of users. In what the New York Times calls a “terrifying warning sign” of the model’s power, the company has instead started an initiative called Project Glasswing to use the model for good instead of evil.

Why? Early reports indicated that the model, with instruction, had been able to move outside a contained testing “sandbox” and send an email to a researcher.

A little alarming, perhaps. But more significantly, Anthropic claims Mythos has uncovered software vulnerabilities and bugs “in every major operating system and every major web browser”.

Finding hidden vulnerabilities

In one remarkable example, the model found a flaw in OpenBSD, a security-focused operating system used in firewalls and routers, which had gone undetected for 27 years. According to Anthropic, it also found a 16-year-old vulnerability in FFmpeg, a little-known but widely used behind-the-scenes piece of software that helps computers, apps, and websites handle audio and video files.

Anthropic also says Mythos found several vulnerabilities in the kernel of the Linux operating system, and chained them together in a way that could give an attacker complete control of a machine.

Chart showing Mythos Preview is far more successful than Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 at producing exploits in the Firefox browser.
Anthropic’s internal testing (which has not been independently verified) showed the Mythos model was far more successful than earlier models at turning software bugs into working exploits. Anthropic

Anthropic’s internal assessment of the model highlights both its technical promise and the need for vigilance.

The report outlines a hypothetical risk that an advanced AI might exploit its access within an organisation, but concludes that the model poses a very low threat of harmful autonomous actions. In other words, it is unlikely to “go rogue” – but may follow human directions to do things that cause harm.

Why Anthropic is keeping Mythos off‑limits

Anthropic says it decided not to release the model publicly because of its capabilities and the potential risks it poses. At the same time, the company launched Project Glasswing.

The effort brings together a broad coalition of tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, Cisco and NVIDIA, open-source organisations such as the Linux Foundation, and major financial actors such as JPMorganChase, to channel Mythos towards cyber defence rather than misuse.

The idea is to give defenders a head start to find and fix weaknesses in critical software before similar AI capabilities become widely available to attackers.

Reading between the lines of Anthropic’s messages

This is not the first time an AI firm has decided a model was too powerful to release widely. In 2019, years before the ChatGPT era, OpenAI did something similar with its (now quite primitive-looking) GPT-2 model. (Dario Amodei, now chief executive of Anthropic, was a key OpenAI researcher at the time.)

However, this doesn’t mean these announcements should not be taken seriously.

Anthropic has published unusually detailed material for a model it is not widely releasing. Reports suggest US authorities convened major US bank CEOs in Washington to discuss the cyber risks associated with Mythos.

However, we should exercise caution about Anthropic’s claims, because outsiders cannot yet verify most of the underlying evidence. Anthropic says more than 99% of the vulnerabilities it found are still undisclosed because they have not yet been patched. That is responsible disclosure, but it also means the public is being asked to trust a great deal it cannot fully inspect.

What Mythos could mean for the future of cybersecurity

Cybersecurity failures can have real effects on individuals. In Australia, the Optus breach exposed the personal information of about 9.5 million people. In another case, stolen Medibank records included sensitive health information, and some of the data was later released on the dark web.

These were not just database problems. They became crises of privacy, identity and trust.

That is why Mythos matters. Mythos and other AI models like it could change the basic economics of cybersecurity.

In the past, serious vulnerabilities have often stayed hidden simply because nobody found them. And this in turn was because finding them took rare skill, patience, and time.

If models like Mythos can scan the hidden plumbing of the internet – operating systems, browsers, routers, and shared open-source code – at an unprecedented scale, then what is now specialised hacking could become a routine and automated process.

For organisations and software development firms, Mythos is a double-edged sword. It could rapidly uncover hidden flaws in their own code, but it also raises the fear attackers could find the vulnerabilities first.

The implications reach well beyond tech companies. Much of that underlying, invisible software supports many of the services people rely on every day, from electricity and water to airlines, banking, retail and hospitals.

What now?

So far, cybersecurity and software companies have been remarkably quiet in public about Anthropic’s Mythos. Many firms appear to be waiting and watching, unwilling to signal their stance in case the model exposes weaknesses in their own systems.

But developments like Mythos are a reason to stop treating cybersecurity as somebody else’s problem. For now, for individuals, the response is simple: basic cyber hygiene matters more than ever.

Update phones, laptops, browsers and routers. Replace unsupported devices. Use a password manager. Turn on multi-factor authentication. Do not ignore patch notices.

Those are the immediate steps. Beyond them lies a harder set of questions about AI and cyber security – about who gets access to powerful AI models, who oversees their use, and who decides what counts as the “right hands”.The Conversation

Stan Karanasios, Professor in Information Systems, The University of Queensland and Saeed Akhlaghpour, Associate Professor of Business Information Systems, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

New rules for mobile phone coverage maps: ACMA

March 31 2026
Mobile operators will need to publish standardised mobile network coverage maps under new rules introduced today by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Under the Telecommunications (Mobile Network Coverage Maps) Industry Standard 2026 mobile providers must by 30 June 2026 publish clear maps with 4G and 5G mobile coverage across Australia in one of four categories – good, moderate, basic or no coverage.

ACMA Chair Nerida O’Loughlin said the introduction of standardised coverage maps for the first time in Australia would help consumers make more informed decisions.

“Mobile providers make available network coverage maps, but they are measured and presented differently. We know that consumers are frustrated that, as a result, they can’t make any meaningful comparison between them.

“These new rules will ensure every carrier is giving the public a like-for-like comparison of service coverage in any location across Australia,” Ms O’Loughlin said. 

The maps will be based on predictive modelling and provide consumers with plain English descriptions of what good, moderate and basic mobile coverage mean. For example, ‘good’ coverage means you can expect a high-quality and seamless connectivity across voice, SMS and data communications. 

In areas shown as having ‘no coverage’, the ACMA acknowledges that people in some locations may still be able to make calls and send SMS, but overall service is expected to be very limited, inconsistent or non-existent. 

“We have taken a considered approach, consistent with international standards, so that maps are very clear about where network availability means your service will be usable and reliable, including in an emergency,” Ms O’Loughlin said.    

The maps must be updated at least every three months to reflect changes in network coverage. The three mobile network operators (Optus, Telstra and TPG) must also provide their partner companies (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) with maps for use by their customers. 

Mobile providers that breach the rules may face significant enforcement action, including enforceable undertakings, remedial directions and financial penalties.

The ACMA developed the rules following a direction from the Minister for Communications to ensure coverage maps accurately reflect reasonable service levels and enable consumers to make meaningful comparisons of the coverage offered by different mobile providers.

Over time, the ACMA will look at whether the maps can be enhanced with alternative sources of data such as infield measurement and crowd-sourced information on coverage.

More NSW frontline mental health clinicians to help people in need

April 7 2026
The Minns Government has stated it will boost frontline mental healthcare across NSW with more than $64 million to recruit an additional 29 clinicians plus more funding for community-based care targeting young people and regional communities.

The four-year investment is part of a record $3.1 billion commitment to mental health, with a greater focus on community based mental health care programs.

There is strong evidence to support the need for greater investment in programs that help people with mental health challenges to live independently in the community.

Recruits across Sydney, Western Sydney, Murrumbidgee and Hunter New England Local Health Districts are now joining a community mental health workforce that has grown nearly 8 per cent since June 2023.

It means there are now more than 1,670 boots on the ground to deliver practical mental health support outside the traditional hospital setting.

These include peer workers, clinical nurse consultants, psychologists and nurse practitioners, with fourteen of the new roles dedicated to supporting people in Western Sydney, including three peer workers.

Peer workers are a professional discipline of the mental health and suicide prevention workforce who draw upon their own experience of life-changing mental health challenges, suicidal distress and recovery, or their experiences as a family member or carer.

The investment is also supporting rural and regional community mental health workers for the Farmgate Support Program, a critical mental health program for farming communities that was left on a funding cliff by the former government.

'It’s all part of the Minns Labor Government’s pledge to improve mental healthcare in New South Wales' the government said, including:
  • Building a network of Medicare Mental Health Centres, where anyone can access free, walk- mental health support.
  • Investing in Safe Havens, so that people who are experiencing mental distress or thoughts of suicide have somewhere to go other than an emergency department.
  • Embedding suicide prevention into all government decision making¸ with our world-leading Suicide Prevention Act 2025.
  • Investing in Community Living Programs, to support more than 1,900 people daily with severe mental health conditions to live independently in the community.
Minister for Mental Health Rose Jackson stated:

“Too many people have been left to fall through the gaps between hospital care and support in the community. That is where this investment makes a real difference.

“We are putting more clinicians on the ground so people can get help earlier, closer to home, and before they reach crisis point.

“Since we’ve been in government, the community mental health workforce has grown nearly 8 per cent – it’s not job done but it’s a step in the right direction.

“Peer workers in particular are an integral part of the NSW public mental health system, and these new roles will make a real difference in helping people navigate the system and get the help they need.”

Mental Health Peer Worker Will Woods said:

“As a peer worker, I use my own lived experience of mental health challenges and recovery to connect with people in a way that feels real and human. Sometimes what makes the biggest difference is simply sitting alongside someone and helping them feel understood.

“Peer workers bring hope into the system - we show that recovery is possible and support people to believe in themselves again, reconnect with their communities, and find their own way forward.”

From AI to anxiety: New poll reveals the state of NSW's young people in 2026

April 13, 2026
A growing cohort of young people are turning to Artificial Intelligence for mental health support, as new polling reveals the top issues keeping young people in NSW up at night.

The new poll results come from the NSW Office for Youth, established by the Minns Labor Government.

The newly-established Office for Youth is committed to making young people active contributors in the decisions that shape their lives and that starts with hearing their voices.

They can now reveal the results of the 2026 Youth Week Polling Report, which shows that:
  • 29 per cent of young people said they use AI as a support strategy to look after their mental health
  • 27 per cent are using AI for conversation or personal advice
  • Mental health is the top issue, followed by cost of living and housing.
While four in five young people say they are happy with their life, the data makes clear that social media and bullying continue to impact the mental health of young people, despite the social media ban.

Nearly half of young people said the delay has had no impact on them, mostly because they’re still using restricted apps or have switched to other apps.

36 per cent of those polled in NSW said the ban has had a positive impact and 13 per cent feel worse.

The new poll results landed ahead of NSW Youth Week which commences this Thursday, with hundreds of events taking place across NSW between 16 and 26 April.

The government states the results indicate that the NSW Government is on the right track in building a better future for young people in our state, with a focus on:
  • Building more homes to buy and rent so that young people can afford to live near transport and jobs.
  • Delivering the most significant rental reforms in a decade, including banning no-grounds evictions, limiting rent increases, and making it easier to have pets and move between homes.
  • Investing a record $3.1 billion into mental health, with new funding for community mental health and a network of free, walk-in Medicare Mental Health Centres for adults and kids.
To download and read the full polling report visit https://officeforyouth.nsw.gov.au/polling-report 

Minister for Youth Rose Jackson stated:

“This government established the first dedicated NSW Office for Youth to engage young people on their terms and ensure their voices are heard and formally recognised by government.

“These insights give our office a clearer picture of what young people need and help guide the work we deliver across government.

“It’s encouraging to see the majority of young people say they are happy, but that sits alongside some pretty stark realities about the challenges of what they’re facing too. Whether that’s bullying and discrimination, the rise of AI, or concerns about jobs and housing.

“The issues young people are worrying about are real and I want them to know that we see them, we hear them, and we’re doing something about it.”

NSW Advocate for Children and Young People Katherine McKernan said:

“The 2026 Youth Week polling report shows us that young people are adapting to and adopting change far more confidently and quickly than adults. The polling results around AI usage not only show this but also identify how government and services also need to adapt to better support young people.”

“It’s up to decision-makers to keep up with the momentum of positive change young people expect and deserve, and young people can feel assured that the Office for Youth is working to make the ambitious aspirations of NSW youth a policy reality.”

“More than three in five young people feel the NSW Government listens to the opinions of people their age when making decisions but heading into Youth Week this polling is a reminder for all of us to amplify the voices of young people in everything we do.”

Storage vital to meeting winter demand across east coast gas market in Q3 2026: ACCC

April 1 2026
Wholesale gas supply on Australia’s east coast is expected to be tight and large volumes of gas will likely be required from storage to meet demand in the third quarter of 2026, the ACCC’s latest gas inquiry report reveals.

The east coast gas market is predicted to have a supply-demand balance of between a 12 petajoule (PJ) shortfall and a 3 PJ surplus in the third quarter of 2026, depending on how much uncontracted gas is exported by liquid natural gas (LNG) producers.

Planned maintenance on LNG plants may affect exports during the quarter.

Gas supply is expected to be particularly tight for the southern states (Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory), with additional gas needed every month between April and September 2026.

The additional gas will need to be sourced from either Queensland via the South-West Queensland Pipeline or be withdrawn from storage facilities.

Iona Underground Gas Storage in Melbourne’s west is the largest of these storage facilities and is currently on track to be full by early May. 

“The amount of stored gas available in the southern states in the third quarter of this year will depend significantly on how much gas is drawn down over the coming months,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We project the southern states will have a supply gap of 16 PJ in July 2026 alone, so it is important that the Iona storage facility reaches its maximum capacity ahead of winter.”

“We anticipate that the market may also need support from LNG producers to meet demand, which would also ease pressure on storage facilities.” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Southern states supply-demand outlook for April to September 2026 (PJ)
Source:   ACCC analysis of data obtained from gas producers in January 2026 and of the domestic demand forecast (Step Change scenario) from AEMO, Gas Statement of Opportunities, March 2026. Note: ‘Potential supply from Queensland’ is the amount of excess gas that can be transported to the southern states in the scenario where LNG producers export all their uncontracted gas. There will be additional Queensland excess gas available if LNG producers export less uncontracted gas.

Prices increase as buyers seek to secure future supply
Gas prices offered by producers under long-term contracts for 2026 increased in the final quarter of 2025 by an average of 4 per cent, to $13.55 per gigajoule (GJ).

Equivalent contract prices offered by retailers averaged $13.93/GJ, an increase of 3 per cent over the same period.

“Despite recent increases, contracted gas prices for 2026 remain steady at around $13-15 per gigajoule - well down from the very high levels seen during 2022-23.” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Producer prices for 2027 supply rose by 10 per cent to $13.93/GJ, while retailer prices for supply in 2027 fell by 6 per cent to $14.31/GJ.

Middle East conflict
The information on contracted prices and volumes in this report reflect market conditions up to January 2026.

Future reports will cover any effects of recent global market developments, including in the Middle East, on domestic gas prices and supply.

“Changes in global energy prices may impact domestic gas prices through commodity-linked mechanisms in long-term contracts, and where market participants have regard to international prices when determining fixed prices,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Higher international LNG prices may also incentivise higher exports from Australia and affect spot gas prices,”

“So far, domestic spot prices are trading below the long-term contract prices published in this report,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“However, we know the situation is continuing to evolve, and we will be closely monitoring the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on domestic natural gas prices and the supply outlook.”

Buyers in the east coast gas market typically maintain gas portfolios comprising both contracted and spot gas. This means the impact of recent international LNG price spikes may be partly offset by the contracted pricing arrangements already in place.

LNG netback price series will be maintained
Following a review of the LNG netback price series, the ACCC will continue publishing netback prices, which provides greater transparency on prices that may be offered by LNG producers.

This decision has been made after reviewing global and domestic gas market developments, and considering public submissions from a range of gas market participants, including LNG producers, domestic producers, retailers and user representatives.

Key elements of the methodology will be maintained, including:
  • using the Japan-Korea Marker as the short‑term reference price and forward Brent crude for medium‑term pricing
  • 2‑year and 5‑year forward timeframes for the short and medium-term series
  • existing approaches to account for freight, liquefaction and pipeline costs.
Background
Australia’s east coast gas market is an interconnected grid joining Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. The Northern Territory and Western Australia are separate gas regions.

In 2025, the Australian Treasurer directed the ACCC to hold an inquiry into the market for the supply of natural gas in Australia. This direction provided that the ACCC would continue its inquiry into the gas market, which first commenced in 2017. The 2025 direction requires the ACCC to conduct the inquiry until 30 June 2030.

The ACCC’s inquiry examines the wholesale gas market, primarily gas sold by producers to large gas buyers, including commercial and industrial gas users and gas retailers.

LNG netback prices are a measure of the opportunity cost to LNG producers of supplying uncontracted gas to the domestic market, rather than to Asian LNG markets.

It is calculated by taking the price that could be received for LNG and subtracting or ‘netting back’ the costs incurred by the supplier to convert the gas to LNG and ship it to the destination port. It represents the point of financial indifference for LNG producers between supplying the domestic market and exporting the gas.  The ACCC began publishing LNG netback prices in 2018 to improve price transparency in the east coast gas market.

Spot prices reflect values as of 31 March 2026.

The ACCC’s next interim gas inquiry report is scheduled for June 2026.

Suppliers to ALDI, Coles, Woolworths and Metcash – new grocery supply agreement requirements start this week: ACCC

April 1 2026
The revised Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is now in force. ALDI, Coles, Metcash and Woolworths must now include information in their grocery supply agreements about the circumstances in which they can make changes to agreements, require suppliers to make payments, or set off payments from supplier invoices.

Suppliers can request to negotiate terms of their grocery supply agreements at any time. If the supplier and large grocery business agree to vary the terms, the changes must be made in writing.

Opting out of protections
The food and grocery code allows suppliers and supermarkets to ‘opt out’ of protections related to unilateral variations, supplier payments and set off arrangements. If this happens, large grocery businesses must ensure all grocery supply agreements:
  • identify any ‘opt out’ provisions in the agreement, and
  • include a clear statement to explain that any ‘opt out’ provision is an exception to, and removes, the relevant code protection, and
  • explain why the ‘opt out’ provision is reasonable.
The purpose of this new requirement is to provide suppliers with more transparency about the operation of the code ‘opt out’ provisions.

Protections for suppliers negotiating grocery supply agreements
Large grocery businesses must negotiate in good faith and must not engage in retribution against a supplier. Additional requirements apply to large grocery businesses during negotiations about range reviews and supplier price increase requests.

If you see potential non-compliance with the food and grocery code, you can confidentially report it to the ACCC. We are always interested to hear from suppliers about their experiences under the code.

Suppliers can also speak to the independent Code Mediator for the relevant large grocery business. Code Mediators can assist to resolve supplier issues or complaints informally or formally.

ACCC investigating retailers making concerning Black Friday claims

April 14 2026
The ACCC is investigating several retailers for making potentially misleading claims to consumers during last year’s Black Friday sales, following a sweep which found that around half of the 50 retailers reviewed made concerning claims in their advertising of Black Friday sales.

“We are concerned that retailers appear to be increasingly relying on tactics that manipulate consumers by creating a false sense of urgency that they will miss out on a discount if they don’t buy the product now,” ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said.

“Sales tactics that create a false sense of urgency can mean that consumers are unable to make an informed purchasing decision as the fear of missing out can stop them from shopping around to ensure they are securing a genuine deal or the best deal available.”

The ACCC’s Black Friday sales sweep found that some of the retailers reviewed were using potentially misleading countdown timers in their Black Friday sales online advertising. These timers claimed the end of the sale was imminent, when the sale actually extended beyond the time indicated.

“As sales periods become longer and more frequent, retailers must ensure they do not mislead consumers about the true duration of a sale and the extent of discounts,” Ms Lowe said.

“We have commenced several investigations as a result of our Black Friday sales sweep, after seeing multiple instances of retailers engaging in concerning conduct. If we find evidence that this conduct was in breach of the Australian Consumer Law, then we will take appropriate enforcement action,” Ms Lowe said.

The ACCC also identified that many retailers continued to make large, headline claims of ‘sitewide’ or ‘storewide’ sales alongside significantly less prominent disclaimers about exclusions to the sale.

“Fine print disclaimers and exclusions buried in terms and conditions disguise the true extent of sales and can falsely lure consumers into a sale without them realising the product they want to buy is not included in the sale,” Ms Lowe said.

“We took enforcement action against this type of conduct last year following our 2024 Black Friday sales sweep, with Michael Hill, MyHouse and Hairhouse Online paying penalties for making misleading ‘sitewide’ sales claims.”

The 2025 sweep included retailers across a range of sectors, including bedding, homewares, sports and leisure, and clothing and accessories. It also included retailers that were identified as engaging in potentially misleading conduct in the 2024 sweep.

The ACCC found compliance varied among the retailers that were investigated or contacted after the 2024 sweep. While many of these retailers had improved their advertising practices in the 2025 Black Friday sales, some continued to make sales claims that raised concerns.  

“As part of our investigations following the Black Friday sales sweep, we are considering retailers’ earlier conduct, including those that have seemingly failed to learn from our previous warnings and enforcement action,” Ms Lowe said.

“We know that many consumers wait for sales events like the Black Friday sales to secure what they rightly expect to be a genuine deal on a product or service that they may have had their eye on for a while.”

The ACCC encourages consumers to be wary about claims made about discounts or savings during key sale periods, and to check carefully for any disclaimers or qualifications in advertised promotions. Consumers may also wish to check prices in advance of sales events, to better assess if they are getting a legitimate discount.

“Retailers have an obligation under the Australian Consumer Law to not mislead consumers. We will continue to prioritise taking action against unlawful conduct that seeks to take advantage of consumers during sales events,” Ms Lowe said.

The ACCC strongly recommends that all retailers review ACCC guidance on advertising and promotions and ensure they understand their responsibilities.

Background
In November 2025, the ACCC conducted a Black Friday sales sweep to identify misleading or deceptive sales advertising used by retailers. This sweep focussed on a range of conduct, including:
  • Misleading time representations, including, the use of phrases such as ‘3 days only’ and devices such as countdown timers that don’t align with the true duration of the sale.
  • Claims of store-wide or site-wide sales, when in fact the sales involve exclusions
  • Fine print or disclaimers that seek to limit headline claims about the sale, including member-only deals or excluding a range of products.
  • ‘Up to X% off’, where the ‘up to’ text is not prominently displayed, or where few or very few products are on sale at X% off.
  • Misleading ‘was/now’ or ‘strikethrough’ pricing representations
In 2024, the ACCC conducted a similar sweep of sales advertising by Australian retailers to target the Black Friday and Boxing Day sale periods. The 2024 sweep uncovered a range of concerning practices, including those listed above.

Following the 2024 sweep, the ACCC launched a number of investigations into specific retailers and wrote to those retailers where the most concerning conduct was identified and asked them to justify their claims.

In June 2025, Michael Hill, My House and Hairhouse Online paid penalties for allegedly making false or misleading representations about their Black Friday sales.

There are ongoing investigations as a result of the sweep conducted in 2024.

Disclaimer: These articles are not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.  Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Pittwater Online News or its staff.