If you or someone you’re caring for has a medical emergency, visit your nearest emergency department or call 000.

But what if it’s not an emergency, or you’re not sure? Sometimes you can’t wait wait until 9am or Monday morning to see a doctor or access health care.

You might have a fever that’s not subsiding, a sprain that could be a break, a painful urinary tract infection, or a distressing situation that demands immediate mental health support.

Here are your options for accessing timely health care, in-person and virtually – including some that are free.

Medicare Urgent Care Clinics

Medicare Urgent Care Clinics provide bulk-billed care by a general practitioner (GP) for non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries.

Patients can walk in without an appointment or referral, and can access other services such as blood tests and X-rays. There are no out-of-pocket costs.

You can find your local clinic here.

Search engines to find a GP appointment – in person or online

Health service search engines such as Healthengine and HotDoc can help you find GPs and book appointments.

You can filter search results by types of services and telehealth availability, including the “GP telehealth on-demand option within 15 minutes” on Hotdoc.

Many will come with out-of-pocket costs.

Home visits

In-person home doctor visits for urgent, episodic illness or injury can also be arranged through options such as 13SICK National Home Doctor Service, DoctorDoctor, Hello Home Doctor Service, Sydmed, 13 CURE and OnCallDrs.

These are often bulk billed.

A call with a nurse or doctor

The new 1800MEDICARE helpline is a free 24/7 service where you can speak to a registered nurse about any health concern.

They will listen to your concerns, assess your symptoms and provide advice on next steps. This might mean looking after yourself at home, getting help from a GP, or attending an Urgent Care Clinic, pharmacy or emergency department.

If the 1800MEDICARE nurse advises you to see a GP within 24 hours, you may be offered a telephone or video call back from a 1800MEDICARE GP. These GPs can provide prescriptions via SMS.

Virtual emergency departments for non-life-threatening emergencies

Virtual emergency departments are free, online emergency departments that treat non-life-threatening emergencies such as pain, sprains, infections, respiratory illnesses, gastroenteritis, high blood pressure, pain, infections, minor burns and rashes.

Examples include:

• the Victorian Virtual Emergency Department
• the South Australia Child and Adolescent Virtual Urgent Care Service
• Queensland Virtual Emergency Care Service.

Read more: What is a virtual emergency department? And when should you ‘visit’ one?

Another similar option is My Emergency Doctor, which offers patients access to specialist emergency doctors via video call or telephone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, this service costs $150.

Medicines and pharmacists

Some pharmacies operate on extended business hours, including 24 hours. You can find a pharmacy near you at this link, with the option to filter by “extended hours”.

In some circumstances, pharmacies can issue a small amount of a medicine if you’ve run out.

In some states and territories, pharmacists can provide medicines such as antibiotics for simple urinary tract infections without a prescription.

Read more: It’s now easier to get antibiotics for UTIs. But here’s what to do if your symptoms don’t go away

For people living in remote Australia, the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) runs a Medical Chests program. Medical chests contain a range of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical items, including prescription-only medicines, which RFDS doctors may prescribe after a phone consultation.

Pregnancy, birth and children

Pregnancy, Birth and Baby is a free national service that provides support to expecting parents, and parents of children from birth to five years of age.

You can speak to maternal and child health nurses via phone, by calling 1800 882 436, or video call about you or your baby, between 7am and midnight, seven days a week.

CubCare is another virtual urgent care option which provides access to paediatric emergency doctors, for a fee.

Dental care

The Australian Dental Foundation runs a free 24/7 Emergency Dental Hotline which can help you work out the urgency of your issue and your next steps.

National Emergency Dentist is a private health service which connects patients to emergency dentists offering same-day and after-hours appointments, for a fee.

Mental health phone support

Mental health support will depend on your individual needs and background. You can access mental health support after hours through these call services (some also have online chats):

• Lifeline: 24/7 crisis support

• Beyond Blue: counselling via phone online chat

• Kids Helpline: 24/7 online and phone counselling for young people aged five to 25 years

• Suicide Call Back Service: 24/7 service providing phone and online counselling to anyone affected by suicide

• 1800 RESPECT: 24/7 support for people affected by domestic, family, or sexual violence

• Gambling Help Online: phone and online support for anyone affected by gambling

• National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline: 24/7 service for all states and territories, except South Australia which operates 8.30am–10pm

• the Butterfly Foundation for free and confidential support about eating disorders and body image.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services

• 13 YARN: 24/7 crisis support phone line operated by and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

• Yarning Safe'N'Strong: 24/7 support available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who need to have a yarn with someone about their wellbeing

• Brother to Brother: 24/7 crisis line providing phone support for Aboriginal men, staffed by Aboriginal men, including Elders.

LGBTQIA+ services

• QLife: phone and webchat that operates during afternoons and evenings seven days a week to support LGBTQIA+ people.

Communication assistance

The National Translating and Interpreting Service offers support to non-English speaking people for their consultations. This service is typically free, covers 150 languages and can be accessed after-hours. Register here.

The National Relay Service provides assistance to people with hearing or speech difficulties during their medical consultations.

Mahima Kalla received previous funding from the Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre to help build a patient consultation summary application within Healthdirect's video telehealth platform.

Feby Savira Feby received a Priority Primary Care Centre Fellowship (2023-2025) supported by the Western Victoria Primary Health Network and was involved in the evaluation of Priority Primary Care Centres in the Western Victoria region.

Kara Burns receives funding from the Australian General Practice Foundation to research the scaling of digital maternity care in remote general practice. 

Sathana Dushyanthen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The government’s promised overhaul of New Zealand’s public service has made much of the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline operations and compensate for a radically reduced workforce.

This is in keeping with generally utopian visions of generative AI (GenAI) tools unleashing creativity, removing mundane, repetitive work, and “freeing up humans” for more fulfilling tasks.

However, this may be naive.

It’s true, GenAI tools can create efficiencies and cost savings for organisations as they become more powerful and their implementation becomes more sophisticated. In this win-win world, organisations and the people who work in them benefit.

But there’s another side to this story as we become more aware of the downsides of GenAI tools – security risks, hallucinations, bias, a “dumbing down” of human input and lack of ethical insight.

However, one thing that is not debated is the need for human oversight of GenAI work. For legal and reputational reasons, organisations require a “human in the loop” who is responsible for reviewing GenAI outcomes, and has the authority to overturn them.

Easier said than done. As we discovered earlier this year when we held an industry panel discussion on GenAI for business students, being the human in the loop can be a role with great responsibility and pressure.

Faster with fewer people

Humans are expected to check and approve outputs, make decisions in ambiguous situations, provide feedback to improve the performance of GenAI tools, and offer ethical oversight and judgement.

The main reason is that GenAI-tools cannot be held accountable for any of their outputs or decisions. GenAI tools are legally considered to be “property” not “persons” and they cannot hold rights or incur duties, meaning final accountability falls with humans.

However, exactly which humans can vary. The organisation implementing the GenAI tool is most frequently considered responsible for any of its behaviours and outputs. In other cases, especially if the tool can be shown to be faulty, the developers or tool vendors may be responsible.

If a problem can be traced to incorrect or biased data, the provider of the data may have some responsibility.

An unexpected negative consequence of GenAI implementation paradoxically arises from its success. Successful GenAI use means executives and managers are expecting to get things done faster with fewer people.

Tasks that used to be done in days or weeks are expected to be done in hours. As a senior manager of a large multinational business told us:

Our goal in the next 18 months is to cut the engineering team down to a quarter of its current size and we need to find out how to leverage AI tools to achieve this.

The pressures on human reviewers

When the overall volume of outputs is lifted substantially by AI tools, the human in the loop can become a major bottleneck.

Within organisations there are now emerging “content creators” who know how to prompt GenAI tools to quickly generate proposals, reports and presentations even in domains where they lack expertise.

These outputs will be sent to the “content reviewers” for “sanity checks”. Those reviewers are domain experts. They are expected to rectify errors, remove nonfactual hallucinated statements, improve quality and provide accountability and final endorsement.

On one hand, a GenAI-powered “creator” can generate a plausible 50-page report in a matter of 15–30 minutes. On the other, the “reviewer” will have to spend hours reading, rectifying and rewriting to make the final report ready for the audience.

This has transposed the workload distribution between “creators” and “reviewers”. At one time a creator would be responsible for around 80% of the total time and effort to produce an advanced draft or prototype, and a reviewer would use the remaining 20% to polish it.

Now the distribution is less than 20% required from the creator, and more than 80% from the reviewer. One of our panellists described this as like “drinking from a firehose”.

Sometimes reviewers have to “let it go”, as they cannot cope with the speed and volume of content coming towards them. But this coping strategy has potentially dire consequences for the organisations they serve.

‘Workslop’ and burnout

There is also a personal cost. Subject-matter experts exposed to unrealistic expectations suffer from burnout, low job satisfaction and high turnover in the organisations we spoke with.

They are overloaded while junior colleagues are losing their jobs or aren’t being hired in the first place. If expert reviewers resign, they may be replaced by more junior colleagues, who are more prepared to trust AI-generated content and sign it off rapidly.

This can become a cycle of decreasing quality, and also raises the question of where the next generation of expert reviewers will come from.

Generating “workslop” (content that seems professional but is of uncertain quality) is cheap and fast, while genuine accountability is difficult. Simply having a nominal human in the loop is not enough.

Quality human oversight needs to be designed in, budgeted for, valued and supported by organisational processes and culture.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with a rising Ebola epidemic, with almost 600 cases detected so far and more than 130 deaths.

Ebola is a rare virus that initially causes a fever, fatigue, muscle pain, then vomiting and diarrhoea. It can then progress to the hemorrhagic stage, with internal bleeding – which presents as blood in vomit and faeces – as well as bleeding as from parts of the body including the nose, gums, vagina and needle punctures.

Ebola primarily spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as blood, faeces and vomit. It can be contracted from contaminated surfaces or contact with bodies of those who have died, but can also spread by other routes including without contact.

This current outbreak, caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain, was first confirmed as Ebola on May 15. It was already estimated to have 246 cases at the time of this confirmation.

As surveillance efforts stepped up, it became clear the outbreak was more than double that size, with spread to Uganda.

So what are health authorities doing to get the virus under control and why is it such a challenge?

And what can health authorities in Africa, as well as the rest of the world, learn from previous outbreaks?

How did so many people get sick so quickly?

Ebola has a long incubation period of two to three weeks or longer. This means the number of infected people has likely been growing since at least March or April.

Our epidemic early warning system, Epiwatch, saw signals of unknown illness in the DRC on April 13, with reports of hemorrhagic fever noted even earlier on March 13.

The delay in diagnosing Ebola may have been due to initial testing targeting the more common Zaire strain of Ebola. Tests must be specific to Bundibugyo.

The DRC is also experiencing other serious outbreaks including mpox and measles, as well as malnutrition and chronic malaria.

These underlying factors can make epidemics more severe and harder to detect.

Read more: WHO has declared mpox a global health emergency. What happens next?

How big did previous outbreaks get?

The worst Ebola epidemic in history was over 28,000 cases in the 2014 West African epidemic. More than 11,000 people died from this Zaire strain, as vaccines were not yet available at the peak of the epidemic.

In the DRC, the last epidemic of 64 cases was in late 2025. The largest epidemic in the DRC was in 2018-2019 with more than 3,000 cases. These were both the Zaire strain.

There have only been two other Bundibugyo outbreaks. The first, in 2007 with 149 cases, was in the Bundibugyo District of western Uganda, near the DRC border. The second, in 2012, was in the DRC, with 57 cases. The current Bundibugyo epidemic is already the largest in history.

While Bundibugyo is not as lethal as the Zaire strain, it can kill 30–50% of infected people. The fatality rate in this epidemic appears close to 30%, with 139 deaths reported from almost 600 cases.

Unlike the Zaire strain, for which there are treatments and vaccines, there are no approved drugs or vaccines for the Bundibugyo strain.

However, the World Health Organization has sponsored clinical trials of a monoclonal antibody and the antiviral remdesivir, a drug which is also used for COVID.

We may see higher fatality rates unless non-pharmaceutical measures ramp up.

How can it be stopped?

The epidemic can be stopped by coordinated surveillance and containment. This is by identifying cases, isolating them so they cannot infect others, tracing their contacts and quarantining them.

In 2014, these measures alone controlled the Ebola epidemic at a time when no treatments or vaccines were available. This means health system capacity is the key to epidemic control.

There were not enough beds for Ebola patients in the 2014 epidemic, so health authorities built tent hospitals to help bring the epidemic under control. This could be considered if hospitals are overwhelmed.

The DRC has limited capacity to diagnose Ebola, so it’s important to scale up surveillance and testing. A clinical case definition (such as “fever and bleeding means a probable case”) can be used if testing is not available.

Simple surveillance systems – such as open-source intelligence, where community chatter and local news reports can provide signals of epidemics – can help. So can providing incentives for communities to report suspected cases.

It’s also essential to communicate and work with communities and community leaders from the ground up. In the 2014 epidemic, locals murdered eight Ebola workers who provided health education, showing how important trust and community relationships are.

Health workers, close contacts and funeral attendants need extra precautions

Ebola is predominantly spread by contact with blood and bodily fluids. Those most at risk are close contacts of patients with Ebola, health workers and people attending funerals, which often involves touching the body.

At least four health workers have been infected, including one American missionary doctor.

Given the high fatality rate, health workers should be provided the highest level of personal protection.

Read more: How are nurses becoming infected with Ebola?

What can other countries do?

Ebola is a concern for all of us, because travel can result in infections occurring in any country. During the 2014 West African epidemic, cases also occurred outside the main affected countries, the largest number in Nigeria.

Failure to initially diagnose a case in Texas resulted in four other people becoming infected, including health workers.

Whether facing hantavirus or Ebola, emergency departments need tools to improve their awareness of and ability to prevent hospital outbreaks.

Busy staff in emergency triage may send someone with a fever back to the waiting room for hours, not realising they have travelled recently and may have a serious infectious disease. In South Korea, a person with the deadly Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus was in the emergency department for many hours, and a huge outbreak resulted.

One useful tool for hospitals is a decision-support system used during triage that prompts staff to ask for a patient’s travel history and provides data on disease outbreaks in the country of travel. This means patients with deadly infections may be isolated before they can infect others.

Another concern is that if the outbreak becomes much larger, there may be survivors who still harbour the virus for many months or longer after recovery. They could continue to infect others after this epidemic is over if they come into contact with bodily fluids such as semen, amniotic fluid or breast milk, as well as fluids from the placenta or eye.

The WHO declaring a public health emergency of international concern helps, as it activates a range of additional measures and resources for outbreak control.

Read more: Ebola survivors struggle to return to normal lives: what I found out in Sierra Leone and Liberia

C Raina MacIntyre is the founder of EPIWATCH Global Pty Ltd which tracks global epidemics. She receives funding from NHMRC Investigator Grant 2016907 and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence GNT2006595.

Ashley Quigley, Mohana Priya Kunasekaran, and Noor Jahan Begum Bari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Threats and deadly conflict over migration are spreading fast in South Africa. This is hugely worrying and could result in widespread injury and killings, as it has in the past.

The region’s investment prospects could be dimmed too, due to perceptions of political instability.

The need for effective responses is real and urgent. The death toll, while disputed, is rising, and reports of marches, threats, sacking of dwellings and violence are widespread across South Africa.

Anti-foreigner hysteria is being driven by online campaigns which appear to be highly organised. They include the use of faked information and graphics.

It is also being driven by campaign leaders and by politicians who support campaigns to root out foreigners, either actively or simply by justifying the arguments used by the more dangerous activists. The UN secretary general, Amnesty International and several foreign governments, including those of Mozambique, Nigeria and Ghana, have berated South Africa for not responding appropriately to anti-migrant mobilisation.

Read more: South Africans are far less tolerant of migrants than before – hotspots, drivers and solutions

In a televised address on Sunday 7 May 2026, the country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, outlined various initiatives to lessen the conflicts over migration. But was this a coherent response, or a missed opportunity to make real progress?

The core of the response was the five-point plan agreed to by a special cabinet committee meeting last week. The points included a law enforcement crackdown (including intensifying deportations), establishing dedicated immigration courts, rooting out employment of undocumented workers, securing borders, and tackling corruption (including a reform of identity systems.)

Ramaphosa admitted that economic conditions and the poor state of many public services explained why people were desperate and that grievances, including grievances about the influx of undocumented migrants, were “real”. Some have interpreted his stance as justifying the association of foreigners with the grievances that poor South Africans have.

Based on my work as a political economist in migration governance over the past decade, I know that virtually all the specific actions mentioned in the five parts of the plan had already been announced by the South African government, though not as a concerted platform to address the current crisis. Yet implementation has been painfully slow.

Read more: South Africa’s new immigration policy takes a digital direction – will it succeed?

Clearly, there needs to be urgent and visible follow-through on these commitments. This should include the promise to clamp down on anti-foreigner agitators and those who have wounded or killed people they believed to be foreign. To my knowledge, very few agitators and attackers have been arrested, let alone charged. None of the leaders inciting dangerous actions have been arrested, or even called out by political leaders.

To help reduce the violence and the perception of risk, a number of additional steps need to be taken. Firstly, the forging of a collective political front of parties in the country against anti-foreigner activities. Secondly, the mobilisation of civic and religious institutions to fight against irresponsible politicking. Third, a renegotiation of colonial-era bilateral labour agreements with South Africa’s five neighbouring countries. And finally, addressing the country’s acute unemployment crisis.

Four steps that could make a difference

Firstly, the head of state – or the head of his political party – should bring together the leaders of all the significant political parties in a forum which commits to agreeing not to incite anti-foreigner sentiment, and also, as a group, condemns such behaviour.

Secondly, leaders of civic and religious institution could be encouraged to do the same – to warn against irresponsible politicking. Further than that, religious and community groupings could be encouraged and even assisted by government to drive programmes to include foreigners into the mainstream of South African society in a constructive way.

There are examples of how to do this in other parts of the world in developed and developing countries. These include South America and other African countries.

National, provincial and local governments could also drive initiatives to include foreigners into the national community. These could be standalone programmes or in cooperation with civil society institutions.

Thirdly, there should be a renegotiation of bilateral labour agreements with five neighbouring countries. In a white paper released in 2025 the government committed to establishing employment quotas for South Africans in various sectors of industry. It also committed to the renegotiation of the bilateral deals. The existing agreements are colonial in origin and form. They withhold virtually all labour and social rights from migrant labourers. And they don’t accommodate long-term labour migration contracts, now common in other parts of the world.

Such reforms could create more manageable as well as fair and equitable systems of migrant labour. South Africa could address its labour needs in a workable way. And the temptation to bypass the system should be lower, with fewer undocumented migrant workers.

It’s not realistic yet to do away with regional labour migration, but it could be far better managed.

Finally, Ramaphosa said he’d be sending out envoys “to seek to find sustainable solutions to these challenges”. But this has already been done, more than 20 years ago. South Africa and some of its neighbours agreed to a protocol on the facilitation of the movement of persons in the southern African region. This initiative was negotiated in the Southern African Development Community.

But since the protocol was signed by several heads of state in the region in 2005, there has been no progress. South Africa, its partners and the Southern African Development Community itself are guilty of negligence and should accept that they could have and can do more to avoid crises such as the present one.

Poorer South Africans are vulnerable to anti-foreigner mobilisation because of their dire economic circumstances: 32.7% unemployment; 37.8% of people classified as very poor. And public services are often very bad.

More growth and more jobs must dampen the powder-keg that is so easily sparked.

But even before that is achieved, there is a great deal that could be done to eliminate the spark itself – tensions over migration.

Alan Hirsch receives research funding from the New South Institute.

Last year, we noted early signs of recovery in Australia’s high country, following the reduction of feral horse numbers.

These had dropped from 17,000 in 2023 to around 3,000 in 2024 across Kosciuszko National Park, thanks to the management efforts of NSW National Parks staff and contractors.

But horse numbers are already bouncing back. The latest survey data estimate between 6,476 and 16,411 horses now roam the national park.

So, what happened?

A mild summer

The answer is simple. If feral horse eradication is impossible — or politically and legally off the table — then continuous management of horse numbers is essential.

With no aerial culling within the national park in 2025, two factors likely contributed to this rapid rebound.

First, horses move. Control efforts have largely focused on remote parts of Kosciuszko National Park, away from people, trails and roads. Once resident herds in these areas have been culled, horses from surrounding regions – particularly adjacent state forests – likely moved in.

Second, horses breed. After a mild summer with significant rainfall across the high country, most mares will have bred. During Autumn fieldwork, we observed large numbers of foals accompanying herds throughout the region.

A numbers game

If numbers aren’t rapidly reduced again, things will only get worse, both for the fragile alpine environment and the horses themselves. With winter conditions imminent, many horses will struggle to maintain condition as snow covers grazing areas and energy reserves are depleted.

Ironically, some of the strongest opposition to culling overlooks these very real animal welfare consequences. Leaving horse populations unmanaged may ultimately result in prolonged suffering from starvation and exposure, compared with humane control conducted by trained professionals.

Forecast El Niño conditions may further compound these pressures, with drought likely to persist through spring and summer. As water and food become scarce, horses will likely concentrate around creeks, wetlands, alpine bogs, fens and meadows. These are precisely the alpine ecosystems most vulnerable to trampling, grazing and erosion.

And this is where hard-fought gains will be rapidly lost. Banks will become eroded, clear waters fouled and our fabled high plains replaced by overgrazed paddocks.

A long-term effort

We don’t need to look far to see what happens when a population of feral animals goes unchecked. Great Keppel Island, for example, is overrun with a thousand or more feral goats, denuding dune and forcing increasingly exasperated locals to erect fences around their properties

As with horses in Kosciuszko, political hesitancy and delayed action on Great Keppel have allowed ecological damage to escalate while management becomes increasingly difficult and expensive.

New South Wales Environment Minister, Penny Sharpe, recently said the latest Kosciuszko feral horse numbers confirmed the need for “continued management”, required to meet the target of reducing feral horse numbers to 3,000 by mid-2027.

But where did that target come from? It’s a holdover from the repealed Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act and, when even basic population growth models are applied, the implications become clear. Maintaining a population of 3,000 horses would still require the removal of well over 1,000 animals every two years — indefinitely.

In other words, there is no “set and forget” solution. If horse populations are to remain capped, ongoing culling will be necessary in perpetuity.

Alternative solutions?

Some have suggested that instead of culling, rehoming and fertility control should be used. While many Australians might like the idea of a “brumby” or two grazing in the back paddock, the number of landholders willing and able to care for these animals is far smaller.

Even retired racehorses struggle to find suitable long-term homes once their racing careers end, highlighting the practical limitations of large-scale rehoming programs.

Likewise, although various fertility control options have been suggested, vaccines, intra-uterine devices or surgical sterilisation are all invasive procedures for which horses need to be caught and sedated. These may be effective to maintain a small herd in an easily accessible area. But previous assessments have warned such an approach must be carried out in concert with large scale culling efforts.

Population dynamics vs politics

We don’t have to look far to find other examples of how invasive species management could be improved. In 2016, then New Zealand Prime Minister John Key introduced a bold plan to rid Aotearoa of all introduced predators in the next 30 years.

Predator Free 2050 is the first national-scale initiative to reduce the impacts of introduced predators, capitalising on the invention of new technologies including real-time automated species identification to trap targeted species and mobilising neighbourhoods across the country to join the effort.

Australia faces a different set of challenges — larger landscapes, divided jurisdictions and deeply entrenched cultural and political debates around invasive species management.

But the broader lesson remains the same: meaningful conservation outcomes require long-term commitment, clear targets and the willingness to act before ecological problems become too difficult to reverse.

David M Watson receives funding from the Australian Government (DAFF and DCCEEW).

Patrick Finnerty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The world watched on in horror in 2024 as Dominque Pelicot and 50 other men were tried in a French court for repeatedly drugging and raping Gisele Pelicot over almost a decade. All of them were found guilty.

While such horrific abuse can feel far away and rare, it’s more widespread than many realise. There are private online communities with thousands of members all over the world, including in Australia, trading in video and photos of sedated women being abused.

A recent investigation by CNN revealed there are thousands-strong groups on messaging app Telegram who share tactics and videos assaulting and raping their girlfriends and wives.

In April, France launched an investigation into the website Pelicot used to recruit dozens of strangers to rape his wife. During the trial, police uncovered 20,000 videos and photos of his wife’s abuse, recorded by Pelicot himself.

So why do men do it, and how can we stop it?

Global, organised abuse

While the CNN report and Pelicot’s case shocked the world, these cases are not unique, with private pages and group chats being uncovered in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, China, and Poland.

These reports show how widespread this issue is, underscoring that these are not isolated episodes. They are organised crimes committed by dedicated communities that support such violence, hosted on platforms that provide the essential infrastructure.

One report from the New York Times reported China-based group chats with as many as 100,000 members. A study of Telegram networks across Italy and Spain showed groups with nearly 25,000 users.

The Telegram group CNN reported on had more than 1,000 members with some videos posted in the group amassing over 50,000 views.

The groups identified in these stories and reports are part of a broader digital ecosystem often referred to as the manosphere, an online network of group chats, influencers and communities that perpetuate misogynistic ideas.

Read more: From violence to sexism, the manosphere is doing real-world harm

Why are people doing this?

As the CNN report puts it “while the platforms vary, inside such groups, video is king”. The more perverse, humiliating and risky the visual material, the higher the engagement and the greater the reward.

Telegram, like other platforms, provides financial incentives for engagement. Members can earn points through their activity and earn a place on leader boards. Telegram has its own internal crypto system, which members can spend through affiliate links.

Research from Australia shows men who non-consensually share images and videos online are motivated by more than revenge. What these men crave is the chance to prove their manliness to other men.

While research on perpetrators of online violence is still emerging, those who study the cultures of these online groups observe that a kind of homosocial bonding is created when share their abuse with one another. As feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye put it:

from women they want devotion, service and sex. Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving.

While the men in these groups are sharing images and videos of women, commenting on women’s bodies, degrading women and objectifying women, it is men who are at the centre of the exchange. They seek the validation and praise of other men. One way this is achieved is by getting comments and likes on their videos.

Another popular form of bonding is the solicitation of comments from other members. One study described how users requested descriptions of what others would do, such as “describe how you would rape this bitch”.

Others commission sexualised deepfakes – realistic but fake sexually explicit images – using nudify apps and other artificial intelligence (AI) platforms.

In these groups, the practices and the language are meant to degrade women, to reduce them to raw material, objects to be consumed to satiate men’s desire, and to reinforce the bonds between men. Misogyny is the “social glue” that holds these communities together.

What can we do about it?

Traditional approaches and responses to gender-based violence still tend to individualise the problem, focusing on single perpetrators. What this approach fails to do is address the social, structural and technological enablers of this abuse.

Take the Telegram platform: why has this become the safe haven for perpetrators?

Telegram has specific design affordances that both enable and amplify image-based sexual abuse.

Groups can have up to 200,000 members. End-to-end data encryption allows for anonymity, and its content moderation regulations are weak. Telegram allows users to share visual and audio material (including large files). And perhaps most importantly, it has interactive features: likes, comments and disappearing messages.

All of these features collide to create the perfect storm for perpetrators. They are large, private, largely unregulated and allow them to anonymously share non-consensual sexual material.

There are efforts to stop this abuse, with emerging legislation such as the Take It Down Law in the United States that came into effect in May, and regulatory bodies such as the eSafety Commissioner in Australia, that aim to tackle the creation of image-based sexual abuse (including using sexualised deepfakes).

While these laws are aimed at individual perpetrators, the Pelicot case in France prompted the arrest of the creators of the website Dominique used to recruit others to assault his wife. In 2024, Telegram’s founder was arrested and charged in France for allowing illicit behaviour on the platform, including the distribution of child sexual abuse material. The case is still before the courts.

These arrests represent a welcome shift in how we tackle this issue by holding tech executives, not just their companies, responsible for providing the infrastructure that allows this abusive and degrading behaviour to proliferate and thrive.

—

The author would like to acknowledge Siân Human from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women for her insights and support during the process of writing this piece.

Emma Quilty receives funding from the Australian Research Council and eSafety.

The manosphere has frequently featured in news headlines this year. Some of these have focused on how the movement looks on YouTube – a platform that research suggests uses recommender algorithms to boost extreme content.

The manosphere is one of multiple far-right communities on the video platform. It’s known for promoting highly conservative views about gender roles for both women and men, epitomised by figures such as Andrew Tate. Research shows manosphere content is doing real-world harm, particularly in schools.

But there’s another movement attempting to counter the influence of the alt-right online. It’s called BreadTube.

What is BreadTube?

BreadTube is a community of video essayists. Centre-left leaning in their politics, these YouTubers have emerged as a response to alt-right influencers online, aiming to bring a more critical lens to social issues. The “bread” in the name reportedly comes from a 19th century book criticising feudalism and capitalism, called The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kropotkin.

The most notable channels, such as Contrapoints, Hbomberguy, and PhilosophyTube, all boast channels with nearly two million subscribers. Individual videos have viewership ranging from one million to more than seven million views each.

Some express the explicit desire for their videos to help deradicalise the young men who have been pulled into extreme communities online.

They claim their video style and strategic use of political keywords are intended to exploit the YouTube algorithm, ensuring their videos are shown to people who normally view alt-right content.

We wanted to test that claim: could YouTube users in the manosphere encounter BreadTube content instead, and if so, could that potentially help deradicalise them?

Read more: Meet BreadTube, the YouTube activists trying to beat the far-right at their own game

Our research

In our recently published research, we compared the topics and communication styles of BreadTubers with the manosphere.

First, we analysed 42 transcripts: 12 from BreadTube producers, 12 from manosphere producers and a further 12 from normal, non-politically-oriented YouTubers as a control group.

We found manosphere producers had a narrow focus on women, lifestyle advice, and money, and used a casual, older-brother-like tone to address their audience as a mentor.

By contrast, we found BreadTubers had a more formal tone, discussing a range of social issues, such as inequality and discrimination, as well as health topics, and often cited academic articles to back up their claims.

Unsurprisingly, the groups were therefore very different in their communication style and topics.

Second, we used computational analysis to compare the groups with a dataset of 533 transcripts. This analysis suggested the BreadTube creators tend to produce videos that are complex, but less positive in the emotions they express. This makes sense, as they often analyse social problems.

In contrast, the manosphere analysis revealed less complex videos with more casual language, with the presenters readily expressing positive emotions. Notably, in the analysis of gendered language, only the manosphere was found to discuss women.

These findings supported our qualitative analysis on a much larger scale.

What does this mean?

We found that despite claims BreadTubers tailor their content to reach alt-right communities, their videos remain linguistically very different from those in the manosphere. This means there’s unlikely to be much overlap in audiences across these videos. BreadTube therefore isn’t a magic bullet against radicalisation.

That said, BreadTube creators are still valuable, as they offer a vital, organic alternative to the extremist influencers on YouTube.

BreadTube might differ from manosphere content in notable ways, but it’s the differences that make them worth watching, especially for people who have fallen into niche communities. By providing diverse role models and intellectually engaging content, these channels may act as a preventative circuit breaker for young people before they fall down extremist rabbit holes.

If you’re interested in watching some of these video essays yourself or want to diversify the viewing habits of someone you know, here are five channels we recommend.

1. Contrapoints

Contrapoints produces lavish productions covering everything from philosophy to debates around JK Rowling. Start with her funny and insightful video on social media and envy.

2. Shaun

Shaun produces videos on politics, including case studies on particular events or movements. Start with his critique of the manosphere.

3. Gremlita

Gremlita covers social media, trends, popular culture, and fashion history. Her video on social media advertising and influencer sponsorships is a great starting point.

4. Hbomberguy

Hbomberguy busts myths, such as climate denialism, or misinformation about vaccines. Start with his detailed study of social media and influencer plagiarism.

5. PhilosophyTube

PhilosophyTube makes videos discussing philosophy, such as the work of Nietzsche, Stoicism, and how it relates to modern society. It’s hard to go past her provocatively-titled duo, “Was Nietzsche Woke?” and “Was Nietzsche MAGA?”

Emily Booth receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA).

Jooyoung Lee receives funding from Office of National Intelligence (ONI). She is a recipient of National Intelligence Post-Doctoral Grants (NIPG).

Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA), the Australian Department of Home Affairs, and the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Defence Science and Technology Group of the Department of Defence. Marian-Andrei Rizoiu is the Director of the Defence Innovation Network. He is also the Director of the Defence Innovation Network.

Our novel artificial intelligence model can predict extreme storm surges with high accuracy, including under future climate conditions. Because the AI model runs much faster, it can help researchers and practitioners better assess coastal flood risk for adaptation planning.

Sea levels are rising, and with them, the risks posed by extreme coastal events, such as storm surges – temporary rises in sea level caused mainly by storms, which are among the primary drivers of coastal flooding. For the more than 10% of the global population living in low-lying coastal regions, the combination of gradual mean sea level rise and increasingly intense extreme events represents a growing threat.

For coastal planners and policymakers, the key issue is not just the expected rise in mean sea level, but the changes in the likelihood and severity of extreme events. Infrastructure design, urban planning and disaster preparedness depend on estimates of extreme event scenarios.

However, projecting extreme sea level events remains a major scientific challenge, as they are driven by complex, nonlinear interactions between tides, atmospheric forcings, ocean dynamics and local coastal features. This means that uncertainty in extreme projections remains highly unquantified. Small differences in model assumptions can lead to large differences in predicted outcomes, especially for extremes. This uncertainty means a lot for planners, civil protection and, ultimately, the protection of human lives and assets.

The efficiency of AI models opens up new possibilities. Because AI models can generate predictions much faster than physics-based models, they enable the exploration of large ensembles of future scenarios, which would be prohibitively expensive using traditional models alone. This is particularly important for risk assessment, where understanding the probability of rare but catastrophic outcomes is essential.

A combined AI and physics-based approach for a changing risk

Traditional physics-based models, which use physical laws to represent how coastal waters move, can simulate these processes in detail, but they are computationally expensive, making it difficult to explore a wide range of future scenarios and uncertainties.

At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in climate science, as it offers new opportunities to overcome these challenges. However, its reliability remains uncertain in this context, particularly due to two key challenges: the limited representation of rare but high-impact extremes in training data, and the need to generalise findings – in a robust fashion – to future climate conditions that may differ substantially from those observed historically.

AI and physics-based modelling are complementary tools: physics-based models remain essential for representing the underlying processes and for generating the high-quality data needed to train and validate AI models, and ultimately to build trust in their AI counterpart.

By combining the physical realism of traditional models with the efficiency and flexibility of AI, researchers are developing a new generation of tools for coastal risk assessment. These tools will be critical for informing adaptation strategies, helping societies better prepare for a future where extreme sea level events might become more frequent and more severe.

Our findings suggest that AI can be reliably used for projecting rare but high-impact extreme sea level events. In addition, AI models, by enabling rapid scenario generation and sensitivity testing, provide a new tool to better characterise these uncertainties.

A new AI emulator for extreme storm surge prediction

In our recent study published in Earth’s Future, we investigated whether AI-based models can accurately predict extreme sea level events, when trained to emulate the outputs of physics-based simulations and projections. In other words, our AI models aim to learn to reproduce the results of these more complex models, but much faster.

Our results show that AI emulators can successfully learn the complex dynamics behind storm surge events and reproduce extremes with high accuracy, including under future scenarios, compared to available projections up to the mid-21st century.

To demonstrate this, we developed a framework to improve the ability of AI models to represent extreme storm surge events and to test whether their predictions remain reliable under future scenarios.

We focused on the New York City coastal area as a case study, because it is highly exposed to coastal flooding, presenting a dense population, critical infrastructure and major economic assets – and because it has experienced devastating storm surges in recent history, such as during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, which caused many fatalities and over $60 billion in economic damage.

Our AI emulator relies on openly available physics-based simulations from the Global Tide and Surge Model (GTSM), not only for training, but also for assessing its reliability under different climate conditions, including future scenarios.

Current limitations and next steps

The next step is to test the robustness of such AI tools further across a wider range of climate scenarios and integrate them into operational risk assessment frameworks and global climate data services providing hydro-climatic and coastal information to decision-makers, such as the Aqueduct Flood Risk Analyzer and the Copernicus Climate Data Store.

More broadly, AI models have the potential to address several critical needs in coastal risk analysis, but important gaps remain. These include improving and rigorously quantifying their transferability across a wide range of future scenarios, better representing uncertainties associated with physics-based parameters embedded in the training data, and assessing how well these models generalise across different geographic locations.

Clarifying the limits of their extrapolation capabilities will be essential for building confidence in their use for decision-making, particularly under conditions not seen before, due to climate change and non-stationarities (that is, changes in climate regimes and more intense extremes than what was observed before), and that are therefore outside the range covered by past observations or physics-based simulations used to train the AI models.

The AXA science philanthropy is now part of the AXA Foundation for Human Progress, which brings together the commitments of AXA Group and Mutuelles d’Assurances in the fields of Science, Nature, Solidarity, and Culture. Before 2025, the global science philanthropy was held by the AXA Research Fund, which has supported over 750 projects around the world since its inception back in 2007. To learn more, visit Axa Foundation for Human Progress.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Andrea Ficchì received funding from AXA Research Fund, through the Ocean Decade Joint Call for Fellows on Coastal Livelihoods, for a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship project conducted at Politecnico di Milano, endorsed by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission as UN Ocean Decade Action.

Emiliano Longo is a member of the CMCC Foundation (Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change). He has received funding from Politecnico di Milano.

New polling this week put One Nation ahead of Labor in the primary vote for the first time, as the party’s latest policy announcements signal greater political ambition.

One Nation recently unveiled its new oil and gas policy at the Australian Energy Producers Conference in Adelaide. It promises “vastly greater returns” to an electorate “rightly unhappy” with the distribution of Australia’s natural resources.

While One Nation’s gas policy is not entirely new, the party’s growing prominence means announcements will attract greater scrutiny.

So, what is the party proposing?

Embracing government intervention

The Norway-style gas proposal is One Nation’s first substantial intervention in current tax and energy policy debates. It’s a marked shift away from the social and migration issues that have long defined the party.

Norway heavily taxes its oil and gas extraction profits. It reinvests the wealth into the world’s largest sovereign fund to spent on social initiatives.

Echoing the Trump administration’s willingness to buy into resource and technology companies, One Nation’s announcement reflects a broader embrace of economic interventionism: where a government actively modifies a free-market economy.

The announcement shows a stark differentiation between One Nation and The Liberal Party on the economy. And it comes at a time when the parties have increasingly overlapped on issues like migration.

Liberal frontbencher James Paterson attacked the policy as socialist. He described it as “borrowed from Venezuela and Hugo Chávez”.

One Nation’s policy

Despite the splashy announcement, One Nation’s gas policy was not entirely new.

Hanson has pointed to a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund as a model for gas revenue policy since at least 2017. Senator Hanson has also frequently attacked parliament for being “hostage” to multinationals resource companies operating in Australia.

In announcing the policy, Senator Hanson committed One Nation to encouraging more gas and oil exploration and production. Hanson also said taxpayers should get a “fair share” on profits from Australian resources.

Key elements of the policy include replacing the current Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which places a 40% tax on the profits related to the extraction of petroleum, gas and condensate.

Instead, One Nation would give the government the option to take a 30% stake in future drilling projects, with profits directed into a new sovereign wealth fund.

It’s not the first time this has been suggested. Back in May 2017, Hanson proposed One Nation adopt a system of royalties paid on production, saying such a scheme would raise up to $10 billion per year.

Tapping into public grievance

One Nation’s position sets it apart from both major parties.

Labor and the Coalition hold sharply differing views on energy and Net Zero.

But the two parties share common ground on one point: neither supports increased taxation measures on the gas industry, particularly amid global uncertainty caused by the US-Israel war with Iran.

With its policy, One Nation is tapping into real public grievance. Others, such as The Australia Institute, the Greens, and Independent senator David Pocock have spent years pointing out the same basic unfairness: Australia exports vast quantities of gas, companies profit enormously, and the taxpayer gets very little in return.

But the timing of One Nation’s announcement deserves closer scrutiny. It was not made to a general audience but a gathering of energy industry heavyweights. Reports suggest the announced version was softened after consultations with industry representatives.

Pushing back at the ‘green agenda’

Far-right parties have a distinctive approach to energy policy – they simultaneously cast multinationals as “elites” who take wealth from ordinary people, while advocating for gas drilling expansion themselves.

Hanson has adopted US President Donald Trump’s slogan – “drill, baby, drill” – to spruik her party’s approach to fossil fuels. And she has called on the Labor government to push their “climate change bedwetters” to the side, and expand oil and gas exploration in the interest of energy security.

One Nation blames environmental reforms for triggering an energy crisis, which it claims has cost everyday Australians. Ending net zero is, accordingly, a “massive part” of One Nation’s gas policy, which they claim will safeguard fuel security.

Hanson has described One Nation’s policy as “partnering with the oil and gas industry, rather than treating it as the enemy”.

Internal tensions

This policy debate risks exposing potential tensions between the federal and state branches of One Nation.

Efforts by the South Australian Labor government to repeal a ten-year moratorium on fracking in the south east of the state were blocked by the newly elected One Nation MPs and Liberal Opposition.

The inconsistency between the federal party’s pledge to expand gas exploration and the state branch’s efforts to block it have created headaches for their leader. Hanson distanced herself, dismissing it as a decision for the state branch.

Heading into the next election, One Nation wants contrast with the Liberals on economic interventionism, while setting itself apart from Labor, the Greens and the independents on climate and environmental policy. It is calculated decision from a party that senses its moment.

Emily Foley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jordan McSwiney receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Government, and NSW RNA Research & Training Network.

Kurt Sengul receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Government, and NSW RNA Research & Training Network

Four percent of Americans – roughly 12 million people – believe that “lizard people” secretly control the Earth. At least, that was the finding of an infamous 2013 public opinion survey.

Do so many people really believe such outlandish claims? Or do results like these partly reflect people giving silly answers or deliberately skewing surveys for fun?

US psychiatrist Alexander Scott believes the latter plays a significant role.

Using the survey as an example, he coined the term “the Lizardman constant” to describe the idea that a certain amount of noise and trolling will always exist in surveys about unusual beliefs.

As Scott warned: “Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehaviour – can easily overwhelm the signal.”

As researchers who study uncommon beliefs such as conspiracy theories, we wanted to investigate how this kind of cheeky trolling can muddy the waters.

Trolls and true believers

Building on earlier Australian research, we surveyed New Zealanders to test how common dishonest or joking responses were in conspiracy theory surveys.

We did this in two ways. First, we directly asked people a yes/no question at the end of the survey:

“Did you respond insincerely at any earlier point in this survey? In other words, did you give any responses that were actually just joking, trolling, or otherwise not indicating what you really think?”

Second, we included in the survey a “conspiracy theory” so ridiculous we could assume most, if not all, people who said they believed it were taking the mickey.

We asked them if they believed:

The Canadian Armed Forces have been secretly developing an elite army of genetically engineered, super intelligent, giant raccoons to invade nearby countries.

In our representative online sample of 810 New Zealanders, 8.3% of respondents confessed to being insincere in the survey.

Another 7.2% said they thought the Canadian raccoon army theory was probably or definitely true. That proportion – similar to findings from Australia – would equate to more than 300,000 adult New Zealanders.

To complicate things slightly, there was some overlap between those admitting to insincere answers and those claiming to believe the raccoon conspiracy. Combined, 13.3% of respondents fell into one or both groups – roughly one in eight people not appearing to take the survey seriously.

Importantly, these respondents were also much more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories, inflating estimates of how widespread those beliefs really are.

For instance, 6.5% of the full sample endorsed the claim that governments around the world are covering up the fact that 5G mobile networks spread coronavirus.

But once we removed the insincere responders, that figure dropped by more than half to 2.7%.

Across 13 different conspiracy theories, the estimated proportion of believers fell substantially once those respondents were excluded.

Another interesting insight from our study was that people endorsing contradictory conspiracy theories were much more likely to show signs of responding insincerely.

Previous studies have found some people appear to believe conspiracy theories that directly contradict each other. In our survey, for example, some participants agreed both that COVID-19 is a myth and that governments are covering up the fact that 5G networks spread the virus.

But nearly three-quarters of those respondents also showed signs of joking or dishonest answers.

This suggests genuinely believing contradictory conspiracy theories may be less common than previously thought.

Not every conspiracy believer is joking

Our findings add further weight to the idea that surveys may overestimate how many people truly believe some conspiracy theories – thanks, in part, to trolls.

But does that mean all conspiracy theory research is bunk?

Fortunately not. Most research in this area is not focused on counting conspiracy believers, but on understanding why people hold these beliefs and what effects they can have.

We tested several well-established findings from earlier conspiracy theory research to see whether they still held up once insincere respondents were removed from the data.

For example, previous studies have found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are more likely to see the world as a dangerous and threatening place.

We found the same pattern. In fact, removing insincere respondents made little difference to the broader relationships identified in earlier research.

Nevertheless, we recommend that future surveys include ways to gauge whether respondents are answering sincerely and account for this in the analysis. At the very least, researchers should acknowledge that trolls and joking responses can distort their results.

While our research suggests some people are taking the mickey in surveys, it also shows a significant minority genuinely appear to believe some of these claims.

In some cases – such as believing authorities are covering up the fact that the Earth is flat – this may be relatively harmless. But other conspiracy beliefs can lead to real-world harm.

Good-quality research is essential for understanding how sincere believers end up down these rabbit holes, and how those beliefs influence real-world behaviour.

Research into why people embrace conspiracy theories – and the real-world consequences of those beliefs – remains important.

But when surveys suggest millions may believe in lizard overlords or genetically engineered raccoon armies, it is also worth remembering the “Lizardman constant”: some respondents may simply be having us on.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rob Ross, Mathew Ling and Stephen Hill to this article.

John Kerr is supported by a Royal Society Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku Research Leader Fellowship.

This research was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Mathew Marques does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

For months, US President Donald Trump has been fixated on Cuba. He’s issued threats and imposed additional sanctions on the island. The US military has conducted dozens of intelligence-gathering flights off the coast in recent weeks, suggesting a prelude to an invasion.

The Cuban government has indicated a readiness to negotiate with the Trump administration on some issues, such as migration, drug trafficking and investment openings for Cuban-Americans. But Cuba’s sovereignty is not negotiable.

After interviewing Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel last month, US journalist Kristen Welker seemed to catch on:

Nothing gets under [Cubans’] skin more than the notion that the United States can tell the Cuban government who should lead it or what it should be doing, how it should be governing, because that challenges the very idea of the sovereignty of the country.

This US obsession with controlling, influencing and coercing Cuba long predates Trump and even the Cold War. This is how President Theodore Roosevelt described the island in 1906:

I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All we have wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere. And now, lo and behold, they have started an utterly unjustifiable and pointless revolution.

Understanding the current impasse between the two adversarial neighbours requires looking at this full arc of history. While the 1823 Monroe Doctrine sought to establish US predominance in the entire American continent, Cuba has always been a particular focus of Washington’s attention.

Read more: Cuba has survived 66 years of US-led embargoes. Will Trump’s blockade break it now?

‘Americanisation’ of the island

From the moment the 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain, Americans assumed Cuba would become part of the union. Successive US administrations sought to purchase, annex or otherwise control Cuba, claiming this was inevitable by virtue of the laws of gravity and geography. It was also seen as part of a self-proclaimed “civilising mission”.

When the Cubans eventually defeated their Spanish colonial masters in 1898, the United States stepped in and occupied the island to thwart its independence.

At the time, at least one third of Cubans were former slaves or of mixed race. The US governor of Cuba, Leonard Wood, argued they were not ready for self-government.

Certainly, the US – especially the Southern former slave holders – didn’t want another Haiti in its neighbourhood. Haitian slaves had seized control of their island nation from the French in a violent rebellion in 1804, echoing the cries of the French revolution for liberty, fraternity and equality.

The US military occupation of Cuba ended in 1902 and Cuba formally declared independence – albeit with provisions. These allowed for future US intervention whenever Washington thought the Cuban people needed a guiding hand (which turned out to be fairly often).

In the decades that followed, US business interests deeply penetrated every sector of Cuba’s economy and had complete sway over Cuban governments.

On a cultural level, Cuba rapidly became “Americanised” through a new US-style education system. Travel to the island picked up, too. The popular Terry’s Guide to Cuba reassured US visitors in the 1920s they would feel right at home because “thousands [of Cubans] act, think, talk and look like Americans”.

Castro’s mission

All of this changed with the rise of Fidel Castro.

During the Cuban Revolution, Castro announced in April 1959 that the revolutionary government would be “Cubanising Cuba”. This might seem “paradoxical”, he explained, but Cubans “undervalued” everything Cuban. They had become “imbued with a type of complex of self-doubt” in the face of the overwhelming US influence on the island’s culture, politics and economy.

US journalist Elizabeth Sutherland similarly observed at the time that Cubans suffered from a “cultural inferiority complex typical of colonised peoples”.

For North Americans, however, Castro’s blunt statement seemed at best to reflect ingratitude, and at worst, an insult. As the US broadcaster Walter Cronkite recalled:

The rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba was a terrible shock to the American people. This brought communism practically to our shores. Cuba was a resort land for Americans […] we considered it part of the United States.

At the heart of Cuba’s revolutionary project has been an assertion of Cuba’s sovereignty, independence and national identity. The drive has been to create a new, united and socially just Cuban nation, as envisioned by its great national hero and poet, José Martí.

So, for Cubans it’s a matter of history. For North Americans, it’s a matter of self-image. They had “convinced themselves,” writes historian Louis A. Pérez, of the “beneficent purpose […] from which [the US] derived the moral authority to presume power over Cuba”.

When the Obama administration finally resumed relations with Cuba in 2014, it felt like a historic shift was taking place. The US might finally respect Cuban sovereignty and engage with Cuba on equal terms.

As President Barack Obama said at the time:

It does not serve America’s interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse. […] We can never erase the history between us, but we believe that you should be empowered to live with dignity and self-determination.

Trump has now reverted to Washington’s traditional neo-colonialist view of Cuba, proclaiming he can do what he likes with the island. Perhaps it is time to try a new approach. As the spectacular debacle of the US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion showed 65 years ago, Cubans remain ready to defend their independence and their right to determine their own future.

Deborah Shnookal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Federal independent MPs have been in discussions about forming a political party. The irony won’t be lost on some in the Liberal Party, who have long argued the Teal independents already look and act like one.

Many independents already coordinate on policy, vote in similar patterns, and draw on shared fundraising vehicles such as Climate 200. But the independents’ reasons for considering a party may have less to do with political strategy and more to do with money.

Read more: View from The Hill: would a ‘party of independents’ be a contradiction in terms?

Federal member for Warringah Zali Steggall said this week that Australia’s federal donation laws “favour major party structures” and amount to “major parties trying to rig the game for their benefit”. Other crossbenchers, including Senator David Pocock, have signalled openness to the idea, even if several others have already ruled it out.

Much of the debate has centred on whether forming a party would betray the independent brand. In a study published in the Australian Journal of Political Science, we examined funding returns spanning multiple electoral cycles for minor parties, independents, and the major parties. Our findings suggest that Steggall’s complaint reflects something deeper than just the recent donation reforms. The financial disadvantages facing independents are enduring structural features of the political finance regime.

Financial barriers for independents

Consider public funding. After each federal election, the Australian Electoral Commission distributes money to parties and candidates based on the number of votes they receive. This seems relatively neutral, but it has an inbuilt asymmetry.

Parties run candidates across multiple seats and can accumulate votes nationally. Independents contest a single electorate. Even an independent who wins comfortably accumulates a far smaller absolute vote total than a party contesting dozens of seats (successfully or otherwise).

Our research found that public funding makes up a smaller share of independents’ total income than it does for parties. For minor parties, public funding is their single largest funding source.

Corporate donations tell a similar story. Corporate donors often give strategically, directing money toward actors who can offer policy access and influence. Major parties, as parties of government, are the obvious destination.

Independents, who can offer just a single vote – and for those in the House, a single vote in a chamber dominated by government – attract little from corporate donors. Even minor parties with balance-of-power positions in the Senate do marginally better.

The result is that independents are overwhelmingly dependent on individual donations – and mostly on a small scale. In many ways, this funding model is genuinely democratic. But it does leave independents with a narrow funding base, and few alternatives when donations fluctuate.

The volatility problem

The fluctuation in funds for independents can be severe. We measured how much political parties and independents received in donations from year to year, and found independents tend to experience significantly more volatility than parties. One independent in our study showed year-on-year fluctuation more than four times higher than any other electoral actor in our sample.

The explanation is organisational. Parties maintain permanent infrastructure that enables continuous fundraising: membership databases, regular donor programs, associated entities, dedicated staff.

Independents typically lack most, if not all, of these advantages. Their fundraising surges before elections and collapses afterwards, creating a cycle of boom and bust.

Some minor parties, notably the Greens, have built funding operations nearly as sophisticated as the major parties. The gap between an established minor party and a major party is one of scale. Conversely, the gap between an independent and a party of any size is one of structure.

Recent reforms amplify these issues

These structural disadvantages have long existed. But the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025, due to take effect in January 2027, is set to amplify them.

Under the new rules, a single donor can give up to $50,000 a year to an independent candidate. But the same donor could give $50,000 to each branch of a major party, meaning up to $450,000 to the major parties across their state and federal divisions.

National spending is capped at $90 million for parties, but $800,000 per electorate for independents. And while parties can move money from safe seats to flood marginal electorates with general advertising, independents have no equivalent mechanism. Public funding has also increased from $3.50 to $5 per vote, a change that disproportionately benefits parties with large national vote totals.

Former independent federal MPs, Zoe Daniel and Rex Patrick have launched a High Court challenge to these provisions. Whatever the outcome, the reforms illustrate the broader pattern our research identifies: a regulatory framework built around party structures that treats independents as an afterthought.

The independents’ dilemma

The financial logic of forming a party is clear. A party structure would give current independents access to higher donation caps, national spending allowances, shared fundraising infrastructure (including associated entities), and the organisational capacity to cultivate donors between elections.

It would pool electoral support across multiple seats, increasing public funding returns. It could create the kind of permanent organisation that smoothes revenue and reduces the precariousness that currently defines independent finances.

But a significant part of what makes independents attractive to voters (and smaller donors) is precisely that they are not a party. The community and Teal independent movements have mobilised support around local identity, independence from partisan discipline, and a rejection of major party culture.

Climate 200 emerged specifically to support independents without party structures. Would a “party of independents” retain any of that appeal? The split among independents this week suggests there is no immediate answer.

Josh Holloway receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Emily Foley receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery for her work on Hiding in Plain Sight: 'Associated Entities' and Australian Democracy.

Rob Manwaring receives funding from the Australian Research Council - Discovery project on political parties and associated entities

Narelle Miragliotta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.