ASIO chief Mike Burgess has warned that over the next five years Australia’s security environment will become more dynamic, diverse and degraded, with “more security surprises” in the second half of the decade than in the first.
In his Annual Threat Assessment delivered on Wednesday night, Burgess predicted more communal violence attacks and foreshadowed Australia’s defence system would face greater threats from espionage, foreign interference and potentially sabotage.
The situation had prompted him to take the unusual step of declassifying details of the security outlook covering the coming five years.
With an “unprecedented number of challenges, and an unprecedented cumulative level of potential harm, Australia has never faced so many different threats at scale at once,” he said.
“Many of the foundations that have underpinned Australia’s security, prosperity and democracy are being tested: social cohesion is eroding, trust in institutions is declining, intolerance is growing, even truth itself is being undermined by conspiracy, mis-and disinformation.
"Similar trends are playing out across the Western world.
"Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats. Major geopolitical, economic, social and security challenges of the 1930s,
70s and 90s have converged. As one of my analysts put it with an uncharacteristic nod to popular culture: everything, everywhere all at once”.
Burgess said ASIO was empowered to investigate seven heads of security:
espionage
foreign interference
politically motivated violence (which includes terrorism)
the promotion of communal violence
sabotage
attacks on Australia’s defence system, and
serious threats to border integrity.
“Three of our heads of security are already flashing red: espionage, foreign interference and politically motivated violence,” Burgess said.
ASIO expected in the next five years the promotion of communal violence, sabotage and attacks on the defence system could join them.
Burgess did not envisage any immediate raising of the national threat level, which puts an act of terrorism at “probable”.
But he said “politically motivated violence is raising the temperature of the security environment and making acts of terrorism more likely”.
At the same time, he stressed that none of last year’s incidents in Australia came from an offshore group and “our greatest threat remains a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon”.
“Of all the potential terrorist matters investigated last year, fewer than half were religiously motivated. The majority involved mixed ideologies or nationalist and racist ideologies.
"Almost all the matters involved minors. All were lone actors or small groups. Almost all the individuals were unknown to ASIO or the police and it is fair to say they allegedly moved towards violence more quickly than we have seen before.
"Importantly, none of the attacks or plots appear to be directly inspired by the conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists”.
On the promotion of communal violence, Burgess said “I am concerned these attacks have not yet plateaued”.
Promoting communal violence refers to “activities that are directed to incite violence between different groups in Australia, so as to endanger the peace”.
Burgess anticipated “nationalist and racist violent extremists to continue their efforts to ‘mainstream’ and expand their movement.
"They will undertake provocative, offensive and increasingly high-profile acts to generate publicity and recruit. While these activities will test legal boundaries, the greatest threat of violence comes from individuals on the periphery of these organised groups.
"I remain concerned about young Australians being caught up in webs of hate, both religiously and ideologically motivated.
"In the polarised, grievance-rich environment I’m describing, social cohesion will remain strained and we can expect spikes in communal violence.”
Burgess said the Middle East war “has not yet directly inspired terrorism in Australia, but it is prompting protest, exacerbating division, undermining social cohesion and elevating intolerance. This, in turn, is making acts of politically motivated violence more likely.”
The normalisation of violent protests lowered the threshold for potentially violent acts.
“Narratives originally centred on ‘freeing Palestine’ expanded to include incitements to ‘kill the Jews’. Threats transitioned from harassment and intimidation to specific targeting of Jewish communities, places of worship and prominent figures.
"Looking forward, targets of community violence are likely to be broad, depending on the perceived grievance, and will not be limited to nationality, race, culture, religion or gender.
"A hyper-connected world will allow political tensions or conflicts overseas to resonate quickly in Australia, spread by social media and online echo chambers, inflamed by mis- or disinformation”.
Burgess said more traditional distinctions between extremist motivations were breaking down.
Individuals were cherry-picking ideologies to create hybrid beliefs. For example, ASIO had found one person who was apparently motivated by Islamic State propaganda and neo-Nazi propaganda. Another described himself as a left-wing environmentalist aligned with Adolf Hitler.
Burgess said while he was troubled by the breadth of security threats, he was more concerned about their depth.
“More specifically, the depths some regimes are willing to plumb in pursuit of their strategic interests. This is why we assess the security environment is becoming more degraded.”
“A small number of authoritarian regimes are behaving more aggressively, more recklessly, more dangerously. More willing to engage in what we call ‘high harm’ activities.
"Russia’s brazen acts of sabotage in Europe show authoritarian regimes are willing to use a wider range of tools and tactics to coerce, intimidate and damage
perceived adversaries. As a supporter of and supplier to Ukraine, it is conceivable Russia could also target Australia for sabotage.”
Australia was not immune to hostile states such as Iran undertaking “acts of security concern” in Australia or the near region.
“Whether such acts serve an internal interest, or a form of retaliation against Israel or our allies, we need to remain alert and responsive to these evolution.”
ASIO had identified at least three different countries plotting to harm people living in Australia.
In one case, a foreign intelligence service wanted to silence an Australia-based
human rights activist and tried to trick them into visiting a third country where they would encounter an “accident”. ASIO foiled the plot.
In another case, a different hostile foreign intelligence service wanted to harm and possibly kill one or more
individuals on Australian soil. This too was foiled.
“Beyond those egregious examples, multiple foreign regimes continually attempt to monitor, harass, intimidate and coerce cooperation from Australians and those who call Australia home. This includes trying to strong-arm people to report on
other members of their diaspora community, threatening perceived dissidents and their family members with violence, and coercing people in Australia to return to
the country of their birth to face questioning or charges – or possibly worse.”
On threats to Australia’s defence system, Burgess said multiple countries relentlessly sought information on our military capabilities.
“AUKUS will remain a priority target for intelligence collection, including by countries we consider friendly.
"ASIO has identified foreign services seeking to target AUKUS to position themselves to collect on the capabilities, how Australia intends to use them, and to undermine the confidence of our allies.
"By 2030, as the submarine project matures, intelligence services are more likely to focus on foreign interference to undermine community support for the enterprise and potentially sabotage if regional tensions escalate.”
Telstra found to have misled nearly 9,000 Belong customers over broadband speed claims: ACCC
Friday February 21, 2025
The Federal Court has today found that Telstra made false or misleading representations relating to the upload speed of residential broadband internet services supplied to nearly 9,000 of its Belong customers, following court action by the ACCC.
In October and November 2020, Telstra migrated 8,897 customers who were on a Belong NBN plan with a maximum download speed of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and a maximum upload speed of 40Mbps, to a service with a maximum upload speed of 20Mbps.
Telstra did not notify customers of the reduction in the maximum upload speed in their service. “Telstra’s failure to inform customers that their broadband service had been altered denied them the opportunity to decide whether the changed service was suitable for their needs,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“There was no reduction to the price Telstra charged its customers even though the cost charged by NBN Co to Telstra was $7 a month less for the new, lower speed service.”
Telstra admitted that it had represented to 2,785 of the Belong customers, who acquired the 40 Mbps plan between 1 May 2017 and 19 September 2018, that they were receiving a Belong NBN Broadband service with a maximum upload speed of 40Mbps, when they were not.
Telstra continued to make these representations by failing to update customers once the unilateral migration had occurred. Telstra acknowledged its failure in 2021 and provided a one-off $90 credit to these consumers.
The Court also found that Telstra had made false or misleading representations to a further 6,112 Belong customers who had acquired the 40mbps plan between 20 September 2018 and October 2020.
While Telstra never stated the maximum upload speed to these customers, the Court found that these consumers would have reasonably construed the service to which they were bound was the same in all material aspects, including upload speed, as it had always been.
“It is simply unacceptable for a supplier of essential services to mislead consumers when reducing the quality of the services it is providing to its customers,” Ms Carver said.
“We expect better from the country’s largest retail broadband internet service provider and believe these customers, who ultimately received a service they did not agree to, should be compensated.”
The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, consumer redress, costs and other orders.
The Court will determine the penalty and any consumer redress after a hearing on a date to be fixed.
Background
Telstra is Australia’s largest telecommunications supplier, supplying the largest number of retail broadband internet services and owning the largest mobile network over which it supplies both retail and wholesale services. It is a publicly listed company, incorporated in Australia.
Belong was launched by Telstra in 2013 as a low-cost mobile and internet service provider, operating semi-independently in a number of areas, including products, marketing, service, billing and parts of IT.
Upload speed refers to the speed at which an internet connection can allow data to be sent from personal devices to the internet, such as sending files, presentations or media content when working or studying from home or sharing photos and videos.
In May 2020, NBN Co launched new wholesale consumer speed tiers, including a new 100/20Mbps wholesale speed tier, which costs retail service providers $7 less per month than the 100/40Mbps plan on a wholesale level.
The ACCC instituted these Federal Court proceedings against Telstra in December 2022.
The ACCC has previously instituted proceedings against Telstra on several occasions, including in August 2021 for making alleged false or misleading representations in their promotions of some 50Mbps and 100Mbps NBN plans. Telstra was subsequently ordered to pay $15 million in penalties in that case.
Bradford Exchange in Court over alleged misleading representations about subscriptions
Friday February 21, 2025
The ACCC has instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court against The Bradford Exchange Ltd (Bradford) for allegedly making false or misleading representations in its advertising of collectable coins and ingots in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
A global retailer of coins and memorabilia, Bradford allegedly made misleading representations to consumers in over 300 newspaper and magazine advertisements for collectable coins and ingots across Australia.
It is alleged that, in many cases, Bradford represented that it would send consumers a single advertised item, when in fact Bradford sent consumers multiple items subject to a subscription (in some cases up to 24 items) and charged them for those items.
Bradford also allegedly represented that, if consumers responded to the relevant advertisements, they would be treated as only agreeing to purchase the single item identified in the advertisement, when this was not the case.
Subsequent items in these collections were typically far more expensive than the originally advertised item, for example, costing $79.99 after the first item was priced at $29.99.
The ACCC alleges that Bradford applied direct debits, or invoiced consumers for these subsequent items. Consumers who did not pay an invoice were sent follow up invoices, some of which incurred a ‘reminder charge’. If the invoice remained unpaid, consumers would ultimately be referred to a debt collection agency which charged additional fees.
“We are alleging Bradford’s actions amounted to a ‘subscription trap’ for consumers who thought they were buying one coin or ingot but were treated as if they had agreed to subscribe to receive an entire series and be charged accordingly,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
Subscription traps occur when businesses mislead consumers into signing up for a subscription by representing that the consumer is only making a one-off purchase, or by making cancellation of a subscription difficult.
The ACCC action relates to alleged misleading representations between 1 January 2021 and 26 June 2023 in advertisements by Bradford for collectable commemorative coins and ingots in various print newspapers and magazines across Australia such as the Herald Sun, the Courier Mail, Woman’s Day magazine and New Idea magazine.
The advertisements featured a large image of a single coin or ingot, often with historical or nostalgic themes such as Queen Elizabeth II, World War 1, Phar Lap, and the 1971 Ford Falcon.
In addition, the ACCC alleges Bradford’s advertisements prominently stated a single price for that item and did not state the total price of all the items in each collection.
“Businesses must be open and transparent when signing consumers up to subscriptions, including by stating the total price of goods or services being purchased,” Ms Carver said.
“There have been a large number of complaints about this company from consumers who purchased a single item from Bradford but were then sent and charged for additional items.”
“We consider Bradford’s actions deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed choice about whether to buy an entire collection of items. As a result, many consumers are likely to have paid for subsequent items they did not want or intend to buy and some are likely to have experienced distress and financial loss when Bradford charged them for items they did not intend to purchase,” Ms Carver said.
The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, injunctions, costs and other orders for Bradford’s alleged contraventions.
Example of Bradford advertisements:
Background
Bradford is a US-based, retailer of limited-edition memorabilia and collectables including coins and ingots, jewellery, prints, model cars, ornaments and figurines. A significant proportion of Bradford’s revenue comes from the sale of collections. Bradford advertises its products through mainstream newspapers and magazines, as well as on its website and social media accounts.
The Bradford Exchange Group operates globally across fifteen countries including the US, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Germany. Bradford has operated in Australia for 34 years.
3 statistical stuff-ups that made everyday items look healthier (or riskier) than they really are
Conducting scientific studies is never easy, and there are often major disasters along the way. A researcher accidentally spills coffee on a keyboard, destroying the data. Or one of the chemicals used in the analysis is contaminated, and the list goes on.
However, when we read the results of the study in a scientific paper, it always looks pristine. The study went smoothly with no hiccups, and here are our results.
But studies can contain errors, not all of which independent experts or “peer reviewers” weed out before publication.
Statistical stuff-ups can be difficult to find as it really takes someone trained in statistics to notice something wrong.
When statistical mistakes are made and found, it can have profound impacts on people who may have changed their lifestyle as a result of the flawed study.
These three examples of inadvertent statistical mistakes have had major consequences for our health and shopping habits.
1. Did you throw out your black plastic spoons?
Late last year, I came across a news article about how black plastic kitchen utensils were dangerous as they could potentially leak toxic flame-retardant chemicals into your food.
Being a natural sceptic, I looked up the original paper, which was published in the journal Chemosphere. The article looked genuine, the journal was reputable. So – like perhaps many other people – I threw out my black plastic kitchen utensils and replaced them with silicone ones.
In the study, the authors screened 203 household products (about half were kitchen utensils) made from black plastic.
The authors found toxic flame retardants in 85% of the products tested, with levels approaching the maximum daily limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
Unfortunately, the authors made a mistake in their calculations. They were out by a factor of ten. This meant the level of toxic chemicals was well under the daily safety limits.
A landmark study raised safety concerns about hormone replacement therapy or HRT (now also known as menopausal hormone therapy). This highlights a different type of statistical error.
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study involved 10,739 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 recruited from 40 clinical centres in the US. It compared the health of women randomised to take HRT with those who took the placebo. Neither the researchers nor the women knew which treatment had been given.
In their 2002 paper, the authors reported higher rates of invasive breast cancers in the HRT group. They used a unit called “person-years”. Person-years is a way to measure the total time a group of people spends in a study. For example, if 100 people are in a study for one year each, that makes 100 person-years. If someone leaves the trial after only six months, only that half-year is counted for them.
The authors showed a rate of 38 invasive breast cancers per 10,000 person-years in the HRT group, compared to 30 per 10,000 person-years in the placebo group. This gives a rate ratio of 1.26 (one rate divided by the other).
This fairly large increase in breast cancer rates, also expressed as a 26% increase, caused widespread panic around the world, and led to thousands of women stopping HRT.
But the actual risk of breast cancer in each group is low. The rate of 38 per 10,000 person-years is equivalent to an annual rate of 0.38%. With very small rates like this, the authors should really have used the rate difference rather than the rate ratio. The rate difference is one rate subtracted from the other, rather than divided by it. This equates to an annual increase of 0.08% breast cancer cases in the HRT group – much more modest.
The authors of the 2002 paper also pointed out that the 26% increase in the rate of breast cancer “almost reached nominal statistical significance”. Almost is not statistical significance, and formally, this means there was no difference in breast cancer rates between the two groups. In other words, the difference between the two groups could have happened by chance.
The authors should have been more careful when describing their results.
3. Did Popeye’s spinach change your meals?
Cartoon character Popeye is a one-eyed, pipe-smoking sailor with mangled English, in love with the willowy Olive Oyl. He is constantly getting into trouble, and when he needs extra energy, he opens a can of spinach and swallows the contents. His biceps immediately bulge, and off he goes to sort out the problem.
When Popeye ate spinach, his muscles bulged. No wonder sales of spinach rose.
But why does Popeye eat spinach?
The story begins in about 1870, with a German chemist, Erich von Wolf or Emil von Wolff, depending on which version of events you read.
By then the Popeye character had been created and spinach became incredibly popular with children. Apparently, consumption of spinach in the US went up by a third as a result of the cartoon.
This story had gained legendary status but has one tiny flaw. In a 1932 cartoon, Popeye explains exactly why he eats spinach, and it’s nothing to do with iron. He says in his garbled English:
Spinach is full of Vitamin A. An’tha’s what makes hoomans strong an’ helty!
The NSW State Government has announced Barangaroo has reached its next major milestone with the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces granting approval of the modification request for Central Barangaroo.
The planning determination means that the central Barangaroo proposal can proceed subject to conditions.
This development is the final piece of Barangaroo to proceed, enabling the transformation of a once neglected and inaccessible part of the city into a dynamic cultural, residential, business and retail hub.
The development will comprise a mix of residential and retail including restaurants and bars, a hotel and community facilities. It allows for the area to become a destination in its own right on the Sydney Harbour foreshore due to its proximity to the new Barangaroo Metro.
The approval requires high standards of quality and sustainability, in line with the rest of Barangaroo, with a focus on water efficiency, carbon neutrality, and zero waste.
At least 50% of public open space will be maintained, a key principle of the original proposal.
The modification also delivers an extra 800 square metres of community floor space and two new public plazas. It also establishes view corridors along the northern and southern plazas.
On the nearby Central Barangaroo foreshore there are also separate plans for a new 1.8-hectare waterfront public park for recreation, events and entertainment, currently known as Harbour Park.
Harbour Park, concept drawing
When assessing the proposal, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) carefully assessed the historic view impacts of the proposal, particularly between Observatory Hill and Sydney Harbour. Conditions on the project include incorporating the Heritage Impact Statement into the consent.
It also included a condition being imposed requiring the height of the northern part of the block facing Nawi Cove to be reduced from 8 storeys down to 5 storeys. This provides continued connection to the water view from Observatory Hill.
In addition, the measures outlined in the Heritage Impact Assessment together with design guidelines will support a design within the building envelope which will further minimise impacts on historic views.
The planning approval enables the proponent to undertake detailed design work, which will include community consultation.
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully said:
“The renewal of the strategically important Barangaroo site has always been about providing greater access to Sydney’s harbour foreshore. It will create jobs and homes, enhance our cultural facilities, civic spaces and parkland, and create diverse experiences and destinations – all easily accessible by public transport.
“Detailed design work can now proceed on this prominent space under consent conditions to support design excellence to respect the surrounding area.
“This approval considers Barangaroo’s prominent position and is respectful of the contribution of the area to Sydney’s development and future.”
Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said:
“Under the former Government this project was stuck in planning purgatory for over a decade, and this site had been a blight on the harbour for many years before that.
“This is a fantastic outcome. Now that planning approval has been granted, we can get on with the job of delivering the final piece of the Barangaroo puzzle.
“With the Barangaroo Metro station now open, the Pier Pavilion and the Cutaway nearing completion, Barangaroo Reserve, Marrinawi and Nawi Cove open, it will be fantastic to see the full vision for Barangaroo finally realised for locals and visitors to enjoy.”
Harbour Park: In July 2023, the winning concept design was unveiled. The park features nature play for all ages and abilities, an event lawn for hosting community and cultural events, public art installations, winding pathways to explore, extensive native planting and interactive water features.
The winning design for the new Harbour Park is by AKIN, an Indigenous-led and Sydney-based design team comprising of Yerrabingin, Architectus, Jacob Nash, Studio Chris Fox, Flying Fish Blue and Arup.
''Their thoughtful concept showcases First Nations design methodologies to create a place that is rich in culture, deeply connected to Country and welcomes all.
The design seeks to regenerate the land from a cold industrial concrete slab to a landscape that is timeless, with extensive planting and canopy cover, waterways, wetlands and waterholes.''
ACCC welcomes passage of world-first scams prevention laws
February 2025
The ACCC welcomes the passage of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill in Parliament today, February 13 2025.
This world-first legislation enhances protections across the economy by setting out consistent and enforceable obligations for businesses in key sectors where scammers operate.
“The financial crime type, scams, present an unacceptable threat to the Australian community and have had a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of Australians,” ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said.
“This Bill is a critical step in the fight against scams - creating overarching principles that all members of designated sectors must comply with. We know scammers will exploit weak links in the system – so these principles are key to a consistent approach.”
Under the new legislation, the ACCC will closely monitor regulated entities’ compliance with principles to prevent, detect, disrupt, respond to and report scams.
The Scams Prevention Framework empowers the ACCC to investigate potential breaches and take enforcement action where entities do not take reasonable steps to fulfill their obligations under these principles.
Businesses that do not meet their obligations under the Framework can face fines up to $50 million.
“Individuals have been bearing the brunt of the responsibility to combat scammers for too long,” Ms Lowe said.
“While the steps taken by some organisations over the last few years are welcomed, the Framework provides the opportunity for joint effort across government and industry to develop solutions to scam challenges and for consumers to access meaningful redress.”
“Importantly, the Framework enables consumers to seek redress from regulated businesses when those businesses have not met their obligations,” Ms Lowe said.
Banks, certain digital platforms, including social media, and telecommunications providers will be the first sectors required to comply with the legislation.
The ACCC is a strong supporter of mandatory industry scams codes and, through the National Anti-Scam Centre, has already begun preparing incrementally for the Framework.
“In reaching this important milestone, we acknowledge that there is considerable work ahead to implement the Framework, including the formal designation of sectors, development of sector codes, consumer and industry guidance,” Ms Lowe said.
“We will continue to work closely with government, fellow regulators, industry and community agencies to make sure these elements of the Framework work for all stakeholders, most especially consumers.”
Background
The ACCC runs the National Anti-Scam Centre, which commenced on 1 July 2023, and Scamwatch service. The National Anti-Scam Centre is a virtual centre that sits within the ACCC and brings together experts from government, law enforcement and the private sector, to disrupt scams before they reach consumers.
The National Anti-Scam Centre analyses and acts on trends from shared data and raises consumer awareness about how to spot and avoid scams.
The ACCC, through the National Anti-Scam Centre, has already been partnering with stakeholders across the scams ecosystem to share intelligence and information to detect and disrupt scams on a voluntary basis. The Framework will significantly boost the contributions from industry and require designated businesses to share scam intelligence with the ACCC.
The new Scams Prevention Framework will be critical to cutting off scammers before they can reach Australians.
Under the Framework, the ACCC will also enforce the digital platforms sector scams code and will take enforcement action where digital platforms breach their obligations under this code.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be the regulator for the banking sector code and the Australian Communications and Media Authority will be the regulator for the telecommunications sector code. Regulators have in place processes to work together to help ensure the right action by the right regulator at the right time.
The ACCC supports the establishment of a single external dispute resolution body under the new Framework and looks forward to working with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
How to spot and avoid scams
STOP – Don’t give money or personal information to anyone if you’re unsure. Scammers will create a sense of urgency. Don’t rush to act. Say no, hang up, delete.
CHECK – Ask yourself could the call or text be fake? Scammers pretend to be from organisations you know and trust. Contact the organisation using information you source independently, so that you can verify if the call is real or not.
PROTECT – Act quickly if something feels wrong. Contact your bank immediately if you lose money. If you have provided personal information call IDCARE on 1800 595 160. The more we talk the less power they have. Report scams to the National Anti-Scam Centre’s Scamwatch service at scamwatch.gov.au when you see them.
First Japanese encephalitis NSW case this summer
February 15 2025
Japanese encephalitis (JE) virus infection has been identified in a man who likely acquired his infection while camping in the Murrumbidgee region in NSW.
NSW Health's Executive Director of Health Protection Dr Jeremy McAnulty said this recent case, who is currently recovering in hospital, is likely to have acquired the infection in late December or early January while holidaying.
“This case, along with recent detections in pigs and mosquitoes in NSW and detections in Victoria and Queensland, highlights the risk of JE virus infection in a large stretch of NSW west of the Great Dividing Range," Dr McAnulty said.
“It is very important for people who live in or travel to these areas to be aware of the elevated risk and to take precautions against mosquito bites. In addition to JE virus, Murray Valley Encephalitis, Kunjin, Ross River, and Barmah Forest viruses can also be spread by mosquito bites.
“Importantly, there is a safe, effective and free vaccine to protect against JE which is available to anyone who lives or routinely works in various inland LGAs as well as for people who work in some other high-risk occupations."
JE vaccine is available through local General Practitioners, Aboriginal health services and pharmacists.
People who meet the eligibility criteria should make an appointment with their GP, Aboriginal Medical Service or pharmacy and let the provider know it is for the JE vaccine. These providers may require a few days' notice so they can order the vaccine.
Actions to prevent mosquito bites include:
Applying repellent to exposed skin. Use repellents that contain DEET, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus. Check the label for reapplication times
Re-applying repellent regularly, particularly after swimming. Be sure to apply sunscreen first and then apply repellent
Wearing light, loose-fitting long-sleeve shirts, long pants and covered footwear. and socks
Avoiding going outdoors during peak mosquito times, especially dawn and dusk
Using insecticide sprays, vapour dispensing units and mosquito coils to repel mosquitoes (mosquito coils should only be used outdoors in well-ventilated areas)
Covering windows and doors with insect screens and checking there are no gaps
Removing items that may collect water such as old tyres and empty pots from around your home to reduce the places where mosquitoes can breed
Using repellents that are safe for children. Most skin repellents are safe for use on children aged three months and older. Always check the label for instructions
Protecting infants aged less than three months by using an infant carrier draped with mosquito netting, secured along the edges
While camping, use a tent that has fly screens to prevent mosquitoes entering or sleep under a mosquito net
JE virus cannot be transmitted between humans, and it cannot be caught by eating pork or other pig products.
Online tax schemes on the rise
The ATO is warning the community to be alert for potentially dodgy tax schemes which are spreading online, including through social media.
Acting Deputy Commissioner Sarah Taylor is urging individuals to be wary of online promotion of tax schemes promising to significantly reduce or avoid tax altogether.
‘Sometimes tax schemes can be peddled as investment schemes. We don’t want to see honest people lured into unlawful tax schemes with false promises of high returns and tax savings – if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is,’ Ms Taylor said.
‘Those who invest in unlawful tax schemes stand to lose their hard-earned cash, and risk paying tax with interest and heavy penalties.’
‘Promoters of these schemes are often opportunistic and target vulnerable people. Protect yourself and your money by getting advice from a registered tax practitioner before committing to anything,’ Ms Taylor said.
The ATO’s website lists a number of tax schemes to look out for. In one particular recent scheme, individuals are being advised to invest in a start-up company that allegedly qualifies as an early-stage innovation company (ESIC). By investing in an ESIC, they’re told they can then claim the early-stage investor tax offset on shares purchased through the financing arrangement.
The ATO is concerned individuals may be entering into these arrangements under the belief they are entitled to the tax benefits claimed using the financing arrangements. We are also concerned that the companies may not qualify as ESICs.
Another type of tax scheme being promoted in the community promises individuals they can avoid paying tax by setting up a purported non-profit foundation and diverting their income to it. These schemes are not effective and the individuals will still have to pay the tax on the income.
If you are approached with tax arrangements that sound like either of these examples, or sound too good to be true, seek advice from a registered tax practitioner and report it to the ATO.
The ATO takes a strong stance against all types of unlawful tax schemes and their promotion.
‘Promoting and participating in unlawful tax schemes are not victimless crimes. Those who choose to engage in these behaviours are attempting to obtain an unfair advantage over those who do the right thing,’ Ms Taylor said.
‘We take targeted action against unlawful tax schemes that promote tax avoidance behaviours and against those who promote these schemes. We are committed to helping protect the community against misinformation about schemes spread on various channels.’
If you are offered an unlawful tax scheme, you should reject it and report it to the ATO confidentially by:
If you suspect that you’ve inadvertently become involved in an unlawful tax scheme, you should also contact the ATO immediately. If you proactively approach the ATO, you may be eligible for a reduction in any penalties imposed.
To check if a tax practitioner is registered, use the Tax Practitioners Board's public register.
ATO clarification on GST treatment of sunscreen: Media Reports incorrect
February 14 2025
Goods and services tax (GST) does not apply to products marketed principally as sunscreen and never has. To be GST-free, a sunscreen product must be ‘marketed principally for use as sunscreen’.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has not changed its view on the GST treatment of sunscreen.
Recent media reports have suggested the ATO is ‘cracking down’ on manufacturers of skincare and sunscreen products in relation to GST treatment. Reporting has also suggested that the price of these products is expected to increase because of ATO actions. These claims are incorrect.
What the ATO has done is improve its guidance to provide clarity on how the existing law applies and make it easier for suppliers to classify their products correctly, noting modern products are being developed and marketed as having other benefits or uses, such as make-up or tint, or correcting the appearance of blemished skin.
To be GST-free, a sunscreen product must be ‘marketed principally for use as sunscreen’. If a product is not marketed principally for use as a sunscreen it is, and always has been, subject to GST.
A product classified as GST-free under this determination would have always been GST-free and vice versa for products that would not be GST-free. Since the introduction of GST, under the law sunscreen products are only GST-free if they:
are for application to the skin (including the lips)
have a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of 15 or more
are required to be included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG)
are marketed principally for use as sunscreen.
The ATO’s view is that whether a sunscreen product is marketed principally for use as sunscreen is a matter of overall impression involving an objective assessment of all the marketing information.
Detailed information is available in the ATO’s draft determination GSTD 2024/D2: supplies of sunscreen, from paragraph 20 ‘Marketed principally for use as sunscreen’ and ‘Table 1: common terms and features used in marketing of sunscreen products’ in the ‘Marketed principally for use as sunscreen’ criteria.
NDIS reforms aim to make the scheme fairer. But we’ve found the groups struggling to gain access
When the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established in 2013, one of its driving aims was to make disability services and support systems fairer.
However, our new research shows significant inequalities remain, with some groups finding it much harder than others to be deemed eligible and access a funding plan.
So, what can we do to ensure these reforms don’t further embed existing inequalities? Here’s what we found.
Inequalities in scheme access
To receive funding from the NDIS, participants are required to demonstrate their eligibility.
We wanted to explore whether decisions about eligibility were leading to inequalities in who could access and use NDIS funding.
Our study looked at the individual NDIS applications of 485,676 people aged seven or older, made between 2016 and 2022, to see if they were deemed eligible.
We then compared differences in eligibility rates between groups, considering:
age (applicants 55 or older versus those under 55)
gender (women and girls versus other applicants)
socioeconomic disadvantage (those from the poorest 30% of areas versus all other areas).
Who is deemed ineligible?
We found some groups are more likely to be rejected from the scheme than others: women and girls, people aged 55 and over, and those who live in disadvantaged areas.
Within these groups, eligibility rates also vary.
For example, people with intellectual disability, autism, and brain injury or stroke were very likely to be deemed eligible, regardless of their age, gender or socioeconomic disadvantage (900 or more were accepted per 1,000 applicants).
However, people with physical disability and psychosocial disability (disabilities that can arise from a mental health issue, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) were significantly more likely to be rejected.
This was true across groups, but particularly evident among women and girls.
We compared eligibility rates within every 1,000 applications made by women and girls versus men and boys.
Among those who had physical disability, 145 more women and girls were rejected, compared to men and boys.
Among those with psychosocial disability, 83 more applications were deemed ineligible for every 1,000 applications made by women, compared to men.
Age was also a factor. Older Australians with a physical disability had 235 fewer approvals per 1,000 applications than those with physical disability under 55.
Inequalities are more pronounced among those trying to prove eligibility for the scheme.
Once accepted into the NDIS, our research found women and girls, and people living in poorer areas, received similar amounts of funding as men and boys, and those living in better-off areas.
This budget is based on what the participant wants to achieve in everyday life and their support needs relating to their disabilities.
However once people receive and are using plans, we then see some differences in how much these people are able to spend. This relates to factors such as the availability of services in an area or whether culturally safe supports are available.
We found that women with psychosocial disability spent more than men with similar sized budgets.
This result could reflect that women with psychosocial disability on the NDIS have higher support needs than men.
It could be that it is harder for women to get onto the scheme in the first place, so those who are deemed eligible have more significant disability than men.
But we need more research to unpack this further.
Why do we see these inequalities?
In the early days of the NDIS, to help fast-track applications, the National Disability Insurance Agency (which runs the NDIS) specified a list of diagnoses closely related to disability.
Known as list A conditions, people with these diagnoses are automatically eligible for the NDIS.
Disabilities likely to be associated with a list A diagnosis include level 2 or 3 autism (requiring substantial or very substantial support) and intellectual disability.
However some people who could have permanent and significant disability, may have a diagnosis not on list A, such as Down syndrome and motor neurone disease. They must provide a broader range of evidence on the impact of their disability to be eligible.
If they face other challenges – such as socioeconomic disadvantage – it may be harder for them to collect this evidence. For example, they may not be able to afford private health care that would help support their application.
This might explain why people who do not have a list A diagnosis are less likely to prove their eligibility for the scheme.
Where next for the scheme?
Following recommendations from an independent review into the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Agency is currently making changes to how it assesses eligibility.
One of the changes suggested is removing list A classifications altogether.
Instead, the agency will use a suite of functional assessment tools. These are still in the process of being designed, but they are one way to assess a person’s ability to perform everyday tasks and identify the level of support they require.
This approach aims to assess more objectively and fairly how much someone is impacted by their disability.
However, there are longstanding critiques of these tools. These include concerns they are not safe for minority groups, such as those with a culturally or linguistically diverse background, LGBTQIA+ people, and First Nations applicants.
Our new research demonstrates how and why some inequalities arise. We should put this understanding front-and-centre in any changes to the NDIS.
Most importantly, we should make sure reforms are co-designed with a broad range of different groups, to ensure we don’t perpetuate old inequalities or introduce new ones.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has taken off at lightning speed in the past couple of years, creating disruption in many industries. Newsrooms are no exception.
A new report published today finds that news audiences and journalists alike are concerned about how news organisations are – and could be – using generative AI such as chatbots, image, audio and video generators, and similar tools.
The report draws on three years of interviews and focus group research into generative AI and journalism in Australia and six other countries (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France).
Only 25% of our news audience participants were confident they had encountered generative AI in journalism. About 50% were unsure or suspected they had.
This suggests a potential lack of transparency from news organisations when they use generative AI. It could also reflect a lack of trust between news outlets and audiences.
Who or what makes your news – and how – matters for a host of reasons.
Some outlets tend to use more or fewer sources, for example. Or use certain kinds of sources – such as politicians or experts – more than others.
Some outlets under-represent or misrepresent parts of the community. This is sometimes because the news outlet’s staff themselves aren’t representative of their audience.
Carelessly using AI to produce or edit journalism can reproduce some of these inequalities.
Our report identifies dozens of ways journalists and news organisations can use generative AI. It also summarises how comfortable news audiences are with each.
The news audiences we spoke to overall felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for behind-the-scenes tasks rather than for editing and creating. These include using AI to transcribe an interview or to provide ideas on how to cover a topic.
But comfort is highly dependent on context. Audiences were quite comfortable with some editing and creating tasks when the perceived risks were lower.
The problem – and opportunity
Generative AI can be used in just about every part of journalism.
For example, a photographer could cover an event. Then, a generative AI tool could select what it “thinks” are the best images, edit the images to optimise them, and add keywords to each.
Computer software can try to recognise objects in images and add keywords, leading to potentially more efficient image processing workflows.Elise Racine/Better Images of AI/Moon over Fields, CC BY
These might seem like relatively harmless applications. But what if the AI identifies something or someone incorrectly, and these keywords lead to mis-identifications in the photo captions? What if the criteria humans think make “good” images are different to what a computer might think? These criteria may also change over time or in different contexts.
Even something as simple as lightening or darkening an image can cause a furore when politics are involved.
AI can also make things up completely. Images can appear photorealistic but show things that never happened. Videos can be entirely generated with AI, or edited with AI to change their context.
Generative AI is also frequently used for writing headlines or summarising articles. These sound like helpful applications for time-poor individuals, but some news outlets are using AI to rip off others’ content.
AI-generated news alerts have also gotten the facts wrong. As an example, Apple recently suspended its automatically generated news notification feature. It did this after the feature falsely claimed US murder suspect Luigi Mangione had killed himself, with the source attributed as the BBC.
What do people think about journalists using AI?
Our research found news audiences seem to be more comfortable with journalists using AI for certain tasks when they themselves have used it for similar purposes.
For example, the people interviewed were largely comfortable with journalists using AI to blur parts of an image. Our participants said they used similar tools on video conferencing apps or when using the “portrait” mode on smartphones.
Likewise, when you insert an image into popular word processing or presentation software, it might automatically create a written description of the image for people with vision impairments. Those who’d previously encountered such AI descriptions of images felt more comfortable with journalists using AI to add keywords to media.
Popular word processing and presentation software can automatically generate alt-text descriptions for images that are inserted into documents or presentations.T.J. Thomson
The most frequent way our participants encountered generative AI in journalism was when journalists reported on AI content that had gone viral.
For example, when an AI-generated image purported to show Princes William and Harry embracing at King Charles’s coronation, news outlets reported on this false image.
Our news audience participants also saw notices that AI had been used to write, edit or translate news articles. They saw AI-generated images accompanying some of these. This is a popular approach at The Daily Telegraph, which uses AI-generated images to illustrate many of its opinion columns.
The Daily Telegraph frequently turns to generative AI to illustrate its opinion columns, sometimes generating more photorealistic illustrations and sometimes less photorealistic ones.T.J. Thomson
Overall, our participants felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for brainstorming or for enriching already created media. This was followed by using AI for editing and creating. But comfort depends heavily on the specific use.
Most of our participants were comfortable with turning to AI to create icons for an infographic. But they were quite uncomfortable with the idea of an AI avatar presenting the news, for example.
On the editing front, a majority of our participants were comfortable with using AI to animate historical images, like this one. AI can be used to “enliven” an otherwise static image in the hopes of attracting viewer interest and engagement.
A historical photograph from the State Library of Western Australia’s collection has been animated with AI (a tool called Runway) to introduce motion to the still image.T.J. Thomson
Your role as an audience member
If you’re unsure if or how journalists are using AI, look for a policy or explainer from the news outlet on the topic. If you can’t find one, consider asking the outlet to develop and publish a policy.
Consider supporting media outlets that use AI to complement and support – rather than replace – human labour.
Before making decisions, consider the past trustworthiness of the journalist or outlet in question, and what the evidence says.
Most of us would do anything for our pets if they become unwell. But just as caring for a human loved one can come at great personal cost, a growing body of research shows that’s also true for many pet owners looking after a seriously ill pet.
One 2017 study looked at how people with healthy pets fared compared to those caring for pets with serious diseases.
It found many of those looking after seriously ill animals felt they didn’t have enough time for themselves due to the time they had to spend with their pet.
Compared to owners of healthy pets, those caring for unwell pets experienced:
greater burden, stress and symptoms of depression/anxiety, as well as poorer quality of life.
Our 2023 research into experiences of people looking after older dogs showed similarly concerning results.
We surveyed people with dogs eight years or older. Some of these dogs were living with canine cognitive dysfunction, a form of dementia similar to Alzheimer’s disease in people.
Out of the 637 respondents to our survey, 16% had a high burden of care likely to be associated with negative psychological, physical and financial outcomes.
One respondent told us:
My partner and I cannot leave him home alone for long at all […] I worry about [my pet’s] quality of life. I feel my partner is really struggling with [my pet’s] deterioration and when the time comes for euthanasia I know it will be me forcing the issue. I feel constant anxiety about this decision looming.
A higher burden of care was associated with the dog having more severe canine cognitive dysfunction, pet owners who were aged between 25 and 44 years, and those who lived alone.
This makes sense, because people who live alone don’t have another person to support or help them. The most difficult dog behaviours people reported were night-time disturbances and barking.
Burden of care in other situations
Any significant pet disease or disability is likely to be associated with stress in their caregivers.
Even behavioural problems in dogs, such as aggression or separation-related disorder, have been associated with clinically significant strain in more than 68% of people.
Most of the research has been done in dogs, but owners of ill cats also have a higher burden, although it appears less than owners of an ill dog.
We previously showed that a third of owners of cats with epilepsy are likely to be experiencing high levels of carer stress or strain.
These problems were worse in owners who did not feel supported by their vet. For example, they may feel they’re being rushed through appointments, or that their concerns are being dismissed.
Pet owners more likely to feel this caregiver stress included those who were younger than 55, and those whose cat had uncontrolled seizures.
Strong emotions and complex needs
The burden of caring for an unwell pet is not well recognised, even by vets.
People suffering this kind of carer stress are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet’s office, visit more frequently, and become angry and emotional.
From a vet’s perspective, clients with such strong emotions and complex needs can be challenging.
People suffering a high burden of care are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet.Beach Creatives/Shutterstock
How can you get help?
If you or somebody you know is struggling with caring for a seriously ill pet, find a vet you trust and feel comfortable with. If you can tell them what you are struggling with, the vet may be able to provide some support.
Call on your village! Ask friends and family for help to provide you with respite. We often do it when we first bring a new puppy or kitten home, but don’t think it’s OK to ask for help when they’re sick or ageing and need more care.
Know that it’s OK to sometimes feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or even resentful towards your pet. It doesn’t mean you don’t love them. It means providing this level of care is hard.
I think that most of the people are not aware of the benefits of living with the cat with special needs.
Supporting the human-animal bond means supporting both humans and animals. We’re all better off when we recognise and support people struggling with caring for their pets.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.
This is the best day of the past five months for me … This is my home … I am not afraid of anything and I urge you not to be afraid of anything either.
These were Alexei Navalny’s words after landing at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport on January 17 2021. Russia’s leading opposition figure had spent the past months recovering in Germany from an attempt on his life by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Minutes after making his comments, Navalny was detained at border control. And he would remain behind bars until his death on February 16 2024, in the remote “Polar Wolf” penal colony within the Arctic Circle.
“Why did he return to Russia?” That’s the question I’m asked about Navalny most frequently. Wasn’t it a mistake to return to certain imprisonment, when he could have maintained his opposition to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, from abroad?
But Navalny’s decision to return didn’t surprise me. I’ve researched and written about him extensively, including co-authoring Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?, the first English-language, book-length account of his life and political activities. Defying the Kremlin by returning was a signature move, reflecting both his obstinacy and bravery. He wanted to make sure his supporters and activists in Russia did not feel abandoned, risking their lives while he lived a cushy life in exile.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Besides, Navalny wasn’t returning to certain imprisonment. A close ally of his, Vladimir Ashurkov, told me in May 2022 that his “incarceration in Russia was not a certainty. It was a probability, a scenario – but it wasn’t like he was walking into a certain long-term prison term.”
Also, Navalny hadn’t chosen to leave Russia in the first place. He was unconscious when taken by plane from Omsk to Berlin for treatment following his poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok in August 2020. Navalny had been consistent in saying he was a Russian politician who needed to remain in Russia to be effective.
In a subsequent interview, conducted in a forest on the outskirts of the German capital as he slowly recovered, Navalny said: “In people’s minds, if you leave the country, that means you’ve surrendered.”
Video: ACF.
Outrage, detention and death
Two days after Navalny’s final return to Russia, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) – the organisation he established in 2011 – published its biggest ever investigation. The YouTube video exploring “Putin’s palace” on the Black Sea coast achieved an extraordinary 100 million views within ten days. By the start of February 2021, polling suggested it had been watched by more than a quarter of all adults in Russia.
Outrage at Navalny’s detention, combined with this Putin investigation, got people on to the streets. On January 23 2021, 160,000 people turned out across Russia in events that did not have prior approval from the authorities. More than 40% of the participants said they were taking part in a protest for the first time.
But the Russian authorities were determined to also make it their last time. Law enforcement mounted an awesome display of strength, detaining protesters and sometimes beating them. The number of participants at protests on January 31 and February 2 declined sharply as a result.
Between Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021 and his death in February 2024, aged 47, he faced criminal case after criminal case, adding years and years to his time in prison and increasing the severity of his detention. By the time of his death, he was in the harshest type of prison in the Russian penitentiary system – a “special regime” colony – and was frequently sent to a punishment cell.
The obvious intent was to demoralise Navalny, his team and supporters – making an example of him to spread fear among anyone else who might consider mounting a challenge to the Kremlin. But Navalny fought back, as described in his posthumously published memoir, Patriot. He made legal challenges against his jailers. He went on hunger strike. And he formed a union for his fellow prisoners.
He also used his court appearances to make clear his political views, including following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, declaring: “I am against this war. I consider it immoral, fratricidal, and criminal.”
Navalny’s final public appearance was via video link. He was in good spirits, with his trademark optimism and humour still on display. Tongue firmly in cheek, he asked the judge for financial help:
Your Honour, I will send you my personal account number so that you can use your huge salary as a federal judge to ‘warm up’ my personal account, because I am running out of money.
Navalny died the following day. According to the prison authorities, he collapsed after a short walk and lost consciousness. Although the Russian authorities claimed he had died of natural causes, documents published in September 2024 by The Insider – a Russia-focused, Latvia-based independent investigative website – suggest Navalny may have been poisoned.
A mourner adds her tribute to Alexei Navalny’s grave in Moscow after his burial on March 1 2024.Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock
Whether or not Putin directly ordered his death, Russia’s president bears responsibility – for leading a system that tried to assassinate Navalny in August 2020, and for allowing his imprisonment following Navalny’s return to Russia in conditions designed to crush him.
Commenting in March 2024, Putin stated that, just days before Navalny’s death, he had agreed for his most vocal opponent to be included in a prisoner swap – on condition the opposition figure never returned to Russia. “But, unfortunately,” Putin added, “what happened, happened.”
‘No one will forget’
Putin is afraid of Alexei, even after he killed him.
Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, wrote these words on January 10 2025 after reading a curious letter. His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, had written to Rosfinmonitoring – a Russian state body – with a request for her son’s name to be removed from their list of “extremists and terrorists” now he was no longer alive.
The official response was straight from Kafka. Navalny’s name could not be removed as it had been added following the initiation of a criminal case against him. Even though he was dead, Rosfinmonitoring had not been informed about a termination of the case “in accordance with the procedure established by law”, so his name would have to remain.
This appears to be yet another instance of the Russian state exercising cruelty behind the veil of bureaucratic legality – such as when the prison authorities initially refused to release Navalny’s body to his mother after his death.
“Putin is doing this to scare you,” Yulia continued. “He wants you to be afraid to even mention Alexei, and gradually to forget his name. But no one will forget.”
Alexei Navalny and his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, at a protest rally in Moscow, May 2012.Dmitry Laudin/Shutterstock
Today, Navalny’s family and team continue his work outside of Russia – and are fighting to keep his name alive back home. But the odds are against them. Polling suggests the share of Russians who say they know nothing about Navalny or his activities roughly doubled to 30% between his return in January 2021 and his death three years later.
Navalny fought against an autocratic system – and paid the price with his life. Given the very real fears Russians may have of voicing support for a man still labelled an extremist by the Putin regime, it’s not easy to assess what people there really think of him and his legacy. But we will also never know how popular Navalny would have been in the “normal” political system he fought for.
What made Navalny the force he was?
Navalny didn’t mean for the humble yellow rubber duck to become such a potent symbol of resistance.
In March 2017, the ACF published its latest investigation into elite corruption, this time focusing on then-prime minister (and former president), Dmitry Medvedev. Navalny’s team members had become masters of producing slick videos that enabled their message to reach a broad audience. A week after posting, the film had racked up over 7 million views on YouTube – an extraordinary number at that time.
The film included shocking details of Medvedev’s alleged avarice, including yachts and luxury properties. In the centre of a large pond in one of these properties was a duck house, footage of which was captured by the ACF using a drone.
Video: ACF.
Such luxuries jarred with many people’s view of Medvedev as being a bit different to Putin and his cronies. As Navalny wrote in his memoir, Medvedev had previously seemed “harmless and incongruous”. (At the time, Medvedev’s spokeswoman said it was “pointless” to comment on the ACF investigation, suggesting the report was a “propaganda attack from an opposition figure and a convict”.)
But people were angry, and the report triggered mass street protests across Russia. They carried yellow ducks and trainers, a second unintended symbol from the film given Medvedev’s penchant for them.
Another reason why so many people came out to protest on March 26 2017 was the organising work carried out by Navalny’s movement.
The previous December, Navalny had announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election. As part of the campaign, he and his team created a network of regional headquarters to bring together supporters and train activists across Russia. Although the authorities had rejected Navalny’s efforts to register an official political party, this regional network functioned in much the same way, gathering like-minded people in support of an electoral candidate. And this infrastructure helped get people out on the streets.
The Kremlin saw this as a clear threat. According to a December 2020 investigation by Bellingcat, CNN, Der Spiegel and The Insider, the FSB assassination squad implicated in the Novichok poisoning of Navalny had started trailing him in January 2017 – one month after he announced his run for the presidency.
At the protests against Medvedev, the authorities’ growing intolerance of Navalny was also on display – he was detained, fined and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment.
The Medvedev investigation was far from the beginning of Navalny’s story as a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. But this episode brings together all of the elements that made Navalny the force he was: anti-corruption activism, protest mobilisation, attempts to run as a “normal” politician in a system rigged against him, and savvy use of social media to raise his profile in all of these domains.
Courting controversy
In Patriot, Navalny writes that he always “felt sure a broad coalition was needed to fight Putin”. Yet over the years, his attempts to form that coalition led to some of the most controversial points of his political career.
In a 2007 video, Navalny referred to himself as a “certified nationalist”, advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants, albeit without using violence and distancing himself from neo-Nazism. In the video, he says: “We have the right to be Russians in Russia, and we’ll defend that right.”
Although alienating some, Navalny was attempting to present a more acceptable face of nationalism, and he hoped to build a bridge between nationalists and liberals in taking on the Kremlin’s burgeoning authoritarianism.
But the prominence of nationalism in Navalny’s political identity varied markedly over time, probably reflecting his shifting estimations of which platform could attract the largest support within Russia. By the time of his thwarted run in the 2018 presidential election, nationalist talking points were all but absent from his rhetoric.
However, some of these former comments and positions continue to influence how people view him. For example, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Navalny tried to take a pragmatic stance. While acknowledging Russia’s flouting of international law, he said that Crimea was “now part of the Russian Federation” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
Many Ukrainians take this as clear evidence that Navalny was a Russian imperialist. Though he later revised his position, saying Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, some saw this as too little, too late. But others were willing to look past the more controversial parts of his biography, recognising that Navalny represented the most effective domestic challenge to Putin.
Another key attempt to build a broad political coalition was Navalny’s Smart Voting initiative. This was a tactical voting project in which Navalny’s team encouraged voters to back the individual thought best-placed to defeat the ruling United Russia candidate, regardless of the challenger’s ideological position.
The project wasn’t met with universal approval. Some opposition figures and voters baulked at, or flatly refused to consider, the idea of voting for people whose ideological positions they found repugnant – or whom they viewed as being “fake” opposition figures, entirely in bed with the authorities. (This makes clear that Navalny was never the leader of the political opposition in Russia; he was, rather, the leading figure of a fractious constellation of individuals and groups.)
But others relished the opportunity to make rigged elections work in their favour. And there is evidence that Smart Voting did sometimes work, including in the September 2020 regional and local elections, for which Navalny had been campaigning when he was poisoned with Novichok.
In an astonishing moment captured on film during his recovery in Germany, Navalny speaks to an alleged member of the FSB squad sent to kill him. Pretending to be the aide to a senior FSB official, Navalny finds out that the nerve agent had been placed in his underpants.
How do Russians feel about Navalny now?
It’s like a member of the family has died.
This is what one Russian friend told me after hearing of Navalny’s death a year ago. Soon afterwards, the Levada Center – an independent Russian polling organisation – conducted a nationally representative survey to gauge the public’s reaction to the news.
The poll found that Navalny’s death was the second-most mentioned event by Russian people that month, after the capture of the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka by Russian troops. But when asked how they felt about his death, 69% of respondents said they had “no particular feelings” either way – while only 17% said they felt “sympathy” or “pity”.
And that broadly fits with Navalny’s approval ratings in Russia. After his poisoning in 2020, 20% of Russians said they approved of his activities – but this was down to 11% by February 2024.
Video: BBC.
Of course, these numbers must be taken for what they are: polling in an authoritarian state regarding a figure vilified and imprisoned by the regime, during a time of war and amid draconian restrictions on free speech. To what extent the drop in support for Navalny was real, rather than reflecting the increased fear people had in voicing their approval for an anti-regime figure, is hard to say with certainty.
When asked why they liked Navalny, 31% of those who approved of his activities said he spoke “the truth”, “honestly” or “directly”. For those who did not approve of his activities, 22% said he was “paid by the west”, “represented” the west’s interests, that he was a “foreign agent”, a “traitor” or a “puppet”.
The Kremlin had long tried to discredit Navalny as a western-backed traitor. After Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “experts from the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency are working with him”. The Russian state claimed that, rather than a patriot exposing official malfeasance with a view to strengthening his country, Navalny was a CIA stooge intent on destroying Russia.
Peskov provided no evidence to back up this claim – and the official propaganda wasn’t believed by all. Thousands of Russians defied the authorities by coming out to pay their respects at Navalny’s funeral on March 1 2024. Many, if not all, knew this was a significant risk. Police employed video footage to track down members of the funeral crowd, including by using facial recognition technology.
The first person to be detained was a Muscovite the police claimed they heard shouting “Glory to the heroes!” – a traditional Ukrainian response to the declaration “Glory to Ukraine!”, but this time referencing Navalny. She spent a night in a police station before being fined for “displaying a banned symbol”.
Putin always avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in public while he was alive – instead referring to him as “this gentleman”, “the character you mentioned”, or the “Berlin patient”. (The only recorded instance of Putin using Navalny’s name in public when he was alive was in 2013.)
However, having been re-elected president in 2024 and with Navalny dead, Putin finally broke his long-held practice, saying: “As for Navalny, yes he passed away – this is always a sad event.” It was as if the death of his nemesis diminished the potency of his name – and the challenge that Navalny had long presented to Putin.
Nobody can become another Navalny
Someone else will rise up and take my place. I haven’t done anything unique or difficult. Anyone could do what I’ve done.
So wrote Navalny in the memoir published after his death. But that hasn’t happened: no Navalny 2.0 has yet emerged. And it’s no real surprise. The Kremlin has taken clear steps to ensure nobody can become another Navalny within Russia.
In 2021, the authorities made a clear decision to destroy Navalny’s organisations within Russia, including the ACF and his regional network. Without the organisational infrastructure and legal ability to function in Russia, no figure has been able to take his place directly.
More broadly, the fate of Navalny and his movement has had a chilling effect on the opposition landscape. So too have other steps taken by the authorities.
Russia has become markedly more repressive since the start of its war on Ukraine. The human rights NGO First Department looked into the number of cases relating to “treason”, “espionage” and “confidential cooperation with a foreign state” since Russia introduced the current version of its criminal code in 1997. Of the more than 1,000 cases, 792 – the vast majority – were initiated following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russian law enforcement has also used nebulous anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on dissenting voices. Three of Navalny’s lawyers were sentenced in January 2025 for participating in an “extremist organisation”, as the ACF was designated by a Moscow court in June 2021. The Russian legislature has also passed a barrage of legislation relating to so-called “foreign agents”, to tarnish the work of those the regime regards as foreign-backed “fifth columnists”.
Mass street protests are largely a thing of the past in Russia. Restrictions were placed on public gatherings during the COVID pandemic – but these rules were applied selectively, with opposition individuals and groups being targeted. And opportunities for collective action were further reduced following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Freedom of speech has also come under assault. Article 29, point five of the Russian constitution states: “Censorship shall be prohibited.” But in September 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said: “In the state of war that we are in, restrictions are justified, and censorship is justified.”
Legislation passed very soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it illegal to comment on the Russian military’s activities truthfully – and even to call the war a war.
YouTube – the platform so central to Navalny’s ability to spread his message – has been targeted. Without banning it outright – perhaps afraid of the public backlash this might cause – the Russian state media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has slowed down internet traffic to the site within Russia. The result has been a move of users to other websites supporting video content, including VKontakte – a Russian social media platform.
In short, conditions in Russia are very different now compared to when Navalny first emerged. The relative freedom of the 2000s and 2010s gave him the space to challenge the corruption and authoritarianism of an evolving system headed by Putin. But this space has shrunk over time, to the point where no room remains for a figure like him within Russia.
In 2019, Navalny told Ivan Zhdanov, who is now director of the ACF: “We changed the regime, but not in the way we wanted.” So, did Navalny and his team push the Kremlin to become more authoritarian – making it not only intolerant of him but also any possible successor?
There may be some truth in this. And yet, the drastic steps taken by the regime following the start of the war on Ukraine suggest there were other, even more significant factors that have laid bare the violent nature of Putin’s personal autocracy – and the president’s disdain for dissenters.
Plenty for Russians to be angry about
How can we win the war when dedushka [grandpa] is a moron?
In June 2023, Evgeny Prigozhin – a long-time associate of Putin and head of the private military Wagner Group – staged an armed rebellion, marching his forces on the Russian capital. This was not a full-blown political movement against Putin. But the target of Prigozhin’s invective against Russia’s military leadership had become increasingly blurry, testing the taboo of direct criticism of the president – who is sometimes referred to, disparagingly, as “grandpa” in Russia.
And Prigozhin paid the price. In August 2023, he was killed when the private jet he was flying in crashed after an explosion on board. Afterwards, Putin referred to Prigozhin as a “talented person” who “made serious mistakes in life”.
In the west, opposition to the Kremlin is often associated with more liberal figures like Navalny. Yet the most consequential domestic challenge to Putin’s rule came from a very different part of the ideological spectrum – a figure in Prigozhin leading a segment of Russian society that wanted the Kremlin to prosecute its war on Ukraine even more aggressively.
Video: BBC.
Today, there is plenty for Russians to be angry about, and Putin knows it. He recently acknowledged an “overheating of the economy”. This has resulted in high inflation, in part due to all the resources being channelled into supporting the war effort. Such cost-of-living concerns weigh more heavily than the war on the minds of most Russians.
A favourite talking point of the Kremlin is how Putin imposed order in Russia following the “wild 1990s” – characterised by economic turbulence and symbolised by then-president Boris Yeltsin’s public drunkenness. Many Russians attribute the stability and rise in living standards they experienced in the 2000s with Putin’s rule – and thank him for it by providing support for his continued leadership.
The current economic problems are an acute worry for the Kremlin because they jeopardise this basic social contract struck with the Russian people. In fact, one way the Kremlin tried to discredit Navalny was by comparing him with Yeltsin, suggesting he posed the same threats as a failed reformer. In his memoir, Navalny concedes that “few things get under my skin more”.
Although originally a fan of Yeltsin, Navalny became an ardent critic. His argument was that Yeltsin and those around him squandered the opportunity to make Russia a “normal” European country.
Navalny also wanted Russians to feel entitled to more. Rather than be content with their relative living standards compared with the early post-Soviet period, he encouraged them to imagine the level of wealth citizens could enjoy based on Russia’s extraordinary resources – but with the rule of law, less corruption, and real democratic processes.
‘Think of other possible Russias’
When looking at forms of criticism and dissent in Russia today, we need to distinguish between anti-war, anti-government, and anti-Putin activities.
Despite the risk of harsh consequences, there are daily forms of anti-war resistance, including arson attacks on military enlistment offices. Some are orchestrated from Ukraine, with Russians blackmailed into acting. But other cases are likely to be forms of domestic resistance.
Criticism of the government is still sometimes possible, largely because Russia has a “dual executive” system, consisting of a prime minister and presidency. This allows the much more powerful presidency to deflect blame to the government when things go wrong.
There are nominal opposition parties in Russia – sometimes referred to as the “systemic opposition”, because they are loyal to the Kremlin and therefore tolerated by the system. Within the State Duma, these parties often criticise particular government ministries for apparent failings. But they rarely, if ever, now dare criticise Putin directly.
Nothing anywhere close to the challenge presented by Navalny appears on the horizon in Russia – at either end of the political spectrum. But the presence of clear popular grievances, and the existence of organisations (albeit not Navalny’s) that could channel this anger should the Kremlin’s grip loosen, mean we cannot write off all opposition in Russia.
Navalny’s wife, Yulia, has vowed to continue her husband’s work. And his team in exile maintain focus on elite corruption in Russia, now from their base in Vilnius, Lithuania. The ACF’s most recent investigation is on Igor Sechin, CEO of the oil company Rosneft.
But some have argued this work is no longer as relevant as it was. Sam Greene, professor in Russian politics at King’s College London, captured this doubt in a recent Substack post:
[T]here is a palpable sense that these sorts of investigations may not be relevant to as many people as they used to be, given everything that has transpired since the mid-2010s, when they were the bread and butter of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Some … have gone as far as to suggest that they have become effectively meaningless … and thus that Team Navalny should move on.
Navalny’s team are understandably irritated by suggestions they’re no longer as effective as they once were. But it’s important to note that this criticism has often been sharpest within Russia’s liberal opposition. The ACF has been rocked, for example, by recent accusations from Maxim Katz, one such liberal opposition figure, that the organisation helped “launder the reputations” of two former bank owners. In their response, posted on YouTube, the ACF referred to Katz’s accusations as “lies” – but this continued squabbling has left some Russians feeling “disillusioned and unrepresented”.
So, what will Navalny’s long-term legacy be? Patriot includes a revealing section on Mikhail Gorbachev – the last leader of the Soviet Union, whom Navalny describes as “unpopular in Russia, and also in our family”. He continues:
Usually, when you tell foreigners this, they are very surprised, because Gorbachev is thought of as the person who gave Eastern Europe back its freedom and thanks to whom Germany was reunited. Of course, that is true … but within Russia and the USSR he was not particularly liked.
At the moment, there is a similar split in perceptions of Navalny. Internationally, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, and a documentary about him won an Oscar.
But there are also those outside of Russia who remain critical: “Navalny’s life has brought no benefit to the Ukrainian victory; instead, he has caused considerable harm,” wrote one Ukrainian academic. “He fuelled the illusion in the west that democracy in Russia is possible.”
Trailer for the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.
Inside Russia, according to Levada Center polling shortly after his death, 53% of Russians thought Navalny played “no special role” in the history of the country, while 19% said he played a “rather negative” role. Revealingly, when commenting on Navalny’s death, one man in Moscow told RFE/RL’s Russian Service: “I think that everyone who is against Russia is guilty, even if they are right.”
But, for a small minority in Russia, Navalny will go down as a messiah-like figure who miraculously cheated death in 2020, then made the ultimate sacrifice in his battle of good and evil with the Kremlin. This view may have been reinforced by Navalny’s increasing openness about his Christian faith.
Ultimately, Navalny’s long-term status in Russia will depend on the nature of the political system after Putin has gone. Since it seems likely that authoritarianism will outlast Putin, a more favourable official story about Navalny is unlikely to emerge any time soon. However, how any post-Putin regime tries to make sense of Navalny’s legacy will tell us a lot about that regime.
While he was alive, Navalny stood for the freer Russia in which he had emerged as a leading opposition figure – and also what he called the “Beautiful Russia of the Future”. Perhaps, after his death, his lasting legacy in Russia remains the ability for some to think – if only in private – of other possible Russias.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Ben Noble, Associate Professor of Russian Politics, UCL
When I was a child, I lived in a very politically engaged household. My parents were always talking politics, and my dad in particular was often growling at the television when the face of someone he disagreed with appeared on it.
Yet despite this, and despite nerdily watching election counts all the way through my school years, spurred by a deep interest in how power operates in this country, I still managed to make it to university and beyond with gaping holes in my civics education.
What does our Constitution say, for example? And why is it such a dry legal document, so different from the grand sentiment of its US counterpart? How did the major political parties come to be? And where does the High Court fit into all this?
So in 2024, in the tumultuous aftermath of the Voice to Parliament referendum that had us all grappling with constitutional change and what it might mean, I decided to use the incredible wealth of knowledge and experience at our disposal in our academic writers and put together a book called How Australian Democracy Works. It’s my hope that readers will find it as informative to read as I did to bring it together.
In it, some of our finest thinkers and writers explain and analyse how our government, parliament and Constitution work, and examine some of the most pressing issues facing our democracy. James Walter explains how our unique democracy evolved; Michelle Grattan looks at the role of the prime minister – and some of the most significant holders of that position we’ve had.
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey explains why Australia is (still) a constitutional monarchy, Yee-Fui Ng examines corruption and other abuses of political power, and Chris Wallace looks at the role of the public service and its place in our democracy. Finally, political historian Paul Strangio presents an essay on the health of Australian democracy a quarter of the way through the 21st century: where its strengths are, but also the considerable fissures that are emerging.
As we head into a federal election at a pivotal moment in our history, it’s our hope that the book offers a deeper understanding of our democracy: its history, strengths and challenges.
In concert with its publication on March 4 (you can pre-order here), we are hosting a series of launches this February and March, and we’d love to see you there.
Canberra
Monday February 24, 6pm SOLD OUT
Editor Misha Ketchell in conversation with Michelle Grattan, Frank Bongiorno and Mark Kenny
Location: Cultural Centre Kambri, Australian National University
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.
