The Brisbane City Council has commenced an aerial mosquito treatment program today, Tuesday, November 18. The operation, which utilizes helicopters, is scheduled to start at 10 am and could potentially continue into Wednesday, November 19. This widespread treatment plan is considered important for the city and will cover several suburbs across Brisbane. The Council has specified numerous areas included in the flight path, though the treatment is strictly weather permitting. Targeted Suburbs and Locations The areas slated for aerial treatment include: Tinchi Tamba Wetlands Bald Hills Brighton Boondall Wetlands Brisbane Airport Port of Brisbane Pinkenba Tingalpa Hemmant Areas along Bulimba Creek Public Protection Measures While the Council conducts the aerial treatment, residents are advised to take proactive steps to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Recommended preventative measures include: Limiting time outdoors during high-activity periods, particularly around dawn and dusk. Applying mosquito repellents regularly. Wearing loose-fitting, light-coloured protective clothing when spending time outdoors. Utilizing screening on doors and windows, or employing mosquito nets or air-conditioning indoors. Using mosquito coils and lanterns. While the Council conducts the aerial treatment, residents are advised to take proactive steps to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Recommended preventative measures include:

The Brisbane City Council has commenced an aerial mosquito treatment program today, Tuesday, November 18. The operation, which utilizes helicopters, is scheduled to start at 10 am and could potentially continue into Wednesday, November 19. This widespread treatment plan is considered important for the city and will cover several suburbs across Brisbane. The Council has specified numerous areas included in the flight path, though the treatment is strictly weather permitting. Targeted Suburbs and Locations The areas slated for aerial treatment include: Tinchi Tamba Wetlands Bald Hills Brighton Boondall Wetlands Brisbane Airport Port of Brisbane Pinkenba Tingalpa Hemmant Areas along Bulimba Creek Public Protection Measures While the Council conducts the aerial treatment, residents are advised to take proactive steps to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Recommended preventative measures include: Limiting time outdoors during high-activity periods, particularly around dawn and dusk. Applying mosquito repellents regularly. Wearing loose-fitting, light-coloured protective clothing when spending time outdoors. Utilizing screening on doors and windows, or employing mosquito nets or air-conditioning indoors. Using mosquito coils and lanterns. While the Council conducts the aerial treatment, residents are advised to take proactive steps to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Recommended preventative measures include:

The Brisbane City Council has commenced an extensive aerial mosquito treatment program using helicopters. This widespread treatment plan is considered important for the city. The most recent aerial spraying operation began today, Tuesday, November 18, following recent heavy rain. The spraying started from 9 am, although it was also reported to start at 10 am, and is scheduled to continue into Wednesday, November 19. The Council noted that the treatment is strictly weather permitting. Program Scope and Expertise Brisbane runs one of the largest mosquito control programs in the country. Notably, the Brisbane City Council is the only local government in Australia to employ two expert entomologists. This mosquito control program operates year-round, helping to reduce mosquito numbers and ensuring management across the suburbs. Customer Services Chair Cr Sarah Hutton provided context on the program’s scale and expertise: “We run one of the largest mosquito control programs in the country and are the only local government in Australia to employ two expert entomologists,”. Cr Hutton affirmed that the expert entomologists guide the timing of treatment: “when our expert entomologists say to spray, we spray”. She also noted that the mosquito season is different every year, depending on factors such as the rain, tides, and temperature. Treatment Methods and Locations The helicopter spraying targets tidal wetlands and known breeding sites. Both saltmarsh and freshwater mosquitoes are targeted using a combination of aerial and ground treatments. The aerial sprays specifically target saltmarsh mosquitoes. Ground teams support these efforts by treating up to 2,400 freshwater sites across Brisbane each week of the year. Since the 2019/20 season, 88,813 hectares have been aerial sprayed. The products used for treatment are safe, short-lived, and designed to act only on larvae found at the breeding sites at the time of treatment. The areas slated for the aerial treatment launched today (November 18) include: Tinchi Tamba Wetlands Bald Hills Brighton Boondall Wetlands Brisbane Airport Port of Brisbane Pinkenba Tingalpa Hemmant Areas along Bulimba Creek For background, the first aerial mosquito spray for the season was conducted on Thursday, October 30, when approximately 500 hectares across Brisbane’s southern suburbs was treated. Public Protection Measures While the Council is conducting the aerial treatment, residents are advised to take proactive measures to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Recommended preventative actions include: Limiting time outdoors during periods of high activity, particularly around dawn and dusk. Regularly applying mosquito repellents. Wearing loose-fitting, light-coloured protective clothing when spending time outdoors. Utilizing screening on doors and windows, or employing mosquito nets or air-conditioning indoors. Using mosquito coils and lanterns. Residents seeking more comprehensive information regarding the planned aerial mosquito treatment can visit brisbane.qld.gov.au. Alternatively, the Council can be reached by phone at 07 3403 8888. An Interpreter Service is also available by calling 13 14 50.

Alcohol-related diseases and injuries have the potential to cost the Australian healthcare system a staggering $68 billion over 60 years if nothing is done to stop the impact. These findings underscore the critical consequences of inaction and reinforce the urgent health and economic case for preventive measures, particularly in Australia, where alcohol is the most widely used drug. The TAP Model Reveals Avoidable Burden This alarming figure comes from new research utilizing The Alcohol Policy (TAP) model, which was developed by Griffith University. The TAP model is an epidemiological tool specifically designed to estimate the avoidable burden of alcohol-related disease and injury, as well as the associated healthcare costs, within the Australian population aged over 15 years. Dr. Mary Wanjau from Griffith’s School of Medicine and Dentistry highlighted the immense potential for savings and improved health outcomes if proactive steps were taken. Dr. Wanjau stated that if alcohol consumption were eliminated over the first 25 years, the nation could prevent more than 25 million cases of diseases and injuries and avoid more than 200 thousand deaths, with the majority of these avoided deaths resulting from cancers. Furthermore, acting immediately to eliminate alcohol consumption to zero could save the healthcare system $55 billion in the first 25 years. Dr. Wanjau noted that these findings are crucial for policymakers, as they help them understand the scale of the future alcohol burden that is preventable. No Safe Level and Acute Risks The necessity for intervention is heightened by global evidence indicating that excessive alcohol use is one of the leading risks for mortality and disability. The evidence suggests that there is no safe level of alcohol-use for overall health. Specifically, the risk of cancers and mortality is shown to rise with increased levels of drinking. While alcohol use affects all demographics, young adults aged 15–39 years bear most of the acute consequences. This demographic experiences high rates of injuries leading to death and disability. The Case for Prioritizing Prevention Professor Lennert Veerman emphasized that these findings strongly support the prioritization of investment in alcohol harm reduction. Even minor decreases in alcohol consumption across the entire population could significantly reduce health burdens for individuals and the healthcare system, while simultaneously lowering costs for individuals, communities, and governments. According to Professor Veerman, policies and interventions that reduce consumption at the population level are likely to offer a favorable impact. Such measures work by creating environments that support and allow for an increase in the number of people who abstain from drinking, a delay in the age when people start drinking, and overall reductions in consumption for those who do drink. Stronger alcohol control policies are necessary to realize the potential gains in the reduction of alcohol harm and related healthcare costs. The research, titled ‘The avoidable health burden and healthcare costs related to alcohol consumption in Australia: multistate life table modelling,’ has been published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.

Alcohol-related diseases and injuries have the potential to cost the Australian healthcare system a staggering $68 billion over 60 years if nothing is done to stop the impact. These findings underscore the critical consequences of inaction and reinforce the urgent health and economic case for preventive measures, particularly in Australia, where alcohol is the most widely used drug. The TAP Model Reveals Avoidable Burden This alarming figure comes from new research utilizing The Alcohol Policy (TAP) model, which was developed by Griffith University. The TAP model is an epidemiological tool specifically designed to estimate the avoidable burden of alcohol-related disease and injury, as well as the associated healthcare costs, within the Australian population aged over 15 years. Dr. Mary Wanjau from Griffith’s School of Medicine and Dentistry highlighted the immense potential for savings and improved health outcomes if proactive steps were taken. Dr. Wanjau stated that if alcohol consumption were eliminated over the first 25 years, the nation could prevent more than 25 million cases of diseases and injuries and avoid more than 200 thousand deaths, with the majority of these avoided deaths resulting from cancers. Furthermore, acting immediately to eliminate alcohol consumption to zero could save the healthcare system $55 billion in the first 25 years. Dr. Wanjau noted that these findings are crucial for policymakers, as they help them understand the scale of the future alcohol burden that is preventable. No Safe Level and Acute Risks The necessity for intervention is heightened by global evidence indicating that excessive alcohol use is one of the leading risks for mortality and disability. The evidence suggests that there is no safe level of alcohol-use for overall health. Specifically, the risk of cancers and mortality is shown to rise with increased levels of drinking. While alcohol use affects all demographics, young adults aged 15–39 years bear most of the acute consequences. This demographic experiences high rates of injuries leading to death and disability. The Case for Prioritizing Prevention Professor Lennert Veerman emphasized that these findings strongly support the prioritization of investment in alcohol harm reduction. Even minor decreases in alcohol consumption across the entire population could significantly reduce health burdens for individuals and the healthcare system, while simultaneously lowering costs for individuals, communities, and governments. According to Professor Veerman, policies and interventions that reduce consumption at the population level are likely to offer a favorable impact. Such measures work by creating environments that support and allow for an increase in the number of people who abstain from drinking, a delay in the age when people start drinking, and overall reductions in consumption for those who do drink. Stronger alcohol control policies are necessary to realize the potential gains in the reduction of alcohol harm and related healthcare costs. The research, titled ‘The avoidable health burden and healthcare costs related to alcohol consumption in Australia: multistate life table modelling,’ has been published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.

The government’s flagship housing policy is failing to keep pace with demographic reality, industry figures warn, threatening to deepen Australia’s affordability crisis ahead of a looming federal election. The Albanese government’s centrepiece housing pledge—to deliver 1.2 million new homes by 2029—is already obsolete, according to peak industry body warnings that will intensify political pressure on Labor’s economic credentials. Fresh analysis from the Housing Industry Association reveals the target, unveiled with fanfare just two years ago, has been overtaken by accelerating population growth that renders the commitment inadequate before a single additional dwelling reaches fruition. The findings deliver an unwelcome blow to a government banking on housing policy to neutralise Coalition attacks on cost-of-living pressures. HIA economists now project the nation requires 1.9 million new homes to restore affordability to median income earners—a shortfall of 700,000 dwellings that threatens to leave the government exposed on a defining electoral issue. With national median house prices surging to $773,803—demanding 1.7 times the average salary to service mortgage repayments—home ownership is slipping further from reach for working Australians, particularly younger voters Labor cannot afford to alienate. The political headache deepens with HIA projections suggesting the government will miss its own target by nearly 200,000 homes, undermining ministerial assurances the policy would arrest spiralling prices. Senior HIA economist Tom Devitt attributes the policy failure to underestimated migration figures, with net overseas arrivals reaching 423,000 in the year to March 2025—well above Treasury forecasts that underpinned the original housing commitment. The mathematics are stark: even achieving the 240,000 annual dwelling construction rate required to meet the 1.2 million target would merely stabilise the crisis, not reverse it. Current trajectories suggest completion could stretch to 2035, beyond two electoral cycles. State responses have fractured along familiar partisan lines. Western Australia’s Cook Labor government is accelerating approvals, while New South Wales Liberal-National coalition has unveiled apartment construction incentives. Yet the critical eastern seaboard markets of Sydney and Melbourne—where housing stressis most acute—are falling behind, storing up problems for whichever party holds power federally. The housing shortfall threatens to cascade into related policy failures: strained infrastructure in regional centres absorbing overflow demand, declining urban amenity as density increases without planning, and widening wealth inequality that entrenches generational disadvantage. Industry groups are intensifying lobbying for structural tax reform, particularly abolition or reduction of state-imposed stamp duties and land taxes they argue throttle supply. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers faces competing pressures to intervene while managing inflationary pressures and a deteriorating budget position. With the opposition seizing on cost-of-living vulnerabilities and minor parties pushing more aggressive interventions, housing has crystallised as the policy battleground that could determine the next election. The consensus among housing economists is unambiguous: without dramatic policy recalibration—potentially including controversial measures such as planning deregulation, developer incentives, or direct government construction—Australia’s home ownership crisis will intensify, with profound consequences for social cohesion and political stability.

Australian governments are reportedly wasting $1.2 billion a year on avoidable spending within public hospitals, funds which currently do nothing to improve patient care. This efficiency gap comes at a critical time, as Australian hospitals are described as approaching breaking point. The amount of money currently wasted could, if redirected, pay for an extra 160,000 hospital visits each year. The strain on the hospital system persists despite significant investment. Public hospital spending has increased by $3 billion every year on average over the past decade. Furthermore, demands on hospitals are only expected to grow as Australians become older and sicker. Public hospital spending per person is projected to increase by a third in the next decade, rising from $2,500 to $3,300 each. The strain on the hospital system persists despite significant investment. Public hospital spending has increased by $3 billion every year on average over the past decade. Furthermore, demands on hospitals are only expected to grow as Australians become older and sicker. Public hospital spending per person is projected to increase by a third in the next decade, rising from $2,500 to $3,300 each. The Efficiency Gap The key to unlocking this $1.2 billion in savings lies in addressing stark efficiency differences between facilities. Some hospitals are significantly more expensive than others. For example, the average cost of a knee replacement procedure varies dramatically across states: In Victoria, the variation between high- and low-cost hospitals is $13,600. In Queensland, the difference is $11,000. In NSW, the cost variation is $9,000. This disparity is observed for other procedures and across every state and territory. Taxpayers could save $1.2 billion annually if costly hospitals simply achieved the middle level of efficiency within their respective states. Achieving Savings Without Sacrificing Quality Cutting costs, according to the sources, does not necessarily mean cutting the quality of care. There are numerous ways hospitals can safely deliver care for less: Preventing Complications: Some Australian hospitals are proficient at preventing complications, such as pressure sores and falls, which otherwise keep patients in the hospital for longer periods. Technological Adoption: In England, doctors utilize AI notetakers to reduce time spent on paperwork, allowing them to spend more time engaging with patients. Modern Procedures: In Canada, one in three individuals who receive a hip or knee replacement safely go home the same day, thereby freeing up valuable hospital beds. The Problem of “Bogus Budgets” A significant barrier holding back hospitals from adopting best practices and achieving efficiency is the existing funding model, characterized by “bogus budgets”. State governments are known to set unrealistically low budgets at the start of the year. When hospitals inevitably run deficits, the state governments provide bailouts or “top-ups,” which are destabilizing and large, averaging six percent of spending. This cycle is described as the annual “budget rollercoaster of hospital blowouts and bailouts” that needs to end. Essential Reforms to Fix the Broken System To ensure public hospitals spend smarter and provide more care, the broken funding system must be fixed. The danger of inaction is that Australia could make the same mistakes as the UK, which resorted to “brutal austerity” to control costs, leading to devastating impacts for patients. The sources suggest a multi-pronged reform agenda: End Bailouts and Impose Consequences: Scot-free bailouts must cease. There should be serious consequences for hospital deficits, including the potential loss of jobs for CEOs and boards.  Funding Alignment: The federal government’s contribution to public hospital funding should increase in line with the growing demand for care. It should fully fund the cost of care, provided that states commit to reforming their systems to enhance efficiency.  System Reform: State governments need to change how they fund care to promote shorter stays, encourage hospitals to buy in bulk, consolidate some procedures into specialized centers, and facilitate the adoption of best practices. By implementing realistic budgets, funding reform, and better system management, smart spending can ensure every dollar goes further, potentially reducing the need for tax hikes or cuts to other public services.

The Gold Coast’s Planning and Regulation Committee has rejected a proposal for a major affordable housing development intended to provide transitional and temporary accommodation. The development, which included more than 100 affordable living opportunities, was defeated by the committee in a five-votes-to-two decision, primarily due to concerns regarding building height and car parking provisions. The project is now scheduled for discussion again at the council’s next full meeting. Details of the Proposed Development The proposed project sought to establish a 9-storey Rooming accommodation development located at Kiers Road, Miami, Gold Coast. It included a ground-floor Food and drink outlet component. The development was designed to support short to medium term affordable living opportunities for a diverse market. Target occupants included, but were not limited to: Transitional or emergency accommodation seekers. Low socioeconomic people. Students and workers. Individuals seeking co-living opportunities. The design featured 109 rooms, including one room designated for an on-site manager. Each unit was planned to include sleeping facilities, a kitchenette, a bathroom, and a small wardrobe. Shared amenities included a laundry, a recreational area with open space and barbeque facilities, and a gym and work-from-home space located at the rooftop level. The site is situated in a central and well-serviced area of the city. Key infrastructure nearby includes the Gold Coast Highway (approximately 55 metres to the east), Miami State High School (200 metres to the south), and the Nobbys Neighbourhood centre (300 metres to the north). The site is also within 400 metres of the future Nobby Beach Light Rail Station and Miami North Light Rail Station. Council Support vs. Committee Rejection Despite the rejection by the planning committee, Gold Coast City Council officers were supportive of the development, though with conditions. The committee’s rejection was mirrored by significant public opposition. The council received 192 public submissions, consisting of 190 objections and only two in support. The key planning matters raised by the public included land use, character, amenity impacts, car parking, building height, lack of community consultation, and the hours of operation of the food and drink outlet. Councillor Concerns: Height and Parking The two key considerations driving the rejection were building height and car parking. Councillors voting against the project voiced strong opinions on both points, particularly how they affected the local neighbourhood context. Councillor Nick Marshall, who voted against the proposal, stated that the development “fails in terms of height,” noting its “direct impact on the neighbourhood”. Marshall also highlighted that the amenity was “not in context with the local area” and criticized the failure to provide “enough car parks for the use and for the people who are going to use this facility”. Marshall challenged the assumption that those seeking affordable housing would not own vehicles, noting the existing lack of available street parking in the area. He emphasized that the residents might be people who have a full-time job but are currently living in their car. Marshall concluded that decisions should aim to “reduce the dependency on a private vehicle,” but noted the proposal currently presented an undersupply of car parks. Councillor J Martin echoed concerns about the structure’s scale, noting that “Height is a key concern, and always is, especially when you talk about community, character and impact on character.” Martin stated the view that the development would “present as a high rise” and disagreed with the council officer assessment. The future of the 109-unit project now rests with the full council, where the matter is set to be discussed again.

The 2025 Telstra AFL Draft is set to be held over two nights, offering dozens of young footballers the opportunity to realize their dreams and allowing clubs to secure talent for a brighter future. The draft begins tonight, Wednesday, November 19, and concludes on Thursday, November 20. The first round of selections will be completed tonight, with a selection of players present at Docklands Stadium for the event. The rest of the draft will follow on the second night. In total, it is anticipated that 50 to 60 players will be drafted this year. Key Prospects and Draft Night Action Expert coverage of the 2025 Telstra AFL Draft begins LIVE at 7pm AEDT. Both nights of the draft will start at 7pm AEDT. Corresponding start times for other regions include 6:30pm ACDT (South Australia), 6pm AEST (Queensland), 5:30pm ACST (Northern Territory), and 4pm AWST (Western Australia). For fans looking to follow the event, the draft will be broadcast live on Fox Footy and Kayo Sports, and ABC Sport will provide live blogs throughout both nights. Leading the excitement is the widely expected number one selection, Willem Duursma. Duursma is projected to be taken by the West Coast Eagles with the first pick. Notably, he would become the fourth Duursma sibling to join the AFL/AFLW system. The competitive top-five mix also includes several academy and father-son prospects, adding complexity to the early selections: Zeke Uwland and Dylan Patterson, both members of the Gold Coast’s academy. Daniel Annable, a member of Brisbane’s academy. Harry Dean, a Carlton father-son prospect. From the open pool of players available to all clubs, strong candidates for the top-10 selections include Sullivan Robey, Cooper Duff-Tytler, Xavier Taylor, Dyson Sharp, and Sam Cumming. Additionally, best mates Lachy Dovaston and Xavier Taylor are hoping for a possible dual landing at Essendon. The Draft Order and Club Picks The draft order shows the West Coast Eagles holding the first two picks in Round One: Pick 1 and Pick 2 (the latter received as compensation for Oscar Allen). The Eagles have a strong hand early, holding picks 1, 2, 13, 34, and 41 overall. Other significant early picks include: Richmond holding picks 3 and 4. Essendon holding picks 5 and 6, forming part of a “big haul” for the club. Essendon’s total picks are 5, 6, 21, 27, and 30. Melbourne holding picks 7 and 8. Carlton holding picks 9 and 11. The Gold Coast SUNS are set for a busy draft night, holding a league-leading number of selections:  15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 36, and 52.  Draft Mechanics:  Bidding, Trading, and Father-Son Rules  The complexity of the AFL draft stems largely from the bidding system for academy and father-son selections, and the ability for teams to trade picks. Draft Value Index and Bidding The AFL assigns a points value to each draft pick. The first pick is the most valuable, worth 3,000 points. This value decreases consistently until Pick 54—the final selection of Round Three—which is worth 14 points. Any picks following Pick 54 have no points value. This points system is crucial because it requires clubs to “pay” when matching bids on their father-son or academy prospects who are tipped to be selected highly. When a team successfully matches a bid, they receive a 20 per cent discount on the points required. Teams are not required to match bids, which allows the player to be drafted by the bidding club. For example, Brisbane is anticipated to swiftly match any bid placed on academy prospect Daniel Annable. Trading Flexibility Since its introduction in 2018, the ability for teams to trade during the draft has added an extra layer to the process. Teams can swap their current draft picks, as well as future selections from the 2026 or 2027 drafts. Several major future selections have already been traded, including Carlton receiving a 2026 first-round pick and a 2027 first-round pick from Sydney. The Father-Son Rule The father-son rule is a unique aspect of the AFL that upholds family traditions across generations. If a player made 100 or more appearances for a single club, that club holds the right to draft the player’s son. However, clubs are not obligated to select the player under this rule. The draft, with its complex web of trades, compensation picks, and bidding wars, functions much like a high-stakes auction where clubs strategically use their points and selections—both current and future—to acquire the specific assets they believe will lead to long-term success.

A staggering almost a quarter of a million children have been plunged into poverty in just four years, marking a 33 per cent increase. This alarming trend, highlighted in the new Child Poverty in Australia 2025 report, has prompted advocates across Australia to call for urgent legislation defining and measuring the impacts of poverty on childhood wellbeing. The report, released by the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC) and the Valuing Children Initiative (VCI) for the End Child Poverty campaign, paints a grim picture of escalating financial distress impacting children. Key Findings and Causes The Child Poverty in Australia 2025 report projects that 950,100 children will be living in poverty in 2025. This number is up from 868,350 in 2023, representing a rise of 81,750 children in just two years. Key statistical findings include: Child poverty has increased by 236,350 children over four years, a 33 per cent increase. The overall rate has risen by 3.2 percentage points since 2021. A projected 15.6 per cent of children will be living in poverty in 2025, up from 15 per cent in 2023. There is a serious risk of Australia surpassing 1 million children in poverty this year. Single-parent households are the most affected demographic, with 36.6 per cent living in poverty. The underlying causes for this steep rise are multifaceted, driven by rising housing costs, widening inequality, and a failure of income support mechanisms to keep pace with inflation. According to the report, more than 950,000 Australian children are currently experiencing food insecurity, poor housing conditions, and limited access to education and healthcare. Professor Alan Duncan, Director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, emphasized that using older data alone would significantly understate current poverty levels due to rapid economic changes. “Rents have risen by around a quarter nationally over the past three years, and by nearly a half in some states,” Professor Duncan noted. He further asserted that the rise in child poverty is “not a statistical anomaly; it’s the predictable result of housing stress, inadequate income support, and policy drift”. Professor Duncan warned that without meaningful intervention, the nation risks crossing the one-million-child threshold within months. The Human Impact of Poverty Poverty deeply shapes a child’s life, often leading to isolation. Sarah Quinton, Lead of the End Child Poverty Campaign and the Valuing Children Initiative, shared that children in low-income families adjust their behaviors to reduce stress. “Some tell us they’re punished for wearing torn uniforms they can’t afford to replace, or sleep on mattresses on the floor,” Ms. Quinton stated, noting these experiences make children feel isolated from friends at a time when they should be building confidence and connections. Calls for Legislative Change Backed by 180 organizations, the End Child Poverty campaign is demanding that the Federal Government take decisive action. The campaign calls for the government to legislate a child-centreddefinition of poverty, commit to specific measures to impact children, and systematically reduce child poverty. This would involve aligning policy, funding, and accountability mechanisms with evidence. The proposed legislation would assess poverty not solely through income, but also through access to housing, education, health, and social inclusion for children. Ms. Quinton highlighted the core problem with the current system: “Australia doesn’t have a child-centred definition of poverty or any way of measuring the wellbeing of children living in income poverty, if we don’t define or measure child poverty, how can we reduce it?”. Methodology The Child Poverty in Australia 2025 report projects poverty under current economic conditions, factoring in the steep increases in rents and living costs since 2023. The core dataset used is the HILDA Survey (Waves 19 to 23, covering 2019 to 2023), which tracks household income, employment, housing, wellbeing, and demographic data. Poverty is assessed using relative income poverty thresholds (50% of median equivalised household income). Crucially, disposable household income is calculated after housing costs (including rent and mortgage payments) to accurately reflect real financial stress. The data is uprated to 2025 using Centre for Population forecasts, ABS wage and price indices, and CoreLogic rental data for housing cost growth. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC) and Valuing Children Initiative (VCI)