NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne

    Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign.

    Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent and net overseas. He has directly linked the number of people coming into the country to high house prices, which feeds into the election’s hot button issue of cost of living:

    the first and foremost interest in mind is to get young Australians into housing.

    But will cutting immigration help fix the housing crisis? Or is this a smokescreen for other problems with the migration system that are not being addressed by the major parties?

    Fewer permanent migrants

    The Coalition is campaigning on its plans to reduce the Permanent Migration Program, from 185,000 a year to 140,000.

    This is the wrong time to make such a large cut. Permanent migration, more than temporary, is critical for Australia’s economic growth. It also helps offset the ageing of the population.

    For its part, Labor failed to include the permanent migration number in last month’s budget, so we have no idea about its plans if it is re-elected.

    It is best for our economy when the annual migration intake is between 160,000 and 220,000. From the Gillard government until today, the Permanent Migration Program has been set by governments of both shades within that range.

    Th Coalition’s proposed cut is problematic because extreme pressure is building in two visa categories that have close to 100% grant rates: Partners and Children in the Family stream and Employer Sponsored workers in the Skill stream.

    If recent experience is anything to go by, the number of applications lodged by family members of Australian citizens or permanent residents will skyrocket to 110,000 by June 30. It is important to note this category is largely demand-driven. These family members have a right to permanent residence under Section 87 of The Migration Act.

    Demand is also exploding in the visa category that allows employers to address labour shortages, which has a grant rate of over 98%. Almost 100,000 applications are expected in 2024–25. However, only 44,000 places have been allocated. Employers are going to be very unhappy whichever side is elected.

    Given the pent-up demand, the Coalition is avoiding the tricky questions about which parts of the Permanent Program it would cut and by how much. Labor is shirking the issue altogether by not providing any target.

    Dutton’s planned reduction to permanent migration numbers would have only a small impact on housing. In a normal year, 60% of grantees are already living in Australia. They won’t be adding to housing demand, because they are already here.

    The numbers don’t add up

    The other major category, Net Overseas Migration, includes temporary arrivals – mainly skilled workers, working holiday makers and international students. Treasury estimates 260,000 migrants in this category in 2025–26

    Dutton says the Coalition would cut this number by 100,000 people and would do it “straight away, once we get into government”.

    But this number is not achievable, at least not “straight away”. Arrivals can be lowered. But the number of departures will be way too low to reach the target.

    The category has already fallen by 100,000 in each of the past two years. It will continue to decline gradually over the next couple of years, but not nearly as fast as the Coalition target requires.

    The number of departures has been low due to the surge in temporary migrants that followed the COVID border closures. The majority of these people have valid visas until at least 2027–28. Only then, is there likely to be a flow of migrants leaving Australia.

    Dutton should have said a Coalition government would reach this target in its third year, not its first. But this would not have suited the false argument that net overseas migration has a big impact on housing affordability. It’s spurious because net overseas migration largely consists of temporary residents who rarely buy houses. And both major parties have policies banning temporary residents from purchasing established properties.

    New temporary migrants do have an impact on rental demand, but it’s highly localised near universities and along public transport routes. Even this demand is somewhat muted. According to 2021 Census data, a large minority (30–40%) of students and working holiday makers live in specialist accommodation or in very large households.

    Problems beyond the election

    Australia is facing an estimated shortfall of 130,000 housing construction workers. Both sides of politics are taking worthwhile steps to expand the number of apprentices. But the apprenticeship route is slow and likely to fall short of requirements.

    We need more skilled tradies from overseas, but it’s not happening due to obstacles in the migration system. Neither side of politics seems to be looking for creative solutions. Certainly, cutting the Permanent Program is not the answer.

    Another major issue is the difficulty successive governments have had in getting people to leave Australia once all their options to remain have been exhausted.

    As of January 2025, there were 92,000 individuals who had been refused a final Protection Visa, but had not yet departed. This number accumulated under the previous Morrison government and has continued to expand under Labor.

    Policy not politics

    Undue panic over the level of net overseas migration in an election context has made a mess of Australian migration policy.

    This is evidenced by the policy shambles over international education. The major parties both have plans to limit the number of foreign students, but the cap in both cases is not much below pre-COVID enrolments.

    On a more positive note, both sides of politics should be commended for not allowing racism and the “otherness” of migrants to enter the debate.

    But it’s time to drop the fantasy that cutting migration will help young Australians enter the housing market. This a blatant distraction from the real and tangible problems with the migration system that must be dealt with by whoever wins on May 3.

    This is the seventh article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

    Peter McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Home Affairs (including its predecessors) for studies of migration issues, but not in the past decade.

    – ref. Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election – https://theconversation.com/cutting-migrant-numbers-wont-help-housing-the-real-immigration-problems-not-being-tackled-this-election-250646

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-here-are-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

    RDNE Stock project/Pexels

    In the 21st century, digital technology has changed many aspects of our lives. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest newcomer, with chatbots and other AI tools changing how we learn and creating considerable philosophical and legal challenges regarding what it means to “outsource thinking”.

    But the emergence of technology that changes the way we live is not a new issue. The change from analogue to digital technology began around the 1960s and this “digital revolution” is what brought us the internet. An entire generation of people who lived and worked through this evolution are now entering their early 80s.

    So what can we learn from them about the impact of technology on the ageing brain? A comprehensive new study from researchers at the University of Texas and Baylor University in the United States provides important answers.

    Manfred Spitzer first introduced the ‘digital dementia’ hypothesis in 2012.
    Marc Reichwein/Wikipedia

    Published today in Nature Human Behaviour, it found no supporting evidence for the “digital dementia” hypothesis. In fact, it found the use of computers, smartphones and the internet among people over 50 might actually be associated with lower rates of cognitive decline.

    What is ‘digital dementia’?

    Much has been written about the potential negative impact from technology on the human brain.

    According to the “digital dementia” hypothesis introduced by German neuroscientist and psychiatrist Manfred Spitzer in 2012, increased use of digital devices has resulted in an over-reliance on technology. In turn, this has weakened our overall cognitive ability.

    Three areas of concern regarding the use of technology have previously been noted:

    1. An increase in passive screen time. This refers to technology use which does not require significant thought or participation, such as watching TV or scrolling social media.

    2. Offloading cognitive abilities to technology, such as no longer memorising phone numbers because they are kept in our contact list.

    3. Increased susceptibility to distraction.

    Why is this new study important?

    We know technology can impact how our brain develops. But the effect of technology on how our brain ages is less understood.

    This new study by neuropsychologists Jared Benge and Michael Scullin is important because it examines the impact of technology on older people who have experienced significant changes in the way they use technology across their life.

    The new study performed what is known as a meta-analysis where the results of many previous studies are combined. The authors searched for studies examining technology use in people aged over 50 and examined the association with cognitive decline or dementia. They found 57 studies which included data from more than 411,000 adults. The included studies measured cognitive decline based on lower performance on cognitive tests or a diagnosis of dementia.

    The study found that technology use had a similarly positive effect on brain function as physical activity.
    l i g h t p o e t/shutterstock

    A reduced risk of cognitive decline

    Overall, the study found greater use of technology was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline. Statistical tests were used to determine the “odds” of having cognitive decline based on exposure to technology. An odds ratio under 1 indicates a reduced risk from exposure and the combined odds ratio in this study was 0.42. This means higher use of technology was associated with a 58% risk reduction for cognitive decline.

    This benefit was found even when the effect of other things known to contribute to cognitive decline, such as socioeconomic status and other health factors, were accounted for.

    Interestingly, the magnitude of the effect of technology use on brain function found in this study was similar or stronger than other known protective factors, such as physical activity (approximately a 35% risk reduction), or maintaining a healthy blood pressure (approximately a 13% risk reduction).

    However, it is important to understand that there are far more studies conducted over many years examining the benefits of managing blood pressure and increasing physical activty, and the mechanisms through which they help protect our brains are far more understood.

    It is also a lot easier to measure blood pressure than it is use of technology. A strength of this study is that it considered these difficulties by focusing on certain aspects of technology use but excluded others such as brain training games.

    These findings are encouraging. But we still can’t say technology use causes better cognitive function. More research is needed to see if these findings are replicated in different groups of people (especially those from low and middle income countries) who were underrepresented in this study, and to understand why this relationship might occur.

    A question of ‘how’ we use technology

    In reality, it’s simply not feasible to live in the world today without using some form of technology. Everything from paying bills to booking our next holiday is now almost completely done online. Maybe we should instead be thinking about how we use technology.

    Cognitively stimulating activities such as reading, learning a new language and playing music – particularly in early adulthood – can help protect our brains as we age.

    Greater engagement with technology across our lifespan may be a form of stimulating our memory and thinking, as we adapt to new software updates or learn how to use a new smartphone. It has been suggested this “technological reserve” may be good for our brains.

    Technology may also help us to stay socially connected, and help us stay independent for longer.

    Depending on how it’s used, technology can be highly stimulating for our brain.
    Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

    A rapidly changing digital world

    While findings from this study show it’s unlikely all digital technology is bad for us, the way we interact and rely on it is rapidly changing

    The impact of AI on the ageing brain will only become evident in future decades. However, our ability to adapt to historical technological innovations, and the potential for this to support cognitive function, suggests the future may not be all bad.

    For example, advances in brain-computer interfaces offer new hope for those experiencing the impact of neurological disease or disability.

    However, the potential downsides of technology are real, particularly for younger people, including poor mental health. Future research will help determine how we can capture the benefits of technology while limiting the potential for harm.

    Nikki-Anne Wilson has previously received funding from the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute and the Australian Association of Gerontology.

    – ref. New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-no-evidence-technology-causes-digital-dementia-in-older-people-254392

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-heres-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Peace, Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    EyesWideOpen/Getty Images

    Newly announced reforms to the Health and Safety at Work Act mean landowners will no longer be responsible for tourism-related injuries on their properties. But it’s not clear this has ever really been a problem.

    Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says there was an “inadvertent climate of fear” affecting councils, farmers and landowners who allowed access to their land for hunting, fishing, mountain biking and horse trekking. The fear was that they would be held responsible if someone was hurt or killed on their land.

    The reforms targeting landowners are part of wider changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was passed in 2015. Under section 37 of the act, a person who controls a workplace is responsible for ensuring that

    the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person.

    But we found just one instance of landowners being taken to court for adventure activities going wrong on their properties. This was the case against Whakaari Management Ltd, the owners of Whakaari/White Island after the 2019 eruption that claimed 22 lives and injured 25 others.

    In 2024, Whakaari Management was found guilty of failing to protect visitors to the island, but that decision was overturned in February this year.

    Adventure activities in New Zealand have been relatively safe, with just over 50 deaths in 35 years.
    Judith Lienert/Shutterstock

    Responsibilities under the law

    Under the current rules, responsibility for something going wrong rests with the “person conducting a business or undertaking”.

    A farmer, for example, is conducting business because they own or have control of their land. This does not apply if they are renting out the land but not involved in the activity’s management or control.

    In the Whakaari Management Ltd appeal the judge wrote:

    To be caught by [section] 37, a [a person conducting a business or undertaking] must in fact be exercising active control or management of the workplace in a practical sense. Owning it is not enough. Making money from it is not enough. Merely being able to manage or control a workplace, but not doing so, is not enough.

    Active control might include an agreement between the landowner and the activity operator to monitor conditions.

    While the Whakaari case is the only one we found where a landowner has been prosecuted under the current rules, there have been a number of court cases involving adventure activity companies.

    The key difference between successful and unsuccessful cases seems to be whether the business owners had the ability to influence or change what went wrong.

    For example, in cases where customers of diving businesses drowned, the courts have decided the businesses did not have control of the workplace, including the sea, a lake or river.

    In one case the judge wrote the business

    does not and cannot control flow or conditions nor can it control who uses or goes through the rapid […] It cannot give directions in relation to it, nor exercise any authority over it.

    A business owner operating a kayaking business did have control of the operational conditions and should have had a safe system of work, including checking the weather forecast.

    Similar failings were found after a school trip resulted in drownings and after the poor condition of tour buses and uncontrolled driving during a sand-surfing trip resulted in deaths.

    Making adventure activities relatively safe

    Even under the Adventure Activities Regulations – industry specific rule passed in 2010 and updated since – the responsibility for safety in the tourism industry fell on tourism operators, not landowners.

    And, from a safety perspective, the rules have been relatively successful. In the past 35 years, there have been about 52 deaths in adventure activities due to natural hazards (including the Whakaari/White Island tragedy). During the same period more than 30,000 workers died at or because of work.

    But this relative safety in adventure activities has come at a cost for small businesses. Under the 2010 regulations, the average cost of mandatory audits has been around NZ$5,000 – a cost borne by the small adventure activity businesses.

    If the government wants to further improve the safety of the outdoor tourism industry, then it needs to focus on making it easier and cheaper for businesses to comply with the regulations, rather than focusing on protecting landowners from a risk they never really faced.

    Danaë Anderson receives funding from the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

    Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council and the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

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

    – ref. Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were – https://theconversation.com/owners-are-officially-no-longer-responsible-for-tourism-accidents-on-their-land-but-they-never-really-were-253622

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Will Peter Dutton help son Harry buy a house?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Political leaders’ kids are routinely put on display to share the glory or the pain of election night. Earlier, they’re often at campaign launches to “humanise” the candidates.

    Peter Dutton pulled out all stops with the family for his Sunday launch. Tom, Harry and Rebecca were not just there in person, but “virtually” too, with a video showing dad hearing messages from the family.

    Rebecca went to “the potato head thing”, saying it was “all a bit of a joke to us. We still often call you Mr Potato head.” Dutton replied that “I’m pretty relaxed. I can give back as good as I get.” Hearing Harry on the video, he judged his son “sounded a bit croaky […] He might have been out late last night.”

    And so it went. All nice and safe, in a campaign sense. But Dutton should have left it at that.

    Instead, on Monday Harry, who is an apprentice carpenter, joined his father on the campaign trail, to help him sell the message about the unaffordability of housing.

    Harry, it turns out, is an aspiring house buyer, which is not surprising. After all, his dad bought his first house at age 19, and is proud of the fact, often mentioning it in soft interviews.

    Harry told reporters, “I am saving up for a house and so is my sister, Beck, and a lot of my mates, but as you probably heard, it’s almost impossible to get in – in the current state,” Harry said.

    “So I mean we’re saving like mad, but it doesn’t look like we’ll get there in the near future. But we’d love that to change.”

    One has to wonder about the judgement of the Liberal strategists. Dutton has owned a lot of property over the years, and is well off. Did no one anticipate that the obvious questioning from the hungry media would be: won’t the bank of mum and dad help Harry and Rebecca?

    Of course it came.

    One questioner asked, “Are you planning to act as the bank of mum and dad like so many Australian families are having to do?” Dutton answered generally – that he didn’t want a situation where  these were the only kids that could buy houses.

    Then later came the explicit question: “You brought your own son Harry out here. He spoke about how hard it is to save for a deposit. So in that case, you’re doing pretty well yourself – why won’t you support him a bit and give him a bit of help with getting his house?”

    Dutton did not address that sticky one, saying rather that he hadn’t finished answering the previous question.

    Politicians perennially complain about how hard the political life is for their families.

    Indeed. Sometimes it’s best to leave the kids at home.

    Albanese dodges question about Plibersek’s future portfolio

    This is the second campaign in a row that’s put a spotlight on the strained relationship between Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek.

    In 2022 observers asked “where’s Tanya?” when Plibersek, one of Labor’s most popular retail politicians, seemed to have a low profile. Plibersek produced evidence of her intense round of campaigning, but it was still clear she was being underused.

    Albanese and Plibersek are rivals in the left from way back. After the 2022 win, instead of appointing her education minister, as she’d  expected, the new PM put her into environment, where she’s had to rule on fossil fuel projects and other matters especially tricky for someone from the left. Late last year, Albanese intervened when Plibersek thought she was headed to a deal on the Nature Positive legislation, declaring the Senate numbers were not there. More compelling with him was pressure from Western Australian Premier Roger Cook, who was facing an election.

    On Monday Plibersek found herself having to explain an uncomfortable moment that had caught media attention at  Sunday’s Labor launch.

    At these gatherings a great deal of kissing and hugging goes on, even among politicians who don’t like each other much. So Plibersek was about to hug Albanese, but he grabbed her hands instead.

    /

    Asked on Monday Morning TV  about what was described as an “awkward moment”, Plibersek explained it away, even more awkwardly. “Do you know what, I reckon  we should still all be  elbow bumping, because during an election campaign, the last thing you want is to catch a cold from someone. So that’s on me.  I should have done the elbow bump, I reckon.”

    Albanese was quizzed later about whether he’d keep Plibersek in the environment portfolio in a second-term government.

    He said Plibetsek was doing a “fantastic job” and insisted she had been “a friend of mine for a long period of time”.  

    He didn’t comment himself on her future job, if the government is returned. Not surprising, at one level.  As he says, he doesn’t want to get ahead of himself. And later in the day he wouldn’t say whether Julie Collins would again be fisheries minister.

    But, given it was Plibersek, his non-answer added to the awkwardness. On the other hand, you’d think Plibersek would probably want out of the environment portfolio, provided that didn’t mean another less-than-ideal post.

    A third debate coming

    Albanese and Dutton have agreed to a third debate – on Channel 7 on April 27. The second debate, hosted by the ABC,  is on Wednesday.

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

    – ref. Election Diary: Will Peter Dutton help son Harry buy a house? – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-will-peter-dutton-help-son-harry-buy-a-house-254470

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Big Girls Don’t Cry is a powerful, heart-wrenching, and comical celebration of Indigenous resilience and survival

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Case, Lecturer in Musicology, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney

    Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir

    With Big Girls Don’t Cry, Gumbaynggirr/Wiradjuri playwright Dalara Williams proves herself to be a formidable talent.

    Cheryl (Williams), Queenie (Megan Wilding) and Lulu (Stephanie Somerville) are three best friends who share a house together in 1960s Redfern, the heart of “Blak Sydney”, after moving from the bush to the city.

    The trio swap outfits, go out dancing, socialise and talk about boys while navigating low-paying jobs, curfews and police brutality. Directed by Ian Michael, Big Girls Don’t Cry sits against a backdrop of political moments from service in the Vietnam War, to the 1965 Freedom Rides, the 1966 Wave Hill Walk Off and the 1967 Referendum.

    Pride and resilience

    The second act sees the girls prepare for the 1966 Aboriginal Debutante Ball at Paddington Town Hall.

    Their excitement and anticipation are palpable.

    The girls prepare for the 1966 Aboriginal Debutante Ball.
    Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir

    The ball represents more than just a social event: it is a symbol of pride, resilience and cultural celebration. It serves as a powerful reminder of the community’s strength and unity, showcasing their determination to preserve and honour their heritage amid adversity.

    Meticulous attention to detail in the set (Stephen Curtis) and costume design (Emma White) transports us back to this pivotal moment in history, making it feel both authentic and immersive.

    Each character’s wardrobe reflects their personality. Debutante dresses and accessories add depth to the characters and their stories, making the visual elements not only historically accurate but also emotionally resonant.

    Genuine and moving

    Williams’ darker and more confronting scenes are expertly juxtaposed with love stories and hilarious laugh-out-loud moments, particularly from the exceptional Wilding, who wholeheartedly embodies her fierce and outspoken character Queenie.

    Williams captivates with her nuanced portrayal of Cheryl, balancing strength and vulnerability. Somerville adds a layer of tenderness and hope as Lulu. The chemistry between these three actors is undeniable. Their friendship is genuine and moving.

    Guy Simon’s portrayal of Cheryl’s brother Ernest is a true highlight. While Cheryl strives to keep him out of trouble for his outspoken views, Ernest’s passion for justice and equality is inspiring.

    Guy Simon and Megan Wilding are stand-outs among an exceptional cast.
    Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir

    Ernest’s relationship with Milo (Nic English) highlights the solidarity and camaraderie among activists of the time.

    Cheryl’s boyfriend Michael (Mathew Cooper), though physically absent from the group for much of the play, is a constant presence in Cheryl’s thoughts. His letters from Vietnam add a poignant layer to the narrative.

    Officer Robinson (Bryn Chapman Parish) is a chilling reminder of the systemic racism and oppression faced by the Indigenous community. His menacing presence serves as a stark contrast to the warmth and joy shared by the main characters, highlighting the harsh realities of this era.

    By the end of the play, I felt involved in the lives of these characters, and as though I knew them – a credit to Williams’ writing and the phenomenal portrayal by each of the seven cast members.

    Continuing the fight

    The program includes a beautiful and personal reflection by Williams where she describes her family legacy as a major source of inspiration for the play.

    The various interwoven love stories are some of the most heart-wrenching, comical and sweetest moments of the play. But to solely describe it as a romantic comedy is to devalue the power of this work.

    Williams describes how she is from a long line of staunch Blak advocates who have continued to fight for sovereignty. This play is just the latest in her family’s long lineage of demonstrating resilience and survival.

    This play is just the latest in Williams’ long lineage of demonstrating resilience and survival.
    Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir

    Williams does not shy away from the reality of being Aboriginal in 1960s Redfern and handles moments with sophistication and grit. Scenes of police brutality and overt racial discrimination are portrayed with a raw honesty that is both confronting and enlightening.

    Big Girls Don’t Cry should be essential viewing as part of ongoing education efforts to truly highlight the reality of life at this time – many such struggles which continue today.

    The play is a powerful and moving tribute to the strength and resilience of Indigenous women. It is a celebration of their lives, their struggles, and their triumphs.

    Williams has crafted a play that is not only entertaining but also deeply meaningful, shedding light on a crucial period in Australian history: a must-see for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the past and the ongoing fight for justice and equality.

    While much has changed since 1966, the spirit of resistance and the quest for a better future remain as vital as ever.

    Big Girls Don’t Cry is at Belvoir Theatre, Sydney, until April 27.

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

    – ref. Big Girls Don’t Cry is a powerful, heart-wrenching, and comical celebration of Indigenous resilience and survival – https://theconversation.com/big-girls-dont-cry-is-a-powerful-heart-wrenching-and-comical-celebration-of-indigenous-resilience-and-survival-254291

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How common are errors in IVF labs? Can they be prevented?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karin Hammarberg, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University

    KateStudio/Shutterstock

    The news of a woman unknowingly giving birth to another patient’s baby after an embryo mix-up at a Brisbane IVF lab has made headlines in Australia and around the world. The distress this incident will have caused to everyone involved is undoubtedly significant.

    A report released by Monash IVF, the company which operates the Brisbane clinic, states it “adheres to strict laboratory safety measures (including multi-step identification processes) to safeguard and protect the embryos in its care”.

    It also says the company’s own initial investigation concluded the incident was “the result of human error”.

    An independent investigation will follow which presumably will shed light on how human error could occur when multi-step identification processes are in place.

    On a broader level, this incident raises questions about how common IVF errors are and to what extent they’re preventable.

    The booming IVF industry

    Because people have children later in life than they used to, some struggle to conceive and turn to assisted reproductive technologies. These include in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) which both involve handling of sperm and eggs (gametes) in the laboratory to form embryos. If there’s more than one embryo available after a treatment cycle, they can be frozen and stored for later use.

    Increasingly, assisted reproductive technologies are also being used by single women, same-sex couples, and women who freeze their eggs to preserve their fertility.

    For these reasons, the fertility industry is booming. In 2022 there were more than 100,000 assisted reproductive treatment cycles performed in Australian fertility clinics, up more than 25% on the number of cycles performed in 2017.

    Regulation of the IVF industry

    In Australia, the IVF industry is more regulated than in many other parts of the world.

    To operate, clinics must be licensed by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and adhere to its code of practice.

    In relation to storage and accurate identification of embryos, the code states clinics must provide evidence of the implementation and review of:

    Policies and procedures to identify when, how and by whom the identification, matching, and verification are recorded for gametes, embryos and patients at all stages of the treatment process including digital and manual record-keeping.

    The code further states clinics must report serious adverse events to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. The list of what’s considered a serious adverse event includes any incident that “arises from a gamete or embryo identification mix up”.

    Clinics must also adhere to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s ethical guidelines on the use of reproductive technology in clinical practice and research.

    Lastly, states and territories have laws that regulate aspects of the IVF industry such as requirements to report adverse events and other data to state authorities.

    Thousands of pregnancies in Australia each year are conceived using assisted reproductive technologies.
    Lee Charlie/Shutterstock

    In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority regulates the IVF industry and requires clinics to report adverse incidents. These are reported as grade A, B or C, where A is the most serious and involves
    “severe harm to one person, or major harm to many”. Data on adverse incidents is reported in a publicly available annual report.

    In the United States, however, the IVF industry is largely unregulated, and clinics don’t have to report adverse incidents. However, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine states clinics should have rigorous procedures to prevent the loss, damage, or misdirection of gametes and embryos and have an ethical obligation to disclose errors to all impacted patients.

    How common are IVF errors?

    There’s no global data on IVF errors so it’s not possible to know how common they are. But we learn about some of the more serious incidents when they’re reported in the media.

    While the recent embryo mix-up is the first known incident of this nature in Australia’s 40-year IVF history, we have seen reports of other errors in Australian clinics. These include the alleged use of the wrong donor sperm, embryos being destroyed due to contamination, and inaccurate genetic testing which resulted in the destruction of potentially viable embryos.

    In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s most recent report states there was one Grade A incident in 2023–24. This was the first Grade A incident reported since 2019–20 when there were two.

    In the US, some notable errors include storage tank malfunctions in two clinics which destroyed thousands of eggs and embryos.

    Lawsuits have also been filed for embryo mix-ups. In a 2023 case, a woman from Georgia delivered a Black baby even though she and her sperm donor are both white. The biological parents subsequently demanded custody of the child. Despite wanting to raise him the woman who had given birth gave up the five-month-old boy to avoid a legal fight she couldn’t win, she said.

    In the US, some argue most errors go unreported because reporting is not mandated and due to the absence of meaningful regulation.

    There’s no global data on IVF errors, so we don’t know how common they are.
    SeventyFour/Shutterstock

    Are IVF errors preventable?

    Despite Australia’s stringent regulation and oversight of the IVF industry, an incident with far-reaching psychological and potentially legal consequences has occurred.

    Until the independent investigation reveals how “human error” caused this mix-up, it’s not possible to say what additional measures Monash IVF should take to ensure this never happens again.

    An IVF laboratory is a high-pressure environment, and any investigation should look at whether staffing levels are adequate. Staff training is also relevant, and it’s essential all junior lab staff have adequate supervision.

    Finally, perhaps Australia should adopt the UK’s model and make data about adverse events reported to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee available to the public in an annual report. To reassure the public, this report could include what measures clinics take to avoid the errors happening again.

    Karin Hammarberg is affiliated with Monash University, which is not connected with Monash IVF and the incident mentioned in the article.

    – ref. How common are errors in IVF labs? Can they be prevented? – https://theconversation.com/how-common-are-errors-in-ivf-labs-can-they-be-prevented-254382

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Family Court could better protect Indigenous women and children, but there are barriers in the way

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Douglas, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW), The University of Melbourne

    Shutterstock

    The family law system is crucial for protecting women and children nationwide. With its combination of judicial oversight, counselling and alternative dispute resolution, the family court can offer meaningful support to parents in complex situations. But First Nations families may be missing out.

    We partnered with Women’s Legal Services Australia to prepare a new review. The review highlights that First Nations women may face barriers to accessing the family law system, especially when they have experienced family violence.

    Our research

    Family law courts in Australia handle matters such as where children live and who has contact with them. They also deal with finance and property disputes within families, and family violence.

    In our research, we reviewed the existing literature and family court cases to see how First Nations people have interacted with the family law system.

    While 7% of family court final order applications in 2023–2024 included a First Nations litigant, we suggest the family law system may be underutilised by Indigenous women. There are several factors that point to this.

    One is the rate of out-of-home care. First Nations children make up 44.5% of children in out-of-home care nationally. Engaging with the family law system may reduce these rates.

    Another is the prevalence of Indigenous families with a single parent. Nearly 45% of First Nations children under 15-years-old live in single-parent households.

    People in these households may need to negotiate safe contact arrangements for their children with other family members. The family law system can play an important role for these families.

    And we know family violence is present in 83% of parenting proceedings in the family courts. First Nations women are at a higher risk of family violence than non-First Nations women, often perpetrated by a non-First Nations partner. The family law system must take account of family violence when making orders.

    It therefore may be reasonable to expect a higher proportion of First Nations people to use the family law system. So what’s stopping them?

    Prior bad experiences

    Previous studies have focused on First Nations women’s experiences of child protection, criminal law and family violence protections orders.

    First Nations women may fear the family law system because of negative experiences with these other processes, including genuine fears about child removal.

    Research shows parts of the legal system often fail First Nations women who have experienced family violence.

    The family law system relies on people making their own application to enter the system. Prior bad experiences of other legal systems are likely to affect people’s willingness to use family law.

    Family law is different from other parts of the legal system. In criminal law and family violence protection orders, for instance, the state brings First Nations people into the legal system. This happens through police charging people, or police applying for family violence protection orders on behalf of a victim-survivor.

    We know in some civil law processes where the person must make the application, like debt recovery, First Nations people are less likely than non-First Nations people to report or make an application.

    Structural issues

    Child protection matters often overlap with family law matters. The law has changed to require child protection authorities to share information when the family courts request it.

    Agencies that support First Nations women are also required to report particular concerns to child protection authorities. These factors may contribute to First Nations women being reluctant to apply to the family law system for fear their children will be removed.

    In some research, interview participants referred to an “erosion of trust and disengagement of victims” from services as a result of mandatory reporting.

    Systemic racism, biases and discrimination identified in other legal systems may also affect First Nations women’s experiences in family law. This may lead them to disengage, or not engage the next time they have concerns about their children’s safety.

    When First Nations women who have experienced family violence do engage with the family law system, this is sometimes because their non-First Nations partner makes an application. When this happens, research suggests the family law system may give more weight to the non-First Nations party’s version of events.

    Improving the system

    The family law system is making efforts to improve access for First Nations people.

    There is now a requirement for family courts to consider how parenting arrangements will help Aboriginal children to remain in contact with culture, community, family, language and Country.

    Indigenous Family Liaison Officers are employed by family courts to support First Nations people in court.

    Indigenous Lists also exist in specific courts where cases involving First Nations parties are heard on a particular day and specialised support is available.

    We need to find out more about how effective these measures are and what else needs to change so the family law system can best support First Nations women.

    We also need to know more about how to support First Nations women in the family courts when the other party is a non-First Nations person. For most couples across Australia that include an Indigenous person, the other person is non-First Nations.

    The family law system holds real potential to be a proactive and protective pathway for more First Nations women concerned about their own safety and their children’s safety. Our continuing research hopes to show how this potential may be realised.

    13YARN is a free and confidential 24/7 national crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are feeling overwhelmed or having difficulty coping. Call 13 92 76.

    Heather Douglas receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Kyllie Cripps receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a number of projects she is involved with.

    Samantha O’Donnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Samantha O’Donnell also volunteers for the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

    – ref. The Family Court could better protect Indigenous women and children, but there are barriers in the way – https://theconversation.com/the-family-court-could-better-protect-indigenous-women-and-children-but-there-are-barriers-in-the-way-253619

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Curious Kids: If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan Irvine, Outstanding Future Researcher – Northern Water Futures, Charles Darwin University

    Lizzie Lamont/Shutterstock

    If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower?

    –Ellis, 6 and a half, Hobart

    This is a great question Ellis! The short answer is yes, but the change in water level will be extremely tiny. You can actually test this idea at home.

    For starters, you’ll need a glass of water and a teaspoon. Fill the glass almost to the top, and take note of the water level. Now, carefully remove a teaspoon of water. Can you see the difference in the water level? Maybe you can, but maybe not.

    You could repeat this experiment in the kitchen sink, or a bathtub if you have one. The key point is that the water level does drop, but only by a very small amount. If you scoop a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub, you probably won’t see the difference with the naked eye.

    Millions of buckets

    So, let’s return to the ocean. It’s truly huge, especially compared to a bucket.

    Let’s say that you have a bucket that fits ten litres. Using the information here, there are about 137 million, million, million buckets of water in the ocean (that is, all of Earth’s oceans combined).

    I crunched the numbers. If you took a bucket of water from the ocean, the water level would drop by around 0.0000000000277 millimetre. You can see how small a millimetre is on your school ruler. We don’t have anything on Earth that can measure anything this small. For example, this is way, way, way smaller than even a single atom.

    So, the more detailed answer to your question is: yes, the water level gets lower, but by such a small amount that we can’t even measure it.

    But wait, there’s more

    Earth is a really interesting place. When you take your bucket of water, all that water is moving through something called the water cycle.

    Sea levels are actually constantly changing. Each year, a lot of water evaporates from the ocean. Some of it is even lost to outer space.

    However, most of the evaporated water rains back down directly onto the ocean, or onto the ground, with that water making its way to rivers that eventually flow to the ocean. There is also a lot of water stored underground, and some of it makes its way to the ocean, as well.

    So, if you poured your bucket of water onto the ground, eventually it would end up back in the ocean via the water cycle!

    A few fun facts

    There’s a lot to know about water. Some more fun facts (and big numbers):

    1. There are 1,500,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water (H₂O) in a single drop of water. That’s 1.5 million, million, million.

    2. The oldest water in the world is estimated to have fallen as rain more than 1.6 billion years ago.

    3. Most (about 98%) of the world’s fresh, liquid water is underground – that’s why it’s called groundwater.

    Dylan Irvine receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Cooperative Research Centre program, the National Water Grid Authority and the Ian Potter Foundation. This article is independent of these funded research activities.

    – ref. Curious Kids: If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-if-you-scoop-a-bucket-of-water-out-of-the-ocean-does-it-get-lower-233249

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Top unis have imposed new restrictions on campus protests. What does this mean for students, staff and democracy?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

    A wave of restrictions on protesting has been rippling through Australia’s top universities.

    Over the past year, all of Australia’s eight top research universities (the Group of Eight) have individually increased restrictions on campus protests.

    The changes include bans on indoor protests and restrictions on banners, posters and student announcements. At some campuses, groups need to give notice or obtain university approval if they are going to protest.

    Why has this happened and what does it mean for protests, free speech and democracy at Australian universities?

    Why are university protests important?

    Over the past 60 years, campus protests have been a defining feature of Australian university life.

    In the 1960s and ‘70s, they were a breeding ground for social protest, including rallies against apartheid and the Vietnam War, and in favour of women’s rights. In more recent years, students have protested on key social, political and environmental issues, from university fees to the invasion of Iraq and climate action.

    This protest history feeds into the broader purposes of universities. Universities act as a modern-day “public square”. This means they are a place where ideas can be freely debated and difficult issues can be explored. In this way, they act as a key component of a free and healthy democracy.

    As Victorian university legislation notes, universities should promote

    critical and free enquiry, informed intellectual discourse and public debate within the University and in the wider society.

    Rally and draft burning by students at the University of Sydney in 1968.
    Image courtesy of the SEARCH Foundation, from the collections of the State Library of New South Wales., CC BY

    Restricting protests for campus safety

    Since early 2024, there have been increasing restrictions on campus protests.

    These come in the wake of the months-long encampments protesting the war in Gaza – and ensuing concerns over antisemitism at universities and campus safety.

    They have also coincided with increased public scrutiny over university governance. This includes accusations vice-chancellors are running a “lawless sector,” pointing to underpayment of staff, high levels of executive pay and criticism of the way some universities managed the protests.

    What have universities done?

    In this heightened context, universities have increased restrictions on campus protests, arguing they are needed for safety.

    Universities have taken various measures. For example, the University of Western Australia has restricted student announcements in class (or “lecture-bashing”).

    To ensure safety and wellbeing, student announcements are not permitted at the commencement of lectures or other teaching and learning activities.

    The University of Adelaide has banned student encampments and indoor protests.

    The changes across the Group of Eight mean students announcing a rally for climate action in class now risk disciplinary action at some universities. Sit-ins calling on universities to divest from weapon companies are no longer permitted at others. At some campuses, union members going to stop-work meetings to protest staff cuts could be engaging in employee misconduct.

    The legal basis of the restrictions

    Australian universities are typically set up under state legislation and through this have broad powers to regulate campus protests.

    They can impose obligations on students through university rules and direct their staff as employers. They can determine who is allowed to enter and remain on campus through their powers to manage land they either own or control.

    Universities in South Australia and Victoria also have powers under state legislation to make university statutes and regulations.

    The protest restrictions have relied on a mix of these powers.

    Could these changes be challenged?

    But these restrictions are also subject to enterprise agreements made under the federal Fair Work Act which protect academic and intellectual freedom. For example, the University of Sydney’s enterprise agreement entitles staff to:

    • express opinions about the operation of the university and higher education policy in general

    • express unpopular or controversial views, provided that in doing so staff must not engage in harassment, vilification or intimidation.

    There is also the implied right of freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution.

    This means both the Fair Work Act and Constitution may provide grounds for a legal challenge to many of these new restrictions. The High Court has previously ruled restrictions on protest must be proportionate and necessary for preventing harm and damage.

    The protest restrictions also implicate various human rights. Under international law, which Australia has ratified, staff and students have freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. As workers, staff have freedom of association through trade unions, including the right to organise.

    Many of these measures would seem to restrict activities where there is no or little threat to safety. In some cases, there are arguably excessive and disproportionate means to ensure safety.

    What will happen now?

    Some university students, staff and unions have opposed these protest restrictions.

    But there is a balancing to be struck here. Other students and staff have not felt safe on campus and in class and have called for more safety protections. This has particularly been the case for those from Jewish backgrounds.

    Given the doubts over their legality, court challenges may be on the horizon. It is also possible some groups will actively test these restrictions.

    But we may see a chilling effect on university activism and protests, when individuals would otherwise speak their minds on campus. Some staff may be worried they will lose their jobs. Students may be also worried about academic penalties or expulsion and the impact on their future careers.

    This undermines universities as a place where people talk, debate and test ideas as a key part of the learning and research process – and a vital component of our democracy.

    Joo-Cheong Tham has been an employee of the University of Melbourne for more than two decades. During this time, he has participated in campus protests at the university that would now be banned by the university’s protest restrictions.

    He is the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; and an Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity.

    Joo-Cheong has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission.

    – ref. Top unis have imposed new restrictions on campus protests. What does this mean for students, staff and democracy? – https://theconversation.com/top-unis-have-imposed-new-restrictions-on-campus-protests-what-does-this-mean-for-students-staff-and-democracy-253627

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Most bike lanes in inner Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover – that’ll get worse, new maps show

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judy Bush, Senior DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

    Unshaded cycling paths mean heat exposure on hot days, particularly for the afternoon commute. Judy Bush, CC BY

    Walking and cycling is good for people and the planet. But hot sunny days can make footpaths, bike lanes and city streets unbearable. Climate change will only make matters worse.

    So city planners and decision-makers need to provide adequate shade for walking, cycling and other forms of active transport – including from good tree canopy cover.

    Unfortunately, our recent research reveals Melbourne’s transport strategy and its separate strategy to increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040 aren’t currently working together.

    Our research found most bicycle lanes in inner Melbourne today have less than 40% canopy cover. And as the maps below show, future bicycle lanes will have even less. There’s plenty of room for improvement.

    Searching for shady lanes

    We used the City of Melbourne as a case study to explore bikeability, tree cover and health.

    The city council area covers 37 square kilometres, taking in suburbs from leafy Parkville to industrial Fishermans Bend.

    When we mapped tree canopy cover against the active transport network, we found most bicycle lanes have less than 40% canopy cover. Some cycling corridors – such as along Royal Parade and parts of St Kilda Road – stand out with relatively high canopy cover. But they are few and far between.

    Existing bike lanes

    Most bicycle lanes in the City of Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover.
    Crystal Tang

    And it’s about to get worse.

    Bicycle lanes proposed for construction have lower overall tree canopy coverage than existing lanes, particularly in urban renewal areas in post-industrial precincts such as Fishermans Bend and Docklands.

    Along Royal Parade and St Kilda Road corridors, additional bicycle lanes are proposed next to existing lanes. However, in current conditions, the proposed new bicycle lanes have lower canopy coverage than existing bicycle lanes along the same corridor.

    Proposed bike lanes

    Proposed future bicycle lanes have even less tree cover than existing bike lanes.
    Crystal Tang

    The city’s strategies don’t match up

    We also examined the city’s transport and urban forest strategies. The latter includes the council’s ambitious goal to increase canopy cover to 40% by 2040.

    We found both the transport and urban forest policies recognise that they can contribute to the health and wellbeing of city residents, workers and visitors. They also acknowledge the health risks associated with lack of physical activity, such as heart disease, lung disease and diabetes. But there are key gaps.

    The transport strategy broadly refers to climate change, but does not mention urban heat.

    In contrast, addressing urban heat is one of the main stated aims of the urban forest strategy. But there’s only a passing reference to encouraging outdoor activity and exercise.

    There are signs though that this may be changing – in 2022, Melbourne has joined a handful of other cities worldwide in appointing chief heat officers to focus planning and action for cooler cities.

    Planning for more trees

    Trees need sufficient space for healthy growth. This includes space below ground for a strong and stable root system as well as room to grow up and spread out.

    For street trees, extra care must be taken to facilitate this growth. The locations of other infrastructure, both above- and below-ground, need to be taken into account.

    Smaller trees may be more appropriate in some urban areas, particularly where overhead powerlines require clearance, but obviously these trees will provide less canopy. Likewise, healthy tree root development can be disrupted by underground services, unless high quality soil and sufficient space is allocated.

    To ensure trees are still thriving in 50 or even 100 years time, planners also need to select species that can withstand hotter and drier conditions.

    What a difference shade makes

    Street trees cool urban areas by shading surfaces and releasing water into the air. This can lower air temperatures by 1-2°C. But the temperature difference on the ground can be even more substantial. Asphalt can be anywhere from 13°C–20°C cooler under dense tree canopy shade.

    Reducing the amount of heat roads and other hard surfaces absorb eases what’s known as the urban heat island effect, in which cities experience warmer temperatures than green spaces.

    Climate change is increasing the frequency and duration of heatwaves. This adds to the pressure on Australia’s health services, including ambulances and emergency departments. If current rates of climate change continue, Victorians are likely to experience twice the annual number of very hot days by the 2050s, compared with 1985-2005.

    All of this means walking or riding in the absence of shade can expose people to heat-related illness and even premature death.

    Canopy trees create cooler cycling conditions.
    Judy Bush

    Better planning for liveable cities

    Our research shows planning policies must work together more effectively for liveable cities. This is particularly important when it comes to building new infrastructure such as roads, bicycle lanes and footpaths.

    Proactively planning for more trees in these spaces can promote healthy tree growth, with benefits for human health in cooler cities.

    And while we can plant trees next to bike lanes for future shade, the need to protect cyclists from heat now means we should locate bike lanes along existing shaded streets.

    City planners and decision-makers need to ensure the places we live, work and play are designed to promote active transport. That means ensuring transport routes align with our urban forest.

    Acknowledgements: thanks to Bachelor of Design, Urban Planning (Honours) student Crystal Tang who carried out the research that underpins this article.

    Judy Bush is the recipient of a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (2024-27) from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and the Ecological Society of Australia.
    Crystal Tang undertook the data collection and analysis as part of her B.Des (Hons), supervised by Judy.

    – ref. Most bike lanes in inner Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover – that’ll get worse, new maps show – https://theconversation.com/most-bike-lanes-in-inner-melbourne-have-less-than-40-tree-cover-thatll-get-worse-new-maps-show-253222

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Think your specialist is expensive? Look at what others are paying

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Seeing a medical specialist can leave you with significant out-of-pocket costs. Yet political parties have not adequately addressed this in their pre-election bids.

    Labor has promised A$7 million to expand the government’s Medical Costs Finder website, which potentially allows you to compare specialists’ fees. But it hasn’t outlined a policy to lower these fees. The Coalition and the Greens have not addressed specialists’ fees directly.

    During a cost-of-living crisis, this is a major omission.

    Specialists’ fees are high, vary across specialties and across geographical regions.

    That’s what we found when we used actual Medicare data to map costs across Australia to see a specialist doctor.

    What we did and what we found

    We used data from the national 2023 Medicare Benefits Schedule (or MBS) accessed from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We calculated mean (average) fees charged by doctors in 17 specialties for initial face-to-face appointments after a GP referral.

    Under MBS billing rules, different specialties use different item numbers (104 or 110) for an initial consultation. These attracted a different Medicare schedule fee ($91.80 and $161.90, respectively, as of January 2023). These schedule fees are what Medicare considers a fair price for doctors to charge.

    Most patients pay the gap between 85% of the Medicare schedule fee and the specialist’s fee. This is their out-of-pocket cost. But that percentage can differ, depending on the circumstances. So not all patients have the same out-of-pocket costs for the same consultation.

    We only looked at fees charged by private specialists at private clinics. We didn’t include free specialist care in public clinics. Nor did we look at GP fees.

    We then looked at how specialists’ fees varied by patients’ geographical location to create some maps.

    Use the map below to search for mean specialists’ fees and mean out-of-pocket costs for cardiology, rheumatology, neurology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

    Fees for the other 13 specialties we looked at are available via maps on the HALE Hub’s Australian Healthcare Atlas website.

    Which specialists charged the most?

    Specialist fees varied substantially. On average, rheumatology had the highest fees, followed by neurology and immunology. Oral and maxillofacial surgery had the lowest fees, followed by general surgery.

    Some specialties used the item number that attracted the $91.80 Medicare schedule fee. But almost all these specialists (except for general surgery) charged more than twice this amount (an average $183.60) in at least 80% of geographical areas.

    Other specialties used the item number that attracted the $161.90 Medicare schedule fee. This included rheumatologists, which charged an average of over $323.80 (twice the schedule fee) in 17.6% of geographical areas. Neurologists charged the same amount in 19.2% of geographical areas.

    Which parts of the country had the highest fees?

    Certain states and territories consistently had higher fees for some specialties. For example:

    • cardiology was most expensive in Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland

    • orthopaedics was most expensive in ACT, New South Wales and Queensland

    • obstetrics was most expensive in ACT, WA and NSW.

    High fees matter

    Higher specialists’ fees directly translate to patients’ higher out-of-pocket costs. That’s because Medicare rebates are fixed, and private health insurance does not cover out-of-hospital consultations.

    If patients avoid their initial consultation due to cost, their health can worsen over time, potentially leading to more expensive treatments later.

    Higher specialists’ fees and the barrier to care could also entrench inequalities. That’s because people in lower socioeconomic groups already tend to have worse health.

    What can I do?

    You can use our maps to look at what specialists charge near you. Although the maps use 2023 data and look at average fees and out-of-pocket costs, you can get a general idea. Then you can call specialists’ offices and the receptionist will tell you how much the doctor charges for an initial appointment.

    If there are several referral options, comparing fees will help you make an informed decision about your health care, alongside wait times, geographical location, quality of care and other factors. You can discuss these issues with your GP so they can refer you to the best available specialist for your circumstances.

    What else can we do?

    1. Make fees transparent

    Patients often do not know how much a specialist consultation costs until they arrive at the doctor’s office. GPs typically do not refer to specialists based on their fees and often don’t know them anyway.

    The government’s Medical Costs Finder website relies on doctors voluntarily reporting their fees. But only a few report them.

    If re-elected, the Labor government says it will upgrade the website to display the average fee charged by every eligible specialist (other than GPs) using Medicare data, without asking doctors to spend time inputting their fees.

    This is a welcome move. But the government should also mandate disclosure of fees on the website, which would be more up-to-date than looking back through past Medicare data.

    2. Doctors need more advice, and can help

    Specialists in Australia can charge what they like, and as we’ve found, sometimes way above the Medicare schedule fee.

    But professional medical colleges can provide guides on how to set “reasonable” fees. They can also develop codes of conduct about fee practices, and counsel members who consistently charge high fees.

    Once specialists’ fees are more transparent, GPs can inform patients about fee variations and options for more affordable care.

    3. We need more public clinics

    Government could also open more public clinics that offer free specialist care for those who cannot afford large gap fees in private clinics. This type of investment may be warranted in some low-socioeconomic areas if we’re aiming for all Australians to receive the specialist care they need.

    Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.

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

    – ref. Think your specialist is expensive? Look at what others are paying – https://theconversation.com/think-your-specialist-is-expensive-look-at-what-others-are-paying-253628

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Post-election tax reform is the key to reversing Australia’s growing wealth divide

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

    Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit for purpose.

    The biggest challenge that should be addressed through tax reform is the level of inequality in Australian society.

    The five-yearly Intergenerational Reports lay bare the intergenerational squeeze. The future burden of supporting the ageing population will increasingly fall on younger Australians who generally don’t enjoy the same financial wellbeing of previous generations.

    But there is also rising inequality within generations. Not all younger Australians can rely on inherited wealth, including the bank of mum and dad. And superannuation balances at retirement vary wildly, given they are tied to work history.

    Proper systemic tax reform would play a crucial role building a fairer society.

    Reform freeze

    But to define what is meant by tax reform, we need to think about some of the big picture concerns that affect our economy.

    Arguably we have not successfully pursued a tax reform agenda since the introduction of the GST in 2000. Various governments have changed the tax rates, but that doesn’t constitute genuine reform.

    The Henry Review, commissioned by the Rudd government, set out the long-term horizon for reform – including resource taxes and road user charges for the transition to a net-zero economy. However, the Henry blueprint has not been adopted by any succeeding government.

    Politicians like to boast of “reform agendas”. Despite the political rhetoric, the tax system has not yet adapted to the 21st century.

    Wealth inequality

    The biggest gap in our tax base relates to the concessional taxation of wealth and assets, which is an area ripe for reform.

    According to the Treasury, the top six revenue losers all relate to superannuation, capital gains and negative gearing. In 2024–25, the estimated revenue foregone for these concessions are:

    • $29 billion for the concessional taxation of employer superannuation contributions

    • $27 billion for the main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption (discount component)

    • $26 billion for rental deductions (this is partly offset by rental income)

    • $24.5 billion for main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption

    • $22.73 billion for CGT discount for individuals and trusts

    • $22.2 billion for the concessional taxation of superannuation earnings

    The distributional analysis for superannuation and the Capital Gains Tax discount shows the greatest benefit goes to older taxpayers in the higher earnings brackets. So wealth inequality is perpetuated.

    Addressing these overgenerous concessions to broaden the tax base should be the starting point for any meaningful reform in this country.

    Taking another look at death duties, which were abolished from the late 1970s, should also be considered.

    Death duties were applied to assets transferred to beneficiaries on death. If they were reimposed with a starting threshold set at an appropriate level, they would limit the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which is generating much of the inequity.

    Wealth creation tools

    The Capital Gains Tax discount was introduced following the 1999 Ralph Review to direct productive capital into Australian businesses.

    The 50% discount sparked the boom in residential investment, which combined with negative gearing, has supercharged the inefficiencies in our housing market.

    Superannuation is another wealth-creation tool. Again, the design of superannuation, whereby tax was paid at 15% on the three stages of contributions – investment, earnings and withdrawal – was subverted in search of simplicity in 2007 when the Howard government exempted superannuation withdrawals from tax.

    Case study

    By comparison, the age pension is taxable, if the recipient earns other income. So too are earnings from work allowed under Centrelink rules. This not only allows estate planning advantages, but creates an unfair outcome for retirees who have not had the opportunity to accumulate substantial balances.

    Consider the cases of “Jean” and “Kim”, who are both single homeowners aged 68.

    Jean has no financial assets and receives the full pension of $1,194 per fortnight plus $512 per fortnight from part-time work. She has a taxable income of $43,816 per annum and, after tax offsets, pays $2,595 in tax including $209.70 medicare levy.

    Kim has a superannuation balance of $880,000 and draws a super pension of $44,000. Kim is not eligible for the pension, but pays no tax and no medicare levy.

    Is our tax system really delivering a fair go for all Australians?

    Tax relief is not reform

    Ahead of election day, both the government and opposition are promising tax handouts. Labor is offering top-up tax cuts starting July 1 2026. The coalition says it will temporarily halve the fuel excise.

    But meaningful reform will not be achieved by politicians trading off various interest groups to win votes.

    Nor do we need yet another review: many of the solutions to Australia’s tax problem were identified by the Henry Review 15 years ago.

    And we must avoid cherry-picking incentives that lead to perverse outcomes. For example, cutting fuel excise will slow down the transition to a net zero economy.

    Consensus needed

    Whoever forms government after the election could build a coalition of business and community sector leaders to seek consensus and pursue holistic reform. The focus must be on addressing the inequality that is emerging as a challenge to the economy and our way of life.

    As Ken Henry recently stated, successive governments have fuelled inequality by failing to do three things

    one, manage financial risks arising from the erosion of the tax base; two, maintain the integrity of the tax system; and three, have regard to intergenerational equity.

    Without significant tax reform, Australia’s wealth divide will continue to deepen with young people and future generations left to suffer the brunt.

    This is the sixth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

    Helen Hodgson has received funding from the ARC, AHURI and CPA Australia. Helen is the Chair of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW). Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council in WA from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. She is a Registered Tax Agent and a member of the SMSF Association, CPA Australia and The Tax Institute. Helen has superannuation with Unisuper and jointly owns positively geared rental properties.

    – ref. Post-election tax reform is the key to reversing Australia’s growing wealth divide – https://theconversation.com/post-election-tax-reform-is-the-key-to-reversing-australias-growing-wealth-divide-252177

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Strongmen, Daggy Dads and State Daddies: how different styles of political masculinity play into Australian elections

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

    Australian politics has historically been a male domain with an overwhelmingly masculine culture. Manhood and a certain kind of masculinity are still considered integral to a leader’s political legitimacy.

    Yet leadership masculinity changes along party lines. We are now halfway through the election campaign and can already see differences in the masculine performances of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

    State Daddy versus Strongman Tough Cop

    In a recent open-access study, I identified the emergence of two Australian political masculinities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    First, the traditional “Daggy Dad” of former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison, centred around the nuclear family and paternalistic protection.

    Second, the “State Daddy”, embodied by Labor leaders such as Albanese, who perform a more compassionate masculinity focused on social provision. In the 2022 election, Albanese effectively used his caring masculinity against Morrison’s faltering protective paternalism, highlighting many of Morrison’s weaknesses and especially his unpopularity with women.

    The 2025 election is shaping up to be another “gender election”, this time between the State Daddy and the Strongman Tough Cop.

    Albanese and Dutton’s adoption of certain masculine identities reveals not only how they want to be perceived but also how they envision the electorate, the nation, and its defining values.

    Dutton is a “tough-nut” conservative who portrays himself as a “strongman” protector. His leadership masculinity combines that of several other Liberal leaders, notably John Howard. But his conservatism is more reactionary, focusing less on economics and more on stoking culture wars.

    Like Tony Abbott, he is a pugilistic opposition leader who promises to keep Australians safe while reinforcing fear and uncertainty. Following Morrison’s lead, Dutton also targets outer-suburban electorates that traditionally vote Labor.

    His plan is to tap into voters’ anxiety and offer his “strongman” masculinity as its antidote. Since becoming leader, Dutton has frequently attempted to emasculate Albanese, labelling him “weak”, “woke”, and too preoccupied with “elite” issues, such as the Voice Referendum, to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

    Dutton positions himself as the traditional masculine protector of the nation. The mobilisation of fear of a threat, real or imagined, is core to this identity. Dutton vows to protect Australians by being tough on crime, immigration and “wokeness”.

    Yet his strongman persona and conservative policies do not resonate with women, who fear he will follow Trump’s lead on gutting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or cuts to the public service and rights to work from home.

    The strongman protective persona is aimed at men in the outer suburbs, especially those at risk of voting Labor.

    In contrast, Albanese’s State Daddy masculinity targets women over men and seeks to inspire hope, care, and a collective response. The focus is on issues of equality, embodying a caring masculinity to rival traditional conservative masculine identities.

    Physical attractiveness is integral to the State Daddy image. For example, before the 2022 election, Albanese underwent what is colloquially termed a “glow up”.

    Seeking to appeal to the female gaze, he gave an “at home” interview for The Australian Women’s Weekly. These images are a useful tool for State Daddies for two reasons. First, to physically differentiate them from the dishevelled look preferred by conservative political leaders, such as Morrison, Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. Second, to visually signal their commitment to women voters.

    Both the Daggy Dad and Strongman Tough Cop often fall short. They claim to provide financial and physical protection to citizens, but only in exchange for subordination to their masculine authority. These limitations are often exposed when it’s necessary to protect citizens during crises such as, in Morrison’s case, bushfires, flood or plague. This protector masculinity fundamentally fails to recognise citizens’ needs and exposes the empty rhetoric at the core of protectionism.

    Who can we see at the 2025 election?

    Albanese is a far less popular leader than he was in 2022, for many reasons. However, the ALP are again campaigning on boosting the care economy, with major commitments to health care, aged care, and childcare. These are primarily women-dominated industries that Dutton, like Morrison before him, has repeatedly failed to support and engage.

    In contrast, Dutton was forced into an embarrassing back-down on a promise to end work-from-home arrangements for public servants, 57% of whom are women.

    Distracting from the Coalition’s long-standing “women problem”— which in part cost them the 2022 election — Dutton has been implying that Albanese’s “wokeness” has left men behind.

    Taking a page from the Trump playbook, Dutton has appeared on podcasts targeting mainly male audiences. On one appearance, he made a pitch to young male voters, noting: “Young males feel disenfranchised [and] ostracised”. He sympathised with the “anti-woke revolution” and argued that young men are “fed up” with “woke” practices.

    Albanese, meanwhile, has appeared on podcasts targeting mainly women audiences, including Abbie Chatfield’s “It’s A Lot” or Cheek Media’s podcast. He spoke about Labor’s policies supporting women’s health in areas including endometriosis care, contraceptives and menopause.

    It’s clear that both leaders are targeting very different parts of the voter bloc, in policy platforms and social media strategies.

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

    – ref. Strongmen, Daggy Dads and State Daddies: how different styles of political masculinity play into Australian elections – https://theconversation.com/strongmen-daggy-dads-and-state-daddies-how-different-styles-of-political-masculinity-play-into-australian-elections-252727

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Productivity reform has been put in the too-hard basket for years. Here’s why leaders leave it alone

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan Vass, Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

    National licensing of electricians has been one of the few productivity reforms of recent years. Shutterstock

    The federal election leaders’ and treasurers’ debates last week covered many topics: from Trump’s tariffs to the cost of living, energy supply and excise tax.

    But one of the most consequential things for Australia’s future prosperity was not mentioned – what either a Labor or Coalition government plans to do to kick-start productivity growth.

    It’s usually at this point – seeing the word “productivity” – that people switch off. So bear with me a minute.

    Productivity is a much-maligned term, often thought to mean people working harder or longer. But that’s not what it means.

    Being more productive means getting more for the same amount of work – working smarter, not longer. For example, in 1901 it took 18 minutes of an average worker’s time to be able to afford a loaf of bread.

    Thanks to improvements in efficiency (think using a dough hook rather than hand-kneading) and rising wages, today it takes around four minutes of work to afford a loaf.

    Why it matters to you

    Productivity growth matters. Increasing output and decreasing prices is the main driver of increasing real incomes in the long term. It means you’re able to purchase more (or better quality) goods and services as their relative costs go down and incomes increase.

    But Australia’s productivity growth is languishing. Reserve Bank analysis highlights that labour productivity grew only 0.2% per year over the six years to June 2024. The escalating global tariff war, and associated uncertainty, will threaten this further.

    Poor productivity growth also has significant implications for the federal budget. The budget papers showed that a forecast return to a balanced budget in a decade’s time is premised on a productivity growth assumption of 1.2% per year – which is optimistic.

    Recent analysis from the e61 Institute shows even a slightly more realistic assumption of 1% would increase the budget deficit by 0.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and push out the return to budget balance.

    What about all the inquiries?

    So what can we do about it? Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has delivered several reports that deep dive into the problems and potential solutions.

    The most recent report, Advancing Prosperity, was delivered to the government in 2023. It provided 29 reform directions and 71 individual recommendations, across over 1,000 pages of analysis.

    While a small number of these have been picked up by governments, such as reforms to the temporary skilled migration system, the vast majority remain on the shelf.

    There have been some initiatives aimed at stimulating productivity pursued by government outside of the Productivity Commission recommendations, such as the banning of non-compete clauses and nationally consistent licensing for electricians.



    Read more:
    Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move

    These are steps in the right direction, but relatively small ones. We need policies to tilt our economy towards being more flexible and adaptable, allowing us to take advantage of whatever the next world-changing idea or technology is.

    Lots of talk, not much action

    So why have we seen so little action on productivity reforms, and why is neither side of politics talking about our productivity problem?

    There are a few likely reasons.

    Firstly, as economists often like to remind people, incentives matter. Politicians are no different to the rest of us in that they respond to the incentives they face. And often productivity-enhancing reforms come with short-term costs (political, economic or social), while the benefits don’t tend to materialise until the longer term.

    With politicians (understandably) focused on re-election every three years, the prospect of incurring a clear short-term cost for a longer-term benefit isn’t always a tempting one.

    Secondly, the impact of productivity-enhancing reforms tend to be more uncertain than other policies.

    For example, if we increase the level of JobSeeker payments, we can be fairly certain that those on JobSeeker will be able to consume more. While we may be confident about the direction of the impact of productivity reforms – such as improving the ability of the workers to find the firms that they best match with – it is harder to be certain about the size of this impact.

    This makes it more difficult to concretely claim an individual policy reform will have benefits that clearly and significantly outweigh the costs.

    No silver bullet on reform

    Finally, when it comes to productivity-enhancing reform, there is no single silver bullet. Modern productivity reform requires a collection of policies enacted together, which may be politically more difficult due to the larger number of potentially negatively affected groups.

    So what can we do to fix this? As constituents if you’re door-knocked or approached by politicians in the election campaign over the coming weeks, then make sure to ask them what their plans for reviving productivity growth are.

    Longer term, it is incumbent upon researchers and policymakers to create the burning platform for why productivity-improving change is needed, and what this means.

    There are many issues Australia faces, and politicians and citizens have limited bandwidth. We should work to better highlight and communicate the benefits and trade-offs, rather than bemoan the lack of action from politicians simply responding to incentives.

    The author thanks Aaron Wong, senior economist at the e61 Institute, for their contribution to this article.

    Lachlan Vass is affiliated with the e61 Institute.

    – ref. Productivity reform has been put in the too-hard basket for years. Here’s why leaders leave it alone – https://theconversation.com/productivity-reform-has-been-put-in-the-too-hard-basket-for-years-heres-why-leaders-leave-it-alone-253749

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Newspoll steady but Albanese’s ratings jump; swing to Labor in marginal seats

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A national Newspoll, conducted April 7–10 from a sample of 1,271, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged since the March 31 to April 4 Newspoll. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady).

    Anthony Albanese’s net approval jumped seven points to -4, his best net approval since May 2024. Peter Dutton’s net approval dropped two points to -19, his worst since September 2023. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 49–38 (48–40 previously).

    Leaders’ ratings changes may imply that future Newspolls will be better for Labor on voting intentions, but this doesn’t always happen. Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are data points and a trend line has been fitted. Albanese’s ratings have surged from a low of -21 net approval in mid-February.

    This Newspoll is the only new national poll since Friday’s article, but a Redbridge poll of marginal seats had a 1.5-point swing to Labor since the 2022 election, implying that Labor is gaining seats. Here is the national poll graph.

    I believe Donald Trump is most responsible for Labor’s surge in the polls to a clear lead and a probable majority government (they won a majority in 2022 on the same primary vote Newspoll gives them). Albanese’s ratings have probably lifted owing to a favourable comparison between Albanese and Trump.

    Coalition senator Jacinta Price’s use of “Make Australia Great Again” on Saturday, an echo of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, will damage efforts by the Coalition to distance itself from Trump.

    Asked what type of government they wanted after the election in Newspoll, 32% wanted a Labor majority, 32% a Coalition majority, 21% a Labor minority government and 15% a Coalition minority government. This means 64% wanted a Labor or Coalition majority, while 36% wanted a minority government. The overall 53–47 split for a Labor government nearly matches the 52–48 two-party estimate.

    Redbridge marginal seats poll has swing to Labor

    A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 4–9 from a sample of 1,003. It gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since the late February marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down five), 35% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady) and 17% for all Others (up four).

    The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 1.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 53.5–46.5.

    Albanese’s net favourability improved three points since late February to -8, while Dutton’s was down five points to -16. Dutton led Albanese by 27–23 on best to manage the relationship with the US and Trump (31–22 previously). But if people really thought Dutton would be able to prevent Trump’s tariff chaos, voting intentions would not have shifted towards Labor.

    On whether the US is a reliable partner and friend for Australia, 61% said it had been a reliable partner and friend, but less so now than it was, 18% said the US is still a reliable partner and friend, and 12% said it was never a reliable partner or friend.

    Dutton may be trailing in Dickson, and other seat polls

    Dutton won the Queensland seat of Dickson by 51.7–48.3 against Labor in 2022. The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that a uComms poll of Dickson for the Queensland Conservation Council, conducted April 9–10 from a sample of 854, gave Labor a 52–48 lead over Dutton.

    In other Dickson seat polls, the Coalition said their own polling by Freshwater gave Dutton a 57–43 lead, a uComms poll for Climate 200 gave Labor a 51.7–48.3 lead and Labor’s polling had it tied 50–50. Seat polls are unreliable.

    In the Western Australian Liberal-held seat of Forrest, a poll for Climate 200 gave a teal candidate a 51–49 lead over the Liberals. In the Tasmanian Labor-held seat of Lyons (50.9–49.1 to Labor in 2022), a uComms poll for the Australian Forest Products Association gave Labor a 50.9–49.1 lead over the Liberals.

    In other seat-specific news, in the Victorian seat of Macnamara, Labor incumbent Josh Burns won’t recommend preferences on how to vote material between the Liberals and Greens. Previously Labor has recommended preferences to the Greens. It will be more difficult for the Greens to win Macnamara if the final two candidates are the Liberals and Greens.

    Candidate nominations declared

    Candidate nominations were declared on Friday. The Poll Bludger said there were 1,126 total candidates for the 150 House of Representatives seats, an average of 7.5 candidates per seat. That’s down from 1,203 total candidates in 2022, an average of 8.0 per seat.

    Labor, the Greens and the Coalition will contest all 150 seats, One Nation 147 (all except the three ACT seats), Trumpet of Patriots 100 (down from contesting all seats under UAP in 2022), Family First 92, Libertarians 46 and Legalise Cannabis 42. There are a total of 132 independent candidates, up from 98 in 2022.

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

    – ref. Newspoll steady but Albanese’s ratings jump; swing to Labor in marginal seats – https://theconversation.com/newspoll-steady-but-albaneses-ratings-jump-swing-to-labor-in-marginal-seats-254445

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Cull, Associate Professor, Western Sydney University

    doublelee/Shutterstock

    There is no denying housing reform is urgently needed in Australia to make housing more affordable and accessible to everyday Australians.

    Both major parties have now announced the incentives they are offering to help first-home buyers. While both Labor and the Coalition are hopeful their newly announced policies will win the most votes, how easy will it be to implement and how will it help first-home buyers?

    What new housing incentives are being offered?

    Refreshingly, both major parties are offering more novel policies than have previously been announced. In addition, both policies offer welcome relief to first-home buyers.

    As part of their $43 billion housing plan that already includes delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, a Labor government will spend $10 billion to help more Australians purchase their first home.

    The first part of this plan includes increasing housing supply by building 100,000 new homes over eight years – just for first home buyers. The government would work with the states to identify where these homes will be built, beginning next financial year.

    The second part of Labor’s plan involves expanding the 5% deposit Home Guarantee Scheme to remove the annual cap of 50,000 places and removing income thresholds.

    It will also increase property price caps to better reflect local markets so that buyers can look to purchase a property where they currently work and/or live. For example, the current cap in Sydney will increase from $900,000 to $1.5 million.

    The Home Guarantee Scheme, which has already been used by more than 150,000 Australians, allows eligible first-home buyers to purchase a property with a 5% deposit and without paying Lenders Mortgage Insurance. The government guarantees part of the home loan. This will speed up the time that it will take for first-home buyers to save for a deposit, as they will be able to use a smaller deposit to secure a home.

    The 100,000 homes that would be built as part of Labor’s plans would only be available to first time home owners.
    Go My Media

    The Coalition have announced they will permit first-time buyers of newly built properties to deduct interest on up to $650,000 of their mortgage against their income for up to five years. The first home buyers, however, have to remain in their home for this time period.

    This will be available to singles on incomes up to $175,000 and couples with a combined income of up to $250,000. This is similar to the mortgage interest tax deduction currently permitted through negative gearing to property investors with rental properties.

    How easy are these housing policies to implement?

    While Labor’s Home Guarantee policy is already in operation, it should be relatively easy to expand this policy.

    However, in terms of building 100,000 homes, we know Labor is already well behind on its plan to build new housing stock, even though the number of dwellings increased by 53,200 to 11,294,300 for the quarter ended December 2024.

    This is where Labor’s policy of increasing subsidies to apprentices in the construction industry, as well plans to invest in prefabricated and modular homes and introduce a national certification system will help. While welcomed by housing advocates, the detail surrounding exactly where the houses will be built is an important part of this new housing policy.

    The Coalition’s proposal is more radical and will require changes to legislation before it can be implemented.

    It may also need to form part of more holistic taxation reform to have the intended effect. Details are still needed as to how this reform may affect the current capital gains tax exemption and other property tax concessions for one’s principal place of residence.

    Whether the Coalition have other taxation reforms planned is yet to be revealed.

    Could these policies work?

    The latest housing policies announced by both major parties are a step in the right direction.

    However, the details are missing and concerns remain around how these policies will interact with other policy proposals and whether there will be an unintended effect of pushing up housing prices.

    Peter Dutton says the deduction scheme would save the average family about $11,000 a year.
    Andrey Popov/Shutterstock

    While increasing the supply of housing is the answer to the housing crisis, whether these houses can be built quickly is still questionable. The 5% deposit for first home buyers will go a long way in enabling first home buyers to save a deposit. However, this means the remaining 95% still needs to be repaid and first home buyers will still need to prove they can service the loan. It will also increase pressure on first home buyers if interest rates increase early in their home ownership journey.

    First home owners who want to claim a tax deduction on their mortgage interest will still need to construct a new home, which will take some time to build.

    The tax deduction will help first-home buyers in the early years of their mortgage when mortgage interest is highest. However, it does tend to favour higher income earners who receive larger tax deductions due to their higher tax brackets.

    While it does little to put downward pressure on housing prices, the Coalition has combined this with an aggressive immigration policy aimed at increasing supply of established homes.

    Given the tight and expensive market in Australia, the latest housing incentives announced by the major parties may come as welcome news to first home buyers. But any new policy must be viewed as part of the larger package of policies being offered. First home buyers are not the only ones experiencing problems with housing affordability and accessibility.

    If anything, the contest for the federal election has forced both major parties to seriously consider their housing policies and share these with the public. However, the hardest part is yet to come: whether the incoming government’s housing policy is actually effective.

    Michelle Cull is a member of CPA Australia, the Financial Advice Association Australia and President Elect of the Academy of Financial Services in the United States. Michelle is an academic member of UniSuper’s Consultative Committee. Michelle co-founded the Western Sydney University Tax Clinic which has received funding from the Australian Taxation Office as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. Michelle has previously volunteered as Chair of the Macarthur Advisory Council for the Salvation Army Australia.

    – ref. Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability – https://theconversation.com/labor-and-coalition-support-for-new-home-buyers-welcome-but-other-australians-also-struggling-with-housing-affordability-254451

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Voters have a clear choice. Labor’s long term and equitable tax reform or the Coalition’s big but one-off tax cuts

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

    Tang Yan Song

    The election campaign has erupted into a economic battleground as Labor and the Coalition unveiled major new tax policies at their campaign launches.

    Each policy package is aimed at addressing the mounting cost-of-living pressures facing millions of Australians.

    Labor’s flagship announcement is a new standard tax deduction of $1000 per year for work-related expenses. It represents a permanent reform designed to simplify the tax system and provide consistent, predictable relief.

    Economically, it reduces compliance costs and inefficiencies by eliminating paperwork and receipt-keeping for millions of Australians.

    According to a Blueprint Institute report, simplifying tax deductions through a standard deduction can significantly reduce compliance costs and increase economic efficiency. It potentially saves taxpayers and the government millions annually by streamlining the tax filing process.

    This change reduces errors, improves efficiency and saves both individuals and the government significant time and resources.

    A standard deduction can lead to increased compliance and fewer disputes. The Australian Taxation Office will not need to audit taxpayers who take the standard deduction. This will lower administrative costs and reduce the need for costly tax advice from accountants.

    Additionally, a simpler tax system can enhance labour market participation. It does this by removing complexity that disproportionately affects lower-income workers and those without professional tax advice.

    It also preserves the option for Australians with an unusually high number of deductions to keep deducting item by item as they currently do.

    In contrast, the Coalition’s big-ticket announcement is a one-off Cost of Living Tax Offset. It offers a refund of up to $1200 to workers earning up to $144,000 annually.

    Similar in structure to the previous Morrison government’s Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), this measure provides short-term relief rather than systemic reform.

    Economically, the Coalition’s approach injects rapid fiscal stimulus into the economy, targeting households under significant financial strain from rising living costs.

    By providing direct rebates after the lodgment of the 2025-26 tax return, the Coalition aims to boost disposable incomes and encourage consumer spending without permanently altering tax scales.

    The temporary nature of the Coalition’s offset, priced at $10 billion, allows fiscal flexibility. It mitigates potential inflationary pressures by avoiding permanent spending increases, thereby providing immediate relief without structurally embedding costs into the budget.

    Coupled with the Coalition’s pledge to cut the fuel excise by 25¢ per litre immediately after the election, the tax offset represents a significant short-term fiscal injection. It offers immediate political advantage but limited longer-term economic reform.

    The economic debate between Labor and the Coalition has now crystallised around differing perspectives on fiscal management and economic intervention.

    Labor prioritises systemic reforms aimed at simplification and equity. The Coalition emphasises immediate, substantial cash injections to households through temporary relief measures. Both policies entail substantial fiscal commitments, yet differ markedly in their timing, permanence and structural impact on the Australian economy.

    Voters face a clear economic choice: Labor’s systemic tax simplification versus the Coalition’s aggressive short-term tax relief.

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

    – ref. Voters have a clear choice. Labor’s long term and equitable tax reform or the Coalition’s big but one-off tax cuts – https://theconversation.com/voters-have-a-clear-choice-labors-long-term-and-equitable-tax-reform-or-the-coalitions-big-but-one-off-tax-cuts-254452

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Liberal and Labor launches focus on housing, but who thinks either side can fix that crisis any time soon?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    If anyone had any doubts before, Sunday’s Liberal and Labor launches highlighted that this election is an auction for votes, in particular those of the under 40s and people in the outer suburbs.

    Amid the usual launch hoopla – the Liberals choosing western Sydney and Labor returning to Perth – both parties announced major fresh housing initiatives. They were making a deep bow to what’s a central issue for younger Australians who still aspire to the so-called “Australian dream” but can’t see themselves affording it.

    Significantly, Peter Dutton also produced a tax handout – a tax offset of up to $1200 targeted to lower and middle income earners. This was despite his signalling earlier in the campaign he wouldn’t be able to afford to do so. On tax, Anthony Albanese promised people would be able to claim a $1000 automatic tax deduction for work expenses (at a cost of $2.4 billion over the forward estimates).

    The Liberal campaign has been flagging. Labor has appeared headed for victory, at least in a comfortable minority. The Liberals might say they’ve been working on the policies produced on Sunday for some time, but they do have a “break glass” feel about them, as the opposition seeks to reinvigorate its campaign.

    The Liberals’ proposal for the interest on a mortgage to be tax deductible has strict limits. It only applies to first home buyers, to new homes and (for the house buyer) for five years, and provided the buyer remains living in the home. There is a means test, and the interest deductibility only applies on the first $650,000 of the loan. This is why the plan is costed at a modest $1.25 billion over the forward estimates.

    The plan will come under some tough criticism in the final three weeks of the campaign. Independent economist Saul Eslake said on Sunday the policy would put upward pressure on house prices. “We have 60 years of evidence going back to the Menzies government’s initial first home owners’ grant scheme that anything allowing people to spend more on housing than they otherwise would results in more expensive housing and a smaller proportion of the population owning it.”

    Eslake argues that when this policy is combined with the Liberals’ policy to give people access to their superannuation for a deposit, “they make a candidate for the worst policy decision of the 21st century so far.”

    In its new housing offer, Labor is promising to invest $10 billion for the construction of up to 100,000 new homes to be sold only to first home owners. Also, the present scheme under which the government guarantees a 5% home deposit would have the means test removed (the Liberals would also tweak some detail of this measure).

    Labor in its first term committed to spending $33 billion and set a target of 1.2 million new homes over five years. Progress to the target is off course. The latest initiatives could be seen by some voters as more of the same.

    The Liberals hope the interest deductibility policy might be a show stopper. But there is a salutary lesson from the 2022 campaign. The Liberals also came out at that campaign launch with a big housing initiative – to allow people access to their super for the purchase of their first home.

    It wasn’t the “game changer” Scott Morrison labelled it. It was too late, for one thing. For another, policy auction or not, many voters make decisions on wider criteria, including what they think of the leaders and the context in which the contest is taking place.

    The latter is especially important this election, when the vagaries of the Trump administration are driving some voters towards staying with “the devil you know”.

    While the Liberals’ tax offset announcement came as a surprise, perhaps it was inevitable the Coalition would have to offer something on taxation. It seemed at the time crazy brave for the opposition to reject the government’s $17 billion budget package of tax cuts.

    The opposition rationalises the money involved in its election carrots. The earlier-announced cuts in petrol and diesel fuel excise (costing $6 billion) would last a year (although open to extension). Then the $10 billion tax offset would cut in. The Liberals argue this sequencing balances immediate cost-of-living relief with economic responsibility.

    Nevertheless, the opposition’s giveaways don’t sit easily with its mantra about the need to cut spending. We have yet to see the circle squared, and that will only come (if it does) at the end of the campaign when the accounting numbers are all submitted.

    Meanwhile, Labor is making the most of the threat of Dutton’s unknown spending cuts. Albanese said in his speech: “If Peter Dutton won’t tell you what cuts he will make before you vote, if he refuses to say where the $600 billion for his nuclear reactors will come from, then every other promise is worthless.”

    The figure of Donald Trump continues to hang over the campaign, with Albanese declaring “the Liberals want to copy from overseas”.

    In an own goal on Saturday Jacinta Price, who is shadow minister for government efficiency, referred to the opposition’s commitment to “make Australia great again” at an appearance with Dutton.

    Dutton’s launch speech ran for the best part of an hour, with three former prime ministers, John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, in the audience. Predictably, there was no sign of Malcolm Turnbull.

    Julia Gillard was there for Albanese’s launch. Paul Keating didn’t make the trek to Perth; Kevin Rudd, as ambassador in Washington, has other responsibilities these days.

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

    – ref. Election Diary: Liberal and Labor launches focus on housing, but who thinks either side can fix that crisis any time soon? – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-liberal-and-labor-launches-focus-on-housing-but-who-thinks-either-side-can-fix-that-crisis-any-time-soon-254206

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Seth Asare Okyere, Visiting lecturer, University of Pittsburg and Adjunct Associate Professor, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh

    Humans are walking beings. Walking is intrinsically linked to our physical development from childhood and enables our connections with people and places. We can say it is essential to our physical and mental well-being.

    Walking can also help create inclusive and sustainable cities. Most western cities incorporate this need in their spatial planning.

    In African countries like Ghana, however, the fact that most people walk doesn’t always mean they prefer to. They need to walk because it’s cheaper than using motor vehicles. But many African cities are not friendly to pedestrians.

    More than 70% of the urban population in Africa walk daily for various purposes. To deal with the challenges pedestrians encounter, some African cities have incorporated policies and strategies for walking into their motorised transport policies. For instance, in Nigeria, the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority has developed a policy that aims to create a safe and pleasant network of footpaths, greenways and other facilities that serve everyone in the city.

    In Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), a similar policy was developed. Its objective is to increase the number of people who walk by investing in walking facilities and improving connectivity to public transport.

    The strategies in these documents are commendable, but they have met practical challenges like funding, public perception and technical capacity.

    Ghana also has several transport and local development planning policies. Yet most urban areas in Ghana don’t have walking infrastructure and a safe walking environment.

    As scholars interested in sustainable urban development planning and policy, we reviewed some of these policies to explore how they treat walking as a way of getting around. The research also assessed institutional perspectives and residents’ everyday lived experiences of walkability in Accra, the capital city. We found that both policies and urban plans paid little attention to making the walking experience enjoyable.



    Read more:
    City streets: why South Africa should design more people-friendly spaces

    The study

    The Ghana Transport Survey Report indicates that over three-quarters (75.3%) of the country’s population make up to ten daily trips on foot, and most urban areas lack walking infrastructure. Pedestrians account for about 42% of road deaths in Ghana.

    We chose two study sites in Accra, the capital, where many come to find work. The sites represented inner-city and suburban areas. The research used in-depth and semi-structured interviews with 80 people to capture the perspectives of institutional representatives and community residents. We explored walking experiences in terms of accessibility, safety and enjoyment.

    Findings

    Accessibility: The national transport policy seeks to provide dedicated, safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for users across all transport modes. What we found, however, was an absence of infrastructure to enhance pedestrian access to facilities and services.

    One resident commented:

    The roads are not only in poor condition but they have no sidewalks. It is not hard to assume that these were built for car owners, not pedestrians’ everyday use.

    Safety: The research revealed a chasm between policy ambitions for walking and realities at the community level. Municipal development plans don’t say how they will address the frequent crashes that result from commuters, vendors and motorists competing for space. The most at risk are pedestrians, who represent 42% of transport-related fatalities. This is because of noncompliance with bylaws that regulate activities on the roads and pedestrian pathways.

    One municipal official said:

    Look at the streets: Motorists, street vendors, school children on the same street space. There is encroachment, reckless driving, illegally parked cars on road shoulders. School children and the disabled face constant risks. But the plan aims to make the neighborhoods walkable. Just words as always.

    Enjoyment: Enjoyment was the least considered aspect of walkability in both national policy and municipal development plans. The absence of facilities and infrastructure that offer comfort, aesthetics and other pleasures for pedestrians provides a clear indication of this.

    A community leader complained:

    Flooding and poor sanitation create an unpleasant walking environment. Clogged waste, poor drains, and rubbish along streets and alleyways are a problem. There is nothing pleasant about walking: the smell, the dust, the noise and the heat. You walk because you have no choice.



    Read more:
    New forms of urban planning are emerging in Africa

    Towards cities that are walkable

    The deep gulf between what the policies say and everyday experiences in our study calls for new ways of thinking and implementation within the urban transport in Ghana’s development planning regime.

    We suggest that there is a need for transport planners, urban and development planners, and policymakers to consider coproduction strategies in identifying, framing, developing, and implementing interventions. This will help harness the potential for walking as a social equaliser and its contribution to healthy, safe, equitable cities and communities.

    Here, action-oriented collaborative strategies like workshops that consider communities as partners can transition African urban residents from captive walkers to walkers who enjoy it.

    Seth Asare Okyere receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Daniel Oviedo receives funding from University College London and the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Louis Kusi Frimpong receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF) funding program

    Mariajose Nieto receives funding from Volvo Research and Educational Foundation

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

    – ref. Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem – https://theconversation.com/accra-is-a-tough-city-to-walk-in-how-city-planners-can-fix-the-problem-253636

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Trump fatigue’ is putting Kiwis off the news, with trust in media still low – new report

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Merja Myllylahti, Senior Lecturer, Co-Director Research Centre for Journalism, Media & Democracy, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    The news media is doing its best to keep everyone up to speed with the pace of Donald Trump’s radical changes to the world order.

    But in Aotearoa New Zealand, where avoiding news is more common than in other countries, many of us are blocking our ears to it all.

    In 2025, “Trump fatigue” is now one of the key reasons 73% of New Zealanders say they actively avoid the news to some extent. For context, in Finland (where trust in news is highest), avoidance sits at only 21%.

    For our 2025 Trust in News report, we asked New Zealanders why they were avoiding the news and analysed 749 responses. A couple of quotes give a sense of what we found:

    “Trump, Trump, Trump and no real investigative news.” – Female, European/Pākehā, aged 55-64, party vote Labour in 2023.

    “I actively avoid any news of Donald Trump. If I hear any extreme right-wing views on the news […] I will turn it off. There is no place for that.” – Female, European/Pākehā, aged 35-44, party vote National in 2023.

    This fatigue appears to cross age, gender and even political boundaries. Incessant news about the unpredictable United States president had similar effects on a middle-aged Pākehā woman who voted National, an elderly Māori woman who voted Labour, and a middle-aged Pākehā who identified as “another gender” and voted Te Pāti Māori.

    Many said Trump-related reporting encouraged them to disengage from news entirely, or at least selectively avoid US politics.

    Other reasons for avoiding the news were familiar to us from earlier research: the overwhelming negativity, perceived political bias from journalists, sensationalism and the repetitive nature of the news cycle.

    The trust puzzle

    To measure general trust in news, we asked respondents to what extent they feel they can “trust most news most of the time”. The numbers agreeing with that statement have plummeted in New Zealand faster than in comparable countries, from 53% in 2020 to 33% in 2024.

    The slide has slowed, however, with general trust levels falling just one percentage point to 32% in 2025.

    We also asked respondents how much they agreed with this statement: “I think I can trust most of the news I consume most of the time.” Those who agreed stayed steady at 45%.

    And trust in all the New Zealand news brands we asked about had improved. Overall, trust in news appears to be stabilising, albeit at low levels.

    That may be better news for a functioning democracy, but our latest report also shows the number of New Zealanders “interested” or “very interested” in the news has dropped, from 72% in 2024 to 69% in 2025.

    At the same time, New Zealand has among the highest overall levels of interest in the news (92% at least “somewhat interested”) when compared internationally.

    This is something of a paradox, given the high numbers of news avoiders, with one-third (34%) of those surveyed saying they are “worn out by the amount of news these days”.

    Similarly, sizeable majorities say they are “highly interested” in international news (70%) and political news (60%). Yet many feel overwhelmed by the number of stories dealing with Trump, Gaza and Ukraine.

    One male respondent, 55-64 years old, said: “I try to Trumptox as much as is possible. He’s hard to escape currently, so I find myself [going] near news generally less and less to avoid the creep.”

    Politics and the news

    We also wanted to better understand the links between trust in news and politics, so this year we asked for respondents’ political leanings.

    Going by 2023 party vote, approximately 64% of those on the right and 54% on the centre-right believe you can’t trust the news. Those who trust the news most tend to be centre-left (46%) and left (40%).

    Those who voted ACT or NZ First in 2023 were more likely to avoid the news often. Those who distrust publicly-owned broadcasters RNZ and TVNZ tended to be on the right of the political spectrum, while those who distrust Newstalk ZB tended to be on the left.

    Social media as a news source

    The latest Reuters Institute survey of 47 countries found the use of Facebook for news had declined four percentage points in a year, with 26% of respondents now using it as a source.

    In New Zealand, the trend is the opposite. Facebook continues to be the main social media news source, rising from 53% in 2024 to 58% in our 2025 survey.

    But YouTube is growing fastest as a news platform in New Zealand: 43% of people in 2025 use the video-sharing platform as a news source, rising from 33% in 2024.

    Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are now among the seven most-used news sources in Aotearoa New Zealand. In order, according to our survey, these are Stuff, TVNZ, the New Zealand Herald, Facebook, YouTube, RNZ and Instagram.

    AI in the newsroom

    New Zealand newsrooms have rapidly adopted artificial intelligence (AI) tools in news gathering and production. One recent report suggested most story selection and placement on a major local news site is managed by AI.

    It remains to be seen how far into news production this trend will continue. But when we asked our survey respondents if they were comfortable with news mostly produced by AI with some human oversight, approximately 60% said no. Only 8% were comfortable with news mainly produced by AI.

    Conversely, when we asked about news produced mainly by human journalists with assistance from AI, 26% were comfortable and 35% felt uncomfortable. At the moment, then, New Zealanders seem to be generally wary of news produced or assisted by AI.

    Change is the only constant in New Zealand’s turbulent news media sector. As new complexities like AI emerge, the trust puzzle will become more complex too. Next year’s survey will give us a better sense of where these trends and attitudes are heading.

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

    – ref. ‘Trump fatigue’ is putting Kiwis off the news, with trust in media still low – new report – https://theconversation.com/trump-fatigue-is-putting-kiwis-off-the-news-with-trust-in-media-still-low-new-report-252714

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Dutton to offer targeted income tax offset of up to $1,200

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Peter Dutton at his party launch on Sunday will offer a “cost of living tax offset” of up to $1,200 to more than 10 million taxpayers.

    The one-off offset would go to taxpayers earning up to $144,000 when they lodged their tax return for next financial year, making it more than a year off.

    The full offset would be available to those earning between $48,000 and $104,000 a year. About 85% of taxpayers would benefit from the offset and about half of all taxpayers would receive the maximum offset.

    The tax offer, costing 10 billion, compares with the government’s tax cuts – announced in the budget and legislated that week – that phase in starting mid next year and cost $17 billion over the forward estimates.

    The Coalition’s tax announcement comes as something of a surprise. The opposition had given the impression it believed tax cuts unaffordable.

    There was some disquiet in Coalition ranks at the decision to oppose the government’s tax cuts, and concern about the opposition going to the election with no promise for income tax relief.

    Dutton has returned to a former Coalition policy. The Morrison government introduced a low and middle income tax offset in the 2018-19 tax year. It was subsequently extended but then abolished by the Labor government.

    Dutton said the temporary and targeted offset would provide support for families while a Coalition government addressed the underlying economic problems.

    “Australians are hurting,” Dutton said.

    He said people needed help now.

    “A Coalition government will first provide help to families by cutting fuel by 25 cents a litre – a saving of about $1,500 a year for a two car family. And then by giving back up to $2,400 per family whilst we clean up Labor’s mess. Labor’s 70 cents a day is a bandaid on a bullet wound.

    “Our Cost of Living Tax Offset will put more money back into the pockets of millions of Australians at a time when they’re being crushed by skyrocketing grocery bills, rent, mortgage repayments and insurance costs.”

    He said “Labor’s “so-called tax cut – just 70 cents a day – is a slap in the face to hard working Australians and an insult to families trying to make ends meet”.

    “It shows just how out of touch Mr Albanese really is.”

    Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor said the Coalition’s tax relief was responsible, temporary and targeted.

    “Labor’s big spending agenda is fueling inflation and driving up the cost of everything.

    “This offset is part of our comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy, ease cost of living pressures, and reward hard work.”

    The Liberal launch is in Sydney.

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

    – ref. Dutton to offer targeted income tax offset of up to $1,200 – https://theconversation.com/dutton-to-offer-targeted-income-tax-offset-of-up-to-1-200-254204

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese pitches to aspiring home buyers with $10 billion plan and removal of means test on deposit guarantee

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese will promise a $10 billion scheme to facilitate the building of up to 100,000 homes that would be earmarked for sale to first home buyers.

    To be unveiled at Labor’s formal campaign launch in Perth on Sunday, the proposal would also give all first home buyers access to a federal government guarantee for a 5% deposit.

    At present this guarantee is provided only on a means tested basis, up to an income level of $120,000 for singles and $160,000 for couples.

    The government would also raise the price levels for properties to be eligible under the scheme.

    With the guarantee, buyers avoid having to pay expensive lenders mortgage insurance.

    The present 50,000 cap on the number of guarantees available would also be removed.
    The latest pledge takes the Labor government’s commitment to housing over its term to $43 billion.

    Housing affordability is one of the major issues of the campaign, especially for young voters. A survey by money.com.au recently found housing affordability and rental stress were the dominant concerns for Australians under 40.

    “Labor will enable every Australian to buy their first home with a 5% deposit,” the government says in a statement on its proposals. “There will be higher property price limits and no caps on places or income, in a major expansion of the existing scheme.”

    The present median home price in Australia is $820,000; 5% of that is $41,000.

    Under the changes, a Sydneysider and first home buyer would be able to purchase a $1 million apartment with a $50,000 deposit with their loan guaranteed by the Albanese government.“

    Property price limit rises


    Labor Press Release

    The government says the plan would cut the time people needed to save a deposit, and save them tens of thousands of dollars on lenders mortgage insurance.

    In its $10 billion investment, the government would partner with state developers and industry, to identify suitable projects, including the use of vacant or underused government land. States and territories would fast track land release, rezoning and planning approvals.

    The $10 billion would include up to $2 billion in grants and $8 billion in zero-interest loans or equity investment, primarily to states and territories. States and territories would have to match the $2 billion federal grants.

    The government says construction on the first projects would start in 2026-27, with buyers moving in from 2027-28.

    Albanese said: “I want to help young people and first home buyers achieve the dream of homeownership”.

    Housing minister Clare O’Neil said: “Young Australians are bearing the brunt of the housing crisis, and our government is going to step up to give them a fair go at owning their own home”.

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

    – ref. Albanese pitches to aspiring home buyers with $10 billion plan and removal of means test on deposit guarantee – https://theconversation.com/albanese-pitches-to-aspiring-home-buyers-with-10-billion-plan-and-removal-of-means-test-on-deposit-guarantee-254205

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Labor breaks practice of preferencing Greens to protect Jewish MP Josh Burns

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    It takes a bit for Labor not to preference the Greens but on Friday it was announced that in the Melbourne seat of Macnamara, where Jewish MP Josh Burns is embattled, the ALP will run an open ticket.

    Macnamara, which includes the suburbs of Balaclava, Albert Park and South Melbourne, has the second largest Jewish constituency – 10% of voters – of any electorate. Only Wentworth in Sydney has more.

    Burns has held the seat since 2019. At the last election he had a primary vote of 31.77%, with the Greens second on 29.65%, just ahead of the Liberals on 29%. After preferences were distributed, this turned into a substantial two-party win for him over the Liberals.

    The political dynamics have changed since then. There is anger in the Jewish community about the Albanese government’s attitude to Israel and criticism that it hasn’t done enough to combat antisemitism. The expectation is that Burns’ primary vote will go down and the Liberal vote will go up.

    ABC election analyst Antony Green says the seat “will be a battle for the order of exclusion” – it will all depend on who comes in third on primary votes.

    If the Liberals or the Greens come third, Burns will be elected. If Burns is third on primaries, he is eliminated and the Greens are favorite, even with an open ticket. But the leakage of preferences from an open ticket would give an opportunity to the Liberals, Green says.

    Green points out that given how close the three parties were on primaries last election, a very small shift in votes could change the order of the top three.

    Burns has benefitted from the Friday draw for order on the ballot paper. He is in the top spot, giving him the so-called “donkey vote”, with the Greens third, ahead of the Liberals.

    Burns warned an election forum this week, sponsored by the Australian Jewish News and various Jewish groups, “If we do not win enough number one votes, then the Greens will obviously come into second place. That is the biggest concern that I’ve got.”

    He dismissed the prospects of the Liberals being able to win the seat. “The only people who can win this seat from me are the Greens.”

    He told the audience, “If the Greens form into the top two, then think about the people who make up this electorate – the young progressive people from Elwood, from St Kilda, from Windsor, from South Melbourne, from South Bank.

    “We are a proud and large Jewish community, but we’re only 10% of the electorate of Macnamara.

    “The preferences, regardless of what the Labor Party says, are not going to the Liberal Party from those young people.”

    Burns faced some heckling from a small number of people in the audience – they were told to be quiet by other audience members.

    The forum was attended by Liberal candidate Benson Saulo, who recounted his Indigenous heritage, and strongly condemned the scenes at the pro-Palestinian rally outside the Sydney Opera House in the wake of the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel.

    The Greens candidate was not invited onto the panel but was in the audience.

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

    – ref. Election Diary: Labor breaks practice of preferencing Greens to protect Jewish MP Josh Burns – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-labor-breaks-practice-of-preferencing-greens-to-protect-jewish-mp-josh-burns-254202

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Peter Dutton’s climate policy backslide threatens Australia’s clout in the Pacific – right when we need it most

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    Australia’s relationship with its regional neighbours could be in doubt under a Coalition government after two Pacific leaders challenged Opposition Leader Peter Dutton over his weak climate stance.

    This week, Palau’s president Surangel Whipps Jr suggested a 2015 gaffe by Dutton, in which he joked about rising seas lapping at the door of Pacific islanders, had not been forgotten. Speaking at a clean energy conference in Sydney, Whipps said the Pacific’s plight was “not a metaphor or a punchline. It’s our fear and reality.”

    And Tuvalu’s Climate Change Minister, Maina Talia, this month criticised Dutton for suggesting a joint Australia–Pacific bid to host global climate talks next year was “madness”. Talia said Dutton’s comments caused Pacific leaders to “question the nature of our friendship” with Australia.

    Both Labor and Coalition governments have worked hard this decade to cement Australia as a security partner of choice for Pacific nations, as China seeks to expand its influence. Australia’s next government must continue this work by signalling an unwavering commitment to strong climate action.

    What are the major parties offering on climate policy?

    Worsening climate change – with associated sea-level rise and other harms – is the greatest threat to Pacific island nations.

    Pacific leaders have long criticised Australia for its climate policy shortcomings, including its continued reliance on fossil fuels. As Palau’s president Whipps told the ABC this week:

    We are urging Australia – and whoever forms the next government – to take the next steps and stop approving new fossil fuel projects and accelerate the phase-out of coal and gas.

    The Labor government has not agreed to the phase-out. But it has sought to improve Pacific ties through more ambitious climate action.

    In 2022, it introduced a stronger emissions-reduction target – a 43% cut this decade, based on 2005 levels. The same year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined Pacific leaders to declare a climate emergency.

    In 2023, Australia signed a climate migration deal with Tuvalu. It also prevents Tuvalu from pursuing a security deal with China.

    A Coalition government would review Australia’s 43% cut to emissions. It would also expand gas production, and slow the shift to renewables while building seven nuclear reactors. Dutton is also considering weakening Australia’s signature climate policy, the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce industry emissions.

    And last month, Dutton suggested the Coalition would ditch the Australia–Pacific bid to host the next United Nations climate summit, known as COP31.

    How will this go down in the Pacific?

    Australia has dramatically stepped up engagement with Pacific island countries in recent years. This has been guided by the foreign policy goal of integrating Pacific countries into Australia’s economy and security institutions.

    But Pacific island leaders also expect Australia – the largest member of the Pacific Islands Forum – to seriously tackle the climate crisis. Should Australia fail on this measure, securing our place in the region during a time of growing strategic competition will become increasingly difficult.

    Pacific leaders welcomed Australia’s plans to host the COP31 climate talks and agreed to work with this nation on the joint bid. If Dutton wins power and abandons the COP31 push, he could face a frosty reception when he meets with Pacific island leaders.

    Palau, in particular, could embarrass Dutton on the global stage. It will host the Pacific Islands Forum meeting next year, weeks before the COP31 talks. This year, Palau also takes over as chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, an important negotiating bloc in global climate talks.

    Countering China’s influence

    Australia’s leadership in the Pacific is considered key to our national defence and security. But China’s growing power in the Pacific has weakened Australia’s standing.

    In 2022, for example, Solomon Islands signed a security deal with China to allow naval vessels to be based there – effectively allowing a Chinese military base on Australia’s doorstep. As recently as February this year, the Cook Islands signed a series of agreements with China to enhance cooperation.

    At the same time, the Trump administration has all but abandoned the United States’ overseas aid program. This leaves Australia with even more work to counter China’s creep into the region.

    In last month’s federal budget, Labor redirected aid money to the Pacific to counteract Trump’s cuts. However, Liberal backbenchers reportedly fear Dutton would cut the foreign aid budget and warn a reduction in Pacific aid would strengthen Beijing’s hand.

    Climate policy is key to Australia-Pacific goodwill

    Australia’s past failures on climate policy have hurt our standing in the Pacific – a point conceded by senior Coalition figure Simon Birmingham.

    A Coalition government is likely to continue some diplomatic measures initiated by the Albanese government, such as security agreements with Tuvalu and Nauru, and negotiating a new defence treaty with Papua New Guinea.

    But the depth of feeling among Pacific leaders on climate action cannot be overstated. As global geopolitical tensions sharpen, Australia’s next moves on climate policy will be vital to the future of our Pacific relationship.

    Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

    – ref. Peter Dutton’s climate policy backslide threatens Australia’s clout in the Pacific – right when we need it most – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-climate-policy-backslide-threatens-australias-clout-in-the-pacific-right-when-we-need-it-most-254385

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Coalition plan to dump fuel efficiency penalties would make Australia a global outlier

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Mortimore, Lecturer, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

    The Coalition has announced it would, if elected to government, weaken a scheme aimed at cutting car emissions.

    The scheme, known as the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), was introduced by the Albanese government and was due to take effect in July. It involved issuing penalties to automakers that breach an emissions ceiling on their total new car sales.

    The new Coalition plan, announced this week, would see such penalties abolished.

    But the penalties are crucial. Without penalties, automakers have limited incentive to supply fuel efficient, low or zero-CO₂ emitting vehicles to the Australian market.

    If this plan became government policy, it would make Australia an international outlier – and put at risk Australia’s ability to meet its obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

    An international outlier

    More than 85% of the international car market is covered by fuel efficiency standards.

    Without a robust New Vehicle Efficiency Standard scheme, complete with penalties for automakers that break the rules, Australia would join Russia in the tiny minority of developed countries without strong fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles.

    Abolishing the penalties embedded in the scheme also risks making Australia the world’s dumping ground for inefficient vehicles.

    That’s because the penalties embedded in the scheme are there to incentivise automakers to sell more efficient vehicles in Australia.

    The current scheme, as it is, is not particularly punitive. Automakers that breach their cap of emissions are given up to two years to fix their mistakes before being issued with a financial penalty.

    Weakening the scheme won’t help make it easier for Australians to buy fuel-efficient cars.

    Decarbonising Australian roads

    The 2015 Paris Agreement, to which Australia is a signatory, requires developed nations to decarbonise their transport by as much as 80% by 2050.

    Carbon emissions from Australian transport accounts for 21.1% of the nation’s emissions (to June 2023).

    It represents the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.

    Without measures aimed at making cars more fuel efficient, Australia’s CO₂ emissions will continue to rise. It will be harder to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement.

    It’s regulation, not a tax

    The Coalition, which is hoping to pick up votes in outer-ring suburbs, has called the penalties embedded in the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard scheme a “car tax”.

    Liberal leader Peter Dutton said this week:

    This is a tax on families who need a reliable car and small businesses trying to grow. Instead of making life easier, Labor is making it harder and more expensive […] We want cleaner, cheaper cars on Australian roads as we head towards net zero by 2050, but forcing unfair penalties on carmakers and consumers is not the answer.

    But these penalties are not a tax; they are a form of regulation. Automakers that meet the rules wouldn’t have to pay penalties, under the current scheme.

    If the goal is to reduce people’s hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the focus should be on ensuring Australians can buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

    That means incentivising automakers to bring fuel-efficient vehicles to the Australian market. It also means avoiding any policy that encourages carmakers to see Australia as a dumping ground for gas-guzzling vehicles.

    Anna Mortimore receives funding from Reliable Affordable Clean Energy Cooperative Research Centre for 2030 (RACE for 2030).

    – ref. Coalition plan to dump fuel efficiency penalties would make Australia a global outlier – https://theconversation.com/coalition-plan-to-dump-fuel-efficiency-penalties-would-make-australia-a-global-outlier-254386

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Kids cheering ‘chicken jockey!’ at A Minecraft Movie isn’t antisocial – it creates a chance for us to connect

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Staite, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania

    Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

    Social media is ablaze with reports of kids going wild at screenings of A Minecraft Movie.

    Some cinemas are cracking down. There are reports of cinemas calling in police to deal with rowdy theatregoers and making special announcements before the film, warning of consequences for “anti-social behaviour” including “clapping and shouting”.

    But these kids are engaging in a kind of communal experience. Rather than being antisocial behaviour – couldn’t we label it as prosocial?

    The global fandom of Minecraft

    Minecraft was first released in 2011 and has sold over 350 million copies, making it the best-selling video game of all time.

    Minecraft is an unstructured game that provides mineable resources and leaves players to create whatever they want with them. Creations can be as basic as stacking blocks of wood to make a wall, or as complex as a working computer.

    It has become the nexus of a vast online community of people with an interest in the game.

    Players connect to one-another digitally and share certain social norms and knowledge, including a memeified vernacular. Minecraft-playing Youtubers have also become popular, and are the source of many memes.

    The community is dominated by children and young adults and the incomprehensibility of their vernacular for other generations is possibly part of its appeal.

    Within child and youth fan communities the usual hierarchies of communication are reversed. Instead of kids having to learn to speak according to adults’ rules, in this community the kids maintain a knowledge system that excludes a lot of adults.

    Enter A Minecraft Movie

    A Minecraft Movie opened last weekend to enormous box office success, bringing in US$313.2 million globally. The film follows four humans who stumble through a portal into the Overworld (Minecraft). Their only way home involves teaming up with fellow human Steve (Jack Black) to save the Overworld from the creativity-hating Piglins.

    Almost immediately, social media conversations sprang up about the behaviour of audiences. One bemused parent described the atmosphere of the cinema as “like [when] The Beatles came to America”.

    Many of the videos shared of audiences during screenings show joyful scenes of communal pleasure, similar to other responses to highly anticipated films such as Avengers: Endgame.

    But while the response to Avengers: Endgame was celebrated, the behaviour of children and teens at A Minecraft Movie has been framed by news outlets in negative terms.

    Journalist Keith Stuart suggests the different responses are a result of parents feeling excluded by A Minecraft Movie’s frequent references to memes.

    Negative news reports link audience behaviour to existing moral panics about social media challenges and are particularly focused on popcorn being thrown.

    The use of the same two or three videos of popcorn throwing to illustrate multiple news articles highlights how relatively few reports of popcorn throwing there currently are.

    Instead, most of the debate on social media has been about the etiquette of noisiness during screenings, including cheering and clapping.

    Finding community

    A Minecraft Movie speaks the memeified vernacular of its online community.

    The film incorporates references to longstanding memes, popular Minecraft YouTubers (and some cameos) and, of course, to the game itself.

    The film is speaking directly to Minecraft fans, and audiences are responding by displaying their mastery of this vernacular and strengthening their sense of belonging.

    By clapping and cheering when they recognise a meme, or saying lines of dialogue in sync with the actors, kids are identifying themselves as members of a community.

    When a whole cinema full of young people does this simultaneously, they are identifying themselves to and with one another.

    This is prosocial, strategic communication – not the antisocial pandemonium and chaos some reports would have us believe. Instead, fans are reporting the cheering and clapping happens at specific moments: they are enjoying both the film, and reacting to it.

    During the brief (but meaningful for knowledgeable audience members) tribute to beloved YouTuber Technoblade, who died of cancer in 2022, there have been reports of whole theatres falling silent as a mark of respect.

    An online community of kids and teens has suddenly become hyper visible to adults because it has intersected with the traditional media space of the cinema.

    Online games such as Minecraft are a crucial part of kids’ social lives and play.

    Perhaps adults can seize this moment as an opportunity to learn more about something that clearly matters deeply to a lot of kids.

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

    – ref. Kids cheering ‘chicken jockey!’ at A Minecraft Movie isn’t antisocial – it creates a chance for us to connect – https://theconversation.com/kids-cheering-chicken-jockey-at-a-minecraft-movie-isnt-antisocial-it-creates-a-chance-for-us-to-connect-254287

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Could changing your diet improve endometriosis pain? A recent study suggests it’s possible

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

    ovchinnikova_ksenya/Shutterstock

    Endometriosis affects around 10% of women of reproductive age. It’s a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs when tissue similar to the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) grows outside the uterus.

    Endometriosis can cause chronic pain, bloating, bowel and bladder dysfunction, pain during sex and infertility. These symptoms can lead to reduced quality of life and mental health challenges.

    Although endometriosis pain can be treated with medication or surgery, these options are not suitable for everyone, and a significant number of women experience recurrent symptoms even after surgery.

    Many women with endometriosis look to complementary therapies to manage their symptoms, which can include dietary changes and taking supplements.

    A recent study sought to understand different dietary strategies women with endometriosis use and how these affect their pain levels. The researchers found cutting down on things like dairy, gluten, caffeine and alcohol could improve endometriosis pain.

    Let’s take a closer look.

    What the researchers did and found

    The study, which was led by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, involved an online survey. It asked women with endometriosis questions about any dietary changes they made and any supplements they used, and whether they found these useful for managing pain.

    A total of 2,388 women with a confirmed diagnosis of endometriosis completed the survey. Some 84% of respondents had made at least one dietary change, 67% of whom reported these changes improved their pain. Meanwhile, 59% had used supplements, 43% of whom considered these changes improved their pain.

    The following are some of the most popular dietary changes women had tried, and how they thought these changes affected their pain:

    • drinking less alcohol (improved pain in 53% of women)

    • eating less gluten (45%)

    • consuming less dairy (45%)

    • consuming less caffeine (43%)

    • eating less processed sugar, which can be found in foods and drinks such as lollies, cakes, biscuits and soft drinks (41%)

    • eating less processed foods, which include deli meats, savoury snacks such as chips and sausage rolls, and chocolate (38%)

    • following a low FODMAP diet, which involves avoiding short-chain carbohydrates (certain types of sugars) to reduce gas, bloating, pain and discomfort (32%)

    • adopting a Mediterranean diet, which is a diet high in plant foods (including fruit and green leafy vegetables), extra virgin olive oil, breads, fish, fermented dairy, and cereals and low in red meat, and processed meats and foods (29%).

    For supplements:

    • turmeric or curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric (improved pain in 48% of women)

    • magnesium (32%)

    • peppermint (26%)

    • ginger (22%).

    Around one in ten women of reproductive age have endometriosis.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Some limitations

    There are some weaknesses in this study to consider when interpreting the results. First, it’s an observational study, which means we cannot say these dietary changes and supplements cause decreased pain, just that there appears to be an link.

    To be more confident about the effects of dietary changes or supplements, we would need to do randomised studies with control groups.

    Also, the participants self-reported dietary changes they had made in the past and past pain levels. This relies on memory, which can be unreliable.

    All that said, this sort of research does provide us with clues about what may work, especially when we combine it with our knowledge of the actions these foods and supplements have in the body.

    So how would they work?

    Given the inflammatory component in endometriosis, the findings of this study are not entirely surprising. Many of the dietary changes and supplements this study looked at have anti-inflammtory properties.

    For example, reducing alcohol consumption, reducing processed foods, adopting a Mediterranean diet and using turmeric or curcumin may reduce inflammation.

    It’s possible certain dietary changes could improve endometriosis symptoms by reducing inflammation.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Some of the findings of this study seem to align with other evidence, while others don’t.

    For example, a recent review showed the Mediterranean diet can lead to reductions in pain, however the relevant studies did not have control groups. This same review showed a low FODMAP diet reduced pain and improved quality of life in people with endometriosis.

    Meanwhile, a 2024 paper concluded there’s a lack of evidence to support a gluten-free diet for endometriosis symptoms. The authors argued avoiding gluten to manage the condition should be discouraged.

    Peppermint has been reported to reduce period pain and nausea. But I couldn’t find any specific evidence for endometriosis.

    So what should you do?

    If you have endometriosis, this study and existing evidence suggests following a Mediterranean diet or a low FODMAP diet may reduce pain. This current study also indicates reducing your intake of alcohol, sugar and processed foods may help.

    Importantly, these changes won’t do any harm to your overall health. In fact, the Australian dietary guidelines recommend drinking alcohol and consuming processed foods in moderation, given links to a range of chronic diseases. So these changes may have other benefits too.

    However, some of the dietary changes reported in this study may be problematic.

    For example, eliminating dairy will significantly reduce your calcium intake which is important for building healthy bones and reducing the risk of osteoporosis in later life. However, there are other ways of ensuring an adequate intake of the nutrients found in dairy products.

    Reducing caffeine won’t lead to any health or nutritional concerns, but may affect quality of life for people who enjoy drinking coffee or tea.

    Women with endometriosis can try supplements such as turmeric or curcumin and ginger, but it’s best to try them one at a time, so you can identify which one works for you.

    If you’re looking to change your diet to try to manage endometriosis symptoms, it may be best to see a registered or accredited practising dietitian to ensure you’re following a nutritionally balanced diet.

    Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

    – ref. Could changing your diet improve endometriosis pain? A recent study suggests it’s possible – https://theconversation.com/could-changing-your-diet-improve-endometriosis-pain-a-recent-study-suggests-its-possible-253945

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Traded like assets, expected to be loyal: the unique double standard of being an Australian footy player

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Fujak, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management, Deakin University

    Few issues in Australian sport generate as much media noise or emotional fan reactions as player movement, especially in our major winter codes the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL).

    Contract negotiations, trade whispers and club defections dominate headlines, talkback radio, social media and fan forums — often eclipsing the on-field action itself.

    In the past month, the sport news cycle has been dominated by player movement controversies involving the NRL’s Dylan Brown and Daly Cherry-Evans and the AFL’s Oscar Allen.

    The scrutiny these athletes face is one feature of a workplace defined by expectations rarely found in other industries.

    In a world where professional athletes are simultaneously financial investments and human beings, can fans, athletes and leagues strike a truly fair balance when it comes to player movement?

    A unique legal status

    Professional sport is exempted from several commercial laws that otherwise apply to typical industries. This is due to its peculiar economics.

    Crucially, leagues such as the AFL and NRL are permitted to operate as cartels, whereby clubs act collectively in ways that petrol stations or supermarkets legally cannot.

    One outcome of sport cartels has been the implementation of various restrictive practices on the recruitment, transfer and remuneration of professional athletes.

    Drafts, trade windows and salary caps are all anti-competitive mechanisms with two general aims: fostering “competitive balance” between teams and suppressing player wages to maintain leaguewide financial viability.

    These mechanisms remain in place mostly due to co-operation between leagues and their player associations (the AFLPA and RLPA), as their underlying legal standing is in fact ambiguous.

    Whether the AFL’s draft would survive a court challenge is debatable.

    Australia’s varied player movement rules

    National Rugby League

    The NRL operates a salary cap model with free agency. This affords athletes strong freedom of movement, including the potential to switch clubs mid-season. Some consider this to be a negative, given constant media conjecture over player movements. However, it keeps the NRL perpetually in the headlines.

    In the absence of a draft, individual NRL clubs are responsible for their own junior development and talent identification. The Penrith Panthers’ historic premiership four-peat was underpinned by successfully leveraging their immense junior catchment to develop NRL superstars.

    A benefit of this model is it maximises the opportunity for local juniors to play for their local team. This pathway from local junior to hometown hero authentically contributes to embedding NRL clubs within local communities.

    Australian Football League

    The AFL operates both a draft and salary cap, and players have considerably less autonomy.

    Player movement occurs almost exclusively in the post-season. Despite this, clubs sweet talk rival players in the shadows outside this window, hoping to make signings official in the off-season.

    This practice came into view this week by the controversy surrounding West Coast captain Allen’s meeting with a rival coach.

    The AFL draft takes place after the trade period and is the primary way for athletes to enter the competition.

    The draft order is inverted, linked to clubs’ on-field performance (the team that finishes last receives the first pick).

    Clubs are largely removed from the process of developing junior athletes, which is centralised through the AFL’s national talent pathway.

    The athlete perspective

    While professional athletes are often portrayed as privileged, there are few other professions that impose such severe restraints on the rights of workers.

    The Allen controversy is a reminder the AFL operates a system where the clubs are masters and players well-remunerated servants.

    For the crime of meeting another coach in considering his future, albeit clumsily, Allen was described as “selfish”, “a sell-out,”, “utterly disgusting” and compelled into a press conference apology.

    Criticisms of athletes as selfish scarcely acknowledge that, unlike doctors or lawyers, they have uniquely short timespans to exploit their sporting careers.

    In many sports, as is the case in rugby league, athletes are disproportionately from lower socio-economic settings, where the money is life changing.

    The fan perspective

    Professional sport thrives because fans are emotionally attached to their teams. Fans rarely switch the team they support, so they often expect the same from players.

    Fan attitudes on player loyalty are therefore largely driven by emotion rather than rationality. Few fans employed in contract work would reject meeting a potential future employer because of a sole dedication to their current employer, as was the case for Allen.

    Even fewer fans would reject the ten-year, $13 million contract accepted by Dylan Brown to depart the Parramatta Eels, yet many booed him for doing so, as Melbourne fans did in 2012 after the departure of former No.1 AFL draft pick Tom Scully to Greater Western Sydney.

    In 2007, Parramatta Eels fans even threw coins at departed player Jamie Lyon. Thankfully for Brown, Australia has since become a mainly cashless society.

    Is there a fair balance?

    Player movement in Australian footy codes is a system of regulations that attempts to balance the competing demands of various stakeholders.

    In recent times, the NRL has explored the introduction of trade windows, and drafts, seemingly in response criticism over player movement and competitive imbalance.

    Such proposals have received strong
    pushback from the RLPA.

    Responding to the Allen fallout, AFLPA boss Paul Marsh conceded the AFL ecosystem remains immature to player movement:

    There shouldn’t be outrage about this stuff but there is. As much as I think we should be mature enough to deal with this, it is the industry we are in.

    The challenge for these codes therefore isn’t just regulating player movement but confronting the double standard placed upon athletes that expects loyalty in a system designed to control.

    Hunter Fujak has served as an external advisor to several Australian player associations on a pro-bono basis, including the Rugby League Players Association.

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

    – ref. Traded like assets, expected to be loyal: the unique double standard of being an Australian footy player – https://theconversation.com/traded-like-assets-expected-to-be-loyal-the-unique-double-standard-of-being-an-australian-footy-player-253618

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –