NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: Every 3 years, we play the election date waiting game. Are fixed terms the solution?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

    With another election campaign unofficially underway, voters may feel it hasn’t been long since they were last at the voting booth.

    Australia’s Constitution dictates:

    every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.

    This allows the sitting government to call an election sooner than three years after taking office, but recent norms are for governments to use the full term length available to them.

    But how do politicians and the public feel about this format, and could this change anytime soon?

    Early elections

    In 1998, the John Howard Liberal government called an early election seeking voters’ support for its ambitious plans to introduce a goods and service tax. It came very close to defeat, but clawed its way to victory and nine more years of power.

    In 2016, the Malcolm Turnbull Liberal government took a similar punt, calling an early double dissolution election ostensibly on the issue of union corruption. Again, it came very close to defeat but clawed its way to victory (and six more years of power).

    Despite their reasons for calling early elections, both Howard and Turnbull faced declining global economic conditions and arguably moved tactically to avoid campaigning in the worst of the headwinds.

    Most governments have less appetite for capitalising on external events – like interest rate cuts – when calling an election. Voters already largely distrust politicians, and cynical early elections will only confirm their beliefs.

    Fixed versus non-fixed parliamentary terms

    The ability of a government to unilaterally decide the election date is unusual.

    The political systems most similar to Australia – New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States – all have fixed election dates. Australian states and territories have also increasingly moved to fixed dates, where the government of the day has no discretion over election timing.

    As prime minister, Julia Gillard effectively relinquished her right to manipulate the 2013 election date in her favour. She announced it more than seven months ahead of time. Her government lost the subsequent election.

    Unsurprisingly, there is little political will to move to fixed dates for federal elections. Only current Special Minister of State Don Farrell has expressed even passing support for the idea (and then, only if voters were clearly in favour).

    Fixed terms would undoubtedly benefit voters, who could plan their calendars well in advance. They would also benefit non-government parties and independent candidates, who could budget and plan campaigns around a known election date.

    Who wants longer terms?

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports four-year terms, reflecting long-term Labor Party policy.

    The Liberal Party has generally been more ambivalent. Howard was supportive but “not mad keen” in 2005 and supportive, but resigned to failure in 2024.

    Current leader Peter Dutton also backs longer terms, but observes that, among voters, “generally, there is a reluctance to do anything that makes the life of a politician easier”.

    Beyond voters’ reluctance to grant a one-year extension to politicians’ tenure, the issue of senate term lengths is an obstacle to reform.

    Current tradition sets senate terms twice the length of House of Representatives terms, however, Penny Wong has argued that eight-year terms are too long.

    Both New South Wales and South Australia have experience with eight-year terms in their upper houses, but no other states have yet followed.

    How could (and will) terms be changed?

    Any change to federal parliamentary terms would require a successful referendum. The question has been put to Australians once before, in 1988. Only 33% of voters supported the proposal, and no state achieved majority support.

    Polling from April 2024 finds only 38% support, with 18% unsure. Independent and minor party voters – the fastest growing group in Australian politics – were also the most strongly opposed to longer terms.

    As Dutton noted, voters have been reluctant to support “politician-friendly” referendums in the past. There seems almost no chance the 48th parliament would consider a referendum on the issue.

    Would 4-year terms make politics better?

    David Coleman, recently promoted to the Liberal Party’s frontbench, has confidently declared “businesses and consumers tend to hold off on investment during election periods and the phoney war that precedes them”, and so longer terms would improve the domestic economy.

    The business sector seems to agree.

    Are they right? And what about non-economic outcomes?

    Academic research backs up the assumption governments are less likely to announce major tax reforms in the months leading into an election. Shorter terms might also make governments less likely to introduce austerity (strict cost-cutting) measures.

    The weight of academic evidence suggests that whichever party is in power matters far more than the length of the electoral cycle.

    Researchers have struggled to find differences in how politicians with longer terms (usually four years) behave from those with shorter terms (usually two years). Activity levels for the shorter-term politicians appear slightly more frenetic – more fundraising and expenditure, more campaigning – but the outcomes are similar.

    Longer terms do not seem destined to fix Australia’s political malaise.

    Jill Sheppard receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Every 3 years, we play the election date waiting game. Are fixed terms the solution? – https://theconversation.com/every-3-years-we-play-the-election-date-waiting-game-are-fixed-terms-the-solution-250273

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Peter Dutton promises $6 billion 12-month halving of petrol and diesel excise

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

    Opposition leader Peter Dutton will promise in his Thursday budget reply that a Coalition government would immediately halve the fuel excise on petrol and diesel.

    The cut, which would take the excise from 50.8 cents a litre to 25.4 cents, would be for a year, at a cost of A$6 billion.

    The opposition says the measure would mean a household with one vehicle filling up once a week would save about $14 weekly, on average. This would amount to about $700 to $750 over the year, based on a 55 litre tank.

    A two-car household would save about $28 a week on average – nearly $1500 over the year.

    Legislation for the excise cut would be introduced on the first parliamentary sitting day after the election so it could come into effect “as quickly as possible”.

    Dutton contrasted the immediate relief with the longer time frame before people received the tax cuts announced in the budget.

    Under the tax changes, taxpayers will receive a tax cut of up to $268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

    The $17.1 billion income tax package was being rushed through the Senate on Wednesday night, as the parliament readies to rise for the election, that could be called as early as Friday for May 3.

    The government wanted to pass the legislation immediately to put the Coalition, which opposed the bill and voted against it in parliament, on the spot.

    Also, having the tax cuts in law gives greater certainty to them, as Labor promotes them in the coming campaign.

    Dutton said of his proposed excise cut: “If elected, we will deliver this cost of living relief immediately – whereas people have to wait 15 months for Labor’s 70 cent a day tax tweak.”

    “This cost of living relief will make a real difference to families and small businesses – everyone from tradies, to mums and dads, to older Australians, and to transport delivery workers,” he said.

    “The commute to work, taking the kids to school or sport, the family drive, or the trip to the shops will all cost less under the Coalition. Our plan will save many hundreds of dollars for families across Australia.

    “Lowering costs to small businesses, means lower costs for goods and services at the checkout.”

    The Morrison government introduced a six-month cut to fuel excise in 2022. The Albanese government declined to extend it when it expired.

    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. Peter Dutton promises $6 billion 12-month halving of petrol and diesel excise – https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-promises-6-billion-12-month-halving-of-petrol-and-diesel-excise-250896

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor on tax top-ups and budget bottom lines

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

    As the election starter’s gun is about to be fired, Tuesday’s budget announced modest income tax cuts as the government’s latest cost-of-living measure. The Coalition has opposed the tax relief, with Peter Dutton’s Thursday budget reply to put forward his policy counters on the cost of living.

    Meanwhile, the domestic economic debate is being conducted as President Donald Trump prepares to unveil more tariffs, which are likely to produce further uncertainty in the world economy.

    On this podcast we are joined by Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor.

    Chalmers says the government is making every last-minute effort to argue against Australia being hit with more US tariffs. He’s ready to make personal representations if that’s thought useful.

    I’ve been discussing that with Don Farrell, the minister for trade, whether or not that would be helpful to some of the efforts that he’s currently engaged in. So we’re working as a team on it. We’re working out the best [and] most effective ways to engage with the Americans. Again, speaking up for and standing up for our national interest.

    We’re not uniquely impacted by the tariffs either already imposed or proposed. But we’ve got a lot of skin in the game here. We’re a trading nation, we generate a lot of prosperity on global markets.

    A criticism from some about the budget was that climate change wasn’t mentioned explicitly. Chalmers takes issue with that.

    I would have thought that an extra A$3 billion for green metals, which is about leveraging our traditional strengths and resources, our developing industries and the energy transformation to create something that the world needs, I think that’s a climate change policy.

    And also the Innovation Fund, another $1.5 billion or so for the Innovation Fund in terms of sustainable aviation fuels, that’s a climate policy and also we’re recapitalising another couple of billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

    So in every budget, we’ve made new investments in climate change and in energy and this week’s budget was no different in that regard.

    Angus Taylor is scathing about Labor’s “top-up” tax cuts, which were the budget’s centrepiece, saying:

    A government that has overseen an unprecedented collapse in our living standards, unrivalled by any other country in the world, and they’re trying to tell Australians that 70 cents a day, more than a year from now, is a solution to that problem?

    It’s laughable, it is not even going to touch the sides, it’s Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It’s a cruel hoax. And frankly, the idea that this is good government is absolutely laughable.

    On what change of approach a Coalition government would take, Angus Taylor points to the “fiscal rules that we adhered to when we were last in government”.

    They were on the back of the rules that were established in the Charter of Budget Honesty that was established by Peter Costello in the 1990s to make sure your economy grows faster than your spending. That doesn’t mean spending doesn’t grow, it just means your economy grows faster.

    So both of those things matter, a faster growing economy and managing your spending so that it’s not growing faster. Jim Chalmers doesn’t get that.

    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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor on tax top-ups and budget bottom lines – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jim-chalmers-and-angus-taylor-on-tax-top-ups-and-budget-bottom-lines-253112

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘The bush calls us’: the defiant women who demanded a place on the walking track

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Ekkel, PhD student in Australian History, Australian National University

    Fairfax Corporation (1932)

    ➡️ View the full interactive version of this article here.

    Ruby Ekkel 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. ‘The bush calls us’: the defiant women who demanded a place on the walking track – https://theconversation.com/the-bush-calls-us-the-defiant-women-who-demanded-a-place-on-the-walking-track-241126

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dileep Sharma, Professor and Head of Discipline – Oral Health, University of Newcastle

    Jiri Hera/Shutterstock

    Around one in three Australians delayed their visit to a dentist in the last financial year – or didn’t go at all – due to cost.

    Given it doesn’t look like dental treatment is being added to Medicare any time soon, what can you do?

    Most oral and dental diseases are preventable, if you take care of your teeth and mouth. In-between visits to the dentist, here’s what you can do to avoid preventable issues – and blow-out costs.

    What causes diseases in your mouth?

    More than 1,000 species of microbes live in the mouth. Most dental and oral diseases are due to an imbalance or overgrowth in these microbes within the plaque (or “biofilm”).

    Plaque gathers on the hard surfaces inside the mouth (your teeth), as well as soft surfaces (such as your tongue). Removing plaque manually with brushing and flossing is the most effective way to maintain oral health.

    Plaque starts to form immediately after brushing, which is why you should remove it regularly.

    Things to do

    1. Brush twice a day

    Use a toothbrush with soft bristles (either electric or manual). Soft bristles remove plaque without damaging the teeth or gums. A fluoridated toothpaste will help strengthen the teeth.

    Brush for at least two minutes, using a sweeping and scrubbing motion, away from the gums. It’s a good idea to start at the back teeth and work your way through to the front teeth. Don’t forget to scrub the biting surface of the teeth.

    2. Floss

    Don’t skip this step – it’s crucial to clean in-between the teeth where a toothbrush can’t reach. Once a day should be enough.

    Whether you use floss, a pick, a bottle brush or other devices may depend on the space between your teeth.

    3. Clean your tongue

    To completely remove the microbes, it’s also important to clean your tongue regularly (twice daily). You can use a toothbrush while you’re already brushing, or a special tongue scraper – just don’t brush or scrape too hard.

    Brushing twice a day is important to remove bacteria in the mouth and on the teeth.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Things to avoid

    1. Sugary drinks and refined food

    What we eat and drink can affect the mouth’s pH.

    When bacteria in the mouth break down sugars, they produce acids. The acidity can dissolve minerals in the teeth and lead to decay.

    Refined foods – such as white bread, cakes and pastries – can easily be broken down by the mouth’s bacteria. So, having a lot of them, as well as sugary drinks, can damage the teeth and cause cavities.

    Water is the best choice to drink with your meals. Sparkling and soda water are acidic and can lead to mineral loss from the teeth, even when they are unflavoured. There is evidence flavoured sparkling water can be as harmful as orange juice.

    2. Tobacco and vaping

    Smoking or using smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches) is linked to oral cancer.

    Nicotine is also known to increase the severity of gum diseases – even when inflammation isn’t visible.

    This is true for both smoking and smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches).

    Vaping also increases your risk of developing cavities and gum disease.

    3. Too much alcohol, tea and coffee

    Drinking a lot of coffee, tea or red wine can stain your teeth. So if you’re concerned about your teeth appearing yellow or brown, it’s best to limit your intake.

    Drinking alcohol is also linked to an increased risk of developing oral cancers, which most commonly affect the tongue, floor of the mouth, cheek and palate.

    Drinks that are fizzy and sugary can damage the teeth.
    Svetlana Foote/Shutterstock

    Your mouth’s health is linked to your overall health

    Leaving oral diseases untreated (such as gum disease) has been linked to developing other conditions, such as liver disease, and pre-existing conditions getting worse.

    This is particularly evident if you have diabetes. Evidence shows it’s easier to manage blood sugar levels when gum diseases are properly treated.

    You can keep an eye on symptoms, such as bleeding gums which may be an early sign of gum disease. If symptoms that worry you, talk to your GP or diabetes educator. They may be able to refer you to a dentist if needed.

    Dileep Sharma receives funding from Dental Council of NSW, International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research, Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International College of Dentists and Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre for his dental research projects. He is affiliated with The International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and Australian Dental Association.

    – ref. Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid – https://theconversation.com/going-to-the-dentist-is-expensive-here-are-3-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-oral-health-and-3-things-to-avoid-250786

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William van Caenegem, Professor of Law, Bond University

    Zivica Kerkez/Shutterstock

    The Labor government used this week’s budget to announce it plans to ban non-compete agreements for employees on less than A$175,000 per year, a move that will affect about 3 million Australian workers.

    Describing them as “unfair”, a media release by federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said non‑compete clauses “are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher‑paying jobs”. Banning non-compete clauses could lift the wages of affected workers by up to 4%, the government has said.

    The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry quickly called the measure “heavy-handed”, arguing that very few employees, according to businesses, turn down employment due to non-compete clauses.

    However, research I did with colleagues from Melbourne and Monash universities showed very few employees signing a new job contract ever think about the end of the relationship and what might happen after.

    Workers often accept non-compete clauses with little understanding or regard for their practical implications.

    What the law currently says

    The current law says contractual clauses that stop departing workers from taking a new job in their preferred line of work, often for long periods of time, are – in principle – unenforceable.

    That is, however, unless a court says a particular non-compete clause is “reasonably required” to protect a “legitimate interest”.

    Therein lies the problem: it is hard to predict when, where or under what circumstances a court will find a particular clause is “reasonably required”.

    Our research concluded this uncertainty favoured employers with greater nous and resources.

    These employers have the advantage over employees, who are rarely willing or able to go to court arguing their non-compete clause is invalid.

    This has a chilling effect on the mobility of employees. In other words, these clauses make it harder for workers to change jobs.

    That’s detrimental to labour market competition and can hold back knowledge-sharing and economic growth.

    Global efforts to ban non-compete clauses

    In California, non-compete clauses have long been banned. Many economists have identified this as among the key reasons for the success of the Californian knowledge economy. This example also featured in a submission I made (with researcher Caitlyn Douglas) to a 2024 Treasury review into non-compete clauses in Australia.

    US research from 2021 also found non-compete clauses can hinder labour mobility. They can impede fundamental freedoms such as freedom of employment and freedom of general competition.

    In 2024, under President Biden, the US Federal Trade Commission banned non-competes clauses across the US.

    However, the ban has been blocked due to legal challenges in the US Federal Court. It’s also been reported the Trump administration may kill off these reforms altogether.

    The UK government proposed in 2023 limiting non-competes to a maximum of three months.

    Holding employees back

    Unlike in some countries, Australian law does not require employers to compensate their ex-employee for loss of income during their non-compete period.

    This means that if workers comply and do not work in the field they’re most skilled for, they will take a serious financial hit for months or more.

    This is another detrimental effect of non-compete clauses. They really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).

    In that respect, Labor’s mooted ban on such clauses for employees on less than $175,000 is well conceived.

    Courts will usually only enforce a non-compete clause if its terms are reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, such as trade secrets an employee has learned during their employment.

    However, it’s mostly higher-ranked employees that have access to really significant trade secrets, such as technical information, confidential business plans or pricing structures.

    Higher paid employees are also more often the “public face of the business”. A court might decide it’s fair to say such workers can’t leave and the next day turn up as the main face of a competing business.

    And the new government proposal won’t leave employers without any recourse against employees who take their genuine trade secrets and pass them on to their new employers. They will still be able to sue for breach of confidence.

    Non-competes really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).
    Dorde Krstic/Shutterstock

    Challenges for reform

    The proposed reforms are well supported by authoritative legal and economic research.

    The federal government will have to consider carefully how to make sure the prohibition cannot be easily circumvented.

    And they’ll have to ensure these reforms don’t make it more likely judges will find restraints valid for those on more than A$175,000. Labour and knowledge mobility remain crucially important for them too.

    Another key challenge will be ensuring a ban doesn’t encourage practices or clauses restricting competition to emerge or become too prevalent.

    That could include “garden leave” clauses. These give a departing employee a long notice period, during which they are paid but do not work and are isolated from their employment (and instead “doing the gardening” at home).

    The risk is that if employers can no longer include non-compete clauses in contracts, they might use long garden leave provisions more often.

    Although it is good that “garden leave” employees get paid during that period (unlike during a non-compete term), they are still isolated from their work, stagnating in their skills and unable to move to new employment.

    William van Caenegem received funding from the Australian Research Council a decade ago for some of the research referred to in this article.

    – ref. Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move – https://theconversation.com/non-compete-clauses-make-it-too-hard-to-change-jobs-banning-them-for-millions-of-australians-is-a-good-move-253101

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    Commentators have branded last night’s federal budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.

    The budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.

    There was little in the budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change. But is this true?

    Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change. As the federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.

    What environmental spending was in the budget?

    The main spending on the environment in last night’s budget had been announced in the weeks before. It includes:

    These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.

    Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.

    More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.

    Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the federal budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.

    And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.

    Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.

    What does the average voter think about the environment?

    Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.

    When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear. Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70% of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86%) supported stronger national nature laws.

    Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53% of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.

    On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50% of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.

    The report also found 50% of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69% support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69% are concerned about climate change.

    Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57% of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.

    There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.

    For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57% of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23% considered global warming a top-three issue.

    However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22%), keeping interest rates down (19%) and reducing taxes (15%). It was tied with reducing crime (23%).

    It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.

    Labor’s unmet election promises

    The singular focus on the cost of living in last night’s federal budget means environmental spending has been neglected.

    Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.

    The government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t. The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.

    The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.

    Timothy Neal 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. The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-federal-budget-fails-the-millions-of-voters-who-want-action-on-australias-struggling-environment-253099

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Harris, Professor of Management, Auckland University of Technology

    Black Salmon/Shutterstock

    For decades, researchers examined work and home life as separate domains. If they were taken together it was usually to study so-called work-life balance.

    But these days, the reality is more complex. Our work and home lives are more seamlessly integrated than ever, largely because of communications technology and the work-from-home trend.

    This can mean we deal with a work matter and a bit of domestic or family business virtually simultaneously, shifting attention and focus from one to the other within seconds.

    We’ve dubbed this phenomenon “zigzag working” to describe how employees blend work and family roles within times and spaces that might once have been separate.

    During and in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this became more common as many working parents had to perform their paid work at home. But as workers increasingly return to the office, has zigzag working become the new normal?

    In our research, we studied zigzag working beyond COVID to test support for it, and to understand its effects on conflict and happiness. Our study used a survey with two samples: 318 employees and 373 managers.

    Zigzag working in action

    Zigzag working provides a unique way to examine the blending of work and life. Frequent interspersing of family and work happens regularly. But what does it look like?

    Consider Raj, a senior banking professional and solo parent of a 14-year-old. Here’s how a couple of hours of interspersing work and family while in the office unfold:

    11:02 am. While listening to the CEO’s update, Raj messages his son, encouraging him to play basketball in the school break instead of gaming. His son responds with “whatever”.

    11:09 am. Raj replies: “Yes, whatever – go have a run.”

    11:48 am. He dashes out to buy lunch, remembering school camp fees are due by 5 pm.

    11:54 am. Heading back to his office, he takes a call from a colleague.

    12:02 pm. Back at his desk, Raj checks his diary while on the call, realising it’s his mother’s birthday.

    12:11 pm. Raj orders flowers for her, remembering he often said “whatever” as a teenager. He starts a message to his son but is interrupted when pulled into an urgent meeting.

    12:27 pm. As the meeting unfolds, Raj realises it has minimal impact on his division. Multitasking, he messages his son, replies to an email and mentally reviews his to-do list, including the camp fees.

    12.43 pm. Working on a product proposal, he notices no replies from his son or the florist, but his mother has messaged telling him not to bring anything for dinner since he’s so busy.

    Technology has allowed employees to blend work and family roles simultaneously.
    GaudiLab/Shutterstock

    Zigzag working results

    After speaking with employees and managers, we were able to identify several key points.

    • Zigzag working, characterised by frequent small transitions between work and family responsibilities, occurs throughout the workday.

    • Both men and women regularly zigzag between work and family responsibilities during the day. Gender differences were tested for, finding no significant variation in zigzagging behaviour. This contrasts with prior research that often finds gender differences in work-family conflict.

    • Managers zigzag more than employees.

    • Zigzag working is more prevalent for those working from home. This aligns with the idea that remote work environments make it easier for employees to switch rapidly between work and personal responsibilities.

    • Even those not working from home still reported moderate levels of zigzag working, suggesting this phenomenon is not limited to remote work.

    • Zigzag working was linked to both work-family conflict and happiness, underscoring its unique impact. While managing multiple responsibilities can be challenging, it can also be rewarding – especially when individuals feel a sense of control over their time and tasks.

    The key takeaway? Zigzagging exists, and it is practised across genders, levels of seniority and locations. While it makes workers busier, our research found it also makes them happier.

    Employers should embrace zigzag working

    Recognising zigzagging as a normal work dynamic can foster a more supportive workplace, enhancing employee wellbeing, focus and overall performance. Employers can promote discussions about zigzagging to challenge rigid work-life boundaries.

    Encouraging men to share their zigzagging experiences broadens the conversation beyond the assumption that openly juggling work and family is primarily a women’s issue. Normalising work-family intersections can make them feel more manageable and even gratifying.

    Zigzagging is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Employers should recognise that zigzagging can vary by job role, time constraints and caregiving responsibilities, differing across professions and individuals.

    Technology can further support zigzag working, enabling staff to efficiently manage both work and family responsibilities.

    Zigzagging provides a fresh perspective on the blend of work and family, revealing the interplay between work and family can be simultaneously both beneficial and detrimental. Zigzaggers may be busy, but they are also happy – working as masters of their own universes.

    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. Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality? – https://theconversation.com/our-work-and-home-lives-are-blending-more-than-ever-how-do-we-navigate-this-new-zigzag-reality-251601

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

    This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

    The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

    It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

    Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

    This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

    What’s in the budget for aid and development

    The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

    In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

    This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

    In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

    This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

    Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

    There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

    Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

    Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

    It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

    The future is still precarious

    However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

    The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

    Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

    Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

    So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

    In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

    At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

    Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

    In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

    Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

    Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

    – ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

    Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

    But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

    A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

    Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

    Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

    The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

    It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

    This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

    Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

    In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

    It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

    However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

    Usability is key

    The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

    To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

    The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

    The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

    While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

    In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

    Signal is one of the most secure messaging apps, but should never be used to store and send classified information.
    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    A highly secure – and highly usable – system

    Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

    In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

    It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

    One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

    Where to from here?

    Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

    In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

    Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

    – ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    beast01/Shutterstock

    Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

    We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

    Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

    AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

    Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

    The four models of search tools

    Customer Servant

    Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

    The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

    Librarian

    As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

    Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

    Librarians don’t just retrieve information, they strive for relevance.
    Tyler Olson/Shutterstock

    Journalist

    Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

    Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

    Teacher

    Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

    LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

    They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

    No search model is best

    We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

    The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

    The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

    The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

    This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

    The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

    But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

    Staying vigilant is key

    We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

    Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

    LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

    Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

    Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

    Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Hui Chia and Simon Coghlan 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. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Research Fellow, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    Shutterstock

    To mark 10 years since Netflix began operating in Australia, we and our colleagues at the Streaming Industries and Genres Network have published a report that looks at the state of Australia’s streaming industry today – and back at the platforms that have failed over the years.

    It once seemed like Netflix was the be-all and end-all of streaming in Australia. But a decade of competition with other streamers, and stress on local content, paint a very different picture.

    The streaming wars rage on

    Australia’s “streaming wars” kicked off in early 2015 with the arrival of Stan and Netflix, joining smaller players already on the scene. At the time, some industry insiders predicted the new streaming video-on-demand services would quickly consolidate – that there was room for only two major players: Netflix and one other.

    These early assumptions were proven wrong. Instead, Australia has sustained numerous streamers of different sizes, audiences and ownership. The larger, more generalist services such as Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+ compete directly with each other for exclusive content.

    Other niche genre players such as Shudder (horror) and Hayu (reality TV) have managed to stay afloat by catering to a specific audience segment and keeping their prices low.

    There have also been a few fatalities along the way. Quickflix and Presto were early to the market. Both services had gained considerable ground by 2014, with Quicklix leading the way. But they were eventually viewed as sluggish and limited in comparison to Netflix.

    Netflix always on top

    Netflix has always been the most popular streaming service in Australia. One million users had access to the platform within just three months of its arrival in 2015.

    In 2020, analytics firm Ampere Analysis identified Australia as the most highly-penetrated Netflix market in the world, then available in 63% of Australian homes, compared to 50% in the United States.

    In the first half of 2024, it was used by 67% of Australian adults, including some 800,000 people with an ad-tier subscription.

    The global behemoth has produced some notable local titles.

    In January of last year, the series adaptation of Boy Swallows Universe became Netflix’s most successful Australian-made show in its first two weeks on the platform.

    Later in April, the second season of the Heartbreak High reboot debuted at number one in Australia and stayed on the Global Top 10 English TV Series list for three consecutive weeks.



    Read more:
    Streaming, surveillance and the power of suggestion: the hidden cost of 10 years of Netflix

    Collectively, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Paramount+ and Stan spent A$225.2 million on 55 commissioned or co-commissioned Australian programs in the 2023–24 financial year.

    That said, their commitment to the local production sector over the last decade has been limited, as they have no obligation to invest in local content.

    A lack of regulation decimates local genres

    The lack of streaming regulation in Australia, alongside the gradual watering-down of commercial broadcaster obligations, has resulted in the collapse of investment in local content.

    Children’s TV, documentary, drama TV programming and Australian film have all suffered as a result.

    The introduction of multi-national streamers has radically shifted financing practices in Australia, leaving our production sector in distress.

    Last year, we partnered with ACMI to pull together a symposium where streaming industry insiders discussed the deeper implications of streaming on local genres, as well as the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    We heard from Andy Barclay, manager of business and legal affairs at Screen Producer Australia, who said the traditional “jigsaw puzzle” of finance planning based on international territories was all but gone in favour of major streamers offering full funding and “a little premium” upfront.

    But this comes at a cost, as the streamers then control global distribution and hold a tight grip on viewership data. It also means local production can become beholden to the whims of US business interests. As Barclay explain:

    These huge [streaming] companies, their Australian businesses […] we don’t drive their business decisions. It’s what happens over in the United States that drives their business decisions.

    Nonetheless, having fresh, cash-rich and risk-taking players in the Australian content market has led to opportunities for some local creators.

    As Sam Lingham of Australian comedy group Aunty Donna remarked on the same panel:

    Netflix, creatively, were pretty hands-off. We pitched them the show and they were like, ‘yeah, go do that’.

    What’s on the horizon?

    The streaming sector in Australia is now poised to splinter even further.

    Warner Bros Discovery will launch its streaming platform, Max, next week. It will be a real blow to the Foxtel-owned streamer, Binge, which has long touted its exclusive rights to much of the Warner catalogue.

    There are also concerns about the access and affordability of sport. This year, a new AFL broadcast agreement with Fox Sports and Channel Seven saw Saturday night games move behind a paywall. People will now need Kayo Sports or Foxtel to watch these games live.

    Big streamers have also entered the fray. Back in 2016, Netflix said it had no intention of investing in live sport. But we’re now seeing it and other players such as Prime Video, Apple TV+ and YouTube buy into sports rights around the world.

    According to Free TV Chief Executive Bridget Fair

    we saw it [in 2023] with Amazon hoovering up the whole of the World Cup cricket and it’s going to keep happening […] people who previously got a lot of stuff for free are going to have to start paying.

    Finally, many streamers – Netflix, Binge, Prime Video and Stan – have introduced or announced that they will introduce ad-tier subscriptions. Streamers can expect to see better profit margins on their advertising-supported offerings, compared to the monthly subscription model.

    Cheaper, ad-supported subscriptions may prove to be a popular option for viewers stacking multiple subscriptions. Already, 800,000 Australians have signed up to Netflix’s A$7.99 + ads option. But this does make for a disrupted, broadcast-like viewing experience (and one you still have to pay for).

    As the last 10 years of streaming in Australia has shown, the future can be hard to predict when it comes to new players entering established markets. One thing seems certain though – Netflix is here to stay.

    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. How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/how-netflix-has-shaped-and-shattered-our-content-landscape-over-the-past-decade-and-what-comes-next-251471

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

    Less than two months from an election, the Albanese government last night presented a budget that aims to swing the voting pendulum its way.

    Headline health expenditure includes:

    • $8.5 billion to encourage more GP bulk billing and to train doctors and nurses
    • $1.7 billion to help public hospitals reduce their waiting lists
    • $644 million to establish 50 more urgent care clinics
    • $689 million to reduce the price of prescriptions to $25 for non-concessional patients
    • $793 million for women’s health, to provide greater access to contraception, treatment for urinary tract infections and greater access to perimenopause and menopause care.

    These announcements were already strategically made over the past month to maximise media coverage and build election momentum.

    Australians want more access to affordable health care – and the budget delivers this for many. But it doesn’t push the process of health reform forward, which is needed to secure the health system’s long-term sustainability.

    How does this compare to previous health budgets?

    While the budget contains large health expenditure items, a significant amount was not strictly new funding, but already provided for by the government.

    Consequently, the budget only allocates an additional $7.7 billion to health compared to actual spending for 2024-25.

    This increase aligns with steady long-term spending trends from previous years. It reflects a 6.6% increase in nominal spending (when inflation is included), but only a 3.9% increase in real spending (when inflation is taken out).

    Actual and estimated expenditure from the health portfolio

    Health spending as a proportion of the budget is reducing.
    Treasury

    The proportion of the budget spent on health could be considered historically low, projected to be 15.9% for 2025-26.

    It’s unclear whether Australians want more of the budget allocated to health, but there is certainly a need for greater investment.

    Will this health budget improve Australians’ health?

    The Albanese government is trying to kill three birds with one stone with this health budget. It wants to reduce the cost of living, improve health outcomes, and win an election.

    Keeping the cost of living down and improving health services are the top two most important issues for this election. Headline health announcements directly address these two issues.

    However, they also deliver a political benefit by shifting the media spotlight away from Opposition leader Peter Dutton. He was unable to legitimately counter attack headline health announcements given his unpopularity when he was a health minister. Instead, he promised to match some health announcements if elected.

    Increasing bulk-billing rates and reducing prescription prices will directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for many Australians. This will mostly be for people without a concession card.

    Increasing access to urgent care clinics will also help reduce cost of living pressures because they deliver services free of charge.

    Making health care cheaper for patients will also improve health outcomes. Many Australians sometimes choose not to access health care because of its cost, which can lead to worse health outcomes and expensive hospital care.

    The magnitude of any health improvement will depend on how patients respond to cheaper health care.

    More health benefit will go to patients who start seeing their GP rather than staying at home and trying to manage their condition themselves.

    The health benefit will be less for patients who start seeing their GP instead of an emergency department or urgent care clinic, because they are substituting one place of care for another.

    Is this good health policy?

    There is an “opportunity cost” every time the government spends money. Using the health budget to reduce the cost of living means less money to improve the health system elsewhere.

    In that context, this health budget has missed an opportunity to build a more sustainable health system.

    Medicare is not the best way to fund community care from GPs, nurses and allied health providers. It imposes barriers to establishing seamless multidisciplinary team-based care. These include restricting the types of services non-GP clinicians deliver, and not funding enough care coordination. People with chronic disease, such as diabetes and heart disease, often fall through the cracks and become sicker.

    A review of general practice incentives submitted to the health department last year recommended transition towards new funding models. This could include funding models that pay for a bundle of services delivered together as a team, rather than a fee for every service delivered by each team member.

    But payment reform is extremely hard. Medicare has not substantially changed since 1984 when it was first introduced.

    Given this budget allocated $7.9 billion to increase bulk billing alone, and $2.4 billion ongoing, this budget has a missed opportunity to start the payment reform process. This extra funding will reinforce current payment structures, and could have been used as leverage to get GPs over the line on reforming Medicare.

    The government also missed an opportunity to start reforming the health workforce. An independent review, also submitted last year, sought to improve access to primary care, improve care quality, and improve workforce productivity.

    It outlined 18 recommendations, including payment reform, to remove barriers to increase access to care delivered by multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses and allied health providers such as psychologists and physiotherapists.

    Again, there was nothing in this budget to suggest this will be pursued in 2025-26.

    What happens next?

    What next usually depends on which party wins the election.

    In this case, Dutton has agreed to match the health budget spending on bulk billing and price reductions for PBS scripts. But the Coalition has not committed to 50 more urgent care clinics.

    Whichever party wins, there is an urgent need to substantially reform health care if our health system is to remain one of the world’s best.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Henry Cutler was a member of the Expert Advisory Panel that delivered its final review of general practice incentives mentioned in this article. He received remuneration from the Department of Health and Aged Care for this role.

    – ref. Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform – https://theconversation.com/budget-delivers-cheaper-medicines-and-more-bulk-billing-but-leaves-out-long-term-health-reform-251921

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Diemer, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Melbourne

    Journalist and activist Jess Hill’s Quarterly Essay argues Australia’s primary prevention framework to end violence against women isn’t working.

    Hill says the framework focuses too much on addressing gender inequality and changing attitudes, while overlooking crucial opportunities to address drivers of violence such as child maltreatment, alcohol and gambling.

    So what does the evidence say works to prevent violence against women?

    Australia’s plan to reduce and prevent violence

    The World Health Organisation RESPECT framework guides most global intervention programs and includes seven specific strategies to prevent violence against women:

    • Relationship skills strengthening
    • Empowerment of women
    • Services ensured
    • Poverty reduced
    • Environments (schools, workplaces, public spaces) made safe
    • Child and adolescent abuse prevented
    • Transformed attitudes, beliefs and norms.

    These are embedded in the 12 actions of Australia’s prevention framework, called Change the Story, but are not explicitly listed.

    The RESPECT strategies are also included in Australia’s National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.

    Interventions are usually separated into three complementary, but overlapping approaches: primary (prevention), secondary (early intervention) and tertiary (responses).

    Primary prevention in Change the Story is aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of violence before it occurs. But most interventions have dual purposes of reducing or preventing current and future violence, as we transform into a violence-free community.

    Australia’s national plan includes reducing the harmful use of alcohol, support for children to live free from violence, holding perpetrators to account, changing the law, and promoting gender equality in public and private lives.

    Together, these strategies chip away at harmful underlying attitudes that drive domestic violence.

    Australia’s strategy for preventing violence against women includes holding perpetrators to account.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    What does the evidence say works?

    Systematic reviews of interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls find that sufficient investment into the right programs can address the core drivers of violence and lead to a significant reduction and prevention of violence.

    The reviews identify that most successful interventions do not typically separate out prevention from early intervention and response. They focus on gender dynamics, power and control, and locally relevant social structures that disempower women and girls.

    The global program What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, for example, reviewed 96 evaluations of interventions. Of these, seven interventions had positive effects across all three domains of responding to, reducing and preventing domestic violence.

    None of the effective interventions were the same, but they had common features.

    One of the common indicators of success was that they addressed multiple drivers of violence while being relevant to what was important in the participants’ lives, such as an intervention to reduce HIV or couples counselling. These two interventions were designed to challenge gender inequity and the use of violence, while empowering couples with improved communications skills.

    Effective interventions also commonly included support for survivors, for things such as mental health support, safe spaces, empowerment activities and mediation skills.

    Effective interventions incldue support for survivors and empowerment activites.
    Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock

    Equally important was including work with perpetrators or key influencers, such as other family members or local leaders. One example developed in Tajikistan involved in-laws, which enabled young women to attend and implement ideas from the program into their family life.

    The final two key components of successful interventions were related to implementation of the programs: having the ability to deliver the program with sufficient, well-trained and supported staff, and for a length of time allowing reflection and learning through experience.

    The Transforming Masculinities program in the Democratic Republic of Congo promoted gender equality and positive masculinity within faith communities. Careful selection of staff and volunteers was crucial to the intervention’s success.

    Effective interventions were delivered over 15 to 30 months. They included a combination of community activities and weekly workshops, allowing facilitators to build on content from previous sessions.

    Putting this all together, the most effective programs were rigorously planned and suitable to the client group. They focused on multiple core drivers of violence against women and girls. They worked with perpetrators and community influencers. They also worked with and supported survivors.

    Elements which prevented programs from being effective included short-term or inadequate funding, and a lack of sufficient planning to ensure the intervention was adapted to the client’s context.

    We have clear evidence about they types of programs that can prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, both internationally and in Australia. We also have service providers and program leaders who have been sharing evidence with governments for more than five decades. What we need now is the will and commitment for intensive programming.



    Read more:
    Despite some key milestones since 2000, Australia still has a long way to go on gender equality

    Kristin Diemer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ANROWS, the Department of Social Services, the Victorian Government and is on the Advisory Group for the Australian National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey.

    – ref. What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/what-works-to-prevent-violence-against-women-heres-what-the-evidence-says-252873

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described the income tax cuts in this week’s federal budget as a “top-up”. They will amount to roughly one cup of coffee a week for every taxpayer in the first year.

    But they will add another A$17 billion to the deficit over coming years, in addition to a raft of previously announced spending measures and very little savings.

    That is against a backdrop of the most uncertain global economic outlook since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. Australia may face a real economic shock if trade wars trigger recessions in our major trading partners.

    We asked five experts if this is the right budget for these economic times. Only two agreed, with three saying much more is needed to address long-term structural debt and meaningful economic reform.

    – ref. Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-right-budget-for-these-economic-times-we-asked-5-experts-252922

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    A bill introduced to parliament this week, if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.

    It fulfils Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s promise last month to introduce new laws to allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour. This salmon farming is currently mooted for reconsideration.

    There’s no doubt Australia’s nature laws need reform. The latest review found “Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community”.

    But stopping the government from reconsidering a past decision is no way to fix these flaws. Reconsidering decisions is necessary if new evidence shows the activity is causing much more harm to nature, or a different kind of harm, than anticipated.

    Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour

    Salmon have been farmed in Macquarie Harbour for almost 40 years, but activity has increased over the past decade.

    In 2012, Tasmania’s Department of Primary Industries sought approval to expand farming in the harbour, despite possible impacts on threatened species and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

    But then-Environment Minister, Tony Bourke, declared no further consideration was needed and the action could proceed, because the proposal was not
    “a controlled action”. Under the Act, a controlled action is any activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance, such as a threatened species. A project or development deemed a controlled action then requires approval from the environment minister.

    However, Bourke’s decision was subject to conditions – most importantly, to ensure no significant impacts to the Maugean skate.

    In late 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek received a series of requests to reconsider Bourke’s 2012 decision.

    New evidence comes to light

    The power to request a reconsideration is available to anyone. If substantial new information justifies it, the minister may revoke the original decision and make a new one.

    In the Macquarie Harbour case, these reconsideration requests relied on scientific studies completed after 2012. One highlighted the skate’s vulnerability to changing water conditions. Another released last month showed a strong correlation between more intense salmon farming and increased extinction risk for the skate.

    Plibersek has not made a decision yet. However, documents her office released under Freedom of Information laws show new evidence. This evidence supports a declaration that salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour should be reconsidered. That could trigger a full review of salmon farming in the Harbour.

    However, the bill Labor has introduced would strip the minister’s powers to reconsider the earlier decision.

    Prime minister promises law change to protect salmon farms, February 2025 (ABC News)

    What does the new bill propose?

    On Monday a government spokesperson said:

    This bill is very specific – it’s a minor change, with extremely strict criteria – focused on giving Tasmanian workers certainty while government investments protect the Maugean Skate. The existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing.

    But we disagree. The bill describes the circumstances in which the minister can reconsider a decision. These are cases (such as Macquarie Harbour) where an activity is allowed to proceed without full assessment and approval, in a “particular manner”. The “particular manner” must include complying with a state or territory management arrangement. For example, the salmon farmers have to comply with a Tasmanian government plan for Macquarie Harbour. Finally, these activities must be currently underway, and ongoing in that way, for at least five years.

    It is not uncommon for “particular manner” decisions to require compliance with state or territory management arrangements. So the new legislation will catch more than just the Macquarie Harbour project in the “net”.

    For instance, our quick search of the EPBC Act portal revealed a similar particular manner decision. This means that, after five years of operation, this second decision will also be immune from challenge.

    There would be more where that came from. The bill will not only protect salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

    What’s more, reconsideration powers have been used sparingly – there seems no reason to limit their use further. A search of the EPBC Act public portal reveals only 52 reconsideration requests since the Act began, averaging just two a year. Many of these requests were made by proponents, disgruntled with a “controlled action” decision made in relation to their own projects.

    One bad bill after another

    This may sound familiar, because Labor’s bill is similar to Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck’s private bill proposed in December, which also concerned protecting salmon farming jobs in Macquarie Harbour.

    The Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee made a single recommendation on that bill: that it not be passed.

    The majority report (from Labor, Greens and Independent senators) provided sensible reasons for recommending the bill be abandoned. It noted the power to request a reconsideration already has “appropriate safeguards”.

    Furthermore, these “safeguards strike an appropriate balance by providing industry with confidence and certainty that a decision made will not be easily reversed, while allowing decisions to be reconsidered should new and significant information relating to the decision arise”.

    Just four months later, these remain compelling reasons for maintaining the power to reconsider decisions.

    We don’t have time to go backwards

    This amendment will not achieve the comprehensive reforms the EPBC Act needs. In fact, it will actively undermine these goals. It has been rushed through after years of effort to improve nature laws, on the eve of an election, in a marginal electorate, and has been put to Parliament on the day of a budget lockup.

    Despite removing this scrutiny, the bill is unlikely to resolve the controversy in Macquarie Harbour.



    Read more:
    Labor’s dumping of Australia’s new nature laws means the environment is shaping as a key 2025 election issue

    Phillipa McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, Natural Hazards Research Australia, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and an affiliated member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology.

    Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

    – ref. Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws – https://theconversation.com/protecting-salmon-farming-at-the-expense-of-the-environment-another-step-backwards-for-australias-nature-laws-252814

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Man As Thep/Shutterstock

    The Australian housing market is in crisis: soaring prices, increasing rental stress, declining home ownership rates and a growing number of people experiencing homelessness.

    In response, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a $33 billion housing investment plan as part of his government’s latest budget.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    This is a central plank of Labor’s re-election pitch, aimed at showing housing commitment by:

    Making it easier to buy, better to rent, and building more homes faster.

    What are the key features of the plan?

    The plan includes two headline measures aimed at boosting housing supply and helping buyers:

    1-Expanding ‘Help to Buy’ for first-home buyers:

    The Help to Buy program provides shared-equity loans to first-time homebuyers so they can purchase properties with smaller deposits. Under this program, the government buys a portion of the property to lower the required mortgage amount for buyers.

    Under the initial terms of the scheme, the Commonwealth offered up to 30% of the price for existing homes and 40% for new constructions, while restricting eligibility to households within specific income and property value ranges.

    Now, the Albanese government has raised cap levels to enable more people to become eligible. The income ceiling for single buyers will increase from $90,000 to $100,000, while the maximum income limit for couples and single parents will rise from $120,000 to $160,000.

    These higher caps mean more than five million Australian properties would fall under the scheme’s scope, significantly expanding buyers’ choice.

    2-Investing in prefabricated and modular homes:

    In November 2024, the Albanese government announced a $900 million productivity fund to reward states and territories that boost housing supply by removing barriers to prefab and modular construction.

    And now, the Albanese government is budgeting another $54 million for the advanced manufacturing of prefab and modular housing industry. This includes $5 million to create a national certification system to streamline approvals and eliminate red tape.

    This aims to speed up home construction through off-site manufacturing technologies, which produce components in factories before assembling them on-site.

    Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic claims these homes can be finished in half the time of conventional construction. Even a 20–30% time saving would be significant.

    These buildings are also more energy efficient, more resilient and cheaper.

    A crane lifts part of a modular home into place.
    benik.at/Shutterstock

    Can these measures fix the problem?

    The big picture problem is, Australia has simply not been building enough homes for its growing population.

    According to the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s State of the Land Report 2025, the federal government will fail (by 400,000 dwellings) to meet its target of constructing 1.2 million new homes by 2029.

    Prefab building methods make up just 8% of new housing developments in Australia.

    Some countries use it much more: Sweden boasts more than 100 years of prefab construction experience, where more than 80% of homes are produced in factories and then assembled at their destinations.

    Modular housing can be described as a promising step forward. But while they offer potential improvements in speed and cost efficiency, it cannot solve the massive housing deficit on its own without structural policy reforms in the near future.

    What about the Help to Buy scheme?

    Shared-equity loans tackle a different side of the problem: affordability for buyers.

    Experts describe Help to Buy as a “modest” but useful “piece of the puzzle” in solving the housing crisis.

    While its impact on general house prices and universal housing affordability is minimal, policymakers worry that programs like these unintentionally push up prices by boosting demand.

    Federal v state roles

    Housing policy in Australia is a shared responsibility.

    State governments control planning, zoning and most of the levers that determine how quickly homes can be approved and built (such as releasing land for development or approving apartment projects).

    The federal government mainly controls funding and high-level programs, so the success of the Albanese government’s plan will depend a lot on cooperation with the states and territories.

    However, there’s some inherent tension here: Canberra can set targets and provide incentives (funding), but it can’t directly build houses or force local councils to approve projects faster.

    That’s one reason behind the prefab certification idea: it removes one potential regulatory hurdle at a national level.

    Political timing

    The timing of this housing plan announcement is no coincidence.

    Australia will have a federal election by May 2025. Most voters will likely consider housing costs and cost-of-living to be primary issues.

    The expansion of Help to Buy enables Labor to target first-home buyers, which may be important in the election.

    The new housing plan is ambitious in scope and certainly a welcome effort to turn the tide on housing affordability.

    However, renters and prospective buyers are unlikely to experience quick benefits from these housing initiatives, as it will require sustained action and cooperation well beyond the upcoming election cycle.

    The Help to Buy program will begin later in 2025, and the positive effects of investing in prefabricated/modular housing will require a period of time before they become apparent.

    It is unclear whether these measures will effectively persuade voters and produce substantial improvements.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy.

    – ref. A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge – https://theconversation.com/a-33-billion-vote-grabber-or-real-relief-examining-the-albanese-governments-big-housing-pledge-252915

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

    Shutterstock

    Podcasting was once the underdog of the media world: a platform where anyone with a microphone and an idea could share their voice.

    With low barriers to entry and freedom from institutional gatekeeping, it promised to amplify marginalised voices and allow underrepresented groups to tell their own stories, on their own terms.

    Today, however, this promise seems increasingly strained as corporate interests tighten their grip on the industry. As money flows in, the podcasting space is beginning to resemble the rest of the digital media world – driven by advertising revenues and political polarisation.

    The promise of podcasting

    Six years ago, audio scholars Martin Spinelli and Lance Dann described podcasting as a “revolutionary” medium for its ability to inspire empathy through innovative forms of audio.

    Podcasting was heralded as a format that broke through the barriers of traditional media by offering new ways to engage with underrepresented voices and ideas. Media and cultural studies pointed to the direct-to-ear delivery – free from the biases of visual culture – as a uniquely intimate way to consume content.

    Globally, the industry boomed as a result of pandemic lockdowns, with the number of podcasts on Spotify skyrocketing from 450,000 in 2019, to 1.5 million in 2020.

    Listenership has also surged in Australia. According to a 2024 report by Edison Research, we’ve seen a 20% increase in listenership from 2022 to 2024 – with 48% of the those aged 12 and above having listened to a podcast within the past month.

    From open space to rat race

    In his 2024 book Podcasting in a Platform Age, podcast researcher John Sullivan warns the podcasting space is being increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful media companies that dictate what and who gets visibility.

    Larger podcasts with higher production budgets, celebrity hosts and backing from major networks are attracting larger audiences, with independent creators struggling to get a foot in the door.

    At the time of writing, of the top 50 most popular podcasts in Australia, more than half (52%) come from overseas, and primarily the United States.

    Of the 24 Australian-made podcasts on the list, 80% are backed by a media organisation, with most (64%) connected to major networks such as LiSTNR, which is owned by Southern Cross Austereo. Only 12% of the Australian podcasts on the list come from truly independent creators without any corporate funding or major production support.

    Why does it matter that large-network ownership is on the rise? To understand this, it helps to first understand how ads keep podcast networks in business – and how this can impact content decisions.

    Deepening ideological divides

    Advertisers follow the crowds. In a podcasting context, this means they’re more likely to funnel their dollars into large networks, further bolstering their resources.

    At the same time, networks want to drive as many ears to their ad sponsors as possible. To do this, they focus on producing content they know will get the most engagement.

    The result is a vicious cycle in which attention and advertising power feed each other, making it even harder for independent voices to break through. Over time, this feedback loop can lead to less content diversity and more polarisation.

    According to Spotify’s 2024 Wrapped, American podcaster Joe Rogan took out the top podcast spot for the fifth year in a row globally.
    Shutterstock

    It’s here that we’re seeing an increase of politicians using podcasts to push their views and cultivate ideological loyalty.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy (the second most popular Spotify podcast in 2024), while Donald Trump was on The Joe Rogan Experience (the most popular). Both interviews were later fact-checked and found to contain false or misleading claims.

    Trump’s interview in particular was flagged by CNN for having 32 false claims. Nonetheless, analysts and researchers pointed to it as a driver behind his success with young male voters.

    The political podcasting trend is also playing out in Australia ahead of the next federal election.

    Late last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on the podcast Diving Deep With Sam Fricker. This was followed by an appearance on Straight Talk, hosted by businessman Mark Bouris, in January.

    More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt separately appeared on It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.



    Read more:
    Misinformation is rife and causing deeper polarisation – here’s how social media users can help curb it

    Diversity in the podcasting space

    According to 2022 Pew Research Centre data, 55% of Americans said their major reason for listening to podcasts was “to learn”, while 29% said they wanted to stay up-to-date with current affairs. But information-hungry listeners may be getting shortchanged, as podcasts are less likely to be fact-checked against the same editorial standards that govern traditional media.

    As platform researcher Michael Bossetta notes, although large platforms such as Spotify have the potential to create a more informed world, they
    are more likely to push content that keeps users hooked (that is, content they already enjoy and/or agree with).

    Recommender algorithms also have a role to play. One 2020 study found that while Spotify’s personalised suggestions increased user engagement by 28.90%, they also reduced the individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%.

    But platforms do have the power to do better. They could, for instance, use their algorithms to prioritise content diversity. This would help ease the “engagement-diversity trade-off”, in which personalisation increases engagement, but limits the diversity of content consumed by an individual.

    That said, it’s unlikely platforms will voluntarily change the way they operate. If meaningful reforms are to happen, they will more likely have to come from government regulations or through independent governing bodies.

    In the meantime, listeners aren’t powerless. While we can’t stop algorithms from pushing certain content to the top of our feeds, we can disrupt them by actively seeking out independent voices and diverse stories.

    Corey Martin 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. Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media – https://theconversation.com/podcasting-was-once-a-rebel-medium-for-diverse-voices-now-its-slowly-being-consumed-by-big-media-252169

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vita Pilkington, Research Fellow, PhD Candidate in men’s experiences of sexual trauma, The University of Melbourne

    Kristi Blokhin/Shutterstock

    In Australia, it’s estimated almost one in five boys (18.8%) experience child sexual abuse. And at least one in 16 men (6.1%) experience sexual violence after age 15.

    However, many boys and men don’t tell others about these experiences. Studies show men are less likely to disclose sexual abuse and assaults than women.

    It also takes boys and men longer to first disclose sexual abuse or assaults. On average, men wait 21 years before telling anyone about being abused.

    This is a problem because talking to others is often an important part of understanding and recovering from these traumatic experiences. When boys and men don’t discuss these experiences, it risks their mental health problems and isolation becoming worse and they don’t get the support they need.

    We wanted to understand what prevents boys and men from telling others about sexual abuse and assaults (or “sexual trauma”). So we conducted a systematic review, where we pooled together evidence from a range of studies on the topic.

    We found 69 relevant studies, which included more than 10,500 boys and men who had experienced sexual trauma from around the world. Studies were published in 23 countries across six continents, with most studies from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Two studies were published in Australia.

    Our new findings offer clues as to how we can break down the barriers preventing men and boys from discussing sexual trauma.

    Many boys and men don’t tell anyone if they’ve been victim to sexual violence.
    gpointstudio/Shutterstock

    Upending masculine identities

    We found across countries and cultures, boys’ and men’s sexual trauma affected their masculine identities. This included feeling as though they are not “real men”, or that they’re weak for having been targeted and assaulted.

    In one study, a participant explained:

    Sexual abuse to a man is an abuse against his manhood as well.

    Almost universally, boys and men suffered intense feelings of shame and guilt about being victimised, and many blamed themselves for years to decades.

    Many boys and men said they were worried others would think they were gay if they disclosed being abused or assaulted. This harmful stereotype reflects widespread homophobic attitudes as well as mistaken beliefs about survivors of abuse and assaults.

    Sexual abuse against boys and men has been long been overlooked, dismissed and misunderstood. The taboo nature of the issue was felt by participants. As a therapist who supported male survivors of abuse said in one study:

    We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims.

    LGBTQIA+ men face additional barriers to disclosure. Some experienced distress surrounding concerns abuse or assaults somehow cause, or contribute to, their sexualities. Many also reported receiving unsupportive and homophobic responses when they disclosed abuse and assaults to others. This includes their stories being minimised and dismissed, or suggestions they must have consented given their attraction to other men.

    Stigma if they do tell

    In many cases, boys and men who tried to tell others about their sexual trauma were met with stigmatising and unhelpful responses. Some were blamed, told they were making it up, or even mocked.

    Others were discouraged from speaking out about their experiences again. In some countries, people tell boys and men not to talk about being abused or assaulted because this is seen as bringing shame on themselves and their families.

    Boys and men who were assaulted by women were often told their experiences can’t be classified as abuse or assaults, or aren’t bad enough to warrant support.

    Understanding why men don’t talk

    Many of these barriers to disclosure are linked to harmful myths about sexual abuse and assaults among boys and men. These include mistaken beliefs that men are not abused or assaulted, and that only gay men are abused or assaulted.

    What’s more, many people believe experiencing sexual abuse or assaults is at odds with socially-held ideas about how men “should” behave: for example, constantly demonstrating physical strength, dominance, self-reliance and toughness.

    These strict ideas about what it means to be a man appear to prevent many boys and men from disclosing sexual trauma, and impact how others respond when they do disclose.

    It can also mean boys and men try to bury their difficulties after sexual trauma because they feel they’re expected to be unemotional and cope with their problems independently.

    If men don’t feel comfortable telling anyone about their experience, they can’t get help.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    What can we do better?

    We know having experienced sexual trauma is closely linked to significant mental health problems in boys and men. These include substance abuse and addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and even suicide.

    Receiving unsupportive and stigmatising responses when they try to seek help only makes these issues worse, and adds to cycles of silence and shame.

    We must break down barriers that stop boys and men disclosing these traumatic experiences. Doing so could save lives.

    Helping boys and men disclose sexual trauma isn’t just about encouraging them to come forward. We need to make sure other people are prepared to respond safely when they choose to speak up.

    There are many ways to raise awareness of the fact sexual abuse and assault happens to boys and men. For example, television shows such as Baby Reindeer helped put this issue at the forefront of conversation. Public health campaigns that explicitly bring boys and men into discussions about sexual trauma can also be helpful.

    We also need to do more to make sure boys and men who experience sexual trauma have suitable places to go for support. Australia has some services doing vital work in this space, such as the Survivors & Mates Support Network. However, more funding and support is crucial so men across the country have safe spaces to discuss and recover from their experiences.

    The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

    Vita Pilkington led this project and receives funding from the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Margaret Cohan Research Scholarship, both awarded by the University of Melbourne.

    Sarah Bendall has been awarded a NHMRC Investigator Grant to support research surrounding understanding and treating trauma in young people with mental health difficulties. She has previously held a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship and a McCusker Philanthropic Foundation Fellowship. She advises government on trauma and youth mental health policy, including Victoria’s statewide trauma service (Transforming Trauma Victoria).

    Zac Seidler receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

    – ref. ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-have-a-cultural-place-for-men-as-victims-why-men-often-dont-tell-anyone-about-sexual-abuse-252630

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Ellerton, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

    Siora Photography/Unsplash

    There is a Fox News headline that goes like this:

    Transgender female runner who beat 14,000 women at London Marathon offers to give medal back

    Read about the event elsewhere and it turns out the athlete was also beaten by thousands of people and it was a participation medal. While the Fox News headline is true, it is framed to potentially elicit a negative reaction.

    Misinformation is on the rise. We’re told we need to think critically when we read things online, but how can we recognise such situations? And what does it mean to think critically anyway?

    What is critical thinking?

    Critical thinking is based on the idea that if all ideas are equal, then all ideas are worthless. Without this assumption, there can be nothing to be critical of.

    When we think critically, we focus on the quality of our reasoning and the factors that can influence it. In other words, thinking critically primarily means being critical of your own thinking.

    Importantly, critical thinking is not strongly correlated with intelligence. While some believe intelligence is basically fixed (though there is debate around this), we can learn to think critically.

    Other factors being equal, there’s also no evidence thinking critically is an innate ability. In fact, we have evidence critical thinking can be improved as a skill in itself, and it is transferrable to other contexts.

    The tools of argumentation

    Many factors can affect the quality of your thinking. They include things like cognitive biases (systemic thinking errors), prior beliefs, prejudices and worldviews, framing effects, and how much you know about the subject.

    To understand the quality of our reasoning, we can use the concepts and language of argumentation.

    People often think “arguments” are about conflicting views. A better way to understand argumentation is to view it as a way of making our thinking visible and accessible to each other.

    Arguments contain premises, those things we think are true about the world, and conclusions, which is where we end up in our thinking. Moving from premises to conclusions is called inferring, and it is the quality of these inferences that is the concern of critical thinking.

    For example, if I offer the premises

    P1: All Gronks are green

    P2: Fred is a Gronk

    Then you have already inferred the conclusion

    C: Fred is green

    You don’t even need to know what a Gronk is to make that inference.

    All our rational judgements and decisions are made up of chains of inferences. Constructing, evaluating and identifying types of arguments is the core business of critical thinking.

    Argumentation is not about conflicting views – it’s making your thinking accessible.
    John Diez/Pexels

    How can we improve our critical thinking skills?

    To help us get better at it, we can understand critical thinking in three main ways.

    First, we can see critical thinking as a subject we can learn. In this subject, we study how arguments work and how our reasoning can be influenced or improved. We also learn what makes for good thinking by using ideas like accuracy, clarity, relevance, depth and more. These are what we value in good thinking. By learning this, we start to think about how we think, not just what we think about.

    Second, we improve our critical thinking by using what we’ve learned in real situations. This helps us build important thinking skills like analysing, justifying, evaluating and explaining.

    Third, we can also think of critical thinking as a habit or attitude – something we choose to practice in our everyday lives. This means being curious, open-minded and willing to question things instead of just accepting them. It also means being aware of our own biases and trying to be fair and honest in how we think.

    When we put all three of these together, we become better thinkers – not just in educational contexts, but in life.

    Practical steps to improving critical thinking

    Since critical thinking centres on the giving and taking of reasons, practising this is a step towards improvement. There are some useful ways to do this.

    1. Make reasoning – rather than conclusions – the basis of your discussions with others.

    When asking for someone’s opinion, inquire as to why they think that. And offer your thinking to others. Making our thinking visible leads to deep and meaningful conversations in which we can test each other’s thinking and develop the virtues of open-mindedness and curiosity.

    2. Always assess the credibility of information based on its source and with a reflection on your own biases.

    The processes of our thinking can shape information as we receive it, just as much as the source can in providing it. This develops the virtues of carefulness and humility.

    3. Keep the fundamental question of critical inquiry in mind.

    The most important question in critical thinking is: “how do we know?”. Continually testing the quality of your inquiry – and therefore thinking – is key. Focusing on this question gives us practice in applying the values of inquiry and develops virtues such as persistence and resilience.

    You are not alone!

    Reasoning is best understood as a social competence: we reason with and towards each other. Indeed, to be called reasonable is a social compliment.

    It’s only when we have to think with others that we really test the quality of our thinking. It’s easy to convince yourself about something, but when you play in the arena of public reasoning, the bar is much higher.

    So, be the reasonable person in the room.

    That doesn’t mean everyone has to come around to your way of thinking. But it does mean everyone will get closer to the truth because of you.

    Use online resources

    There are many accessible tools for developing critical thinking. Kialo (Esperanto for “reason”), brings together people from around the world on a user-friendly (and free) platform to help test our reasoning in a well-moderated and respectful environment. It is an excellent place to practice the giving and taking of reasons and to understand alternative positions.

    The School of Thought, developed to curate free critical thinking resources, includes many that are often used in educational contexts.

    There’s also a plethora of online courses that can guide development in critical thinking, from Australian and international universities.

    Peter Ellerton is affiliated with the Rationalist Society of Australia.

    – ref. Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills? – https://theconversation.com/critical-thinking-is-more-important-than-ever-how-can-i-improve-my-skills-252517

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Wrathall, Teaching Fellow, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato

    smolaw/Shutterstock

    The New Zealand government’s plan to purchase a standardised tool to assess reading, writing and mathematics for school children between Year 3 and 10 has caught parents, schools and education groups by surprise.

    The tool would essentially be a return to a form of national standards, a policy introduced in 2008 under John Key’s National government.

    Under this policy, children were compared against the level of achievement expected for their age and time at school. The goal was to improve results across the education system.

    The policy was ended by Labour in 2017 after there was little improvement in international testing results and several criticism from the sector. The National Standards in their Seventh Year survey of teachers and principals found just 16% of respondents said the standardised testing had a positive impact.

    The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.

    But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.

    In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students, but the ministry has now issued a tender for just one.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    A narrowing curriculum

    There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.

    Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.

    In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum. While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the government’s “Teaching the Basics Brilliantly” policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.

    Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.

    Focusing on assessment can also be detrimental to children’s belief that they could learn and their attitudes towards learning, particularly when they are labelled according to their level of achievement.

    Finally, while standardised tests might promise an “easy fix” to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.

    A lack of consultation

    This shift back towards a national testing standard is happening without any known consultation with the education sector. Instead, the plan to use one standardised assessment tool only became evident when the government tender was released.

    But the introduction of a standardised test also doesn’t fit with the government’s previous public statements on testing.

    In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students. These tools were selected specifically to prevent comparison across schools because they were so different from one another.

    At the time, Stanford said

    It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking.

    But according to documents released later the same year, the government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.

    Control from afar

    While the Ministry of Education says this new standardised assessment tool “will deliver a long-term solution to support all schools and kura”, there are reasons to be sceptical.

    Standardised assessment can be used by the government to control what teachers do in the classroom and provide data to reallocate resources to where they are most needed. This resource allocation strategy, however, can leave some schools without the funding and support they need.

    Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored. This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.

    Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.

    Marta Estellés has previously received funding from The Spencer Foundation, New Zealand National Commission of UNESCO, the Division of Education at The University of Waikato and The University of Cantabria.

    Jade Wrathall 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. National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test – https://theconversation.com/national-standards-by-stealth-why-the-governments-latest-plan-for-schools-might-fail-the-history-test-252917

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese government bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all

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

    Tax cuts are the centrepiece of the Albanese government’s cost-of-living budget bid for re-election in May. The surprise tax measures mean taxpayers will receive an extra tax cut of up to A$268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

    Delivering his fourth budget on Tuesday night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the tax relief as “modest”. It will cost the budget $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and just over $17 billion over the forward estimates.

    From July 1 2026 the 16% tax rate – which applies to taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000 – will be reduced to 15%. From July 1 2027, this will be further reduced to 14%.

    While cost of living is at the heart of the budget, apart from the tax changes, almost all the other measures have been announced. These include about $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare (mostly to boost bulk billing) and $150 per household to extend energy relief until the end of the year. The government has also previously announced measures on cheaper medicines and improved access to childcare.

    The opposition has so far refused to say what a Coalition government would do on tax. It will now be under pressure to quickly produce a counter tax policy for the election, which is likely to be called this weekend.

    Chalmers presented a cautiously optimistic picture on the economy, while stressing the uncertain international times ahead.

    “Our economy is turning the corner,” he said. “This budget is our plan for a new generation of prosperity in a new world of uncertainty.”

    “It’s a plan to help finish the fight against inflation [and] rebuild living standards.”



    Read more:
    A ‘modest’ tax bribe, delivered against dark clouds of Trump-induced uncertainty

    After delivering two budget surpluses, this budget has deficits for the foreseeable future.

    This financial year’s deficit is estimated at $27.6 billion, rising to $42.1 billion in 2025-26 (in the December 2024 update it was expected to be $46.9 billion). The cumulative deficits across the forward estimates reach $179.5 billion.

    The budget predicts 335,000 in net migration in 2024-25, which is a fall of 100,000 from the previous year. It projects 260,000 for 2025-26.

    Chalmers described the global economy as “volatile and unpredictable” with “storm clouds” gathering. “Trade disruptions are rising China’s growth is slowing, war is still raging in Europe and a ceasefire in the Middle East is breaking down,” he told parliament.

    “Treasury expects the global economy to grow 3.25% for the next three years, its slowest since the 1990s. It’s already forecasting the two biggest economies in the world will slow next year – with risks weighing more heavily on both,” he said.

    Chalmers said Australia was “neither uniquely impacted nor immune” from the international pressures. “But we are among the best placed to navigate them.”

    Australia’s economic growth is forecast to increase from 1.5% this financial year to 2.5% in 2026-27, with the private sector “resuming its rightful place as the main driver of this growth.”



    Read more:
    The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

    Unemployment is projected to peak at 4.25%, lower than previously anticipated. Employment and real wage growth will be stronger and inflation was coming down faster, Chalmers said.

    “Treasury now expects inflation to be sustainably back in the [2%-3%] target band six months earlier than anticipated,” he said. “The worst is now behind us and the economy is heading in the right direction.”

    Chalmers told his Tuesday afternoon conference the budget is a “story of Australian exceptionalism”.

    He called the tax cuts “top up tax cuts” that built on the recalibrated stage 3 tax cuts. He claimed the average household with two earners would save $15,000 over four years through a combination of all these tax cuts and energy bill relief.



    Read more:
    Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

    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 government bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-bids-for-votes-with-top-up-tax-cuts-for-all-253021

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

    Today’s budget is a cautious and responsible response to the cost-of-living pressures facing voters.

    As noted ahead of budget night, many of the major spending initiatives had already been announced.

    But, in the only major surprise, there are income tax cuts for all income taxpayers. Even if we need to be patient. The new tax cuts only start in July 2026, with a second round in July 2027.

    And as Treasurer Jim Chalmers himself said, they are “modest” cuts. A worker on average earnings will receive A$268 in the first year, rising to $536 in the second year.

    Combined with the government’s first round of tax cuts in last year’s budget, this will add up to $2,190 per year in 2027.

    The cost to the budget of the latest tax cuts in 2026-27 will be $3 billion, and over three years will be $17.1 billion. The cuts still need to pass parliament.

    But calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform have not been heeded. Major reforms inevitably create losers as well as winners. So, big changes were never likely just weeks before an election.

    And there is still bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) over the next decade. Total tax receipts are projected to rise from 25.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024-25 to 26.8% in 2035-36. This will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit.

    How concerned should we be about the budget moving into deficit?

    In the first back-to-back surpluses for almost 20 years, there were budget surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24. This year we are returning to deficit and further deficits are expected for about a decade. Should we be alarmed?

    A balanced or surplus budget is not necessarily a good budget. What we want is a budget appropriate to current economic conditions and sustainable in the long run.

    The Australian economy has only been growing modestly in recent years and is forecast to grow 1.5% in the current year. Inflation is near the target range in underlying terms. So, a modest deficit is not unreasonable.

    The longer run projections show a very gradual return to balance. But this assumes no recession and no further income tax cuts, for a decade. It might be better to rebuild the fiscal position more quickly so as to be better placed to provide fiscal stimulus in the event of a global recession or another pandemic.

    ‘A new world of uncertainty’

    As Chalmers said, we are in a “new world of uncertainty” with “the threat of a global trade war”. The volume of Australian exports is forecast to only expand by 2.5% in 2025-26 and 2026-27, but it could be lower.

    In February, the Reserve Bank forecast headline inflation would rebound above the 2% to 3% target range when the electricity rebates expired. The extension of the rebates in Tuesday’s budget as well as the reductions in the price of prescription medicines will help keep inflation below 3%. Headline inflation is forecast to improve to 2.5% in 2026-27.

    In the December 2024 budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4.5% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, the reduction to 4.25% seems plausible.

    What will it mean for interest rates?

    One reason the government went for a modest tax cut rather than a wild “cash splash” is it did not want to undermine the narrative there will be future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

    If households were given immediate cash to spend, this could drive up inflation.

    The Reserve Bank is unlikely to change interest rates at its April 1 meeting. But it would be very unhelpful for the government’s electoral prospects if the minutes showed the central bank had become more concerned about inflation and less likely to cut interest rates at future meetings.

    The Reserve Bank is unlikely to feel this budget contains enough government spending to boost economic activity in the near term and therefore change its view on the economic outlook.

    So, a further interest rate cut remains possible at the bank’s following meeting on May 20.

    And any further relief on interest rates would be welcomed by households – as well as whoever might be in government by then.

    John Hawkins was a formerly a senior economist at the Treasury and Reserve Bank.

    – ref. Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-cuts-are-coming-but-not-soon-in-a-cautious-budget-253027

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

    By the standards of pre-election budgets, this one is surprisingly modest. There are only a handful of new revenue and spending initiatives. The Budget Paper 2 book, which contains new measures, is a slim document.

    In part, this is because many of the most significant new spending proposals have been announced already – support for more bulk billing, the Future Made in Australia program, funding for schools and pre-schools and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

    It can be hard to discern the new initiatives from the old. For example, the budget commits the government to support wage growth by “funding wage increases for aged care workers and early childhood educators” and “advocating for increases to award wages”. It will also ban non-compete clauses (contract provisions that hinder workers from moving between employers) for low- and middle-income workers.

    These should in theory significantly shift wages upwards. Yet the economic forecast for the wage price index barely moves – from 4.1% in 2023-24 to 3% in 2024-25 and 3.25% in 2025-26. That is because the forecasts had already built in assumptions on the impact of things like aged care and childcare wage rises – they aren’t new.

    The non-compete reform is a new initiative and over the longer term has the potential to improve wages as people move jobs. More importantly, it will improve flexibility in the labour market and improve productivity.

    Overall, the deficits are forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

    Some more tax cuts on the way

    The one surprising element of the budget is tax cuts. In essence, they return some bracket creep to low- and middle-income earners for a couple of years, after which revenue estimates return to trend. Bracket creep refers to increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets.

    It is one of the reasons why governments have resisted calls to index the income tax brackets to inflation. Giving back bracket creep from time to time in the form of a tax cut, especially when an election looms, is more politically attractive.

    There were few savings initiatives. The main one was the old chestnut of more funding to the Australian Taxation Office for compliance.

    The Taxation Office receives an additional A$999 million over four years to combat tax avoidance including non-compliance, under reporting of income and illicit tobacco. This is expected to recoup $3.2 billion over five years, while increasing payments by $1.4 billion – some of the additional tax collected will go to GST payments to the states. So in net terms therefore this is also a modest saving.

    One thing to look for in every budget is the provision for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. This refers to money put aside in the budget for future announcements – such as election promises.

    It is not clear what the government might have planned. Revenue drops in 2025-26, but it climbs back up again in the following two years. Spending decisions include $323 million next year, which is relatively small change in the overall budget.

    For transparency, we should not have any undisclosed decisions but at least the ones in this budget are far from extravagant.

    Public service numbers

    On staffing in the public service, there has been a large increase since the government took office. There will be some 33,000 more public servants – the majority outside Canberra – in 2025-26 than in 2022-23. However, the rate of increase is slowing. Not all agencies have had staff increases in this budget.

    Nevertheless, the government has devoted ten pages to arguments for investing in the public service, and why the public service is a valuable resource. This is probably to emphasise one of the few points of difference between it and the opposition.

    The defence budget saw almost no change. The treasurer was asked in his budget lockup press conference why this was, given the uncertain geopolitical environment documented in the budget papers.

    Chalmers agreed “the world is a dangerous place right now” but pointed to increases in defence spending in previous budgets and argued these had positioned Australia to respond.

    One missing element of the budget is new spending to combat climate change. The threat of climate change to the budget estimates has grown significantly. This is acknowledged briefly with a half page in the budget’s “statement of risks” – “climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the budget”.

    However, that impact is not quantified – possibly because of “significant uncertainty”. Yes, there is uncertainty.

    But the same applies to other parts of the budget, including the international economy, which is discussed in much more depth. The climate change department is one of a handful that lose staff in this budget. It may take more severe disasters before it regains prominence in the budget papers.

    Stephen Bartos 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. The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-budget-has-few-savings-and-surprises-but-it-also-ignores-climate-change-253026

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation, The Conversation

    What’s the theme?

    Many budget measures are aimed at easing cost of living. The headline announcement is tax cuts: everyone will get one, but not until July 1 2026. Other major spends are on Medicare, medicines and energy bill rebates. If this seems familiar, it’s because the government has already announced most of these measures before budget day.

    Your tax cut calculator

    Key announcements:

    Read the full analysis from our experts:

    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. At a glance: the 2025 federal budget – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2025-federal-budget-252637

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

    A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.

    Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.

    Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.

    What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?

    From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.

    Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.

    In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.

    Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.

    At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.

    If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.

    More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.

    How are classified conversations usually conducted?

    During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.

    And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.

    Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.

    These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.

    In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.

    I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.

    If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.

    Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?

    The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.

    The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?

    The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.

    So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

    Jennifer Parker 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. Why is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-us-group-chat-on-houthi-attack-plans-so-concerning-a-military-operations-expert-explains-253029

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30%

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor in Conservation Science, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

    Hans Wismeijer/Shutterstock

    In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.

    Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.

    You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.

    We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.

    This cropped map shows Australia’s protected lands and waters as of 2022. Subantarctic islands are not included.
    Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, CC BY

    Buying land is only a fraction of the task

    For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.

    Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.

    On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.

    In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.

    The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.

    Feral pigs and other invasive species place pressure on many ecosystems.
    Russ Jenkins/Shutterstock

    Which lands actually need protection?

    As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.

    So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.

    These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.

    When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.

    Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.

    As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)

    This same story may well play out on land.

    What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.

    The oceans off Heard and McDonald Islands are now better protected – but was this the easy option? Pictured: Heard Island from satellite.
    zelvan/Shutterstock

    Saving here, clearing there

    On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.

    Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.

    Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.

    If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.

    James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

    – ref. A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30% – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-splash-to-conserve-30-of-australias-lands-will-save-species-if-we-choose-the-right-30-252918

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Technology has shaped human knowledge for centuries. Generative AI is set to transform it yet again

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Vivienne Bentley, Research Scientist, Responsible Innovation, Data61, CSIRO

    Cristóbal Ascencio & Archival Images of AI & AIxDESIGN/Better Images of AI, CC BY-SA

    Where would we be without knowledge? Everything from the building of spaceships to the development of new therapies has come about through the creation, sharing, and validation of knowledge. It is arguably our most valuable human commodity.

    From clay tablets to electronic tablets, technology has played an influential role in shaping human knowledge. Today we stand on the brink of the next knowledge revolution. It is one as big as — if not more so — the invention of the printing press, or the dawning of the digital age.

    Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a revolutionary new technology able to collect and summarise knowledge from across the internet at the click of a button. Its impact is already being felt from the classroom to the boardroom, the laboratory to the rainforest.

    Looking back to look forward, what do we expect generative AI to do to our knowledge practices? And can we foresee how this may change human knowledge, for better or worse?

    The power of the printing press

    While printing technology had a huge immediate impact, we are still coming to grips with the full scale of its effects on society. This impact was largely due to its ability to spread knowledge to millions of people.

    Of course, human knowledge existed before the printing press. Non-written forms of knowledge date back tens of thousands of years, and researchers are today demonstrating the advanced skills associated with verbal knowledge.

    In turn, scribal culture played an integral role in ancient civilisations. Serving as a means to preserve legal codes, religious doctrines, or literary texts, scribes were powerful people who traded hand-written commodities for kings and nobles.

    But it was the printing press – specifically the process of using movable type allowing for much cheaper and less labour-intensive book production – that democratised knowledge. This technology was invented in Germany around 1440 by goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg. Often described as the speaking of one-to-many, printing technology was able to provide affordable information to entire populations.

    This exponential increase in knowledge dissemination has been associated with huge societal shifts, from the European Renaissance to the rise of the middle classes.

    The printing press was invented in Germany around 1440.
    Daniel Chodowiecki/Wikipedia

    The revolutionary potential of the digital age

    The invention of the computer – and more importantly the connecting of multiple computers across the globe via the internet – saw the arrival of another knowledge revolution.

    Often described as a new reality of speaking many-to-many, the internet provided a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn.

    In the internet’s early days, USENET bulletin boards were digital chatrooms that allowed for unmediated crowd-sourced information exchange.

    As internet users increased, the need for content regulation and moderation also grew. However, the internet’s role as the world’s largest open-access library has remained.

    Computers set in motion another knowledge revolution, providing a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn at an unprecedented scale.
    Masini/Shutterstock

    The promise of generative AI

    Generative AI refers to deep-learning models capable of generating human-like outputs, including text, images, video and audio. Examples include ChatGPT, Dall-E and DeepSeek.

    Today, this new technology promises to function as our personal librarian, reducing our need to search for a book, let alone open its cover. Visiting physical libraries for information has been unnecessary for a while, but generative AI means we no longer need to even scroll through lists of electronic sources.

    Trained on hundreds of billions of human words, AI can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods. A user can pose any question to their AI assistant, and for the most part, will receive a competent answer. Generative AI can sometimes, however, “hallucinate”, meaning it will deliver unreliable or false information, instead of admitting it doesn’t know the answer.

    Generative AI can also personalise its outputs, providing renditions in whatever language and tone required. Marketed as the ultimate democratiser of knowledge, the adaptation of information to suit a person’s interests, pace, abilities, and style is extraordinary.

    But, as an increasingly prevalent arbitrator of our information needs, AI marks a new phase in the history of the relationship between knowledge and technology.

    It challenges the very concept of human knowledge: its authorship, ownership and veracity. It also risks forfeiting the one-to-many revolution that was the printing press and the many-to-many potential that is the internet. In so doing, is generative AI inadvertently reducing the voices of many to the banality of one?

    Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods.
    Ascannio/Shutterstock

    Using generative AI wisely

    Most knowledge is born of debate, contention, and challenge. It relies on diligence, reflexivity and application. The question of whether generative AI promotes these qualities is an open one, and evidence is so far mixed.

    Some studies show it improves creative thinking, but others do not. Yet others show that while it might be helping individuals, it is ultimately diminishing our collective potential. Most educators are concerned it will dampen critical thinking.

    More generally, research on “digital amnesia” tells us that we store less information in our heads today than we did previously due to our growing reliance on digital devices. And, relatedly, people and organisations are now increasingly dependent on digital technology.

    Using history as inspiration, more than 2,500 years ago the Greek philosopher Socrates said that true wisdom is knowing when we know nothing.

    If generative AI risks making us information rich but thinking poor (or individually knowledgeable but collectively ignorant), these words might be the one piece of knowledge we need right now.

    Sarah Vivienne Bentley 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. Technology has shaped human knowledge for centuries. Generative AI is set to transform it yet again – https://theconversation.com/technology-has-shaped-human-knowledge-for-centuries-generative-ai-is-set-to-transform-it-yet-again-252616

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irene Nikoloudakis, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

    Getty Images

    Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.

    So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.

    Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.

    Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.

    While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.

    But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.

    Who investigates wage theft?

    Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.

    It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.

    Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.

    The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.

    A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.

    But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:

    Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.

    Former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer’s experience of wage theft as a refugee inspired him to change the law.
    Getty Images

    How Australia does it

    On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.

    First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.

    Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.

    Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.

    A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.

    The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

    This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.

    Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge

    The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.

    The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.

    If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.

    Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.

    Irene Nikoloudakis 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. Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police – https://theconversation.com/wage-theft-is-now-a-criminal-offence-in-nz-investigating-it-shouldnt-be-left-to-the-police-252712

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in International Law, Curtin University

    Only five days after the arrest warrant against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was issued, he was apprehended and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    The prompt action – and the fact he is the first former Asian head of state before the ICC – have been heralded as “a pivotal moment for the court”.

    While this is a rare success story in the court’s tumultuous history, many challenges remain. The successful arrest of one defendant will unfortunately do little to change negative perceptions of the court or remove the many obstacles it faces in prosecuting cases.

    A long history of criticism

    The ICC was conceived as a “court of last resort” in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established it. The aim was to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression in cases where a state’s domestic courts refuse or are unable to do so.

    Shortly after it began its work in 2002, however, the ICC faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa.

    In more recent years, it has also been criticised for its limited effectiveness, its perceived hypocrisy, and a lack of support from major powers, such as the US, China and Russia, which are not members.

    The court has long faced a public relations crisis it may never be able to resolve. When it does not investigate a potential case, it is said to be ineffective. And when it does initiate investigations, it is often said to be biased or acting beyond its capabilities.

    Putin and Netanyahu

    Currently, the ICC has 12 ongoing investigations, mostly in Africa and Asia. It has issued 56 arrest warrants, half of which have yet to be executed.

    As the focus of the court is limited to those who bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, the cases frequently involve high-profile individuals.

    Current arrest warrants, for example, have been issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of allegedly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

    These two cases have been among the court’s most controversial. Critics say the ICC lacks jurisdiction because:

    • the alleged crimes did not occur in their own states
    • their states are not parties to the Rome Statute
    • the UN Security Council did not refer these cases to the ICC for investigation.

    Others have accused the court of selective prosecution and bias for pursuing a case against Netanyahu, specifically, instead of prioritising cases in states run by dictators, such as Syria.

    And some complain the court should be focusing on crimes allegedly committed by Western leaders in places like Iraq.

    Indicting leaders of states raises additional legal challenges. International law dictates that heads of state enjoy immunity in other states’ courts – unless this immunity is expressly waived by their own governments.

    The ICC defends its actions as fair. It argues it does have jurisdiction in the cases against Putin and Netanyahu because the alleged crimes took place in Ukraine and Palestine, two states who have explicitly accepted its jurisdiction.

    And Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over people with state immunity, although it’s debatable whether this must be first waived for leaders of states not party to the Rome Statute.

    Cooperation remains key

    The ICC is not only constrained by these complex legal questions, but also by the limited cooperation of states around the world.

    It relies on close cooperation with its 125 state parties, among others. But some states have been reluctant or even refused to cooperate with the court in executing the arrest warrants of controversial figures.

    For example, Putin was not arrested when he visited Mongolia, an ICC member, last year, in part, because Mongolia relies heavily on Russian energy. South Africa similarly refused to arrest Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir when he visited in 2015.

    Even when state parties do cooperate, the political fallout can impact the court’s reputation.

    Following Duterte’s arrest last week, a Filipino senator (the sister of the current president) launched an urgent investigation to ensure due process was followed and Duterte’s legal rights were upheld and protected. She acknowledged the arrest has “has deeply divided the nation”.

    The lack of support from the US – arguably, still the world’s most powerful democracy – remains a perennial problem, as well.

    While the US has generally supported the court’s mandate over the years, it has been wary of its jurisdiction over American citizens and those of its allies accused of crimes. Last month, President Donald Trump authorised new sanctions against ICC officials in an attempt to paralyse the international organisation.

    Although 79 states did declare their support for the ICC following the sanctions, the Trump adminstration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction, legitimacy and authority has had significant consequences for its operations.

    It remains to be seen how the case against Duterte will play out. Securing a conviction is not assured.

    However, his arrest demonstrates the court can fulfil its mandate and remain a relevant force in the fight against the gravest of crimes. It is also a significant moment for the families of those killed during Duterte’s rule, who have long sought justice for their loved ones.

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria 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. The ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix – https://theconversation.com/the-icc-showed-its-might-by-arresting-rodrigo-duterte-its-reputation-will-take-longer-to-fix-252509

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –