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

Australia’s second-largest private health insurer, Bupa, has recently started offering its members three free GP telehealth consultations a year. This follows other insurers such as nib offering its members digital GP consults, for things like prescriptions and medical certificates, for a fee.

But if you search the government’s Compare Policies website that helps people choose among different private health plans, you will find no plans that officially cover GP visits.

This is because it is currently illegal for insurers to cover the costs of out-of-hospital services that are also funded by Medicare, which includes GP and specialist visits.

Insurers may get around this by running their digital health platforms as a separate business, rather than as part of the private health plans that are heavily regulated by the government. Another strategy is to pay the overheads of clinics which then offer “free” consultations to members.

So why might private health insurers be moving into primary care? Why hasn’t it been allowed? And is it a risk to Medicare?

Keeping people out of hospital saves money

Better access to GP (primary) care can improve people’s health and reduce their chance of needing to be hospitalised, particularly for those with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and asthma.

Sometimes people use emergency room services for minor problems that can be solved by a GP.

So offering members free or low cost primary care that’s easy to access could result in lower downstream hospital costs and save insurers money in the long run.

There are also other reasons why private insurers want to cover primary care.

The first is the potential for “cherry-picking”. In Australia, private health insurance operates under a community rating system, where premiums are not based on a person’s health status or age.

This means insurers cannot exclude or charge higher rates for people at higher risk of needing surgery or other hospital-based treatment (excluding the Lifetime Health Cover loading, which applies if you first take out private health insurance after you turn 31).

However, insurance companies often have strategies to attract healthier members. They may offer free running shoes, for example, to appeal to keen runners, or age-based discounts for new members aged under 30.

The target audience for free or easily accessible GP telehealth services is likely to be working professionals who lack time, or younger people. These groups are generally healthier and less likely to be hospitalised each year.

Another reason insurers might want to cover primary care is to help retain members, who would feel they are receiving tangible benefits and a sense of value from their insurance plans.

When Medibank trialled offering free GP visits in 2014, members who benefited from this service reported being more likely to stick with the insurer.

Across the health system, the Australian government is expanding telehealth and multidisciplinary teams (for example, GPs, nurses, nutritionists, physiotherapists and specialists) to manage chronic diseases.

In response to these changes, insurance companies are preparing for the future of health-care delivery by expanding in digital health and creating large clinics where multidisciplinary teams co-locate. Offering free telehealth GP service is a small step toward this large strategic change.

Why haven’t insurers offered primary care in the past?

When Medicare was introduced in 1984, medical professionals objected to allowing private health funds to offer cover for the “gap” between the Medicare benefit (what the government pays the clinician) and the fee (what the clinician charges).

After lobbying from the Australian Medical Association, the Minister for Health at the time, Neal Blewett, concluded allowing insurers to cover the gap would simply increase the cost of the service, especially for those without insurance – with no benefit to patients.

Consequently, a prohibition on insurance for primary care was legislated.

Over time, whenever the question of allowing private insurers to cover primary care has come up, the main argument against it has been that it could create a two-tiered system. Under such a system, those without private insurance would have lower access to primary care.

About 45% of the population has private insurance. And with insurers footing the bill, it’s likely that GP consultation prices would rise.

Additionally, private funds would likely pay more than Medicare to incentivise GPs to participate. This would leave those without private health insurance at a disadvantage.

This situation is currently unfolding in the hospital sector. Surgeons earn significantly more for surgeries in private hospitals compared to public hospitals. This leads to them prioritising working in private hospitals.

As a result, patients with private health insurance can access elective procedures without delay. Meanwhile, those without private insurance face longer wait times.

Should the government allow private insurers to cover primary care?

Current evidence does not provide much support for the government supporting the private health insurance industry via subsidising individuals’ insurance premiums.

Our research found that despite the government spending billions of dollars subsidising private health insurance every year, the sector barely took any pressure off the public hospital system.

Currently, the ability for private insurers to offer primary care is constrained by legislation, and this should continue to be the case.

Allowing private health insurers to expand further into primary care would undermine the universality of Medicare. It risks creating a two-tiered primary health-care system, replicating the disparity we have already seen in hospital care.

Insurer-funded primary care would also involve large administrative costs, as seen in the health-care system of the United States, which largely relies on private funding and delivery.

However, the government should do other things to make primary care more affordable to save downstream hospital and emergency department costs. This includes:

• increasing Medicare rebates to make primary care free to the poor and children regardless where they live
• making primary care free to rural and remote areas
• making primary care cheaper to others.

The Australian government has the financial capability to make primary care more affordable and should prioritise implementing this. Even private insurance companies recognise its benefits. But the way to do this is not through private health insurance, which would make primary care both more unequal and more expensive.

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

Nathan Kettlewell 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. Private health insurers are now offering GP telehealth services. Is this a risk to Medicare? – https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurers-are-now-offering-gp-telehealth-services-is-this-a-risk-to-medicare-240716

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Kidson, Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership, Australian Catholic University

Schools are full of extremely useful and valuable facilities. These include playing fields, play equipment, sandpits, netball courts, concert halls, libraries and even pools.

But these are often closed to the public and can sit unused for hours, days and weeks, depending on the time of year. For example, in Victoria, about a third of government school grounds are not currently open to the public.

There is growing pressure for this to change, as more people live closer together and community facilities get squeezed.

In an October 2024 report, Infrastructure Victoria recommended the state government open more of its public school grounds after hours, to boost access to local recreation spaces for about half a million people.

Why don’t we do this already? And why don’t we open up private schools as well?

What happens at the moment?

There are already well-established processes to open government schools for public use.

For example, along with opening their grounds for informal use, many Victorian schools hire out school facilities. The emphasis is on educational, sporting or cultural activities for students, young people and the local community – such as a local theatre group putting on a play or an awards night for the local football team.

But as with other public parks and sporting facilities, these need regular maintenance to make sure they are in good working order. Some schools have expressed concerns about damage or antisocial behaviour when grounds are not supervised.

This means funding is required – either directly from schools’ already stretched budgets or via state governments’ already stretched budgets – to expand and maintain the use of public school facilities.

It’s not impossible to do, but governments must provide and allocate funds explicitly for this, rather than ask schools to yet again do more with less.

What about private schools?

Many private schools also already hire out their facilities for a wide range of activities, from weddings, to swimming squads, to accommodation for conferences.

But there is also pressure, particularly in New South Wales, for some private schools to open up their facilities and grounds when not in use by the school.

Former NSW state planning minister Rob Stokes is among those calling for private schools to share their spaces with local public students and the community. Stokes has argued because independent schools receive government funds “they’re public spaces”.

But a retrospective change of rules would likely spark opposition from private school parents who have already paid fees to build these facilities. As Independent Schools Australia has noted, parent contributions made up 87% of capital infrastructure costs in private schools as of 2022, with state governments only contributing 7%.

Beyond the question of who “owns” these spaces, the questions about maintenance remains. As debates about adequate funding for public schools continue, it would be both politically and financially courageous for any government to give independent schools more money.

Joint projects?

At the same time, we still have the underlying issue about a lack of local facilities for students and community members.

One place to start could be future joint projects. For example, a program could provide funding for independent schools to build new facilities on the proviso they are also accessible to the local community, perhaps at low or no cost.

This is similar to the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution, which built and upgraded school facilities.

What about acccidents?

But arguably the largest unanswered question is who is responsible when someone using these facilities is injured.

At the moment, when government and independent schools hire facilities to the public, there are hire agreements. This means those using them need to be adequately insured. Hire fees also help cover maintenance and cleaning costs.

If members of the public are using facilities without such agreements, it raises serious questions about duty of care and responsibility for things which happen on school grounds outside normal hours of operation.

The suggestion to open up more facilities – particularly those in private schools – has an attractive simplicity. But we need more detail and clarity about the legal and financial implications of how it could work.

Paul Kidson 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. School ovals and playgrounds are sitting unused. Why aren’t more open to the community? – https://theconversation.com/school-ovals-and-playgrounds-are-sitting-unused-why-arent-more-open-to-the-community-242591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Dunn, Politics + Society Editor

Hit refresh to get the latest updates

📍 Pinned Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor

Welcome to our live blog of the US election, where we will be posting the latest news, results and snap analysis from some of our top academic experts, as well as the politics editors at The Conversation, throughout what will no doubt be a long, drama-filled day. (Perhaps a couple days…)

Here’s what to expect: the results will start coming in after 10am AEDT when the first polls close. Then, there will be a deluge of results every hour after that. We will wait for The Associated Press to call individual states. And we’ll update our interactive map and our Electoral College vote count tracker as the day goes on. Remember: it’s 270 electoral votes to win.

Before the results come in, here are a couple of early reads: Emma Shortis on whether America is ready to elect a woman and John Hart with a short history of the Electoral College.

⏺ 6.30am Emma Shortis

It was too perfect – when I got in the Uber that was taking me to the Harris rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday, Taylor Swift was playing on the radio.

Cos I’ve got a blank space baby, and I’ll write your name

There were so many women at the rally. They absolutely adored Kamala Harris, and saved their biggest cheers for her lines on reproductive freedom. If Harris wins, it will surely be via women’s turnout – the Black women who were there in huge numbers, alongside the suburban white women who could have been mistaken for Elizabeth Warren’s sister.

That’s why I’ll be watching the exit polls for the swing states of Georgia and North Carolina so closely on election day – both states with draconian abortion bans. Women’s turnout in those states will give us a very good idea of what’s to come.

The day before I went to Charlotte, I did a tour of the Capitol building in Washington, DC. As the guide pointed out to us – the Statue of Freedom that sits atop the Capitol dome is a woman.

– ref. US election live blog – https://theconversation.com/us-election-live-blog-242592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pep Canadell, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Environment; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

Among the most rapidly changing parts of our planet are the coldest landscapes near the top of the globe, just south of the Arctic. This region is warming two to four times faster than the global average.

The frozen ground beneath these “boreal” forests and treeless plains or “tundra” is thawing, fast. That’s a problem because the permafrost holds enormous amounts of vulnerable carbon, more than twice as much carbon as is already present in the atmosphere. Some of that carbon is now on the move.

We wanted to find out just how much carbon and nitrogen is being released from the northern permafrost region. The environment can be a source of greenhouse gases, or a “sink” – effectively soaking up carbon and removing it from the atmosphere. So we had to determine and balance the budget.

As part of the Global Carbon Project, we have now published the first full greenhouse gas budget tallying sources and sinks for the northern permafrost region. It contains a mixed bag of good and not-so-good news for the climate.

What is permafrost, and why should we be concerned?

Permafrost is ground that stays frozen. It may contain soil, peat, rocks and ice. Often, remnants of ancient plants and animals such as the now extinct woolly mamooth can also be seen.

In such cold conditions, plants mainly grow during summer. New leaf litter and dead plants are then quickly frozen and permanently stored for thousands of years. This has led to the buildup of a phenomenal store of carbon: more than a trillion tonnes. For comparison, all tropical forests and soils store less than half that amount.

While the top “active” layer of soil may thaw naturally in the warmer months, the lower layers typically stay frozen. But now that human-induced climate change is making soils warmer, the thawed season is growing longer and the permanently frozen carbon is thawing too.

In thawed soil, microbes get to work decomposing dead plants and other decaying organic matter. When this process happens in the presence of oxygen, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is released. In the absence of oxygen (such as in lakes and water-saturated soils), methane (CH₄) is released.

Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂ as it holds more heat in the atmosphere, so it is of particular concern. Unfortunately, the melting of ice in permafrost is making more of the land wet with low oxygen levels, so more methane is being released.

The soil organic matter being decomposed also contains nitrogen, causing emissions of nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas.

The process of warming leading to more greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn leads to more warming and again to more greenhouse gas emissions, is known as a “positive” carbon-climate feedback loop. It’s important to avoid these positive or self-reinforcing processes to limit global warming.

The other type of feedback loop is a “negative” carbon-climate feedback, even though it’s actually a good thing. It’s negative because it reduces the total amount of emissions remaining in the atmosphere.

In this study, we found evidence for a negative carbon-climate feedback, one that reduces the total emissions staying in the atmosphere. Longer growing seasons (due to global warming), the increase in available nitrogen in soils, and higher CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, all help plants to grow for longer and accumulate more carbon.

What did we do?

A team of scientists from 35 research institutions compiled and assessed all available observations and modelling of greenhouse gas emissions on land, in freshwater, and in the atmosphere. With this information we developed a combined greenhouse gas budget for CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide for the period 2000–20.

The effort was part of a global assessment of all regions and oceans.

Carbon on the move

We found permafrost was a small to medium CO₂ sink, storing between 29 million and 500 million tonnes of carbon a year.

The boreal forests of Canada and Russia, among other smaller regions, were largely responsible for soaking up the CO₂ during the study period from 2000–20, when there was increased plant growth and longer growing seasons. But at the same time, lakes, rivers and wildfires were a source of CO₂.

The region was also a source of methane and nitrous oxide – the second and third most important greenhouse gases globally after CO₂.

Although methane emissions were already occurring before human-induced warming, a number of sources have increased over time. We found wetlands were the largest source of methane and as the icy ground melts, more of the landscape is becoming saturated with water.

The largest sources of nitrous oxide emissions, though relatively small per unit area, came from the dry tundra and boreal forests.

Calculated over 100 years, the combined contribution to global warming of all three greenhouse gasses is close to neutral. That means the CO₂ sink leads to cooling that offsets the warming from methane and nitrous oxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses the 100 year-time frame to compare all greenhouse gases during the 21st century.

But over a 20-year time scale, current greenhouse gas emissions are a net source of warming. The strong warming potential of methane emissions is what influences temperatures in the short term.

What does the future hold?

It’s not yet clear how greenhouse gas emissions of the permafrost region will change in the future. But we do know methane emissions are already growing in many regions and this trend is likely to continue.

Earth system models used by the IPCC suggest it could be possible to maintain the CO₂ sink through the 21st century under various emission scenarios. But these models are largely ignoring local permafrost collapse (as opposed to slow thawing) and extreme wildfires, which are both capable of rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Wildfires in the permafrost regions are a growing concern. Our budget’s final year was 2020, so we missed the unprecedented wildfires of 2021 in Siberia and 2023 in Canada. Wildfire emissions from each of these two events amounted to about half a billion tonnes of carbon, enough to cancel out and even switch the CO₂ sink to a net source.

The only way to keep permafrost carbon in the ground is to quickly reduce and ultimately eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Failing to do so is likely to give global warming a helping hand – as warming thaws permafrost and releases more carbon and nitrogen from ancient stores, creating a continuous feedback loop.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environment Science Program – Climate Systems Hub.

Gustaf Hugelius has received funding form the European Union Horizon Europe program, the Swedish Research Council and the Schmidt Futures foundation.

– ref. The frozen carbon of the northern permafrost is on the move – we estimated by how much – https://theconversation.com/the-frozen-carbon-of-the-northern-permafrost-is-on-the-move-we-estimated-by-how-much-242704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

As Americans vote in one of the most important presidential elections in generations, the country teeters on a knife edge. In the battleground states that will likely decide the result, the polling margins between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump are razor thin.

These tiny margins, and the general confusion around American politics today, make it impossible to predict the outcome.

The polls might well be wrong: the electorate may have shifted dramatically since 2020 in ways that will only reveal themselves after the election. The reality is we do not know much of anything for sure, and we may never be able to untangle all of the threads that make up the knot of American politics.

After two assassination attempts on Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden’s dramatic decision to leave the race in August, it is entirely possible this election will throw up more big surprises. But as things stand, there are three broad possibilities for what will happen on Election Day.

All of them throw up their own challenges – for the United States, and for the world.

Possibility 1: the return of Trump

Trump may make history and win back the White House. Only Grover Cleveland has managed to get elected a second time as president (in 1892) after suffering a defeat four years earlier.

If Trump does win, it could be via a similar path to the one he took in 2016 – by once again sundering the “blue wall” and winning the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

This feat will likely mean his campaign tactic of mobilising men has worked.

A Trump victory would represent the culmination of a generational project of the American right. A second Trump administration would be very different from the first – the movement behind Trump is more organised, focused and cognisant of the mistakes of the first Trump White House. It would also face considerably weakened democratic guardrails.

The implementation of Trump’s radical agenda, alongside some or all of the broader far-right agenda detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, would radically reshape American life and create political and economic chaos.

The rest of the world would have to reorient itself, once again, around Trump.

Possibility 2: Harris makes history

It is entirely possible Harris makes history – not only by beating Trump, but by becoming the first woman and woman of colour to win the US presidency.

Like Trump, if Harris does win, it will likely be through one or more of the battleground states – in particular, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

For Harris, victory will likely come via high turnout by women and voters of colour, particularly African-Americans, or through a combination of turnout by this core Democratic base and swing voters in key states like Pennsylvania.

How Harris wins – and by how much – will be crucial, both to the immediate aftermath of the election and to the shape of a future Harris administration.

A big question: can she win by enough to head off resistance by Trump and the movement behind him? As Australian writer Don Watson has noted, a Harris victory would likely be taken as an existential defeat by the MAGA movement.

How Trump’s supporters react to such a defeat – and how US institutions react to their reaction – will be a critical test for American democracy.

Possibility 3: too close to call

This brings us to the third possibility: the polls are correct, and it’s such a tight race that the margins in the battleground states are in the thousands of votes, or even less.

If it is that close, counting could take days. And there could be recounts after that.

While conspiracies abound, a delay in the result like this would be an entirely predictable and normal outcome. In the United States, there isn’t one system for counting the votes; elections are run by the states on a county-by-county basis, and each state does it differently.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example, legally can’t start counting mail-in votes until the polls open on Election Day.

Then there is the supposed “blue shift” or “red mirage” that sometimes occurs on election night.

There are now many ways to vote in the US – in person on Election Day, early voting before Election Day or by mail-in ballot. And the time it takes to count these different ballots can vary. So, it may appear as if one candidate is winning early in the night (say, when in-person votes are counted) only for their opponent to slowly turn the tide (when mail-in ballots are counted).

In the 2020 election, this meant early Trump (“red”) leads were gradually lost to the Biden (“blue”) votes. Researchers found that counties won by Biden counted more slowly, on average, than those won by Trump – hence the so-called “blue shift”.

This is an entirely normal – and legal – phenomenon. In Nevada, for instance, state law permits mail-in ballots to be counted four days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.

Trump and his surrogates like Steve Bannon, however, have exploited the differing times it takes to count votes to peddle baseless conspiracy theories, undermining Americans’ faith in their own democracy, and to incite unrest.

By baselessly declaring victory in 2020 on the early “red mirage” tallies in key states before all the votes were counted, Trump was able to create what Bannon described as a “firestorm” – one that eventually led to the insurrection of January 6 2021.

This could very well happen again. Bannon, in fact, has just been released from prison after serving four months for contempt of Congress, and could once again be a driving force in any post-election challenges by the Trump campaign.

Trump, meanwhile, lied again this week when he said “these elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock on Tuesday night” – laying the groundwork for further election conspiracies.

Delays are normal – but fraught

Trump has made it very clear he will not accept another election loss. If he does lose, he or his surrogates will attempt to weaponise similar conspiracy theories again. They may also use legal challenges to vote counts as they did in 2020 – both to contest the result and to once again mobilise the MAGA movement.

In the event of close margins, it’s also possible some states will go to a recount.

There are different rules for this in different states. To take one example, if the margin is within 0.5% in Georgia, a candidate can request a recount.

In the 2020 presidential election, Biden narrowly defeated Trump in Georgia by 0.25%, which triggered a full hand recount of the votes. The Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the state more than two weeks after Election Day. A second recount was later reconfirmed by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Again, this is a normal part of the process. It ensures all votes are counted accurately and the result reflects the democratic will of the American people as best as the (admittedly, deeply flawed) system allows.

Such a delay, legitimate as it would be, would elevate the already very real risk of further political violence and instability in the United States.

None of these outcomes is inevitable. 2024 is not 2020; nor is it 2016. What happens next in America depends on the movement and interplay of so many tangled threads, it is impossible to see where old ones end and new ones might begin.

In all of this, only one thing is certain. Whatever the result – and however long it takes to come through – the divisions and conspiracy theories that have destabilised American politics for so long will not be easily or quickly resolved. That knot may well prove impossible to untangle.

Emma Shortis is Director of the International and Security Affairs program at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. What to expect on Election Day: history could be made, or we’re in for a long wait (and plenty of conspiracies) – https://theconversation.com/what-to-expect-on-election-day-history-could-be-made-or-were-in-for-a-long-wait-and-plenty-of-conspiracies-242598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne

Australians today are more likely than previous generations to live with complex and chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and depression.

This means they’re more likely to need health care from a variety of different providers, such as nurses, podiatrists, psychologists and physiotherapists, as well as GPs. This is known as “multidisciplinary care”. It works best when the skills of all these professions are available to the patient in a co-ordinated way.

But the roles of health professions, and the way they’re funded, have been frozen in legislation and policy for decades. Any change has been incremental and disjointed. It has mostly involved adding more items to the Medicare schedule, with each professional practising separately.

The result has been greater inequity of access. Because fewer than half of allied health fee-for-service visits are bulk-billed, most patients pay almost A$70 for each consultation – and sometimes much more. Those who can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs and can’t find a bulk-billing practitioner miss out.

To assess how the government can remove barriers to team-based care and get health professions working to their full potential, or their full “scope of practice”, last year the government commissioned an independent review.

The final report, released yesterday, sets a new path for the primary care workforce. This could make multidisciplinary care within reach of all Australians.

Using health-care workers’ full potential

The review involved extensive consultation, including on two issues papers. The report itself incorporates feedback from the consultations, including sceptical comments, reflecting a divergence of opinions.

Reflected the report’s title, Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce, its main emphasis is to change the rules and regulations imposed by state and federal governments. These stymie health professionals and limit their ability to use their full skills and knowledge to manage their patients’ care.

Over recent decades, health professionals’ education has improved. So professionals are capable of doing more than previously. Yet the rules and regulations have not advanced and so inhibit professionals from making those skills and knowledge available.

The review argues this contributes to career dissatisfaction, and to people leaving various health professions, exacerbating workforce shortages.

The review proposes a new way of documenting and describing what can be done by a profession through what it calls a National Skills and Capability Framework and Matrix.

As with many other recommendations, the review points to where this is done already internationally and how it can nestle into other policies and frameworks to aid implementation.

To the disappointment of most allied health professions, the review does not recommend more Medicare payments for them to practise independently.

Rather, the review recommends payment to general practices for them to expand multi-disciplinary teams. This would see professionals working together, rather than in competition or isolation.

The review also recommends changing the rules about referrals by health professionals, allowing qualified health professionals to refer directly to non-GP medical specialists in similar areas. This means your psychologist could refer you directly to a psychiatrist if needed, or your physiotherapist could refer you directly to an orthopaedic surgeon rather than needing to go back to your GP.

This will weaken the role of the GP as a “gatekeeper” and also potentially undermine the more holistic care that GPs provide. But from a patient’s point of view, eliminating the intermediate step saves them out-of-pocket costs.

An important recommendation recognises that the health system evolves and rules and regulations need to evolve too. It therefore supplements its recommendations for changes now, with an approach for continuous review through an independent mechanism. This would provide evidence-based advice and recommendations about:

• significant workforce innovation
• emerging health care roles
• workforce models that involve significant change to scope.

When will we see change?

The review sets out a loose timeline for implementation, described as short, medium and long term. And it assigns responsibility for each element of its recommendations to appropriate bodies and governments.

As almost all the recommendations require legislative change, and many require agreement between the Commonwealth and the states, it’s unlikely any of the changes will take effect this financial year.

The review recommends change be implemented in a systematic, evidence-based and safe way. Implementation would start in areas of greatest need such as in rural and remote Australia and also in practices most ready for the change, such as Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisations or Victoria’s Community Health Centres.

In releasing what he referred to as a “landmark” report, Health Minister Mark Butler noted the complexity of implementation, which would require collaborative action with states and territories. He noted the need for further consultation, but nevertheless took a supportive tone.

Can this review prompt real health reform?

Overall, the review charts a middle course between letting health professionals roam free and the tight and inappropriate rules and regulations which constrain patient care today. It also sets out the practical steps to achieve its goals.

The one downside of the report is the emphasis on harmonisation of state and territory approaches. This would replace the current approach, where each state and territory decides, for example, on what vaccines can be administered by which professionals and what pharmacists can dispense without a medical practitioner’s prescription.

One of the benefits of a federation is the potential for state- and territory-based innovation and cross-border learning. Harmonisation will limit that experimenting, and may lead to more of the stasis seen in health workforce policy in the past.

Stephen Duckett was consulted by the Independent Reviewer during the course of the Review and commented on the Review’s Issues Papers and Draft Final Report

– ref. Primary care involves more than GPs. A new review shows how patients can better access care – https://theconversation.com/primary-care-involves-more-than-gps-a-new-review-shows-how-patients-can-better-access-care-242698

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger Dargaville, Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University

Both major parties in Australia see a significant role for gas as the world shifts to clean energy in a bid to avert dangerous climate change.

The Albanese government says new sources of gas are needed to meet demand during the energy transition. And the Coalition, if elected, would expand gas use as it prepares for nuclear power.

Of course, some people argue that the grave threat of climate change means we should not burn any gas. Others say the strong growth in renewable energy generation and storage means Australia won’t need gas into the future.

So who is right? As I explain below, renewable energy is a huge part of the solution but doesn’t solve every problem. So keeping some gas-fired generators in the electricity mix, and using them only when necessary, is a sensible compromise.

Getting to grips with gas

There are almost 40 large natural gas-fired generators in Australia, and they are an important part of the National Electricity Market.

According to Open Electricity — a platform for tracking Australia’s electricity transition – the gas facilities generate around 4% of the electricity we consume and comprise about 17% of overall generation capacity.

The data also shows gas plants in Australia run at just 9% of their overall capacity, meaning they are idle much of the time. Some gas plants get used quite a lot, others only rarely. But when the plants are called on – during times of peak electricity use – their services are vital.

Overnight, our demand for electricity dips. But when we wake in the morning and start toasting bread and boiling kettles and the like, electricity demand picks up.

Demand eases off in the middle of the day as the sun rises high in the sky and Australia’s booming rooftop solar reaches its peak electricity output. But when the sun sets and rooftop solar is no longer producing, electricity use peaks. This early-evening demand creates a big challenge to the system.

That’s why we need technologies that can produce electricity at any time of day or night – and do it quickly. That’s where gas-fired generation – and other “dispatchable” forms of electricity – come in.

How do gas fired generators work?

Gas generators come in two main types.

An “open cycle generator”, also known as a Brayton cycle turbine, is essentially a jet engine. It combusts gas in a chamber to create enormous pressure that spins large fans. This drives a shaft that spins in the generator to produce electricity.

This technology is relatively cheap to build and can start up very quickly – but it’s also quite inefficient to operate. It uses a lot of expensive fuel, and creates a lot of waste heat.

The second type is known as a “combined cycle generator”. It also uses a Brayton cycle gas turbine. But it captures exhaust heat from the turbine and uses it to create steam, which in turn powers a second turbine (known as a Rankine cycle). This significantly increases the amount of electricity produced for the same amount of gas burned.

So while this technology is relatively efficient, it’s also more expensive to build and takes longer to ramp up and down.

Other types of gas generators exist, but they’re a relatively small part of Australia’s fleet.

Gas is not the only option

Gas plants are not the only facilities capable of firming up Australia’s electricity grid as the share of renewables increases.

Hydro power can also quickly ramp up to meet the evening peak. However the potential for building new conventional hydro in Australia is very limited due to the lack of large river systems and the significant environmental impact on rivers and surrounding areas.

Coal-fired generators have potential to ramp up production, but are generally not designed to do this every evening. Plus, Australia’s fleet of old coal plants is on a fast path to retirement.

To maintain the delicate balance of supply and demand, more will be required of gas and hydro, to produce electricity, and batteries and pumped hydro, to store it.

Pumped hydro works by using excess renewable energy to pump water up a hill. When electricity demand is high, the water is released and passes through a turbine, producing power.

The potential for pumped hydro energy storage in Australia is large, and some projects are likely to be economically viable. But the projects can face challenges, as demonstrated by delays and cost blowouts facing Snowy 2.0 in New South Wales.

Large-scale lithium-ion batteries are relatively easy to install. Many projects have been built or are in the pipeline. But batteries are not great for long-duration energy storage.

All this means gas-fired power generation is likely to have a future in Australia in coming decades.

The downsides of gas

Methane is the main component of natural gas. It’s also a potent contributor to global warming.

During natural gas production and transport, gas leaks inevitably occur. This is a problem for climate change.

So too is the carbon dioxide produced when the gas is burned to produce electricity.

To tackle climate change, we must dramatically reduce the amount of gas we use in our electricity system. Gas use should also be eliminated for heating and cooking in our homes and, where possible, in industry.

So where does that leave us?

Unfortunately, no perfect solution exists to Australia’s electricity supply-demand conundrum.

The most likely, most economic and most environmentally acceptable approach is to use a “portfolio” of technologies: lots of batteries and pumped hydro but also some gas.

Because to keep the system stable and reliable, we need some capacity that will mostly sit idle, getting used on only a few occasions. For that reason, the technologies should be relatively cheap to build and able to run for extended periods when wind and solar generation are abnormally low.

Gas-fired power – especially open cycle generators – meets that requirement. Pumped hydro and batteries do not.

The gas plants we keep in the grid will not often be used, and so will produce relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide.

Nuanced questions remain. What will it cost to keep a gas network operating to serve a fleet of gas generators that run only for a few days a year? Gas pipelines have to be kept pressurised, and the cost of running a gas extraction network for small demand may also be uneconomical.

Non-fossil options such as biogas, hydrogen or synthetically produced methane are possible longer term options. But they are also expensive. And new technologies – such as flow batteries, thermal energy storage and cryogenic energy storage – are on the horizon.

So, keeping some gas-fired generators on standby, and using them sparingly as needed, is a reasonable approach. It allows us to reduce emissions as much as possible, and keep our electricity system secure and affordable.

Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Woodside-Monash Energy Partnership, RACE for 2030 CRC, and he consults for industry and government bodies.

– ref. Yes, burning gas is bad for the climate. But keeping it in Australia’s energy mix is sensible – https://theconversation.com/yes-burning-gas-is-bad-for-the-climate-but-keeping-it-in-australias-energy-mix-is-sensible-241689

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

Crossbench independents Allegra Spender, Helen Haines and Kate Chaney have declared they are pulling out of the elite lounges run by Qantas and Virgin, amid the ongoing spotlight on privileges politicians receive from the airlines.

Allegra Spender, the member for the Sydney seat of Wentworth, also said she’d write to ask Qantas and Virgin not to give free upgrades to parliamentarians. It was “time to end the upgrades”.

She said all sides of politics enjoyed the perks, and both major parties had blocked greater competition from Qatar Airways.

Airlines operated under government policy and ministerial decisions, she said. “The public is understandably losing trust in politicians to make those decisions impartially when they’re being given free upgrades from the companies they’re supposed to regulate.”

Spender urged a review of the ministerial code of conduct. Tighter rules were needed about what politicians could accept. The code should also be extended to shadow ministers. There should as well be much more transparency over the diaries of ministers, she said.

“This is the only way to deal with the perception – and potential reality – of decisions being influenced by perks.”

But Labor MP Luke Gosling, from the Darwin seat of Solomon, accused her of grandstanding. “It’s a bit rich from the people with harbour views who either drive or have less than a one-hour flight,” he told the ABC.

Haines, from the Victorian regional seat of Indi, said she was quitting the lounges because she wanted “to remove any possibility of an actual or perceived conflict of interest” in her work as an MP.

“The reality that airlines offer these kinds of perks because ultimately they want to get something in return does not sit well with me and I want to continue to contribute to creating a culture of transparency and accountability through my actions as well as my words.”

Haines said she wanted “to see more rigorous rules around MP disclosures of upgrades and I think a ban on soliciting free flight upgrades is more than reasonable”.

Chaney, who holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, said with the media attention on the issue “we need to do everything we can to rebuild trust in politicians making decisions in the public interest”.

Another crossbencher, Monique Ryan, from the Melbourne seat of Kooyong, who dropped her Qantas chairman’s lounge membership last year on integrity grounds, said she welcomed the discussion about the impact of corporate largesse on MPs’ decision-making.

“I am deeply concerned about lobbying and its potential to impact government decision making. Free upgrades and airline hospitality are lobbying practices that we have taken for granted for a long time, and it is important that we re-examine them — especially given public concerns about conflicts of interest.”

Meanwhile there is no indication of when opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie, who was leading the charge against the prime minister over his upgrades, will produce a list of her own. She has said she has written to three airlines to check what upgrades she has had.

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. Crossbenchers cancel their membership of airlines’ elite lounges – https://theconversation.com/crossbenchers-cancel-their-membership-of-airlines-elite-lounges-242782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

Large companies paid the Australian government a record A$100 billion in tax in the last year, a 17% increase on the previous year. But, over the same period, there were still 31% of large companies, operating here but not paying any tax.

The Australian Taxation Office’s annual corporate tax transparency report released last week includes data on nearly 4,000 of Australia’s largest corporations.

In its tenth year, the report is lauded by the government and ATO as a way to increase corporate accountability and reduce tax avoidance. But there is no detail on the tax practices of multinational entities, including how they interact with their offices around the world.

In particular, there is little information about how 1,200 companies paid no tax.

What the report tells us

The transparency report provides data on corporations with income of $100 million or more and businesses which pay the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT). This includes Australian public and foreign-owned corporate tax entities, as well as Australian-owned resident private companies.

The report details the total income, taxable income, tax payable, and PRRT payable for all entities that meet the reporting threshold. Taxable income is simply assessable income minus deductions. Tax payable as a percentage of taxable income, can then be used to calculate an effective tax rate. The statutory corporate tax rate is 30%.

A variation between an effective tax rate and the statutory tax rate is not evidence of tax avoidance. However, questions need to be asked about how profitable companies reduce their tax liability to zero.

Zero liability can be achieved by deducting offsets and credits. For example, companies that conduct significant research and development are given tax breaks which reduce the amount of tax payable.

Where a company has accounting losses or a tax loss because it has incurred more expenses than income, tax will be zero. These are legitimate reasons for paying no tax.

But the limited information provided simply tells us how profitable a company is, the amount of tax deductions claimed against that profit, and the tax payable.

What the report doesn’t tell us

The transparency report reveals little about tax practices of multinational entities.

The question remains what deductions are being claimed by corporations and tax entities. The ATO has this information but can only publish what the law allows them, which is limited.

For multinationals, deductions will include dealings with overseas parts of the global entity, such as subsidiaries or the parent entity. These transactions create legitimate tax deductions.

Common transactions include payments to overseas subsidiaries for services, royalty payments for intellectual property, and interest on overseas borrowings.

In the case of petrol company Chevron, money was borrowed in the United States at around 1.2% and on lent to a related Australian entity at 9%.

After a long court battle, about 5% of interest was allowed as a deduction, an amount significantly above the original interest rate. This gave Chevron in Australia a large tax deduction.

It is through these types of transactions profits earned in Australia are shifted overseas. Current tax law allows this but requires the transaction, known as the transfer price, to be at arm’s length – that is, the price is agreed to between independent parties entering the same transaction.

What is transfer pricing?

Multinationals are global by nature and therefore logically maximise worldwide profits. Tax systems do not operate in the same way.

Tax comes under domestic law which means transactions between parts of a global entity are recognised for tax purposes.

If goods or services are sold by one part of the entity to another, an internal transaction occurs. For tax purposes the transaction is recognised as a deduction in one location and income in another. An Australian entity would pay a foreign party for things like marketing, and get a deduction for the expense.

In recent years the ATO has settled marketing disputes with large multinationals including Google, BHP, Apple, Rio Tinto, ResMed and Microsoft.

Where a deduction is allowed in a high tax jurisdiction, such as Australia, and income is included in the profits of a low tax jurisdiction, such as Singapore, the result is larger overall global profits.

The tax system recognises the incentive for multinational entities to shift profits this way and requires transactions to be at a commercial or negotiated price. Determining the price however can be fraught and has led to numerous court cases and tax disputes.

The tax transparency report reveals nothing about these types of transactions.

Taxing multinationals in Australia

In the last decade there have been moves to tax income in the location of the economic activity. The OECD has tried to stop profit shifting by companies, which erodes the tax base of high taxing jurisdictions, through its tax reform agenda.

Further complicating the issue of transfer pricing is the question of whether there is any real activity in the countries where different parts of a multinational are located.

Singapore is recognised for what are known as service hubs. These are places where various services such as sales negotiations are conducted and marketing occurs. Singapore also happens to have a headline corporate tax rate of 17%. This is often reduced to single digits after deals are entered into between taxpayers and the Singapore revenue authority.

Intellectual property poses similar problems.

These are increasingly valuable assets for multinational entities as they provide a unique edge in the market. We only need to think of Apple, Microsoft and Google to understand how valuable names, logos and designs are.

By its very nature intellectual property has no physical location and can be owned anywhere in the world. Often, intellectual property is held in low or no tax countries.

The transparency report includes no details about how much is transferred to these locations. This is where Australia’s proposed public country-by-country reporting may assist.

Is the ATO’s corporate tax transparency report worthwhile?

Australia should continue to strive to be a leader in corporate tax transparency.

A two-step approach is required to eliminate corporate tax avoidance. Information is valuable and public transparency measures are an important first step.

A second step, however, is to reform substantive tax laws to tax profits where they are genuinely being generated.

Kerrie Sadiq is the recipient of a four year Australian Research Council Future Fellowship Grant.

– ref. 31% of companies are not paying tax in Australia. How do they do it? – https://theconversation.com/31-of-companies-are-not-paying-tax-in-australia-how-do-they-do-it-242695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hafsa Ahmed, Senior lecturer, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln University, New Zealand

The Asian markets have long been seen as a linchpin for New Zealand’s economic success. And the key to future growth could be the cultural similarities between Māori and communities across the Asian region.

These shared values include mana (honour/prestige), manaakitanga (reciprocity/hospitality), karakia (prayer), whakapapa (genealogy) and veneration of kaumatua (elders).

My ongoing research has found embracing the cultural values of tikanga Māori could give New Zealand an edge in these competitive Asian markets.

Growth potential

Asia was projected to drive 60% of global GDP growth in 2024, led by India and China.

Seven of New Zealand’s top ten export destinations are in the Asian region. Exports to China alone amounted to NZ$20 billion last year. Exports to India amount to $520 million.

Asia’s projected growth presents a unique opportunity for any country trying to increase its trade in the region. New Zealand holds a unique advantage when engaging with Asia which relates to cultural distance – the extent to which shared values and norms differ from nation to nation.

Research has shown cultural distance is an important factor in international trade and management.

Cultural distance is what sets a country’s culture apart, including differences in language, societal values and family structures. It’s not static, and there could be clusters within countries where diversity exists.

European Australia, for example, is less distant to the European New Zealand than other countries due to shared colonial origins. But these British-based cultures are considered to have a greater distance from their own indigenous populations.

Similarly, Asian countries can be considered as having a bigger cultural distance from Anglo-American cultures. Individualism, for example, is a core value of Western cultures, whereas collectivism is key in Asian cultures.

Building connections

My research has found there are certain shared values between Māori and Asian cultures that mean the cultural distance is less than it is with Anglo-American cultures.

Similar to many Asian cultures, the Māori worldview is deeply rooted in the intricate relationships between humans, ancestors, and the natural world.

This can be seen through whakapapa and mana, both intrinsically linked to one’s connection to the natural environment and human beings.

This has similarities with spiritual practices in Asia, including Hinduism and Buddhism. The concept of bumitama in Balinese culture, for example, translates to “humanity-land-god”, reflecting a holistic view where humans are interconnected with nature and the divine.

The Māori concept of manaakitanga – the principle of reciprocity, where an individual is recognised and respected for not just who they are but as a representative of everyone who has gone before – is an acknowledgement that individuals are all connected through their ancestors.

Read more:
Cultural differences impede trade for most countries — but not China

Manaakitanga has parallels in many Asian cultures. For example, the ancient Sanskrit adage atithi devo bhava is the cornerstone of Indian hospitality.

Kaumātua – an elder in Māori society – holds a position of immense significance. As the custodians of knowledge, tradition and spiritual wisdom, kaumātua is pivotal in guiding the community, particularly the youth.

This approach of transmission of knowledge, values and cultural heritage from elders to younger generations is a core function of many Asian societies.

New Zealand’s advantage

This comparison simplifies complex cultural systems. It’s important to acknowledge that the nuances and complexities of each culture are vast and multifaceted.

But examining shared similarities can help foster a deeper appreciation for the resonance between Māori and Asian cultures.

The government needs to consider the cultural distance between Māori and Asian cultures as it works to promote trade with its Asian partners.

Incorporating tikanga Māori in international policy and engagement can enable authentic relationships with Asia.

In addition, New Zealand could further include Māori representation in diplomacy with specific Māori diplomatic roles for Asia.

Strategies can include adopting Māori values in decision-making – such as focusing on manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga. The government needs to also support Māori businesses to enter Asian markets and encourage training focused on Asian and Māori cross-cultural exchanges that include opportunities to learn Asian languages to bolster communication.

But this would require a thorough alignment of the New Zealand government towards Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles – a move that is unlikely with the current centre-right coalition.

It is clear embracing tikanga Māori could provide an edge to New Zealand when it comes to engagement with Asia to foster stronger economic, trade, investment and tourism relationships.

Hafsa Ahmed 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. Authentically embracing tikanga Māori can help New Zealand in the growing Asian markets – https://theconversation.com/authentically-embracing-tikanga-maori-can-help-new-zealand-in-the-growing-asian-markets-242005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Analytics & Resilience, UNSW Sydney

In recent months, Australian concertgoers have witnessed plenty of unexpected onstage drama.

The latest example came from Coldplay’s sold-out Sunday show in Melbourne. Lead singer Chris Martin took a sudden plunge through a trapdoor, catching fans off guard, before reemerging with a laugh and reassuring wave.

Just weeks prior, also in Melbourne, singer Olivia Rodrigo abruptly fell into an unexpected opening mid-performance.

While such slips may seem like isolated moments of bad luck, they signal at one aspect of live shows that often goes unnoticed: performer safety.

As stages become increasingly elaborate – with intricate set designs and high-tech moving parts – the line between awe-inspiring production and potential hazard grows thin.

A thin line between spectacle and risk

Performer safety mishaps aren’t isolated accidents. They are part of a recurring pattern in live music in both Australia and overseas, with falls and slips being one of the most common setbacks. For instance,

• in October Billie Eilish took a tumble down some stairs while onstage at New York’s Madison Square Garden

• in 2022, Post Malone fell through an open trapdoor mid-performance in St Louis. The fall resulted in a rib injury, a 15-minute interruption to the show and many concerned fans

• on a more local level, in 2022 Australian cabaret performer Hans suffered a shattered foot and slight spinal damage after falling four metres while performing on a cruise.

Beyond losing one’s footing, audience aggression and inappropriate behaviour towards artists have also been on the rise in recent years:

• in October, The Weeknd was grabbed by a Melbourne concertgoer who evaded security and rushed onto the stage and towards the artist, stunning him momentarily

• last year, Bebe Rexha was struck in the face by a phone thrown from the audience during a concert in New York City. This resulted in a laceration that required stitches

• Harry Styles was hit by various objects during his 2023 world tour. In one show in Los Angeles, a skittle struck his eye

• the same year, Ava Max was slapped in the face by a fan who rushed onto the stage in Los Angeles

• during her BST Festival performance in London, P!nk was taken aback when a fan threw a bag containing their mother’s ashes onto the stage. While no one was injured, the unusual act left P!nk visibly shocked.

What’s behind this trend?

From falls, to fans rushing onstage, to objects flying from the crowd, it’s clear artists are facing a unique set of safety challenges. These challenges are driven by two factors: audience behaviour and increasingly complex stage designs.

While audience misbehaviour poses a significant risk, it seemed to have peaked post-pandemic. This may have reflected a collective frustration – or perhaps it was audiences failing to remember proper concert etiquette after spending so much time in lockdowns.

Social media also arguably played a role, by turning disruptive actions into “viral moments” and potentially inspiring copycats. Fortunately, these incidents seem to be declining as live music crowds settle back into pre-pandemic norms.

Read more:
Chaotic scenes at Travis Scott’s Melbourne concert: what is the role of artists in crowd behaviour?

Stage-related mishaps, however, appear to be on the opposite trajectory. As artists strive to create unforgettable experiences, they’re confronted with stages that are riskier than ever before.

Delivering the “wow factor” has led to stages becoming multi-layered landscapes with high-tech trapdoors, platforms, dazzling lights and immersive visuals that may be difficult for the performer to navigate.

This raises a significant but often overlooked element in safety discussions: the human factors. Even the most seasoned performers can only process so much sensory input at once. As stage productions grow more complex, the cognitive load on artists also intensifies.

We’re seeing similar phenomenons in other high-stakes settings, such as with pilots who manage complex flight instruments, or drivers who must respond to multiple road cues. Mistakes happen when there’s too much information to process.

Artists already spend much of their mental energy on trying to engage their audience, leaving fewer resources to safely navigate a maze of lighting rigs, trapdoors and moving platforms. In this context, stage mishaps aren’t accidents; they’re byproducts of an environment where human attention is stretched to its limits.

As the demand for spectacle increases, so too does the risk of artists facing disorientation or injury.

Why does it matter? And what should be done?

Major artists are humans, too. Their safety is just as important as that of the audience – and is also an occupational safety matter.

But even beyond artists’ wellbeing, the effects of an onstage mishap can be felt by the entire audience. An accident can pause or even cut a show short, leaving fans frustrated.

While recent incidents have been limited to minor injuries or brief disruptions, these recurring patterns point to a growing issue that shoudn’t be ignored.

It’s time to bring performer safety into the spotlight – and there are a few ways we can do this. For instance:

• tour operators and production teams have a responsibility to conduct thorough safety audits to identify every possible risk element an artist may encounter on stage

• venues should prioritise security and make sure major events are adequately staffed

• fans should be reminded that a stage is a performer’s workplace – and not an interactive free-for-all.

At the end of the day, ensuring a performer’s safety is a responsibility that falls on everyone, from the tour operator, to venue staff – and yes, even to the fans.

Milad Haghani 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. Apart from Chris Martin’s fall, here are 10 other examples of onstage accidents. Can we keep performers safe? – https://theconversation.com/apart-from-chris-martins-fall-here-are-10-other-examples-of-onstage-accidents-can-we-keep-performers-safe-242757

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

In a significant blow to Australia’s defence capabilities, the federal government is cancelling what would have been the nation’s largest-ever space project: a A$7 billion military satellite communications system.

The decision was confirmed in a press statement today. It comes just 18 months after the Albanese government gave the green light to the ambitious program.

Defence industry sources quoted by The Australian newspaper indicated that insufficient funding was allocated to start the program, despite its strategic importance. According to the ABC, “defence industry figures believe there are cheaper options available”.

The project’s cancellation would mark a dramatic reversal for a program that was meant to make Australia’s military communications safer at a time when the cyber threat landscape has been steadily evolving.

The rise and fall of JP9102

The ambitious satellite program is known as JP9102. It was awarded to US defence contractor Lockheed Martin in April 2023 after a competitive tender process that included major players like Airbus, Northrop Grumman and Optus.

The project aimed to launch several large military-grade satellites. It would also involve several ground stations, new satellite communications operations centres, and a central management system. Taken together, this would create a secure communications network for Australia’s military.

Currently, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) uses a complex network of up to 89 different “capabilities” (military assets) that rely on satellite communications.

This existing system lacks the comprehensive security and coverage that JP9102 promised to deliver. Without it, Australia’s military communications are potentially left vulnerable to cyber and electronic warfare attacks.

In its statement, the Department of Defence claims its “current satellite communications capabilities support the immediate needs of the organisation”.

What can military satellites deliver?

The proposed satellite system was intended to create what experts call an “uncrackable data network” across the ADF.

These military-grade satellites would have provided secure communications for fighter jets, naval vessels and ground forces across the vast Indo-Pacific region.

Unlike commercial satellites, military satellites incorporate advanced encryption and anti-jamming capabilities. This makes them significantly more resistant to cyber attack and electronic warfare.

Military satellites face sophisticated cyber threats from both state and non-state actors.

China and Russia are widely recognised as having advanced capabilities in this domain. They have the ability to jam satellite signals, intercept communications and potentially even take control of satellite systems. North Korea has also demonstrated growing capabilities in cyber warfare, particularly in signal jamming.

In 2014, Russian forces reportedly jammed and disrupted satellite communications during their operations in Crimea. More recently, at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, hackers disabled thousands of satellite modems that were part of the Viasat satellite network, causing disruptions to both military and civilian communications across Europe.

In the commercial sector, Iran has been accused of jamming satellite broadcasts and GPS signals.

This demonstrates how even nations with less advanced military capabilities can pose significant threats to satellite communications.

JP9102 was considered a “bleeding-edge technology project”. It included plans for machine learning capabilities to increase agility and responsiveness.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has previously praised the project’s potential for making room for future technological improvements:

The JP9102 satellites may, if they are based on open-architecture design or software-based systems, take advantage of future on-orbit servicing technologies that could extend their operational life and enhance their capabilities over time.

A budget reality

The key takeaway here is the growing gap between Australia’s defence ambitions and its budget reality. As regional tensions continue to increase and cyber threats evolve, the decision to cancel JP9102 highlights the challenging trade-offs between needing to secure Australia’s military communications and the costs of doing so.

It raises the question of how Australia will secure its military communications in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific region. The cancellation of JP9102 creates a significant capability gap in Australia’s military communications strategy that will need to be addressed.

Defence planners will likely need to explore alternative solutions. These might include partnerships with commercial satellite providers or joining the military satellite networks of allied nations, such as the United States.

David Tuffley 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. Australia is axing a $7bn military satellite project, leaving defence comms potentially vulnerable – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-axing-a-7bn-military-satellite-project-leaving-defence-comms-potentially-vulnerable-242761

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Kreibich, PhD Candidate, Centre for Ecosystem Science & Water Research Laboratory, UNSW Sydney

The largest wetland on Australia’s second longest river, the Murrumbidgee in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, is drying up. This is bad news for the plants, animals and people who rely on the vast Lowbidgee Floodplain. So it’s important to understand what is going on, and whether we can do anything about it.

Our new research used computer modelling to study past and future river flows. We examined natural flows in the lower Murrumbidgee River between 1890 and 1927, before humans started changing the river. We compared these flows to what happened after big dams went in and more water was taken out for irrigation. Then, we modelled how climate change is likely to influence flows in future.

We found river regulation such as dams and reservoirs cut flows in half over the past three decades. It means periods between life-giving floods on the wetlands are now more than twice as long. With climate change, drying of these vital freshwater ecosystems is likely to accelerate.

Altogether, we predict the annual duration of flood events sustaining these wetlands will drop by as much as 85% by 2075 compared to natural levels, if nothing is done. But there are plenty of things we can do to turn this around, because our research shows the main reason for the decline is river regulation and overextraction.

Floods are essential for wetlands

The Lowbidgee Floodplain, in southwestern New South Wales, supports expansive river red gum and black box forests as well as one of the state’s largest lignum shrublands. Lignum’s thick mass of stems forms bushes that make great nesting platforms for waterbirds, attracting thousands of glossy ibis, straw-necked ibis and royal spoonbills. The area is also a breeding ground for Australian pelicans.

The endangered Southern bell frog and threatened native fish such as Murray cod also live here.

Floods bring wetlands to life. But human activities have disrupted the natural cycle of flood and drought. In the Murrumbidgee, 26 big dams and reservoirs now store and divert water, mainly for irrigation. These interventions have more than doubled the time between floods, causing large sections of the wetlands to dry up.

The lack of floods has devastated the floodplain, causing black box and river red gum forests to die. Waterbird numbers also plummeted.

The Lowbidgee’s cultural significance

The Nari Nari people have lived on the Lowbidgee Floodplain for tens of thousands of years. The land and water has deep cultural and spiritual value.

Evidence of Nari Nari connection to this place is seen in the scar trees cut for canoes and other wooden items, middens of discarded shell and bone, earth mounds and burial sites scattered across the landscape.

After 180 years of dispossession, 880 square kilometres of the floodplain was returned to the Nari Nari Tribal Council in 2019. This allows the original peoples of this land to repair it, reinstating cultural burning for example. But there’s a limit to how much they can do without more water.

River regulation and climate change

Few studies have effectively reconstructed such a long history of a river to see where we have come from, and just as importantly, assessed what lies ahead.

We modelled natural flows in the Murrumbidgee River, using data for rainfall and runoff upstream. The rainfall data covers more than a century, from 1890 to 2018, which allowed us to model natural flows back to 1890.

First we established a baseline for natural flows. Then we were able to work out how dams, reservoirs and and water diversions have disrupted these flows over time.

We also considered how climate change might influence river flows in the future under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

We found most of the decline (55%) in the Murrumbidgee River’s flows was due to river regulation. But climate change will probably make matters worse, shaving another 7–10% off river flows by 2075, based on average projections.

The average annual duration of floods reaching the floodplain wetlands has dropped from 11.3 days under natural flows to just 4.5 days currently. This could decline further to around 1.7 days as the climate becomes warmer and drier.

Now is the time to act

Australia’s rivers are at risk, but it’s not too late to act. By reducing over-allocation and returning water to the environment we can protect threatened and endangered species, reduce the impacts of climate change, and honour the cultural heritage of First Nations Peoples.

Managing water releases to mimic natural seasonal flows can also help reinstate the natural cues for native plants, animals and other organisms.

Our research underscores the urgent need to understand our past in order to explore future water management options. It’s clear much of the damage has been done by damming the river and taking out so much water. Now it’s important to restore the balance in favour of the environment, to prepare for future climate change.

The Murrumbidgee River and its major floodplain wetlands are also a warning – a canary in the coal mine so to speak – of what could happen to other river systems worldwide as water demand rises along with projected income and population growth. This is especially concerning for many arid and semi-arid regions, where climate change is increasing temperatures while reducing rainfall.

We wish to acknowledge the contribution of Nari Nari Tribal man and General Manager of Gayini wetlands, Jamie Woods, to this article and the research paper it was based on.

Jan Kreibich’s work was supported by the University of New South Wales and the Australian Research Council.

Richard Kingsford receives funding from a range of government and non-government organisations, including the Australian Research Council, the New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and Queensland Governments and the Australian Government. He is councillor of the Biodiversity Council and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

– ref. Dams have taken half the water from Australia’s second biggest river – and climate change will make it even worse – https://theconversation.com/dams-have-taken-half-the-water-from-australias-second-biggest-river-and-climate-change-will-make-it-even-worse-242192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

On election eve in the United States, the presidential race is deadlocked. The polls are exceptionally close across the country and in all the swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin in the industrial midwest; Nevada and Arizona in the west; and Georgia and North Carolina in the south.

The final New York Times/Siena poll shows Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leading by a very small margin or tied with Republican former President Donald Trump in all the swing states. The exception is Arizona, where Trump leads by a few percentage points.

While there is no clear favourite to win, there are several critical factors that will driving voters’ decisions on Election Day. This is what to watch.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Bruce Wolpe says personal relations between Trump and Albanese would be ‘rocky’

Republicans turning against Trump

Trump’s favourability is stuck around 43% in nationwide polling. In the past two presidential elections, he fell short of taking 50% of the national popular vote. As president, he never achieved over 50% favourability. And he has never topped 50% since leaving office.

This means he has hit a ceiling in his support and is highly unlikely to win the national popular vote on Tuesday.

This also reflects what happened to Trump in the Republican primaries to win the nomination. He dominated the field, defeating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and several others. But in most of those primaries, 15-20% of Republican voters did not vote for Trump.

Where will these Republican voters ultimately land on Tuesday? Probably half want to vote Republican and will go with Trump. Others will not being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris and will simply not vote for president.

Others will switch their support to Harris. Indeed, there has never been such a swelling of support from members of one party to support the other party’s presidential candidate.

Harris needs those “Republicans for Harris” votes. In addition, she’ll need to replicate the coalition of young voters, voters of colour and women who backed current President Joe Biden against Trump in 2020 in those same swing states and nationally.

Her favourability ratings are higher than Trump, at around 46%. The closer a presidential candidate is to 50% approval ratings, the better their chance of winning the election.

It’s the economy, stupid

At the same time, the country is in a bad mood. There is a classic polling question asked at elections: is the country on the right track, or moving in the wrong direction? Between 60–70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

That is a signal this election is about change. Historically, that sentiment has not favoured the incumbent in the White House. As Biden’s vice president, Harris is directly facing this headwind.

There are four key issues in this election. The most important is the hip pocket issue: household budgets, cost of living pressures and voters’ concerns about their future economic security.

Since Biden and Harris took office nearly four years ago, the cost of groceries, household items, utilities and services such as insurance have risen between 10–40%. Petrol prices have gone up even more.

Though interest rates have fallen, American households are hurting. When asked who is best to manage the economy, voters in swing states say Trump by a 15-point margin.

The next-biggest issue is immigration. Since Trump first became a presidential candidate in 2015, he has relentlessly pushed the immigration button, declaring the border with Mexico is out of control, with crime and pillage rising in its wake.

The first three years of Biden’s term were also marked by big surges of immigrants crossing the border, though rates have fallen dramatically in 2024.

Voters view Trump as best placed to manage this issue, too, by nearly 15 points.

So, Trump is seen as a more effective leader on the two most important policy issues in this election.

A surge in support from women

Abortion rights and reproductive health services are the third major issue. Many women across America are repelled by the Supreme Court’s decision to take away their long-held constitutional right to an abortion. Now, this policy is decided at the state level. And several conservative Republican states – including Ohio and Kansas – have voted to restore abortion rights.

Harris is seen as the champion of these issues. Multiple polls show voters trust her more than Trump on reproductive rights, by wide margins.

As a result, polling shows Harris is leading Trump with women voters in the swing states, by 15 points or more.

Abortion rights are also on the ballot in two swing states, Nevada and Arizona, which should help Harris in both.

The future of American democracy is the fourth major issue facing voters. According to a new poll, half the country sees Trump as a profound threat to America’s democracy who will wield authoritarian power to enforce his policies and programs.

Harris has pledged to turn the page, heal divisions and get Republicans and Democrats working together again.

In these closing days, Trump continues to make provocative statements with violent imagery. At a rally in Arizona last week, for instance, he again attacked Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who advocated for the prosecution of Trump over the January 6 insurrection:

She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.

This may have provided Harris with a final cut-through moment on Trump’s fitness for office in the final days of the campaign. She said in response:

Anyone who wants to be president of the United States who uses that kind of violent rhetoric is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president. […] Trump is increasingly, however, someone who considers his political opponents the enemy, is permanently out for revenge and is increasingly unstable and unhinged.

So, who is going to win?

Trump’s team sees victory in all the polls. His chief pollster wrote late last week:

President Trump’s position nationally and in every single battleground state is significantly better than it was four years ago.

The polls may also be undercounting the full measure of Trump’s support, as was the case in 2016 and 2020. And the polls may not be reflecting the extent of antipathy towards Harris as a Black and south Asian woman.

Jen O’Malley Dillon, Harris’ campaign director, and who headed the 2020 Biden campaign that defeated Trump, has told her troops, meanwhile, that undecided voters are “gettable”, adding:

We have multiple pathways to victory […] Our folks are voting at levels we need them to vote in order for us to win.

Harris has built a US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) machine designed to reach voters in the swing states – through personal contact. This machine made three million phone calls and door knocks on homes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin alone on Saturday. If this machine delivers, it could be the boost Harris needs on election night.

Harris’ campaign also signalled over the weekend that late-deciding voters, and especially women, are breaking their way by double digits. There is a sense among Democrats that Harris is now peaking as the campaign concludes.

The final analysis

If Harris wins, it will be because she has successfully sealed the deal with those voters and made the election a referendum on Trump – that on balance the country has had enough of him after eight years. It also means her ground game delivered the votes.

If Trump wins, it will mean voters trusted him to manage inflation and the cost-of-living squeeze on households, as well as what they see as out-of-control immigration and crime. These messages would also have been further embellished by unease about Harris, a Black and south Asian woman, as president.

Bruce Wolpe receives funding from the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He also worked on the Democratic staff of the US House of Representatives, most recently during President Barack Obama’s first term.

– ref. Will it be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump? Here’s what each needs to win the US election – https://theconversation.com/will-it-be-kamala-harris-or-donald-trump-heres-what-each-needs-to-win-the-us-election-242756

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Cantrell, Senior Lecturer — Writing, Editing, Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

At first glance, Netflix’s Woman of the Hour is yet another true crime fictionalisation that plays to our preoccupation with American serial killers of decades past.

Directed by Anna Kendrick, who also plays the female protagonist Sheryl Bradshaw, the film reconstructs the crimes of serial rapist and murderer Rodney Alcala, aka the “dating game killer”. Alcala famously appeared on (and won) a television matchmaking show in 1978 amid a years-long killing spree.

The film examines historical sexual violence at both the individual and institutional level. It exposes the intense physical and psychological cruelty Alcala inflicted on his victims, as well as the cruelty and misogyny of the patriarchal culture that enabled such behaviour.

Woman of the Hour is a groundbreaking text: it’s the first feminist true crime film to achieve commercial success since the #MeToo movement gained momentum in 2017.

Seeing and being seen

Woman of the Hour inverts the sadistic and voyeuristic “male gaze” of traditional true crime by obliging viewers to identify with the female victim rather than the male perpetrator.

As film theorist and gender studies expert Sarah Projanksy observed in her influential book Watching Rape:

Depictions of sexual violence in most horror and crime thrillers run the risk of extending and reproducing eroticised violence against women, even when victims fight back.

But Kendrick’s directorial debut doesn’t romanticise Alcala or glorify his crimes. There are no cowering or moaning victims shown in various stages of undress.

Instead we see, through careful framing and close-up shots, the panicked discomfort of Alcala’s victims as they navigate the dangers of dating, the damaging effects of casual misogyny and the ever-present threat of male fragility.

As Margaret Atwood once said, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while women are afraid men will kill them.

“Did you feel seen?” Alcala asks Sheryl, after the aspiring actress appears with Alcala on The Dating Game in an attempt to be “seen”.

“I felt looked at,” Sheryl responds.

The tense interactions between predator and prey build an almost unbearable suspense for viewers, who have already seen through Alcala’s superficial charisma and charm.

Alcala was an amateur photographer who often exploited his victims’ desire to be understood and “seen”, and would lure them under the pretence of taking their photo.

The film’s unsettling dialogue and intelligent use of visual metaphor frames women as objects to be looked at, but with a twist: the female characters are aware they’re being tracked and entrapped (even if the realisation comes too late).

In subtle but devastating ways, Kendrick presents the horrific rape and torture committed by Alcala from the viewpoint of the victim. The camerawork underscores the victims’ feelings of shock and disorientation, but never in a voyeuristic or gratuitous way.

A game of murder and romance

Woman of The Hour implicitly suggests part of Alcala’s perverted pleasure in killing came from his gamification of this process.

In the film, Alcala strangles and then revives his victims, sometimes several times, before resubjecting them to the horror of his violence and the knowledge of their own death. His appearance on The Dating Game is the ultimate power move in his game of murder and romance.

“I always get the girl,” Alcala smirks at a fellow contestant.

His challenge extends not only to Sheryl, the blind date on the other side of the screen, but to the entire studio audience and the viewers at home.

However, the film makes clear that romance was never Alcala’s goal. Instead, he leverages the game of romance to exploit his victims’ vulnerability and trust. In this respect, the game is rigged in his favour.

When a woman in the audience recognises Alcala as the man who raped and killed her friend years prior, she attempts to report her concerns to the show’s producers, only to be fobbed off by a security guard. In another act of cruel male deception, the guard tells her to wait for a “senior executive” who he knows is actually the night janitor.

Women, it seems, are simply pawns in the patriarchal game of 1970s America – an era when women’s testimonies of sexual abuse and harassment were distrusted and their safety routinely overlooked.

Alcala after #MeToo

The women who survive Alcala’s violence in Woman of The Hour are those who perceive the artifice of his romance script, before inverting that script and presenting it, equally convincingly, back to him.

When teenage runaway Amy wakes in the remote desert after Alcala has brutally raped and assaulted her, she outwits him by coyly asking him to keep what has happened a secret.

By luring Alcala into a false sense of security, Amy convinces him to spare her. When Alcala pulls into a gas station, she flees to a nearby diner and alerts the police, who arrive and arrest him.

In the end, Kendrick’s message is explicit: “There’s no happy ending with a story like this.”

This post-#MeToo take on Alcala’s violent crimes is a commentary on the systemic misogyny – including the failings of the police and judicial systems – that allowed a serial killer who went on national television to evade detection.

Kendrick, the woman of the hour, refuses to look away.

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. Woman of the Hour: Anna Kendrick’s unflinching directorial debut reframes true crime for a post-#MeToo era – https://theconversation.com/woman-of-the-hour-anna-kendricks-unflinching-directorial-debut-reframes-true-crime-for-a-post-metoo-era-242302

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Andrew, Professor, Head of the Discipline of Accounting, Governance and Regulation, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney

More of our personal data is now collected and stored online than ever before in history. The rise of data breaches should unsettle us all.

At an individual level, data breaches can compromise our privacy, cause harm to our finances and mental health, and even enable identity theft.

For organisations, the repercussions can be equally severe, often resulting in major financial losses and brand damage.

Despite the increasing importance of protecting our personal information, doing so remains fraught with challenges.

As part of a comprehensive study of data breach notification practices, we interviewed 50 senior personnel working in information security and privacy. Here’s what they told us about the multifaceted challenges they face.

Read more:
The Australian government has introduced new cyber security laws. Here’s what you need to know

What does the law actually say?

Data breaches occur whenever personal information is accessed or disclosed without authorisation, or even lost altogether. Optus, Medibank and Canva have all experienced high-profile incidents in recent years.

Under Australia’s privacy laws, organisations aren’t allowed to sweep major cyber attacks under the rug.

They have to notify both the regulator – the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) – and any affected individuals of breaches that are likely to result in “serious harm”.

But according to the organisational leaders we interviewed, this poses a tricky question. How do you define serious harm?

Interpretations of what “serious harm” actually means – and how likely it is to occur – vary significantly. This inconsistency can make it impossible to predict the specific impact of a data breach on an individual.

Victims of domestic violence, for example, may be at increased risk when personal information is exposed, creating harms that are difficult to foresee or mitigate.

Enforcing the rules

Interviewees also had concerns about how well the regulator could provide guidance and enforce data protection measures.

Many expressed a belief the OAIC is underfunded and lacks the authority to impose and enforce fines properly. The consensus was that the challenge of protecting our data has now outgrown the power and resources of the regulator.

As one chief information security officer at a publicly listed company put it:

What’s the point of having speeding signs and cameras if you don’t give anyone a ticket?

A lack of enforcement can undermine the incentive for organisations to invest in robust data protection.

Only the tip of the iceberg

Data breaches are also underreported, particularly in the corporate sector.

One senior cybersecurity consultant from a major multinational company told us there is a strong incentive for companies to minimise or cover up breaches, to avoid embarrassment.

This culture means many breaches that should be reported simply aren’t. One senior public servant estimated only about 10% of reportable breaches end up actually being disclosed.

Without this basic transparency, the regulator and affected individuals can’t take necessary steps to protect themselves.

Third-party breaches

Sometimes, when we give our personal information to one organisation, it can end up in the hands of another one we might not expect. This is because key tasks – especially managing databases – are often outsourced to third parties.

Outsourcing tasks might be a more efficient option for an organisation, but it can make protecting personal data even more complicated.

Interviewees told us breaches were more likely when engaging third-party providers, because it limited the control they had over security measures.

Between July and December 2023 in Australia, there was an increase of more than 300% in third-party data breaches compared to the six months prior.

There have been some highly publicised examples.

In May this year, many Clubs NSW customers had their personal information potentially breached through an attack on third-party software provider Outabox.

Bunnings suffered a similar breach in late 2021, via an attack on scheduling software provider FlexBooker.

Getting the basics right

Some organisations are still struggling with the basics. Our research found many data breaches occur because outdated or “legacy” data systems are still in use.

These systems are old or inactive databases, often containing huge amounts of personal information about all the individuals who’ve previously interacted with them.

Organisations tend to hold onto personal data longer than is legally required. This can come down to confusion about data-retention requirements, but also the high cost and complexity of safely decommissioning old systems.

One chief privacy officer of a large financial services institution told us:

In an organisation like ours where we have over 2,000 legacy systems […] the systems don’t speak to each other. They don’t come with big red delete buttons.

Other interviewees flagged that risky data testing practices are widespread.

Software developers and tech teams often use “production data” – real customer data – to test new products. This is often quicker and cheaper than creating test datasets.

However, this practice exposes real customer information to insecure testing environments, making it more vulnerable. A senior cybersecurity specialist told us:

I’ve seen it so much in every industry […] It’s literally live, real information going into systems that are not live and real and have low security.

What needs to be done?

Drawing insights from professionals at the coalface, our study highlights just how complex data protection has become in Australia, and how quickly the landscape is evolving.

Addressing these issues will require a multi-pronged approach, including clearer legislative guidelines, better enforcement, greater transparency and robust security practices for the use of third-party providers.

As the digital world continues to evolve, so too must our strategies for protecting ourselves and our data.

Jane Andrew receives funding from The Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.

Dr Penelope Bowyer-Pont receives funding from the Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.

Max Baker receives funding from The Australian Research Council – Discovery Project.

– ref. Why do organisations still struggle to protect our data? We asked 50 professionals on the privacy front line – https://theconversation.com/why-do-organisations-still-struggle-to-protect-our-data-we-asked-50-professionals-on-the-privacy-front-line-236681

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathrynne Henshall, Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University

It’s the time of year when shiny horses and colourful clothing fill our screens – the Spring Racing Carnival, which includes high profile races like The Everest, Melbourne Cup and Cox Plate.

It’s also the time of year when questions are asked about the welfare of racehorses that compete in the so-called “sport of kings”.

Previously, high profile deaths during races, the use of whips and what happens to horses after racing have been the focus of community concern.

Read more:
Black Caviar’s death has prompted uncomfortable questions about how champion mares spend their retirement

But recently, as we’ve come to know more about what makes a good life for a horse, questions are being raised about the daily lives of racehorses.

Industry participants will point to the high level care that racehorses receive – comfortable stables, specially formulated diets, the latest vet treatments and added extras such as massages and swimming sessions.

But does this care translate into good welfare?

The theory of ‘telos’

Firstly, a quick primer on the difference between care and welfare.

Care includes all the things that make sure racehorses get fit, stay fit and stay healthy. This care helps maximise the chance a horse will win races.

Welfare is the animal’s subjective or individual experience of its life – how it feels – and there are a number of ways to assess this.

One way is the concept of “telos”, originally developed by Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Telos is a species’ anatomical, physiological, behavioural and cognitive characteristics that have been shaped by millions of years of evolution.

Telos helps us to identify what matters to animals – their behavioural, psychological and physiological needs.

So to consider if racehorse care actually translates to good welfare, we can assess how closely it provides the animal with the things that matter to them, based on their telos.

Equine telos involves living in groups, forming long-lived social relationships, grazing fibrous plants and being on the move for up to 18 hours a day, as well as staying safe by sensing danger and then moving away.

It also involves living in variable environments to solve challenges, learn, engage in curiosity and play.

Let’s compare that to the daily life of a racehorse.

Movement and feeding

Firstly, the vast majority of racehorses live in stables – sometimes up to 23 hours a day.

Multiple studies have found continuous stabling harms horse welfare.

Stables significantly restrict opportunities for voluntary movement, and studies show stabled horses spend the majority of the time inactive.

Even though stables house horses communally, most designs limit horses’ opportunities for social interaction.

Thirdly, there’s little for a horse to do in a stable other than eat, stand, drink or lie, and they often develop abnormal behaviours that are associated with stress. These are never seen in free-ranging horses.

When racehorses do get to move, they have little say over how far, how fast and for how long they move.

The kinds of physical exercise racehorses do are both significantly shorter in duration and at much higher speeds than horses voluntarily choose. It’s those speeds that place them at risk of suffering a serious injury.

What about diet?

Although a lot of time and effort is spent ensuring racehorses enjoy high quality diets, they are mostly comprised of concentrated energy sources such as grains, rather the fibre horses evolved to eat.

Horses are trickle feeders (grazers), with small stomachs that continuously secrete digestive juices.

In the wild, grazing keeps those stomachs full, which prevents the stomach lining from being damaged by digestive acids.

In comparison, racehorses often consume their food very quickly – instead of spending up to 75% of their day eating, they spend only 33%.

This means their stomachs are empty for most of the day, which is why up to 65% will get painful gastric ulcers.

And having to wait to be fed rather than eating when hungry, as happens in free-ranging horses, can lead to frustration.

Other difficulties

Racehorses may be whipped, and more than 50% will experience some form of musculoskeletal injury during racing, of which between 7-49% are fatal.

Social relationships, in the limited form possible in a racing stable, are also frequently disrupted because horse populations are highly transient due to spelling, retirement or even just going to the races.

So even if two horses are able to form a relationship of sorts, chances are one will be taken away. Separation distress is a significant stressor for horses.

Then there’s the gear that’s used to control them.

Horses, like most animal species, escape and avoid painful stimuli.

However, in racing (and many other equestrian activties) it is mandatory to use “bits” to control horses’ behaviour during riding and handling. Bits work by causing uncomfortable pressure and pain and may lead to mouth injuries.

Studies have shown many people don’t understand how to minimise the harm they can cause. In addition, people also vary widely in their ability to read and interpret behavioural responses to stress.

So, racehorses may be repeatedly exposed to pain from bits and perform a range of behaviours to try to escape that pain, like bolting, mouth opening or head tossing.

To remedy this, additional items of restrictive equipment, such as tongue ties, nosebands, lugging bits or bit burs may be used to control the horse.

Racehorses frequently show signs of difficulty coping with the stressors of racing life, including “going off their feed”, aggression towards handlers, becoming hard to control when ridden and a range of stress behaviours and health issues, such as bleeding from the lungs.

What about welfare?

Racehorse care is often directed towards managing issues that are the direct result of the demands of the racing environment.

Fancy stables and aqua sessions are not important to horses, and may even cause harm.

What matters to horses are opportunities to make meaningful choices, such as the freedom to move, form friendships and graze for the majority of the day.

Current racing industry practices often deny horses the chance to make these choices.

There’s no doubt people in racing care deeply about their horses. But to experience good welfare during racing, racehorses need more than just good care.

Cathrynne Henshall receives funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Welfare Foundation

– ref. How are racehorses really treated in the ‘sport of kings’? – https://theconversation.com/how-are-racehorses-really-treated-in-the-sport-of-kings-240998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Russell, Adjunct Associate Professor, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, University of Sydney

Stark health disparities exist across the United States. Life expectancy is lower than in other wealthy countries – and declining. The richest American men live 15 years longer than their poorest counterparts. The richest American women live ten years longer.

Political differences are an interesting and provocative way of looking at these disparities.

Differences are frequently analysed by race, a proxy for other factors that influence health, such as housing, environmental pollution, nutrition and affordable access to health care.

But there are other ways to cut the data. This includes by state – whether it is “red” (governed by the Republican party) or “blue” (by the Democrats). We can also look at individual political affiliation.

One new study from the US looks at political polarisation as a risk factor for individual and collective wellbeing. It finds polarisation – where opinions and beliefs become concentrated at opposing extremes – has a major impact on health.

The paper explores the health risks of polarisation using the COVID pandemic as a case study. COVID saw Americans die at far higher rates than people in other wealthy nations.

Australia escaped the high death toll. But there are still significant lessons we can learn – about how increasing polarisation affects our health and wellbeing, and for the effective management of pandemics and other health crises.

Political orientation and health

The relationship between important health measures, political loyalties and voting patterns in US counties and states is significant. At the state level, policy-making has become increasingly linked to political ideology. With this, differences in lifespan and health status across states have grown.

On average, life expectancy for residents in Democratic-voting states is more than two years longer than in Republican states. Political orientation is also a strong predictor of obesity rates and chronic illnesses linked to obesity, such as heart disease and diabetes.

Red states have higher gun death rates than blue states.

The chronic use of prescription opioid drugs has also been linked to socio-economic disadvantage, health behaviours and the lack of mental health and substance abuse services in red states.

Much of this is due to differences in social policies, such as Medicaid. All of the ten states yet to take up the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid – which provides health insurance for poor people – are run by Republicans.

The scale of welfare programs and firearm regulations in these states also play a role.

Stress of a polarised political climate

Large numbers of Americans also report that politics takes a significant toll on their health. This is caused by stress, loss of sleep, suicidal thoughts, an inability to stop thinking about politics and engagement with social media, for example, making posts they later regret.

A study from 2021 showed people who are more ideologically extreme than their state’s average voter have worse physical and mental health.

This political partisanship has been greatly aggravated by Donald Trump’s arrival on the American political scene. The former Republican president has stoked social division and undermined trust in government, scientific expertise and public health organisations. Disinformation and misinformation continue to spread.

All of this was on show in how the Trump administration handled the COVID pandemic. Trump and other political leaders made the situation worse by linking health behaviours (such as mask-wearing and vaccination) to partisan identity.

There was a clear impact on the rates of COVID infection and death. Red states implemented fewer political decisions to mitigate COVID than blue states. And after vaccines became available, residents of pro-Trump counties – less likely to be vaccinated – were more than twice as likely to die from COVID as those in areas that supported Biden.

It is also interesting to look at the role of education here. Low education levels were found to be a strong and independent predictor of whether you were more likely to die from COVID in the United States. This might be explained by the relationship between education and both collective culture and individual literacy.

There is also a strong link between education and political affiliation.

College graduates are more likely to vote Democratic, while those without a degree, especially white Americans, are more likely to vote Republican. This was not explored in the new US study about health and polarisation.

Erosion of trust is dangerous for health

Trust in government is another key factor not addressed in that research. But in Australia, this is top of mind following the release of the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report, which found the federal government must work to rebuild trust after lockdowns and other mandates.

Greater trust in government is linked to increased political participation, social cohesion and collaboration in tackling societal challenges. In both Europe and the United States, social cohesion and public trust in politicians and experts have been linked to lower excess mortality from COVID.

In Australia, the Australian Cohesion Index shows the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have eroded trust in government and affected health and well-being. At the same time, Australians see the nation as increasingly polarised.

Read more:
Inquiry warns distrustful public wouldn’t accept COVID measures in future pandemic

The presidential election this week will decide much about the future of the United States as a polarised and divided nation. In Australia, the lessons and recommendations from the COVID report provide an opportunity to avert the choices facing the United States.

Lesley Russell has worked as a policy advisor for the Democrats in the US House of Representatives, for the Obama Administration and for the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Parliament.

– ref. In the US, political division can take a significant toll on people’s health. Australia should pay attention – https://theconversation.com/in-the-us-political-division-can-take-a-significant-toll-on-peoples-health-australia-should-pay-attention-242381

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Taylor, Lecturer, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology

You might have heard about your local Buy Nothing Project group on Facebook. If not, you probably know someone who’s a member. We estimate at least one million Australians are involved as members or live in households with a member (probably their mum).

Buy Nothing groups enable people to ask for and give away unneeded stuff in their neighbourhood. Whether it’s gifting excess garden produce or an outgrown toy, or asking for winter clothes or to borrow a power tool, the groups help people help others.

Australia has more than 500 of these groups, each with 500–3,000 members. While ordinary in operation and humble in commitment to neighbourhood generosity, these groups have extraordinary potential to reduce consumption and waste. Our research also suggests they improve community wellbeing.

Homes and neighbourhoods have a big role to play in the transition to a circular economy. This kind of economy shares, reuses, repairs, repurposes and recycles materials and products for as long as possible. This circularity is crucial, because getting to net zero is a difficult ask without public buy-in on reducing consumption.

However, our research also finds Buy Nothing groups are not immune to older gendered scripts of household labour. Most group members are women, many of them mothers. It is they who are taking, or expected to take, responsibility for finding or disposing of the stuff that fills their family’s homes and lives. This has troubling implications for how we think about action and responsibility for household waste.

How do Buy Nothing groups work?

Since its founding in the United States in 2013, the Buy Nothing Project has grown quickly. There are 128,000 Buy Nothing communities around the world today.

Other online platforms also help people redistribute used goods. But several membership rules make the project unique. The two strictest rules are:

• “give where you live” by joining only one hyper-localised Facebook group

• all products must be given or asked for, for free, with “no strings attached”.

Each local group covers just a few suburbs. Volunteer admins run these groups and enforce the project’s rules and values.

Why do people join?

In our study, members cited various reasons for joining and continuing to be involved. The “free stuff” was an obvious motivation. Yet they more often mentioned wanting to help others and sustainability and environmental concerns.

The minimal barriers to participation helped to reduce any perceived financial or logistical challenges associated with sustainable consumption.

Interviewees also said their involvement helped them connect with their community. People found much joy and satisfaction in building social networks and helping others.

People are even gifting items with substantial resale value, such as laptops or bikes. This suggests they value the community connection more than the money they might have been able to get from a sale.

The data we gathered show these groups have more “gifts” than “asks”. This indicates we have many unused items in our homes. It also highlights a common hesitancy to rely on others, which the Buy Nothing Project seeks to overcome.

Operating online offers people a high degree of control over when and how they take part. Buy Nothing participation varied based on life circumstances. Parenthood, natural disasters, pandemics, evolving personal values and educational experiences all influenced people’s engagement.

Participants appreciate the platform’s user information, such as names and profile images. This fostered feelings of familiarity, reciprocity and community.

But the online environment also allows some anonymity and a relaxed or blended approach to the “buy nothing” ethos. People still feel free to buy things when they need to.

Many participants engage regularly with the group via a quick daily scroll through Facebook. Using the for-profit platform caused some concerns for the founders, who felt it conflicted with the movement’s values. But attempts to move away from Facebook to an app were largely unsuccessful.

What are the broader benefits of Buy Nothing?

Buy Nothing membership can be very educational. Via a “drip feed” of materials in their social media feed, members see others like them engage in environmentally conscious behaviours. As one member said:

The more I have been in [the group], the more I am appreciating the concept.

Such exposure normalises circular gifting and asking behaviours, encouraging members to adopt them too.

Within households, group membership fosters discussions and behaviours related to sustainability. Many members talk with their children about product reuse, charity and awareness of others’ needs.

Households can play a crucial role in adopting environmental innovations. This is because they serve as hubs for social interactions and the spread of knowledge.

But conflicts over sustainable practices also arise within households. Members reported “pulling their families along”. One recalled her struggle to convince her husband to reduce household waste. She was “dragging him kicking and screaming along” but now he was “starting to appreciate some value” in her efforts to reduce their waste.

Our participants’ domestic frustrations mirrored broader anxieties about climate change and the environmental impacts of too many belongings and waste. They linked personal anxiety about clutter with global issues such as exporting waste to poor countries and low-quality donations overwhelming charities.

But gendered roles are troubling

Group admins told us 75-80% of group members are women, as were most admins themselves. This leads us to an uncomfortable tension: a desire to recognise overlooked economic practices while resisting the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Just as household consumption and its excesses is positioned as women’s responsibility, managing household waste has historically disproportionately consumed women’s time.

Members said they managed both their belongings and those of others, including parents and children. One said:

I feel like I’m the only person who ever takes anything out of our house.

While celebrating this sustainable activity, we should recognise women are doing most of this work.

I am a member of my local Buy Nothing group – both for personal and research purposes.

– ref. Exploring the extraordinary potential (and avoiding the pitfalls) of your local Buy Nothing group – https://theconversation.com/exploring-the-extraordinary-potential-and-avoiding-the-pitfalls-of-your-local-buy-nothing-group-221986

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

The Qantas upgrades affair has turned from a missile targeted at Anthony Albanese to a cluster bomb hitting MPs on all sides.

On Sunday, Education Minister Jason Clare took the opportunity provided by an interview on Sky about the government’s proposal to slash 20% off student debt to relate, in detail, why he requested a Qantas upgrade in 2019 for a private trip to Singapore.

He’d had an operation on his leg. He was catching up with his family already overseas. He contacted someone – he’s forgotten who – in Qantas.

On the other side of politics, the Nationals’ Bridget McKenzie, who’s been in hot pursuit of Albanese over his upgrades, is yet to produce full details of her own situation.  She’s asked the airlines for the information.

Then there’s the Liberals’ Paul Fletcher, who apparently likes to book economy on flights of under two hours. He’s had 69 upgrades over almost 15 years.

It’s important to remember what the rules are. Parliamentarians in their work are entitled to fly business class on domestic trips.  In some cases, they choose to fly economy on short hauls and business on longer ones.

In the wake of the ongoing revelations, surely it is time to fix the rules. One obvious change should be a ban on upgrades for all personal travel, domestic or overseas, by parliamentarians. If MPs do not want the discomfort of economy class on holidays or other excursions, they should pay to avoid it.

Another change should be that the minister for transport, and the shadow minister, should decline upgrades for their official travel. That avoids any suggestion of being influenced by such perks.

This parliamentary week is devoted, in the Senate, to estimates hearings, so there will be some grilling on the first day about upgrades, and also about the fabled Qantas chairman’s lounge, a networking facility which those with power are invited to join.

“The Chairman’s Lounge” is the title of the book by journalist Joe Aston that kicked off the furore a week ago.

The estimates hearings are also likely to see opposition senators probe the entrails of whether Lidia Thorpe, who demonstrated  noisily at the parliamentary reception for the King, has or has not been properly sworn in as a senator.

Thorpe substituted the word “hairs” for “heirs” when she read the oath. But she signed the paper, and constitutional expert Anne Twomey thinks she’s met the requirements.

McKenzie has been among those targeting Thorpe. But  if, when the full Senate sits later in the month, the opposition tries to have action taken against Thorpe, it will just serve her cause.

Thorpe wants publicity and that would give her plenty more. To be attempting to censure or even have disqualified an Indigenous senator would send a bad signal, at home (where some Indigenous people back her) and abroad.

The House of Representatives this week will have a heap of legislation before it, including the bill on misinformation and disinformation. There will be another to keep the NBN in public hands, as well as the aged care reforms.

But we’re still awaiting an announcement on restricting gambling advertising, and a bill to put an age limit on young people signing up to social media accounts.

We won’t be seeing before the election legislation for the prime minister’s  announcement on  cutting student debt by 20%, and other changes relating to its repayment, that he unveiled at the weekend.

Unlike the government’s earlier change to the indexation of this debt, now before the Senate, these new measures are promises – conditional on Labor winning next year’s election.

If that happens, Albanese says this will be “the first piece of legislation we bring into the next parliament”. The  20% cut would be from loan accounts that exist on June 1 next year.

The government says this is worth $16 billion, although experts point out the real figure – that is, the cost to taxpayers – is several billion dollars less because a portion of these loans would never be repaid anyway.

We do not have a precise timeline for the cost, which the government says would be borne over the life of the debt. No doubt the estimates hearings will see some delving into this promise, that is squarely directed at millennial voters and those younger and focused on the cost of living.  

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. View from The Hill: it’s time to put some new rules around upgrades for parliamentarians – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-its-time-to-put-some-new-rules-around-upgrades-for-parliamentarians-242744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

Over the weekend, the Albanese government announced radical changes to student loans, which would kick in after the next federal election.

Three million Australians with student debt could see their balances cut by 20%. The remaining debt would be repaid under a new system, with no compulsory repayments for people earning less than A$67,000 a year. Both changes require parliamentary approval.

The changes will apply to everyone with a student debt, including all HELP (formerly HECS), vocational education and Australian apprenticeship support loans, as well as other student support loans.

People with student debt would undoubtedly benefit from the proposed changes. But they come with a hefty price tag and some disadvantages.

What are the proposed cuts to student debt?

As of June 30 this year, Australia’s higher education student debt totalled about $75.1 billion – although this is soon set to drop by about $3 billion. Legislation to partially reverse recent indexation to debts will go to the Senate later this month.

However, staying with the $75 billion, a 20% cut would be about $15 billion.

Using the government’s figures, someone with the average HELP debt of $27,600 would see around $5,520 cut from their HELP loans next year.

Vocational education students owed $8.4 billion as of June 30 2024. Their balances would reduce by about $1.7 billion under the changes.

Based on previous student support loan data, this debt is more than $3 billion. The changes would see it drop by about $600 million.

These reductions total $17.3 billion compared to the government’s estimate of $16 billion. But the upcoming indexation changes may explain this difference.

Repayments set to change

These changes have two important elements: the income at which repayments start and how repayments are calculated.

These changes come amid a cost-of-living crisis and rising fees for students.

There was a noted outcry earlier this year when the cost of an arts degree hit $50,000 for 2025.

No compulsory repayments if you earn under $67,000

With parliament’s approval, for 2025-26 compulsory repayments on student loans would not start until the debtor was earning $67,000. This is up from about $56,000.

This would help a significant number of Australians. In 2023-24 more than 400,000 debtors had incomes between $50,000 and $70,000.

Changes to how repayments are calculated

Another significant change is to how repayments are calculated. Currently, when a debtor’s income reaches one of 18 income levels they repay a higher percentage, based on all their income.

This can produce strange results. Take a graduate earning $62,850 a year. They are in the 1% of income repayment rate, so they owe the Australian Taxation Office $628.50 in HELP repayments. But if their income goes up by $1 to $62,851 they enter the 2% repayment bracket, and owe the tax office $1,257. So a $1 pay increase would reduce the graduate’s take home pay by more than $600.

Under the government’s proposal, repayments would be calculated on income above a threshold, ignoring all income below the first threshold.

The new system would start with a 15% repayment rate at incomes between $67,000 and $124,999. Income at $125,000 or above would have a 17% repayment rate.

So, take a graduate on $70,000 a year. Under the current system, they will repay 2.5% of all their income, which is $1,750. Under the proposed system their repayments will be calculated only on the $3,000 difference between $67,000 and $70,000. This means they pay 15% of $3,000 or $450.

The government says on average, repayments will drop by $680 per individual debtor.

But those earning $180,000 plus will repay more student debt each year due to the new system. This is not a large group.
Of the 1.16 million people who made a HELP repayment in 2021-22, all but 16,000 earned less than $180,000.

There are some disadvantages

The downside of reduced annual repayments is longer repayment periods and more indexation of HELP balances.

People who want to repay more quickly can make voluntary repayments, which have increased significantly in recent years. But most people take the default option of compulsory repayments only.

While people who currently hold debt will see their repayment times reduced after the 20% cut to their balance, future borrowers won’t have this benefit.

Given the pattern of recent announcements, it would not be surprising if the government also announced reduced student contributions for future borrowers.

But it is also surprising the government has been stalling for two years on the high cost of arts degrees, set to hit almost $17,000 a year next year. These high fees should have been reduced long ago.

The cost to government

The 20% reduction in student debt balances will also come at a very significant cost to government and taxpayers.

This will not be the full $16 billion they have announced, since that includes debt that is not expected to be repaid anyway.

For higher education debt, the government actuary estimates 24% of the debt outstanding as of June 30 this year will not be repaid. Even so, a 20% cut to the $57.1 billion “good” debt would still cost $11.4 billion.

Cutting vocational education debt by 20% would add around another $1 billion to the cost, after deducting debt that won’t be repaid. Debts for student income support tend to have high bad debt rates, but the 20% cut for them would also add to the government’s expenditure.

The government will also incur further costs from slowing down future repayments.

Is this the best way?

The last few years have highlighted how stressful and damaging high levels of student debt can be for younger Australians.

And as Labor looks ahead to the next federal poll, reducing individuals’ debts and repayments could be a useful election selling point.

However, the Albanese govenrment’s plan comes with a high price tag and the priorities may not be entirely right. Managing future debt, such as by reversing fee hikes under the Job-ready Graduates program, is as important as reducing old debt.

Andrew Norton 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 flags radical changes to student debt – with a 20% overall cut and drop in payment rates – https://theconversation.com/albanese-flags-radical-changes-to-student-debt-with-a-20-overall-cut-and-drop-in-payment-rates-242740