Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohan Best, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

Over the weekend the federal government announced major changes to its A$2.3 billion home battery subsidy program.

The changes include nearly A$5 billion in extra funding and adjustments to the financial support provided for different-sized batteries. They follow recent reporting by The Conversation that the program is subsidising unnecessarily large home batteries and blowing out in cost.

Announcing the changes, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said:

We want more Aussie households to have access to batteries that are good for bills and good for the grid – because it means more cheap, fast, safe solar energy is available in our homes night or day, when and where it’s needed.

However, while the changes are a step in the right direction towards ensuring the program is fairer, many significant problems still exist.

More than 155,000 batteries

The A$2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program started in July this year. It has provided discounts of around 30% for the upfront cost of home batteries. The government estimated it would lead to one million batteries installed by 2030.

More than 155,000 homes and small businesses have benefited from the program in less than six months.

This success has some benefit for others too, as battery storage can put downward pressure on grid electricity prices.

However, as The Conversation reported last week, around a third of the budget allocation for the five-year program has been used up in five months.

Much of the cost has been funding oversized batteries.

The average battery system size installed under the program has been more than 22 kilowatt-hours.

In contrast, the government suggests 4–14kWh as typical for a regular Australian household.

A boost in funding

The changes to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program will kick in from May 1 next year.

The federal government will significantly boost funding for the program to A$7.2 billion, an increase from the A$2.3 billion originally allocated. This is expected to see more than two million Australians install a battery by 2030.

In other words, the government has nearly tripled the amount of cash but only doubled the total number of batteries they were planning to fund.

The subsidy is now set to decline at a faster pace. When the scheme ends in 2030, the subsidy will be less than half compared to the original plan.

Support for larger batteries will also be wound back to some extent.

Each kilowatt-hour between 14kWh and 28kWh will receive only 60% of the current subsidy rate.

This falls to 15% for the 28–50kWh range.

A step in the right direction

These changes are a step in the right direction.

They are likely to improve the overall fairness of the program, as it tends to be more wealthy households that can afford larger systems and receive larger subsidies. This will be scaled back after next April.

But a lot of the existing problems with the program still remain.

First, the program will likely continue to bring forward battery installations that would have happened anyway, as has happened in other contexts. This means governments end up paying mostly for investments that would have happened regardless.

This is a good reason to make the subsidies smaller – or, even more importantly, more targeted.

For example, they can be targeted based on household assets to ensure those who are less likely to buy a battery in the first place because of the financial cost will benefit. Research in solar contexts can inform this targeting.

There are also ways for the government to get more new information on household willingness to pay.

The fairness of the program could be improved further. More wealthy households are more likely to get a subsidy, and more likely to get a larger subsidy, as they have more purchasing power. The new program would still mean a 25kWh battery would receive around double the subsidy for a 10kWh battery.

Fairness is one benefit of smaller subsidies for larger batteries, as the subsidy for wealthy households who can afford larger batteries would be closer to the subsidy for others. There is also an issue of wealthier households with larger batteries benefiting more from selling more electricity in the wholesale market.

Smaller subsidies for larger batteries also reduce the incentive for installers to try to sell and report the biggest possible batteries.

For example, a lower subsidy rate is possible compared to the government’s plan for each kilowatt-hour of battery systems between 14kWh and 28kWh.

Uncertainty also exists about the impact of the faster pace of subsidy decline.

Households who need to wait a few years to afford a battery might be disadvantaged relative to those who can buy sooner.

While the faster pace of subsidy decline might be suitable if battery prices fall, evidence of prior price declines is mixed. This should motivate the government to more frequently re-evaluate the scheme.

Rohan Best previously received funding for projects for the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) and the New South Wales government.

– ref. Government boosts its home battery program by $5 billion. But it still has big problems – https://theconversation.com/government-boosts-its-home-battery-program-by-5-billion-but-it-still-has-big-problems-272053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

On Sunday evening, Bondi Beach was the scene of a mass shooting that has shocked Australia.

At the time of writing 16 people have been killed, including one of the gunmen, and another 40 people have been wounded.

The attack has been declared a terrorist act.

Many questions remain, including: how common are these types of attacks, did the police get their initial response right and what action needs to be taken to prevent another attack like this?

The initial response

At about 6.40pm, emergency services were notified of an active armed offender incident at Bondi Beach, near where a Jewish festival was taking place.

General duty and specialist police would have been confronted with a chaotic scene with multiple victims and a situation that was unpredictable and rapidly developing. Even with police present at the event, there would have been difficulties in identifying the threat and then engaging with it.

Police located two men using rifles and shotguns to shoot at nearby crowds. Multiple officers exchanged fire with the offenders and two police were shot and injured.

The attack was allegedly carried out by two gunmen, a father and son.

The 50-year-old father was shot dead by police at the scene. The son, 24, identified by police as Naveed Akram, was shot by authorities and is now under police guard at hospital.

Read more:
Bondi Beach shooting: how it happened

Active armed offenders

Any active armed offender situation is fluid. Even more so when the incident occurs in a public space with large numbers of people present.

The Australia-New Zealand Counter Terrorism Committee provides guidelines for responses to incidents such as the Bondi shootings.

The committee defines an active armed offender as:

An armed offender who is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people, and who demonstrated their intention to continue to do so while having access to additional potential victims.

In broad terms, the response to active armed offenders is to prioritise the evacuation of people from danger.

Another priority is to limit the offenders’ freedom of movement and restrict their access to potential victims.

Video of the shooting shows the offenders being restricted to a footbridge by police converging from both sides of the structure.

One of the offenders had been disarmed by a member of the public before retreating to this position.

Read more:
Intervene or run and hide: what should you do during public violence like the attacks at Bondi?

The focus of the police would have been to minimise the duration of the incident, move people away from danger and then locate, isolate and neutralise the active armed offenders.

In 2014 the NSW Police updated their active armed offender responses in line with identified best practice in collaboration with university partners. The policy moved from a contain and negotiate focus to a more proactive, rapid and decisive engagement of the offender.

Mass shootings in Australia

Mass shootings in Australia are rare. The most notable was the rampage in 1996 at Port Arthur where 36 victims were shot and killed.

Following this, Australia introduced restrictive gun ownership laws which are credited with substantially reducing mass shooting events in Australia.

Despite this, several shootings involving multiple victims have taken place in Australia in recent years including the Wieambilla shootings in 2022 when two police officers and a civilian were shot and killed.

In 2019, a shooting attack in Darwin resulted in four victims being killed.

How accessible are firearms in Australia?

The 2023-24 national homicide report noted use of firearms in homicides has decreased since 1989-90.

Back then, firearms were involved in 17% of incidents. In 2023-24, firearms were used in 12% of these incidents.

A 2025 report indicated there were about four million firearms in Australia, with nearly one million firearm licences being issued.

New South Wales has more than one million registered firearms.

In NSW, people with a license can legally own multiple weapons. Each firearm needs to be registered after establishing a genuine reason for possessing it.

Akram is stated to own six firearms.

What happens now?

The shootings will now be the focus of ongoing police investigations led by the Counter Terrorism Command and assisted by the State Crime Command.

As the incident was declared a terrorist attack, special investigative powers have been granted while there will be multiple agencies involved in the investigation in the form of a joint counter terrorism team.

These teams, established in each state and territory, comprise of the Australian Federal Police, state and territory law enforcement, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and other government agencies.

This ensures a coordinated response to terrorism within and across jurisdictions in accordance with the National Counter Terrorism Plan.

One of the key aspects of this team will be the coordination of intelligence to assess the motives of the attack and identify any potential co-offenders.

In essence the investigation will have two facets: the investigation of the homicides and then investigating the terrorism aspects. The investigations will focus on the weapons used, where the weapons came from and how the offenders came to possess them.

In practical terms there will be substantial resources required to process the primary crime scene due to the sheer number of victims and the size of the scene.

There will also be likely multiple secondary crime scenes that will need to be processed as the investigation proceeds.

NSW Premier Chris Minns has already flagged there will be a full inquiry into the events that occurred in the lead-up and the response.

Terry Goldsworthy 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. What police had to do during the chaos of Bondi – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/what-police-had-to-do-during-the-chaos-of-bondi-and-what-comes-next-272032

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor and Director of the Tackling Hate Lab, Deakin University

At least 16 people – including a ten-year-old child – are dead after two men opened fire on a crowd of people celebrating the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah on Sunday in a public park at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. Many more are injured.

I am horrified. But as a researcher who studies hate and extremist violence, I am sadly not surprised.

The Jewish community has been a top target for terrorist ideologies and groups for a long time. Many people working in this field have been expecting a serious attack on Australian soil.

Much remains unclear about the Bondi terrorist attacks and it’s too early to speculate about these gunmen specifically. The investigation is ongoing.

But what about antisemitic sentiment more broadly?

Our research – which is in the early stages and yet to be peer reviewed – has recorded a significant and worrying increase in antisemitic sentiment after October 7.

Our research

We have been training AI models to track online sentiment in social media targeting Australian communities, including Jewish people.

That means working with humans – including extremism experts and people in the Jewish community – to label content. This is to teach our model if the content it is encountering is hateful or not.

Based on definitions adopted by the Jewish community, we distinguished between two main types of antisemitism: “old” antisemitism and “new” antisemitism.

“Old” antisemitism targets Jews as Jews. It draws on entrenched myths and stereotypes that portray them as alien, dangerous, or morally corrupt.

“New” antisemitism shifts the focus from individual Jews to the state of Israel. It blames Jews collectively for Israel’s actions.

Many in the Jewish community see this as a modern continuation of historical antisemitism. Critics (both within and outside the Jewish community) contend it risks conflating legitimate opposition to Israeli policies with antisemitism.

Central to this debate is whether anti-Israel sentiment represents a continuation of age-old prejudices or a political response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In our research, we tracked both “old” and “new” antisemitism.

A sharp increase

We found that both increased sharply after October 7.

For example, we studied posts on X (formerly Twitter) geolocated in Australia before and after October 7. We wanted to understand the size of the rise in antisemitism.

We found that “old” antisemitism rose from an average of 34 tweets a month in the year before October 7 to 2,021 in the following year.

“New” antisemitism increased even more, rising from an average of 505 a month in the year before October 7 to 21,724 in the year after.

Some examples of “old” antisemitism are explicit, such as calls to “get rid of all Jews” or “kill all Jews”.

Others are more indirect, including minimising or denying the Holocaust. Examples include posts claiming that “if the Holocaust of 6 million Jews were true, Israel could not exist today” or that the Nazis had only a minimal impact on the Jewish population.

Other forms of hate rely on conspiracy theories, such as claims that “Jews are paying to destroy Australia”.

However, the vast majority of the content our models identified as antisemitic fell into the category of “new” antisemitism. This included content that blamed the Jewish community for events in Israel, such as calling all Australian Jews “baby killers” or “Zionazi fu–wits”, regardless of their personal political views and opinions about the Israeli government and its actions.

(All examples here are drawn from real content, but the wording has been slightly modified to anonymise them and prevent identification of the original authors).

In other words, we have seen an overall escalation of hostilities against Jews online.

More extreme and explicit calls for violence rarely appear on mainstream platforms. They tend to circulate on fringe social media, such as Telegram.

On X, we have seen a collision of mainstream discourse and fringe discourse, due to the lack of moderation.

But antisemitism doesn’t always involve slurs, meaning it can also happen in mainstream platforms. Especially after the election of Trump and the relaxation in moderation practises of Meta, we have also seen it on Instagram. This includes Instagram posts published after the Bondi attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly the Jewish community, I am sure, will feel not enough was done.

Jillian Segal, Australia’s first government-appointed special envoy for combating antisemitism, released her plan for addressing the issue back in July.

As I wrote at the time, the recommendations fell into three main categories:

1. preventing violence and crime, including improved coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia

2. strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms

3. promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.

The government had said it will consider the recommendations. Segal has now said government messaging combating antisemitism has “not been sufficient”.

Some might argue addressing points two and three could have helped prevent the Bondi attack. A common assumption is that a climate of widespread antisemitism can embolden violence.

The reality, however, is that this is hard to establish. People who commit terrorist acts – whether they self radicalise or are recruited by terrorist organisations – do not necessarily respond to changes in broader public sentiment.

That said, there is obvious value in prevention work aimed at reducing hostility and antisemitic attitudes, even while small networks or individuals committed to violent terrorism may still exist.

Preventing terrorist violence of this scale relies primarily on effective law enforcement. This requires adequate resourcing and a clear legislative framework.

Education and broader cultural change matter. In short term, however, they are less likely to be as effective at preventing acts of terrorism as measures such as firearm regulation, monitoring extremist networks, and disrupting plots before they turn into action.

Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Australian government (ARC, Department of Home Affairs) and the Canadian government (Public Safety Canada).

– ref. Bondi attacks come after huge increase in online antisemitism: research – https://theconversation.com/bondi-attacks-come-after-huge-increase-in-online-antisemitism-research-272045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ashlynne McGhee, Head of Editorial Innovation, The Conversation

Two terrorists have killed 15 people at a Chanukah celebration at Bondi Beach. One of the gunmen is also dead. It is now the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur in 1996.

The shooting lasted less than an hour, but the volume of footage and images shared online has made it difficult to track what happened and when.

We’ve sifted through verified online videos, social media posts, broadcast media and police statements to put together these details of how the massacre unfolded.

A timeline of the events

• 5pm – Chanukah by the Sea event begins. It’s run by the Chabad of Bondi which promotes it as “the perfect family event to celebrate light, warmth, and community.”

• around 6.45pm – NSW police respond to reports of an active shooter.

• Sometime after 6.45pm – Two shooters can be seen firing from a bridge towards people at the Chanukah by the Sea event. They have a number of guns. Video footage shows cars driving past them as they shoot.

• One of the shooters, since identified as Sajid Akram, moves to the park grass.

• A bystander, since identified as Ahmed El-Ahmed, tackles gunman Sajid Akram.

• Sajid Akram runs back to bridge where video shows his son Naveed Akram is still shooting. He re-arms. Both men come under fire from police nearby.

• Sajid Akram is shot and falls to the ground.

• The second alleged gunman, Naveed Akram, is shot. A man in pale clothing walks towards the bridge then motions for police to come. Another man moves onto the bridge and raises his hands, a gunshot can be heard in the video footage.

• Police and members of the public run onto the bridge in chaotic scenes. One man can be seen kicking one of the alleged gunmen, while another two people are fighting each other.

• By 7.30, police are seen surrounding the shooters on the ground.

• Sajid Akram is confirmed to have died, while Naveed Akram is in hospital with injuries.

Where did the shooting happen?

The father-son gunmen, Sajid Akram, 50, and Naveed Akram, 24, started shooting from a small bridge over a carpark next to Archer Park. The terrorist attack took place in the immediate area around the bridge and park. An improvised explosive device was later found in their car.

– ref. Bondi Beach shooting: how it happened – https://theconversation.com/bondi-beach-shooting-how-it-happened-272051

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hamish Clarke, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Christmas is the time when Australia’s population is on the move. Many travel to celebrate the holidays with family and friends, and enjoy a well-earned break. This means roads are busy, tourist hotspots are teeming and our focus shifts to gifts, meals and winding down.

Unfortunately, December and January are also the peak time for bushfires for much of the country. Already there have been damaging fires in the south-west and south-east of Australia at the start of December. There were 35 houses lost across New South Wales and Tasmania, and the tragic death of a fire fighter in Buladelah, NSW.

As summer heats up and vegetation dries out and becomes fuel, we can expect more fires across the southern half of the country.

Whether you are travelling or staying at home, you need to know where risks are greatest in order to prepare. The short answer is: anywhere there is vegetation – be it grass, forests or shrubland – there is a risk of fire.

The Australia and New Zealand Council for Fire and Emergency Services recently released their seasonal bushfire outlook for summer 2025, which points to a heightened risk in south-western Western Australia, central northern NSW and southern and western Victoria.

Coastal areas of NSW were not predicted to be above average risk of fires. However, a recent heat wave rapidly dried fuels, making them available to burn and resulting in fires. Risk can escalate quickly.

Why risks increase

For bushfires to occur, four key elements must align:

1. fuel – abundance of live and dead vegetation such as grasses, shrubs and trees

2. dry conditions – a lack of rain and decline in soil moisture that makes fuel susceptible to burning

3. ignition source – lightning or human sources including machinery, campfires and arson

4. fire-promoting weather – low humidity, high temperatures, high winds.

At this time of year, all four elements are present more often and more intensely across much of southern Australia. And climate change is loading the dice by increasing heat extremes, drying fuel rapidly and lengthening the fire season.

But humans also shape fire risk. Where and how we build, and how prepared we are all influence whether a fire becomes a disaster.

Gather fire info

Wherever you travel over the summer season, the best thing to do is be prepared for fire. Ideally, this builds your understanding and confidence, rather than anxiety, because we know Christmas is stressful for many people.

Knowledge is the key. Understanding the environment you are in and what fires are in the landscape is crucial. Most states have apps for mobile phones, such as VicEmergency or Hazards Near Me, and websites that alert you to dangerous weather and the occurrence of fires in the landscape.

These apps often allow you to set alerts to tell you when something is happening within a given area around your location. Having alerts saves you from having to constantly check your phone, and lets you enjoy the summer break.

ABC radio is the national emergency broadcaster. Be sure to know the frequency of the local ABC station so you can tune in and get up-to-date information.

Be prepared

Have a plan of what you might do if a fire occurs in the area. Think about where you are staying and any nearby areas of flammable vegetation. A house adjacent to the forest is likely to be at greater risk than a house in the middle of a coastal town.

There are many risk factors related to homes and gardens, including building materials and design, the presence of fuel and proximity to neighbours.

You should also consider where you would go if a fire affects the area you are staying. Most towns have a neighbourhood safer place. This is a point to congregate if a fire breaks out. Take note of where the local rural fire brigade is, which are an invaluable source of local knowledge during emergencies.

Power can be lost during bigger fires, meaning you (or the local takeaway) won’t be able to cook dinner or make coffee in the morning (a good reason to brush up on cold brew expertise). Similarly, the online systems that run ATMs and EFTPOS will go down so bring cash to buy necessities and support local businesses. And try to keep your car full of fuel, or charged. Petrol pumps rely on electricity to run, so in a blackout you can’t get the fuel needed to leave an area.

Importantly, never try to outrun a fire. Many people have died after misjudging the speed of a fire and their ability to escape from it. Good decisions are not made when you are stressed and afraid.

So make plans early and consult the local fire brigade if you are unsure. They would much rather help make a safety plan than have to deal with the consequences of a bad decision.

Hamish Clarke receives funding from the Westpac Scholars Trust (HC) and the Australian Research Council via an Industry Fellowship IM240100046. He is a member of the International Association of Wildland Fire, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the Australian Science Communicators, and a member of the Oceania Regional Committee of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.

Sarah McColl-Gausden has received funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action including through the Integrated Forest Ecosystem Research program. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia.

Tori Reynolds currently receives funding from the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre through the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). She has previously received research funding from the same department. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia. She works closely with Australian fire and land-management agencies in an applied research capacity.

Trent Penman receives funding from Natural Hazards Research Australia, the Australian Research Council and various state fire agencies and electricity network providers.

– ref. Heading away for the holidays? Here’s how to plan for fires – https://theconversation.com/heading-away-for-the-holidays-heres-how-to-plan-for-fires-271526

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

Reddit is asking Australia’s High Court to rule that it’s not a social media platform and therefore should not have to comply with the under-16s social media account ban.

The US-based web forum’s High Court case raises two issues. First, it raises the same constitutional implied freedom of political communication issue raised in a case commenced last month by two 15-year-olds, which the High Court will hear in February.

Second, it asks the High Court to rule that even if the legislation is valid, Reddit falls outside the legislation’s scope.

So what platforms does the social media account ban apply to? And is Reddit really not a social media platform?

What the legislation says

The legislation requires “age-restricted social media platforms” to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts. The law does not ban teenagers from using the internet or accessing social media platforms in logged-out mode.

The legislation says the ban applies to any electronic service that meets these key criteria:

• it has the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of enabling online social interaction between two or more end-users
• it allows end-users to link to, or interact with, other end-users
• it allows end-users to post material on the service
• it has material which is accessible to, or delivered to, end-users in Australia.

The eSafety Commission’s website provides a breakdown of what each of these criteria means and a flow chart to help companies work out whether their platforms are subject to the rules.

The eSafety Commission has published a list of platforms it thinks meet the criteria, including: Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube.

The eSafety Commission also has a list of platforms it thinks don’t meet the criteria and so fall outside the scope of the law, including: Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp and YouTube Kids.

Why does Reddit say it’s not social media?

In documents filed in the High Court, Reddit says it does not satisfy the criterion of having a significant purpose of “enabling online social interaction”.

Reddit claims that while it enables online interaction it does not enable online social interaction.

Reddit says that for an interaction to be social it has to happen “because of a particular user’s relationship with or interest in another user as a person; indeed, in most cases the identity of a user on Reddit is not even known to other users”.

Reddit says it merely “enables online interactions about the content that users post on the site. It facilitates knowledge sharing from one user to other users.”

These are not strong arguments.

What Reddit is telling the High Court doesn’t match its own public statements

Odds are the High Court is not going to be convinced by Reddit’s “you can’t be social with people you don’t know or aren’t interested in” argument.

The fact that lots of Reddit users don’t know each other is irrelevant. The same is true of lots of users of Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

The same is also true for lots of in-person social interactions. According to Reddit’s logic, if you go to a nightclub by yourself and spend the night dancing with strangers you did not engage in social interaction.

Or if you go to a car enthusiasts’ meetup and spend the day chatting with other car enthusiasts you’ve never met before about cars, that’s not social interaction either. The interaction is merely about a shared interest and not an interest in each other as people.

If you go on Reddit (you don’t need an account to read posts) you will see discussions of all sorts of topics that go beyond “knowledge sharing”.

Reddit’s corporate home page even contradicts what it’s telling the High Court. Its home page says:

Reddit is home to thousands of communities, endless conversation, and authentic human connection. Whether you’re into breaking news, sports, TV fan theories, or a never-ending stream of the internet’s cutest animals, there’s a community on Reddit for you.

Communities. Conversation. Human connection. That sounds suspiciously like social interaction.

The case might be helpful anyway

New laws often bring court cases clarifying the scope of the law. Both the eSafety Commission and other social media companies will be watching closely.

A ruling from the High Court (or any other court, if the High Court decides to send the case to a lower court) will help provide guidance to the eSafety Commission in enforcing the law.

It will also provide guidance to other social media platforms in working out whether they are subject to the new laws.

Luke Beck 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. Reddit says it’s not a social media platform. Australia’s High Court is unlikely to agree – https://theconversation.com/reddit-says-its-not-a-social-media-platform-australias-high-court-is-unlikely-to-agree-271938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

As Sunday’s Bondi Beach attack unfolded, many will have seen footage of a man acting alone, moving toward one of the gunmen and wrestling the weapon from his hands.

It was an extraordinary act of bravery that resulted in him being shot twice.

The man was named as 43-year-old Ahmed al Ahmed, a local fruit shop owner.

Incredible bravery, but there are risks

We have no way of knowing how many additional lives were saved as a result of Ahmed’s bravery. But it almost certainly prevented further loss of life.

The moment is reminiscent of when a bystander similarly intervened at great personal risk during the Bondi Junction shopping centre attack in 2024.

When acts of courage like these occur, we rightly take notice and commend them.

But they also raise important and often overlooked questions: what motivates ordinary people to take such selfless, high-risk actions, is bystander intervention a good strategy, or does it go against official advice during mass violence events?

Two types of ‘bystander effect’

Many people would have heard of the “bystander effect”, which occurs when the presence of others discourages someone from intervening in an emergency situation, against a bully, or during an assault or other crime.

But decades of behavioural research complicate the popular idea that people inevitably freeze or look away when others are present during dangerous situations.

A large meta-analysis of bystander behaviour shows in genuinely dangerous, unambiguous emergencies (like those involving a clear perpetrator), the classic (passive) bystander effect is substantially weakened, and in some cases even reversed.

In other words, violent attacks are precisely the kinds of situations where people become likelier to act.

One reason is danger clarifies responsibility. When a situation is clearly life-threatening, people recognise it faster and are less likely to wait for social cues or reassurance from others.

We see time and again that in clear high-risk emergencies (particularly those involving violence), responsibility often sharpens rather than disappears.

An analysis of more than 100 suicide attacks in Israel shows bystander intervention can significantly reduce overall casualties.

Across these documented incidents, intervention rarely prevented an attack altogether but it frequently disrupted the attacker’s control over timing and location, triggering premature action in less crowded settings and saving lives as a result.

The same analysis, however, also shows bystander intervention often came at a direct personal cost to the interveners.

But active bystander behaviour takes many forms and can occur at different stages.

It may also involve:

• someone who knows the perpetrator noticing and reporting concerning behaviour in the lead-up to an attack

• guiding others to safety or sharing information as events unfold

• providing assistance and coordination in the aftermath.

However, getting involved does seem to fly in the face of official advice from Australian authorities.

In fact, only a few weeks ago, the Australia–New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee launched a new national public safety campaign.

A new safety message

The new public safety campaign explicitly recognises that Australia is a safe country but there remains a risk of weapons attacks in crowded places, and that knowing how to respond can save lives.

The campaign introduced the guidance “Escape. Hide. Tell.” which means:

• escape: move quickly and quietly away from danger but only if it is safe to do so

• hide: stay out of sight and silence your mobile phone

• tell: call police by dialling Triple Zero (000) when it is safe.

The aim of this advice is to help people respond in the critical first moments before police arrive, make informed decisions, and increase their chances of staying safe.

The official Australian guidance does not include any instruction to confront an attacker.

By contrast, US public safety messaging such as the FBI’s “Run. Hide. Fight” guidance does include a “fight” step, but only as a last-resort option when escape and hiding are not possible and life is in immediate danger.

Australian authorities have chosen not to include such a step, emphasising avoidance and reporting rather than confrontation.

Some practical advice

My previous experimental research has identified more specific behavioural guidance that can improve survival chances in violent attacks, particularly in crowded environments.

Using computer modelling and controlled experiments with real crowds, I have identified several strategic areas to improve their survival chance in such events.

First, moving slowly away from danger is not ideal – people need to move away from the source of threat as quickly and safely as possible.

Second, hesitation – whether to gather information, inspect what is happening, or film events – increases the risk of harm.

Third, people need to remain agile in their decision-making and navigation while they are moving and be willing to adjust their movement as situations evolve and information becomes clearer. This means continuously scanning your surroundings and adjusting direction as new information becomes apparent, rather than stopping to reassess.

Finally, when moving with family or friends, travelling in a single-file formation – staying close in a back-to-back snake formation rather than holding hands side by side – benefits everyone by reducing congestion and improving flow.

Be prepared

The events in Sydney are horrific and they underline a difficult reality: preparedness for violent risks in crowded places needs to become more mainstream.

Crowded spaces will always remain vulnerable to deliberate violence, whether driven by terrorist intent or other motivations.

Messaging needs to reach more people to be evidence-based, nuanced, and widely accessible.

With several major public events and large mass gatherings approaching (including New Year’s Eve) it is more important than ever for people to be aware of these risks and remain vigilant.

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. Intervene or run and hide: what should you do during public violence like the attacks at Bondi? – https://theconversation.com/intervene-or-run-and-hide-what-should-you-do-during-public-violence-like-the-attacks-at-bondi-272046

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Daniels, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

The battle between Netflix and Paramount for Warner Bros Discovery may significantly affect New Zealand’s screen sector, audience choice, local production opportunities and industry growth.

On December 6, Netflix announced it had signed a definitive agreement valued at US$83 billion (NZ$143 billion) or US$27.75 per share to acquire Warner Bros, including its film and television studios, and streaming platforms HBO Max and HBO.

Three days later, Paramount – which has had been busy since September with six separate proposals to buy Warner Bros Discovery – launched a counteroffer directly to shareholders of US$30 per share in cash.

Paramount argues the Netflix deal is anti-competitive and could face prolonged regulatory challenges. It claims Netflix could gain control of 43% of global streaming subscribers (400 million worldwide). Disney+, its closest competitor, has 200 million streaming subscribers.

But Paramount would also face antitrust scrutiny if it secured the bid, which would give the company significant market share across streaming and other global network assets.

For New Zealand audiences, a Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros would see a bundling of content into a bigger library, and also increased costs specific to the local market.

The merger would bring HBO shows, Warner movies, DC Studios and Warner Gaming Studios straight into Netflix’s lineup, but with higher subscription fees and tiered pricing models.

New Zealand currently has only one streamer with a tiered pricing option, Neon (owned by digital pay-TV provider Sky), which offers a monthly plan with advertisements for NZ$14.99 and a monthly plan without advertisements for $23.99.

Neon is also home to HBO and HBO Max content in New Zealand. While having Netflix as a single streaming service might appeal to consumers, tiered pricing could become significantly higher than current fees and continue to rise over time.

Economic and cultural impacts

Streaming service have already pushed local television to the sidelines: 56% of New Zealanders watch streaming video on demand, with Netflix leading the pack, while linear TV sits at 47%.

A Netflix-Warner merger could accelerate this trend, leaving local broadcasters struggling to hold on to audiences in an already fragile market, where shifting advertising models have reduced revenue.

Economic fallout might also shrink opportunities for New Zealand’s screen industry if a merger reduces the number of foreign productions and their spending, affecting creatives and crews as well as local businesses.

Research released this month shows the screen sector contributes NZ$1.1 billion to GDP from a total $3.0 billion in output. In 2025, Warner Bros invested over NZ$4 million in post-production and special effects, backing projects such as The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim and RuPaul’s Drag Race Down Under.

The research also highlighted the cultural impact of such productions, where a kind of screen-driven “soft power” adds to the country’s international appeal, with flow-on effects in tourism.

On the home front, Sky’s Neon platform could also lose some or all of its HBO content. This would hit New Zealand’s only domestic subscription streaming service hard.

Meanwhile, Warner Bros’ New Zealand production arm – which produces shows such as The Bachelor, Married At First Sight NZ, The Block NZ, Celebrity Treasure Island and The Great Kiwi Bake Off – may be sold under the merger if Netflix carves off Discovery.
What might happen to output, distribution and access to global formats remains unclear.

Local options shrink

Hollywood is worried, too. The sale of Warner Bros could weaken the traditional cinema market, reduce film production and concentrate creative power under one streaming giant.

The Netflix business model favours streaming-first releases, with only limited theatre runs. This might mean fewer cinema premieres in New Zealand and fewer big-screen experiences for local audiences.

If Netflix controls 43% of the global streaming market, content will be designed for broad appeal rather than for diverse voices and stories. A homogenised style – what media scholar Mareike Jenner has described as Netflix’s “transnational middlebrow” approach – will take precedent over region-specific or politically charged storytelling.

Right now, New Zealand producers can pitch to a range of international networks. But if that pool shrinks, there are fewer commissioners, fewer buyers and fewer distribution options.

On the other hand, the New Zealand screen industry was built with a “number 8 wire” mentality and has proved resilient, adaptable and innovative. Those qualities will be needed as the global entertainment industry continues to change and consolidate.

Rachel Daniels 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. How NZ streaming costs and choices could change after the epic Netflix-Paramount battle for Warner Bros – https://theconversation.com/how-nz-streaming-costs-and-choices-could-change-after-the-epic-netflix-paramount-battle-for-warner-bros-271832