Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

Gambling, especially sports and race betting, is a hot political issue at the moment.

This is largely due to the recommendations from a 2023 report from a nonpartisan federal government committee, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, called You Win Some, You Lose More.

This report recommended “the Australian government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling”.

This has led to lots of debate and controversy.

Recently, Peter V’landys, head of the NRL and Racing NSW, claimed lotteries were more harmful than race and sports betting combined, citing independent statistics.

Let’s explore the relative harm of different types of gambling and see if this claim holds up.

Australians love a punt

Gambling is widespread in Australia, with more than half of adults engaging in at least one form each year.

According to the latest national data, lotteries are the most common type (40% of Australians buy a ticket annually), followed by race betting (17%), pokies (16%), scratchies (15.7%) and sports betting (9.6%).

However, the popularity of a gambling form doesn’t necessarily reflect its harm. Different gambling activities have distinct characteristics.

Two key factors mean that some gambling forms are more harmful than others: the speed of gambling and bet size.

Pokies allow for frequent, small bets, with spins every three seconds. Race and sports betting can involve much larger sums and betting that is relatively fast, but still slower than pokie spins.

Sports betting, in particular, is getting faster with in-play betting and microbetting.

Lotteries, on the other hand, are much slower-paced.

People typically spend a small amount on tickets and wait for a draw to find out if they’ve won.

Although it’s possible to spend a lot on tickets, people tend not to, unlike with faster gambling forms.

The average spend on pokies among the 16% who play them is around $4,782 per year, compared to an average spend on lotteries of $377 per year. These are averages. Most won’t spend these amounts but some will spend far more, which raises the average amount.

V’landys’ claim about lotteries being more harmful than race and sports betting was based on “independent statistics”.

He said that of 100 people seeking help from a gambling hotline, 70 had issues with pokies, 15 with lotteries, eight with race betting, four with sports betting, and three with casinos.

We were unable to verify these figures – if anyone has the data, we’d love to see the research to assess them.

However, we do have publicly available data.

What the data say

The NSW GambleAware website’s 2020-21 report shows that of 2,886 people seeking help, 73.3% identified pokies as their primary form of gambling, while only 13 people (less than 1%) listed lotteries. Race betting accounted for 13.1%, and sports betting for 7.9%.

These patterns were consistent with previous years.

People who experience problems also usually take part in more than one form of gambling, as the NSW report showed.

When these secondary gambling activities were considered, sports betting was cited by 35.5%, race betting by 33.5%, pokies by 19.5%, and lotteries by 13.7%.

What we discovered

The best evidence on gambling problems and harm comes from large-scale prevalence studies, typically commissioned by governments and conducted by independent researchers.

These studies offer high-quality insights into how each gambling form contributes to problems.

While one prevalence study is great, our team recently combined data from seven national and state-based prevalence studies. This resulted in a very high-quality dataset that we can use to study this question.

In our analysis, we used statistical techniques to show how strongly each gambling form is associated with problems.

These techniques give us regression coefficients, which are just numbers that tell us how strong the association is. A higher number means a stronger association between that form and gambling problems.

The most problematic form was pokies (coefficient = 0.147), followed by casino games (0.136), sports betting (0.068) and race betting (0.038).

Lotteries, with a coefficient of 0.001, were the least problematic and were not statistically significant even in our large sample.

As you might guess from such a low number, there’s very little relationship between lotteries and gambling problems.

What about prevalence?

Prevalence matters too – while pokies were most strongly associated with problems, the number of people participating in each gambling form is also important.

Let’s consider an analogy – a car that gives out a lot of exhaust fumes. That car is harmful, but if virtually no one owns one, then it’s not going to account for much pollution.

The same idea applies for gambling forms. If a gambling form is very harmful but very few people do it, it doesn’t account for many problems in the population.

It works the other way, too – if there is a very clean type of car that many people drive, they also won’t add up to much pollution.

Similarly, if we have gambling forms that have very little association with problems, it won’t add up to many problems in the population, even if lots of people take part.

The regression coefficients tell us how problematic each gambling form is. Prevalance tells us how many people do it.

When we combine these two bits of information, we can work out the degree of problems in the community that come from each form.

When we did this, pokies were responsible for 52-57% of gambling problems in the community.

Sports and race betting each contributed 9-11%, with a combined total of around 20%.

Lotteries accounted for just 0.1-1% of problems.

Even if we include scratchies as part of lotteries, this only adds another 2-5% of problems, still far below sports and race betting.

The real issue

What’s the takeaway?

Lotteries are widely played but are not typically associated with much harm.

Sports and race betting, despite having fewer participants, are more harmful due to their faster pace and the potential for large, frequent bets.

Lotteries involve slower betting and lower spending, making them much less risky.

If we aim to reduce gambling harm in our community, the focus should be on pokies, which are widespread in pubs and clubs outside WA, casino games and race and sports betting.

These forms have features that make them far more harmful than slower-paced gambling like lotteries.

Alex Russell receives funding from Gambling Research Australia, the Department of Social Services, the NSW Responsible Gambling Fund, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the South Australian Government, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Northern Territory Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute and Arts Queensland. He previously provided statistical advice on projects to inform a casino group about gambling and gambling problems amongst their employees, and what could be done to reduce this.

He is a board member for the Australian Loneliness Research Foundation.

Matthew Browne has received funding from the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Gambling Research Australia, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the Commonwealth Department of Social Services, the Office of Responsible Gambling, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority for various research studies on gambling behaviour, youth gambling, and the social costs of gambling, and gambling-related harm.

Matthew Rockloff receives funding from Matthew Rockloff has received funding from the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Gambling Research Australia, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the Commonwealth Department of Social Services, the Office of Responsible Gambling, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority for various research studies on gambling behaviour, youth gambling, and the social costs of gambling, and gambling-related harm.

– ref. Pokies? Lotto? Sports betting? Which forms of problem gambling affect Australians the most? – https://theconversation.com/pokies-lotto-sports-betting-which-forms-of-problem-gambling-affect-australians-the-most-240665

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eileen Joy, Professional Teaching Fellow in Social Work, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

With the recent establishment of a new Social Investment Agency – described as a “driving project” for the government by Finance Minister Nicola Willis – it seems New Zealand has come full circle on this approach to social welfare.

First championed by then finance minister Bill English in 2015, social investment was rebranded “social wellbeing” by Labour-led governments between 2017 and 2023. But Willis signalled before last year’s election that its time had come again.

In a speech in 2022, she argued taxpayer money wasn’t being spent responsibly by the Labour administration, and that a targeted social investment approach was needed. During the 2023 election campaign, the National Party promised social investment would return.

Essentially, the policy involves using data to calculate which groups of people cost the government the most over a lifetime. Interventions aimed at reducing that cost are then targeted at those people. The idea is that early investment saves later social costs.

Right now, however, we don’t know the finer details of how Willis intends to implement the policy. But we do know how it worked in the past – and what lessons might be drawn from its earlier, short-lived implementation.

An actuarial approach to welfare

In New Zealand, the idea of social investment can be traced back to the fifth National government which held office for three terms between 2008 and 2017.

In September 2015, English outlined his approach in a Treasury lecture, explaining how the government had commissioned Australian actuary firm Taylor Fry to calculate the lifetime welfare cost to the state of people on benefits.

Typically, actuaries use statistics to calculate risk for insurance companies, information that is then used to set premiums. English said the Taylor Fry calculations would identify which beneficiary “is going to cost us the most money”.

The answer was single parents receiving a benefit. Consequently, they were deemed most in need of direct government intervention, including giving an approved mentor control of their money.

According to English’s version of social investment, data enabled the government to calculate the “forward liability” of its citizens, and target interventions accordingly.

This is not the only way to define social investment, however, and other countries often adopt a more universal approach. For example, European models tend to focus on social equality and inclusivity rather than targeting specific groups.

English’s model focused on applying benefit sanctions and conditions. The aim was to “reduce the lifetime public cost of the welfare-recipient population, thereby offering fiscal returns-on-investment, absorbed into public coffers”.

A Social Investment Unit was created in 2016, followed by a Social Investment Agency in 2017. This was a standalone agency providing advice across government departments.

No accounting for structural disadvantage

Official thinking about social investment predates the establishment of the unit and agency. In 2015, the second of two reports produced by an expert panel review of the Child, Youth and Family agency (now Oranga Tamariki) recommended a new child-centred social investment agency be created.

The report’s analysis and advice focused on intervening early to reduce the risk of vulnerable children growing up to be beneficiaries, teen parents, substance users or prisoners (among other negative outcomes).

It was suggested these potential future behaviours almost always stemmed from the actions (or inactions) of parents. Māori were identified as being especially costly due to their over-representation in child protection statistics. They were described as a “forward liability associated with poor outcomes”.

The proposed response was early intervention and social investment. That would include the removal of very young children from whānau/families where they were perceived to be at high risk. The reasoning was that the predicted damage might then never eventuate, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

As my doctoral research found, no consideration in the report was given to the effects of systemic conditions such as poverty and the legacies of colonisation.

Costs to the state

The social investment model, with its emphasis on financial liability to the state, became a major influence on Oranga Tamariki’s practice.

It led to an increase in the early removal of tamariki Māori, especially babies, from their birth families – as demonstrated in the 2019 Hawkes Bay “uplift” case, where social workers attempted to remove a Māori baby soon after birth.

In 2017, the new Labour government promised a review of the Social Investment Agency, renaming it the Social Wellbeing Agency in 2020. The social development minister at the time, Carmel Sepuloni, said the agency would have a more holistic approach. Data would be only one of a number of considerations when delivering social services.

But with the agency now reverting to its original name, the idea of using data to guide early intervention seems to be central again. It’s unclear, however, whether the actuarial approach of Bill English’s earlier model will return.

Nicola Willis does seem to be aware of the criticism of the English-era model’s apparent focus on fiscal risk and returns. She has stressed that measuring other outcomes is also important.

As yet, though, there is no indication the policy’s highly targeted approach to welfare will account for structural factors such as colonisation and poverty.

Given the government’s drive to remove any special policy considerations based on te Tiriti of Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi, the risk remains that some Māori will again come to be viewed as a “cost” to the state.

Eileen Joy 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. Social investment is back – and so are the risks of using data to target disadvantage – https://theconversation.com/social-investment-is-back-and-so-are-the-risks-of-using-data-to-target-disadvantage-240799

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trevor Ireland, Professor, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

The sight of a fireball streaking across the sky brings wonder and excitement to children and adults alike. It’s a reminder that Earth is part of a much larger and incredibly dynamic system.

Each year, roughly 17,000 of these fireballs not only enter Earth’s atmosphere, but survive the perilous journey to the surface. This gives scientists a valuable chance to study these rocky visitors from outer space.

Scientists know that while some of these these meteorites come from the Moon and Mars, the majority come from asteroids. But two separate studies published in Nature today have gone a step further. The research was led by Miroslav Brož from Charles University in the Czech Republic, and Michaël Marsset from the European Southern Observatory in Chile.

The papers trace the origin of most meteorites to just a handful of asteroid breakup events – and possibly even individual asteroids. In turn, they build our understanding of the events that shaped the history of the Earth – and the entire solar system.

What is a meteorite?

Only when a fireball reaches Earth’s surface is it called a meteorite. They are commonly designated as three types: stony meteorites, iron meteorites, and stony-iron meteorites.

Stony meteorites come in two types.

The most common are the chondrites, which have round objects inside that appear to have formed as melt droplets. These comprise 85% of all meteorites found on Earth.

Most are known as “ordinary chondrites”. They are then divided into three broad classes – H, L and LL – based on the iron content of the meteorites and the distribution of iron and magnesium in the major minerals olivine and pyroxene. These silicate minerals are the mineral building blocks of our solar system and are common on Earth, being present in basalt.

“Carbonaceous chondrites” are a distinct group. They contain high amounts of water in clay minerals, and organic materials such as amino acids. Chondrites have never been melted and are direct samples of the dust that originally formed the solar system.

The less common of the two types of stony meteorites are the so-called “achondrites”. These do not have the distinctive round particles of chondrites, because they experienced melting on planetary bodies.

The asteroid belt

Asteroids are the primary sources of meteorites.

Most asteroids reside in a dense belt between Mars and Jupiter. The asteroid belt itself consists of millions of asteroids swept around and marshalled by the gravitational force of Jupiter.

The interactions with Jupiter can perturb asteroid orbits and cause collisions. This results in debris, which can aggregate into rubble pile asteroids. These then take on lives of their own.

It is asteroids of this type which the recent Hayabusa and Osiris-REx missions visited and returned samples from. These missions established the connection between distinct asteroid types and the meteorites that fall to Earth.

S-class asteroids (akin to stony meteorites) are found on the inner regions of the belt, while C-class carbonaceous asteroids (akin to carbonaceous chondrites) are more commonly found in the outer regions of the belt.

But, as the two Nature studies show, we can relate a specific meteorite type to its specific source asteroid in the main belt.

One family of asteroids

The two new studies place the sources of ordinary chondrite types into specific asteroid families – and most likely specific asteroids. This work requires painstaking back-tracking of meteoroid trajectories, observations of individual asteroids, and detailed modelling of the orbital evolution of parent bodies.

The study led by Miroslav Brož reports that ordinary chondrites originate from collisions between asteroids larger than 30 kilometres in diameter that occurred less than 30 million years ago.

The Koronis and Massalia asteroid families provide appropriate body sizes and are in a position that leads to material falling to Earth, based on detailed computer modelling. Of these families, asteroids Koronis and Karin are likely the dominant sources of H chondrites. Massalia (L) and Flora (LL) families are by far the main sources of L- and LL-like meteorites.

The study led by Michaël Marsset further documents the origin of L chondrite meteorites from Massalia.

It compiled spectroscopic data – that is, characteristic light intensities which can be fingerprints of different molecules – of asteroids in the belt between Mars and Jupiter. This showed that the composition of L chondrite meteorites on Earth is very similar to that of the Massalia family of asteroids.

The scientists then used computer modelling to show an asteroid collision that occurred roughly 470 million years ago formed the Massalia family. Serendipitously, this collision also resulted in abundant fossil meteorites in Ordovician limestones in Sweden.

In determining the source asteroid body, these reports provide the foundations for missions to visit the asteroids responsible for the most common outerspace visitors to Earth. In understanding these source asteroids, we can view the events that shaped our planetary system.

Trevor Ireland receives funding from the Australian Research Council for research into the samples returned by the Hayabusa and Osiris-REx missions. He is a past President of the Meteoritical Society, the international organisation responsible for classification and cataloguing meteorites.

– ref. New research shows most space rocks crashing into Earth come from a single source – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-most-space-rocks-crashing-into-earth-come-from-a-single-source-241455

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

Lucky Loser tells the story of Donald Trump’s less-than-stellar business career and how he was able to misrepresent it as a success.

It is written by New York Times investigative journalists, Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig. Both have won Pulitzer Prizes for earlier analyses of Trump. Another badge of honour is Trump sued them – and lost.

They are by no means the first writers to expose the Potemkin village that is Trump’s business empire. A telling insider account came from Trump’s niece, psychologist Mary Trump, who revealed the creator of Donald’s fortune was his father Fred.

Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success – Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig (Bodley Head)

Setting things straight

However, at more than 500 pages, including more than 40
pages of notes on sources, this new book is the most comprehensive rendering. It is detailed, clearly written and has been well-reviewed in the financial press and by economic historian Brad de Long.

The authors aim to draw on financial statements and interviews to “set straight Donald Trump’s chaotic onslaught of untruths and misdirection”.

A large part of the Trump mythology is the lie that he is a self-made billionaire. In the presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump sought to downplay the contribution of his father, saying “my father gave me a very small loan”. The book reveals his father’s contribution, in today’s money, was around half a billion US dollars.

Trump’s first piece of luck was being born the son of hard-working, cautious and competent residential property developer Fred Trump, the son of a German immigrant. His second was that Fred’s eldest son did not have the ruthless drive to become Fred’s successor, and Fred did not consider his daughters as potential successors. So despite some characteristics that were the antithesis of his father, Donald became his heir.

The book describes Fred’s career in some detail. The first hundred pages are mostly about him. Once Fred stepped back, Trump diversified his father’s company to form what the authors term

an eclectic conglomerate untethered from any core competency.

Another piece of luck was been chosen to star in the reality television series The Apprentice, from which he made a lot of money, including from licensing deals, for the small amount of time he spent on it.

The producers of this series have a lot to answer for, as they wanted to present their star as the astute businessman they knew him not to be. As they said, it was “not a documentary”. But it enormously and misleadingly raised Trump’s profile.

Wins followed by losses

The authors describe how some of Trump’s ventures, such as the development of Trump Tower, went well as the Manhattan property market boomed. He also profited from some “greenmailing” (buying shares in a company with the stated or implied intention of taking it over and then selling the shares at a higher price), facilitated by exaggerated accounts in the media of his wealth.

But Trump used up much of the proceeds of his few successes covering his losses on a range of his other business ventures.

Among his notable failures was Trump University, where he paid A$37 million to settle lawsuits for fraud. Many other property projects, Scottish golf courses, Trump Ice bottled water and Trump Mortgage, never turned a profit. And the punters were not the only ones losing money in Trump casinos.

While he has fought to keep them secret, what has emerged from Trump’s tax returns are a series of huge losses.

A conundrum not really addressed in the book is why so many bankers were willing to lend to him.

Read more:
What would a second Trump presidency mean for the global economy?

The book concentrates on Trump’s career before the 2016 election, when the flawed US electoral system turned his almost 3 million vote loss on the popular vote into a win in the electoral college. As president, he disregarded conflicts of interest. As the authors note, parties wanting to influence the president could funnel money to him by booking blocks of rooms at his hotel.

After 81 million Americans voted to fire him in 2020, Trump’s businesses again performed poorly.

Trump’s current wealth is estimated by Forbes at A$5.7 billion (less than it was a decade ago). But about half of this is from his majority stake in Truth Social, promoted as a right-wing alternative to Twitter. (Now, it could be said, an even more right-wing forum than X.) It has tiny and falling revenues and makes large losses. If Trump loses the election, its value will probably soon be close to zero. It is regarded as a “meme stock”.

Buettner and Craig conclude Trump “would have been better off betting on the sharemarket than on himself”. Analysis cited in The Economist in 2018 concluded that had Trump just put the money from his father into a sharemarket index fund he would have had A$2.9 billion in 2018. Given subsequent rises in the US stockmarket that would have grown to around A$5.9 billion by now, more than most estimates of his wealth.

Forbes reached a similar conclusion, as did De Long and US political commentator Professor Robert Reich. The self-described business genius destroyed rather than created value.

A poor tycoon and a poor president

This business record of mismanaging an inheritance is reflected in Trump’s economic performance as president. He inherited the world’s largest economy from Obama. By the end of his term it was more than 10% smaller than China’s economy. Historians rank him one of the worst performing presidents on economic management (and much else). The public gave him the lowest approval ratings during his presidential term.

Trump has indeed been a “lucky loser”. But if this deeply flawed man is returned to the presidency, the world will be an unlucky loser.

Read more:
From mass deportations to huge tariff hikes, here’s what Trump’s economic program would do to the US and Australia

John Hawkins 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. A new book reveals much of Trump’s success is based on a myth he is a self-made billionaire – https://theconversation.com/a-new-book-reveals-much-of-trumps-success-is-based-on-a-myth-he-is-a-self-made-billionaire-240648

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

The Albanese government is giving 49 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, despite earlier this year apparently playing down the prospect of the donation.

The latest Australian package is worth A$245 million. It brings the total Australian military aid to Ukraine since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 to A$1.3 billion, and overall Australian support to A$1.5 billion.

When asked about a possible gift of the tanks in February, Defence Minister Richard Marles said it was “not on the agenda”.

Government sources say donating the tanks required US approval since Australia had purchased them from Washington, so there had been a process to go through.

Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy, who is on his way to the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels, announced the decision in London. In Brussels, Conroy will meet with the Ukraine defence minister.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea form the “Indo-Pacific Four” group of non-NATO countries attending the meeting.

The 49 tanks are near the end of their life, so a small number will have to be repaired before they are delivered. Alternatively, they could be used as spare parts if Ukraine wants them delivered more quickly. Ukraine will decide which option to pursue.

The Australian army is retaining a handful of the M1A1 Abrams to help the transition to the M1A2 fleet of tanks.

Conroy said: “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine in their fight against Russia’s illegal invasion. These tanks will deliver more firepower and mobility to the Ukrainian armed forces, and complement the support provided by our partners for Ukraine”.

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. Australia donates 49 Abrams tanks to Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/australia-donates-49-abrams-tanks-to-ukraine-241485

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

Unless the government pulls up its political socks, Anthony Albanese could find himself spending a good deal of time in his  spectacular new home, with its uninterrupted ocean views, sooner than he wishes.

This week’s Newspoll has the Coalition moving in front on a two-party basis for the first time, with Labor’s primary vote at 31%.

Albanese would hope for another full term as prime minister. But if Labor fell into minority government at next year’s election, there would likely be pressure before too long to replace him. He would not be seen as a good bet for the 2028 election.

If Peter Dutton pulled off a miracle win in a few months, Albanese could be regularly whale watching this time next year.

Since the PM’s purchase of the $4.3 million house at the wonderfully-named Copacabana, was revealed on Tuesday,  two narratives have contended.

Critics denounce Albanese as “tone deaf” in his timing during a housing affordability crisis.

It was more than awkward that just hours after the news broke, Albanese was appearing with minister Clare O’Neil in Queensland to make an announcement about  housing.

The Copacabana house is a story made for that renter-in-perpetuity, Greens spokesman Max Chandler-Mather.

Dutton, who has bought and sold a few properties in his time, is careful with his words, knowing others will stir the outrage.

The alternative narrative is that Albanese, marrying for a second time next year, is entitled to a private life. This involves reordering his property arrangements ahead of a wedding.

Moreover, some observe, the criticism of him is the “politics of envy” or the “tall poppy syndrome”.

But there’s another narrative. Suddenly, Albanese’s story has become “all about him” again, as it regularly does when he reverts to talking about his humble origins.

Stressed voters could be forgiven for being impatient, or cynical about Albanese’s protestations this week that although he now has a good income, “I also know what it’s like to struggle”.

My mum lived in the one public housing that she was born in for all of her 65 years. And I know what it’s like, which is why I want to help all Australians into a home, whether it be public homes or private rentals or home ownership.

Unfairly or not, the house story will be read by some as a prime minister spending time on his own affairs.

Buying a house is a major and reasonably time-consuming process, unless it was outsourced it to partner, Jodie Haydon. The Central Coast was chosen because her family lives there.

The narrative can also be cast to look like Albanese is preparing for his post-political life while he is still the most important individual in politics.

Whether this is accurate becomes beside the point, in this era when perceptions can be paramount.

Unsurprisingly, he was asked whether he planned to retire at the house. “I’m planning to be in my current job for a very long period of time,” he said.

In mid-1991 Bob Hawke purchased a property overlooking Sydney Harbour with a jetty and “stunning views”, and a price tag of $1.23 million.

Hawke’s leadership was already on the decline – by year’s end he was replaced by Paul Keating.

Apart from the bad publicity for Albanese, the house affair has taken a good deal of attention from what the government wanted to talk about, notably, what it’s doing to protect consumers and the like.

It has meant his ministerial colleagues are forced to defend him when they are confronted with awkward questions.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen tried to make the best fist of it that he could, when quizzed during an interview.

“Every Australian is entitled to buy and sell property. Now Anthony cops it when he sells the property. He cops it when he provides a rent holiday to his tenants. He cops it when he buys a property,” he said.

“I think most average Australians say, fair enough. You know, this is what aspiration is about, most average Australians say, well, you know, we all buy and sell properties.”

When you are in the public eye it is not, however, such an ordinary story.

By the way, when Albanese goes to the G20 in Rio de Janeiro next month, he can get to see the real Copacabana.

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: Albanese would be better off if the story wasn’t ‘all about him’ – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-would-be-better-off-if-the-story-wasnt-all-about-him-241479

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

Queenslanders vote on October 26 when, according to the polls, the almost decade-long Labor government is expected to be defeated.

Last year, in a bid to improve its chances, Labor dumped long-time premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in favour of Steven Miles.

Miles has handed out or promised extensive and expensive cost-of-living support, including $1000 rebates on electricity bills, 50-cent fares, and now promising free school lunches.

But even all this seems to have failed to drastically change the mood in the electorate.

To discuss what’s happening on the ground, the potential outcome and what that could mean for the federal Labor government, we’re joined by the ABC’s election specialist, Antony Green and The Australian’s Queensland editor, Michael McKenna.

Green says:

The swing has shifted from being catastrophic to just being very bad.[…] the odds are the government’s going to lose.

All the government’s marginal seats are in the regions, in the regional cities in the north of the state. If it’s a 5 or 6% swing uniform, then all those regional city seats will be knocked out. And once they’ve lost a couple of seats in Brisbane’s belt as well, they’re out of government. So they’re in a very difficult position.

On what a poor result for the Labor party could mean federally, Green says:

Labor won the last federal election without doing well in Queensland – [there] was always a view that they couldn’t win an election without doing well in Queensland. They did well in WA instead. Can Labor do worse in Queensland at the next federal election? Well that’s a tough ask, it’s hard to see how. You would have to be back to the level of the defeat of the Whitlam government or the Keating government to do worse in Queensland, and I’m not sure that it’s that level of disaster for the Labor Party. I think there will be a lot of comment on that. But I mean this is a Queensland election and it’s fought on and very much based around sort of Queensland issues.

Michael McKenna says of the general mood:

I think for the first time in a few years, I’m seeing a real mood for change in government. Labor is seeking a fourth term on the trot. You can see it in the published polling, which for about the last two years has shown that Labor’s support is sliding and the Liberal National Party has the momentum. I think there’s a real ‘it’s time’ factor.

What we’ve seen is that Labor’s brand is still seemingly on the nose, particularly in the regions. And Steven Miles, […] he’s given a red hot go, but so far, I’m not seeing much evidence that he’s going to pull out a miracle win.

McKenna highlights Opposition Leader David Crisafulli’s strategy:

There’s no doubt that he has adopted a small target strategy to, in one way, focus people’s attention on the failings of a government which has a record of ten years, and there’s always going to be failings and things that are going to make people angry. But I would say that this is arguably the smallest of small target strategies that we’ve ever seen.

David Crisafulli really only wants to talk […] about the issues that he wants to talk about, and those are crime, particularly youth crime, cost of living, housing and health. But he doesn’t like to be pushed onto any other issues, and he’s done a good job in one sense in that he’s probably the most disciplined conservative party leader I’ve seen in decades in Queensland.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: ‘It’s going to be a bad result for Labor’ – Antony Green and Michael McKenna on the Qld election – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-its-going-to-be-a-bad-result-for-labor-antony-green-and-michael-mckenna-on-the-qld-election-241478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Md Safiullah (Safi), Senior Lecturer in Finance, RMIT University

Qantas is being taken to Australia’s consumer regulator over its claim it is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The Environmental Defenders Office and the advocacy group Climate Integrity say the claim is “not backed up by credible targets or substantiating strategies” making it potentially misleading and in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has yet to decide whether to investigate the complaint, and Qantas has yet to respond.

The complaint follows a ruling by a Dutch Court earlier this year that the airline KLM had misled consumers by creating the false impression it was sustainable.

The win has spurred the European Commission to write to 20 airlines identifying potentially misleading claims and inviting them to bring their practices in line.

Of most concern to the European regulators are claims the carbon emissions caused by flights can be offset by climate projects and the use of sustainable fuels, to which the consumers can contribute by paying additional fees.

Carbon assurance assesses claims ahead of time

These kinds of complaints would be much easier for airlines (and other compnies) to deal with if they had submitted themselves to a process known as carbon assurance ahead of time.

Usually entered into voluntarily, and conducted by an independent assessor in accordance with an international standard, the process verifies the accuracy, transparency, and credibility of an organisation’s carbon emissions claims.

My own research with Linh Nguyen, just published in Finance Research Letters, finds firms with high carbon assurance scores are more likely to obtain more trade credit from their suppliers.

Europe and Australia are moving towards making carbon assurance mandatory for large corporations.

Few firms submit themselves to it

A survey by KPMG International finds that while nearly all of the world’s 250 largest firms report on the sustainability of their operations, only two-thirds submit themselves to carbon assurance.

Another survey of 5,183 companies from 42 countries that publish emissions data finds half don’t engage a carbon assuror.

This could be because they are afraid of what the assuror will find.

An international survey of 750 companies that sought some level of external assurance found just 14% received a reasonable assurance.

Many firms aren’t ready

Assurors, and the skills within the organisation to handle the process are hard to find. While international standards are in place, there isn’t yet a professional or regulatory body to certify assurors.

The Australian government intends to make assurance reports for the
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of large firms mandatory from July 2026.

Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions are the direct and indirect emissions of the corporation itself.

The government intends to make Scope 3 emissions (those in other parts of the corporation’s supply and distribution chain) mandatory from July 2030.

It will be important to get the systems in place.

While what the firms report will matter a lot, what will matter almost as much is an assurance we can believe what they report.

Md Safiullah (Safi) 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. Claims that Qantas is greenwashing build a case for carbon assurance: here’s what it is – https://theconversation.com/claims-that-qantas-is-greenwashing-build-a-case-for-carbon-assurance-heres-what-it-is-239592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon Hook, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

Sydney’s popular Coogee beach has been closed until further notice after hundreds of strange black balls washed up on the shoreline.

The balls were discovered on Tuesday afternoon. The local authority, Randwick City Council, says samples have been collected for testing, and the incident has been reported to the Environment Protection Authority and Beachwatch NSW.

A council spokesperson said the debris may be “tar balls” formed when oil comes into contact with debris and water – typically the result of oil spills or seepage.

I am a senior research scientist at CSIRO, specialising in environmental toxicity. While the objects could be tar balls, in my view, it is also possible they are something else. But in any case, the debris poses a potential risk to marine life and the public, and authorities were right to close the beach.

What are tar balls?

Tar balls are typically dark, sticky blobs found on beaches after an oil spill. They occur when oil comes into contact with the ocean’s surface and becomes weathered by wind and waves. This breaks the oil patches into smaller pieces.

Tar balls usually form in a variety of shapes and sizes – ranging from big, flat pancakes to tiny spheres. The image below shows a typically irregular tar ball that washed up on an island in the United States.

On this basis, I am not certain the pieces of debris found at Coogee are tar balls. They certainly might be. I haven’t seen them in person, but from the publicly available images, the objects appear to be relatively uniform, perfectly round shapes. That would be very unusual for tar balls – but not impossible.

The balls could be plastic debris washed off a container ship, such as squash balls or plastic used in manufacturing. But obviously, we have to wait until tests have been conducted on the objects before we can determine their origin and composition.

And finally, the balls appear to have washed up only at Coogee beach. It would be uncommon for oil spill remnants to drift to a single location unless the spill happened very close to shore.

What are the potential harms?

Whatever the objects are, they could pose a hazard to marine life.

If the objects are sticky or oily, they may coat animals that come into contact with them. An animal that ate the objects may also be harmed. The balls would be difficult to digest and might stay in the animal’s stomach for a long time, preventing it from eating other food.

If the objects are in fact tar balls, this is dangerous to animals because oil can be carcinogenic.

What should be done?

Every precaution should be taken until we know exactly what these mysterious objects are.

Authorities are doing the right thing in keeping people away from the beach as the cleanup and testing continue. The public should heed official advice not to enter the beach and especially, not to touch the spheres.

At this stage, it appears no other beach is affected, so there are plenty of other nearby options for beach-lovers.

In the meantime, we should let the forensic scientists and other experts do their job.

Sharon Hook 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. Mysterious black balls have washed up on Sydney’s Coogee beach. Are they the result of an oil spill, or something else? – https://theconversation.com/mysterious-black-balls-have-washed-up-on-sydneys-coogee-beach-are-they-the-result-of-an-oil-spill-or-something-else-241470

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

As humpback and southern right whales return to Antarctica at the tail end of their annual migration, east coast whale watchers may think the show will soon be over. But some whale species are still here, possibly year-round. And we need to find out more about them.

My team’s new research concerns one of these little-known species – the Bryde’s whale. You may have seen it feeding, breaching or surfing, without realising what it was.

My colleagues and I wanted to learn more about where Bryde’s whales can be found in Australian waters. So we tapped into observations shared on social media, including drone footage and photographs from whale-watching tours. We also gathered observations from scientists.

We discovered a wealth of information. It includes evidence of feeding and “surfing” behaviours possibly never documented before. Findings from this research will directly help inform conservation efforts to protect this species, which we still know so little about in Australian waters.

Observing whales through citizen science

Scientists can’t always be out in the field, or on the water. That’s why the data gathered by everyday people, known as “citizen scientists”, can be so useful. It captures valuable information about wildlife that can be used later by professional researchers.

Citizen science projects involving marine life have grown over recent years. They include people documenting humpback whale recovery by counting northward migrating humpback whales off Sydney, and people watching sharks off Bondi Beach via the @DroneSharkApp.

Hungry hungry whales

Like humpback whales, these giants are “baleen” whales, meaning they are toothless. But Bryde’s whales have a much pointier mouth and lack that famous hump.

A preference for warmer waters means Bryde’s whales are also known as tropical whales. They can be found in tropical or subtropical waters.

Around the world, Bryde’s whales have demonstrated interesting feeding behaviours, from high-speed seafloor chases to “pirouette feeding”.

Hanging out in shallow and deep waters

Our study documented Bryde’s whales feeding in both deep and shallow waters off the east coast of Australia, alone or sometimes with other whales.

We tapped into more than an hour of drone vision and more than 200 photos of Bryde’s whales shared by citizen scientists on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

In offshore environments, Bryde’s whales were typically seen “side lunging” – where they propel themselves forward and turn onto their side then open their mouth to engulf their food. They also swam from below and scooped up their prey, much like humpback whales.

In shallow waters, Bryde’s whales were observed feeding directly within or behind the surf break.

We believe this is a new feeding behaviour for this species. We call it “shallow water surf feeding”.

Whales may be using the surf to assist with their feeding efforts, or, perhaps they are there because that’s where the bait fish are hanging out.

Regardless, it’s impressive to see such a large whale in the surf and in shallow waters.

Spotted: mums with their calves

We also documented mothers with calves. This indicates some parts of the Australian east coast could possibly serve as an important area for nursing mothers with their young. They could also be using these waters for calving.

We don’t yet fully understand the species’ movements around Australia, and whether they swim in New Zealand waters. For example, the world-famous white humpback whale Migaloo has been known to swim across the Tasman Sea.

Could these Bryde’s whales we see here in Australian waters be the same ones seen in New Zealand waters? Are they calving in New Zealand or Australia and moving between the two? If so, what does this mean for their protection?

Whales don’t recognise international boundaries. They go where they want, when they want. This is why collaborative research like this is important for our growing knowledge of this species.

The more we know, the better we can protect

This is the first dedicated paper on both the occurrence and feeding behaviour of Bryde’s whale in Australian waters.

As humans continue to expand our footprint in the ocean through activities such as offshore wind energy, shipping, fishing and tourism, knowledge of this species and others can help inform future decisions in our blue backyard.

Findings of this study will directly contribute to Australia’s efforts to protect whales. One immediate action will be contributing information to the federal review of Biological Important Areas for protected marine species. The more we know, the better we can target conservation efforts to provide for a species we know relatively little about in Australian waters.

And even though the humpbacks and southern rights are headed back south to Antarctica for the summer, it’s still worth keeping your eyes on the water. You might be the next person to spot a Bryde’s whale in Australian waters. Let us know if you do!

Vanessa Pirotta 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. Social media footage reveals little-known ‘surfing’ whales in Australian waters – https://theconversation.com/social-media-footage-reveals-little-known-surfing-whales-in-australian-waters-241347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Critical Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University

Digital inclusion for Indigenous communities is important. It’s so important, in fact, that the government has made it one of the targets under the Closing The Gap plan. The goal is:

by 2026, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have equal levels of digital inclusion.

Digital exclusion is the continuing unequal access and capacity to use digital technology that is essential to participate fully in society.

It severely stifles Indigenous creativity. It restricts access to essential tools, skills and platforms that are crucial for digital expression and innovation.

For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, this exclusion leads to missed opportunities, particularly in areas linked to economic prosperity, such as employment and education. As the government’s policy focus is on economic empowerment, this is a major barrier.

Measuring progress towards the 2026 deadline is challenging because there are simply no recent data.

But given how big the gap was to start with, the lack of importance based on gathering relevant data and the insufficient government action since, we know the target is highly unlikely to be met.

Read more:
‘Digital inclusion’ and closing the gap: how First Nations leadership is key to getting remote communities online

What’s being done?

To support the goal, the First Nations Digital Inclusion Plan offers a comprehensive strategy focused on three key pillars:

• access (to telecommunication services, devices, and data)

• affordability (the cost of services, devices, and data)

• ability (skills, attitudes, and confidence with technology).

Focused mostly on remote communities, initiatives such as the Australian Digital Inclusion Index highlight persistent challenges across all three areas.

Although digital inclusion is an urgent issue in remote areas, research also shows Indigenous populations face widespread digital exclusion across the nation, regardless of remoteness.

Some 84.6% (832,800) of Indigenous people live in non-remote areas. Many of these people are also excluded.

Last year, the government established an advisory group to drive progress.

It has developed a “road map”. This involves travelling to Indigenous communities across Australia to ensure their diverse needs, aspirations and environments are fully considered.

Despite these ongoing government initiatives and policies, efforts to close the digital divide for Indigenous peoples remain insufficient. As technology continues to advance, Indigenous communities are left in an increasingly precarious situation.

The rise of artificial intelligence

The government’s current plans do not explicitly address the role of artificial intelligence (AI). This oversight is particularly concerning given the rapid advancement of AI technologies.

A recent report on adult media literacy in Australia reveals 48% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants do not understand what AI is or the risks and opportunities it presents. This knowledge gap could further exacerbate the digital divide and deepen existing inequalities.

AI presents both opportunities and challenges. When led by Indigenous people, it holds transformative potential across multiple sectors.

It could enhance learning tailored to Indigenous knowledge systems, help in the revitalisation and preservation of languages, and improve healthcare delivery. It could also empower Indigenous businesses by optimising operations and market reach.

Read more:
AI affects everyone – including Indigenous people. It’s time we have a say in how it’s built

Indigenous people are already collaborating on research that combines Indigenous knowledge with AI to support land-management practices.

There are very few Indigenous-led AI projects underway nationally, but there’s great potential. With Indigenous people helping develop AI, these technologies could contribute to meaningful, self-determined growth across Indigenous communities.

But only if we’re included.

Avoiding exploitation

Indigenous digital exclusion, especially in policy development and regulation, can result in AI being used by non-Indigenous people to tell our stories without our permission.

They can profit from appropriation of our culture, including art and languages.

The government needs to adopt a more comprehensive and forward-thinking approach. This should involve expanding the scope of digital inclusion initiatives beyond the current limited focus to encompass Indigenous communities across the entire country.

The development of Indigenous-led digital literacy programs that respect learning styles and culture is also essential.

The government should incorporate AI and other emerging technologies into planning to ensure Indigenous communities are not left behind.

Establishing long-term partnerships with technology companies, educational institutions and Indigenous organisations to create sustainable digital inclusion programs is vital.

The focus should be on creating Indigenous-led opportunities that leverage digital technologies for economic empowerment without exploiting or harming.

Underrepresented in tech

One barrier to this is there are very few Indigenous peoples involved in the tech industry, especially in decision-making roles and policy development.

As of 2022, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people accounted for less than 1.4% of tech workers. There urgently needs to be more support to boost this figure.

That’s because technology like AI presents potential careers for Indigenous people.

Currently however, Indigenous peoples are not employed in the industries involved in AI. Of the global study of people working in this specific industry, Indigenous participation was not noted.

The fact the government recognises digital inclusion as a national priority is a positive step. The current approach, however, is piecemeal and limited. We need a more holistic strategy.

By developing more inclusive, technologically advanced policies led by Indigenous people, the government can ensure they are not left behind in the digital age. We need to be at the decision-making table.

Closing the digital divide requires a multifaceted, long-term commitment from government. This means a national strategy recognising the diverse needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities across the country.

By harnessing the full potential of digital technologies, including AI, and addressing the unique challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the government can create lasting positive change and truly empower Indigenous communities in the digital era.

Bronwyn Carlson is a member of the First Nations Digital Inclusion Advisory Council.

– ref. The government has a target for Indigenous digital inclusion. It’s got little hope of meeting it – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-a-target-for-indigenous-digital-inclusion-its-got-little-hope-of-meeting-it-239733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebe Taylor, Associate Professor of History, University of Tasmania

King Charles and Queen Camilla will visit Australia from Friday on a five-day tour of Canberra and Sydney.

The king will be the second ruling British monarch to visit Australia, after Queen Elizabeth II’s 16 visits over 57 years.

These visits showcase Australians’ evolving relationship with the monarchy and our colonial past.

Changing attitudes

An estimated 75% of Australians greeted Elizabeth on her first tour in 1954, at events that celebrated Australia’s growth as a prosperous nation.

Historical milestones remained central to the queen’s subsequent visits.

In 1970, she attended the re-enactment of Captain Cook’s arrival at Botany Bay. This included depictions of shooting at First Nations actors.

The queen’s 1986 visit included signing the Australia Act that severed Britain’s formal powers over Australia.

Her 1988 visit coincided with the Australian bicentenary of the arrival of the First Fleet carrying convicts and officials from Britain. But by this time, many Australians had lost their royal fervour.

Her final tour, in 2011, came 12 years after Australia had attempted to become a republic by referendum.

The queen’s death in 2022 not only reignited questions over the future of the monarchy in Australia, it instigated a public discussion over the monarchy’s role in imperial colonialism.

Genocide in Australia?

On the eve of Charles’ coronation in 2023, Indigenous leaders from 12 settler states including Australia and New Zealand cosigned a letter calling on the new monarch to apologise for the genocides that British colonisation brought to their territories.

Australia was settled in the name of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Did that settlement result in genocide?

Recent research led by Ben Kiernan for The Cambridge World History of Genocide has investigated this question using the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as a framework.

The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

The term “genocide” itself is modern; coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. The colonisation of Tasmania by the British provided Lemkin with one of the clearest examples.

The prosecution of crimes before 1951 is not permissible under the convention, which provides a definitional framework to evaluate past events as constituent acts of genocide.

The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume II and Volume III demonstrate how settlers and government agents committed acts of genocide against First Nations Australians from the beginning of settlement to the late 20th centuries.

All parts of Australia are considered. Acts conforming to the convention’s clauses include killing, forcibly removing children and inflicting destructive conditions.

Australian historian Lyndall Ryan’s chapter, Frontier Massacres in Australia, draws on her research for a Massacre Map showing how British troops and settlers committed more than 290 massacres across Australia between 1794 and 1928.

These massacres killed more than 7,500 Aboriginal people.

Ryan found the massacres were not sporadic and isolated – they were planned and sanctioned killings, integral to the aims of the Australian colonial project.

Rebe Taylor’s chapter on genocide in Tasmania details a pattern of government-sanctioned mass killings in a colony where an estimated 6,000 Palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal) people were reduced to about 120 by 1835.

Raymond Evans shows how as colonisation moved northward in Australia, massacres increased in size.

Evans documents killings that persisted into the 1940s, postdating the 1928 Coniston massacre widely regarded as the last frontier slaughter.

These findings are underscored by Tony Barta’s insight that colonists’ destructive actions constitute a record of genocidal intent “more powerful than any documented plot to destroy a people”.

Research by Anna Haebich documents the taking of Indigenous children during the 19th century.

Joanna Cruikshank and Crystal Mckinnon explain how these state-sanctioned removals in the 20th century were intended to eliminate First Nations people from Australia’s national life.

The 1997 Bringing Them Home report, commissioned by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, concluded the “Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved […] genocide as defined by international law”.

A significant moment of resistance

The colonial governor of Tasmania began to exile Palawa people from their land in 1829.

More than 200 survivors of the “Black War” were removed to Flinders Island and subjected to life-threateningly harsh conditions. High death rates were caused by ill-treatment, disease and insufficient care.

In 1846, the Palawa petitioned Queen Victoria to honour the agreement made when they were removed: that in exchange for temporarily leaving their country, they would regain their freedom.

In this bold petition, Tasmanian Aboriginal people initiated a historic appeal to the British monarchy.

Aware of Queen Victoria’s sovereign authority across the vast British Empire, this action marked a significant moment in their continued resistance to genocide.

An acknowledgement of wrongs

British sovereignty over Australia was imposed without the required consent of its First Nations. The result has been continued dispossession and suffering.

Despite the Crown’s deferral of power to its parliament, the call for an apology from the king has immense symbolic importance.

It is rooted in the desire for acknowledgement of wrongs. These include genocide and the continuing destructive effects of colonisation across Australia.

Rebe Taylor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Greg Lehman receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. He is a member of the Board of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

– ref. Should King Charles apologise for the genocide of First Nations people when he visits Australia? – https://theconversation.com/should-king-charles-apologise-for-the-genocide-of-first-nations-people-when-he-visits-australia-239092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Joyce, Senior Research Fellow, University of South Australia

A weight-loss drug more effective than Ozempic and Wegovy has recently been approved in Australia.

The drug, tirzepatide, is sold under the brand name Mounjaro and affects feelings of hunger and fullness, as well as changing how the body processess food. (In other countries, tirzepatide is also sound under the brand name Zepbound.)

So how does tirzepatide work and differ from Ozempic? And with a price tage of $315–$645 per month for the starting dose, why is it so expensive?

How does it work?

Think of tirzepatide as a master key that unlocks two important doors in your body’s weight control system. It mimics two hormones: GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) and GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide).

When you eat, your body naturally releases GIP and GLP-1 hormones. These hormones play crucial roles in regulating appetite, food intake and blood sugar levels. Tirzepatide mimics and amplifies the effects of these hormones.

By mimicking the GLP-1 and GIP hormones, tirzepatide makes people feel fuller with smaller meals. This can reduce the overall food intake and lead to weight loss over time.

It also helps your body process sugar more effectively and slows down how quickly food leaves your stomach. This results in eating less, feel satisfied for longer and having healthier blood sugar levels.

How does it compare with Wegovy/Ozempic?

Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) and semaglutide (Wegovy/Ozempic) are similar in many ways. Both are injectable medications used for weight loss and work by mimicking hormones that regulate appetite and blood sugar.

The key difference is that tirzepatide acts on two hormone receptors (GIP and GLP-1), while semaglutide only acts on one (GLP-1). This dual action is thought to be why tirzepatide shows slightly better results for weight loss in clinical trials.

Clinical trials have shown participants lost an average of 25% of their body fat in the first year of treatment with tirzepatide. This is when combined with lifestyle counselling from a health-care professional who encouraged a healthy and reduced-calorie diet (500 calories less per day compared to patient’s diet at the beginning of the study) and at least 150 minutes of physical activity per day.

This compares with an average of 15% weight loss in the first year for semaglutide, also alongside a reduced-calorie diet (a 500 calorie-deficit per day) and increased physical exercise (150 minutes per week).

For a person weighing 120kg, this might mean the difference between losing 30kg with tirzepatide versus 18kg with semaglutide. But of course, with both drugs, some people will lose less weight than the average, some will lose more, and some may not respond to the drug at all.

What are the side effects of tirzepatide?

Like any medication, tirzepatide has side effects. The most common are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation. These could feel like a mild tummy bug and are similar to those seen with semaglutide.

For most people, these side effects are manageable and often improve over time.

There are also some rarer, more serious risks to consider. These include inflammation of the pancreas and gallbladder problems. There is also a potential increased risk for thyroid cancer, although this has only been seen in lab rats so far, not humans.

As with Ozempic and Wegovy, when you stop taking tirzepatide, its effects stop. Most people regain some, if not all, of the weight they lost.

Who can access tirzepatide?

In Australia, tirzepatide is approved for use in adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher, or a or BMI of 27 or above if you have a weight-related health condition such as diabetes. It can only be prescribed by a doctor, after you have tried other weight-loss methods.

But it’s not suitable for everyone. It shouldn’t be used in pregnancy and may not be suitable for people with certain medical conditions and those with a history of eating disorders.

If you’re considering tirzepatide, it’s important to discuss the benefits and risks for your personal health situation with your doctor.

Why is it so expensive?

Tirzepatide typically costs around A$345 per month for the starting dose. This can escalate to $645 per month for the ongoing “maintenance” dose if a higher dose is necessary for diabetes and/or weight management. This puts the drug out of reach for most people.

Tirzepatide, sold as Mounjaro in Australia, is only available on private prescription and is not subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This means you pay the full cost of the medication without any government support.

However, the United Kingdom recently announced it would add tirzepatide to the National Health Service in a phased approach over the next three years, so it’s possible we might see it subsidised in Australia in the future.

Developing new drugs is a costly business. Companies spend billions on research, clinical trials, and getting regulatory approvals. They then set high prices to recoup these costs and make a profit.

The patent for tirzepatide lasts until 2036. So we won’t have any cheaper generic versions for more than a decade.

Paul Joyce receives funding from The Hospital Research Foundation, Cancer Council SA, and the Australian Research Council. He is Director of the Australian Controlled Release Society.

Srinivas Kamath 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. Mounjaro is more effective for weight loss than Ozempic. So how does it work? And why does it cost so much? – https://theconversation.com/mounjaro-is-more-effective-for-weight-loss-than-ozempic-so-how-does-it-work-and-why-does-it-cost-so-much-239185

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynne Chepulis, Associate Professor, Health Sciences, University of Waikato

Pharmac’s decision to fund continuous glucose monitors and automated insulin delivery systems for the approximately 18,000 people who currently live with type 1 diabetes in Aotearoa New Zealand is good news.

The decision comes after years of advocacy from patient groups and clinicians.

But there are problems within the broader system – particularly around workforce shortages – that mean full patient access to training on how to use the insulin pumps will likely take years.

Failing to address these issues will also perpetuate health inequities for Māori and Pacific people, who are less likely to have used the monitor and pump in the past, and may have to wait longer for training. These delays could mute the positive effect of Pharmac’s funding decision.

A complex balance

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder that causes a person’s pancreas to stop producing insulin. This all-important hormone is needed to move glucose into every cell in the body.

Without insulin, the cells (and the person) “starve”. While the current approach to the management of type 1 diabetes – finger pricking to test blood glucose levels and injecting insulin – works, it’s complex.

Inject too much insulin and you’ll get low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia). This leaves a person with type 1 feeling shaky and weak, or possibly even in a coma. Don’t inject enough and you have ongoing high blood sugar (hyperglycaemia). This leads to long-term health complications.

Figuring out the right amount of insulin is elusive. Needs constantly vary according to time of day, diet, exercise, illness, caffeine, alcohol, stress and other factors. This can take a toll psychologically and physiologically.

Modern solutions

Continuous monitors track blood glucose levels 24 hours a day through a sensor just under your skin, replacing finger-prick testing. They are widely funded and used overseas.

The monitors alert users to low blood glucose and have significantly reduced hospitalisations for people with type 1 diabetes.

Combining the monitors with a pump and appropriate algorithm automates the delivery of insulin when glucose levels rise higher than a patient’s target range – significantly reducing the day-to-day burden of treatment.

But the continuous monitors and insulin pumps are expensive.

Prior to Pharmac’s decision, the monitors were completely unfunded. Prices ranged between NZ$2,600 and $4,800 per year. Insulin pumps were funded, but only for a small group of people.

This created an ever-widening equity gap. Māori and Pacific people with type 1 diabetes were less likely to access monitors and pumps. They were also more likely to have recurrent hospitalisations for diabetes-related events.

A workforce shortage

When compared with other countries, New Zealand has been slow to fund the monitors.

Unfortunately, the diabetes workforce is also significantly understaffed when compared to international guidelines.

There is a shortage of all qualified health care professionals for type 1 diabetes including endocrinologists, nurse practitioners, diabetes nurse specialists, dietitians, psychologists, social workers and podiatrists.

To meet international recommendations, New Zealand would have to more than double the clinical workforce.

Most people with type 1 diabetes will be able to rapidly access the monitors because these can be prescribed through GPs as well as by diabetes specialists. However, insulin pumps and automated insulin delivery will only be accessible through specialists.

While insulin pumps offer advantages for managing glucose levels, learning to use the device takes time and requires support from clinicians. This will likely be a problem, particularly for those who already have challenges accessing healthcare services in this country.

An equity issue

Māori and Pacific people with type 1 diabetes are less likely to be current insulin pump users. This means there is a clear risk of workforce shortages causing those who would benefit most from automated insulin delivery to be among the last to have access.

Increasingly, evidence on continuous glucose monitors and automated insulin delivery shows they improve managing type 1 diabetes for everyone.

Monitor use has been shown to reduce the differences in the management of glucose levels between Māori and non-Māori children with type 1 diabetes.

Automated insulin delivery can also be an effective tool for children and adolescents with very high-risk glucose levels.

So, thank you Pharmac. Funded devices are a game changer. New Zealand has moved from an outdated, inequitable system of technology funding in type 1 diabetes to a progressive and fair system. But so much more needs to be done to support everyone with this disease.

Lynne Chepulis receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. She is an executive member of the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes.

Hamish Crocket receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He is an executive member of the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes and is the chairperson of Nightscout New Zealand, a diabetes advocacy group. Hamish has been living with type one diabetes since 2013.

Martin de Bock receives funding from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Ypsomed, Dexcom, and Insulet. Honoraria, travel expenses or speaking fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Ypsomed, Dexcom, and Insulet. Advisory Boards for Tandem and Dexcom, Tautoko Tech, Nascence biomedical.

– ref. Glucose monitors for diabetes have finally been funded – but a chronic workforce shortage will limit the benefits – https://theconversation.com/glucose-monitors-for-diabetes-have-finally-been-funded-but-a-chronic-workforce-shortage-will-limit-the-benefits-241113

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack McGrath, Lecturer in Animation at the University of Newcastle, University of Newcastle

Stop motion films are by their nature a remarkable feat. When you know a movie has been carefully crafted, over several years and through thousands of photographs of handmade sets and characters, this alone makes it a delight to watch.

But when the story is also deep, thought-provoking and at times laugh-out-loud funny, this takes the medium to a whole new level. Adam Elliot’s Memoir of a Snail is such a film.

Told through stop motion animation using clay (otherwise known as claymation), the film is a tactile experience in which everything you see has been made by human hands. This provides a warmth that is exacerbated by Elliot’s very human story of identity.

The film explores how it can be difficult to find your way in life, particularly when you’re different – and that it is, in fact, OK to be different.

Grace Pudel, the protagonist, is a snail enthusiast and we follow her as she navigates the many challenges that emerge in her life. Grace’s narration is raw and honest, and we can’t help but feel a deep connection with her.

The story is so human and so very moving – and to be told through human-made characters perfectly rounds off the experience.

A win at Annecy

In June, I was fortunate enough to help facilitate an animation study tour in France with students from the University of Newcastle. It was there we saw the world premiere of Memoir of a Snail at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival, the pre-eminent festival for animated film.

The story clearly resonated with the audience, who sat captivated throughout its 90-minute runtime. They laughed and cried in unison as one engaged mass of humanity – culminating in a long and enthusiastic standing ovation.

We were even lucky enough to bump into Elliot and his crew, and our students spoke with him about his journey in making Memoir of a Snail. The film went on to win the festival’s prestigious Cristal award for best feature.

While claymation is generally viewed as a medium aimed at young audiences, Memoir of a Snail tells a wholly unique adult story.

Much of its sophistication lies in its ability to effortlessly touch on many complex topics through a mixture of humour and emotion. Indeed, this approach to storytelling has become Elliot’s calling card.

The film’s themes include identity, loneliness, alcoholism, cultism, hoarding, suicide, homosexuality, bullying, ageing, family, fat fetishism, grief and death. The story cleverly pulls you into deep thought, before surprising you with a hilarious gag.

Elliot’s dark and captivating aesthetic

When introducing the film at Annecy, Elliot explained how his team’s limited budget led to a heavy reliance on narration, with limited walking and dialogue shots. Yet these constraints seemed to enhance the team’s creativity rather than stifle it.

Elliot has a history of working around such limitations to bring his unique aesthetic to life. His first film Uncle (1996) was shot on 16mm black-and-white film, while his other short Cousin (1999) was shot on colour – but with a muted palette of grey tones.

This palette has carried through Elliot’s work and is present in Memoir of a Snail. His version of the Australian landscape isn’t orange and sun-bleached. Rather, it is grey, overcast and drab – a dark world resembling the work of Eastern European animators such as Jan Švankmajer.

Elliot’s other films include Brother (2000), the Oscar-winning short film Harvie Krumpet (2003) and his first feature film Mary and Max (2009).

His works present tortured individuals – outsiders, misfits and oddballs – living in dark, suburban worlds. Behind the funny-looking faces and humorous vignettes lie deeper afflictions that become clear as the characters struggle through their lives.

A gentle vulnerability shines through

Elliot brings a naivety to the narration, where a simple statement of facts couches a deeper meaning. As the audience, we uncover mixed feelings of humour, dread and empathy for the tortured blobs of clay before us.

The characters stand, blinking, looking back at us while the narrator describes their situation. They feel vulnerable, as though asking for our help as they stand silently, trapped in Elliot’s bleak world.

Memoir of a Snail maintains a strong sense of materiality, as evidenced by fingerprints left on clay and brush strokes on painted backgrounds. Elliot’s self-described “chunky wonky” aesthetic abides by the rule that nothing in the world is straight.

Almost everything in Elliot’s animated world is overtly handmade, presenting a kind of nostalgic and childlike innocence you’d expect from a school project. This helps add weight and authenticity to the film.

Elliot’s world is created “in-camera”, which means no digital effects were used. Water, for example, was created using cellophane, while droplets were painstakingly animated with blobs of glycerine, one frame at a time.

Welcome relief in a hyper-digital world

Lately, Australian animation has found an international audience and this has emboldened Australian animators to tell Australian stories. Bluey, for instance, has struck a chord with viewers globally because of – and not despite – its uniquely Australian voice.

It took eight years to create Memoir of a Snail, which seems like a lifetime in today’s world. Witnessing such dedication may inspire audiences to think more deeply about animation as an art form and about film-making itself.

Memoir of a Snail is a testament to stop motion’s power to move people. Elliot himself pointed out how stop motion seems to be experiencing a renaissance, with Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022), Phil Tippett’s Mad God (2021), Henry Selick’s Wendell & Wild (2022) and Chris Butler’s Missing Link (2019) all serving as recent examples of stop motion features.

I hope Memoir of a Snail helps sustain this interest. In an age of automation and artificial intelligence, the film is a welcome return to the human experience. Thought-provoking, funny and wholly unique in its story and visual style, it’s well worth the watch.

The author would like to thank Daisy De Windt for her contributions to this article.

Jack McGrath 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. Overtly handmade and so very moving: Adam Elliot’s Memoir of A Snail is a stop motion triumph – https://theconversation.com/overtly-handmade-and-so-very-moving-adam-elliots-memoir-of-a-snail-is-a-stop-motion-triumph-233105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Aspinall, Professor in Southeast Asian Politics, Australian National University

As Indonesia’s president Joko Widodo (Jokowi) prepares to leave office, Indonesia is still routinely lauded as one of Asia’s most important democracies. Jokowi was first elected, in 2014, on the promise of breaking with the old Jakarta elite and making government more responsive to ordinary people.

He was backed by many ardent supporters of Indonesia’s Reformasi movement. This movement had brought down the authoritarian leader, Suharto, in 1998 and pushed a transition to democracy in the years that followed.

But Jokowi has overseen a serious period of democratic backsliding.

Democratic decline

Under his watch, the Indonesian government has hobbled democratic control institutions. This includes Indonesia’s once-lauded Corruption Eradication Commission, abbreviated as KPK.

Security agencies such the army and the police have begun to resume a political role.

The government has banned major Islamic organisations.

Civil society groups speak of a dramatically narrowed civic space. They complain, for example, about the government’s increasing reliance on the Electronic Information and Transactions Law to prosecute critics of the government for defamation and its growing willingness to use violent means to respond to protests.

Jokowi’s opponents in the political elite are routinely investigated for corruption and other alleged wrongdoing.

In last February’s presidential election, there were widespread reports the police and other agencies were pressuring community leaders to mobilise the vote for Jokowi’s preferred candidate, Prabowo Subianto.

How and why does Jokowi leave this legacy?

How did a man who was once seen as a “new hope” for Indonesian democracy end up here?

The answer is part of a global story that has become broadly familiar in recent years.

These days, it is generally not unelected coup leaders who destroy democracy. Experiences like those of Thailand and Myanmar in recent years are, happily, no longer typical.

Instead, elected populist leaders hollow democracy out from within. They do so by hobbling institutions, such as anti-corruption commissions, which are meant to check executive power.

Jokowi has, in my view, followed this pattern.

Unlike many populists, Jokowi never peppered his early speeches with angry denunciations of his opponents as traitors. He never tried to whip up vitriol against vulnerable minorities.

Instead, he positioned himself as a leader who was uniquely able to understand and to embody the aspirations of ordinary people.

His trademark campaign method was known as blusukan. He would drop by unexpectedly at a marketplace, for example, to chat with ordinary people about prices and other everyday matters.

A former mayor, he was interested in the nitty gritty of governance, such as how to improve transport services or upgrade parks. He was less interested in “abstract” notions like human rights.

The implications of this philosophy only became apparent after Jokowi was elected president.

He retained his belief in his own unique ability to understand the aspirations of ordinary citizens, which had been long neglected by elite politicians.

He maintained a single-minded focus on what ordinary Indonesians wanted – improved living standards and better social welfare. And he used polls to regularly monitor public opinion.

For Jokowi, maintaining popular support and satisfying public demands was the essence of democracy. He was not interested in institutions that place limits on governmental power, which are arguably just as important to a functioning democratic system.

For example, his government enacted legal amendments that significantly weakened the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Late last year, the Constitutional Court – headed by his brother-in-law – changed the the rules on candidate age limits to allow Jokowi’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, to stand for the vice presidency. Many Indonesians viewed this as a transparent – and successful – attempt to manipulate a key control institution for the purpose of maintaining Jokowi’s dynastic grip on power.

Even so, as Jokowi leaves office, he does so a very popular politician.

Prabowo as president

Jokowi hands power to a man with an even more chequered democratic history.

Prabowo Subianto is a former general with a record of alleged human rights abuses dating back to the late Suharto period. (Although, like other senior military officers accused of responsibility for the Suharto regime’s well-documented record of human rights abuses, he was never convicted of any crimes). Prabowo was close to the heart of that regime: indeed, he used to be Suharto’s son-in-law.

Prabowo has since reinvented himself as a fun-loving grandfather figure and Jokowi’s greatest fan, capitalising on the president’s own popularity.

In fact, Prabowo used to be among Jokowi’s greatest rivals before becoming his defence minister in 2019.

In previous elections, Prabowo presented himself as a firebrand populist who angrily denounced his opponents for allegedly selling Indonesia out to foreigners. He promised he would provide the strong hand the country needed to become truly great.

We don’t know yet what kind of president Prabowo will be. His early political socialisation, as a leading elite figure close to the heart of the Suharto regime, suggests his instincts are likely to be deeply authoritarian.

He inherits from Jokowi a country in which democratic institutions have already been seriously undermined, and a series of lessons in how to weaken them further.

Edward Aspinall has received funding from the ARC and DFAT.

– ref. Jokowi was once seen as Indonesia’s ‘new hope’. Instead, he leaves a legacy of democratic backsliding – https://theconversation.com/jokowi-was-once-seen-as-indonesias-new-hope-instead-he-leaves-a-legacy-of-democratic-backsliding-237319

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wenting He, PhD candidate of International Relations, Australian National University

China’s relentless economic growth used to be the marvel of the world. Oh, what a memory.

The past couple of years have seen China contend with an economic slowdown amid colliding crises, many of which make it internationally unique. Consumer prices have been approaching deflationary territory, there’s an oversupply of housing, and youth unemployment has soared.

Mounting pressure has forced the Chinese government to step in. Over the past month, Beijing has put forward a set of significant economic stimulus measures aimed at reviving China’s faltering economy.

According to a research note by Deutsche Bank, this stimulus could potentially become “the largest in history” in nominal terms. But there’s still a lot we don’t know. So what kinds of measures that are in this package so far, and has China been here before?

What’s in the package?

On September 24, Pan Gongsheng, governor of China’s central bank, unveiled the country’s boldest intervention to boost its economy since the pandemic.

The initiatives included reducing mortgage rates for existing homes and reducing the amount of cash commercial banks are required to hold in reserves. The latter is expected to inject about 1 trillion yuan (A$210 billion) into the financial market by letting the banks lend out more.

On top of this, 800 billion yuan (A$168 billion) was announced to strengthen China’s capital market.

This comprised a new 500 billion yuan (A$105 billion) monetary policy facility to help institutions more easily access funds to buy stocks, and a 300 billion yuan (A$63 billion) re-lending facility to help speed up sales of unsold housing.

Further signs of economic revitalisation became evident at a Politburo meeting of China’s top government officials, two days after this announcement.

Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed the urgency of economic revival. Xi even encouraged officials to “go bold in helping the economy” without having to fear the consequences.

That same day, seven government departments released a joint policy package to stabilise China’s 500 billion yuan (A$105 billion) dairy industry, which has been severely impacted by declining milk and beef prices since 2023.

A market rollercoaster

Initially, the market’s response was overwhelmingly positive. Perhaps too positive. In the last week of September, stock markets in Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong saw their biggest weekly rise in 16 years.

On October 8, following China’s National Day holiday, turnover on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges hit an unprecedented 3.43 trillion yuan (A$718 billion). However, expectations for further stimulus measures were met with disappointment.

China’s National Development and Reform Commission brought forward 100 billion yuan (A$21 billion) in spending from the 2025 budget. That wasn’t enough to sustain market optimism. On October 9, Chinese stocks saw their most severe drop in 27 years.

This downturn only worsened a few days later, when China’s Ministry of Finance hinted there was “ample room” to raise debts but did not specify any new stimulus measures.

Still thin on the details

The market remains deeply uncertain about the future direction of China’s economic policies and what they might mean for the world. Hopes that more details might be released over the weekend were largely dashed.

Back in July, Chinese authorities asserted in their Third Plenary Session communique that China “must remain firmly committed” to achieving this year’s economic growth target of 5%. Compared to the country’s reform-era economic performance, that’s a modest goal.

But facing a persistently sluggish economic outlook, Xi later seemed to subtly shift the tone, changing the language from “remain firmly committed” to “strive to fulfill” in September.

Over the past decades, China has frequently employed massive-scale stimulus measures to revive its economy during downturns. These policies have been able to significantly rejuvenate the economy, though occasionally with some worrying side effects.

In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, China’s State Council released a 4 trillion yuan (A$837 billion) stimulus package. This successfully helped China stand firm through the crisis and was credited as a key stabiliser of the global economy.

But it also accumulated trillions of yuan in debt through local government financing and accelerated the rise of “shadow banking” – unregulated financial activities.

China also spent big on stimulating its economy in 2015, following stock market turbulence, and then again in the wake of the pandemic.

What should we expect?

What should we expect this time? How balanced or sustainable will any ensuing growth be?

We are still waiting on many of the details about the size and scope of the package, but any big increase in Chinese economic demand will likely have “spillover” effects.

As we’ve discussed, many of the measures announced to date will have their most immediate effect on borrowing, lending and liquidity in China’s stock markets.

That suggests we should watch for what’s called the “wealth effect” in economics. This is the theory that rising asset prices – such as for housing or shares – make people feel wealthier and therefore spend more.

If China’s big stimulus spend causes sustained increases in asset values, it could give rise to economic optimism. Chinese consumers – and investors – may become less anxious about the future.

From Australia’s point of view, that could see increases in demand in areas where our economies are interlinked – iron ore, tourism, education and manufactured food exports.

More broadly, Chinese demand could contribute to growth in other global economies, with a self-reinforcing effect on the world as a whole.

Beware financialisation

On the other hand, China’s shift to depending more on volatile asset price rises in its capital markets to sustain growth could have destabilising effects. Where asset price increases benefit those at the “top end of town,” they can breed inequities and imbalances of their own.

China’s “Black Monday” stock market crash in 2015 raised alarm in Beijing. Partly reflecting a wariness of excess financialisation, Xi cautioned at the time that “housing is for living in, not for speculation”.

So far, China is still navigating its path towards a more sustainable development model, striving to strike a balance between sustaining economic growth and stabilising its domestic markets and political landscape. As for the outcome, it remains a profound uncertainty for us all – perhaps China itself included.

Wesley Widmaier receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Wenting He 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. China’s government is about to spend big on stimulus – can it turn around the country’s sluggish economy? – https://theconversation.com/chinas-government-is-about-to-spend-big-on-stimulus-can-it-turn-around-the-countrys-sluggish-economy-241260

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By AD Narayan, Visual Effects Artist and Lecturer in Digital Communication, Auckland University of Technology

From the mind-bending reality warps of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) to the breathtaking alien vistas of Avatar: The Way of Water (2022), visual effects have transported us to worlds beyond imagination. Yet the future of visual effects (VFX) could hang in the balance as artificial intelligence is subsumed into screen production processes.

Lionsgate’s recent partnership with AI startup Runway has sparked controversy in the visual effects industry.

By allowing Runway to train AI on Lionsgate’s vast film and TV catalogue, the collaboration promises increased efficiency and financial savings – but at what cost?

Growing apprehension among workers

According to a research report published in January, 75% of 300 entertainment industry leaders surveyed said generative AI tools, software and models had contributed to the elimination, reduction or consolidation of jobs within their business divisions.

The report highlighted the visual effects sector as being particularly vulnerable, as AI techniques are often applied in post-production processes. This vulnerability was typified in our own research published today.

Our work reveals visual effects artists have serious concerns about generative AI’s integration into screen production. These include worries over job insecurity, creative devaluation, and the potential for AI to produce derivative content that fails to meet audience expectations.

Challenges of AI in the VFX industry

Our findings reflect growing concerns that AI’s use in filmmaking could magnify existing industry problems. It could, for instance, exacerbate unfair working conditions. Or it could undermine creativity if artists are expected to “clean up” AI-generated work rather than create their own.

Visual effects artists, who have typically been early adopters of new technologies, acknowledge AI could bring both opportunities and challenges. While it could help streamline certain tasks, it could equally impact on the overall quality of their work.

The artists we spoke to were worried a reliance on AI might stifle creativity and skill development, by making the work “more mechanical and less creative”. In a recent example, the AI-generated title sequence for Marvel’s Secret Invasion series was widely criticised for lacking artistic merit.

There were also questions about how artists would be compensated if their work is used to train AI models.

Some senior supervisors were particularly concerned about the ethical and legal considerations of using AI on commercial projects. They were uncertain around intellectual property rights for AI-generated content, as well as the potential for copyright infringement.

On the creative and technical front, artists recognised AI’s value in generating ideas and automating repetitive tasks. However, nearly all of them said AI tools weren’t yet production-ready, and highlighted difficulties with integrating said tools into existing pipelines.

The next steps

The VFX industry was already struggling with profits and sustainability before the AI boom. Visual effects companies often face bankruptcy – even Oscar-winning ones. In many cases, artists will get laid off once a project is complete.

The partnership between Lionsgate and Runway represents the industry’s collective failure to address concerns over AI. But there’s still time to fix things.

The first step is developing clear industry guidelines for AI’s use in visual effects. Above all else, AI should help augment human creativity, rather than replace it. And artists should be fairly compensated if their work is used to train AI models.

Investment in training programs could also help artists adapt to new AI tools without compromising their creativity. As one interviewee told us, human expertise and creativity remain important in visual effects.

“Understanding the why behind certain choices, the creative decision making, that’s something I haven’t really seen AI effectively do,” they said.

As the industry stands at a technological crossroads, it must balance the pursuit of efficiency with genuine creativity. Otherwise, we risk losing the human touch that brings our favourite films to life.

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. AI is creeping into the visual effects industry – and it could take the human touch out of film and TV – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-creeping-into-the-visual-effects-industry-and-it-could-take-the-human-touch-out-of-film-and-tv-240112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Bertram, Visiting Scholar, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Economists working on macroeconomic policy – things like taxes and spending, interest rates and border controls on flows of trade and money – often refer to a set of key relationships governments can influence. In the textbooks, each of those relationships is drawn as a curve in a graph.

First is the IS (“investment–saving”) curve. This says that if everything else stays the same, the Reserve Bank can increase economic output and employment by lowering the interest rate. Or it can cause a recession by raising the interest rate. (For simplicity’s sake, the curves here are depicted as straight lines.)

Second comes the Phillips Curve, which is usually drawn sloping upwards to suggest that if everything else stays the same, inflation will rise during economic booms and fall in recessions. In other words, the Reserve Bank or the government can apparently bring inflation down by causing a recession.

Third comes the trade balance – the current account of the balance of payments (investment income and traded goods and services between New Zealand and the rest of the world).

If everything else stays the same here, as the exchange rate of the dollar falls, the current account strengthens by moving towards or expanding a surplus. If the exchange rate rises, the current account weakens: exports fall and imports increase.

However, it’s a mistake to suppose each of these relationships will stay where it is while the government and Reserve Bank each tinker with their own policy settings. So, what could go wrong?

The effect of austerity

Start with the IS curve – the way output and employment are affected by interest rates, assuming the government makes no big budgetary changes. But what if the government embarks on an austerity program, slashing its spending and cancelling projects, which shrinks the economy?

At any given interest rate, output and employment will be lower, shifting the whole curve “leftwards” towards lower economic activity (see above).

Even if the Reserve Bank lowers the interest rate, that won’t expand the economy because the government’s fiscal policy is killing off its expansionary effect. The recession created by the austerity program rolls on.

Along the way, it increases costs to government from unemployment, paying other benefits, and lower tax revenue. If the government responds with further austerity, we enter a downward self-reinforcing spiral.

Wages and inflation

Second, take the Phillips Curve and ask what happens if inflation isn’t, in fact, sensitive to how the economy is doing.

In this case, driving the economy into recession has no effect on the inflation rate. When the Reserve Bank changes the interest rate, inflation just stays where it is because the Phillips Curve is flat, not upward-sloping. Reducing inflation requires completely different policy interventions.

Back when the Phillips Curve was invented, it was reasonable to think inflation fell during recessions because workers could get higher wage increases in booms than in slumps.

Bringing on a recession would reduce the bargaining power of workers, result in slower wage growth, and thereby tame inflation (given that wages are an important part of the costs of production).

But workers today have lost the bargaining power they used to have when unions were strong and welfare-state thinking prevailed.

In a paper fellow economist Bill Rosenberg and I published this year, we show the bargaining power of labour was killed off in 1991 by the Employment Contracts Act and has not recovered since. Wages no longer drive inflation in contemporary New Zealand.

Interest rates and inflation

Could the Phillips Curve work because producers of goods and services push up prices and profits faster in booms and cut their margins in recessions?

It’s possible: there’s plenty of evidence of big companies using their market power to price-gouge consumers. But it’s not clear this exercise of market power is greater in booms and lesser in slumps.

In fact, the opposite could be true. Small businesses are most likely to be driven out of the market in recessions, leaving big companies with increased market share and less competitive pressure on their margins.

Forces both locally and in international markets have clearly been pushing the Phillips Curve down, producing lower inflation. Local forces include the current government’s abrupt cancellation of major construction activities, dismissal of public servants, the constant negative messaging on the state of the economy, and rising outward migration as a consequence of all these.

International markets, including falling prices for imports such as oil, have also clearly been pushing the Phillips Curve down. While the Reserve Bank will claim credit, it’s not at all clear the bank’s interest rate policy has made that much difference.

Finally, what about the international balance of payments? One thing the Reserve Bank can do by changing the interest rate is change the exchange rate between the New Zealand dollar and other currencies.

If New Zealand’s interest rates increase relative to elsewhere in the world, short-term money flows in to take advantage of the higher rates. This raises the exchange rate, and in turn weakens the external balance by cutting the return on exports and increasing the volume of cheaper imports.

Producers of goods and services that face international competition are squeezed. Meanwhile, what used to be called the “sheltered” or “non-tradeable” industries – including the big banks, insurance companies, electricity suppliers, supermarkets, consultancies – are unscathed.

Deeper recession

The Reserve Bank may not have much effect on inflation, but it can certainly affect the structure of the economy. Using the interest rate as the weapon against inflation squeezes manufacturers, tourism and farmers, but leaves non-tradables largely untouched.

Right now in New Zealand, the IS curve is remorselessly shifting left as the economy plunges into a deeper recession exacerbated by government austerity – an ideologically driven quest for instant fiscal surpluses, low public debt and a shrinking public sector relative to GDP.

Falling interest rates will struggle to make expansionary headway against that austerity.

Meanwhile, corporate profiteering and rising government charges continue to put upward pressure on the Phillips Curve, and the balance of payments is weakening. This means the country as a whole is piling up increasing debts to the rest of the world (largely through the Australian-owned banks).

The question is, does the current government understand where its policies are taking us?

Geoff Bertram 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. Austerity and recession: 3 simple graphs that explain New Zealand’s economic crisis – https://theconversation.com/austerity-and-recession-3-simple-graphs-that-explain-new-zealands-economic-crisis-241259

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

Hard on the heels of pledging a crackdown on excessive surcharges, the Albanese government has promised legislation to ban unfair trading practices.

The government said this would include specific prohibitions on various “dodgy” practices.

“From concert tickets to hotel rooms to gym memberships, Australians are fed up with businesses using tricky tactics that make it difficult to end subscriptions or add hidden fees to purchases,” the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said in a statement.

“These practices can distort purchasing decisions, or result in additional costs, putting more pressure on the cost of living.”

They said the government would deal with

• “subscription traps” that make it difficult to cancel a subscription

• “drip pricing” characterised by hidden fees or fees added during the purchase

• deceptive and manipulative online practices. These aim to confuse consumers, such as for example by creating a false sense of urgency, warning there is only a limited time to purchase

• dynamic pricing, where a price changes during the transaction

• requiring a consumer to set up an account and provide unnecessary information for an online purchase

• a business making it difficult for a consumer to contact it when they have a problem with the product.

Earlier this week Arts Minister Tony Burke said on the ABC the government was not looking at “dynamic pricing” in the music industry.

Asked on Four Corners whether dynamic pricing should be allowed in Australia, Burke said: “Surge pricing is something that, as consumers, people have always dealt with.

“I don’t love it, but I think we have to be realistic, it’s always been there. It’s not something we’re looking at, at the moment.”

Asked about the discrepancy, a government spokesperson said the Four Corners interview “was recorded a month ago, before this policy existed”.

Treasury will consult on the design of the planned changes. The government on Wednesday will put out a consultation paper on reforms for greater protections for consumers and small businesses under the consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification in the Australian Consumer Law.

The government says it will work with the states to have a final reform proposal in the first half of next year.

There will be penalties for suppliers that refuse to give consumers a remedy such as a replacement product or a refund when legally required.

“Currently, it can be difficult for consumers to obtain a remedy, especially when engaging in the digital economy,” the government statement said.

The reforms would empower the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state and territory agencies to pursue breaches of consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification provisions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said “hidden fees and traps are putting even more pressure on the cost of living and it needs to stop”.

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

– ref. Albanese government promises to ban ‘dodgy’ trading practices – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-promises-to-ban-dodgy-trading-practices-234142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

George Negus, who has died at the age of 82, belonged to the nomenclatura of Australian television current affairs journalism.

He first came to prominence as a member of the team that produced the groundbreaking nightly ABC TV current affairs program, This Day Tonight. That team was made up of others who were also to become household names: presenter Bill Peach and reporters Peter Luck, Gerald Stone and Mike Willesee.

The program became a burr under the saddle of senior ABC management. On its second day it broke the story that the then chair of the ABC, James Darling, was not to be given a third term. The story incurred the chairman’s displeasure. The fallout went on interminably, a rehearsal for many tumults that were to follow throughout TDT’s 11-year existence.

This kind of fearless, sometimes irreverent, public-interest journalism was meat and drink to Negus. He practised it from both sides of the chasm that traditionally separates journalists from political staffers.

During the term of the Whitlam government, he became press secretary to the attorney-general, Lionel Murphy. He leaked to the media Murphy’s plan to raid the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in 1973 because Murphy believed the agency was withholding from him information about domestic terrorism.

However, it was as a television journalist that Negus made his name. In 1979 he joined the founding team of the Nine Network’s 60 Minutes program, alongside Ray Martin, Ian Leslie and, later, Jana Wendt.

In 1992 he became the founding host of ABC TV’s Foreign Correspondent program and worked there until 1999. He developed a reputation as a well-informed and courageous reporter specialising in the Middle East. In 2004, he published a bestselling book, The World from Islam: A Journey of Discovery through the Muslim Heartland, in which he defended Islam against the stereotype that it was inherently violent.

In 2005 he became host of the SBS program Dateline, which also had a foreign affairs focus, and in 2011 began hosting 6.30 with George Negus on the Ten network.

In 2012, Negus and a fellow panellist on the Ten network show The Circle, Yumi Stynes, became embroiled in a controversy concerning remarks they made about Ben Roberts-Smith, many years before he was found by a federal court judge to have committed war crimes, a finding that is now on appeal.

There was severe public blowback on Negus and Stynes, who then apologised to Roberts-Smith. They in turn received apologies from Australia’s major newspapers for misconstruing the original remarks.

In 2015 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for services to media and environmental conservation.

Although he acquired a knockabout image, he was described by two women who worked with him as disarmingly approachable.

Nehida Barakat was the senior producer for the ABC’s 7.30 program in about 2000 when Negus stood in as the summer presenter. She was apprehensive when he rang to discuss an intro she had written. “This gentlemanly voice asked: ‘Would you mind if I changed just a couple of words?’”

Nicole Chvastek, who worked with him at Nine, said he was a big star who generated an air of excitement, a mixture of the intelligent, well-travelled journalist and “a sort of approachable larrikin everyman”.

It was his down-to-earth approach to storytelling that viewers related to so readily. This, coupled with unshakeable fairmindedness on the issues he reported on, marked him out as an unusually gifted journalist.

He is survived by his partner, Kirsty, and two sons, Ned and Serge. The family released a statement saying he had “passed away peacefully surrounded by loved ones after a gracious decline from Alzheimer’s disease, all the while with his trademark smile”.

Denis Muller 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. Fair-minded, down to earth and unusually gifted: George Negus dies at 82 – https://theconversation.com/fair-minded-down-to-earth-and-unusually-gifted-george-negus-dies-at-82-241367

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Associate Professor of Finance, RMIT University

In a move that could reshape how Australians pay for everyday purchases, the federal government is preparing to ban businesses from slapping surcharges on debit card transactions.

This plan, pending a review by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), promises to put money back into consumers’ pockets.

The RBA, which is accepting submissions until December, released its first consultation paper on Tuesday to coincide with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ joint announcement.

But as with any significant policy shift, it’s worth taking a closer look to see what it really means for all of us.

How much are we really saving?

Based on RBA data, the potential savings are huge – up to $500 million a year if surcharges on debit cards are banned.

And if the government goes one step further and includes credit card transaction fees in the ban, those savings could hit a massive $1 billion annually.

While these figures sound impressive, when you break it down, the savings per cardholder would amount to around $140 annually.

It’s not a life-changing amount, but for frequent shoppers or anyone making larger purchases, it could add up.

Of course, not everyone will benefit equally. Those who shop less might not notice the difference.

How does Australia stack up globally?

RBA data shows Australians are paying more in merchant service fees than people in Europe, but less than consumers in the United States.

These fees are what businesses pay to accept card payments, and they get passed on to us in the form of surcharges.

The proposed ban on debit card surcharges occupies a middle ground in the global regulatory landscape. The European Union, United Kingdom and Malaysia have implemented comprehensive bans on surcharges for most debit and credit card transactions.

But in the US and Canada, businesses can still charge you for using a credit card, though debit card surcharges aren’t allowed.

The merchant’s perspective

While the surcharge ban seems like a clear win for consumers, it’s essential to consider the impact on merchants, especially small businesses. The reality is not all merchants are created equal when it comes to card payment fees.

In Australia, there’s a significant disparity between the fees paid by large and small merchants. In fact, RBA data shows small businesses pay fees about three times higher than what larger businesses pay.

It all comes down to bargaining power. Bigger businesses can negotiate better deals on fees. This difference is primarily driven by the ability of larger merchants to thrash out favourable wholesale fees for processing card transactions.

For small businesses, the cost of accepting cards can range from under 1% to more than 2% of the transaction value, which can eat into profits, especially for those working with tight margins.

While the ban may sound like good news for consumers, there’s still a need to fix the bigger issues in the payment system. Innovations like “least-cost routing”, which allows businesses to process transactions at the lowest possible cost, could potentially help level the playing field.

How businesses might exploit the loopholes?

If payment costs are entirely passed on to merchants, they might find ways to recover those expenses through other means. We’ve seen this happen in other countries that abolished surcharges. Some potential strategies include

• slightly raising overall prices to cover lost surcharge revenue
• implementing or increasing minimum purchase requirements for card payments
• introducing new “service” or “convenience” fees for all transactions, or increasing weekend and holiday surcharges.

Most of these tactics have been around for a while. The challenge for regulators will be to monitor and address any new practices that emerge in response to the new rules.

Credit cards: the elephant in the room

While the ban on debit card surcharges is a step in the right direction, it raises an obvious question: why not extend it to credit cards?

The option to ban credit card surcharges along with debit cards is proposed in the RBA’s review consultation paper. The answer lies in the complex web of interchange fees and merchant costs associated with credit card transactions.

Credit card transactions cost merchants more to process because of additional services and rewards programs offered by credit card issuers.

Banning surcharges on these could potentially lead to merchants increasing their base prices to cover these costs. This could effectively result in users of lower-cost payment methods subsidising those opting for premium cards.

The absence of surcharges could also reduce the competitive pressure on card networks to keep their fees in check, potentially leading to higher costs in the long run.

Some countries have managed to ban surcharges on credit cards, but they usually have stricter regulations around interchange fees than we do in Australia.

As policymakers grapple with this complex issue, they must weigh the benefits of consumer simplicity against the risk of distorting market signals and potentially increasing costs for both merchants and consumers alike.

Angel Zhong 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. Banning debit card surcharges could save $500 million a year – if traders don’t claw back the money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/banning-debit-card-surcharges-could-save-500-million-a-year-if-traders-dont-claw-back-the-money-in-other-ways-241354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abu Barkat ullah, Associate Professor of Cyber Security, University of Canberra

The Australian government has introduced its first-ever standalone cyber security act. Along with two other cyber security bills, it’s currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

Among the act’s many provisions are mandatory “minimum cyber security standards for smart devices”.

This marks a crucial step in defending the digital lives of Australians. So what devices would it apply to? And what can you do right now to protect your smart devices from cyber criminals?

Smart devices are everywhere

The new legislation aims to cover a wide range of smart devices – products that can connect to the internet in some way.

This includes “internet-connectable” products – think smartphones, laptops, tablets, smart TVs and gaming consoles. It also includes indirect “network-connectable” products, which can send and receive data. This means things like smart home devices and appliances, wearables (smart watches, fitness trackers), smart vacuums and many more.

Simple electronic devices that don’t connect to the internet or can’t store or process sensitive data are not included.

According to one study, 7.6 million Australian households – more than 70% – had at least one smart home device by the end of 2023, and 3 million of those households had more than five.

To work as well as they do, smart devices typically collect, store and share data. This can include sensitive personal information, health data and geo-location data, making them attractive targets for cyber criminals.

A notorious example is the Mirai botnet in 2016, when cyber criminals infected more than 600,000 devices such as cameras, home routers, and video players globally to use them in massively disruptive network attacks, known as a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS).

Even implantable medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, can have security flaws that could be exploited.

Just last week, the ABC reported that one of the world’s largest home robotics companies has failed to address security issues in its robot vacuums despite warnings from the previous year.

The consequences of such vulnerabilities can be even more dangerous when smart devices are part of critical infrastructure. As these devices become more interconnected, a breach in one can compromise entire networks, amplifying the security risks.

What will be the ‘minimum’ security standards?

The new cyber security act provides for “mandatory security standards” for smart devices. It establishes the legal framework for enforcing these standards, but doesn’t explicitly outline the technical details smart devices must meet. In the past the Department of Home Affairs has suggested that Australia consider adopting an international security standard, such as ETSI EN 303 645.

The bill’s focus is on securing connected devices to protect users from internet-based threats, vulnerabilities and risks.

In practice, this means manufacturers will have to ensure their products meet these minimum security standards and provide a statement of compliance. And suppliers will have to include statements of compliance with the product, and will be forbidden from selling non-compliant products.

All this will be enforced through the Secretary of Home Affairs, who can issue compliance, stop, or recall notices for violations of these rules.

You can do your bit to stay safe

The proposed cyber security act is a significant step forward in protecting Australians from the growing threat of cyber attacks on smart devices.

But this may only apply to new devices or ones still receiving updates from manufacturers. Exact details on how the legislation will apply to existing devices will be determined by the government agency responsible for its implementation.

“Legacy” devices with outdated software – older products that are no longer supported and don’t receive the latest security patches – are particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks.

While the government works on introducing the new cyber security laws, there are several things you can do to protect your smart devices:

• set up a strong wifi password to prevent unauthorised access to your home network
• create a dedicated, more secure wifi network for smart home devices
• always install security patches and updates promptly
• create unique and complex passwords for each account
• where possible, use two-factor authentication to add an extra layer of security
• disable unnecessary features or permissions, and be mindful of the information you share with apps and devices
• make sure you understand how your data is collected and used by apps and devices.

By mandating minimum cyber security standards and providing for effective enforcement mechanisms, Australia’s new cyber security act will help keep consumer devices safer.

However, it’s important to note that as technology continues to evolve rapidly, the cyber crime ecosystem is also expanding. The global cost of cyber crime is projected to reach US$9.5 trillion in 2024.

Given the dynamic nature of cyber threats, relying solely on standards may not be sufficient to address all potential risks. New vulnerabilities are discovered regularly, and it’s essential for every one of us to remain vigilant and practice good cyber hygiene by following the tips above.

Abu Barkat ullah 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. Speakers, vacuums, doorbells and fridges – the government plans to make your ‘smart things’ more secure – https://theconversation.com/speakers-vacuums-doorbells-and-fridges-the-government-plans-to-make-your-smart-things-more-secure-241057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Green, Research Fellow, Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

Multinational concert promoter Live Nation Entertainment has come under fire, with an ABC Four Corners investigation saying its unprecedented market power is open to abuse.

The report follows concerns about the introduction of dynamic pricing – where ticket prices change according to demand – to the Australian concert market. A parliamentary inquiry into the live music sector is also underway.

Industry luminaries such as Peter Garrett and Michael Chugg told the ABC that Australia’s music scene is under threat, echoing the concerns of frustrated bands and fans. Live Nation issued a statement ahead of the program, calling it inaccurate and unbalanced.

So what is Live Nation and how is market concentration affecting our music scene?

The business

Live music is one of our most popular forms of cultural participation, engaging almost half of Australians over 15. In the decade before COVID, ticket buying and revenue for contemporary music doubled.

Ticket revenue doubled again in the year 2022–23 to well above pre-pandemic levels. How can such growth be squared against widespread talk of a sector in crisis, with venues closing and festivals cancelled?

This is because the growth is top-heavy. Overall figures have been boosted by an influx of stadium concerts by international superstars such as Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran. Rising revenue outpaced attendance growth by almost three to one, with average ticket prices rising 47.4% to A$128.21. Market power is increasingly concentrated in a few corporate hands, notably Live Nation Entertainment.

What is Live Nation?

Live Nation began in the United States as a concert promoter. Traditionally, a promoter funds and arranges live events, negotiating with artists, their agents, venues and ticketing services. But Live Nation has integrated many such components into its operations. Now, everything from artist management to venues and merchandise can be done in-house.

In 2010, the US Department of Justice allowed the merger of Live Nation with major ticketing company Ticketmaster. The resulting entity, Live Nation Entertainment, has since acquired a growing set of interests internationally.

Live Nation’s acquisitions over the past decade in Australia include:

• Michael Coppel Presents

• Secret Sounds Group, which promotes Splendour in the Grass and Falls Festival in addition to touring, sponsorship, PR and artist management businesses (the acquisition excluded Secret Sounds record labels and venues)

• Moshtix, billed as Australia’s leading provider of general admission tickets for unreserved or standing-room events

• Mellen Events, a leading Western Australian concert promoter

• Kicks Entertainment, which operates Spilt Milk festival

• Face to Face Touring, a regional promoter with events including Red Hot Summer, SummerSalt and By the C.

Live Nation Entertainment also acquired venues, leasing Melbourne’s Palais Theatre for 30 years from 2017 and Festival Hall. The group purchased Anita’s Theatre in Thirroul in 2022 and opened Brisbane’s Fortitude Music Hall (2020) and Adelaide’s Hindley Street Music Hall (2022) in partnership with local entities.

Ticketmaster is the authorised ticketing agency for Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium and for Australian tours promoted by Live Nation. These include concerts by Oasis, Green Day, P!nk and Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Live Nation has also acquired several Australian booking agencies, including Village Sounds, which represents Bernard Fanning, Courtney Barnett and Vance Joy.

The only competitors are TEG (which owns Ticketek) and AEG-Frontier. Music industry stakeholders are concerned about the oversized influence of these three “corporate giants”.

Keeping the shareholders happy

For consumers, a lack of competition can mean higher prices. Dynamic pricing made headlines, but Four Corners also alleged there were a range of “hidden fees” in the price of tickets ordinarily sold by Ticketmaster and Ticketek.

Artists are at a disadvantage when negotiating with a mass of connected businesses that are often owned by one entity and which sometimes includes their own agent.

South Australian rock band Bad//Dreems told the ABC they were left with just $9,000 from a tour that grossed $100,000.

Veteran promoter Michael Chugg complained major artists were being overpaid, skewing the sector to the detriment of local musicians. While Australian promoters, including Chugg and the late Michael Gudinski, have a history of consolidating interests and crowding out competition, they also had skin in the Australian music game. Live Nation is a publicly listed company with duties to its shareholders, including US hedge funds and Saudi royalty.

Midnight Oil singer and former politician Peter Garrett said this meant there was “no loyalty” to Australian artists. A multinational promoter with a shareholder-driven approach might be more likely to cancel a festival after weak opening sales, instead of weathering short-term losses to preserve the brand and relationships.

That cancellation might even consolidate demand for the company’s upcoming headline tours. But opportunities are lost for Australian artists, businesses and culture.

What can be done?

Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke told Four Corners he has put Live Nation on notice and warned the company not to use its power in an anti-competitive way. But he did not commit to legislative change.

In the United States, the Department of Justice and dozens of states have sued Live Nation for antitrust, seeking “to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists”.

Australian courts currently have no power to break up monopolies without new legislation. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can investigate and prosecute misuse of market power, as alleged by some in this case.

Fair trading authorities in the United Kingdom and Europe are examining Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing in the wake of the Oasis ticket-pricing controversy. However, Burke said surge pricing is something consumers have always dealt with, and “not something we’re looking at, at the moment”.

Governments could also regulate more transparency in ticket fees, as well as the rights of artists, who sit uncomfortably between employees and small businesses. Their union, MEAA’s Musicians Australia, is currently advocating about these matters.

Those passionate about Australia’s live music scene fear that if the sector isn’t better regulated, it’ll soon be too late to save it.

Ben Green receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

– ref. Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried – https://theconversation.com/are-market-giants-endangering-australias-live-music-scene-industry-veterans-and-local-artists-are-worried-241244

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s infrastructure woes are a constant political pain point. From ageing water systems to congested roads and assets increasingly threatened by climate change, the country faces mammoth upgrading and future-proofing challenges.

Enter Winston Peters and NZ First with a surprise proposal for a NZ$100 billion “Future Fund” dedicated to infrastructure investment. Sounds promising – but the proposal’s success will hinge on getting the details right and, more importantly, getting the politics out of infrastructure planning.

Unveiled at NZ First’s annual convention last weekend, the idea bears striking similarities to challenges previously highlighted by urban planning and infrastructure experts.

The country currently has an estimated infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, which aligns eerily with the scale of Peters’ proposed fund.

The Future Fund proposal sounds impressive on paper. Ring-fenced from political meddling and focused on national interests, it’s billed as a silver bullet for infrastructure funding problems.

Peters claims he’s taken a page from the Singapore and Ireland playbooks – potentially breaking New Zealand’s habit of treating big infrastructure projects like they’re part of a three-year plan.

Long-term savings

As always, the devil is in the details – and the Future Fund is light on them. How exactly would this fund be financed? How would projects be selected and prioritised? And, crucially, how would it be insulated from the political interference it claims to avoid?

The potential benefits are significant. Research suggests that a stable, long-term approach to infrastructure investment and better utilisation of existing assets could unlock substantial savings – potentially up to 40% of total project costs.

A well-managed $100 billion fund could provide the certainty and consistency needed to achieve these efficiencies.

The scale of the fund also aligns with the urgent need for a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul. From modernising water systems to expanding road and rail networks, and ensuring resilience against climate change, the required investment is indeed massive.

Politics is the problem

Yet the proposal faces significant hurdles, not the least of which is from NZ First’s own coalition partners.

The National Party’s previous commitments to curb borrowing seem at odds with a fund of this magnitude. Peters argues that debt for wealth creation and infrastructure differs from debt for consumption.

That’s a valid point, but one that may struggle to gain traction in a political environment focused on reducing overall government debt.

The proposal also raises questions about how it would interact with existing initiatives, such as the National Investment Agency set up by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop. It’s unclear whether these entities would complement each other or create redundancies and inefficiencies.

Perhaps the most critical question is whether this fund, despite its claimed independence, can rise above the political cycle. We have a long and exhausting history of proposing infrastructure for political gain, where one government’s “vital infrastructure” becomes the next’s “wasteful spending”.

Time for a 30-year plan

While the Future Fund could be a big move in the right direction, we must also rethink how we plan (and pay) for infrastructure completely.

A good start would be a 30-year plan that all political parties can get behind, like the United Kingdom’s National Infrastructure Assessment. This would give us a real long-term vision rather than promises that change with each election cycle.

We should also look at more innovative ways to fund projects. Value capture, which leverages rising property values near new infrastructure to help finance its development, helped build London’s Crossrail. And Australia is “asset recycling” from old infrastructure into new projects.

These aren’t just theoretical ideas. They could change how we build what New Zealand needs without the risks of entirely relying on taxpayers.

Ending the boom-bust cycle

Efficiency must also be a priority. Time-of-use charges for roads, already implemented in cities such as Stockholm and Singapore and proposed for Auckland, could reduce congestion and wasteful spending on unnecessary road expansions.

Volumetric charging for water, as seen in the Kāpiti Coast, can significantly reduce water waste without massive new investments.

New Zealand could also break free from its boom-bust infrastructure cycle by establishing an agency outside the political realm to manage the cash Winston Peters is proposing.

A truly independent infrastructure body, similar to Infrastructure Australia, could provide the continuity and expertise needed to see projects through political cycles.

Money isn’t the only issue here. Politics is the real roadblock. Right now, every election cycle, priorities change, projects fly out the window, and the bill for desperately needed infrastructure only gets bigger.

The Future Fund seems like a step in the right direction. But without also overhauling how we make decisions about infrastructure, it could end up being just another political football.

Timothy Welch 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. Winston Peters’ $100 billion infrastructure fund is the right idea. Politics-as-usual is the problem – https://theconversation.com/winston-peters-100-billion-infrastructure-fund-is-the-right-idea-politics-as-usual-is-the-problem-241346

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Finally, Australia’s rock lobster industry will be able to export to China again, following a deal struck on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Laos last week.

It will take some weeks to finalise the paperwork, but Chinese diners can expect to eat our high-quality crustaceans as we devour our Christmas roast turkeys.

The breakthrough brings a particularly nasty chapter in Australia-China trade relations to a close. Tariffs on rock lobsters were the only remaining major restriction of a raft of trade barriers imposed by China in 2020.

It might be tempting to celebrate, but we should tread carefully. Our situation remains hostage to Beijing’s relationship with Washington. Whether Australia’s trade woes with China are actually over may ultimately be out of our hands.

Read more:
China removes block on Australian lobster, in last big bilateral trade breakthrough

Australia’s reversal of fortunes

The past couple of years have been a whirlwind.

The Albanese government has seen China systematically undo the export restrictions it had imposed on Australia in 2020 – including on barley, wine, beef, and now lobster – without giving away much of substance in return.

Yes, Australia suspended two cases it had brought against China at the World Trade Organization, concerning barley and wine duties China had imposed. But those cases can be resumed if the Chinese government backslides.

And true, the Albanese government did not oppose China’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership – an important regional free trade agreement of which Australia is a founding member. But neither did it endorse China’s bid.

It seems we’ve come a long way since 2020, when China tabled its infamous “14 grievances” against Australia. This deliberately leaked document publicly criticised Australia on a whole range of fronts, including foreign investment decisions, alleged interference in China’s affairs, research funding and media coverage.

A more sobering picture elsewhere

This reopening of trade might make it seem like things are looking up for Australia. In some cases, our business community has bounced back with gusto, notably wine exports to China.

Zooming out, however, paints a more sobering picture of global trade relations. In the near term, the decisions of our key allies – namely the United States – may come to matter more than our own.

The Biden administration has long hoped to place a “floor” under America’s geopolitical competition with China. Neither side wants things to get ugly.

But in Washington, strong bipartisan consensus remains that China must be confronted. The US has continued to take coercive actions against Chinese exports and investment.

For example, the US recently imposed a 100% import duty on electric vehicles produced by Chinese-owned companies. Similarly, it imposed a 25% import duty on imports of Chinese container cranes. Strategic distrust will escalate no matter who wins the White House on November 5.

This animosity is mirrored in Beijing. China’s security state is expanding ever more into business, while its private sector retreats. China’s own coercive activities are also escalating in regional disputes over the South and East China seas, as well as in its trade retaliations against Western markets.

Widening tensions

These tensions are also playing out in Europe and the Middle East. International relations scholars worry that the West must now confront an authoritarian axis comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.

China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia has spooked most European elites. Western sanctions on Russia, meant to erode the Kremlin’s war machine, are likely being circumvented by China’s unmatched industrial capacities.

Iran’s military support for Russia supplements the Kremlin’s war-fighting capacities at Ukraine’s expense.

Unsurprisingly, economic security concerns are rapidly eclipsing free trade considerations for the US.

When US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan introduced the 2022 National Security Strategy, he adopted a selectively restrictive approach he called “small yard, high fence”.

He was talking about export controls and inward restrictions on investment, applied to high-technology products.

Since then, the “yard” has grown wider, and the “fence” has expanded. More sectors and products are being thrown into the mix, from energy security, through critical minerals, to food production.

The challenge with digital technologies, able to be used for both military and civilian purposes, is that the yard can be very large indeed.

Middle power problems

The US has the economic and military weight to confront China. As the European Union is learning, having the economic weight is necessary. But being politically united is essential, and they remain far from that.

Australia is a middle power, without the necessary economic weight or military heft to confront China. That means we must support the rules-based multilateral trading system – preserving the authority of institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – to constrain the actions of the great powers and preserve as much of our open trade posture as possible.

Washington, however, increasingly expects its allies to fall into line. How else can one explain Canada’s decision to follow the US and impose 100% import duties on electric vehicles produced by Chinese owned companies?

Like Australia, Canada is also a middle power. It is also a strong supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system. But Canada’s action violates WTO rules.

The fact that Washington’s actions also violate these rules is taken for granted these days.

Australia must pay attention

Global trade cooperation is deteriorating, and the world is fracturing into two “values-based” trading blocs. While there could be positive upswings in our bilateral trade relations with China, the medium term trend is down.

As Napoleon Bonaparte is reputed to have said:

China is a sleeping giant; let him sleep, for if he wakes he will shake the world.

China has changed, and the world with it.

Australian business needs to pay attention. Our East Asian partners, notably Japan and South Korea, have long spoken of the need for a “China plus one” (or more) business strategy – making sure trade and investment is diversified into other countries, as well.

Such diversification will be increasingly important in the years to come.

Peter Draper 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. Is Australia’s trade war with China now over? The answer might be out of our hands – https://theconversation.com/is-australias-trade-war-with-china-now-over-the-answer-might-be-out-of-our-hands-241117