Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

The UN Security Council has passed yet another resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. This is the fourth such resolution adopted by the council since Hamas’ October 7 attack on southern Israel and the launching of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Little has come from the three previous resolutions, all of which have been legally binding since they were passed by the Security Council:

• a resolution on March 25 calling for a ceasefire that was ignored by Israel

• a resolution on December 22 calling for a “sustainable cessation of hostitilies”, which also had no immediate practical effect

• a resolution on November 15 calling for “humanitarian pauses”, which did nothing to alleviate Palestinian suffering or secure the release of hostages.

So, what is new about this latest resolution? And can it bring a halt to the fighting?

Read more:
Why has an Israel-Hamas ceasefire been so elusive? A timeline of key moments in the search for peace

What is new

First, this most recent resolution, which was drafted by the United States and supported by a vote of 14-0 (with Russia abstaining), has much more specific terms. For example, it lays out a three-stage approach to achieving a “permanent end to hostilities”.

In this first stage, all fighting will stop and some of the remaining hostages will be returned in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. And if the negotiations take longer than six weeks, the ceasefire will continue.

The document also calls for the return of Palestinians to their homes and neighbourhoods, and for housing units to be delivered by the international community.

This staged approach and inclusion of housing units is new, perhaps with the realisation that over half of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed and more than 80% of the population has been displaced, often multiple times.

The resolution is also explicitly linked to the ongoing negotiations being carried out by Qatar, with the help of Egypt and the US, to achieve a ceasefire.

This is a positive given Qatar successfully negotiated the only temporary pause in the fighting for seven days in November. This resulted in the release of around 100 hostages, in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners.

This current resolution also specifically rejects any territorial or demographic changes to the Gaza Strip, which is a welcome addition given that many fear the re-occupation of Gaza by Israel.

What is not new

Since the beginning of the war, the multiple resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and General Assembly have not led to any real action.

Hamas has previously signalled it is willing to accept the terms of a similar ceasefire negotiated by Qatar. The militant group is also now saying it will abide by the terms of the new UN resolution “that are consistent with the demands of our people and resistance”.

Despite the fact the current resolution specifically mentions Israel has “accepted” its terms, there has been no sign that Israel will, in fact, abide by its obligations under international law.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been sceptical about the plan, with his office saying any permanent ceasefire before the “destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities” is achieved is a “non-starter”.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was also apparently still trying to sell the resolution to Israel on Monday. This seems to negate Israel’s presumed acceptance of the ceasefire.

A better chance of success?

Arguably, some of the more specific and detailed terms of this resolution give it a better chance of success than previous UN resolutions.

This is because if parties to a ceasefire have invested time into negotiating and have agreed to specific terms, they know what needs to happen, when and how. There is also greater likelihood the two sides will abide by the terms because this level of specificity ensures some level of accountability from outside observers and the international community.

We saw this in the November temporary truce agreement, which had very specific terms that were followed by both Hamas and Israel.

Another example from a different conflict is the 2002 ceasefire agreement between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) militant group. This ceasefire, which lasted for several years, included references to freedom of troop and civilian movement in specific geographical locations. It also specified landmarks to be used as de-militarised zones.

Problematically, while the current Security Council resolution calls for the effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale, including housing units, aid access to Gaza has been stymied by Israel, which now controls all entry points.

Interestingly, the resolution also specifically rejects “any attempt at demographic or territorial change”. However, it omits wording from a previous draft that had included mention of a “buffer zone” Israel is currently building along the border inside Gaza.

And despite the welcome addition of more specific chronological phases in this resolution, the text has some of the same vagueness as previous resolutions, particularly around what exactly will happen in phases two and three.

Phase two seems to link the continuation of the ceasefire with the negotiations being led by Qatar. But, as we have already seen during the war, negotiations can easily be abandoned or dismissed by one or both sides of a conflict.

Likewise, phase three offers the chance for a “multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza”, but offers no practical detail on how this would be accomplished.

Actions matter more than words

At this stage of this devastating conflict, any halt in fighting that alleviates the suffering of Palestinians is welcome.

However, I remain sceptical this resolution will be any more successful at halting the violence than its predecessors. Success will only come when both parties – but, in particular, Israel as the side with the greater military power – show they are willing to implement a ceasefire through their actions.

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

– ref. What’s new about the latest UN ceasefire resolution for Gaza, and will it have any better chance of success? – https://theconversation.com/whats-new-about-the-latest-un-ceasefire-resolution-for-gaza-and-will-it-have-any-better-chance-of-success-232151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Opposition leader Peter Dutton on Tuesday reiterated the Coalition’s support for the Paris climate agreement, following suggestions he might walk away from the deal. But he fuelled speculation the Coalition plans to scrap Australia’s current 2030 emissions target and confirmed he won’t annouce the Coalition’s proposed target before the election.

Dutton’s comments follow days of confusion about where the Coalition stands on Australia’s emissions reduction goals. Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Keith Pitt reportedly want the Coalition to walk away from the Paris climate agreement. And over the weekend, Dutton said the Albanese government “just have no hope of achieving the [2030] targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Dutton said of the Coalition’s climate policy:

we’re not going to send the economy into freefall, and families bankrupt, through an ideologically based approach, which is what Anthony Albanese is doing at the moment.

So what would happen if a Dutton government weakened Australia’s 2030 targets – a 43% cut on 2005 levels – or if the Coalition’s more conservative elements succeeded and the Coalition abandoned Australia’s Paris commitment altogether?

At this stage, it’s virtually impossible to imagine Australia walking away from the Paris deal. But even watering down our 2030 targets would have significant diplomatic and economic repercussions. Either way, climate policy is looming as a major issue heading into the next election.

The 2030 targets must stay

Let’s say a Coalition government decided to drop Australia’s 2030 targets, but remain signed up to the Paris agreement, and the broader goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

This would technically be possible. However, it is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris agreement, which asks that nations ratchet-up their emissions reduction commitments over time.

And abandoning the 2030 goal would make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for Australia to reach net-zero by 2050. As others have noted, the 43% target target already falls short of what is needed for Australia to do its share on emissions reduction under the Paris Agreement, and is less ambitious than the targets adopted by our international peers.

This brings us to Coalition suggestions that Australia has no prospect of meeting the 43% target, and so should not be signed up to it. This is a ridiculous argument.

First, the 43% target is not unachievable. The latest forecasts suggest Australia is on track to cutting emissions by 42% by 2030.

Emissions targets signal that a government is working towards something. They encourage aspiration and action. They incentivise investment in some areas – such as renewable energy – and disincentivise investment elsewhere, such as in fossil fuels. A target’s legitimacy isn’t determined by whether it is wholly met.

Having said that, the Coalition’s line of attack should be a wake-up call to the Albanese government to make sure the 43% target is achieved.

What about nuclear?

The Coalition’s climate and energy policy hinges, controversially, on the introduction of a nuclear power industry in Australia.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Monday said the Coalition remains committed to the goal of net-zero by 2050, but most emissions reduction would occur towards the end of that period when nuclear power is up and running. He said the Coalition would have interim targets out to 2050 “but we won’t have a linear pathway” to net-zero.

The idea that nuclear could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy transition is nonsense. Evidence abounds to support this, including a report by the CSIRO last month which found a nuclear plant would cost at least A$8.6 billion, and electricity from nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind.

Establishing a nuclear energy capacity in Australia would be prohibitively expensive and just not feasible. What’s more, the long-term economic costs would be huge. Not least are the eye-watering costs of dealing with the effects of climate change should the world, including Australia, not reduce emissions dramatically.

Australia on the global stage

Increasingly around the world, nations that fail to act on climate change risk being penalised economically in the form of carbon tariffs. There are taxes applied to imports, according to the volume of greenhouse gas emissions released in their production.

The policy is designed to ensure manufacturers operating in nations with strict emissions policies in place, such as a carbon price, are not undercut by manufacturers in higher-emitting countries. The European Union introduced such a policy in 2023. The US is also considering a version of the policy.

Australian exporters risk significant economic costs if our federal government does not adopt a serious emissions reduction strategy.

Then there is the question of Australia’s international reputation. Stepping back on climate change goals does not align with the image we have of ourselves: as a good international citizen that helps advance responses to challenging transnational problems.

More directly, it would badly undermine Australia’s relationships with its Pacific neighbours, for whom climate change is an existential threat – perhaps even pushing those countries closer to China.

The results of the next presidential election in the United States, however, pose a danger. There, conservatives have reportedly drafted a plan for a future Trump administration to leave the Paris agreement, as it did in 2020.

If a major global power, and Australia’s biggest ally, withdraws from the deal, it may provide cover for a future Australian government to do the same.

The climate wars continue

From a domestic political point of view, it’s unclear what the Coalition hopes to achieve by raising the prospect of a walk-back on climate action. Such a policy would, for example, make it acutely difficult for the Coalition to win back teal seats it lost at the last election.

A recent Lowy poll found 57% of Australians think global warming “is a serious and pressing problem and that we should begin taking steps now, even if it involves significant costs”.

Following the last election, hopes were high that Australia’s frustrating climate wars may be over. The results suggested the Coalition’s only pathway back to power would have to involve a legitimate climate policy. The Coalition’s latest rhetoric suggests it does not agree.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council

– ref. Peter Dutton’s latest salvo on Australia’s emission goals suggest our climate wars are far from over – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-latest-salvo-on-australias-emission-goals-suggest-our-climate-wars-are-far-from-over-232144

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

A campaign to block children’s access to social media to limit online harms and unhealthy internet use is picking up momentum in Australian politics. The current age limit for platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok is 13, but some state governments are calling to raise this age to 16.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has welcomed these efforts, and the federal opposition has committed to introducing laws that will bar under 16-year-olds from social media.

These calls are among the latest attempts to control how young people engage with culture. From banning children’s books, to limiting television screen time, and rating music, movies and videogames, society often turns to government regulation to address moral panics.

Yet, critics explain the desire to control children’s access is “not really backed by robust science”. They raise privacy concerns about uploading personal documents (like passports) and providing details unrelated to age (like credit card numbers) to technology companies. Critics also highlight the social and informational benefits of online engagement, which may be lost if young people are banned.

These criticisms are valid, as age assurance technologies have a long way to go to address these concerns.

Is age verification even possible?

Many online sites currently rely on age gating, where users self-report their age. This can easily fail.

Children under 13 can provide fake birthdates to create social media accounts. And teenagers can simply tap “yes” when asked to verify if they’re over the age of 18.

To prevent children from accessing inappropriate and harmful online content, the federal government is already funding a trial of “age assurance” technologies.

Self-reporting is actually a type of age assurance. Other methods, including more rigorous age verification processes, are also available. However, none of them are foolproof or risk free.

So how do age verification/assurance technologies work?

Several strategies are being used or tested to identify people’s potential age.

• User-provided age verification. This asks users to upload “hard identifiers” (such as a passport or driver’s license) as proof of age. While this approach is reliable, it excludes anyone who lacks appropriate identification.

• Verified parental consent. A parent verifies their age (via a hard identifier) and then confirms the age of a child user, and/or approves access on their behalf. This approach requires involvement of a responsible adult, but raises concerns for young people’s privacy.

• Age estimation using behavioural data. Artificial intelligence tools can build users’ age profiles based on platform behaviours, such as analysing the accounts they follow, posts they like and content they post. But these numeric age estimates may not match an individual’s stage of development or literacy level, or even their actual age.

• Age estimation using biometrics. A user’s age is estimated based on biometric data (for example, facial scanning). This is a challenging approach, as facial recognition technologies are known to be biased and prone to errors.

Unfortunately, many of these approaches raise significant privacy concerns for users, not least because a third party (such as the social media company) would be handling their ID documents and other personal data.

While government-issued digital IDs may offer secure alternatives for age verification, many people may not hold passports, driver’s licenses, or other types of “hard” documentation required for these services.

What do we lose by automating age verification?

While these technologies will improve over time, now is the time to decide whether age-based bans are what we need or want.

Society may agree that online adult content – such as pornography, gambling and alcohol sites – should be restricted by age. However, banning children from all social media may cause more harm than good.

Social media platforms provide vital pathways for young people to engage with peers and seek information for school, work and personal needs. For example, YouTube and LinkedIn are critical professional development and networking tools, often used in education. Would a social media ban only target specific tools, or apply to all platforms, regardless of purpose?

By enacting age-related bans and other restrictions across the board, without discretion or consideration for individual maturity, children’s right to access information will also be curtailed.

From climate change to the housing crisis, health concerns and career goals, young people need access to reliable information and community networks. Yes, they will also watch cat videos and learn about the latest fashions. And they may, inevitably, encounter inappropriate content, trolls and bullies.

Social media – as with television, internet and other media content – are best explored by children with the support of parents, teachers and other caregivers to guide their use.

While age assurance technologies may limit access to some adult content, these tools also restrict parental discretion to determine what is best for their children.

Appropriate social media use requires critical thinking and digital literacy skills – not only for children, but for parents and other caregivers. Government investment in educating parents and other caregivers on social media tools and safety practices would ensure families are well equipped to navigate our ever-changing social media landscape.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Lisa is Editor-in-Chief of the Annual Review for Information Science and Technology

– ref. Tech solutions to limit kids’ access to social media are fraught with problems, including privacy risks – https://theconversation.com/tech-solutions-to-limit-kids-access-to-social-media-are-fraught-with-problems-including-privacy-risks-231696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Nikidehaghani, Senior Lecturer in Accounting, University of Wollongong

New estimates suggest nearly 5% of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is spent in error.

John Dardo, the integrity chief of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA — the agency that runs the scheme), has warned around A$2 billion of the scheme’s spending was not on genuine needs, leading to the misuse of the NDIS’s $42 billion budget, including by organised crime syndicates.

Large-scale, publicly funded schemes, such as Medicare and childcare, have been targeted by criminals, with $1.5–$3 billion lost to Medicare fraud annually.

The NDIS is vital for the lives of around 650,000 people with disabilities, and the recent estimates expose errors in the NDIS design that must be addressed.

Types of fraud

Latest reports show criminals use different ways to target the NDIS.

The most concerning incidents show NDIS participants are being harassed by criminals to give up their NDIS budget or are encouraged to misuse their funds to buy luxury items.

There have been reports of some criminals posing as support coordinators. They then change participants’ contact details and bank accounts to redirect funds. This lets them take large amounts of money for fake services.

Another method is adding extra charges to invoices, making participants pay more than the services are worth, or for services that were never provided.

Some have also been creating fake businesses to divert NDIS funds.

Could registration stop the fraud?

Currently, the NDIS operates through a mix of registered and unregistered service providers.

Registered providers are approved to provide services to NDIA-managed participants and are subject to oversight. However, unregistered providers, who typically service participants receiving less than $100,000 per year, are not controlled by the NDIA.

Both types of providers must comply with the NDIS Code of Conduct and can have complaints filed against them.

There are more than 150,000 unregistered providers, making up around 87% of service providers. The recent NDIS review proposed registering all providers to safeguard the system. However, this has faced backlash as it could threaten the choice and control promised by the NDIS.

Selecting who provides support is important to NDIS participants, especially when it involves personal care, such as showering.

Registration is costly. Registered providers incur additional expenses, such as those related to regular audits, staff clearances, and quality and risk control. Forcing providers to register could lead some to stop offering NDIS services rather than undergo the registration process.

This could result in NDIS participants living in areas with few or only one provider and therefore receiving limited or no services.

New legislation

The recent Getting the NDIS Back on Track legislation aims to reduce the overall cost of the NDIS by $14.4 billion over the next four years.

One aspect is to control plan inflation — where participants spend all of their NDIS funding before the end of their plan and request more funds for supports. The legislation also introduces a new needs-based assessment along with clarifying what items and supports can be funded.

It also reinforces participant compliance. For example, the NDIA will be able to request extra information to reassess participants’ eligibility to access the scheme.

The NDIA can also decide if the agency must step in to manage the participants’ funding. If they believe participants are not complying with NDIA requirements, they might raise a debt against the participants. Although it is still unclear how this would operate, the government says it intends to co-design the new requirements with the disability community.

Read more:
Draft NDIS bill is the first step to reform – but some details have disability advocates worried

Fighting fraud must include prevention

Fraud against the NDIS is investigated by the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, a multi-agency partnership established in 2022 to combat fraud in the NDIS. The latest reports show the taskforce has 500 investigations of compliance matters under investigation. There are 20 prosecutions in the courts and another 12 on the way, according to NDIS Minister Bill Shorten.

This year, the government announced a joint taskforce with the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) to combat incidents of overcharging in which NDIS participants paid more than people outside the scheme for the same product or service.

Read more:
Choice and control: what can the ACCC do to stop NDIS price gouging and reduce costs?

While fraud detection is important, more work is needed to prevent fraud in a system designed to help some of society’s most vulnerable.

At the moment, the system does not check all invoices submitted daily. A payment system that keeps records of provider information, such as business name, ABN number, bank accounts and addresses, can allow for tracking provider activities. Such a system would also check invoices against participants’ plans and provider records. It could also identify and alert authorities of any irregularities or suspicious activities.

The government also needs to recruit more staff and invest in training them to detect red flags. Staff who are familiar with the circumstances of people with disabilities can be more effective in checking claims submitted daily and identifying irregularities.

Importantly, fraud can be fought by informing participants about possible ways criminals might abuse the system and how they can report these activities. This should extend beyond media releases and the information provided on the NDIS website. Here, disability advocates and community services can play an important role.

Participants might feel intimidated by criminals and fear that reporting fraudulent activities could impact the services they receive or even lead to a loss of NDIS funding. Disability advocacy groups could provide information and guide participants. But to do so effectively, they would need better government funding.

This year, the government announced an increase in the allocation of funding to some disability advocacy groups. This is a good start. However, to achieve the best outcomes, funding must be provided in a continuous and systematic way.

Mona Nikidehaghani 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. NDIS fraud is more than ‘growing pains’ – how fundamental flaws in the scheme should be addressed – https://theconversation.com/ndis-fraud-is-more-than-growing-pains-how-fundamental-flaws-in-the-scheme-should-be-addressed-231818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ann Kayis-Kumar, Associate Professor Ann Kayis-Kumar is the Founding Director of UNSW Tax and Business Advisory Clinic, UNSW Sydney

For many people a tax refund is a much-anticipated lump sum of money.

So, it is understandable Australians will be looking for ways to maximise their returns – particularly we are in a cost-of-living crisis.

But, whether you do your own return or use a tax agent, taking risks is not advised.

Be wary of tax hacks

But be wary of “tax hacks” you might hear about from online sources (I’m looking at you, TikTok). Two truisms spring to mind:

1. Don’t let the tax tail wag the dog

Many tax hacks suggest you spend considerable money on purchases up front to claim tax deductions. But a tax deduction isn’t actually worth the value amount of your spend.

For example: let’s say you’re on a taxable income of A$60,000 per year, which puts you roughly in the 50th percentile of income earners and means your marginal tax rate is 32.5 cents.

You might spend $1,000 on a purchase in the hope of getting a sweet $1,000 tax deduction. However, you’re going to be $675 out of pocket. This is because that $1,000 deduction is only worth $325 (because tax is calculated on your taxable income, which is assessable income less allowable deductions).

It will be worth even less next year because of the introduction of the revised Stage 3 tax cuts and that’s a good thing because you’ll be paying less tax overall.

2. If it’s too good to be true, it probably is

Even if you use a registered tax agent (and it’s important to check they are registered by checking the Tax Practitioners’ Board), it’s a common pitfall to think any aggressive deductions they might suggest are their responsibility if the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) comes knocking. That’s not the case.

Taxpayers are responsible for errors in returns made by their tax agents, so the ATO will hold you responsible.

Indeed, the ATO has announced it will be taking a close look at three common errors being made by taxpayers:

• incorrectly claiming work-related expenses

• inflating claims for rental properties

• failing to include all income when lodging.

It might be tempting to think you’ve got away with over claiming deductions or under reporting income but the ATO has sophisticated systems to analyse your data) and track your claims.

You’ll need to substantiate your claims, so keep records. If the tax office finds mistakes, you could face financial penalties, even jail time.

Two months ago, a woman was sentenced to two years and six months jail and ordered to repay $39,600 after she lodged three fraudulent Business Activity Statements and received a GST refund to which she wasn’t entitled. While under investigation, she then sent eight false statements to the ATO and tried to claim more money.

This is one on many individuals named on the ATO’s website highlighting the results of regular crackdowns.

So, should I use a tax agent?

There are nearly 20.5 million active tax file numbers registered to individuals in Australia and last tax year the ATO received 13.7 million individual tax return lodgements. This was a 3% increase on the previous year. Of these lodgements more than 5.6 million were lodged by self-preparers and more than 8 million were lodged by tax agents.

It makes sense most Australians use agents to prepare and lodge their tax returns. It’s easier, less stressful, gives you confidence the job is being done right and saves time.

Having said that, it does come at a price (see above on the value of deductions), and previous research which finds that every extra dollar spent on a tax agent only yields an estimated tax savings of 20 cents), and if you have simple tax affairs then it’s relatively easy and quick to do it yourself.

How do I prepare my tax return?

Generally, everyone should be lodging an income tax return each year (or, if you don’t need to lodge a tax return, lodging a non-lodgement advice). The ATO has a “Do I need to lodge a tax return?” tool if you’re unsure.

It also has a useful two minute video which steps you through the process for lodging with their online system myTax.

For those of us with simple tax affairs, you just need to follow these steps:

1. gather and prepare all your information regarding income from work, interest, dividends and any other income such as capital gains from crypto assets or sale of shares

2. then gather and prepare all your information on deductions and work expenses to be claimed making sure you have the evidence to back up your claims. This can be in the form receipts, invoices, log books and diary entries

3. if you are a self-preparer you can log onto your myGov or the ATO’s app to prepare and lodge your return. If you wait until late-July you’ll have the benefit of the ATO’s pre-filled data, too. This gives you plenty of time to make the October 31 deadline.

There’s also the option to use the ATO’s free, volunteer-run TaxHelp program (provided you meet the eligibility criteria), your local Tax Clinic (details here), or by seeking help from a registered tax agent. Just make sure you engage them before the October 31 deadline.

Where it might get tricky

But for others, for example if you have an ABN, it gets a bit more complicated. If you operate your business as a sole trader, you must lodge a tax return, even if your income is below the tax-free threshold.

And if you have registered for GST – which you must do when your business or enterprise has a GST turnover of $75,000 or more, or if you are a taxi driver or Uber driver – then you will also need to submit quarterly BAS.

It gets even more complicated for partnerships, trusts and companies, so it is best to seek the guidance and professional expertise of a registered tax agent, if you aren’t already.

What if I can’t afford a tax agent?

This year, many Australians are doing it tough. Indeed, research by the ASIC’s Moneysmart program estimates more than five million Australians are in financial strife.

Many people will find it hard to prioritise paying a registered tax agent when they cannot afford basic necessities like food.

If you’re in this situation, you might find it useful to get in touch with a free financial counsellor via the National Debt Helpline or the Small Business Debt Helpline.

Don’t procrastinate

Don’t put off doing your tax. If you’re behind, it might seem daunting to get back on track, especially if you think you’ll have to pay extra tax this year instead of getting a refund. But not lodging your returns will backfire. Like avoiding a trip to the doctor to get a skin check, the longer you wait, the more the problem will grow.

Reaching out to the ATO is the key because they have tools to support you, including payment plans. It also shows the ATO that you are willing to comply. Ultimately, being up to date will save you fines, interest and penalties.

If you are one of the 80,000 Australians in serious hardship who need but can’t afford professional help to complete and lodge overdue returns, the government-funded National Tax Clinics Program can help with free tax advice.

Ann Kayis-Kumar receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program and the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program.

Tony Martins is the principal tax clinic supervisor at the UNSW Tax & Business Advisory Clinic.

– ref. Beware of ‘tax hacks’ to maximise your return this year. The tax office is taking a close look at incorrect claims – https://theconversation.com/beware-of-tax-hacks-to-maximise-your-return-this-year-the-tax-office-is-taking-a-close-look-at-incorrect-claims-231693

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Prior to the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan posited that the Middle East had been “quieter than it has been for decades”.

This is obviously no longer the case. On the contrary, the heart-wrenching state of the region has inflamed tensions and inspired generation-defining protests across the world.

This unrest has led many to wonder if the Biden administration’s Middle East policies will ultimately undermine the president’s re-election campaign against former president Donald Trump in November.

It ultimately may. But even if the occupant of the White House changes, US policy toward the region largely will not. This is because Biden and Trump will both do everything possible to attain what Sullivan had hoped for: an ultimately quieter Middle East.

Bipartisan support for coalition-building

No single US initiative will be more crucial to securing a quieter Middle East than the boosting of ties between regional partners. The groundwork has already been laid through the Abraham Accords, the Arab-Israeli normalisation agreements initiated by the Trump administration and embraced by the Biden administration.

The fruits of such efforts became apparent when a diverse coalition – featuring the US, France, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel — worked together to down 300 Iranian projectiles launched at Israel on April 13. It was the first direct attack by Tehran against Israel in their decades-long shadow war.

The coalition’s joint response marked dramatic progress towards a long-term and bipartisan US goal for the Middle East: a level of regional co-operation and stabilisation that will finally allow for a decreased US footprint.

As much as Trump may not have appreciated certain US alliances as much as his predecessors, it is safe to assume that whoever occupies the White House next year will likely seek to build on these regional alliances. There are a number of reasons for this.

Iran’s actions remain unchanged

First, the scope and severity of Iran’s destabilising conduct in the region has only increased.

Iranian proxy militant groups across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza have displayed unprecedented levels of aggression in recent years. It’s debatable whether Iran was fully aware of Hamas’ attack on October 7, but Tehran undeniably continues to financially support the group.

Iran has been no less aggressive in its own conduct. In addition to its unprecedented attack on Israel in April, this has included:

• alleged plots to assassinate former senior US government officials

• further increasing its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels

• extensive international hostage-taking

• ever-closer alignment with Russia, North Korea and China.

Israeli-Arab ties persist

Second, Iran’s conduct has undoubtedly contributed to stronger ties between Israel and the Arab world. Such ties have persisted – albeit more quietly since the start of the war in Gaza.

Jordan’s King Hussein, who rules over a mostly Palestinian population, may be a vociferous critic of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, but he nonetheless benefits from record levels of Israeli gas and desalinised water going to his energy-poor and water-scarce country.

The Egyptian economy is so reliant on Israeli energy that Egyptians endured rolling blackouts when Israel briefly cut gas exports at the start of the war.

The UAE and Israel have only deepened their commercial, political and military links after their new Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement went into effect last year.

While the UAE has repeatedly condemned Israel for its actions in Gaza, bilateral trade actually increased by 7% in the first quarter of 2024.

Both Trump and Biden want out of the Middle East

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, both Republicans and Democrats agree on the need to shift US attention and resources to the Indo-Pacific region. This is not lost on US partners in the Middle East.

This is why the Biden administration both endorsed and continued two of the Trump administration’s top diplomatic initiatives in the region — the Abraham Accords and the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The reason is the longstanding, bipartisan sentiment that the US should not expend further resources — or, even worse, lose more US lives — in the Middle East.

On Gaza, Trump has urged Israel to wrap up its operations, saying:

Israel has to be very careful, because you’re losing a lot of the world, you’re losing a lot of support.

The Biden administration’s public and private urgings for Israeli restraint in Gaza make clear it also has little interest in being further enmeshed in the Middle East.

No matter who wins in November, both Trump and Biden would be vexed if Israel and Hamas’ war continued in January 2025. They would also be equally concerned if Hamas resumed attacks on Israel. But neither wants to expend any more than the bare minimum of political capital to resolve the situation.

In an era in which the US is producing more of its own energy and US fears of terrorism are decreasing, American citizens and politicians alike would much prefer its allies in the Middle East take care of their own security.

The US role in the region remains integral

Despite this desire for the US to pull back from the region, the next president still has a critical role to play.

The normalisation of Saudi-Israeli relations, for example, is undoubtedly the most important goal of the Abraham Accords. And this will prove challenging without a binding US security guarantee for Saudi Arabia, a Saudi-US civil nuclear agreement, and increased US support for an independent Palestinian state.

The US military presence in the region will also continue to prove integral to uniting the diverse coalition of countries countering Iran’s increasing influence. After all, it was the US Central Command’s extensive co-ordination that enabled the international response to Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel.

A future US role in the region could perhaps best be described as “leading from behind” – though no US president has said or likely ever will say that explicitly.

Instead, the winner of November’s election will publicly champion regional “stability”. And on this front, bolstering a regional coalition will remain the primary strategy – and could, ultimately, be the foundation for peace.

This essay is based on an excerpt from the US Studies Centre’s recent publication, Red Book | Blue Book: A guide to the next US administration.

Jared Mondschein 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. No matter who wins, both Biden and Trump can likely agree on one thing: doing less in the Middle East – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Jefferson, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury

The problem of “biopiracy” – the misappropriation and patenting for profit of Indigenous knowledge – has been on the rise for some time. So a global treaty aimed at protecting traditional knowledge and genetic resources should be a welcome development.

In late May, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. It is the first international agreement on intellectual property that includes provisions on Indigenous peoples’ knowledge.

More than 20 years in the making, it represents the culmination of negotiations between the 193 WIPO member states since 2000. And on the face of it, the treaty appears to be an important intervention to prevent biopiracy.

However, the new agreement is unlikely to lead to major changes to New Zealand law, or improve the rights of Māori to own or control their intellectual property and taonga (treasured possessions). Given the well-documented misappropriation of Māori knowledge and taonga, more substantive protections are still needed.

Disclosure of origin

Several studies have found instances of non-Māori businesses seeking patents and plant variety rights for the use of native plants similar to known Māori practices.

In these cases, several of which relate to mānuka, there is no evidence Māori were consulted or gave permission for their mātauranga (traditional knowledge) to be used.

The WIPO treaty introduces a “disclosure of origin” requirement. Where patent claims cover genetic resources, applicants must disclose the country of origin or source of those resources.

Furthermore, where the claimed invention is based on traditional knowledge, applicants must disclose which Indigenous peoples, local communities or other sources provided the knowledge.

While this has been heralded as a “historic” step forward, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) already requires patent applicants to indicate whether their application involves traditional knowledge, or might conflict with Māori interests.

Not that new for NZ

IPONZ can then decide to send the application to the Patents Māori Advisory Committee, which advises on whether an invention is derived from Māori traditional knowledge or from indigenous plants or animals.

If it is, the committee also advises on whether the commercial exploitation of that invention might be contrary to Māori values. IPONZ then uses this advice to decide if an application should be rejected on the basis of “morality or public order”.

In other words, the disclosure-of-origin requirement is not such a historic step as some might imagine, at least for Aotearoa New Zealand. That said, the WIPO treaty will require appropriate measures to be implemented in domestic law to address any failure to provide the information.

The possible sanctions or remedies are limited, however. The treaty states that, unless there is fraudulent behaviour, a granted patent cannot be revoked, invalidated or rendered unenforceable due to a failure to disclose.

Still, this is better than the current situation, where there are no sanctions or remedies for failure to disclose.

Earlier drafts went further

Arguably, the new treaty is notable more for what it does not do. In fact, earlier drafts of the treaty articles, released in 2023, went further than the eventual text does.

These included a framework under which traditional knowledge itself could be protected as the intellectual property of Indigenous peoples and local communities. This would have provided them with exclusive collective rights to control their traditional knowledge.

The draft articles also proposed Indigenous peoples and local communities would have the right to receive a fair and equitable share of benefits from the use of their traditional knowledge. They would also have the right of attribution, and the right to use their traditional knowledge in a manner that respects its integrity.

The final treaty does not include this form of positive protection for Indigenous knowledge. It also fails to protect “traditional cultural expressions” – the forms in which Indigenous peoples or local communities express their traditional cultural practices and knowledge, including music, dance, art and handicrafts.

Patent system sanctity

Compared with those earlier drafts, the concluded treaty is significantly narrower and less substantive.

It might help prevent the misappropriation of traditional knowledge in the patent system. But the treaty does not offer a positive form of protection for traditional knowledge itself, or traditional cultural expressions.

In fact, one could argue the treaty is more about ensuring the sanctity of the patent system, than it is about protecting Indigenous knowledge. After all, patent law requires inventions to be new and inventive compared to existing knowledge.

A requirement that applicants disclose the origin of genetic resources, and the knowledge relating to those resources, only improves the patent system.

Implementing the WIPO treaty in Aotearoa New Zealand will protect the patent system from granting bad patents. But it will not protect mātauranga Māori, or ensure Māori retain tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) over their taonga, as guaranteed by te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi).

David Jefferson is the Secretary of the Knowledge of Oceania Society.

Jesse Pirini is the President of the Knowledge of Oceania Society.

Jessica C Lai 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. Patently insufficient: a new intellectual property treaty does little to protect Māori traditional knowledge – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231264

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

Peter Costello has long had an uneasy relationship with journalistic truth-telling.

In 2005 he dined with three journalists from the Canberra press gallery, during which he told them the Coalition government led by John Howard, and of which he was treasurer, could not win the election due in 2007 with Howard as leader.

Next morning, a member of his staff induced the three journalists to treat the conversation as off the record – that is, in confidence.

In what was to become known in the press gallery as “Costellogate”, a few months before the 2007 election, one of the journalists wrote that Costello had said he did not believe the Coalition could win under Howard. The subtext was that it could win under him.

Asked about this at a press conference, Costello said he didn’t know where journalists got this kind of information from, and that they made it up half the time.

Outraged by this slur on their colleague, the other two journalists then corroborated the report.

The episode added to the Coalition’s instability going into that election, which it subsequently lost.

Last Thursday there was the spectacle of Costello being confronted at Canberra airport by a reporter from News Corporation, Liam Mendes, asking him pointed but pertinent questions about the sex scandal engulfing the Nine Entertainment Company, of which he was chair.

The scandal follows the departure in March of Nine’s director of news and current affairs, Darren Wick, in the aftermath of which several women staff members have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

So, Mendes asks Costello, did he support the way Nine’s chief executive Mike Sneesby was handling the Wick saga? Had Costello been aware of the allegations against Wick? Why would he not support Sneesby publicly?

Getting no answers, he says, “You have to answer the questions, Mr Costello.”

At this point Costello’s face fills the camera viewfinder, there is a jolting motion and the reporter falls on his back, saying, “You’ve just assaulted me”. Costello looks down at him and walks off.

Although Costello denied assaulting the journalist, at that point his position as chair of Nine, a company that employs hundreds of journalists who ask questions like this every day, became untenable. Three days later he was gone.

“Culture” and “renewal” have figured heavily in the Nine Entertainment Company’s public-relations efforts over the weekend to contain the damage.

On the extensive evidence published by The Australian newspaper and by the company’s own major newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Australian Financial Review in recent weeks, the need for cultural renewal is well overdue.

The announcement of Wick’s resignation in March was replete with references to long beach walks, longer conversations and his need for a rest after 13 years in the director’s chair.

There was no mention of the fact that his abrupt departure came after a formal complaint from a staff member about his behaviour.

Then in late May, with Wick gone, women began to speak out.

The Australian, Sky News and Nine’s own mastheads began carrying extensive accounts of his alleged predations.

Kate McClymont, the Sydney Morning Herald’s chief investigative reporter, wrote:

Darren Wick, the recently departed head of Channel Nine’s news and current affairs division, has been accused of engaging in drunken, lecherous behaviour in what furious staff say was “an open secret” for more than a decade.

Three women have now alleged to this masthead that Wick, the powerful news and current affairs chief for the past 13 years, brazenly groped them in public view of their colleagues.

A few days later, Wick’s successor, Fiona Dear, confronting a staff revolt, admitted there was a culture of power games at the network, telling the staff she “knows what it’s like” to encounter inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and promised them “the power games stop today”.

Nine Entertainment subsequently admitted in a letter to staff that it realised they had experienced “trauma” following allegations of “misuse of power and inappropriate behaviour” among leadership in its newsrooms. “We recognise we need to do more.” The letter was co-signed by Costello, the chief people officer Vanessa Morley and Sneesby.

So it should have come as no surprise to someone as experienced in public life as Costello that he should be confronted by a journalist in a public space and asked difficult questions about these matters.

Yet instead of a dignified “no comment” there is an encounter that ends with the reporter flat on his back and Costello saying he fell over an advertising placard. The Nine board met the next day and by Sunday Costello was gone.

The circumstances of his departure, and that of Wick, indicate a culture of arrogance and entitlement at the top of Nine, and invites a question about whether such a culture can be changed while the chief executive, Sneesby, remains.

Reputational considerations affect share prices, and Nine Entertainment’s share price has fallen to $1.40, down 30% this calendar year. It fell 2% on Friday alone.

Former Nine Network chief executive Jeff Browne, who at one time was a candidate for the Nine board, was reported on the weekend as saying, “Not only has the business failed to achieve a culture of mutual trust and respect, it has failed to deliver any incremental value to shareholders.”

A larger question, which is ethical rather than financial, is whether it was right to have a former politician – and a federal treasurer at that – chairing the board of a media company in the first place.

No doubt Costello’s connections to the Coalition were an attractive attribute for Nine when he was appointed to the board in 2013, and particularly when he was appointed chair eight years ago.

It is a tribute to the integrity of the company’s journalists, especially on the newspapers, that their coverage of federal politics over that time has, on the whole, been fair.

But the point of principle remains. One of the crucial functions of the media in a democracy is to hold governments to account. The public’s trust in their ability to do so without fear or favour is central to the workings of democracy.

No law prevents a politician becoming chair of a media company, yet democracies work successfully only if their institutions respect not just the law but conventions – the guardrails of democracy. One such convention is that the media should be, and be seen to be, independent of party politics. For this reason, if for no other, the departure of Costello from the chair of Nine is welcome.

It is difficult at such close range to get a perspective on his legacy. Significant events occurred on his watch, in particular the acquisition by Nine of the old Fairfax newspapers, the SMH, The Age and the Australian Financial Review. We may learn more about the inner workings of the company when the cultural review commissioned by Nine from an external consultancy, Intersection, presents its report, and any vaunted “renewal” occurs.

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. Costello goes, but the cultural problems at Nine Entertainment remain – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232007

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

A national Newspoll, conducted June 3–7 from a sample of 1,232, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the post-budget Newspoll, three weeks ago. This is Labor’s worst position in Newspoll since last November, following the fallout from the defeat of the Voice referendum.

Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up two), 33% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (down two), 7% One Nation (steady) and 10% for all Others (up one). The drop for the Greens will be attributed to their stance on Gaza, but other polls below have the Greens at around 14%.

After recording a non-negative net approval for the first time since the Voice referendum last October in the previous Newspoll, Anthony Albanese’s net approval returned to a negative, with his satisfied rating down four to 43% and his dissatisfied up three to 50%, for a net approval of -7, down seven points.

Here is a graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are the data and a smoothed line has been fitted.

Peter Dutton’s net approval improved two points to -10. In the previous Newspoll, Albanese’s better PM lead over Dutton had blown out to 52–33. In this poll, his lead was drastically reduced to 46–38, Albanese’s lowest Newspoll margin this term.

It’s likely the previous Newspoll was a pro-Labor outlier, and this one may be too rosy for the Coalition. But last week’s YouGov poll alos had a 50–50 tie between Labor and the Coalition. I believe Labor’s struggles are primarily due to the cost of living issue.

YouGov poll remains tied at 50–50

A national YouGov poll, conducted May 31 to June 4 from a sample of 1,500, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50, unchanged from the previous YouGov poll in mid-May. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one), 8% One Nation (steady) and 10% for all Others (down one).

Albanese’s net approval was steady at -12, with 53% dissatisfied and 41% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval fell seven points to -13. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 47–36 (44–37 previously). By 84–16, respondents supported a right for workers to strike.

Essential poll tied at 48–48

A national Essential poll, conducted May 29 to June 2 from a sample of 1,160, had the Coalition and Labor tied at 48% each with 4% undecided (47–46 to the Coalition in mid-May). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (up two), 32% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (up three), 5% One Nation (down three), 3% UAP (up two), 8% for all Others (steady) and 4% undecided (down two).

Albanese’s net approval was up one point since April to -4, with 47% disapproving and 43% approving. Dutton’s net approval dropped four points to -1 after achieving a positive net approval in April.

On artificial intelligence (AI), 42% (down three since January) said it carries more risk than opportunity, 21% (steady) more opportunity than risk and 37% (up four) said risk and opportunity are about the same.

Respondents were asked whether children aged 10 to 18 should be able to do various things, then the age a respondent selected was averaged. For buying and consuming alcohol, voting and accessing pornography, the average age was about 17.5. For using social media, it was 15.4. For being held criminally responsible, it was 14.3.

By 68–15, respondents supported increasing the age limit on social media platforms from 13 to 16. By 62–16, respondents supported criminalising hate speech.

Morgan poll: Labor regains lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted May 27 to June 2 from a sample of 1,579, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, a 3.5-point gain for Labor since the May 20–26 Morgan poll that had given the Coalition its best position in this poll since the 2022 election.

Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down one), 31% Labor (up 2.5), 14% Greens (down one), 4.5% One Nation (down 1.5), 9% independents (steady) and 5.5% others (up one).

Redbridge Queensland poll: another big lead for the LNP

The Queensland state election will be held in October. A Redbridge poll, conducted in two waves in February and May from a sample of 880, gave the Liberal National Party a 57–43 lead, from primary votes of 47% LNP, 28% Labor, 12% Greens and 13% for all Others.

The “Labor government led by Steven Miles” had a net approval of -11, with 37% giving it a poor rating and 26% a good rating. The LNP opposition led by David Crisafulli had a +14 net approval (35% good, 21% poor).

Since Newspoll gave the LNP a 54–46 lead in March, Queensland polls have all suggested Labor faces a heavy defeat at the October election.

Victorian Redbridge poll: Labor still well ahead

A Victorian Redbridge poll, also conducted in February and May from a sample of 1,000, gave Labor a 55–45 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since a March Redbridge poll. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 35% Labor (down one), 14% Greens (up four) and 13% for all Others (down three).

The “Labor government led by Jacinta Allan” had a net approval of -7, with 37% giving it a poor rating and 30% a good rating. The Coalition opposition led by John Pesutto had a -15 net approval (34% poor, 19% good).

This poll contrasts with the Victorian Resolve poll that was conducted in April and May, which gave the Coalition a 37–28 primary vote lead over Labor.

Modi’s party loses majority at Indian election

I covered the June 4 vote counting after the seven-stage Indian election for The Poll Bludger. PM Narendra Modi’s BJP party lost 63 seats to lose its single-party majority, although allied parties won enough seats for Modi to be returned for a third successive term. It had been widely expected that Modi would win a landslide.

At the May 29 South African election, the African National Congress lost the majority it had held at every election since 1994. There was a second successive landslide for the left at the June 2 Mexican election.

I am covering the European parliament election, held from Thursday to Sunday, for The Poll Bludger. Labour remains over 20 points ahead of the Conservatives in UK national polls, with the election on July 4. In US national polls, Donald Trump still leads Joe Biden by about one point despite his May 30 conviction.

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

– ref. Labor slumps in Newspoll to a tie with Coalition, with Albanese also down – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics, Tasmanian Behavioural Lab, University of Tasmania

The Australian Defence Force is facing an acute recruitment crisis. Only 80% of the 69,000 personnel needed to meet future challenges have signed up. The government recently announced recruitment will be opened up to some foreign citizens to try to fill this gap.

Not only is the Australian military failing to achieve planned growth, it is actually shrinking, as Defence Chief General Angus Campbell told a Senate inquiry in February.

There are two fundamental reasons for the current recruitment impasse. One is economic – low unemployment and a perception of better opportunities, work conditions and future prospects in the private sector.

The other reason is cultural: a declining willingness of Gen Z to identify with – and fight to defend – their nation.

Either way, the key to the recruitment crisis lies in understanding the motivations of this generation, the main pool of potential recruits today.

We recently interviewed 19 serving Australian soldiers from a range of demographics (two were Gen Z) and across military branches in a study funded by the Australian Defence Force. We wanted to find out what makes Gen Z recruits tick, and what the force might do to persuade more of them to serve their country.

Read more:
Recruiting for the modern military: new research examines why people choose to serve and who makes the ideal soldier

Enter the ‘anxious generation’

Researchers study every new generation as a guide to the future, from the baby boomers to Generation X (like the authors of this article), and millennials. None is more distinctive than generation Z, or Zoomers – people born roughly between 1997 and 2008.

They are the first generation to grow up with smartphones and social media. In his current bestseller, The Anxious Generation, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt outlines the cataclysmal effect: he claims a large increase in depression and anxiety in young people is the direct effect of unsupervised social media use during adolescence.

Zoomers’ mental health is a barrier to service, as US Marine Corps Lieutenant Matthew Weiss spells out in his book on Gen Z military recruitment.

A military career can be detrimental to psychological wellbeing, as Australia’s Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide has demonstrated. The force’s rigorous mental health entry standards may have reinforced this perception.

The soldiers we spoke to said mental health is an issue for recruitment. On the one hand, they agreed that service is mentally challenging, and that younger soldiers are more psychologically vulnerable. On the other hand, interviewees said the force’s mental health support has been improving. This is a step in the right direction – it may well be that media coverage of veterans’ mental health issues worries Zoomers considering enlistment.

Weiss argues private sector jobs (and money) afford much more online currency than military service. The respondents in our interviews agreed younger recruits were very savvy about pay and conditions.

Waning national pride

But there may be another motivator: as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie recently told the ABC:

People who join the Defence Force don’t just do it for economic reasons, they do it because they love their country.

This means if love of country falls from generation to generation, military recruitment falls too. Weiss suggests in the United States, low patriotism partly explains Gen Z’s reluctance to enlist.

Our interviewees said traditional nationalism played only a modest role for enlisting for young people. They thought a lesser sense of obligation and service is one reason. Another is the fact that the black-and-white picture of “my country right or wrong” has been muddied following media coverage of alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

The evidence confirms waning national pride among young Australians. We analysed publicly available data from the World Values Survey, a wide-ranging poll of people’s values around the globe conducted since 1981. It shows in 1981, 70.3% of Australians were “very proud” of their nationality. This fell to 60.8% in 2018, the first year to feature Gen Z members in the survey. That year, only 41.6% of twentysomethings (including some millennials) were very proud Australians – the lowest proportion of any Australian age group in any year since the survey began.

All else being equal, older adults tend to be more nationalistic, as surveys in different periods and countries show. But the nationalism gap between old and young has opened up further with Gen Z.

According to the survey data, in 1981, 69% of Australians in their twenties were willing to fight for their country. This was a slightly greater proportion than the 65% of over-70s. By 2018, this was reversed, with only 44% of Australians in their twenties willing to fight, compared with 59% of over-70s.

The moral imperative

Our interviewees suggested that if nationalist values motivate Zoomers, this is only in terms of “doing the right thing”. This offers an alternative opportunity for recruiters: the changing role of the military towards peacekeeping and disaster relief makes defence attractive to those with humanitarian values.

Zoomers fall into this category. Research shows, and our interviewees agreed, that Gen Z care about the environment, diversity, equity and inclusion.

This is reflected by their attitudes to work. Zoomers want a calling and not just a career (let alone merely a job). According to our interviewees, young recruits place greater importance on the intrinsic aspects of work, like learning skills, experiencing adventure and challenges.

So how do we boost recruitment?

Our own and other research suggests Gen Z is strongly motivated by things that support their own growth and wellbeing, both materially and spiritually, rather than service toward others. Researchers label these “pro-self” motivations.

Zoomers may be hard to recruit, especially given the increasing war for talent, but they have a great deal to offer the military. They may be the most success-orientated among recent generations. They have an unprecedented ability to handle digital technologies that are becoming increasingly important in the military.

The inaugural National Defence Strategy unveiled in April has conceded “the need for a fundamental transformation of defence’s recruitment and retention system”.

Many of the proposals to raise military recruitment in Australia are general. The government recently raised pay and bonuses in the defence force, for example. Other measures include making the recruitment process easier, making military service an opt-out system, reducing medical requirements, or increasing the maximum recruitment age and galvanising junior military leaders to change outdated traditions that harm recruitment.

Our research suggests building a force that appeals to Gen Z’s social values and intrinsic motivations is the way forward. Recruitment strategies need to be tailored.

Robert Hoffmann receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence.

Maria Teresa Beamond receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence and from the not-for-profit group Australian Women in Security Network.

– ref. Gen Z is turning away from military service in record numbers. We’re trying to understand why – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/230671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Harrop, Cardiologist; PhD candidate, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

A First Nations child born in Australia today can expect to live eight to nine years less than a non-Indigenous child born on the same day.

During their life, they are more likely to have a heart attack, and would be on average 20 years younger than the non-Indigenous patient in the hospital bed next to them when they do. Acute rheumatic fever, a disease virtually non-existent among non-Indigenous Australians, may damage their heart valves. They are more likely to develop and die from cancer, diabetes, kidney failure and lung disease.

A First Nations Australian is also more likely to have a low household income, live in overcrowded housing, and is 14 times more likely to be imprisoned. We know socioeconomic inequalities like these create health inequalities. There’s also evidence that cultural factors and experiences of racism compound the problem.

Closing the health gap between First Nations peoples and non-Indigenous Australians is a national priority. One of the ways to reduce health disparities is by improving the care Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receive when they’re admitted to hospital.

Staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane could see first-hand that our health system wasn’t delivering the care First Nations patients needed. So they sought to develop a culturally informed model of care for First Nations patients with heart disease.

We have all worked with this model and were part of a study to trial it. Our results, published recently in The Lancet Global Health, indicate this culturally informed model of care eliminated the gap between First Nations patients and non-Indigenous patients when we looked at heart health outcomes after they left hospital.

Designing a culturally informed model of care

The model was developed for First Nations patients with acute coronary syndrome. This includes heart attacks and angina, which is chest pain due to disease in the arteries supplying blood to the heart.

The project was co-designed with First Nations stakeholders. Training was tailored and delivered to build cultural capability across the cardiology department and to increase staff knowledge of relevant services available to First Nations patients outside the hospital.

Staff formed formal partnerships with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled health organisations. They improved the hospital environment with First Nations artwork and uniforms (displaying First Nations flags and artwork).

They brought together a “Better Cardiac Care” team including an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander hospital liaison officer, a cardiac nurse and a pharmacist. This team visited First Nations patients at their bedside, providing additional support, advocacy, education and care co-ordination.

Patients could confidently ask questions and yarn about their diagnosis and treatment in their own words without feelings of shame or embarrassment.

The team was focused on the patient’s needs. For example, they could co-ordinate accommodation for a patient’s relative who was travelling to the hospital from far away. They could tell a patient’s doctor if the patient needed more time to talk or make a decision, or a better explanation. Before the patient left hospital, the team could co-ordinate with the patient’s local chemist to supply their medications and book a follow-up appointment with their GP.

How we tested the model

We investigated the impact of the model of care by looking at outcomes for First Nations and non-Indigenous patients admitted with heart attacks and angina before and after the model was implemented.

Specifically, we collected data on 199 First Nations patients and 440 randomly selected non-Indigenous patients treated in the 24 months before the project began and compared them with 119 First Nations patients and 467 non-Indigenous patients treated in the 12 months after.

We particularly wanted to know if patients died, had another heart attack, needed an unexpected stent or coronary artery bypass surgery, or had to urgently come back into hospital within 90 days of being discharged.

Before the model was introduced, 34% of First Nations patients had one of those negative outcomes, much higher than the rate of 18% in non-Indigenous patients. Afterwards, these events occurred in 20% of both First Nations and non-Indigenous patients. This was a significant improvement for First Nations patients and eliminated the gap between groups.

The most significant improvement was seen in urgent re-admissions, but there were also fewer heart attacks.

Fewer heart attacks and hospital admissions are good, but we also needed to ensure patients felt culturally safe, and that their social and emotional needs were being met.

A related project asked patients and their families about their experience with the model of care. The researchers identified that relationality or connectedness between patients and the team, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, may be key to its success.

A promising concept

Our study was not a randomised trial and the control group was historical. So it’s possible factors other than the model of care might have affected the outcomes. The study was also conducted only in a single hospital.

However, we demonstrated that a culturally informed model of care, developed with and for First Nations peoples, can improve clinical outcomes. Better Cardiac Care programs based on this concept have now spread to other Queensland hospitals.

We hope similar results can be replicated in many hospitals and in other medical specialities, because improving hospital outcomes is one of many important steps needed to close the health gap for First Nations peoples in Australia.

Dr Wang receives or has received research or project grants from MRFF, NHMRC, Metrosouth Health and the Queensland Government.

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

– ref. How a culturally informed model of care helped First Nations patients with heart disease – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/229912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Ellen Andres, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University

More than 52 million hectares of land across Australia is degraded. Degraded land lacks biodiversity and the natural balance of healthy ecosystems, making it unfit for wildlife or cultivation. This means we are losing the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide for nature and people.

To counter this threat, Australia signed the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, pledging to ensure 30% of degraded ecosystems are “under effective restoration” by 2030. That’s roughly 15.6 million hectares of land across the nation.

To kick-start ecosystem recovery, governments, environmental managers and landholders often plant a diverse mix of native species on degraded land. The crucial word here is diverse. Planting a wide variety of species makes ecosystems more resilent, laying the foundation of a healthy environment for wildlife.

But effective biodiverse plantings require large quantities of diverse native seed. Amounts range from 600 to 20,000 seeds per square metre.

The problem is we don’t have enough seeds from Australia’s endemic plants – species found only in this country (often with very limited distributions). Our new research shows both the quantity and diversity of native seed available for restoration are limited across the country. Only 10% of our native species are readily available for sale as seed.

Multiply this supply-and-demand issue on the scale needed to meet Australia’s ambitious goals for nature repair, and the seed shortages, are clearly critical.

Our research identifies gaps in the seed supply chain. We have developed a new method to optimise the biodiversity of plantings from these limited supplies. We also recommend ways to strengthen the seed supply chain.

How well does supply match the need for diversity?

Our research explores two urgent questions:

1. Does the present supply of seed for restoration in Australia reflect the diversity of ecosystems where nature repair is intended?

2. Using seed that is readily available, can we achieve the diverse plantings that underpin resilient ecosystems?

We started by making an inventory of seeds from 32 commercial suppliers across Australia. We worked out what percentage of species can be bought immediately as seed across six major vegetation types, such as our eucalypt woodlands and rainforests.

We then compared the diversity of species available as seed to the total species diversity of each vegetation type.

Using this information, we developed a framework to maximise the different types of plant species (their “functional diversity”) used in seed mixes, taking into account supply constraints. The aim is to achieve a diverse mix of species with different plant traits – such as height, seed or leaf variety – from the available seed supply.

Seed supply is missing many ‘little guys’

Overall, only about 10% of Australia’s plant species, or 2,992 species, can be bought as seed. Of course, volunteers or contractors can directly collect seeds for more species out in the bush for restoration projects – if they have permits to do so. Even so, the 10% we found for immediate purchase indicates serious shortfalls in the diversity of our national supply.

When seed was available, it was more often for trees and shrubs. The seeds of ecologically important understorey species were often not available.

These missing “little guys” are mainly herbs and grasses. They are the source of most of the plant diversity in some of our most degraded ecosystems, such as grassy woodlands.

We also looked at changes in the stock from individual suppliers. As suppliers added more species to their list of offerings, the diversity tended to increase for trees and shrubs. These woody plants include species such as Acacia and Eucalyptus.

The increase in woody species’ seeds effectively “diluted” the contribution to diversity of herb and grass species, such as kangaroo grass, flannel flower and flax lily, that make up the understorey. The overall seed mix becomes less representative of the balance of species in native vegetation.

This shift in supply likely reflects the monumental demand for seeds from trees and shrubs. These woody species are favoured for projects focused on reforestation and carbon farming.

How can we improve seed supply?

We show careful planning can make diverse plantings achievable from available seed stocks. It’s still worrying, though, that the seeds of almost 90% of our native plants are missing.

And, of the available 10%, the quantities in stock may not scratch the surface of what is needed to restore large areas of diverse vegetation.

This finding has serious implications for ecosystems where most of the diversity is in the understorey. One example is the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland west of Sydney. In ecosystems like this, restoration is being proposed to offset development impacts.

To restore vegetation that provides good habitat for wildlife and resembles the natural bush we love, we need to get cracking on improving our national seed supply. We highlight the need for better policy and planning to support Australia’s native seed sector.

After delving into the constraints of seed supply, we recommend ways to improve supply by strengthening collaboration along all stages of the supply chain. That includes everyone from financiers to collectors to bush regenerators across the country.

We suggest increasing financial support to expand seed supply systems, particularly for small-scale suppliers. Expanding seed production areas, such as “seed orchards”, across the nation will help to bring more diverse and difficult-to-store seed on the market. It will also avoid compromising wild plant populations due to over-harvesting.

Good guidance on how to maximise a broad suite of different plant types with a wide range of traits might help avoid some of the consequences of poor seed supply. Selections from current limited supplies can be optimised to generate more diverse seed mixes for restoration.

Still, this takes lots of planning. It may be beyond the reach of the average landholder engaging in nature repair.

Ultimately, we need greater investment to improve the seed supply chain in an ethical and ecologically sustainable way. Only then will we have the tools to attempt to reinstate degraded ecosystems.

Joe Atkinson received funding from the Capital Landkeepers Trust and the Ecological Society of Australia for related work. 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 his postdoctoral position.

Rachael Gallagher receives funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage scheme for work related to this article. She 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 her academic appointment.

Samantha Ellen Andres 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. Only 10% of native plants can be bought as seed – a big problem for nature repair. Here’s how we can make plantings more diverse – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Hurley, Director, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Just before the May budget, the federal government made a surprise announcement: it will introduce caps on the number of international students in the country.

It is fair to say this plan is really worrying some Australian universities.

The sector argues cutting student numbers will see job losses and less money to do research. They also warn cuts will hurt their international reputation and place in global rankings.

This is because international education is a vital source of funding for Australia’s universities. Universities collected about A$8.6 billion from international students in 2022 – more than a quarter of all revenue.

Given the sums involved, the introduction of caps has the potential to have the most significant impact on Australia’s tertiary education system in decades. But a major unanswered question is what the caps will be and how they will be calculated.

Remind me, what did the government announce?

Education Minister Jason Clare introduced legislation to parliament on student caps almost immediately after the budget was released. This would provide ministerial powers to regulate international education in Australia by:

• pausing the registration of new providers and new courses

• limiting the enrolments of overseas students by provider, course or location, over a year

• automatically suspending and cancelling courses.

This comes as the government seeks to reduce net overseas migration (the increase in the number of people in Australia) to pre-pandemic levels of about 260,000 people per year.

It also follows similar moves in Canada and the United Kingdom, which have introduced changes to limit the number of international students in their countries.

How did we get here?

As the Treasury explained last week, it underestimated net overseas migration by 25%. International students are the major cause of this.

They are now at record levels, with about 870,000 current and former international students in Australia. They make up the largest part of the temporary migrant population.

During the pandemic, the number of international students in Australia more than halved. In December 2019, there were more than 630,000 international students in Australia. By December 2021, there were 315,000. Since Australia reopened its borders, the number of international students entering the country have rebounded much quicker than anticipated.

Along with pent-up demand, the Morrison government introduced policies to encourage international students to return. This included removing caps on the number of hours a student could work and allowing students to stay longer after they have finished their course.

Now, amid dual housing and cost-of-living crises, international students have also become a political issue. Not only is the federal government looking to decrease net overseas migration but the opposition wants to go even further.

Who is affected by this change?

So far, the focus of the impact on international student caps has been on universities. But there could be much wider impacts in the economy and community if international student numbers are capped.

One thing that is often lost in the debate is the diversity of the international education sector. Universities only make up about 40% of current international student enrolments.

The remainder of students are in private colleges, English language schools and secondary schools.

International students are also important parts of Australia’s workforce. The occupation with the largest number of international students is “carer and aides”. This means industries like aged care and disability support rely on an international student workforce.

In 2023, international education was also Australia’s fourth largest export valued at $48 billion. Of this, $17 billion was collected in course fees and the remaining $31 billion was spent in the broader economy.

This means any change to international student numbers could have an impact way beyond the campuses of Australia’s elite universities.

We still need detail

During his budget speech, Treasurer Jim Chalmers focused on housing as a central to how caps will be calculated.

As he told parliament:

[…] for too long, enrolments have grown without being matched by an increase in student housing supply.

We will limit how many international students can be enrolled by each university based on a formula, including how much housing they build.

But it is not yet clear how this will happen.

It is also unclear how much international students are impacting upon housing costs. Some research has shown the impact of international students on housing and rental prices is small.

One factor the government could consider here is how many domestic students are enrolled at a particular institution. This is so domestic students do not suffer from a cut that sees fewer resources where they study.

In Australia, it is certainly true the larger, more prestigious universities have the most international students. But they also enrol huge numbers of domestic students.

The largest private vocational colleges enrol almost exclusively international students, usually in courses like business and hospitality. As our analysis (below) shows, of the ten largest private providers, nine were private colleges where there were few domestic students.

It is important to note, this is the part of the international education sector identified as having the most problems with compliance and exploitation. This is what the government has been keen to crack down on when it talks about “shonky” providers.

What happens now?

The bill has been referred to the Senate’s education committee, which is due to report on August 15.

In many ways “too many students” is a good problem to have. It demonstrates Australia’s international education sector is strong.

But we have to watch out for unintended consequences. The diversity of the system – from elite, research universities educating both international and domestic students to private colleges largely educating international students – also needs to be taken into account.

And to adequately understand the impacts, we need more detail now from the government about how they plan to do it.

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. International student caps are creating a huge headache for universities. But they could have an impact beyond elite campuses – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231804

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melika Soleimani, Senior Data Analyst, Massey University

The artificial intelligence (AI) revolution has begun, spreading to almost every facet of people’s professional and personal lives – including job recruitment.

While artists fear copyright breaches or simply being replaced, business and management are becoming increasingly aware to the possibilities of greater efficiencies in areas as diverse as supply chain management, customer service, product development and human resources (HR) management.

Soon all business areas and operations will be under pressure to adopt AI in some form or another. But the very nature of AI – and the data behind its processes and outputs – mean human biases are being embedded in the technology.

Our research looked at the use of AI in recruitment and hiring – a field that has already widely adopted AI to automate the screening of résumés and to rate video interviews by job applicants.

AI in recruitment promises greater objectivity and efficiency during the hiring process by eliminating human biases and enhancing fairness and consistency in decision making.

But our research shows AI can subtly – and at times overtly – heighten biases. And the involvement of HR professionals may worsen rather than alleviate these effects. This challenges our belief that human oversight can contain and moderate AI.

Magnifying human bias

Although one of the reasons for using AI in recruitment is that it is meant to be to be more objective and consistent, multiple studies have found the technology is, in fact, very likely to be biased. This happens because AI learns from the datasets used to train it. If the data is flawed, the AI will be too.

Biases in data can be made worse by the human-created algorithms supporting AI, which often contain human biases in their design.

In interviews with 22 HR professionals, we identified two common biases in hiring: “stereotype bias” and “similar-to-me bias”.

Stereotype bias occurs when decisions are influenced by stereotypes about certain groups, such as preferring candidates of the same gender, leading to gender inequality.

“Similar-to-me” bias happens when recruiters favour candidates who share similar backgrounds or interests to them.

These biases, which can significantly affect the fairness of the hiring process, are embedded in the historical hiring data which are then used to train the AI systems. This leads to biased AI.

So, if past hiring practices favoured certain demographics, the AI will continue to do so. Mitigating these biases is challenging because algorithms can infer personal information based on hidden data from other correlated information.

For example, in countries with different lengths of military service for men and women, an AI might deduce gender based on service duration.

This persistence of bias underscores the need for careful planning and monitoring to ensure fairness in both human and AI-driven recruitment processes.

Can humans help?

As well as HR professionals, we also interviewed 17 AI developers. We wanted to investigate how an AI recruitment system could be developed that would mitigate rather than exacerbate hiring bias.

Based on the interviews, we developed a model wherein HR professionals and AI programmers would go back and forth in exchanging information and questioning preconceptions as they examined data sets and developed algorithms.

However, our findings reveal the difficulty in implementing such a model lies in the educational, professional and demographic differences that exist between HR professionals and AI developers.

These differences impede effective communication, cooperation and even the ability to understand each other. While HR professionals are traditionally trained in people management and organisational behaviour, AI developers are skilled in data science and technology.

These different backgrounds can lead to misunderstandings and misalignment when working together. This is particularly a problem in smaller countries such as New Zealand, where resources are limited and professional networks are less diverse.

Connecting HR and AI

If companies and the HR profession want to address the issue of bias in AI-based recruitment, several changes need to be made.

Firstly, the implementation of a structured training programme for HR professionals focused on information system development and AI is crucial. This training should cover the fundamentals of AI, the identification of biases in AI systems, and strategies for mitigating these biases.

Additionally, fostering better collaboration between HR professionals and AI developers is also important. Companies should be looking to create teams that include both HR and AI specialists. These can help bridge the communication gap and better align their efforts.

Moreover, developing culturally relevant datasets is vital for reducing biases in AI systems. HR professionals and AI developers need to work together to ensure the data used in AI-driven recruitment processes are diverse and representative of different demographic groups. This will help create more equitable hiring practices.

Lastly, countries need guidelines and ethical standards for the use of AI in recruitment that can help build trust and ensure fairness. Organisations should implement policies that promote transparency and accountability in AI-driven decision-making processes.

By taking these steps, we can create a more inclusive and fair recruitment system that leverages the strengths of both HR professionals and AI developers.

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. What will a robot make of your résumé? The bias problem with using AI in job recruitment – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231174