Kategori: Nyheter

Political funding in Australia has long been shrouded in secrecy. It is also dominated by large donations and unrestrained spending, courtesy of laissez-faire federal political finance laws.

The Albanese government has proposed the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill. According to the government, the bill “seek(s) to remove the influence of big money in politics”. The Teal MPs and Clive Palmer have, however, denounced it as “a major party stich-up”.

Where does the truth lie?

The bill will reduce the influence of big money in politics, but it does not go far enough in curbing large donations and excessive spending. Its scorecard on promoting fair elections is mixed: it will make elections fairer in key respects, but also unduly favour the major parties, political parties with wealthy candidates, and those with investment income.

A wholesale reform

The bill proposes significant changes to the two pillars of current federal laws (disclosure and public funding), while adding another two (caps on gifts and caps on electoral expenditure). This is the most ambitious reform of federal political finance laws attempted since the current regime was established four decades ago.

Substantial “hidden money” has resulted from the weaknesses of current laws. These include a high disclosure threshold, a lack of timeliness, and weak penalties.

The bill provides a comprehensive response to these weaknesses by:
• reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000• requiring expedited disclosure
• providing penalties based on the amounts not disclosed.

Risk of corruption is reduced, but there are significant loopholes

A small minority of large donors dominate the funding of federal political parties and candidates.

Leading the pack are cashed-up individuals such as Richard Pratt, Clive Palmer and Rob Keldoulis (the main funder of Climate 200).

Specific industries (including the mining and resource sector, the property sector, and the gambling sector), regularly make substantial donations and mainly to the major parties – money follows power.

All this illustrates what the High Court has described as “clientelism” corruption. This means corruption that

arises from an office-holder’s dependence on the financial support of a wealthy patron to a degree that is apt to compromise the expectation, fundamental to representative democracy, that public power will be exercised in the public interest.

The bill tackles such corruption through all four pillars. Robust disclosure will aid through “sunlight as disinfectant”. A ceiling on spending through expenditure caps will reduce the pressure to fundraise. An increase in public funding for campaigns has a similar effect.

Gift caps are the principal way in which the bill seeks to prevent large donations. The million-dollar donations made by Pratt, Keldoulis and mining companies would be illegal under these caps, which limit donations to each political party to $20,000 a year.

However, these caps also have major loopholes. Exclusions from the caps allow for disguised donations: membership and affiliation fees to associated entities are not caught by the caps. While there is a principled basis for exempting membership and affiliation fees to political parties (including trade union affiliation fees), the bill allows for inflation of these fees by leaving the exemptions uncapped (unlike NSW laws).

Most significantly, the caps do not apply to donations made by candidates to the party that endorsed them. They would not, for example, prevent Clive Palmer from continuing to donate millions to the United Australia Party. They would also not prohibit donations such as the $1.75 million Malcolm Turnbull gave to the Liberal Party in 2016–17.

The proposed law would not stop Clive Palmer, for example, from donating large sums of money to the United Australia Party.
Joel Carrett/AAP

The ‘arms race’ is contained but big spending will continue

The past two decades have seen a steady rise in federal election spending. This has been driven by major party spending and big spending contests such as Kooyong (where both Monique Ryan and Josh Frydenberg spent around $2 million each).

The problem here is twofold: high spending increases fundraising pressure and the risk of corruption associated with large donations; and high spending itself undermines fairness of elections. The High Court has referred to “war-chest” corruption where “the power of money may also pose a threat to the electoral process itself”.

The bill’s federal cap of $90 million will reduce levels of spending (the Coalition, United Australia and Labor each spent more than $100 million in the last election) and prevent further increases.

Nevertheless, the cap is set too high. Analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity shows the federal cap is disproportionately high compared to the state caps. For example, it will allow more than double a maximum spend per elector compared to the New South Wales cap on spending.

The $11.25 million cap on third-party spending shares the same weakness. While this high level was presumably adopted to lessen the prospect of a successful constitutional challenge to the cap (as occurred with the NSW cap), the scale has been tilted too far.

As it stands, the third-party cap will not prevent campaigns such as the $22 million advertising campaign by mining companies against the Rudd government’s resource super-profits tax, which contributed to the ousting of Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

Caps promote fairness but some still get a free pass

Gift caps promote fair elections by reducing the need for large donations in order for candidates to run a meaningful campaign. They also level the playing field by reducing the spending advantage of the better-resourced parties and candidates.

In both cases, candidates such as the Teals, who rely on large donations and high spending, will clearly be constrained. But it is the major parties that will be most affected (disadvantaged), as they are the main beneficiaries of the laissez-faire status quo (together with Palmer’s United Australia Party).

On the negative side, the loophole with candidate donations will favour parties with wealthy candidates. Parties will also be able to register their investment vehicles as “nominated entities” and receive income outside of the gift caps, a boon for the major parties and probably Palmer’s UAP.

Major parties further benefit from the narrow scope of Division and Senate caps which leave out considerable party spending directed at these contests. Broadening their scope along the lines of [Canadian] and UK spending limits will help address the Teals’ concern that spending caps allow the major parties to game the caps by shifting spending from safe and unwinnable seats to marginal ones.

Public funding can be fairer

The bill seeks to increase public funding based on first preference votes (election funding) and the number of seats (administrative assistance funding). This is a measure for fairness: together with gift caps, it means funding is increasingly determined by the level of popular support rather than the ability to attract large donations.

The major parties will receive substantial increases in public funding due to their share of votes and seats. But this is not a credible argument that such funding is “biased”.

However, as funding criteria are based on the outcomes of the past election, public funding does favour incumbents. This could can be offset by a start-up fund for new parties and candidates (such as the New South Wales’ New Parties Fund).

The government should be congratulated for grasping the nettle of reform in an area where disagreement and self interest run deep. It should now follow through with a proper parliamentary process – including a parliamentary inquiry with adequate time for scrutiny. Otherwise, it may miss the opportunity for enduring change. Läs mer…

The first 1,000 days of a child’s life – pregnancy and the months leading to their second birthday – are a critical time. Expectant mothers need good antenatal care. The better their physical and mental health, the greater the likelihood of giving birth to a healthy baby and being able to nurture that baby through the first two years of life.

There’s a large global body of evidence to show that what happens during this period has lifelong effects on a person’s health, growth and well-being.

Less attention has been paid to the “next 1,000 days”, when children are between the ages of 2 and 5. But what public health and child development experts do know is that this, too, is a crucial time. Within this period, there are opportunities to build on investments made in the first 1,000 days, as well as to help put children who did not get the input they needed earlier in life back on track, setting them up for school and a healthy childhood and adolescence.

The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals, has just launched a series of papers about these “next 1,000 days”, building on previous series in 2007, 2011 and 2016 on early childhood development. I am a public health specialist with expertise in early childhood development who led the series, working with experts from all over the world to highlight the latest scholarly evidence about this crucial window of time in children’s lives. We’ve focused particularly on low- and middle-income countries.

We wanted to highlight the latest available evidence on the next 1,000 days – why it is important, what influences development in this age group, what programmes are being implemented and are working, where children are falling behind, and the cost of not investing.

Read more:
Child care centres in South Africa need more support: principals tell of pandemic impact

In the next 1,000 days, young children’s development is shaped by a range of influences. These include their physical health, developmental delays and disabilities, nutrition, parenting, exposure to violence, the mental health of their caregivers, father involvement, early childhood care and education environment, and exposure to pollution and climate change. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified many of the risks associated with these influences, making it more urgent than ever to reduce those risks.

Why do the next 1,000 days matter?

Between the ages of 2 and 5, children advance rapidly in a range of areas.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

Between the ages of 2 and 5, children advance rapidly in a range of areas: cognitive development and self-regulation, as well as social, emotional, motor, language and numeracy skills. Of course, children develop these skills at different rates and in different ways. Promoting development in these areas sets young children on a path for health, development and education.

These paths are shaped by the quality of care in five areas: health, nutrition, responsive caregiving, safety and security, and early learning. Essentially, this nurturing care is what children need to thrive. The graphic below shows how these dimensions relate to developmental outcomes that matter in this age group, as well as important policies and programmes to guide their growth.

The Conversation Africa, CC BY-NC-ND

Lower- and middle-income countries: zooming in

A previous Lancet series about early childhood development reported that an estimated 250 million children under the age of 5 in lower- and middle-income countries were at risk of not reaching their developmental potential.

More recent data in the new series indicates that, in these countries, only 62 million children aged 3 and 4 (25%) currently receive the care they need to thrive. This leaves close to 182 million children exposed to risks that jeopardise their healthy development.

Access to adequate care varied systematically across regions. In sub-Saharan Africa the figure stood at just 7.9%. For children in lower- and middle-income countries in Europe and central Asia, it was 68%.

Read more:
Economies grow when early childhood development is a priority

We also found that fewer than one in three children in low- and middle-income countries have access to developmental stimulation or are protected from physical punishment. Only 39% have access to early childhood care and education programmes. Children who have received early learning support and responsive care are about two years ahead in their development compared with their peers who do not.

Overall it is clear that young children in low- and middle-income countries are not adequately reached by programmes that promote their development between the ages of 2 and 5. One reason, we’ve found, is that early childhood development programmes designed for this age range – as detailed in academic journal publications between 1990 and 2020 – are mostly delivered in high-income western countries; 44% of the programmes are in the United States.

Only 5% of published programmes have been implemented in low-income or lower-middle-income countries. These findings highlight the mismatch between the global regions where such programmes are most needed and the areas where they are in place.

This publication bias in favour of high-income western countries has been criticised elsewhere and, although there are signs of shifts in the right direction, much must be done to address the fact that most of the world’s child population is under-represented in research.

Sectors must work together

As part of the Lancet series we identified recommendations that cut across different sectors like health, early learning, child protection and social welfare.

Firstly, these sectors need to work together, rather than in silos.

Secondly, programmes (ideally through partnerships across sectors) that focus on helping these children to thrive should not only involve risk mitigation, such as preventing violence. “Protective” factors which buffer children from these risks, like parental mental wellbeing, are also critical.

Thirdly, the programmes must be of high quality, and should be contextually relevant.

Lastly, equity and inclusion are crucial considerations. The most vulnerable children need to be reached – with programmes of equal quality.

A sensible investment

There is growing evidence that there are both short- and long-term benefits of programmes aimed at children in the “next 1,000 days”. These include high-quality early childhood care and education programmes, parental educational programmes, cash transfers, and nutrition interventions. These can work together to yield higher benefits.

Access to quality care and education is key.
monkeybusinessimages/Getty Images

The costs of providing early childhood education and care vary substantially across countries. But, relative to national incomes, these costs are typically low. In low- and middle-income countries, the estimated cost of one year of early childhood care and education, provided to all children in the next 1,000 days, would be less than 1% of GDP. The potential benefits are on average 8-19 times larger than the cost of actually implementing these programmes across such countries. Läs mer…

Humans have been turning wild animals into pets for thousands of years. Pets – animals kept for companionship, not for food or work – were widespread in ancient Egypt.

In Australia, First Nations groups favoured dingoes, a naturalised canine arriving perhaps 5,000 years ago. “Dingo” is derived from din-gu, the Dharug word for domesticated dog – wild dingoes were known as “warrigal”.

To begin with, early colonial settlers often saw native wildlife as competitors to livestock. But over time, some began keeping native animals as pets. In the early 20th century, officials began warning people not to take animals such as koalas from the wild to become pets. Over the next few decades, state and territory governments restricted the practice.

A few common native species such as budgies can be kept without a license regardless of where you live. But having a pet koala is either banned outright or heavily restricted.

In recent years, states such as South Australia have moved to liberalise native wildlife ownership laws. Could this be good for threatened species? That depends. Turning threatened species into pets may keep the species alive – but unable to survive without us.

White (leucistic) sugar gliders occur naturally, but the colour has been selected for in captivity to attract human owners.
I Wayan Sumatika/Shutterstock

What wildlife can be kept as pets in Australia?

These days, most Australian pet owners have a dog or a cat and wouldn’t think to consider a native pet other than a budgie. Is it even legal, you might wonder. Well, it depends where you live.

In South Australia you can keep most native animals as a pet, though you might need a permit depending on the type.

Residents keep animals such as fat-tailed dunnarts, sugar gliders, rufous bettongs, and a long list of reptiles and birds – even emus. But there are rules – native pets have to be sourced from captive populations, not the wild.

In Queensland you can keep species such as black-throated finches, types of rainbowfish and crimson rosellas without a licence. A standard licence opens the door to bird-eating spiders, tree frogs, land mullet and bearded dragons.

Other states and territories list a few dozen common species which you don’t need a license to keep.

In the Northern Territory residents can keep species such as spinifex hopping mice without a permit.
In Victoria residents have to get a license for all native species bar 45 common ones such as king quail, blue-tongue lizards and spinifex hopping mice.
In New South Wales residents have a similar list of 41 common species and license requirements for others.
In Western Australia, residents can keep any invertebrate as a pet, as well as 12 bird species. A standard license opens the door to dozens of bird and reptile species.
Tasmania is more restrictive. Rainbow lorikeets, turtles, snakes and ferrets are banned as pets. The island state wants to avoid issues with introduced species – and even native species such as sugar gliders can do real damage once they’re introduced.

The rules can be quite different overseas. The sugar glider is largely restricted to permit-holders in Australia, but is commonly kept as a pet in the United States without restrictions. Similarly, you can buy a kangaroo as a pet in some US states.

Spinifex hopping mice are becoming popular as a native pet species.
Author supplied

Wild pets can be hard work

Cute, furry gliding marsupials like sugar gliders make for great social media content. But sugar gliders are nocturnal and have specialised diets. They’re not an easy pet.

Most Australian species will pose similar challenges. Special diets. Different waking hours. The need for specific types of enclosures and enrichment.

If a native pet is fed the wrong food, such as fruits high in sugar, they can quickly become overweight, ill and have dental problems.

Some species like gliders also have complex social structures which can be tricky to manage, and without suitable companions may become stressed or depressed.

Could domestication help conservation?

It’s not uncommon to hear people asking whether keeping threatened native species as pets could help bring them back from the brink.

Conservationists have long used captive breeding to boost dwindling populations and reintroducing captive-born individuals back to the wild. Not long ago, the eastern barred bandicoot was extinct in the wild in Victoria. But a sustained captive breeding and release program on fox-free islands has been remarkably successful.

But conservation projects like this are done carefully. They need strict breeding, genetic and health management, alongside significant funding and planning commitments. Some animals undergo antipredator training to give them a better chance in the wild.

Using native pets for conservation is a different story.

When animals are domesticated, their anatomy and appearance begins to change. We select pets for a range of appealing traits, resulting in a wide variety of coat colours, body shapes and temperaments. This is how we ended up with hundreds of varieties of dogs.

Tricoloured border collies like Frankie show how varied dogs can be.
Author supplied

In Russia, foxes bred in captivity ended up with floppy ears and different coat patterns. The budgerigar is one of the world’s most popular pet birds. But captive breeding over 150 years has produced pet budgies generally larger and slower than wild individuals.

What if we had pet quolls not cats?

Conservationists have floated the idea of having pet quolls rather than pet cats. Quolls are attractive, carnivores with unique coats, similar in size to cats. But all four species of these native marsupials are under pressure.

If we bred quolls for pet shops, we would likely see them change, as our preferences change how they look and behave. Bitey or drab quolls wouldn’t get to mate. This selection process has already happened to sugar gliders – you can now buy gliders with pure white coats. That’s good for humans – but not for the species.

Substitute a pet quoll for a cat? It would come with risks to the health of the species.
MindStorm

Within 13 captive-bred generations, the northern quoll loses its wariness and other defences against predators. Animals bred for pets would likely find it hard or impossible to survive the wild.

Making animals into pets doesn’t mean wild populations will increase. Around 5,000 tigers now live in captivity in the US, more than those remaining in the wild. But “pet” tigers are rarely reintroduced back to the wild. So wild tiger populations keep falling even while domesticated tiger numbers grow.

So yes, keeping native species as pets could safeguard against complete extinction. But it’s hard to see how owning a pet quoll or other native species would help the species overall. Läs mer…

Hardware giant Bunnings breached the privacy of “likely hundreds of thousands” of Australians through its use of facial recognition technology, the Privacy Commissioner ruled today.

“Individuals who entered the relevant Bunnings stores at the time would not have been aware that facial recognition technology was in use and especially that their sensitive information was being collected, even if briefly,” the commissioner Carly Kind said.

The ruling is the culmination of a two-year investigation. Bunnings claimed it is “deeply disappointed” by the decision, and is seeking a review.

The commissioner did not seek to impose a fine on Bunnings for the breach of privacy.

If the ruling stands, it could have big implications for Australian shoppers and retailers. It also strengthens the case for removing a significant loophole in Australia’s privacy law.

Right now, that loophole allows businesses to collect your biometric information without your explicit consent by simply putting up signs.

An elaborate profiling system

Bunnings is a hardware and garden supplies chain with more than 500 stores across Australia and New Zealand. It is owned by Wesfarmers and in 2023 had a total revenue of $18.54 billion.

Bunnings ran a trial of a facial recognition technology system between January 2019 and November 2021 in at least 62 stores in Victoria and New South Wales. This followed an earlier two-month trial in one store, which started in November 2018.

The system was incorporated into security cameras and captured the facial image of every person who entered a store. The system then analysed these images to create a searchable database of facial images.

The person’s file could be assigned to a range of categories. These included:

non-threatening
individuals who had engaged in “actual or threatened violence” to Bunnings’ staff or members of the public
individuals who had demonstrated “violent, threatening or other inappropriate behaviour”
individuals who had engaged in “serious cases of theft”
individuals who were reasonably suspected of committing “organised retail crime”.

Bunnings stated its “sole and clear intent” in conducting the trial was to keep team members and customers safe and prevent unlawful activity.

No consent

The privacy commissioner launched an investigation into Bunnings in July 2022. This followed a report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE about the company’s use of facial recognition technology.

The commissioner acknowledged the potential of facial recognition technology to reduce violence and theft. However, she added:

any possible benefits need to be weighed against the impact on privacy rights, as well as our collective values as a society.

In this case, the commissioner found Bunnings’ use of facial recognition technology breached Australian privacy law because the company did not obtain consent from its customers nor inform them it was collecting their biometric information.

The commissioner ordered Bunnings not to continue or repeat the practice in the future. She also ordered Bunnings to destroy all of the personal and sensitive information of its customers it still holds (after 12 months), and to publish a statement about the ruling online within 30 days.

However, the commissioner has not applied to the Federal Court to impose a financial penalty on Bunnings for the privacy breach. If she had done so, as a “body corporate” Bunnings could have faced a maximum fine of $50 million.

Australian retailers are now on notice

Despite the lack of a fine against Bunnings, this ruling may still have a number of significant implications for Australian shoppers and retailers.

First, it could lead to a more thoughtful and ethical use of technology in retail environments. Alongside the ruling, the commissioner’s office released clear guidance on the application of the Privacy Act to facial recognition technology in the hope it will help companies follow the letter of the law.

Second, the ruling reinforces a broad definition of biometric information introduced by the privacy commissioner last year, in a case against facial recognition company Clearview AI.

During a hearing at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the commissioner stated that “even a photograph could be described as one of the lower levels of biometric recognition”. The tribunal accepted this definition.

In this case against Bunnings, the privacy commissioner has applied that definition. This puts retailers on notice. They will no longer be able to hide behind claims that they “just collect video information but not biometric data”. Any image of a face is a potential source of biometric data and therefore should be protected under privacy law.

We need to fix this legal loophole

The ruling against Bunnings also strengthens the case for a more thorough update to Australian privacy law.

At present, the law doesn’t specifically require businesses to obtain express consent when collecting biometric information. It only requires them to obtain “consent”.

This assumes that implied consent is valid, which is achievable, for example, by erecting signs informing customers upon entry that there is a facial recognition camera on the premises. This suggests that if you enter, you agree for your facial information to be collected.

This loophole was overlooked in the proposed privacy reforms released by the federal government earlier this year.

The Bunnings case clearly demonstrates the need for an updated and clear legal definition of consent to protect peoples’ privacy. It also demonstrates the need for additional legal tools to protect biometric information, such as a technical standard for facial recognition technology.

This standard could then be enforced by a statutory authority, which would issue licences to businesses wanting to use facial recognition technology, as well as conduct regular audits and checks to ensure the standard is being upheld. Läs mer…

The lifting of US restrictions on the use of ATACMS ballistic missiles by Ukraine may help it repel Russian forces trying to retake Russian territory seized by Ukraine earlier this year. It could also strengthen Ukraine’s hand ahead of US President-elect Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House in January.

It may, however, be another case of too little, too late in Western support for Ukraine.

This week, the Biden Administration lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-supplied missiles known as ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems). ATACMS have a range of around 300 kilometres. Previously, the US has told Ukraine only to use them against Russian forces on Ukrainian territory.

The ATACMS missile system components.
Phil Holm/AP

This has been a source of huge frustration to Ukraine, particularly as it could not use them against bases inside Russia that have launched ceaseless missile and drone assaults on Ukrainian cities.

Russian attacks on Ukraine in October killed 183 civilians and wounded another 903, according to the UN.

Precise details of the change in US policy have not been announced publicly. The New York Times reports that permission to hit Russian territory will only apply initially to attacking Russian forces massing in the Kursk region.

Russia wants to recapture more than 500 square kilometres of territory captured by Ukraine in a bold thrust in August. Western agencies believe the 50,000 troops massing on the Russian side include several thousand North Korean soldiers.

North Korea’s involvement may be the main reason prompting the removal of limits on the ATACMS. Apart from strengthening Ukraine’s chances of keeping its foothold inside Russian territory, the move may also discourage North Korea from sending more troops.

The North Korean presence also provides some justification for the US decision, allaying concerns it could be framed by Russia as an escalation.

US President Joe Biden (right) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington in 2023.
Michael Reynolds/EPA

Careful decision-making by the West

Fears of escalation and the possibility of direct conflict between Russia and NATO have been a major reason for the US caution thus far.

This has been fuelled in part by Russian nuclear sabre-rattling. Russian President Vladimir Putin upped the ante in September, warning that allowing Western weapons to hit Russia would constitute NATO’s “direct participation” in the war.

Russia claims, apparently without foundation, that such weapons need Western crews to man them. Russia also claims the missiles may require Western intelligence to ensure accurate targeting.

The Kremlin has reacted predictably to the US announcement this week, saying it would add “fuel to the fire” of the war.

However, ATACMS have already been used against Russian targets inside Ukrainian sovereign territory, notably in Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed a decade ago.

Some Biden administration sources have told the media that fears of retaliation via sabotage also have shaped its wariness about allowing ATACMS to hit Russia. Russian intelligence services have mounted a substantial sabotage campaign in Europe during the past year.

Aversion to such risk has been evident from the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Western countries have shown concern at every step about crossing Putin’s supposed “red lines”.

They initially baulked at supplying different types of equipment – be it tanks, fighter jets, short-range missiles or long-range missiles. They then put restrictions on where and how they could be used.

Will it help Ukraine?

The US restrictions on using ATACMS led Britain and France to place similar limits on Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles, which have a range of 250 kilometres. It seems likely the US move will now enable the UK and France to follow suit in relaxing those limits.

Another boost to Ukraine’s arsenal could come from Germany, where the Greens, Social Democrats and the opposition Christian Democrats support green-lighting delivery of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, which have a range of 500 kilometres.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has to date blocked it, but elections are now scheduled for February.

Washington officials have recently claimed that ATACMS would now be of limited use because Russia has moved much of its key weaponry, particularly jet fighters, outside their range.

However, some military analysts believe there are still plenty of military targets within range, perhaps numbering in the hundreds.

These include command and communications posts, logistics hubs, arms depots, missile units and helicopter detachments. Moving equipment further back from the front lines would make life difficult for Russian operations, stretching their supply lines and adding to the time for air support to arrive.

Russia’s support has grown

Allowing a sovereign state that’s been illegally invaded to use weapons against military targets inside the aggressor country is hardly escalatory.

Moreover, as US-based Russian scholar Sergei Radchenko points out, it would be extremely risky for Russia, which has so woefully underperformed on the battlefield in Ukraine, to attack NATO in response.

Russian warnings about escalation seem even more preposterous given the huge amount of weaponry and ammunition Russia has received from its own supporters, even before the entry of North Korean soldiers.

North Korea has sold Russia hundreds of ballistic missiles and millions of rounds of ammunition. And it is now reportedly supplying Russia with self-propelled howitzers and multiple rocket launchers.

Iran has supplied Russia with thousands of Shahed drones, drone production technology, ammunition and short-range missiles.

An Iranian Shahed-129 drone is displayed at a rally in Tehran, Iran.
Ebrahim Noroozi/AP

And China sells Russia around US$300 million (A$460 million) each month in dual-use equipment necessary for weapons production, from machine tools to microchips. Russia may even have set up a military drone factory in China.

What could Trump’s arrival mean?

The Biden White House may further reduce restrictions on using ATACMS inside Russia, for example, allow their use beyond the Kursk region, in an effort to leave Ukraine in as strong a position as possible before Trump takes office.

Some Ukrainians fear Trump may cut support for Ukraine in his effort to end the war quickly. However, others believe Trump may be just as helpful as the Biden administration, given the latter’s caution, and the need for Trump to be seen as a credible dealmaker, rather than selling Ukraine down the river.

Some in Trump’s new team, notably incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, have spoken, albeit equivocally, of using the prospect of more robust support for Ukraine as leverage in pushing Putin to negotiate.

But optimism on this score must be offset by the strong presence in his new Cabinet and inner circle of those who have been strong critics of aid to Ukraine or even downright apologists for Russia.

There is also a strong chance the Trump administration could rescind the decision to lift the restrictions on ATACMS use. Läs mer…

The Albanese government has been put on the spot by a new agreement – which it has declined to join – signed by the United Kingdom and the United States to speed up the deployment of “cutting edge” nuclear technology.

The original version of the British government’s press release announcing the agreement said Australia, among a number of other countries, was expected to sign it.

But the reference was removed from the statement.

The UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and the US deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk signed the agreement in Baku during COP29.

The agreement promotes nuclear technology to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security.

A spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is at the COP meeting, said: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.

”We recognise that some countries may choose to use nuclear energy, depending on national circumstances.

”Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts.”

Australia would remain as observers to the agreement to continue to support its scientists in other nuclear research fields, the spokesperson said.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said “Australia is starting to become an international embarrassment under Chris Bowen and Mr Albanese”.

In parliament, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said for Australia to pursue a path of nuclear energy would add $1200 to the bills of each household in this country.

The statement from the British government said the agreement “will help pool together billions of pounds worth of nuclear research and development – including the world’s leading academic institutions and nuclear innovators”.

New technologies such as advanced modular reactors could help decarbonise heavy industry including aviation fuel, and hydrogen or advanced steel production, the statement said.

Nuclear power is at the heart of the Dutton opposition’s energy policy. The Coalition has identified seven sites around the country for proposed nuclear power plants. Läs mer…

Cash usage has fallen off a cliff in Australia, but the federal government says it must have a future. So, it’s going to mandate one.

The Australian government will require businesses to accept cash for essentials such as groceries and fuel. Some (yet to be determined) small businesses will be exempt.

According to Treasury, losing cash as a means of payment would leave too many people behind:

Around 1.5 million Australians use cash to make more than 80% of their in‑person payments. Cash also provides an easily accessible back‑up to digital payments in times of natural disaster or digital outage.

In its announcement on Monday, Treasury pointed to what had already been achieved with similar schemes in other countries such as Spain and Norway, and a range of US states.

It’s an honourable cause. There are, however, some aspects of life in Australia that will present unique challenges for achieving it.

Read more:
Surcharges are added to most purchases, but what are the rules behind these extra fees?

Why does using cash cost so much?

Some merchants in Australia already refuse to accept cash as a means of payment. That means relying entirely on digital payment methods such as bank cards and mobile wallets.

It mightn’t be immediately obvious why some businesses don’t like cash. But for many, it’s the most costly payment method to accept. While cash transactions don’t come with a surcharge fee like bank cards, they do carry a wide range of other hidden costs.

Businesses typically need to keep a “float” of cash in their tills overnight, so that next day’s early customers can be given change if needed. This float needs to be regularly updated and rebalanced with appropriate currency so the correct change can always be given.

Maintaining a cash ‘float’ can be time consuming and tedious work.
simez78/Shutterstock

Businesses also have to make sure no cash goes missing during their opening hours, count their cash take at the end of each day, make sure it is secure on their premises, and make periodic physical deposits into their bank account.

Both maintaining a float and making deposits can involve unpredictable trips to a bank branch or post office throughout the week.

Things are getting harder

For individuals and businesses, getting cash into and out of a bank account is becoming more of a challenge. And if you’re in regional or remote Australia, the nearest location where you can do so may be an hours-long drive away.

The most recent figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) show that across Australia since 2017, the number of ATMs has fallen by about 60% and the number of bank branches by 41%.

ATMs are becoming scarcer, particularly in regional and rural areas.
Dan Peled/AAP

Many remaining bank branches have reduced their hours, and some have even stopped dealing in cash entirely, especially in rural and regional areas.

Moving cash around the country isn’t getting any easier or cheaper.

The dominant provider of cash-in-transit services, Armaguard, has been under sustained financial pressure in recent years.

Earlier this year, it secured a deal with Australia’s big four banks and some of its other major customers to receive a $50 million bailout.

Read more:
Future of cash secured for now as banks and retailers bail out Armaguard

Some countries facing similar situations – including the UK – have persuaded their banks to fund the idea of “banking hubs”.

Typically under this model, a location is identified in a regional community and banks collectively share the space, with each bank having one day a week in residence so that nobody is excluded from these services.

Could a regional branch levy help?

Also this month, Treasury proposed a new regional services levy, to support what should be the minimum level of banking services in regional areas.

Banks with a relatively large regional presence would be cross subsidised by a proportional levy on banks with relatively fewer services in these areas or none at all.

This funding would help banks sustain the number of branches, their opening hours and their ATMs. Under the proposal, banks that fell short of baseline requirements could purchase credits from others that did.

The reasoning behind these measures is that like Australia Post, banks should have a formal community service obligation. That is, a baseline of minimum services that must be provided.

The proposed levy would reward banks for maintaining a regional presence.
Joel Carrett/AAP

Questions still to answer

In its media release, Treasury only gave a big picture view of what they wanted to achieve. There are still many questions that need to be resolved before any of its plans can become legislation.

Some concern where and how to target support. If regionally focused, how should regional be defined? Which areas and towns prioritised?

How should the banks and other financial services providers be required to help support cash use?

Exactly which businesses will be affected – and which exempt – must also be clearly defined, along with any enforcement measures.

And there is likely to be robust debate over what exactly constitutes the “essentials” for which merchants will be mandated to accept cash payment. Läs mer…

For decades it seemed Alan Jones was unassailable.

A finding against him of professional misconduct by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (2000); a finding that he incited hatred, serious contempt and severe ridicule of Lebanese Muslims (2009); propositions of violence against two women prime ministers (2011 and 2019); verdicts against him and his employer amounting to millions of dollars in defamation actions (most notably one for $3.75 million in 2018): none of these ended his career.

Quite the reverse. Only weeks after the Australian Broadcasting Authority found in its “cash for comments” inquiry that Jones and others had misled their listeners by presenting paid endorsements as editorial opinion, he was hosting an event for then prime minister John Howard.

Howard was to become a fixture on the Jones program throughout the 11 years of his prime ministership.

The day after the Australian Communications and Media Authority found Jones was likely to have encouraged violence and vilification of Australians of Lebanese and Middle Eastern background, Howard described him as “an outstanding broadcaster”. “I don’t think he’s a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment, but he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think.”

By 2001, Jones had become a kind of on-air policy-maker for the New South Wales government. In November that year, he dined with the then Labor premier, Bob Carr. They discussed a range of government policies, particularly policing. At that time, Jones was a relentless critic of the NSW police.

The following week, Carr dispatched his police minister-designate, Michael Costa, to Jones’s home to discuss policing policy.

In 2011 he said Julia Gillard, then Australia’s prime minister, should be taken out to sea and dumped in a chaff bag. In August 2019 he said Scott Morrison, who was then Australia’s prime minister, should “shove a sock” down the throat of his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern.

He was an outspoken climate-change denier, and these grotesqueries were part of his campaign against political recognition of this reality.

Jones’s power, which made him so apparently untouchable, came from his weaponising of the microphone for conservative political ends in ways that resonated with his vast and rusted-on audience of largely working-class older people across Sydney’s sprawling western suburbs.

These suburbs contain many marginal state and federal electorates where the fates of governments can be decided. Their populations provide fertile ground for seeding by right-wing radio shock jocks, of whom Jones and his rival John Laws were pre-eminent examples.

In Australia, this is a peculiarly Sydney phenomenon. It is not seen to the same degree in any other capital city, even though they too have large areas of socioeconomic disadvantage like western Sydney.

Why that should be so is a complex question, but there are aspects of Sydney life that mark it out as different. It is really two cities. One is the largely prosperous and scenically dazzling east and north. The other, much larger, consists of dreary tracts of increasingly crowded housing stretching for many kilometres to the west and southwest.

In Sydney argot, the inhabitants of these respective worlds are called “silvertails” and “fibros”, the latter referring to the cladding of the homes that proliferated in western Sydney between and after the two world wars.

This two-cities effect makes the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” highly visible in a way that has no parallel in other Australian capitals. It engenders deep-seated grievance and cynicism, which the likes of Jones, who lives in a multimillion-dollar apartment on Circular Quay, have relentlessly exploited.

Jones coined the term “Struggle Street” to encapsulate the hardships of his listeners’ lives.

To these powerless people, Jones and Laws gave a voice, and as their audiences grew, prime ministers and premiers courted and feared them.

In the end, Jones’s impregnability was breached by not the power elite turning on one of their own, but by the journalism of a redoubtably tenacious Sydney Morning Herald investigative reporter, Kate McClymont.

In December 2023, she claimed Jones had used his position of power, first as a teacher and later as the country’s top-rating radio broadcaster, to allegedly prey on a number of young men.

In response to McClymont’s work, the NSW police set up Strike Force Bonnefin, run by the State Crime Command’s Child Abuse Squad, to conduct an investigation into Jones.

On November 18 2024, Jones was arrested at his Circular Quay home and charged initially with 24 sexual offences against eight males. The following day, two additional charges were laid involving a ninth male.

Through his lawyers, Jones has denied the charges and was bailed to appear in Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court on December 18. He was ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact or harass the alleged victims.

The charges relate to offences alleged to have been committed by Jones between 2001 and 2019, the youngest alleged victim being 17 at the time.

Those dates coincide almost exactly with Jones’s most influential years, from 2002 to 2020.

McClymont has spoken about the reluctance of some of her interviewees to speak, for fear of what Jones might do:

People were too afraid to take on Alan Jones. Once a couple of people came forward, and some people were happy to be publicly named, that gave confidence for other people to come forward. Läs mer…