Johansen.se

A recent poll by the Social Research Foundation, a think thank, found that 60% of South Africans thought the government of national unity was working well. It also reported that support for the unity government’s anchor political parties, the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), had risen since 29 May 2024 when elections were held.

The poll results came out at the same time as the business press was reporting increased collaboration between business and government, fostered by the unity government. Corporations have reportedly pledged up to R250 million (about US$14.3 million to assist the state to address various logistics crises and help the National Prosecuting Authority prosecute corruption.

Although we should be cautious about taking such news at face value, it is worth noting that the arrival of the unity government has been accompanied by other good news. For example:

This adds up to new shoots which suggest a better harvest to come.

Read more:
South Africa has a huge gap between the rich and poor – 4 urgent reasons to tackle inequality

Still, it is wise not to get too excited unless any upturn in the economy benefits the majority of South Africans. As Frans Cronje, director of the Social Research Foundation, has observed, while the unity government may be good for the middle class, there is no sign yet that it is addressing the needs of the poor and the people on the periphery of the economy.

Unless its benefits become socially inclusive, it might well collapse. We need to take Cronje’s reservations seriously. Note, however, that although the unity government is a coalition, it is led by the African National Congress. And, while all parties agree that they need to put the economy back on track and promote growth, there is little evidence yet that the government is pursuing distinctively new policies.

Beware complacency

We are often told that “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

But this claim owes more to ideology than careful analysis of economic data. In any case, it is a catchphrase which condones inequality. It suggests that as long as living standards increase for the poor, it does not matter if the wealthy gain even more. Indeed, one version is that the more the well-off benefit, the more likely they are to spend and invest their money – that is, to create wealth for others.

Such complacency is dangerous. Apart from being contentious economically, it poses risks to both democracy and political stability. This is particularly the case in South Africa, which is widely recognised as the most unequal country in the world.

High rates of inequality erode social cohesion and trust in democracy. In the May general election, the lowest level of voter turnout since 1994 reflected a worrying decline in support for democracy: from 72% in 2011 to just 43% by 2023.
Extremes of inequality are unlikely to lead to the formation of governing coalitions committed to pursuing developmental strategies of benefit to all. As a result, populist parties that tout simplistic solutions may find it easier to win support. As suggested by the unheralded performance of Jacob Zuma’s umKhonto we Sizwe Party in the 2024 election, this is a particular danger in South Africa. Here, the poorer black majority possess potential political power in an economy which remains largely controlled and owned by a richer, white minority. The French economist Thomas Piketty in his latest blockbuster, Capital and Ideology, warns that in such situations, the dangers of a lurch towards authoritarianism are much increased.

Read more:
South Africa’s unity government could see a continuation of the ANC’s political dominance – and hurt the DA

Little prospect of reduction of inequality

The issue is not whether the unity government is blind to these dangers, but whether the policies it is pursuing are likely to make a dent in the staggering level of inequality.

If investment and growth do occur, there will be good news down the line – possibly the creation of some 2 million jobs and more financial room for the government to fund social benefits for the poor. But it’s unlikely to have a marked effect on the level of inequality.

First, the unity government is not promising any great change from policies that have been pursued since 1994, only more efficient implementation. Those policies have somewhat decreased racial disparities, notably by promoting a black middle class, but they have not reduced the overall level of inequality. Indeed, as Piketty shows, this has increased, not decreased, since 1994.

Second, the unity government’s policies may continue to focus on the reduction of poverty. But this is unlikely to shift the proportions of income between the different classes. As Cronje has hinted, the new government is underpinned by a middle-class coalition, and for this to hang together, the middle class will want to reap its reward.

Read more:
South Africa’s new unity government must draw on the country’s greatest asset: its constitution

Third, history doesn’t offer much hope. Former settler colonies stand out for their exceptionally high levels of inequality. In South Africa, white people always dominated the top earners before 1994. Now they have been joined by high-earning black people, many of them public officials. The top decile’s share of total earning has increased since the end of apartheid. Today it is close to 70%, compared with around 35% in Europe.

Fourth, we live in an age which Piketty describes as “hyper-capitalism”, in which money and ultra-rich elites are highly mobile. This makes it hard for national governments to tax the rich more. They can leave, or threaten to withdraw their investments to earn higher returns elsewhere. South Africa has already been leaking its millionaires. The unity government will not want to scare any more of them away. So, it’s unlikely to adopt aggressive tax policies in the cause of narrowing inequality.

The unity government may well promote high growth and if successful, may ameliorate poverty, but it seems unlikely that it will either attempt or succeed in reducing inequality. It may be good for the elite and middle class, but not necessarily for the health of democracy. Läs mer…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much are we really saving?

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

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

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

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

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

How does Australia stack up globally?

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

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

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

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

The merchant’s perspective

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

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

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

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

Card processing fees can eat into the profits of small businesses.
RawPixel.com/Shutterstock

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

How businesses might exploit the loopholes?

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

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

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

Credit cards: the elephant in the room

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queensland Premier Steven Miles this week declared his party would hold a plebiscite on nuclear power if it returns to office at the forthcoming state election.

The move is in response to plans by the federal Coalition to build and operate seven nuclear plants around Australia if elected to government. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says the facilities would be built at sites of coal power stations scheduled for closure. Two are slated for Queensland, at the Callide and Tarong power stations.

Queensland has state laws banning the construction or operation of a nuclear facility and requiring the state government to hold a plebiscite if there are Commonwealth plans to build a nuclear plant in the state. A plebiscite is a referendum-style vote to gauge voters’ views on an issue.

Unlike a referendum, the results are not binding. There’s also very little chance a plebiscite could be held on or before the date of the next federal election, as Miles has suggested, as the laws do not allow for a plebiscite on an opposition policy.

Who has the constitutional power over nuclear facilities?

While the Commonwealth Constitution does not refer to nuclear energy, the federal parliament has passed laws to regulate nuclear matters. To do so, it relies on a web of constitutional powers, including the trade and commerce power, the corporations power, the external affairs power and the territories power.

The Commonwealth can also compulsorily acquire land for public purposes. This makes the land a “Commonwealth place” over which it can exercise full and exclusive legislative power.

The federal government has previously engaged in commercial matters by establishing trading corporations, such as NBN Co and Snowy Hydro Ltd, to deal with nation-building infrastructure.

It seems likely, therefore, that the federal parliament could pass laws to authorise and regulate the operation of nuclear power plants in Australia.

In doing so, its laws would override inconsistent state laws, such as those that prohibit nuclear facilities, under section 109 of the Constitution.

But state governments could still make it difficult for the Commonwealth to give effect to its nuclear policies. You only have to look at how state governments have successfully opposed Commonwealth efforts to create a nuclear waste facility to see the problems.

Plebiscite as booby trap

The development of a nuclear power industry in Australia has been debated before – most recently in 2006 when the Howard Coalition government commissioned the Switkowski report on the use of nuclear energy in Australia.

This report suggested the Commonwealth could act to establish 25 nuclear power stations across Australia. In response, Queensland’s parliament, under a Labor government, enacted the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007. It banned the construction or operation of certain types of nuclear facilities in Queensland. New South Wales and Victoria had also previously done the same.

The Queensland government recognised the Commonwealth probably had the power to override such a ban. So it included a political booby trap in section 21 of the law.

It says that if the relevant Queensland minister is satisfied the Commonwealth government has taken, or is likely to take, any step supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland, the minister:

must take steps for the conduct of a plebiscite in Queensland to obtain the views of the people of Queensland about the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

If re-elected, Queensland Premier Steven Miles has promised to hold a plebiscite on nuclear power in the state – potentially on the same day as the next federal election.
Darren England/AAP

Unlike a referendum, which changes the Constitution, a plebiscite operates as an opinion poll.

It would not prevent a nuclear power plant being built, or stop the federal parliament overriding the state ban. But it could create a political impediment.

During the debate over the state law in 2007, then-Premier Peter Beattie made this point clearly:

If the Howard government wants to use its powers to override the strong position of Queenslanders […] this government will make certain that Queenslanders have a chance to have their say.

This was important, he claimed, because it would “put political pressure on the federal government to not go down this road”. In other words, the law can be used to apply political pressure.

Of plebiscites and federal elections

Miles suggested the plebiscite could be held the same day as the next federal election “to save people going to the polls twice”.

This could affect voting in the federal election by highlighting the impact of nuclear policies on Queensland. But if this is the tactic, Miles faces two problems.

First, Queensland law only triggers the plebiscite requirement when the relevant state minister is “satisfied the government of the Commonwealth” is likely to take a step in supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

But the minister could not legally be satisfied of this before the election outcome is known, as a policy of an opposition party does not amount to a proposed action of the “government of the Commonwealth”.

Second, section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 says no state or territory election, referendum or vote can be held on the day of a Commonwealth election without the authority of the governor-general.

This ban was introduced in 1922, after holding state votes at the same time as federal elections resulted in a high informal vote due to different voting instructions.

The governor-general has given this permission only once, when the Northern Territory held a plebiscite on becoming a state on the same day as the 1998 federal election.

It’s doubtful the federal government would advise the governor-general to permit a partisan state plebiscite to be held on the same day as a federal election.

Queensland’s ageing Callide Power Station opened nearly 60 years ago. It’s been flagged as a possible location for a nuclear power station under opposition leader Peter Dutton’s plan.
Queensland State Archives

Where does this leave us?

It’s unlikely Queensland could hold such a plebiscite at or before the next federal election.

But if the Coalition wins the next federal election and proceeds with its nuclear policy, Queensland would be obliged to hold a plebiscite – regardless of who wins the state election, unless its law was changed.

This would make clear how much support there was for nuclear power. A clear rejection wouldn’t have any legal effect, but could well achieve the same outcome through political pressure. We might also see other states follow suit to hold plebiscites on nuclear power, although none currently are legally obliged to do so. Läs mer…

It was probably inevitable, but is deeply sad, that Plato’s Symposium (circa 380 BCE), has been drawn into the culture wars. A dialogue of great complexity and elegance, the book is one of the principal sources of the Greek philosopher’s views on love and beauty.

There are also darker political undertones of the decline of Athenian democracy, surrounding the character of Alcibiades who crashes the drinking party the book depicts. There is a lot going on in The Symposium, and a lot we can learn from.

An illustration of a sexual fantasy inspired by The Symposium features in Maia Kobabe’s graphic-novel memoir Gender Queer. This week, the federal court ordered the Australian classification review board to review its assessment of Gender Queer, finding it had ignored, overlooked or misunderstood public submissions for the book to be censored.

Rightwing activist Bernard Gaynor had applied to the board to review the classification of the book. Gaynor’s barrister, Bret Walker SC, argued in court there had been a “broadbrush dismissal” of submissions the board claimed were anti-LGBTQ+ when many submissions objected to what they saw as “paedophilic” depictions of a man having sex with a minor – an image portraying Plato’s Symposium.

Plato’s work comes from a different culture to our own. This was a culture in which, at least among aristocratic males, there were norms around sexual morality that are not our own.

In this context, as Michel Foucault has shown in The History of Sexuality, there were norms surrounding same-sex relationships between elder and younger men that many contemporaries will find deeply morally problematic. But this does not detract from the book’s importance, nor does it exhaust the work’s content.

Far from it.

Love, beauty, and Plato

The Symposium, as its title reflects, is a dialogue between seven leading figures in Athens, set in the controversial year 416 BCE. This was the year in which Athens, spurred on by the charismatic, hawkish demagogue, Alcibiades, sent its navy fatefully to invade the Italian city of Syracuse.

Goodreads

Alcibiades was, around this time, withdrawn from his command of the fleet: accused of desecrating sacred statues on the night before the fleet’s departure, and of impiously staging religious mysteries.

The party in The Symposium soon becomes a setting for the leading participants to each give speeches on the nature of love. Probably the most famous is that of the comic playwright, Aristophanes.

He argues human beings were, initially, unlikely round figures who developed the hubris to challenge the Gods. As a result, we were chopped in half and became sexed beings. Each of us was thus condemned to seeking our lost “other half” through sexual love.

The hero-philosopher Socrates’s speech is similarly colourful. It features him reminiscing on a youthful visit to an exotic priestess, Diotima, who taught him everything he knows about love.

Love, suggests Socrates, (rather wonderfully), is the longing to give birth to beauty. It is tied to the human longing for immortality. We are drawn by the beauty of others to try to unite with them, physically and spiritually. At first, the beautiful form of the body attracts us. But then it becomes the beauty of their souls, if love is more than lust or illusion.

Love inspires us, Plato is stressing, to give birth to new things. For most of us, this means physical offspring, who will perpetuate our name and memory.

But love can move people to beautiful speeches, beautiful works of art, even beautiful laws to govern cities. The philosopher, we are told, ultimately seeks Beauty itself, an unchanging eternal reality in which all earthly, beautiful things only imperfectly participate.

Sexual desire

This is hardly highly erotic material, in any ordinary sense. And yet, when the drunken Alcibiades comes bursting in to interrupt Socrates, accompanied by flute girls and a band of revellers, sexual desire is brought back into the frame.

Plato, copy of a portrait made by Silanion circa 370 BC.
Wikimedia Commons

Alcibiades, who has lived a life of popular adulation and sexual promiscuity, launches into a speech describing his attempts to seduce Socrates, the ugly, old philosopher. For Socrates is the only man or woman who has ever said “no” to his advances, even, once, when Alcibiades was sleeping right beside him.

This knock back drives Alcibiades crazy. And yet, it impresses him. Socrates is ugly on the outside, he says. Yet, inside his soul, for those who love him, there are secret treasures, (agalmata in the Greek). And he would do anything to possess such hidden beauties.

This is a text rich in images, comedy, and deep insights into the human experience. Yes, Plato’s characters accept the norms of that time surrounding homosexual love. The opening speech, by Phaedrus (a character who comes up in another dialogue on love), celebrates the power of such love, for instance in armies, wherein men will fight more vigorously to protect their beloved. (In Greek culture, the manly Achilles’ love for Patrocles, which is such a theme in Homer’s Iliad, was considered exemplary.)

The second speaker, the rather sleazy Pausanius, makes a case more directly for the nobility of sexual love affairs between older men and young, beautiful adolescent males. In what is arguably special pleading, Pausanius tells the group that

the older man brings to the match his wisdom and his virtue, while the younger nobly seeks to acquire these with a view to his better education.

We don’t need to be convinced. But this is the second speech of seven, and hardly Plato’s final word on love. As shown by the dialogue of Phaedrus, Plato is clearly interested in the elevating capacities of romantic love: the ways that, whether same-sex or heterosexual, it can inspire and elevate people.

In such a view, notably, he is something of an exception among the ancient philosophers, most of whom are decidedly more suspicious about the tendency of romantic love to get people to lose their heads.

For Plato, when human beings fall in love, they can be moved outside of their own egoism, if only to serve their beloved, and then the children the union can bring.

The connection of even sexual love with our responsiveness to beauty shows for Platonists that we are not just animals, without a spiritual dimension. Even the lowliest person is still moved by beauty, and can be inspired by its pursuit to improve themselves.

A different moral message

The big message of the dialogue then is not lasciviousness. When Socrates knocks back Alcibiades’ attempt to seduce him physically, he tells him he would nevertheless be happy to meet with him, to continue discussing virtue and how he can become a better person.

Alcibiades has no interest in this, instead turning from trying to conquer Socrates to trying to conquer the known world. As some readers will know, he soon enough defects to Sparta, seduces its queen and betrays his home city, before defecting to Persia, as related by Thucydides and Xenophon.

If moralists want to find a message in The Symposium, it might be this. The person who can conceive no greater love than them self and their own beauty, is no friend to ordinary standards of civics, or, indeed, good and evil. Läs mer…

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

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

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

Smart devices are everywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will be the ‘minimum’ security standards?

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

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

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

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

You can do your bit to stay safe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The business

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

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

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

‘We’re in an extinction event right now.’

What is Live Nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookers for bands including Amyl and the Sniffers told the ABC they didn’t know what some ticket charges were for.
AAP Image/Luis Ascui

Keeping the shareholders happy

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

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

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

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

Midnight Oil perform First nation with Leah and Liz Flanagan and Tasman Keith at the Enmore Theatre.
AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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