Search

What would – and should – happen to the ABC under the next federal government?

<div class="theconversation-article-body">Who could possibly argue with the idea that the ABC should be efficiently run and produce excellent programs? No one, you would think. So why, then, has there been immediate resistance to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-tells-abc-to-show-excellence-or-face-funding-razor-gang-20250402-p5lofu.html">statement</a> that, if elected next month, a Coalition government would “reward excellence” and “keep funding in place” if the ABC is “being run efficiently”? The fact that Coalition governments – and Dutton himself – have historically been deeply hostile to the public broadcaster is part of it. Many have picked up on the implicit threat that if his government did not find “excellence”, its funding would be cut. But there’s more than that. For example, who defines “excellence” and “efficiency”? Second, the ABC is set up by statute to be run independent of government. Third, the ABC has been subjected to a slew of efficiency reviews, in 1988, 1997, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-15/abc-efficient-under-funded-kpmg-report/8183700">2006</a>, <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/ABC_and_SBS_efficiency_report_Redacted.pdf?acsf_files%20_redirect">2014</a> and <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-national-broadcasters-efficiency-review-redacted.pdf">2018</a>. Overwhelmingly, they found the ABC does more with fewer resources than its counterparts in the commercial media. For example, in 2006, at the behest of the Coalition government led by John Howard, KPMG found the ABC was a “broadly efficient organisation” providing a “high volume of outputs and quality relative to the level of funding it receives”. Let’s translate the consulting-speak. The ABC’s annual budget of $1.2 billion costs $43 per person in Australia. The cheapest subscription to Netflix costs more than twice that amount - $95.88 – and of course the ABC provides much more than a single streaming service. Fourth, Coalition governments’ record of antipathy towards the ABC is most obvious in how they fund it. <hr /> <iframe id="WOgDZ" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: 0;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WOgDZ/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <hr /> As ABC chair Kim Williams said <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/about/media-centre/speeches-and-articles/abc-chair-kim-williams-am-address-to-the-melbourne-press-club/105132866">last week</a>, in real terms the ABC’s funding is $150 million less than it was in 2013 when the coalition last came to power. This is notwithstanding the current Labor government’s restoring of at least some lost funding. Add to this the fear that Dutton is seeking to emulate Donald Trump. Amid the tempest of economic and social measures the US president has brought in since his inauguration in January, his attacks on public and international broadcasting have passed unnoticed by many. By executive order, Trump has <a href="https://mailchi.mp/poynter/president-trumps-latest-press-target-voice-of-america?e=1e851c3327">abolished Voice of America </a>(VOA), which began during the second world war. VOA has provided news to nearly 50 countries, including those that did not have press freedom. Its broadcasts are by statute meant to be accurate and objective. It has been an arm of soft power diplomacy for the US. Trump has also threatened to defund the public broadcasters, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), labelling them “radical left monsters”. The difference between public broadcasting in the US and Australia is that for the former, the government provides only a small percentage of its funding. Most of it comes from donations from citizens, grants from foundations and corporate sponsorship, according to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/03/27/will-trump-defund-npr-and-pbs-heres-what-we-know-as-president-attacks-the-broadcasters/">a recent report</a> in Forbes. PBS and NPR occupy a smaller part of the overall US media landscape than the ABC and SBS in Australia, but NPR’s reporters in particular have been actively, if dispassionately, reporting on the Trump Mark II administration’s tumultuous first few months. Like the VOA, the ABC’s international broadcasting arm is largely invisible to audiences in its host country. This means any cuts could well pass unnoticed, unlike, say, if the ABC said it could no longer afford to air the children’s TV series, Bluey. Through radio, TV, and now online, the ABC has broadcast to Australia’s neighbours since the second world war, initially as an agent to spread democratic value, but in more recent decades to model effective public interest journalism. The ABC, like the BBC, has a charter of independence. The ABC’s work in the international arena, through Radio Australia and ABC Australia, is vital, not only to bolster national security by providing trusted news and information about Australia and its allies, but by working alongside and supporting local Indo-Pacific news organisations. The Albanese Labor government appears to have understood this threat, providing some extra funding for the international services mostly in response to China’s increased presence in the region, as Alexandra Wake argued in her <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-47571-9">2024 book</a> Transnational Broadcasting in the Indo-Pacific. Labor’s funding boost remains inadequate, though, to properly broadcast an Australian voice to the region because, she argued, of increasingly fraught relations between nations, and a complex political and media environment. One of the most pressing priorities now is to extend the Labor government’s Pacific Security and Engagement Initiatives (the original $8 million per year) which is due to end in June 2026. Without this, the ABC will have transmission to the region, but next to no appropriate content. Australia needed to rectify past mistakes by increasing international broadcast funding and protecting that funding from future government cuts. Australia also needed to adopt the long-term thinking that China displayed if it was to counteract China’s strategic ambitions for the region. By closing VOA, Trump and his government efficiency wrecking ball, Elon Musk, have actually left open an opportunity for Australia to lean into the unique strategic advantage granted by Australia’s economic and geographical place in the region. The move to cut US aid supporting journalism extends to smaller outfits such as Benar News Pacific, which recently <a href="https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/philippine/letter-from-editors-benarnews-pauses-operations-04022025104657.html">told its audience</a> it was “pausing operations”. For the past decade, Benar News (and its parent Radio Free Asia) has been reporting across the region on security, politics and human rights. “The US administration has withheld the funding that we rely on to bring our readers and viewers the news from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and island-states and territories in the Pacific,” it said in a letter from the editors. Such local news services may be small but are a vital bulwark in the multi-polar world Trump seeks to shape.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/248117/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-ricketson-3616">Matthew Ricketson</a>, Professor of Communication, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexandra-wake-7472">Alexandra Wake</a>, Associate Professor, Journalism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-ward-421548">Michael Ward</a>, PhD candidate in media and communications, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-and-should-happen-to-the-abc-under-the-next-federal-government-248117">original article</a>. Image: Instagram </div>

Outrage as school allows students to opt out of Anzac Day service

A public primary school in Sydney’s northwest has sparked controversy after allowing students to opt out of its upcoming Anzac Day service. The decision by Sherwood Ridge Public School has drawn criticism from parents, veterans and community leaders, who argue that all students should recognise the sacrifices made by Australia’s service members. Principal Jody Sullivan recently emailed parents, requesting that they inform the school if they did not want their children to attend a commemorative assembly scheduled for April 10. The move was aimed at accommodating a small group of Christian students whose families object to commemorating war due to their religious beliefs. The announcement was met with strong condemnation, particularly from veterans and advocacy groups. Former commando and RSL NSW President Mick Bainbridge responded by <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14557953/Anzac-Day-Sherwood-Ridge.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">telling Daily Mail Australia</a>, “Anzac Day is not a celebration of war; in fact, it commemorates the horrors of war and ensures the sacrifices of those who served and died are never forgotten. Our young people learn about Australia’s proud military past.” Less than a dozen students will be supervised in alternative learning activities while the rest of the school participates in the assembly. Despite the limited scope of the decision, many feel it still sets a troubling precedent. Veteran Advocacy Australia branded the move as “disgusting” and called on NSW Premier Chris Minns to intervene. Former NSW Veterans Affairs Minister David Elliott also criticised the decision, stating, “It really is an insult to the families of the 100,000 who died for this country.” Parents took to social media to express their dismay, with one mother writing, “Honouring and remembering those that have fought and lost their lives to keep us safe has nothing to do with religion.” Another parent argued, “This is not commemorating war; it is remembering those who gave their all to keep this country free.” The NSW Department of Education has since responded, reaffirming its expectation that all public schools commemorate Anzac Day with memorial ceremonies. Secretary Murat Dizdar stated, “Our students are required to learn about the importance of Anzac Day and the sacrifice our servicemen and women made, and continue to make, as part of their regular lessons.” While Sherwood Ridge Public School has acknowledged that its message could have been communicated more selectively, the backlash as the nation prepares to mark the 110th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debate about how Anzac Day should be observed in schools. Images: Supplied

Legal

How women will shoulder the burden of new care reforms

It’s time to put a ‘gender lens’ on the once-in-a-generation reforms to Australia’s aged care system. There are almost <a href="https://www.gen-agedcaredata.gov.au/topics/people-using-aged-care" target="_blank" rel="noopener">double</a> the number of women compared with men in permanent residential care. Women are also more likely to use home care services. And we do the bulk of unpaid caring for ageing parents and grandparents. In fact, almost 70% of women provide primary care, according to the <a href="https://www.carersnsw.org.au/uploads/main/Files/3.Resources/Policy-Research/Carers-NSW_2022_National_Carer_Survey-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Carer Survey</a>. Given these shocking statistics, why is the federal government reducing the quality of care, under its new Support at Home model? This affects women on both sides of the system: as unpaid carers and clients. It’s all to do with pricing. A 10% cap on care management fees will apply from July this year. This means home care service providers may not be able to continue to give older people, who are overwhelmingly women, the level of care they need. “The Aged Care Royal Commission told the sector loudly that Australians expect quality care. The Australian Government went so far to describe what that means in the 2024 Aged Care legislation, so the sector is aghast at the caps on care management, which is critical in supporting vulnerable older people to understand, know and access the support they need to age in place,” Your Side CEO, Danielle Ballantine, says. Capping care management results in the very specialist skills of a care manager being outsourced to family. Inevitably it’s women – especially the sandwich generation – who will shoulder this burden, while trying to hold down jobs and secure their financial future. My sister and I would have been lost without this support when we were caring for Dad in the home, while working full-time and raising our children. Many female carers are forced to cut back their hours of paid work – or leave employment altogether – reducing their earning capacity and financial security. This feeds into the gender pay and superannuation gaps: Women retire with around 25% <a href="https://www.hesta.com.au/stories/bridging-the-gap-for-women-and-super" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less</a> super than men, with many older single women living in extreme poverty. This is undoubtedly an unintended consequence. But it must form part of the federal government’s considerations. “The government is currently consulting with older people, consumer advocates and the sector, with more news on pricing yet to be announced,” Ms Ballantine says. We need women – unpaid carers, aged care workers and clients – to be at the centre of these conversations. Under the proposed changes, most of the services assisting people to be healthy, safe and independent in their later stages of life will be out of <a href="https://www.theweeklysource.com.au/home-care/cut-in-care-management-funding-threatens-high-quality-home-care-say-providers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reach</a>. Based on the capacity to pay, some older people might not be able to afford a care worker to support them to have a shower. When unpaid carers step in, they often become burned out, increasing the risk of skin tears and falls. Without adequate care management oversight, some of these issues can become life threatening. Is this the way we should be treating older women, many of whom have spent their lives caring for others? Closer to home, is this the future we want for ourselves? Image credits: Shutterstock / Supplied Tracey Spicer AM is a multiple Walkley Award-winning journalist, author and passionate advocate for social responsibility issues. She is an Ambassador for the non-profit aged care provider Your Side.

Money & Banking

Government bails out Rex Airlines

The federal government is set to take on Rex Airlines' $50 million debt in order to keep the company, that collapsed on June 30th 2024, servicing regional Australia. Rex has been struggling to stay afloat in the six months since the company entered voluntary administration, with Ernst and Young (EY) appointed administrators, putting a strain on domestic travel to regional areas. Transport Minister Catherine King and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher announced on Thursday that the government would acquire some of Rex's debt to prevent liquidation, which they said would harm regional and remote communities that rely on the carrier. "By acquiring the debt, the government will become the principal secured creditor and will seek to become a voting member of the Committee of Inspection," the ministers said in a joint statement. "Whilst the accelerated initial sale process undertaken by the administrators in mid-2024 did not find a suitable buyer for the airlines' regional operations, the government continues to work closely with the administrators through the extended convening period." "This makes clear the government's ongoing commitment to maintaining access to aviation services for regional and remote communities, and recognises the critical role of the Rex network to local economies." Ernst and Young has a just few months to secure Rex's commercial future after the Federal Court late last year granted an extension of the voluntary administration to June 30th 2025. Image credits: Shutterstock

Domestic Travel

Superannuation is complicated. A guaranteed government income in retirement would be simpler

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644">Brendan Coates</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joey-moloney-1334959">Joey Moloney</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Having compulsory super should help create a comfortable and stress-free retirement. But Australia’s super system is too complex for retirees to navigate. This can leave them stressed and lacking the confidence to spend their super savings. Our latest report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/simpler-s%5Buper/">Simpler super: taking the stress out of retirement</a>, recommends the federal government offer all Australians a lifetime <a href="https://moneysmart.gov.au/retirement-income/annuities">annuity</a> - a financial product that pays a guaranteed income for the rest of their lives. This would help retirees stress less, spend more, and enjoy their retirement years. <h2>Stress prompts many to underspend super</h2> For the first time, many Australians are entering retirement with significant super balances: Australians are retiring with an average super balance of more than A$200,000, and couples with about $300,000. <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/balancing-act/">Despite having saved enough to be comfortable</a>, four in five people say planning for retirement is complicated, and 60% don’t think their retirements will be financially stress-free. Few retirees draw down on their retirement savings as intended. In fact, many are actually net savers – their savings continue to grow for decades after they retire. <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/simpler-super/">Our analysis</a> of the <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/participate-survey/household-survey/survey-income-and-housing">ABS Survey of Income and Housing</a> shows for those aged 60-64 in 2003-04, average super balances had grown by 37% in real terms by the time they were aged 76-80 in 2019-20. And their average net wealth, which excludes the equity in their home, grew by 14% over the same period. Australia’s <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-superannuation-performance-statistics-highlights-september-2024">$4 trillion</a> compulsory superannuation system is turning into a massive inheritance scheme. That’s not how super was supposed to work. <h2>Retirees are given too little guidance</h2> The super system makes most big decisions for working Australians, such as how much to contribute or how it’s invested. But once we retire there is little guidance about how to use our funds. More than four in five retirees are steered into account-based pensions. But partly because they’re anxious not to outlive their savings, this group manages their spending very cautiously. While on average, an Australian woman aged 65 today can expect to live until 88, they also have a one-in-five chance of either dying before age 81 or of making it to 94. Half of those retirees who use an account-based pension draw their super at legislated minimum rates, which if followed, leave 65% of super balances unspent by average life expectancy. This widespread use of account-based pensions makes Australia a global outlier. Retirees in most rich countries are automatically given – or otherwise strongly encouraged to choose – <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/12/pensions-at-a-glance-2023_4757bf20.html">an income guaranteed to last their entire lives</a>. Research suggests having an income that is guaranteed to last until death <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keith-Bender/publication/23647866_What_Makes_Retirees_Happy/links/0046353578c678a403000000/What-Makes-Retirees-Happy.pdf">can reduce stress</a> and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3875802">boost retirees’ spending</a>. <h2>Government could steer retirees into annuities</h2> Our report argues retirees should be encouraged to use 80% of their super balance above $250,000 to purchase an annuity. The government could embed this pre-set guidance throughout the retirement income system. It could be included in all relevant communications with retirees from super funds, and especially at the point of retirement. <a href="https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/publications/default-and-naive-diversification-heuristics-in-annuity-choice">Research shows</a> that retirees tend to choose the option put in front of them. The remaining super balance – $250,000, plus the remaining 20% of any savings above that level – would continue to be drawn down via an account-based pension. Retirees would still have to access their super for large purchases if needed. Using some super to buy an annuity could boost expected retirement incomes by up to 25%, compared to solely drawing on an account-based pension at legislated minimum rates. And it would ensure that the bulk of retirees’ incomes, irrespective of their super balances, would be guaranteed to last the rest of their lives. <hr /> <iframe id="TYMjG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: 0;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/TYMjG/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>Annuities should be provided by government, not super funds</h2> But steering retirees into annuities offered via super funds is unlikely to work. Super funds <a href="https://www.superreview.com.au/news/superannuation/asfa-urges-against-cipr-longevity-component">have resisted</a> previous attempts by government to <a href="https://consult.treasury.gov.au/development-of-the-framework-for-comprehensive-income-products-for-retirement">require them to offer annuities to retirees</a>. Many people also struggle to understand and compare annuities. They often find it difficult to switch to a better deal later even if they can spot one. Recent <a href="https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/market-studies/retirement-income-market-study">experience in the UK</a> showed when required to purchase an annuity, most people simply took what their fund was offering and often got a poor deal. Designing a regulatory regime that overcomes these issues is a huge challenge. The best option, therefore, is for the government to directly offer annuities. It should offer all retirees a simple lifetime annuity as the baseline option. The government could also offer alternatives including investment-linked annuities, where payments are guaranteed for life, but payments could vary based on investment returns. Priced fairly, and managed by an independent agency, a government annuity would encourage there take-up. Retirees would be more confident that they’re getting a good deal. Annuity payments would be made from the pool of capital created by annuity purchases, with these investments managed by the Future Fund. Under reasonable assumptions we project the government annuity provider could be managing assets totalling 2.5% of GDP by 2040. Superannuation offers Australians the promise of a more comfortable and stress-free retirement. Government-offered annuities can help turn that dream into reality. Esther Suckling made substantial contributions to the research underpinning this article.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/247383/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644">Brendan Coates</a>, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joey-moloney-1334959">Joey Moloney</a>, Deputy Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-is-complicated-a-guaranteed-government-income-in-retirement-would-be-simpler-247383">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

NSW Government refunds millions of Covid fines

Millions of dollars in fines dished out for breaches of Covid restrictions in NSW are set to be refunded, while close to 24,000 penalty notices will be officially erased. The announcement of the statewide refund by the NSW Fines Administration Commissioner on Tuesday came after legal advice cast doubt on the legal validity of the penalties handed out during Covid lockdowns. In total, more than $5.5 million will be handed back to those who have made either a full or partial payment towards paying off a Covid fine. Those in line for money, or with outstanding penalties, will be contacted by Revenue NSW within days. “Following representations made to the Commissioner of Police and myself concerning the validity of COVID-19 penalty notices, I have decided to exercise my statutory authority and withdraw these notices,” Fine Administration Commissioner Scott Johnston said. “Revenue NSW will be reaching out to all affected customers to support them through the finalisation of their matters.” At the height of the pandemic, the state government claimed they introduced the public health orders to "protect the community". Some fines have already been withdrawn, as in 2022 the Commissioner withdrew about 36,000 penalty notices tied to Covid-related offences because the information on them “made it difficult” for recipients to understand their offence. The remaining 23,539 penalty notices were believed to have provided a clearer explanation and were not withdrawn, but after further legal advice and consideration, it was considered “appropriate” to withdraw them too. Image credits: Xinhua News Agency/Shutterstock Editorial

Legal

The government wants to keep cash alive for buying essentials. Here’s why it’s such a challenge for businesses

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-worthington-138">Steve Worthington</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Cash usage has <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/jun/cash-use-and-attitudes-in-australia.html">fallen off a cliff</a> 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 <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/stephen-jones-2022/media-releases/ensuring-future-cash-and-next-steps-phasing-out-cheques">Treasury</a>, losing cash as a means of payment would leave too many people behind: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <h2>Why does using cash cost so much?</h2> 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. 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. <h2>Things are getting harder</h2> 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 <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/authorised-deposit-taking-institutions-points-of-presence-statistics">figures</a> 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%. 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 <a href="https://theconversation.com/future-of-cash-secured-for-now-as-banks-and-retailers-bail-out-armaguard-233087">sustained financial pressure</a> 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. Some countries facing similar situations – <a href="https://www.link.co.uk/helping-you-access-cash/banking-hubs">including the UK</a> – 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. <h2>Could a regional branch levy help?</h2> Also this month, Treasury proposed a <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/banks-face-new-levy-to-keep-rural-branches-open-20241115-p5kqwu">new regional services levy</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/communications-and-the-arts/australian-postal-corporation/australia-post-annual-report-2022-23/other-important-information/community-service-obligations">Australia Post</a>, banks should have a formal community service obligation. That is, a baseline of minimum services that must be provided. <h2>Questions still to answer</h2> In its <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/ensuring-future-cash-and-next-steps-phasing-out-cheques">media release</a>, 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.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/243919/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-worthington-138">Steve Worthington</a>, Adjunct Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-keep-cash-alive-for-buying-essentials-heres-why-its-such-a-challenge-for-businesses-243919">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

"Disgraceful": Government red tape causes funeral to be cancelled

A local council has cancelled a funeral just 24 hours before it was set to take place due to government red tape. Ever since Shellharbour local Judy passed away, her brother Ron had been working hard to give her a decent send off. However, less than one day before her planned funeral, the Shellharbour Council cancelled the service over an unpaid burial fee. Ron had been liaising with two government agencies to get payment to council for the burial, which <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/sydney-council-cancels-funeral-after-government-fails-to-pay-burial-fee-on-time/60cfa883-6a45-4ff7-badd-1a2e4c52b6aa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a> said was a matter of one government organisation waiting for a simple sign off from another government agency. Confirmation of the payment came through just one day after the funeral should have gone ahead. Ron was left heartbroken over the cancellation and said the council was "very disrespectful" in their dealings, and said he is owed an apology. "Disgraceful in fact. Low-life mongrels to do that to any family in this sort of situation," Ron told ACA. He says the most devastating part was calling family one by one, including Judy's intellectually disabled son, to deliver the news, as he recalled, "He was in tears. I had to get his support worker over just to calm him down." Shellharbour City Council told A Current Affair via email it was "unable to grant interment rights which are legally required before a burial because the fee hadn't been paid". They went on to say in a statement, "Shellharbour City Council acknowledges the complexity of the burial process and apologises for the hurt the family has experienced." Image credits: A Current Affair

Legal

"People are losing faith": Nat Barr takes aim at Albanese government

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended his record on economic management as the Labor party's primary vote continues to slip in the polls against Peter Dutton ahead of next year's election. This week's Newspoll shows that Labor's primary vote has slumped to 31 per cent, the lowest it has been since the 2022 election, while the Coalition remains steady at 38 per cent. On Thursday, Sunrise host Nat Barr told the Prime Minister that while on her way to the studio she had spoken to a Labor-voting taxi driver who said he was "losing faith" in Albanese's leadership, as things were "too expensive". “This is your biggest problem, people like this cabby are losing faith. How do you respond to that?” Barr asked Albanese. Albanese defended his choices by pointing out that ABS figures released on Wednesday showed annual inflation rates at 2.7 per cent in August, down from 3.5 per cent in July, and the lowest it has been since August 2021. “Cost-of-living pressures are real, but that’s why we have engaged with responsible economic management in order to bring inflation down whilst we have been delivering cost-of-living relief,” he said. “Yesterday’s figures show the headline inflation is down from 3.5 to 2.7 (per cent), it is a good outcome. “There’s more work to be done, but we’ve done that whilst we have delivered a tax cut for that cabby who would have got nothing under the previous scheme.” Albanese added that energy bill relief, cheaper childcare, and fee-free TAFE places were also making a difference to cost-of-living pressures. However, Barr hit back and said that the cost-of-living measures such as the energy rebate were “artificial” as the rebate would end. “The RBA has said, this does not mean that inflation is under control. The power rebate is going to end and that’s keeping it at one level at the moment, that’s why they look at underlying inflation — they take out volatile stuff,” Barr said. “So, what do you say about inflation still being at this level?” she asked. “What I say is if you exclude volatile, the figures released yesterday, which are known as month-by-month, but they’re year-to-year … that figure is down from 3.7 down to 3 (per cent). That’s a remarkable drop,” Albanese responded. “The Reserve Bank Australia’s target band is 2 to 3 (per cent). Every single one of the figures yesterday that were released, whether it was headline, excluding volatile, mean, all of them saw significant drops in inflation. “Inflation is half what we inherited and one-third of where it peaked …That is in part because of the back-to-back budget surpluses that we have delivered that in part is, yes, energy bill relief, but also what we’ve done in cheaper childcare, fee-free TAFE, the deliberate policy design to help people whilst putting that downward pressure on inflation,” he said. Image: Sunrise

What the government’s home care changes mean for ageing Australians

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tracy-comans-696663">Tracy Comans</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/frances-batchelor-2209350">Frances Batchelor</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> The Albanese government has this week announced it will introduce one of the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-anika-wells-mp/media/once-in-a-generation-aged-care-reforms">largest reforms</a> to Australia’s aged-care sector to date. The package includes a A$4.3 billion investment in home care, now called “<a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/support-at-home">Support at Home</a>”, to come into effect from July 2025. This reflects both the desire of many people to remain living at home as they age, and the government’s desire to reduce the costs of residential aged care. So what changes is the government making to home care packages? And what will these changes mean for ageing Australians? <h2>Reducing waiting times</h2> One of the major complaints about the current home care system is the long waiting times. Estimates suggest there’s a <a href="https://www.gen-agedcaredata.gov.au/getmedia/447b425c-63d6-4b96-a1fc-4dac805066ba/Home-Care-Packages-Program-data-report-1-January-%E2%80%93-31-March-2024">6–to-12-month wait</a> for the higher level 3 and 4 home care packages. For people with the highest needs, this is far too long. As of March this year, around <a href="https://www.gen-agedcaredata.gov.au/getmedia/447b425c-63d6-4b96-a1fc-4dac805066ba/Home-Care-Packages-Program-data-report-1-January-%E2%80%93-31-March-2024">45,000 people</a> were waiting for any level of home care. An additional 14,000 were already receiving a package, but on a lower level of home care than they were entitled to. With additional funding, the new system will <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-anika-wells-mp/media/once-in-a-generation-aged-care-reforms">support more participants</a>. It aims to shorten wait times to <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/support-at-home-fact-sheet.pdf">an average of three months</a> from July 2027. <h2>Changes to services</h2> The new system will replace the current four levels of home care packages with <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-anika-wells-mp/media/once-in-a-generation-aged-care-reforms">eight classifications</a> of funding for services. When participants are assessed, they will be assigned the most suitable category. There’s currently very limited information on what these classifications are, but the idea is they will provide more targeted services. A number of short-term supports will also be available. These include assistive technology (such as mobility aids) and home modifications. Some people will be able to access 12 weeks of restorative care – a more intensive program designed to build function after injury or illness – as well as palliative care support. The way different types of services are subsidised is also changing. Previously, the same means-tested co-contribution applied regardless of the type of service. Under the new system, services are categorised into clinical care (for example, physiotherapy or wound care), independence (such as help with bathing or cooking) and everyday living (for example, gardening or home maintenance). The new reforms fully subsidise clinical services regardless of income, whereas independence and everyday living services will attract co-contributions based on means testing. For example, <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/case-studies-support-at-home.pdf">a self-funded retiree</a> would pay nothing out of pocket for physiotherapy, but would pay 50% for help with showering and 80% towards gardening costs. A full pensioner would also pay nothing for physiotherapy, but pay 5% for help with showering and 17.5% of the cost of gardening. This is a positive change. Our research has previously highlighted a tendency for people with home care packages to choose everyday living services <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2023/4157055">such as gardening</a> and cleaning and refuse clinical care such as allied health and nursing as these types of services were more expensive. These changes should make older people more likely to choose allied health and clinical care services, which will help them maintain their function and stay fitter for longer. <h2>Some challenges</h2> For the government’s reforms to deliver faster and better support at home, a number of issues need to be addressed. As people stay at home for longer, we also see that these <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/5/afad058/7147101">people are frailer</a> and have more health conditions than in the past. This requires a different and more highly skilled home care workforce. The current <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/10/2020-aged-care-workforce-census.pdf">home care workforce</a> consists largely of personal care and domestic support workers alongside a much smaller skilled workforce of registered nurses and allied health professionals. But with the changing profile of people receiving care at home, there will need to be a greater focus on maintaining functional capacity. This might mean more allied health input will be required, such as from physiotherapists and occupational therapists. It’s difficult to source an appropriately skilled workforce across the sector, and almost impossible in <a href="https://www.ruralhealth.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/fact-sheet-allied-health.pdf">rural and remote areas</a>. Alternative models, such as training personal care workers to act as allied health assistants, and effectively using technology such as telehealth, will be necessary to meet demand without compromising on quality of care. One example of the need for upskilling in specific areas relates to caring for people with dementia. The majority of people who are living with dementia at home receive care from family carers, supported by home care workers. It’s vital that these care workers have adequate knowledge and skills specific to dementia. However, research has shown the home care workforce may <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31646701/">lack the knowledge and skills</a> to provide best-practice care for people living with dementia. Specialised <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gps.6140">dementia training</a> for home care workers is effective in improving knowledge, attitudes and sense of competence in providing care. It should be rolled out across the sector. <h2>What about unpaid care at home?</h2> Unpaid carers, such as family members, provide <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/draft-national-strategy-care-and-support-economy/goal-1-quality-care-and-support/support-for-informal-carers">significant amounts of care</a> for older people. The value of this unpaid care is estimated to be in the billions. As older people stay at home for longer, this is set to increase even further. However, carers with high care burdens are particularly vulnerable to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827316300283#s0025">poor physical and mental health</a>. Without adequate support, we may find extra caring pressures lead to a breakdown in caring relationships and an increase in other health-care costs for both the carer and care recipient. So we need to ensure carers have adequate financial, psychological and practical support. But the currently available detail on the reforms doesn’t indicate this has been adequately addressed. With careful implementation and ongoing evaluation, these reforms have the potential to significantly enhance the home care system. However, their success will depend on addressing workforce challenges, ensuring adequate support for unpaid carers, and maintaining a focus on the holistic needs of older Australians. More information about Support at Home is <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/support-at-home/about">available online</a>.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/238890/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tracy-comans-696663">Tracy Comans</a>, Executive Director, National Ageing Research Institute; Professor, Centre for Health Services Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/frances-batchelor-2209350">Frances Batchelor</a>, Director Clinical Gerontology & Senior Principal Research Fellow, National Ageing Research Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-governments-home-care-changes-mean-for-ageing-australians-238890">original article</a>. </div>

Legal

Even after the government’s aviation crackdown, Australia will lag behind on flyers’ rights

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-douglas-2932">Ian Douglas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> When it comes to consumer protections for airline passengers, Australia has long been dragging its feet. The limited protections we do have rely heavily on the general <a href="https://consumer.gov.au/index.php/australian-consumer-law">Australian Consumer Law</a>. The “consumer guarantees” provided in this law only require services to be delivered in the arguably vague framework of a “reasonable time”. That might be okay if we’re just getting a sofa delivered from a furniture retailer. The cost of a late delivery is low. But these guarantees were not tailored to the unique impacts delayed or cancelled flights can have on travellers. Australia’s lack of aviation-specific protections has long been a severe <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20Report.pdf">pain point</a> for flyers, only heightened by pandemic disruption. The government’s much-awaited <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-white-paper">Aviation White Paper</a>, released in full on Monday, promised to address this issue. At the heart of the reforms, Australia will get a new aviation ombud scheme, and a new charter of customer rights for passengers. The recognition that new protections are needed is a step in the right direction. But this once-in-a-generation white paper missed the chance to achieve far more, by moving Australia to the style of consumer protection that have now been offered for 20 years in <a href="https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/ec-regulation-261-2004/">Europe</a>. <h2>Why is air travel unique?</h2> Airline customers have a reasonable expectation of arriving at their destination, at (or close to) the time published by the airline in its schedule at the time the reservation was paid and ticketed. If this can’t be achieved, they should at least arrive at some amended time that was advised far enough in advance to allow related reservations and bookings to be adjusted. Air travel has to be punctual because it doesn’t have any substitutes. On even a modest deadline, driving from Perth or even Sydney to Melbourne, for example, is not a comparable option. And a passenger’s options to adapt their travel plans diminish as the departure date approaches. In the final days before travel, hotel cancellation deadlines pass and alternative connecting flight options sell out or spike in price. In some cases, travelling to a specific event can become pointless for a passenger if a delay is lengthy enough. <h2>Australia is playing catch-up</h2> In contrast with Australia, aviation-specific protections have long existed in many other developed economies. In the European Union (EU), for example, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al24173">regulations</a> make clear that airlines have specific obligations and responsibilities in the event of delays, cancellations and denied boardings. This includes the <a href="https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/ec-regulation-261-2004/">right to compensation</a> of up to €600 (A$988). These protections and the levels of compensation payable for failure to meet specified requirements for different kinds of flights are comprehensively legislated. Canada has a <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-150/index.html">slightly different approach</a> – smaller regional carriers have different obligations to mainline operators. But as with the European regulation, it imposes an obligation to get the passenger to the ticketed destination, or to refund the ticket if the journey has become pointless. The absence of such legislated protections in Australia means we typically have to rely on the goodwill of the airline when things go wrong. <h2>Real action has been delayed</h2> The centrepiece proposal of the <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-white-paper">white paper</a> is to create a new ombud scheme with “the power to direct airlines and airports to provide remedies to consumers and investigate customer complaints about airlines’ and airports’ conduct”. This will replace the existing <a href="https://www.airlinecustomeradvocate.com.au/General/Default.aspx">Airline Customer Advocate</a>. A new charter of customer rights, to be produced by the scheme, will aim to give flyers “greater certainty about what they can expect when flights are cancelled and delayed” and require airlines to be more transparent about their performance. The white paper noted the poor on-time performance of Australian carriers. It also pointed out that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20Report.pdf">identified</a> problems with consumer protections for air travel in Australia as far back as 2017. But its proposals offer no real quantifiable or enforceable improvements to consumer rights. Despite the well-established models in comparable countries – many of which have <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-australia-had-an-aviation-ombudsman-passengers-could-get-compensation-for-cancelled-flights-235679">followed the EU’s lead</a> – Australians will need to wait for yet another discussion process to be complete before they see what protections may eventually be introduced. The government’s white paper has largely just kicked the can down the road. At a minimum, passengers on Australian carriers deserve the assurances given to those travelling in and from Europe: in the event of a cancellation or long delay, that they will be transported to their destination on an alternative flight as quickly as possible. They should also be given appropriate meals and accommodation until they can make this onward journey, receive compensation for lengthy delays, and have the option to return home with a full refund if their travel has become pointless.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237469/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-douglas-2932">Ian Douglas</a>, Honorary Senior Lecturer, UNSW Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/even-after-the-governments-aviation-crackdown-australia-will-lag-behind-on-flyers-rights-237469">original article</a>. </div>

Domestic Travel

With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-clift-715691">Brendan Clift</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Western Australia Senator Linda Reynolds is already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/aug/19/linda-reynolds-brittany-higgins-defamation-trial-fiona-brown-ntwnfb">embroiled</a> in a bruising defamation fight against her former staffer Brittany Higgins. Now, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is reportedly <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/peter-dutton-to-seek-legal-advice-after-zali-steggall-called-him-racist/video/9ce7c850f30fb1bd324831f2ec2f21b5">considering suing</a> independent MP Zali Steggall after <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/steggall-brands-dutton-a-bully-amid-spectre-of-legal-action-20240819-p5k3ez.html">she told him</a> to “stop being racist”. It has become impossible to miss the fact that our political class – including some who invoke freedom of speech while disparaging others – is remarkably keen on defamation litigation in response to actual or perceived slights. It’s rarely a good look when the powerful sue the less powerful. It is an especially bad look for a democracy when politicians, who enjoy not just power but privileged access to communication platforms, pursue legal avenues likely to bankrupt all but the best-resourced defendants. <h2>The freedom to speak one’s mind</h2> <a href="https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy-Index-2023-Final-report.pdf">Flawed democracies</a> such as Singapore are rightly <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-5467-4_4">condemned</a> for leveraging defamation law and compliant courts against political dissent. While Australia’s situation is less problematic, our defamation laws historically favour reputation over freedom of speech. An oft-cited case in contrast is the United States, where politicians and other public figures can succeed in defamation only if they prove the publisher knew they were communicating a falsehood, or were reckless (careless to a very high degree) as to the truth. Statements of opinion – for instance, that Donald Trump is racist – are practically never in violation of the law. In the words of the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/252/">US Supreme Court</a>: <blockquote> it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. </blockquote> The US approach is based on the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/">classical liberal idea</a> that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones”: speech should generally be free, and public debate in the marketplace of ideas will sort out right and wrong. <h2>Putting conditions on free speech</h2> The argument for free speech without guardrails may be losing traction in a post-truth world. Many modern audiences, willingly or not, occupy echo chambers and filter bubbles in which biases are reinforced rather than challenged. It is almost as if the High Court of Australia foresaw this in <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/25.html">a 1997 defamation case</a> where it held that Australia’s Constitution did not require total freedom of political communication. Reasonable limits were appropriate because widespread irresponsible political communication could damage the political fabric of the nation. Although the High Court reached its conclusion via <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/SydLawRw/2005/2.html">textual interpretation</a> of the Constitution rather than deeper philosophical musings, the court’s position reflects modern preoccupations with how speech should be regulated in a democracy. But the political appetite for defamation litigation in this country suggests the law has not yet struck the right balance. <h2>The point of defamation law</h2> <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/business-owner-can-t-sue-over-one-star-google-review-judge-rules-20230124-p5cf05.html">Recent reforms</a> to defamation law have tried to eliminate frivolous lawsuits by introducing a threshold requirement of serious harm to reputation. A better approach may have been to presume that all defamation is trivial. Unlike other civil wrongs, which often result in physical injury or property damage, defamation’s effect on a person’s reputation is intangible. Unfairly tarnished reputations can usually be repaired by a public apology and correction, perhaps aided by nominal compensation for hurt feelings and to deter further defamation. It is therefore a mystery why courts and legislatures have allowed defamation proceedings to become some of the most complex and expensive civil claims around, and why damages are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48379980">so large</a>. A high-profile case can easily generate <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/24/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-trial-legal-costs-channel-10-brittany-higgins-rape-allegation-ntwnfb">millions of dollars</a> in legal costs on both sides, dwarfing the final award which might itself run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Taiwan offers a useful contrast. There, although politicians can sue for defamation, proceedings are relatively simple and damages are <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2668444">much smaller</a> – one might say proportionate to the harm done. Under both approaches, the successful litigant, whether it be the publisher or the person whose reputation has suffered, is vindicated. Surely that is the point. Where only the wealthy can afford to assert their rights, and where vindication of reputation takes a back seat to airing grievances, punishing opponents and enriching lawyers, defamation law is in a state of dysfunction. <h2>Should pollies sue?</h2> It’s sometimes said that politicians should not be able to sue for defamation at all because they themselves can say what they like under the protection of <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/house_of_representatives/powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_infosheets/infosheet_5_-_parliamentary_privilege#:%7E:text=What%20is%20parliamentary%20privilege%3F,the%20law%20of%20the%20Commonwealth.">parliamentary privilege</a>, immune from defamation and other speech laws. Parliamentarians do enjoy that protection, but its personal benefit is secondary. Parliamentary privilege, like courtroom privilege, exists because the nature of democratic (and judicial) deliberation requires that anything can be said. If a politician steps outside parliament and repeats a defamatory statement first made within its walls, they are vulnerable to being sued. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-03/sarah-hanson-young-david-leyonhjelm-defamation-appeal/13210042">David Leyonhjelm</a> learned this the hard way, and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/steggall-brands-dutton-a-bully-amid-spectre-of-legal-action-20240819-p5k3ez.html">Steggall</a> may, too. It’s reasonable that politicians should also have rights of action in defamation. But those rights must be constrained according to what is appropriate in a democratic society. A way to better align defamation law with democratic expectations may be to return cases to the state courts and reinstate juries to a prominent role. Currently, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-death-of-juries-and-the-rise-of-blockbuster-federal-court-defamation-trials-20240125-p5ezyv.html">overwhelming majority</a> of cases are brought in the Federal Court, where they are decided by a judge sitting alone. If a public figure claims their reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the community, we should test that factual claim with members of that community under the legal guidance of a judge. That might make for a welcome injection of common sense.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237026/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-clift-715691">Brendan Clift</a>, Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Instagram This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-more-lawsuits-potentially-looming-should-politicians-be-allowed-to-sue-for-defamation-237026">original article</a>. </div>

Legal

Government launches new campaign to tackle elder abuse

The federal government has launched a new campaign to tackle elder abuse. According to the National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study, one in six older Australians experienced abuse last year, with 61 per cent of victims not seeking for help or advice. The Albanese government will spend $4.8 million on the campaign which includes a series of commercials. Council on the Ageing Australia chief executive Patricia Sparrow said the organisation believed cases were under reported. "That's why we think it's incredibly important to raise this awareness," Sparrow said. "It mostly comes from someone they know, which makes it very difficult for older people to report it or know what to do." Labor senator Jenny McAllister told Sky News: "This is something that the community needs to start thinking about. It's a scourge. "We need to eliminate it and the right place to start is with conversations with people we know and care about." "If you're feeling a little uncertain, if you think something is wrong and you're an older Australian you should speak up about it," she added. With an ageing population, it's important to raise awareness that elder abuse is not just physical violence, but emotional, financial and psychological abuse too. The commercials will run on TV, online and at medical clinics from July 28 and they aim to encourage older people to open up about the poor treatment they receive, including from their children and grandchildren. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus will formally announce the campaign at the National Elder Abuse Conference in Adelaide on Monday. He said that elder abuse was a shameful and often hidden form of cruelty and mistreatment. "It is ugly, it is unacceptable and it must be eliminated," he said. "It is critical that we continue to work together as a community to promote the rights and safety of older people, and ensure that everyone is able to age with dignity and respect." Images: Nine

Legal

Australians lose $5,200 a minute to scammers. There’s a simple thing the government could do to reduce this. Why won’t they?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> What if the government was doing everything it could to stop thieves making off with our money, except the one thing that could really work? That’s how it looks when it comes to <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams">scams</a>, which are attempts to trick us out of our funds, usually by getting us to hand over our identities or bank details or transfer funds. Last year we lost an astonishing <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/scam-losses-decline-but-more-work-to-do-as-australians-lose-27-billion">A$2.74 billion</a> to scammers. That’s more than $5,200 per minute – and that’s only the scams we know about from the 601,000 Australians who made reports. Many more would have kept quiet. If the theft of $5,200 per minute seems over the odds for a country Australia’s size, a comparison with the United Kingdom suggests you are right. In 2022, people in the UK lost <a href="https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/system/files/2023-05/Annual%20Fraud%20Report%202023_0.pdf">£2,300</a> per minute, which is about A$4,400. The UK has two and a half times Australia’s population. It’s as if international scammers, using SMS, phone calls, fake invoices and fake web addresses are targeting Australia, because in other places it’s harder. If we want to cut Australians’ losses, it’s time to look at rules about to come into force in the UK. <h2>Scams up 320% since 2020</h2> The current federal government is doing a lot – almost everything it could. Within a year of taking office, it set up the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/national-anti-scam-centre">National Anti-Scam Centre</a>, which coordinates intelligence. Just this week, the centre reported that figure of $2.74 billion, which is down 13% on 2022, but up 50% on 2021 and 320% on 2020. It’s planning “<a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2023-464732">mandatory industry codes</a>” for banks, telecommunication providers and digital platforms. But the code it is proposing for banks, set out in a <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/c2023-464732-cp.pdf">consultation paper</a> late last year, is weak when compared to overseas. <h2>Banks are the gatekeepers</h2> Banks matter, because they are nearly always the means by which the money is transferred. Cryptocurrency is now much less used after the banks agreed to limit payments to high risk exchanges. Here’s an example of the role played by banks. A woman the Consumer Action Law Centre is calling <a href="https://consumeraction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Joint-submission-CALC-CHOICE-ACCAN-31012024-Scams-Mandatory-code-treasury-consultA.pdf">Amelia</a> tried to sell a breast pump on Gumtree. The buyer asked for her bank card number and a one-time PIN and used the code to whisk out $9,100, which was sent overseas. The bank wouldn’t help because she had provided the one-time PIN. Here’s another. A woman the Competition and Consumer Commission is calling <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Targeting%20scams%202022.pdf">Niamh</a> was contacted by someone using the National Australia Bank’s SMS ID. Niamh was told her account was compromised and talked through how to transfer $300,000 to a “secure” account. After she had done it, the scammer told her it was a scam, laughed and said “we are in Brisbane, come find me”. <h2>How bank rules protect scammers</h2> And one more example. Former University of Melbourne academic <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377766055_Scams_Blaming_the_Victims">Kim Sawyer</a> (that’s his real name, he is prepared to go public) clicked on an ad for “St George Capital” displaying the dragon logo of St. George Bank. He was called back by a man using the name of a real St. George employee, who persuaded him to transfer funds from accounts at the AMP, Citibank and Macquarie to accounts he was told would be in his and his wife’s name at Westpac, ANZ, the Commonwealth and Bendigo Banks. They lost <a href="https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/i-lost-2-5m-of-my-super-to-scammers-20240423-p5flzp">$2.5 million</a>. Sawyer says none of the banks – those that sent the funds or those that received them – would help him. Some cited “<a href="https://www.choice.com.au/money/financial-planning-and-investing/stock-market-investing/articles/st-george-capital-investment-scam">privacy</a>” reasons. The Consumer Action Law Centre says the banks that transfer the scammed funds routinely tell their customers “it’s nothing to do with us, you transferred the money, we can’t help you”. The banks receiving the funds routinely say “you’re not our customer, we can’t help you”. That’s here. Not in the UK. <h2>UK bank customers get a better deal</h2> In Australia in 2022, only <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mbhoz0pc/rep761-published-20-april-2023.pdf">13%</a> of attempted scam payments were stopped by banks before they took place. Once scammed, only 2% to 5% of losses (depending on the bank) were reimbursed or compensated. In <a href="https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/app-fraud-performance-data/">the UK</a>, the top four banks pay out 49% to 73%. And they are about to pay out much more. From October 2024, reimbursement will be compulsory. Where authorised fast payments are made “because of deception by fraudsters”, the banks will have to reimburse <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/investigation-fraud-and-risk/app-fraud-uk">the lot</a>. Normally the bills will be split <a href="https://www.psr.org.uk/news-and-updates/latest-news/news/psr-confirms-new-requirements-for-app-fraud-reimbursement/">50:50</a> between the bank transferring the funds and the bank receiving them. Unless there’s a need for further investigations, the payments must be made within five days. The <a href="https://www.psr.org.uk/media/as3a0xan/sr1-consumer-standard-of-caution-guidance-dec-2023.pdf">only exceptions</a> are where the consumer seeking reimbursement has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. The idea behind the change – pushed through by the Conservative government now led by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – is that if scams are the banks’ problem, if they are costing them millions at a time, they’ll stop them. <a href="https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350197309/banks-given-fraud-ultimatum">New Zealand</a> is looking at doing the same thing, <a href="https://www.biocatch.com/blog/mas-shared-responsibility-fraud-losses">as is Singapore</a>. But here, the treasury’s discussion paper on its mandatory codes mentions reimbursement <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/c2023-464732-cp.pdf">only once</a>. That’s when it talks about what’s happening in the UK. Neither treasury nor the relevant federal minister is proposing it here. <h2>Australia’s approach is softer</h2> Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones is in charge of Australia’s rules. Asked why he wasn’t pushing for compulsory reimbursement here, Jones said on Monday <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/stephen-jones-2022/transcripts/interview-mark-gibson-abc-perth">prevention was better</a>. <blockquote> I think a simplistic approach of just saying, ‘Oh, well, if any loss, if anyone incurs a loss, then the bank always pay’, won’t work. It’ll just make Australia a honeypot for these international crime gangs, because they’ll say, well, ‘Let’s, you know, focus all of our activity on Australia because it’s a victimless crime if banks always pay’. </blockquote> Telling banks to pay would certainly focus the minds of the banks, in the way they are about to be focused in the UK. The <a href="https://www.ausbanking.org.au/submissions/">Australian Banking Association</a> hasn’t published its submission to the treasury review, but the <a href="https://consumeraction.org.au/scams-mandatory-industry-codes-consultation-paper/">Consumer Action Law Centre</a> has. It says if banks had to reimburse money lost, they’d have more of a reason to keep it safe. In the UK, they are about to find out. If Jones is right, it might be about to become a honeypot for scammers. If he is wrong, his government will leave Australia even further behind when it comes to scams – leaving us thousands more dollars behind per day.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228867/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-lose-5-200-a-minute-to-scammers-theres-a-simple-thing-the-government-could-do-to-reduce-this-why-wont-they-228867">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

New guidelines for school canteens in South Australia have sparked outrage for "taking all the enjoyment away from children". Sprinkles of any kind, including 100s and 1000s - which are an essential ingredient for the iconic fairy bread - have been categorised as “red 2", meaning that they “should not be promoted or encouraged in schools on any occasion”. The ban comes after processed meats including ham would be limited at canteens in Western Australia, with similar restrictions now in place for South Australian canteens. Processed meats fall into the “red 1” or “amber” categories in South Australia, which means that products featuring them would be limited depending on nutritional criteria. These restrictions mean that children will no longer be able to regularly enjoy Australian staples like ham and cheese toasties and fairy bread at school. “Why are they taking all the enjoyment away from children?” one person told 7News. Dieticians have also questioned the decision, saying that it might only cause further problems in the future. “All your brain wants to do is eat that food, and eventually, you can restrict it for a little bit, until you get to that point where you just give in, you want to eat it, and then you binge,” dietitian Mattea Palombo said. Another expert suggested changing the foods we associate with good times. “Celebration foods aren’t so much about the foods that we have at the time of the celebration, but the friends and family we have around at the time of celebrating,” dietitian Dr Evangeline Mantzioris said. “So I think we probably need to balance it out a bit, so healthy foods are available at those celebrations.” Although the changes impact canteens, parents are still free to pack whatever they want in their kids' lunchboxes. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> The winners and losers from the Albanese government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/tax-cuts-government-fact-sheet.pdf">rejig</a> of this year’s Stage 3 tax cuts have already been well documented. From July 1 every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Most, the 11 million taxpayers earning up to A$146,486, will also pay less tax than they would have under the earlier version of Stage 3, some getting a tax cut <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-tax-plan-will-give-average-earner-1500-tax-cut-more-than-double-morrisons-stage-3-221875">twice as big</a>. A much smaller number, 1.8 million, will get a smaller tax cut than they would have under the original scheme, although their cuts will still be big. The highest earners will get cuts of $4,529 instead of $9,075. But many of us live in households where income is shared and many households don’t pay tax because the people in them don’t earn enough or are on benefits. The Australian National University’s <a href="https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/policymod">PolicyMod</a> model is able to work out the impacts at the household level, including the impact on households in which members are on benefits or don’t earn enough to pay tax. <h2>More winners than losers in every broad income group</h2> We’ve divided Australian households into five equal-size groups ranked by income, from lowest to lower-middle to middle to upper-middle to high. Our modelling finds that, just as is the case for individuals, many more households will be better off with the changes to Stage 3 than would have been better off with Stage 3 as it was, although the difference isn’t as extreme. Overall, 58% of households will be better off with the reworked Stage 3 than they would have under the original and 11% will be worse off. Importantly, there remain 31% who will be neither better off nor worse off, because they don’t pay personal income tax. <hr /> <iframe id="0CWXE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0CWXE/4/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> But it is different for different types of households. In the lowest-earning fifth of households, far more are better off (13.5%) than worse off (0.2%) with the overwhelming bulk neither better nor worse off (86.3%). <hr /> <iframe id="KC5zy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KC5zy/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> In the highest-earning fifth of households, while more than half are better off (54.4%), a very substantial proportion are worse off (42.3%). Very few (only 3.1%) are neither better nor worse off. <hr /> <iframe id="WSkSL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WSkSL/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>But high-earning households go backwards on average</h2> In dollar terms, the top-earning fifth of households loses money while every group gains. That’s because although there are more winners than losers among the highest-earning fifth of households, the losers lose more money. The biggest dollar gains go to middle and upper-middle income households with middle-income households ahead, on average, by $988 per year and upper-middle income households by $1,102. The highest-income households are worse off by an average of $837 per year. As a percentage of income, middle-income households gain the most with a 1% increase in disposable income. Lowest income households gain very little, while the highest-income households go backwards by 0.3%. <hr /> <iframe id="kAPmC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kAPmC/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>The rejig does a better job of fighting bracket creep</h2> And we’ve found something else. The original version of the Stage 3 tax cuts was advertised as a measure to overcome <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2-main-arguments-against-redesigning-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-wrong-heres-why-221975">bracket creep</a>, which is what happens when a greater proportion of taxpayers’ income gets pushed into higher tax brackets as incomes climb. We have found it wouldn’t have done it for most of the income groups, leaving all but the highest-earning group paying more tax after the change in mid-2024 than it used to in 2018. The rejigged version of Stage 3 should compensate for bracket creep better, leaving the top two groups paying less than they did in 2018 and compensating the bottom three better than the original Stage 3. <hr /> <iframe id="YG0cT" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YG0cT/1/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Not too much should be made of the increase in tax rates in the lowest income group between 2018 ad 2024 because some of it reflects stronger income growth. We find that overall, the redesigned Stage 3 does a better job of offsetting bracket creep than the original. It is also better targeted to middle and upper-middle income households. Having said that, the average benefit in dollar terms isn’t big. At about $1,000 per year for middle and upper-middle income households and costing the budget about what the original Stage 3 tax cuts would have cost, its inflationary impact compared to the original looks modest.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221851/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stage-3-stacks-up-the-rejigged-tax-cuts-help-fight-bracket-creep-and-boost-middle-and-upper-middle-households-221851">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Storytelling allows elders to transfer values and meaning to younger generations

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mary-ann-mccoll-704728">Mary Ann McColl</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queens-university-ontario-1154">Queen's University, Ontario</a> If you spent time over the holidays with elderly relatives or friends, you may have heard many of the same stories repeated — perhaps stories you’d heard over the years, or even over the past few hours. Repeated storytelling can sometimes be unnerving for friends and families, raising concerns about a loved one’s potential cognitive decline, memory loss or perhaps even the onset of dementia. <a href="https://tenstories.ca/">Our research</a> at Queen’s University suggests there is another way to think about repeated storytelling that makes it easier to listen and engage with the stories. We interviewed 20 middle-aged adults who felt they had heard the same stories over and over from their aging parent. We asked them to tell us those stories and we recorded and transcribed them. We used a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/14439881211248356">narrative inquiry approach</a> to discover that repeated storytelling is a key method for elders to communicate what they believe to be important to their children and loved ones. Narrative inquiry uses the text of stories as research data to explore how people create meaning in their lives. <h2>Transmitting values</h2> Based on nearly 200 collected stories, we found that there are approximately <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13121">10 stories</a> that older parents repeatedly tell to their adult children. The hypothesis was that repeated storytelling was about inter-generational transmission of values. By exploring the themes of those repeated stories, we could uncover the meaning and messages elders were communicating to their loved ones. The ultimate purpose was to offer a new and more constructive way of thinking about stories that we’ve heard many times before, and that can be otherwise perceived as alarming. <h2>Here’s what we have learned:</h2> <ol> <li> There are typically just 10 stories that people tell repeatedly. While 10 is not a magic number, it does seem to be about the right number to capture the stories that are told over and over. Interviewees felt that a set of approximately 10 allowed them to do justice to their parent’s stories. </li> <li> Among our interviewees, a significant number of their parents’ stories – 87 per cent — took place when they were in their teens or twenties. A person’s second and third decades are a time when they make many of the decisions that shape the rest of their lives; a time when values are consolidated and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.863358">adult identity is formed</a> </li> <li> What’s important about the 10 stories is not the factual details, but the lesson that was learned, or the value that was reinforced — values like loyalty toward friends, putting family first, maintaining a sense of humour even in hard times, getting an education, speaking up against injustice, and doing what’s right. </li> <li> Key themes in the stories reflected the significant events and prevailing values of the early to mid-20th century. Many of the stories revolved around the war, and both domestic and overseas experiences that were formative. Many of our interviewees heard stories about immigrating to Canada, starting out with very little, seeking a better life and working hard. Stories often reflected a more formal time when it was important to uphold standards, make a good impression, know one’s place and adhere to the rules. </li> <li> The stories elders tell appear to be curated for the individual receiving them. They would be different if told to another child, a spouse or a friend. </li> </ol> <h2>Tips for listening</h2> Our research offers some tips for listening to stories from elders: <ul> <li> Focus on just 10 stories. It can make the listening seem less overwhelming. </li> <li> Write them down. Writing challenges us to get the story straight. </li> <li> Notice your loved one’s role in the story, as the message is often contained in that role. </li> <li> Be attentive to feelings, sensations, tension and discomfort. These can be signals or clues to the meaning of a story. </li> <li> Finally, remember these stories are for you — selected and told in the context of your relationship with your loved one. As such, they are a gift from a loved one who is running out of time. </li> </ul> <h2>The importance of receiving stories</h2> Storytelling is an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20067">essential human process</a> and a universal experience associated with aging. Neuroscientists suggest that storytelling has practical survival value for individuals and communities, <a href="https://www.jonathangottschall.com/storytelling-animal">as well as social and psychological benefits</a>. It may be as powerful as medication or therapy for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1018">overcoming depression among elders</a>. Storytelling becomes especially important <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1396581">when people become aware of their mortality</a> — when they are ill, suffering or facing death. People don’t necessarily tell the same stories over and over again because they’re losing cognitive function, but because the stories are important, and they feel we need to know them. Telling stories repeatedly isn’t about forgetfulness or dementia. It’s an effort to share what’s important. Our hope is that by better understanding elderly storytelling, caregivers may be able to listen in a different way to those repeated stories and understand the messages they contain. Those 10 stories can help us to know our loved one at a deeper level and assist our parent or grandparent with an important developmental task of old age. This research offers a constructive way for caregivers to hear the repeated stories told by their aging parents, and to offer their loved one the gift of knowing they have been seen and heard.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197766/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mary-ann-mccoll-704728">Mary Ann McColl</a>, Professor, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queens-university-ontario-1154">Queen's University, Ontario</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/storytelling-allows-elders-to-transfer-values-and-meaning-to-younger-generations-197766">original article</a>.

Mind

Carer allowance and disability pension set to increase

Over 936,000 Aussies are set to see a cash boost in the new year, as indexation to government payments takes effect from January. Australians receiving youth, student or carer support will receive a 6 per cent boost to their payments, as additional support to help them navigate the rising cost of living. “Australia’s social security system is a safety net that is continually strengthened and improved to support all vulnerable Australians,” Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth said. “Through regular indexation, our payments are adjusted in line with changes in the cost of living to retain their purchasing power.” For over 600,000 carers, the Carer Allowance is set to increase to $153.50 a fortnight, while the Disability Support Pension for Australians under 21 will increase by $31.10 to $44.90 a fortnight. Youth Allowance payments are also set to increase between $22.40 and $45.60 a fortnight, while Austudy payments will increase by between $36.20 and $45.60. The new year increases are being set into motion after a $40 a fortnight increase to youth and student payment rates, which was effective from September 20. A complete list of the new payment increases can be found on the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/benefits-payments/previous-indexation-rates" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Department of Social Services website</a>. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

How a secret plan 50 years ago changed Australia’s economy forever, in just one night

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-millmow-4462">Alex Millmow</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/federation-university-australia-780">Federation University Australia</a> At a time when governments are timid, keener to announce <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/productivity/report">reviews</a> than decisions, it’s refreshing to remember what happened 50 years ago today – on July 18 1973. Inflation had surged to <a href="https://www.datawrapper.de/_/vu9by/">14%</a>. Australia’s biggest customer, the United Kingdom, had joined the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm">European Economic Community</a>, agreeing to buy products from it rather than Australia. And the newly formed Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries had <a href="https://advisor.visualcapitalist.com/historical-oil-prices/">doubled</a> the price of oil. The tariffs imposed on imported goods to protect Australian manufacturers from competition were extraordinarily high. For clothing, they reached <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/textile-clothing-footwear-1997/59tcf2.pdf">55%</a>; for motor vehicles, <a href="https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=commwkpapers">45%</a>. Then, with absolutely <a href="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/Trade%20liberalisation%20and%20the%20ALP.pdf">no</a> public indication he had been considering anything as drastic, at 7pm on Wednesday July 18, the recently elected prime minister Gough Whitlam made an <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002971_0.pdf">announcement</a>. <h2>Every tariff cut by one quarter overnight</h2> From midnight, all tariffs would be cut by 25%. As Whitlam put it: “each tariff will be reduced by one quarter of what it is now”. <figure class="align-right "><figcaption></figcaption></figure> If Australian businesses (and the Australian public) were caught by surprise, it was because Whitlam had planned the whole thing in secret. He had given a six-person committee just three weeks to work out the details. Although the committee was chaired by the head of the Tariff Board, Alf Rattigan, and included an official from Whitlam’s own department, the department of industry and the department of trade, it met in an obscure location in Canberra’s civic centre rather than in public service offices, where the project might be discovered. Not included in the committee was a representative of the treasury, which its then deputy head John Stone said “<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2744/Stone__The_Inside_Story_of_Gough%E2%80%99s_Tariff_Cut__in_The_Australian__18_July_2003..pdf">knew nothing</a>” about what was unfolding. But driving the work of the committee were two academic outsiders – Fred Gruen, an economics professor at the Australian National University and adviser to Whitlam, and Brian Brogan, an economics lecturer at Monash University who was advising the trade minister, Jim Cairns. <h2>Outsiders, not treasury insiders</h2> As economists rather than bureaucrats, Gruen and Brogan were able to see benefits where others saw entrenched interests. Going to the tariff board and asking for extra tariffs, whenever it looked as if your prices might be undercut by imports, had become a reflex action for Australian businesses. In the words of <a href="https://esavic.org.au/385/images/2013_GaryBanks.pdf">Gary Banks</a> – later to become head of the successor to the tariff board, the Productivity Commission: “it was not a shameful thing for a conga line of industrialists to be seen wending its way to Canberra”. Tariffs were good for business owners, although bad for their customers, who had to pay much higher prices and often got <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/bill-scales-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-australian-car-manufacturing-industry-20171018-gz3ky4">worse goods</a>. They were also good for government – bringing in tax revenue. Whitlam was more interested in bringing down inflation. His announcement said increased competition would "have a salutary effect upon those who have taken advantage of shortages by unjustified price increases which have exploited the public". Any firm seriously hurt by the extra imports could apply to a newly established tribunal for assistance, but the tribunal "should not provide relief as a matter of course – that is, simply because the question of relief had been referred to it". So Whitlam offered “rationalisation assistance” to encourage firms to refocus their operations, and “compensation for closure” where that couldn’t be done and production had to cease. For displaced workers, the 7pm announcement offered anyone who lost their job retraining, as well as "a weekly amount equal to his [sic] average wage in the previous six months until he obtains or is found suitable alternative employment." Over the next seven years, manufacturing employment fell by <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/report_136_CHAPTER_6_WEB_FA.pdf">80,000</a>, but few of those job losses were immediate. Fifteen months after the 25% tariff cut, fewer than <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20634782?seq=10">6,000</a> people had claimed the wage replacement offered on the night of the announcement. When Whitlam went to the polls a year after the cut in the double dissolution election of May 1974, 122 university economists signed an <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-3267">open letter</a> of support. The letter said the general thrust of the government’s policy responses had been in the best interests of the nation as a whole, and added, "more importantly, we seriously doubt that the previous government would have had the wisdom or the courage to undertake it. It had certainly given no indication of moving in that direction while it was in power, even though the need for such policies had become obvious". In its later days in office, the Whitlam government was roundly criticised for its irresponsible public spending. Ironically, in its approach to tariffs in the 1970s, it had taken the first steps in a neoliberal direction that characterised western governments of the 1980s. By acting boldly after decades of inaction, Whitlam showed what a government could do. It was a lesson his Labor successor Bob Hawke took to heart a decade later, when he floated the dollar, revamped Australia’s tax system and put in place a series of further cuts that reduced tariffs to near zero. It’s something we see less of today.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209378/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-millmow-4462">Alex Millmow</a>, Senior Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/federation-university-australia-780">Federation University Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-secret-plan-50-years-ago-changed-australias-economy-forever-in-just-one-night-209378">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Queensland proposes ban on certain dog breeds

Queensland is proposing stricter laws in a bid to bring down the number of dog attacks in the state. The laws would include increased jail time for owners after dog attacks, the potential banning of select breeds and for all dogs to be “effectively controlled” in public. The Palaszczuk government released a discussion paper on June 23 outlining the options as well as a survey asking Queenslanders to speak out about the issue before the legislation is put together. A significant number of dog attacks occurred in the state in April, with three children suffering severe injuries in separate incidents that involved several dogs. The major factor to consider for the paper is whether Queensland should ban animals from the Commonwealth’s restricted breed list, which would make owning them in any capacity illegal. The restricted dog breeds include the pit bull terrier, dogo argentino, fila brasilerio, japanese tosa and the presa canario. Currently, those who seek to own these breeds are required to apply for a permit, but that would be withdrawn if the proposed laws are put into place. The discussion paper says that any changes would include a “grandfather clause” that would allow individuals with a current permit to keep their pet. The government has also proposed to include imprisonment as a maximum penalty for more serious attacks. If an attack causes death or grievous bodily harm to a patron, according to present laws, the owner could be fined up to $43,125 but would not face jail time. “It is proposed to introduce a new criminal offence in the Act that captures conduct of an owner, or responsible person for a dog, who fails to take reasonable steps to effectively control their dog if the dog causes bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death to a person,” the report states. “Including a proposed new offence for the most serious dog attacks would send a clear message to owners and people responsible for dogs that fail to take reasonable steps to protect people in the community from harm from serious dog attacks will not be tolerated.” The move would bring the state into line with the laws in the ACT, NSW, Victoria, NSW and Western Australia. In NSW, an owner who encourages a dangerous dog to attack another person faces up to five years in prison. Another proposal is to set up a new requirement for dogs to be “effectively controlled” in public, which would ban off-leash dog walking. “Effective control could be defined to include a person who is physically able to control the animal, it is on an appropriate leash and supervised or in a temporary enclosure adequate to contain the animal,” the paper reads. Instant fines would be issued to owners who failed to control their dogs in public and exceptions would be made for designated off-leash areas. Councils are urging for certain breeds to be banned and for tougher restrictions, according to Local Government Association of Queensland chief executive Alison Smith. “Ratepayers would be alarmed to know that Queensland councils are being forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees because irresponsible owners are using the courts to drag out the fate of these dangerous animals after their dog has been impounded and a destruction order made,” she said. “For too long, irresponsible dog owners have been able to hold the community and councils to ransom. That needs to change.” Agricultural Industry Development Minister Mark Furner is calling on all Queenslanders to participate in the survey to “have their say” on the proposed reforms. “Community feedback on this discussion paper will be vital in drafting new legislation,” he said. “It is so important that we get this right to make sure any new laws meet community expectations. Image credit: Getty / Shutterstock

Family & Pets

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

What would – and should – happen to the ABC under the next federal government?

Outrage as school allows students to opt out of Anzac Day service

How women will shoulder the burden of new care reforms

Government bails out Rex Airlines

Superannuation is complicated. A guaranteed government income in retirement would be simpler

NSW Government refunds millions of Covid fines

The government wants to keep cash alive for buying essentials. Here’s why it’s such a challenge for businesses

"Disgraceful": Government red tape causes funeral to be cancelled

"People are losing faith": Nat Barr takes aim at Albanese government

What the government’s home care changes mean for ageing Australians

Even after the government’s aviation crackdown, Australia will lag behind on flyers’ rights

With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?

Government launches new campaign to tackle elder abuse

Australians lose $5,200 a minute to scammers. There’s a simple thing the government could do to reduce this. Why won’t they?

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

Storytelling allows elders to transfer values and meaning to younger generations

Carer allowance and disability pension set to increase

How a secret plan 50 years ago changed Australia’s economy forever, in just one night

Queensland proposes ban on certain dog breeds

Our Partners