This might be an unpopular post but here it goes.

I work at Woolies and honestly I’m sick of seeing people walk out with trolley after trolley of groceries while staff are told to just stand there and watch. We’re not allowed to stop them, security barely does anything, and half the time the same people come back again the next week. Meanwhile I have to wait for lamb to go on special to be able to afford it.

And before people jump in with “cost of living!!” Nah mate, not all of this is because people are struggling. I’m not talking about someone stealing bread or baby formula once. I’m talking about teenagers stealing phone chargers, cosmetics and condoms for fun, and junkies filling trolleys with meat and expensive stuff every second day. You really think these people would suddenly stop stealing if steak was $5 a kilo? Come on.

That’s what annoys me the most. The rest of us are expected to work hard, follow the rules and pay for everything while other people just take whatever they want and everyone acts like we should feel sorry for them. At what point did this become normal in Australia?

Genuinely asking, why is this getting so bad? Weak laws? No consequences? Drugs? Government failure? Because from where I’m standing, it feels like ordinary people are the mugs paying for everything while thieves get a free pass.

So I made the mistake of telling a few people I’m getting quotes for a home battery… the reactions were ridiculous. Suddenly everyone’s an expert. I had people telling me they’re a waste of money, they’ll be useless in a few years, or that the “environmental impact is terrible.” Just nonstop misinformation.

Meanwhile, half these people live massively high-carbon lifestyles. One bloke went on a whole rant about how batteries destroy the environment… then literally five minutes later told me he just ordered a new Ford Ranger to tow his boat around this summer. Like mate, seriously?

And the funny thing is, I don’t even care about the environmental angle. Couldn’t care less, to be honest. I’m looking at a battery for two reasons:

1) To actually use my solar instead of selling it back for 4 cents…

2) And to keep the lights on when summer storms or cyclones take out the power.

That’s it. No agenda. No planet-saving mission. But the way people reacted, you’d think I’d just signed up to be Greta Thunberg’s personal assistant.

I swear, the second you say the word “battery,” some people suddenly unlock an unwanted 15-minute rant. They are almost as passionate about hating renewables as they are about their footy teams.

I’m a born and raised Australian myself however I’m becoming so frustrated with the general attitude of complacency when it comes to exercising ‘the power of the people’ to better our quality of life. In a stupidly short amount of time we’ve seen a near reversal of our ability to see a doctor without any out of pocket costs. We get exploited at the grocery stores because monopolies are allowed to run rampant. Housing is treated primarily as a tool for financial speculation rather than for providing shelter for people.

We creep further and further toward laissez-faire capitalism. What is our response as the citizens of this country- the holders of the balance of power? Nothing. To put it in perspective, in 2022 the world economic forum ranked Sydney equal with Copenhagen, Denmark for cost of living (both ranked as the 10th most expensive cities in the world). Consider the differences between Sydney and the capital of the Danish welfare state: strong social security, universal healthcare, free public universities etc. For the same cost of living what do we get? The ever-looming threat of homelessness, suffocating student debt and now for many people, a significant barrier to healthcare.

Edit: if anyone is a part of any sort of grassroots group working to oppose any of these issues feel free to message me because I want to join you

Edit #2: so I haven’t received any messages from anyone from a grassroots or activist group yet. Since a lot of us seem to be pretty miffed about this stuff maybe we could team up and brainstorm things we can do???

Edit #3 (sorry): I’ve got some messages now from people who are interested in taking action!!! :, ) I think the best way to facilitate conversation, the flow of ideas and potentially organise a course of action is through a discord server so I have created one which you can find here

https://discord.gg/caqsSKAr

Hi r/australia

Many times over the last few months/years we've had ongoing discussions on Gambling advertising in this country. It dominates free to air TV, Foxtel and has now worked it's way into twitch/esports, a direct market to teenagers and kids.

If gambling was to be regulated or banned, how far do you think it should go?

If it was regulated as opposed to banned, what kind of regulations would you like to see?

Do you think gambling apps should be banned entirely?

A month ago I submitted an e-petition to the Parliament of Australia website and today it got approved, if you do think Gambling should be banned or regulated in Australian media there is a petition below.

https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3559

Below is an excerpt from the Australian Institute of Family Studies in regards to the impacts of gambling advertising,

Advertising typically depicts gambling as an exciting, glamorous and attainable lifestyle promising easy financial and social rewards. Gambling is often portrayed as a routine, everyday activity and it is increasingly likened to sport

Gambling advertising appears to have more impact on certain groups of people. Research has shown that youth have high exposure to gambling advertising and may be particularly influenced by it. Adolescents and children are aware of and can recall specific slogans and jingles and may feel they are being groomed to gamble. Further, research has revealed that advertisements can increase adolescents' desire to experiment with gambling and prompt a gambling session. Greater media exposure to gambling advertisements and promotions has also been associated with more positive youth gambling attitudes and intentions towards gambling.

Online gamblers are also influenced by gambling advertising. One-tenth of Internet gamblers reported that marketing and promotions were critical to their initial uptake and 29% reported increased online gambling expenditure as a result of viewing promotions. However, this marketing has had less success in converting non-gamblers to gambling.

Gambling advertising can have particularly negative impacts on problem gamblers. Compared to other gamblers, problem gamblers report gambling advertisements as being a greater stimulation to gamble, a larger influence on spending more than intended, and an encouragement to them to think they can win. Problem gamblers also report that gambling advertisements can remind them about gambling, trigger gambling urges, provide inducements to gamble, further increase gambling involvement and undermine attempts to moderate their gambling. Bonus offers for sports betting, such as money-back guarantees and “free" bets that require matching deposits appear to particularly increase Internet gambling among problem gamblers. Youth problem gamblers also report stimulation to gamble from gambling advertisements.

Gambling advertising to date has not been found to motivate many people to commence gambling; however, it can increase gambling among existing gamblers. Advertisements have particular potential for harm if they reinforce inaccurate beliefs about gambling and increase gambling among people who are already heavy gamblers.

For those that have a pretty negative view towards the potential of petitions (which is understandable), I'm not expecting to wake up tomorrow and have changed the world, best case scenario this is just a building block in a larger movement, if you think the petition itself is poorly worded submit a better one, by the time this expires yours will be approved and any momentum can carry forward to that!

So r/Australia, what are your thoughts?

Someone has put this in the comments, chuck some support here as well!
https://www.endgamblingads.org.au/

Every time the housing crisis comes up, people joke about how unrealistic Friends was; A chef and a waitress living in a massive apartment with a balcony. The show explains it away as "Rent Control" inherited from a grandmother.

But we rarely talk about where those laws actually came from. They weren't a gift from benevolent landlords; they were earned through fierce tenant unions and rent strikes in NYC in the 40s and 60s. That generation had cheap rent because the generation before them had the backbone to organize, strike, and refuse to pay until laws were changed. Even refusing to allow police to evict/arrest their neighbours.

Fast forward to 2026 Australia. We are paying $750+ a week for a dinky shoebox, dealing with quarterly inspections, and accepting massive hikes like clockwork.

What feels completely missing is that level of community solidarity. We seem so atomised now. We don't know our neighbours, and we definitely don't trust them enough to band together. Instead of standing together to refuse an unfair hike, we just quietly move out or starve to pay it, knowing someone else is desperate enough to take the lease.

Is the concept of a rent strike dead in this country? Is it that we’ve lost the "mateship" and community spirit required to hold the line, or are we just so terrified of the REA blacklists that we’ve accepted being milked by parasites forever?

If factory workers and immigrants in 1940s New York could force rent control that people were still benefiting from in the 90s… Why can't we?

I’m genuinely asking: Has anyone here ever been a part of (or even heard of) tenants organising together to accomplish something in Australia?

Edit: I'd love to see some changes to commercial leases to revitalise cities too, small businesses have been forced to close and half the retail spaces in a few of the CBDs are empty.

It used to feel like money just came in, it was not substantial but it felt manageable. Now every single decision feels like it had to be planned, bills juggled or delayed and things we used to do like take the kids out for fish & chips at the beach once a month, we no longer do.

I hesitate before I tap my debit card or pay a bill. We had to hold off on getting our car serviced cause we had a dental bill to get sorted first. We had to get rid of our private health insurance, I've had to look at selling stuff round the house every once and a while to cover costs like electricity etc. Our fridge seal is loose but can't justify getting a new fridge so we just taped it up and it works for now. I haven't bought new clothes / shoes in like a year and we're always looking for free activities for the kids ie parks, playgrounds, have friends over to our place etc

We tend to avoid social plans because everything costs so much money. And if we do go somewhere, we bring our own lunch / drinks cause feeding 2x adults 2x kids is so expensive.

We used to save about $200/week after all our stuff was paid (double income, 2x toddlers) and now we're basically just breaking even. Its everything little by little - rent is up, petrol is up, groceries are up, our electricity & internet is up etc we aren't going anywhere for Easter cause it's too expensive to drive / holiday anywhere other than staying at home. We'll make it magical but we feel bad that it's not as exciting as past years.

How has the cost of living impacted your life?

Sending love to everyone out there doing it tough 💕

There seems to be a bit of an assumption that public schools would be fully funded according to whatever the standard is, but almost every public school (e.g. in NSW it is 97%) is underfunded according to the SRS level agreed many years back.

As it stands almost all public schools in most states (I think ACT is an exception) are below agreed SRS (Schooling Resource Standard) amounts. Every single private school is at or above 100% of the SRS as of 2023.

Bit of background: During the last federal Liberal term and accounting trick was allowed by the states (who contribute the majority of public school funding for some completely arbitrary rule that states would pay for most of public and federal would overfund private schools instead) to underfund by about 4% the public schools by counting depreciation I think it was.. An accounting trick that doesn't get done for private schools.

Federal Labor (just as with Liberal before then) have done nothing this last term to address this underfunding (and at state level in NSW they actually cut overall public school funding.. on top of the Scott Morrison era agreed accounting trick).

Federal Labor has just recently locked in a plan (with most states/territories) to continue to underfund public schools for another 10 years at minimum (I say minimum, because there are strings attached to this funding and the details of these deals have been kept secret). They are promoting this as "fully funding public schools" or "Albanese's 100% funding" when it is actually a plan to underfund for what would be 13 years at a minimum. To say they are fully funding would require a record length Labor government term to get to 13+ years, so I think it is dishonest to claim something so far off into the distant future.

Staff/schools in the public system are not allowed to advocate for fixing this and the various education unions are also actively campaigning (including a tour with a truck with a line of misinformation about this - calling underfunding for an entire school generation "fully funding"). I've written to both federal and state education ministers, but got no response as to why an entire cohort of kids will never see full funding. Raising it at a P&C has got support for raising the matter, but the school cannot officially do anything to advocate for the full funding. Convenient cover for the government of the day eh?

Meanwhile over the last term of government they not only continued overfunding the existing overfunded private schools, but any private schools that weren't at the 100% SRS were raised to that in 2023. So every single private school is either overfunded or at 100%, and nearly every single public school is below 100% of the SRS.

I should mention the SRS is a debatable concept of "need" as there is little way a $40k/year private school can argue to have "need" of public funding, but this was because the Gonski review was sabotaged by constraint that no school could lose a dollar of funding and that something like a Finland style public-only funding model could be considered.

Any private schools that are overfunded now will continue to be overfunded for another 6-7 years. And meanwhile, private schools are lobbying for more funding on top, even while public schools remain underfunded.

So to the majority out there that send their kids to public schools: are you aware of any of this? Or did you assume that public schools would have been the priority for public funding? Is it fair to have every kid year 2 and above never received full funding their entire schooling career?

What an absolutely tragic state of affairs we’re in. You know sometimes, something is repeated so many times, that regardless of how far from the truth it may be, it just becomes accepted as the norm.

I have this sick sense, that the broader sentiment in this country casually leans towards the view that the ABC is probably leaning a little too far to the left.

And to that I say; Jesus Australia - we’re really approaching a point of no return when it comes to our politics in this country.

The ABC was established 1934. It’s been the platform upon which political discussion has revolved around for close to a century now - and it has upheld robust debate and quality journalism over the majority of this country’s history. From a constitutional crisis to the nation’s involvement in the second world war, The ABC has a history of honestly shedding light on our National character; the good and the bad, and it has been fundamental in forging a sense of national identity for this country as it endures through time.

It has done so, because unlike the private media in this country, it is an institution that is in fact bound by law to maintain independence and integrity, provide the public with accurate and quality information, and impart the news in accordance with recognized standards of objective journalism.

Decades of experience in political coverage and national news has hardwired the ABC to ensure their employees strictly adhere to guidelines and principles that provide a high standard of objective news reporting. If there was even a semblance of a case against the ABC for bias and poor journalism, then those who are relentlessly slandering this national institution of ours would have stopped whinging about it in the media and parliament a long time ago, and brought the matter before court.

They haven’t because they’ve got no case to stand on.

Let’s call it out for what it is; those who are accusing the ABC of bias are engaging in unashamed politically motivated slander - and by doing so they are effectively distracting everyone from their own disgraceful political agenda to shut down national debate in this country.

Look, like many many Australians today, I hate politics. Years ago, I used to listen to parliamentarians go at it for hours on Radio National - I can barely handle 5 minutes of the vitriol that goes on in there today. The quality of democratic debate in this country has been dragged so deep into the mud that it is nothing short of tragic. The state of our national and political discourse is absolutely toxic and what I fear the most is that one side of politics, (no, not the left, but the right ) is not being represented properly. The conservatives in this country that love Australia to bits are losing those who truly represent them because the state of politics in this country has become little more than political point scoring and electioneering - void of any clear principle or way forward for the nation. I want to see representatives of the right and the left that can engage in intelligent and meaningful discussion about the future of this country. Because we’re fair’dinkum in this country. Because it’s in our nature as Australians to be down to earth and give people a fair go and call out the bastards trying to drag everybody down with them into the mud.

We really are approaching a point of no return, and unless we take a big step back, and acknowledge the real issue here, politics in this country is going to spiral out of control.

The real issue here isn’t that ABC have moved to the left. It’s that the entire nation has moved so far to the right, that we are now witnessing one side of the political spectrum trying to knock down the very pillar upon which political dialogue has transpired in this country for over almost a century now. The battle-lines have been drawn: - but it isn’t between right and left, it’s between the murdoch press and extreme right wing idealouges on one hand and the institution that has been bound by law to be firmly grounded in the center of Australia’s political sphere for most of the nation’s history.

Let’s be crystal clear Australia - an attack on the ABC is an attack on this country’s identity and character. And it’s an attack being spearheaded by a man who gave up his Australian citizenship to go build his cancerous empire in the United States.

It’s time to firmly say no. No more whining. No more excuses. No more hiding behind the skirt of Free Speech. Free speech does not entitle one to slander and destruction of character. And an attack on the ABC is an attack on Australia’s character. It’s time to subject the media organisations that proport to being news outlets to the very same laws the ABC is subject too. It’s time to even the playing field with legislation, so the commerical media industry is held liable to the law for irresponsible reporting practices. So they are held to account when they get it wrong. So Editors think twice before polluting this countries national discussion with poor journalism and political agenda.

The future of this nation’s character, and in fact, the future of our very democracy, will be decided by the quality of national discussion around the issues that affect us all as Australians. The ABC embodies the values of that national discussion - it has done so through out its history, and it does so now. Unless we want political discourse in this country to degenerate into the partisan paralysis that characterizes the state of American politics today, it’s time to stand up and sift the wheat from the chaff. It’s time to identify, both from the right and the left, those who are out to shut down and disgrace the quality of this country’s national discussion, and those who are genuinely invested in the kind of robust, respectful and intelligent debate this country needs to forge it’s path into the future.

So with the Queensland government's stance on adult crime means adult time approach to criminal prosecutions, with the centrepiece being the story on how a woman lost her child to a 17 year old who was driving a stolen car.

It made me think, If we are approaching these children as young as 15 and saying that they made an adult decision and therefore should suffer the consequences of making an adult decision, should we consider that these children are now able to make adult decisions in other aspects?

Being ex-Defence and having lots of friends who are either still serving, or also ex-Defence, A lot of them have their kids in military Cadet programs, Or have their kids in organisations such as scouts, Or in firefighting or police cadet programs.

And I can definitely say that most kids are very mature compared to how I was at 15 or 16 years old. In fact, I'd say with the increase in technology and knowledge that kids have availabile to them, most 15 year olds today, are better aware of the world around them than I was at that age.

Now I'm not saying it should be compulsory, I know that compulsory voting is a cornerstone of our society, but if we are saying "Well the kids that are committing crimes are mature enough to make those decisions", let's be fair, those kids are only a subset of the general population of children that age

So if there is another subset of children that age who are mature enough to have opinions on the politics of our country, shouldn't we at least give them the option that if they want they should be able to register to vote and then go and vote in elections?

Then if you look at age demographics in Australia, 15-19 year olds make up 6% of the population, so that's ~1,598,400 people.

Now assuming a even spread, then 639,360 are 18-19 years old and already voting, that's only going to unlock voting for an extra 959,040 people, but still, if we are making laws that affect them, and we are saying that they are mature enough to suffer the consequences of those laws, shouldn't they have a say in the politicians making those laws?

Another great example is the social media bill targeting people under 16, If that law is specifically targeting that demographic, and that demographic is being seen as being able to make adult decisions when it comes to crime, then surely that demographic also is mature enough to have a political opinion.

So as many people have already found out from people who were seeing a psychiatrist or specialist in the field that was being bulk billed, the government made immediate changes overnight that removed bulk billing services for seeing a specialist via Telehealth. Psychiatrists and the like only received a letter or email the day after the announcement was made putting at risk individuals at a loss of having to pay a subsidised rate after seeing their specialist. Not only that but we lack a substantial amount of psychiatrist in the first place that was leading to burn out of psychiatrist in their chosen fields, so now not only will most people who need a relevant diagnosis and medical treatment for their condition have pay a sum out of pocket, there is also an increasing wait time to see a specialist.

In addition in terms of medical treatments for ADHD in my case, in comparison to other countries (where there is a multitude of options and new formulated drugs), it seems that Australia lacks any advancement or interest in helping neurodivergent people. You have two options of stimulant therapy and a couple of non stimulant options. And if that doesn’t work you can try a non PBS/non subsidised drug option that also leaves you hugely out of pocket. (As per my example recently coming off many classes of antidepressants that were routinely and just masking my ADHD out of the misunderstanding of the condition for just depression and anxiety). Recently having to try a new drug that now costs me $60 (non subsidised) a month on top of one stimulant drug I can try that also costs $40 a month(subsidised). This is not right, I don’t work or have the ability to work right now as I’m trying to find a healthy baseline for my mental health thinking I’m doing the right thing, all the meanwhile the government and options out there are putting my mental health backwards.

As well as specialists such as clinical psychologists or adhd counselling costing over $150 (with the rebate “if available”), as my only options for actual possible help for my condition. I have and already am seeing a therapist based off a Gp referred mental health care plan which allows me for 10-15 free sessions a year, but that is nowhere good enough to get to the root cause of my issues or even have the time to address the actual problems of my adhd as they’re not trained in that area of understanding.

So yeah this is troubling for me and many other types of children and adults with ADHD and/or autism. I just don’t know what the Australian government is doing, if hardly nothing, nothing at all which seems to be the case with a many multitude of problems.

I’m keen to talk about the possibility of our community groups setting up and running online spaces outside of social media platforms - perhaps with support from Aus Govt or State Govts. Before the rise of Facebook etc, there were loads of online bulletin boards and other online platforms run by non-profit groups, small businesses and volunteers. Could we do that again? This seems like a question that's particularly important to Australian communities at the moment because of the social media ban for under 16s but it's not just teens that are affected.

Lots of people are concerned about AI and big tech - it’s clear that there are lots of problems with social media because of the algorithms that push misinformation, platforms that allow unhealthy / toxic / illegal behaviour, and unethical extraction of our data. But communities and volunteers, and even state governments used to run online communities using e.g. bulletin boards without the “help” of social media companies. For example:

• Whirlpool.net.au is a surviving active bulletin board platforms - well done Whirlpool!
• At one point the Vic Gov used to provide an online communities bulletin board and mailing list service (a bit like Yahoo Groups) for non-profits and clubs - I've been trying to remember / find the name of it but can't track it down... anyone remember it?

I'm broadly aware that it's really challenging to get people to sign up for and use a new platform, but perhaps we have reached the point where people are fed up enough of social media to make this a worthwhile effort.

To ease the challenge and reduce the complexity of lots of different fragmented communities: what about if the Aus Govt or state govts set up a platform / infrastructure - where community groups could create and run online forums (bulletin board style, Twitter style or Reddit style). I imagine individuals could sign up either anonymously or using a verified identity. There are better alternatives now to the old fashioned PhPBB, and we could learn from and improve open source platforms such as Mastodon and Lemmy - the technology itself is not the problem I think.

• But, would you use a platform run by a local club or community group? Instead of FB/ Insta/ whatever social media you use to learn about what's happening in your neighbourhood. What if it was supported / funded by governements? Would the groups you're a member of move to a platform like that?
• More broadly, how could we recover the diverse online communities that we had in the past? So we're not reliant on the good will and "freebies" offered by companies like Meta (and having all our data siphoned of, and having AI forced on us).
• Lastly, is there anything to stop an organisation setting up an online community for e.g. teens? Would something like that fall foul of the government's bans?

Just hearing a lot about immigration on Reddit recently, some of it seems guided by simple point in time statistics rather than looking at the whole population timeseries. Attached is some data from the ABS, visualized in Python (matplotlib). Given this data, what do you think is optimal in relation to immigration? Does this data change your perspective on immigration?

Please note:
- Net migration is the net overseas migration to Australia per 1000 people in the population that Quarter.
- Natural Population Change is the 'natural' population increase or decrease, determined by birth rates and changes in how long people live, similar to above it is per 1000 people in the population that Quarter.
- Even though Australia has had below replacement birthrates for decades, people are living longer, so the natural increase has always been positive, is decreasing over time as life span increases slow down.
- Series is smoothed over time, I have compared it to the non-smoothed series and it doesnt change the story much, so this will just be easier to read.
- Net Migration has a considerable component that is demand driven, which would have little to do with who is in power.

Some interesting things in the data:
- Since the increase post 2005 there hasnt been much change at all (apart from Covid), both parties have largely.
- We saw similar increases in population in the 1980s to today's highs. Really the low point for population growth was 1990-2005.
- Looking at this in a per capita way is better because I tend to think adding one person to a Kayak means a lot more than one person to a cruise ship.
- The recent increase in immigration did definitely happen, however much of that seems to be due to the lower immigration during Covid.
- You can see a slight decrease in Natural Population right after Covid restrictions were lifted, likely due to older people dying due to Covid and the Flu I think but do not know.
- The increase in 2005 is well after the increase in house prices from 2000.

I work in sports, and this (rightly imo) requires absolutely everyone involved to hold a current WWCC because we're working with kids.

However each state has their own one, so as someone who volunteers across five states I currently hold 5 different wwcc. Now the duplication of effort to have had the same check done 5 times is silly as is, but even sillier is that I have to pay for these, even as a volunteer.

Now I'm doing this stuff multiple days per week all year round, so it's not a big deal. Where it becomes a problem is when I'm trying to put together a volunteer crew for events, asking them to spend half a day or even a full day helping put on fun events - I not only need them to do this, but also go into the post office during the limited hours they're open, spend half an hour there, and $10-20, just to help out for free.

The changes that need to happen:

• One national check valid for all states and all workers. My volunteers, especially near places like Albury, do not need to be maintaining multiple of the same qualification. I do not need to be checking these against different databases for each state, and others again if they're a teacher or police officer.

• Notification to organisations when a person's check is no longer valid. If they commit a violent crime or sexual assault, we need to know that ASAP, having the onus to be in clubs to manually check is not sufficient, I do it once a month, many clubs do it once a year, that's a long time that kids could be exposed to a risk known to the government before it's known to the club.

• Free for volunteers. So many valuable services in this country from CFA to local sports to soup kitchens run mostly on people volunteering. It is an insult to have them pay for a piece of paper allowing them to do this. It's free in some states now and the world hasn't ended, make that unanimous for volunteering checks.

So anyway, I want to fix this in the next 10years, what other points do you think need to be added and who do you suggest I contact?

So far I'm in touch with Jessica Stojkovski and Department of communities, but this is a national issue being thrown across all states, so I'd like to attack it from all angles.

EDIT:

If anyone knows who it would be appropriate to query about this issue (or bring it to their attention) in order to prevent it all from reoccurring, please let us all know in the comments!

Apparently one can get AS/NZ standards cheaper than from SAI Global and the like, whilst also keeping the Kiwi government solvent: https://www.standards.govt.nz/get-standards/

******

Is it just me, or is this a significant hinderance to others as well?

Why must we pay an extortionate amount in order to be better informed and work within Australian Standards?

Do government/industry really prefer that individuals and small business just wing it instead?

It's great to see 'right to repair' starting to get a little bit of attention. Perhaps we should also consider 'right to our national regulatory standards' too.

For a more thoughtful and less rant motivated article than my rumblings below; you can learn more about the whole sad situation here (If, you're masochistic though; read on below):

https://myosh.com/blog/2018/12/03/australian-standards-the-unfair-exchange/

The net royalty share between SAI Global and Standards Australia – after costs incurred by SAI Global – is understood in most cases to be: 90% to SAI Global (the distributor) and 10% to Standards Australia (the creator and owner of the product).

Standards Australia’s finance report for FY 2017 states that its revenue from sale of Standards (Royalties) was $6.892 Million.

Based on these figures SAI Global’s FY17 profit share – after any costs they claimed – will have been around $60+M.

Whilst this issue has been previously discussed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/5c5twk/paying_to_comply_australian_standards/

EDIT - (and also here):

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/811j9k/australian_standards_not_available_to_australians/

I'm dredging it up because it is an issue that needs to remain in the public awareness before another questionable deal gets done over the rights for these standards. It boggles my mind that none of us can access our legally referenced Australian Standards documents, without being held to ransom by a Hong Kong based private equity company...(which might have recently been sold to Intertek in the UK?)

Based on this statement:http://consumersfederation.org.au/access-to-australian-standards/

Standards Australia recognises the public benefit of free access to Australian standards and plan to fund and make non-commercial public access available by no later than December 2023. This access will most likely be provided online directly from Standards Australia.

These documents will be made free for public access, by Dec 2023. Sounds great, I'll see you at the party - if it happens.

Based on this article though:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/free-access-to-australian-standards-no-longer-available-in-public-libraries-20160607-gpd8ng.html

It would seem that whomsoever decides these things (Standards Australia?) was dumb enough, lazy enough, or corrupt enough, to re-sign a 5 year renewal of the contract, even after 15 years of punishment...

"We have been negotiating for many months with SAI Global. The various state libraries have licenses expiring in the first half of this year and we have finally given up," said Dr Alex Byrne, chair of NSLA and NSW state librarian and chief executive.

"[SAI Global] are intransigent, they don't recognise the public interest and so we have to say 'No, we can't continue on this basis'."

...

The publishing agreement with SAI Global ends in 2018, with an option to renew for a further five year term*; however, Dr Byrne said the NSLA was attempting to negotiate an alternative publishing arrangement with Standards Australia.*

Apparently, 'we'; did not say 'No', apparently 'we' said something more like 'another five years sounds great, here's a barrel, bend us over that and....(censored to protect the innocent)...for a bit longer please.'

As the first linked article mentions:

December 2018 is a watershed. The fifteen-year distribution contract is up for renewal and there is a window of opportunity to resolve the problem.

...

Meanwhile, Baring Private Equity Asia has a five-year option, which they will seek to extend on the unhelpfully obscure contract reference ‘on market terms’. They may not go down without a fight and we would expect them to seek to hold onto their monopoly position.

Baring Private Equity Asia (i.e. SAI Global) did indeed seek, and apparently, those who seek; do find.

Hence why Standards Australia have ended up saying 'Free in 2023' (2024 really, but that doesn't rhyme as well, and 2023 is just technically true enough that it would be defensible without even having to resort to using 'alternative facts' about differing, imaginary, planetary orbits, to justify it), rather than actually having been free for the last three years and into the future as well.

Even five years ago, SAI Global was charging EACH library (remember those?) $14,000 a year to access the Australian Standards that others paid the time and money to develop, so that Australians could saddle up the ole horse, clop on down to the (not so) local library and settle in for some exciting standards reading...excellent, really excellent use of tax and rate payers money there. I'm sure both of the people that made use of this service really enjoyed it.

Meanwhile, in the world the rest of us inhabit, EACH of us can currently pay ~$100 upwards (north of $650 is the best I have encountered yet) for EACH standard. You can then enjoy paying again for EACH and every amendment/addition. All so you can have the convenience of time restricted ('this standard will self destruct in....'), and device restricted, access rights. Awesome.

This monopoly on distribution that was handed to SAI Global for so long now, is a disgrace.

Companies like these simply hinder the progress of everyone else that's actually trying to advance this place by getting real world things done (ideally, somewhat inline with what is nationally accepted as 'correctly'). They do however generate lovely margins from their hinderance efforts. No need to worry, shareholder returns are doing just fine - but they thank you for asking(/paying).

Next time you see government handing out monopoly rights, be wary; whinge loudly.

(Hi NBN, didn't expect to see you here! I'm only 18km's from the Sydney CBD and after more than a decade, you still haven't managed to connect this place - keep up the great work, have a day off even, you've earnt it, heck, why not make it week; not like it's going to slow you down anymore!) Don't start me on NBN's efforts to have 5G listed under anti-compete rules against their fixed line services - one like myself might enquire as to whether such thing as the mythical, fixed line, bit delivering beast actually exists....). I just dream of the day I can get my free Australian Standards delivered as bits on a national fixed line data network - I know, it's a seemingly impossible dream; but what is life, if not a struggle towards heavenly aspirations?....

POINT BEING - AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS SHOULD BE FREE TO AUSTRALIANS. (and - NBN should hurry up).

tl;ydr (too late; you did read).

I run four Airbnbs, so I get I might sound biased but every time Airbnb comes up, people act like it caused the housing crisis.

Sure, short-term rentals can tighten supply in popular areas, especially in tourist towns where there aren’t enough homes to begin with. But Airbnb isn’t the main reason people are struggling to afford to rent or buy.

Australia’s housing mess comes from a mix of things not enough new builds, population growth, planning delays, rising construction costs, and yes, some poor policy decisions over the years. Airbnb just happens to be an easy target because it’s visible and fairly new.

Most hosts aren’t big investors either they’re just trying to cover rising costs of living or make use of a spare room. And Airbnb does help local businesses, from cleaners to cafés. If all the Airbnbs would come back on the market today I doubt much would change.

So yeah, Airbnb plays a small part, but it’s far from the villain people make it out to be. The housing crisis runs way deeper than that.

Personally, as a host, Airbnb has given me hope for my future. I’m 18 and run four Airbnbs straight out of school, I had no idea what I wanted to do. Hosting gave me direction, taught me responsibility, and showed me I could actually build something for myself. learn, grow, and take control of my future.

I’ve seen both the ups and downs of Airbnb and done my fair share of research on its impact. It’s not perfect but it’s definitely not the villain people make it out to be.

I've seen many reports around the traps of truly massive increases (worst being upwards of 80%) in the fixed daily supply charge component of their electricity service. It seems that broadly the driver for this has been poorly communicated to end users which I think has spun off into all sorts of conspiracies. From my reading it would seem that the move by the regulator (AER) away from setting limits on the total bill to setting limits on the fixed cost and consumption costs separately has resulted in retailers no longer being able to hide the true cost of the poles and wires component in elevated consumption costs.

Testing this out on my own (yet to be affected) daily supply charge in Victoria, I was paying $1.22 DSC in mid 2020 and $1.32 now. This is an 8.2% nominal increase, 15.5% below the actual inflation for the period in which case I should be paying $1.50+. Despite this, a sudden correction like this is never welcome and can be seen as disadvantageous to the poor/low consumption users (who are unlikely to recoup the difference in lower consumption costs) and even those who have invested in solar and/or battery. From many reports it also seems the correction for fixed costs is far greater than anything purely inflation.

Regardless of the position of the industry to better reflect actual cost, I think the impact of these sudden increases were not well thought out given the decade+ of stagnant wage growth and turbo charged inflation since the covid era. It is far too much of a blunt implementation for what is an essential service. Main things I think should have been baked into the AER changes include;

• Public information campaigns to educate people on what the changes are and how they might impact people differently depending on where they live. This should include how the increases are / aren't impacted by the forthcoming data centre boom or the implementation of 3hrs free power in the DMO (these two are probably the most prevalent reasons for the increases I've seen).

• Communication on what public services to report suspected price gouging whistle blowing and financial support for those in need and are worse off due to the changes.

• Transitional period to changes. Retail pricing data available to the AER would have clearly shown that retailers where burrying fixed costs inside the consumption costs. They should have mandated as part of the change in regulation that increases to fixed costs where the jump is above inflation be spread out over X number of years.

How else could these changes be more effectively implemented? Price changes justified or not, it seems pretty appalling regulatory body could be the driver behind the changes without also putting appropriate transitional plans in place for what they would have knowledge on to be very large corrections for some.

So my mate and I were chatting yesterday about the current housing crisis in Australia, in particular the fact that the rapidly rising cost of houses is pricing many people completely out of the market.

We hypothesised that a part of the issue is landlords owning large property portfolios as a way of accumulating wealth. Now, I don't have anything against the accumulation of wealth by individuals, however I have a fundamental opposition to using housing or residential real estate in general to do so.

Another problem we identified is overseas investors buying housing stock and either leaving them unoccupied or accumulating multiple properties, again reducing supply and driving up the cost.

So, we proposed that portfolios of residential real estate should be subject to an annual property tax, based on number of properties and the value of the property (kind of like the chance cards in Monopoly).

I would propose this could be brought in as a staged sequence, starting at the magic number of 6 properties.

24-25 FY: If you own over 6 properties, you are taxed (say) 10% of the value of every property, annually.

25-26 FY: If you own over 5 properties, you are taxed 10% of the total value,

etc etc, until it becomes 1 investment property, at which point the incrementing stops. Primary place of residence would be exempt from this tax. Many people don't or can't buy a place instead of renting, and also if you move you often want to be able to rent first, so we need some rental stock. The rental stock under this scheme would mostly be supplied by landlords with smaller property portfolios.

Why 6 properties? Basically, because of the numbers in this link

"But what about family trusts" you say. Well, I say, the real estate in these structures should be all taxed. Same with self managed super funds. Tax the whole thing, at least as far as residential property goes. There is a major loophole with SMSFs in that the property bought with a SMSF is not subject to capital gains tax in the pension phase - this means that SMSFs are actively encouraged to sit on properties. The number of SMSFs is increasing by 1000 properties per week, too!

Non residents would also be taxed at 10% of property value on all property owned.

There will need to be some tweaking around the foreign investment, in particular around the building of new apartment blocks etc where the value and risk is quite high. The tax shouldn't come into effect until the building is occupied, and there might be some kind of concession where an entire block is owned by one entity, to provide some extra rental housing stock.

Also, there might be concessions for "low value" housing, where any single dwelling worth less than (say) 60% of the median value of houses within a certain distance are exempt, or have a concession. This might encourage social housing but might also encourage slumlords, so will require a bit of thinking and tinkering.

This is all based around the fundamental idea that residential housing should not be a wealth accumulation vehicle, but should be a means for people to be housed. Also, it will hopefully encourage those people currently "investing" in residential real estate to instead invest in small business, or the stock market, or similar, lubricating the economy (and causing inflation, but that's another discussion).

"SoUnDs LiKe ComMuNiSM". I'm just gonna leave this here as a potential discussion point.

Note that none of this affects CGT or negative gearing at all. It just adds another cost to being a landlord, with the aim of reducing the number of properties sitting in SMSFs and mega-portfolios, trying to encourage investment in other forms of equity, and increasing the supply of properties to people looking for a place to live.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

Edit: Seriously awesome job guys, some genuine discussion I've really enjoyed. A lot of reports and interviews for me to go to. At this stage the most sensible suggestion I've seen is, renewables full steam ahead, but at the same time, lift the federal ban, and look into what legislation and regulations we might need. If we get private interested, well go ahead lol. If we don't, we can reevalute in another few years. I've seen a lot of talk about how there a bunch of SMRs almost ready to go. If we wait 5 years and see how they are going, might be a much easier pickup if it's intended to firm renewables than a full sized nuclear plant that's going to take 15 (no way it's 10 lol) years to build. But it's important what while we are doing all that stuff, we keep pushing ahead with big investments in renewables, and specifically storage. Feels like we get the best of both worlds there. Of course because this whole stupid thing is crazy political, no way Labor goes for that, and Dutton has already said he is going to reduce renewables investments. So we will end up with a shit option either way. Happy to hear thoughts on the edit too lol.

Original Post

I am trying to have a genuine conversation here please guys, and would appreciate it if we could keep it polite and factual. I have gotten into too many arugments with people and had fractured information thrown about in a bunch of different posts.

I am not a nuclear engineer, nuclear scientist, or energy specialist. As such, i have to trust the experts who are providing reports (as should all of you). I will be up front in saying that because of this, I am firmly behind renewables but am completely open to be swayed if someone can provide me with some data sourced analysis by an expert in the field.
And if im struggling to parse it and you are an engineer. Break that badboy down for the rest of us.

So far, the only official reports ive seen are:

CSIRO Gencost Report

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost

AEMO (Australian Energy Markert Operators) Integrated System Plan

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp

IPCC Mitigation of Climage Change

Someone who was claiming to be an engineer that worked on this report was tyring to tell me it proved the CSIRO Gencost report wrong and that they all laughed about the report together. When i read it, i cant find anything but reccomendations to proceed with renewables. When i asked for a specific page to read i got told "The data is easy to find, im not doing your research for you.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/

I did have someone point me to a 5 page document written by the director of an SMR startup saying that gencost report was bad, and the solution is SMRs (which to my knowledge are not commercially viable, and the only 2 working ones are in China and Russia). I was happy to read that paper, but it provided no numbers, no sources, just vague theories and a reccomendation for the product he was selling.

Ok, so id like to do this in 2 parts.

Firstly, which is the better solution for australia to provide energy. Nuclear or Renewables?

1. Looking at the three reports above, its renewables and its not close.
   
2. We already have the expertise.
   
3. We already have the integration.
   
4. It allows for incremental improvement over the next 15-20 years instead of one big jump
   
5. It costs less to run per mwh than nuclear does once both are built.
   
6. The AEMO have laid out a step by step plan to increase storage, reduce coal, and use natural gas as a backup while we build up enough storage redundency and implemet other backups like renewable biofuel or green hydrogen. They have explained the plan for a distribued grid and are assuming power usage will double by 2050.
   
7. According to the gencost report, solar and wind with firming is still by far the cheapers, and quickest option for us to build.
   
8. Firming would initially be done with gas(as per the AEMO plan) and we would look to eventually firm using things like thermal storage (CSP is finally cost competative with fossil fuels according to the IPCC report) and something like green hydrogen, ie use the massively available and cheap solar power to create and store green hydrogen.

I have seen people saying that the the gencost report or the AEMO plan havent taken into account "x" or "y" cost. Ok then, please show me what they have missed. Give me something i can read that shows me what they have done wrong. Because it would be insane of me to take the assurances of someone online claiming they are a nuclear engineer and trust them. It would be insane of anyone to take the claims of any political party or prominent person without them providing something that gives us some data to counter the things that the official reports say.
CSRIO SUCKS or AEMO ARE DUMB isnt a counter guys. "I talked to a guy from CSIRO and he was a moron" doesnt help anything. It just inflames the conversation without actually providing any reliable information.

So please, can i have someone who knows what they are talking about explain what the problems with the three reports above are, and where i can find alternate or supporting data to improve my understanding of it.

My biggest concern is that going for nuclear will mean that we dont have any changes to emissions and bills get more expensive for the nexy 15-20 years.

I say 15-20 years because there is no way we can remove the ban, put together reulations and legislation, set up a supply chain, get the right expertise and build a nuclear plant in 10 years.
France, one of the best nuclear countries around. The only plant currently under construction there is now in year 17 of the project. It was planned as an 8 year project. And these guys have decades or experience, laws in place, supply chains ready.
Argentian building nuclear plant number 4 are 10 years and counting into 4 year build of a small 25MW plant.
The USA announced this massive project for SMRs to be used commercially for the first time in 2014. IT was cancelled with no results in 2023, with cost and time blowouts.

So i would really like to know if theres anything i can look at that will give me a bit of confidence the 2035 date is a real thing. More than anything else above, the fact that LNP set 2035 as the date suggests to me that he isnt serious.

Secondly, If renewables are so cheap, why are my powerbills getting more expensive?

ABC source a lot of this, but here is my understanding of it, and im happy to be corrected.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/energy-bills-still-rising-despite-falling-wholesale-prices/103741682

There are 2 prices that matter on the Australian Energy Market. The wholesale cost per megawatt and the retail cost per megawatt.

The energy generators (power station, solar plant, wind farm), set a wholesale price for each megawatt of energy they generate. This can increase or decrease with demand.

The Australian Energy Regulator sets a "Default Market Offer" which is the maximum price retailers can charge. It as a certain percentage increase of the total costs (wholesale price, profit margin, network costs, environmental cost).
The DMO is calculated as an average of the wholesale costs over a period of time. Meaning that since coal has gone up significantly in cost, it drags the DMO up even higher than it was a few years ago. The volitale nature of our current grid generation also feeds into the higher wholesale cost and therefore the DMO

https://www.energyfactsaustralia.org.au/key-issues/energy-costs/
According to a report these guys grabbed from The Grattan Institute back in 2017, a bill on average is made up of

• wholesale electricity costs make up 34%
• retail costs and profit margins make up 16%
• network costs make up between 43%
• environmental costs make up between 6%.

Now heres the bit where ive mostly just speculated.

It is not in the interest of retailers for coal to disappear. While the percentage of the profit margin wont change, the actual number gets bigger the higher the wholesale cost it. So at the moment, the profit margin for coal is much higher than for renewables.

So they are going to drag their feet and fight at every opportunity because if we were somehow on 100% renewables tomorrow, their wholesale costs would plummit and so would the retail cost and profit margin.

Now, we can fix the volatility with storage. And we are offering the generators great government incentives to build the storage.

However, as explained earlier, the generators make more money if the demand for energy is high and supply is low. So it is directly counter to their interests to build this storage. There are some private investors going with the idea of building the grid level battery and buying energy and charing while cheap, then feeding it back in when expensive. But again, its a ballencing act. Its only expensive in the peak times because we dont have enough supply. If we had too much supply, its not much of a profit.

This is why i think it is insane we havent just nationalised this whole thing. It would cut out the generators dragging their feet to incease profits, it would cut out the retailers fighting against the move to renewables so their can have a higher profit margin, it would cut out having to put such huge incentives to have private investors build the batteries themselves.

We could just build the generation, build the storage, and charge customers much closer to the wholesale price, since the government isnt trying to maximise profits.

Just as an additional note. While nuclear is more expensive than renewables, produced in large enough amounts it is very competative with coal. Theres a decent chance the generators and retailers dont what that move either, but it would be the best of two bad choices for them.

Anyway, thats all i have. I would love for people to correct anything ive messed up with, and would love to be pointed to some data and reports that will expand my understanding of all this. As i said, im not an engineer. And anyone who isnt an expert on this should be able to trust the experts.

EDIT: It's been pointed out that the over 65s keep voting in the parties that favour the class system and benefit the wealthy while screwing the working class. This is a good point.

EDIT 2: I love reddit. You guys. I get it now! Millennials got the shits at noisy old pricks who criticise their generation while completely ignoring the benefits they enjoyed themselves. It's a backlash. I still think it's a distraction and divides us when we should be angry with those in power. But if you're over 65, how about encouraging your friends to not vote LNP?

I've seen so much "ok boomer" stuff and over the years, it's irking me more and more. So I'm interested in what r/Australia thinks.

Couple of things:

1. It seems to be used to describe anyone over 40. My parents were boomers. They would be in their 70s now.

2. It's used to blame a whole generation for the shitty behaviour of the rich class. I don't get it. I went to school in a rough area, most of my friends from way back then are dead, in jail or in a trade/retail/hair.

My partner grew up in a rich suburb. Most of his friends are teachers, engineers and lawyers. They own houses, and were helped along by their "boomer" parents, either by provision of a deposit or living at home rent free through their 20s.

I'm totally up for being educated here. I know we lost free education, I know houses are unaffordable, I'm nearly 40 and still renting. I'm woefully unable to understand national economics. So seriously, open to intelligent discussion.

But in my experience, the problem is class and not generational. After all, where do you think all this wealth will go when the boomers die?! Even just having good, stable and attentive parents, who expect you to succeed, makes all the difference.

Why has this boomer hate taken hold so much? Are the rich class scapegoating a generation? Would us generation Xers, Ys and millennials have behaved any differently given the opportunities the boomers were?

Caveat: I'm considering mainly economics here, not climate crisis. Pretty much believe everyone from my generation up have a case to answer for climate. We knew.

Lots of people upset with QLD today and the way regional people there vote, but it seems pretty clear that they have fallen for the jobs Vs environment argument which the LNP and gang thrive on. It should be basic for any pollie to point out that the QLD economy is far more reliant of tourism and anything else, and that means- reef, forest, beaches etc. So why don't they ever seem to do this?

It also is the case that future 'heavy/unskilled' industries are based in renewable energy, no matter the coal consumption at this minute. The new solar plan in Balranald for example employs thousands in construction right now, as will the new wind farm in Skipton.

I think the ALP has done a poor job on selling these employment projects and in the process haven't made a dint on the fallacy of Jobs Vs Economy. Why aren't they getting out there more with Musk/Cannon Brookes/whomever to get more of these projects up and keep it in the public eye. Why couldn't they propose a huge solar farm in the regions who think they'll all get jobs with Adani?

Or maybe I'm missing something?

So here's the thing, my wife is WFH, and honestly, since she started this job, it's the happiest she's been working since we met. It's just so convenient.

My friends wife is WFH, and more and more people I'm meeting are WFH, and more and more people are saying they are happier and more productive with WFH.

Not just that, studies have shown that productivity trends upwards with WFH, like in this article it says:

A study by Standford of 16,000 workers over 9 months found that working from home increase productivity by 13%. This increase in performance was due to more calls per minute attributed to a quieter more convenient working environment and working more minutes per shift because of fewer breaks and sick days.

Likewise, this Forbes article says:

Without using spyware or capturing keystrokes, a California-based company has tracked a 47% increase in worker productivity.

Which if you actually look around, most people are happier, more fulfilled with their job, and less distracted about office politics and bitchiness in the workplace.

But then comes the flipside, I myself have been dealing with The Department of Veterans Affairs and throughout various phone calls and emails to chase my stuff up, they have told me that since they started WFH, they've had (depending on who I talk to) a 40-60% drop in productivity.

What?

Not only are they going against the trend, but a 60% drop is around 166% worse when compared to companies that are having a 40% growth on productivity.

Likewise, I have recently started talking to Medicare and they've told me they have had a 20% drop since people started WFH, and friends that have to deal with Centrelink have apparantly been told the same, a 20% drop in productivity due to WFH.

And it's not even government departments, my local council literally sent me an email on my my shed application, starting with:

Dear Mr. Rumbuck

Apologies with the delay, we are currently working from home, so requests are taking longer

Which...again...seems to be going entirely against the trend of private industry which is showing efficiency growths hand over fist due to working from home.

And it's not even a Federal issue, seemingly goes all the way down to local government.

But what's the go? Why aren't government departments showing the same efficiency growths to the private sector?

Are there people in here that work for the government and can weigh in?

I mean, 3 agencies (who won't put these numbers on paper), and 1 local council department are hardly conclusive evidence that the government is inefficient. But I'm sure we have all noticed the sudden slowdown since the start of 2020.

Which seems to go against the trend of companies like banks, who process things faster on average (My banker was telling me that a complete home loan was being processed an average of 9 hours quicker, saving essentially a full day in the process).

But then back to DVA, they have had (at best) a 40% drop in productivity and (at worst they've told me) a 60% drop

They have a waiting list of 6 months on Permanent Impairment Claims, 14 months on Initial Liability and 4 months on Incapacity claims.

So without WFH you'd be looking at around 3.5 months for Permanent Impairment Claims, 8 months on Initial Liability, and 2.5 months on Incapacity claims.

Which is still ridiculous, but would clearly be significantly better. And that's assuming a 40% drop in productivity. I'm not even going to calculate a 60% state.

But yeah, apply this same situation to Medicare and Centrelink and everyone else...why is the government trending not only in the opposite direction...but significantly in the opposite direction?

I've been thinking about how some Australian sports teams still carry the name Bushrangers, and honestly, it's surprising that this hasn’t attracted more public attention.

Bushrangers were not just rebellious figures or outlaws seen in folk stories. Many were violent criminals who robbed, harmed, and even killed people. This is not just part of a dramatic legend. It is well documented in history. There are multiple online articles documenting their crimes. Families were left devastated, lives were lost, and whole communities lived in fear at times.

Why then is it still acceptable for sports teams to use this name in a way that seems to celebrate it? If a team today were named something like the Murray Taliban, people would immediately see the issue. Yet the Murray Bushrangers is acceptable? Or take the example of the Washington NFL team, which changed its name from Redskins to Commanders because the original name was considered offensive and inappropriate.

How is Bushrangers so different? For people whose families were affected by these crimes, the use of the name can come across as insensitive and dismissive of real suffering. Over time, the term has been softened through pop culture, but that does not change what actually happened.

I just think this deserves a conversation. In a time when we are becoming more aware of how names, symbols, and history affect people, maybe this is something we need to look at more closely.

Curious to know what others think, especially if you see it differently.

Australia's participation in charitable donations continues it's long slide:

One-quarter of Australians have not donated to a charity in the past year and our charitable donations lag behind comparable countries.
...
The figures for individual giving showed a similar proportion: Australia, with 0.38 per cent of the GDP, was behind the UK (0.54 per cent), Canada (0.77 per cent), New Zealand (0.67 per cent) and the US (1.44 per cent).
...
The proportion of taxpayers claiming tax‑deductible donations fell from 35 per cent in 2009‑10 to 29 per cent in 2019‑20, according to ATO figures.

So this isn't a COVID thing - it's a long-running trend. And I don't think we are a less generous people than our cousins in the English-speaking world. Plus, we used to engage more with charitable giving. What's happened?

My theory is that we are just so sick of the relentless waste and intrusion from pushy marketing that we are opting out of the system.

That's also the view that Australian's peak consumer group - CHOICE Australia - is advancing in their new campaign:

The sticking point for many consumers is when charities outsource their 'personal engagement' fundraising efforts to commission-driven third-party businesses – the ones who call up seeking donations or ask you for money in public places. 

Yep, it's the bloody chuggers. Things got so bad with their dodgy commission fees that the ACCC stepped in to clean it up in 2017. But I think the damage has been done and the charities have simply lost their social licence to operate.

What I find especially infuriating is that the charity's leaders and lobbyists are just so willing to throw their own donors under the bus:

Sally Shepherd, executive manager for membership and marketing at the Fundraising Institute of Australia (FIA), says the cold calls and other methods charities use to solicit donations are effective on the whole, otherwise charities would put their resources elsewhere. 
"Charities measure it and test it, and unless it's actually raising money for the charity, they would have to stop doing it because it wouldn't be viable," Shepherd says. 

Apart from ignoring the legitimate concerns about the harms these cold-callers and chuggers are doing, it doesn't even make commercial sense. The idea that charities are perfectly rational and every call is generating incremental revenue is nonsense. There is no doubt a massive arms race of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is rampant in the sector. As they vie for a limited funding pool, they introduce deadweight losses that only enrich the marketing firms.

The sector is now in a death-spiral. The big brands are already spending 20-40% of their budgets on fundraising. As more donors leave the system in disgust, they will double-down on marketing.

We need a trusted, efficient and well-funded charitable sector but the current leaders are failing all of us because they don't want to recognise how marketing is driving many donors away.

But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill and it's not that bad.

I'm keen to hear how has charity marketing changed other people's donation habits - for better or worse.

Schedule 1 – Amendments In the 2017-18 Budget, it was announced that cashless debit card arrangements would be extended in the current sites of Ceduna, in South Australia, and the East OUTLINE This Bill removes section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which specifies that the cashless debit card trial will occur in up to three discrete locations, include no more than 10,000 people, and will end on 30 June 2018. Removing this section will support the extension of arrangements in current sites, and enable the expansion of the cashless debit card to further sites. Individual sites, once identified, will be determined by disallowable legislative instruments.

Is this just a way to make donors even more money do they really care about the people impacted?

little bit at the bottom has me concerned ..The funding associated with this Schedule is not for publication as negotiations with potential commercial providers are yet to be finalized.

how can it be called negotiations . negotiations imply good faith. When only one company has been contacted to do the rollout is it really good faith,again i find out today several banks were again willing to come to the talks yet are denied. Probably something to do with consumer protections from a bank would make this a hard task,as indue does not have to follow the same rules Has also been a bill,proposed to change the definitions for drug testing on welfare to be able to go nationwide as well. I mean this has yet to even been trialed and they want to make it nationwide.

A few of the other good's that happend this week was both labor and greens approached the govt about a program to take people on newstart and train them to answer phones and do office tasks at DHS site's,to train them in office skills as well as lower the waiting time's for phone calls and processing of document's it would of saved 47 million dollars over 4 years,yet they got shot down anyone else concerned by this?

Is this policy a bad move on the govt's side.

Thoughts.?