Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohann Irving, Research Fellow, Flinders University

As a new parliamentary year resumes, politicians such as the ACT’s David Pocock have renewed their calls for legislation to tackle Australia’s gambling losses, which are the worst in the world per capita.

When questioned about its lack of action on gambling reform, the government frequently responds with:

We have taken more action on problem gambling than any government since Federation – in history.

It’s a line heard repeatedly from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in defence of his government’s record.

But how much has actually been done? And how does this government’s gambling legislation record stack up against its predecessors?

Albanese’s efforts to curb gambling harm

When Albanese refers to the action his government has taken on gambling harm, two key measures are mostly mentioned.

The June 2024 credit ban forbids online wagering companies from accepting credit cards and other digital currencies (like crypto) as payment methods.

But recent research found the credit ban has the “least impact” among reforms on Australia’s highest-spending gamblers, with most swapping to transaction accounts following the ban.

The other key action Albanese mentions is the August 2023 introduction of BetStop, which allows online wagerers in Australia to add their names to a digital exclusion register.

This self-restriction from all forms of regulated online wagering is for a timeframe of the gambler’s choosing.

It’s a significant piece of legislation, with more than 32,000 Australians now registered.

But concerns remain over its effectiveness, with active exclusions comprising less than 8% of approximately 400,000 high-risk gamblers.

There are also reports of betting companies contacting Australians who have self-excluded via the register. In 2026, the Australian Communications and Media Authority announced a further six licensed wagering providers breached BetStop rules.

Additionally, gambling researchers have criticised measures like BetStop for placing the responsibility for harm reduction on people rather than the wagering industry.

Who can claim credit for BetStop?

BetStop is the centrepiece of Albanese’s ambitious case for action on gambling harm, but is this a fair claim?

The Coalition government under then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull initiated the 2015 review of illegal offshore wagering, which led to the eventual launch of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering under the Morrison government in late 2018.

BetStop is the last of ten harm-reduction measures designed and implemented as part of this framework, delivered in stages from 2018 to 2024.

Among these were new gambling advertising taglines such as “chances are you’re about to lose” and prohibition of betting companies offering lines of credit to consumers.

BetStop was launched a year after the incumbent Coalition government was defeated by Albanese’s Labor. But along with the wider National Consumer Protection Framework, it was designed and scheduled by former governments.

These are matters of timing rather than Labor initiative.

What have other governments done?

Even if BetStop was a solely Albanese/Labor-led initiative, the claim that this government has done more than any other in addressing gambling harm remains shaky.

In the past decade, the Coalition government made wagering providers offer deposit limits to customers and mandated more stringent customer verification processes, among a suite of other measures.

In 2013, the Julia Gillard-led Labor government banned the promotion of live betting odds on television and prohibited in-play generic gambling advertising for sports broadcasts.

Gambling ads, though, were allowed in breaks in play and either side of matches.

Gillard also came close to introducing mandatory pre-commitment at poker machine venues but eventually backed down, blaming lack of parliamentary support.

Looking further back, several state governments passed significant legislation in the early 20th century.

A series of reforms in the early 1900s restricted most legal betting to racecourses and sports grounds and imposed new age restrictions on gambling.

But since those pre-digital times, gambling in Australia has exploded, with most governments having done relatively little in tackling gambling harm.

The claim Albanese’s reforms are more significant than any others is a weak one, given so little has been done at federal level.

A way forward

Omnipresent advertising by online sport gambling companies and cross-border gambling flows have placed the federal government under increasing pressure to combat Australia’s chronic gambling habit.

In June 2023, the Labor government was handed a prime opportunity to cement its legacy in tackling gambling harm.

“You win some, you lose more” – the report of an inquiry into online wagering led by Labor’s late Peta Murphy – contained 31 cross-party supported recommendations.

The report’s most conspicuous proposal was a phased, complete ban on online wagering advertising.

But widespread political and popular support has come a distant second to the influence of professional sports, commercial television companies and gambling corporations.

A diversionary tactic of industry body Responsible Wagering Australia is to refocus the collective gaze onto illegal offshore bookmakers.

Meanwhile, ALP backbenchers, party members and independent parliamentarians are loudly demanding meaningful action on gambling harm.

The impetus will have to come from them.

More than two years since former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton called aggressively for banning wagering ads during sporting broadcasts, and the Coalition’s inquiry members supporting the Murphy report’s recommendations, the Coalition has gone quiet on the subject.

Despite frequent promises that a full response to the Murphy report and ensuing action were imminent, Albanese continues to stall.

With each day he delays, his claim to unprecedented gambling reform looks increasingly disingenuous and overly influenced by vested interests.

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

– ref. You spin some, you lose more: how Albanese’s gambling rhetoric falls short – https://theconversation.com/you-spin-some-you-lose-more-how-albaneses-gambling-rhetoric-falls-short-271614

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/04/you-spin-some-you-lose-more-how-albaneses-gambling-rhetoric-falls-short-271614/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wellett Potter, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New England

Would you create an interactive “digital twin” of yourself that can communicate with loved ones after your death?

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made it possible to seemingly resurrect the dead. So-called griefbots or deathbots – an AI-generated voice, video avatar or text-based chatbot trained on the data of a deceased person – proliferate in the booming digital afterlife industry, also known as grief tech.

Deathbots are usually created by the bereaved, often as part of the grieving process. But there are also services that allow you to create a digital twin of yourself while you’re still alive. So why not create one for when you’re gone?

As with any application of new technology, the idea of such digital immortality raises many legal questions – and most of them don’t have a clear answer.

Your AI afterlife

To create an AI digital twin of yourself, you can sign up for a service that provides this feature, and answer a series of questions to provide data about who you are. You also record stories, memories and thoughts in your own voice. You might also upload your visual likeness in the form of images or video.

The AI software then creates a digital replica based on that training data. After you die and the company is notified of your death, your loved ones can interact with your digital twin.

But in doing this, you’re also delegating agency to a company to create a digital AI simulation of yourself after death.

From the get go, this is different to using AI to “resurrect” a dead person who can’t consent to this. Instead, a living person is essentially licensing data about themselves to an AI afterlife company before they’ve died. They’re engaging in a deliberate, contractual creation of AI-generated data for posthumous use.

However, there are many unanswered questions. What about copyright? What about your privacy?. What happens if the technology becomes outdated or the business closes? Does the data get sold on? Does the digital twin also “die”, and what effect does this have for a second time on the bereaved?

What does the law say?

Currently, Australian law doesn’t protect a person’s identity, voice, presence, values or personality as such. In contrast to the United States, Australians don’t have a general publicity or personality right. This means, for an Australian citizen, there’s currently no legal right for you to own or control your identity – the use of your voice, image or likeness.

In short, the law doesn’t recognise a proprietary right in most of the unique things that make you “you”.

Under copyright law, the concept of your presence or self is abstract, much like an idea is. Copyright doesn’t offer protection for “your presence” or “the self” as such. That’s because there has to be material form in specific categories of works for copyright to exist: these are tangible things, such as books or photos.

However, typed responses or the voice recordings submitted to the AI for training are material. This means the data used to train the AI to create your digital twin would likely be protectable. But fully autonomous AI generated output is unlikely to have any copyright attached to it. Under current Australian law, it would likely be considered authorless because it didn’t originate from the “independent intellectual effort” of a human, but from a machine.

Moral rights in copyright protect a creator’s reputation against false attribution and against derogatory treatment of their work. However, they wouldn’t apply to a digital twin. This is because moral rights attach to actual works created by a human author, not any AI-generated output.

So where does that leave your digital twin? Although it’s unlikely copyright applies to AI-generated output, in their terms and conditions companies may assert ownership of the AI-generated data, users may be granted rights in outputs, or the company may reserve extensive reuse rights. It’s something to look out for.

There are ethical risks, too

Using AI to make digital copies of people – living or dead – also raises ethical risks. For example, even though the training data for your digital twin might be locked upon your death, others will be accessing it in the future by interacting with it. What happens if the technology misrepresents the deceased person’s morals and ethics?

As AI is usually probabilistic and based on algorithms, there may be risk of creep or distortion, where the responses drift over time. The deathbot could lose its resemblance to the original person. It’s not clear what recourse the bereaved may have if this happens.

AI-enabled deathbots and digital twins can help people grieve, but the effects so far are largely anecdotal – more study is needed. At the same time, there’s potential for bereaved relatives to form a dependence on the AI version of their loved one, rather than processing their grief in a healthier way. If the outputs of AI-powered grief tech cause distress, how can this be managed, and who will be held responsible?

The current state of the law clearly shows more regulation is needed in this burgeoning grief tech industry. Even if you consent to the use of your data for an AI digital twin after you die, it’s difficult to anticipate new technologies changing how your data is used in the future.

For now, it’s important to always read the terms and conditions if you decide to create a digital afterlife for yourself. After all, you are bound by the contract you sign.

Wellett Potter is a member of the Copyright Society of Australia and the Asia-Pacific Copyright Association.

– ref. An ‘AI afterlife’ is now a real option – but what becomes of your legal status? – https://theconversation.com/an-ai-afterlife-is-now-a-real-option-but-what-becomes-of-your-legal-status-274021

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/04/an-ai-afterlife-is-now-a-real-option-but-what-becomes-of-your-legal-status-274021/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meg Elkins, Associate Professor in Economics, RMIT University

When the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) board voted unanimously to lift the cash rate to 3.85% on Tuesday, the decision was driven by one overriding concern. It wants to stop the rising cost of living from becoming entrenched.

For some, like self-funded retirees, the rate rise was good news. Higher interest means their savings and term deposits will earn more. But for many others, including first home buyers who might have stretched themselves just to get a foot into the housing market, it was a very bad day.

RBA Governor Michele Bullock acknowledged that, saying:

I know this is not the news that Australians with mortgages want to hear, but it is the right thing for the economy.

She warned the alternative – letting inflation keep rising – would be even harder for more Australians.

So what’s the psychology behind the RBA raising rates now and leaving the door open to further hikes if needed? And what does the central bank hope Australians will do in response?

The price squeeze you’re feeling

There’s a striking gap between how the RBA describes the economy and how most Australians experience it.

On paper, things look healthy: unemployment is low, wages are growing.

But as Bullock acknowledged on Tuesday, the daily reality has felt very different.

The price level has gone up 20% to 25% over the last few years, and people see that every time they walk into a supermarket, or they go to the doctor, or whatever – that’s I think what’s hurting people.

That relentless price squeeze is not something you forget, even when the rate of increase starts to slow.

What’s driving inflation up?

The headline consumer price index (CPI) hit 3.8% in the year to December, well above the RBA’s target band of 2–3%. The “trimmed mean” – the underlying measure the RBA watches most closely – rose to 3.3%. Both are too high and moving in the wrong direction.

Bullock singled out three factors contributing to inflation. Each behaves differently and requires a different response.

Housing was the single largest contributor to inflation in December, up 5.5% over the year. That includes rents, which rose 3.9% (or 4.2% stripping out government rent assistance), as well as insurance, utilities, and new construction costs, which rose 3% as builders passed through higher labour and material costs.

There is an irony here. Rising interest rates are intended to cool demand, but they slow housing construction. Limited supply of housing is what’s pushing rents up in the first place.

“Durable goods” are the things we buy to last, such as cars, refrigerators, washing machines, televisions and furniture. Demand for many of those has been higher in the past year.

“Market services” are items such as restaurant meals, taxis, haircuts, gym memberships, medical appointments and holiday travel.

The RBA watches these carefully, because these are services priced by supply and demand in the domestic market. Those prices tend to be “sticky”: once they start rising, they don’t come back down easily.

Wages are also a big part of market services inflation. If the people providing those services are earning more, the cost goes up.

---

Read more:
RBA raises interest rates as inflation pressures remain high

---

How rate cuts made shoppers relax

This is where the behavioural psychology gets interesting.

The RBA cut interest rates three times in 2025. Each cut sent a signal, whether intentionally or not: it’s OK to spend a bit more.

And spend we did. CommBank data shows Australians spent A$23.8 billion over the two-week Black Friday period, up 4.6% on the year before.

It’s a cautionary tale about “rational expectations”. Each rate cut potentially fuelled the belief that more would follow.

If people feel like they can afford to spend, then they spend. Businesses, sensing demand, may raise their prices to match. That’s exactly the self-fulfilling dynamic central banks worry about.

---

Read more:
Here’s what Black Friday sales shopping does to your brain

---

The 3 ways the RBA hopes we’ll react

When prices go up, as they have been, workers ask for bigger wage rises to keep up. To pay higher wages, businesses lift prices to protect their profit margins. Together, that can create a “wage-price spiral” that becomes very hard to break.

The RBA will be hoping Australians respond to this rate rise in three ways:

• spending less

• saving more

• not asking for big wage rises (although they’d never phrase it that way).

RBA Governor Michele Bullock described raising interest rates as “a very blunt instrument” to bring inflation down, and noted setting rates is “not a science. It’s a bit of an art, really […] We’ve just got to respond as best we can.”

The RBA can’t undo the price rises that have already happened. It can only try to slow down further increases.

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

– ref. What the RBA wants Australians to do next to fight inflation – or risk more rate hikes – https://theconversation.com/what-the-rba-wants-australians-to-do-next-to-fight-inflation-or-risk-more-rate-hikes-274984

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/04/what-the-rba-wants-australians-to-do-next-to-fight-inflation-or-risk-more-rate-hikes-274984/

Asia Pacific Report

Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, a Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawai’ian) initiative for self-determination and self-governance formed in 1987, has sent a 17-member Indigenous delegation to Waitangi to stand in solidarity with Māori in defence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The delegation is present to “stand alongside Māori leadership, strengthen international solidarity, and affirm the deep genealogical and oceanic ties shared by Indigenous peoples of Moana Nui a Kanaloa”, a statement said.

Members of the delegation participated in a pōwhiri yesterday with iwi taketake at Te Tii Waitangi Mārae, marking a formal welcome and the beginning of their engagement alongside Māori communities and leaders.

Members of the delegation will speak at the Political Forum tent tomorrow, take part in the dawn ceremony on February 6, and march alongside their whānau in support of Te Tiriti.

The delegation has issued a formal Statement of Solidarity calling on the international community to watch developments in Aotearoa while “political actions continue to seek to weaken and reinterpret Te Tiriti and undermine Māori rangatiratanga”.

The Kanaka Maoli statement raised serious concern that recent New Zealand government actions and political rhetoric had “misrepresented efforts” to address structural discrimination as “racial privilege”.

The government actions had also enabled legislative initiatives seeking to “radically redefine” the meaning of Te Tiriti — triggering widespread national protests, multiple claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, judicial review proceedings, and large nationwide hui of Māori leaders.

‘World should know’
“The world should know what is happening in Aotearoa. As Kanaka Maoli, we know what it means to have our lands, waters, and political future decided without us,” said Healani Sonoda-Pale, spokesperson for Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi.

“We came to Waitangi so the world can see that Māori are not standing alone — and that Indigenous peoples across the Pacific are watching, standing together, and demanding that Te Tiriti o Waitangi be fully honored.

“Our struggles are connected, and our collective liberation as Indigenous peoples of Oceania are bound to one another.”

Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/04/big-ka-lahui-hawai%CA%BBi-delegation-joins-maori-in-solidarity-over-te-tiriti/

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

The South Australian state election will be held on March 21. Preferential voting will be used to elect members for all 47 single-member lower house seats. This is the same system as used for federal House of Representatives elections.

Some Australian conservatives are advocating Australia return to first past the post (FPTP), but a conservative government introduced preferential voting in 1918 to stop vote splitting between two conservative parties. Right-wing preferences helped the Coalition maintain its grip on power from 1949 to 1972. Preferential voting is far superior to FPTP.

After Labor’s landslide at the May 2025 federal election, some right-wingers have complained that preferential voting gave Labor too many seats. They want Australia to revert to FPTP, where there are no preferences. In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins the seat.

National primary votes at the election were 34.6% Labor, 31.8% Coalition, 12.2% Greens, 6.4% One Nation and 15.0% for all Others. After preferences, Labor defeated the Coalition by 55.2–44.8 and won 94 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (63% of seats). In both two-party and seat share, this was Labor’s biggest win since 1943.

While Labor’s margin expanded after preferences, they won the national primary vote by 2.8%. Analyst Kevin Bonham said that on primary votes, Labor would have won 86 seats to 57 for the Coalition (actual 94 to 43). Labor’s primary votes were much more efficiently distributed than the Coalition’s.

Labor won a disproportionate seat share at the election, but this occurs with single-member systems, particularly with a blowout result. Those complaining about Labor’s big majority should advocate switching to proportional representation, not FPTP.

The United Kingdom 2024 election was held using FPTP. Labour won 411 of the 650 seats (63% of seats) on 33.7% of the national vote. This occurred primarily because Labour’s vote share was ten points ahead of the second placed Conservatives.

A brief history of preferential voting in Australia

Prior to 1918, federal elections used FPTP. In 1918, there was a byelection for Swan that was contested by the Nationalists (a predecessor of the Liberals), the Country Party (a predecessor of the Nationals) and Labor.

Labor won this byelection with 34.4%, to 31.4% for the Country Party and 29.6% for the Nationalists. With the combined vote for the two conservative options adding to 61.0%, it was clear a different system would have given the Country Party the win.

After this byelection, the Nationalist government introduced preferential voting, resulting in Labor losing the Corangamite byelection in 1918 to a Victorian Farmers candidate by 56.3–43.7, despite Labor winning the primary vote by 42.5–26.4 with 22.9% for the Nationalists.

Originally preferential voting was introduced to allow the two conservative parties (now Liberals and Nationals) to compete against each other without splitting the conservative vote and giving Labor wins it didn’t deserve. There are still “three-cornered” contests now where the Liberals, Nationals and Labor all contest the same seat.

This Wikipedia page gives national primary votes for Labor, the Coalition and all Others, the Labor and Coalition estimated two-party share and House seats won by Labor, Coalition and others at elections from 1910 to 2022.

Until the 1990s, the combined primary votes for the major parties was around 90% in most elections. This means that other than in three-cornered contests, preferences had limited impact. There were high Other votes in 1931, ‘34, ’40 and ’43, with the first three cases due to a Labor split (New South Wales Lang Labor).

In the first two of these cases, Labor was far behind on primary votes and made up some ground on preferences, but the Coalition still won easily. In 1940, Labor trailed by 3.7% on primary votes but won the two-party vote by 50.3–49.7. However, the Coalition formed government with the support of two independents until those independents sided with Labor in 1941.

In 1943, there was a split within the Coalition, and other preferences favoured the Coalition, reducing Labor’s primary vote lead of 26.9 points to 16.4 points after preferences.

In 1955, a Labor faction split from Labor and became the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), directing preferences to the Coalition. From 1955 until the DLP’s demise in 1974, it dominated the third party vote, and so overall preferences in this period assisted the Coalition.

The DLP helped the Coalition to have the longest period of one-party government from 1949 to 1972. Labor was estimated to have won the two-party vote in 1954, 1961 and 1969, but the Coalition won a majority of House seats.

Since 1987, preferences have favoured Labor, allowing it to overturn primary vote deficits to win the two-party vote in 1987, 2010 and 2022. First the Democrats and then the Greens assisted Labor after preferences. One Nation’s first rise at the 1998 election didn’t stop overall preferences from favouring Labor.

The only time Labor formed government while losing the two-party vote occurred in 1990, when they won a majority of seats despite losing by 50.1–49.9. Labor lost the election in 1998, even though it won the two-party vote by 51.0–49.0.

Some recent polls have One Nation surging into second place behind Labor, ahead of the Coalition. On current polling, there are more right-wing sources of preferences than left-wing sources, so overall preference flows could favour the right at the next federal election, whether it’s One Nation or the Coalition that benefits most.

In early elections, some seats were often uncontested, meaning only one candidate nominated for that seat. No votes were counted in such seats, so national primary votes will be distorted by the exclusion of these seats.

Why preferential voting is superior to FPTP

At the 2025 election, Labor’s Ali France defeated Liberal leader Peter Dutton in his seat of Dickson by 56.0–44.0. But Dutton had more primary votes than France, winning 34.7% of the primary vote to 33.6% for France, with 12.2% for a teal independent, 7.6% for the Greens and 4.2% for One Nation.

FPTP gives a massive benefit to the side of politics (left or right) that has its vote more concentrated with one party or candidate. In the two 1918 byelections, the left vote was concentrated with Labor, and in Dickson 2025 the right vote was concentrated with Dutton. Preferential voting is far fairer by allowing all candidates’ votes to eventually count.

In FPTP, many voters need to choose between supporting the candidate they most prefer even if that candidate is uncompetitive, and voting for the candidate best placed to keep someone they dislike out. Votes for uncompetitive candidates are effectively wasted in FPTP.

Labor may have won Dickson under FPTP as some of the teal and Greens voters would probably have voted for Labor tactically to beat Dutton. But voters shouldn’t need to make these choices.

Parliaments require majorities to function. The party winning the most seats does not necessarily form government, for example Labour formed government after the 2017 New Zealand election even though the conservative National won the most seats.

In the UK, the Conservatives needed to form alliances with other parties after winning the most seats but not a majority at the 2010 and 2017 elections. Preferential voting is closer to parliamentary systems than FPTP.

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

– ref. Why preferential voting is superior to first past the post – https://theconversation.com/why-preferential-voting-is-superior-to-first-past-the-post-264248

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/04/why-preferential-voting-is-superior-to-first-past-the-post-264248/