The resignations of the BBC’s director general and director of news were shocking. Perhaps just as shocking is the US$1 billion legal threat the broadcaster now faces from US president Donald Trump.

The full story of what has happened at the BBC may take months (or years) to emerge. But it’s become evident that a combination of poor editorial judgement and political meddling by longstanding BBC critics contributed to Tim Davie and Deborah Turness’s departures.

That there were editorial mistakes is not in question. The BBC Panorama documentary on Trump spliced together two different parts of Trump’s notorious January 6 2021 speech on Capitol Hill, without making the edit clear.

The programme itself, which was broadcast a few days before the 2024 US presidential election, was arguably carefully balanced, containing an equal number of Trump supporters and detractors. Notably, it did not receive a single complaint at the time of transmission.

It was broadcast a week before the 2024 US presidential election – nearly four years after the speech itself. It wasn’t a programme that was likely to sway anyone’s views of the president, who was impeached for “incitement of insurrection” after January 6. He was later acquitted.

Nevertheless, it was wrong to edit the speech in this way. That error was one of many allegations of institutional bias included in a dossier by Michael Prescott. Until June, Prescott – a former political editor for Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times and longtime PR professional – was an external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee.

The report was leaked to the Telegraph, which splashed with selected excerpts alleging that the programme had been “doctored”, and listing other editorial problems that he claimed the BBC had failed to put right.

Political influence

The Telegraph, like much of the British press, has for decades waged an editorial war against the BBC. As a publicly funded, free-to-air broadcaster, which is by some distance the most trusted news provider in the UK, the BBC is a serious challenge to news publishers’ commercial interests. It also offends the political sensibilities of those opposed to public funding interventions more generally.

It was therefore only a matter of time before the Telegraph “exclusive” on BBC bias and the Panorama programme escalated, especially once noticed by the White House. As the crisis gathered steam, one of the many burning questions was: why on earth is the BBC not responding?

It has now been reported – including by the BBC’s media editor Katie Razzall and BBC presenter Nick Robinson – that an apology was drafted by the BBC news team and was ready to be signed off a week ago.

Unfortunately, the BBC board reportedly prevented Turness from putting out the apology, instead opting for a letter to MPs on the media select committee. What followed was a damaging vacuum, with the BBC unable to defend itself or acknowledge its error. As internal arguments raged, it simply issued a bland statement that it would respond in writing to the select committee.

Key to this institutional paralysis and the fallout that followed were the political appointees to the BBC board. When the BBC charter was renewed in 2016, the then Conservative government introduced a new governance structure. The BBC would be governed by a unitary board of 14, including a chair, and four part-time members, each representing one of the UK’s nations. These five were all government appointees.

That boardroom dissent was, it now appears, led by those political appointees, in particular Sir Robbie Gibb. Following time as a BBC executive in charge of political programmes, Gibb was Conservative prime minister Theresa May’s director of communications. He was subsequently involved in the founding of GB News, an avowedly right-wing news channel.

In the words of Prospect magazine and former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Gibb “does not pretend to be impartial on issues related to British politics or Israel”.

Gibb was appointed to the BBC board by Boris Johnson, reappointed by Rishi Sunak, and his term runs until 2028. It is therefore unsurprising that Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has called for Gibb’s immediate removal from the board and for an end to the practice of political appointments.

The Conversation has reached out to Gibb for comment.

In his letter to the chair of the media select committee on Monday, BBC chairman Samir Shah acknowledged the Panorama mistake and apologised for the news team’s “error of judgement”. He made it clear, however, that Prescott’s report “does not present a full picture of the discussions, decisions and actions that were taken”.

Changes for the future

This peculiar arrangement of political appointments appears to have effectively given partisan appointees a veto over a crucial senior management decision, resulting in the forced departure of the BBC’s two most senior news executives.

While Davey is right that this anomaly needs to be rectified, the whole BBC governance structure is in need of an overhaul. At a time of increasing polarisation and social media misinformation, it is more important than ever that the BBC is protected from political interference.

The next BBC charter, starting from January 2028, offers a perfect opportunity to provide the kind of protective structure that the BBC requires. As part of a campaign to support public service broadcasting in the UK, the British Broadcasting Challenge – a group of academics and media professionals that includes myself and The Conversation’s CEO Chris Waiting – published a report last month calling for a “genuinely independent public appointments process for the chair and trustees, insulated from covert and overt government influence”.

This could be done through a dedicated body set up under the same terms as the wholly independent Press Recognition Panel, with no links to any political party or partisan campaigning group. Such a body could be responsible not just for non-executive BBC appointments (including its chair) but also for the chair of regulator Ofcom and the chair of Channel 4 – both currently in the gift of government.

The Labour government is about to kickstart a debate on the next BBC charter. Lisa Nandy, as the responsible secretary of state, has it in her hands to rectify some of the egregious damage inflicted on the BBC’s reputation by the political meddling of the last few days. Let’s hope that she rises to the challenge.

Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of Westminster

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

State and territory governments have reacted angrily to a letter from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in September asking them to rein in hospital spending.

This comes amid negotiations for the next five-year funding agreement to determine the federal government’s contribution to state-run public hospitals.

The states are angry because hospitals are under intense pressure. Demand is rising, emergency departments are packed, and workers are stressed. More money will be needed as Australians get older and sicker.

But public hospital spending has surged by an average of A$3 billion, or 4.5%, every year for the past decade. The federal government is understandably concerned about such rapid spending growth, some of which may not be good value.

To lighten the load, the federal and state governments should invest in prevention and primary care from GPs and others to prevent people getting sick enough to need to go to hospital.

Governments must also strike a deal to pay for rising costs, and to spend hospital dollars better. Our new Grattan Institute report explains how.

Not all spending is necessary

Some hospitals spend a lot more than others on similar admissions. Those gaps can’t be fully explained by differences between patients (such as being older and sicker), or hospitals (such as being smaller, or more specialised).

Instead, variable practices are partly to blame, such as keeping people in hospital longer, higher rates of infections and falls, using more tests, less efficient workforce roles, or costly local procurement of supplies and services.

We estimate there is $1.2 billion of avoidable cost in the system each year, enough to fund 160,000 extra hospital visits.

Get budgeting back on track

Too often, state budgeting for hospitals is a sham that repeats year after year.

First, hospitals overspend. Then, governments cover the deficit because hospitals are too important to fail. Next, trying to enforce discipline, governments set the next budget unrealistically low. With uncertainty and short-termism baked in, hospitals struggle to plan and invest. Then the cycle repeats.

Even before the COVID pandemic, budgets routinely predicted that hospital funding would fall, which almost never happens. Since 2015-16, actual spending has exceeded state budget funding by an average 6% a year.

It’s a chaotic way to run a vital system. It leaves hospitals without the stability, or the incentive, to invest in productivity.

Breaking the cycle requires predictability and responsibility on both sides. States should set realistic system-wide budgets based on the projected growth in demand and costs.

Consistently well-run hospitals should get three-year budgets so they can plan and invest. In exchange, bailouts should stop, with consequences for boards and CEOs that oversee persistent deficits.

Federal contributions should be predictable and fair too. Since 2017, the federal government has capped its hospital funding growth at 6.5% a year. That means the federal share of growth shrinks when inflation or population growth spikes, leaving states funding the shortfall.

The cap should be redesigned so the federal government automatically shares funding for reasonable increases in demand and cost. But it can also push productivity. The cap should rise along with state populations and need for care, but it should go up a little below the projected rise in costs.

Price for best practice

Public hospital pricing is based on paying the average cost of care for a visit of a standard length. But how a standard length is defined is way out of date.

Australia’s independent pricing authority should develop prices that promote shorter stays, when they’re safe. States should be rewarded with more federal funding if they embrace these changes.

Other countries have made pricing changes to promote safe same-day care. France, Denmark, Germany and Norway pay the same amount for same-day and longer stays for many surgeries. That creates a strong incentive to send eligible patients home sooner.

Australia, by contrast, often pays less for one-day stays.

It’s no wonder same-day joint replacements are common overseas but rare here. In 2022–23, just 0.3% of hip replacements and 0.2% of knee replacements were same-day, whereas comparable countries have climbed to 5, 10, or even 20%. This cuts costs, without compromising patient outcomes.

Fund solutions for stranded patients

Some patients stay in hospital long after they are medically ready to leave, because they are waiting for residential aged care or disability services. Those extra bed days shouldn’t be funded like bed days that are needed for health reasons.

The average National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participant waits 16 days in hospital after being medically ready to leave. State governments report that about 8–10% of public hospital bed days are taken up by people waiting to be discharged somewhere else.

No one likes being in hospital longer than necessary, and every extra day carries the risk of infections or complications. And it’s expensive. The average cost of a hospital visit for a new resident at a residential aged care facility is more than $6,500 higher than for an otherwise identical patient returning home.

Like in England, Sweden and Norway, Australia should impose financial penalties for keeping people stranded in hospital. The federal government is responsible for aged care and the NDIS. It should pay for hospital stays after someone is medically ready to leave, or alternative temporary accommodation arranged by the hospital.

Use purchasing power

Supplies and services are roughly a quarter of hospitals’ operating costs. Bigger contracts mean better deals and less duplicated administration. But many states leave money on the table by letting hospitals buy separately what they could buy together.

Centralised procurement lowers prices and cuts duplication. New South Wales’ HealthShare model shows what’s possible across uniforms, meals, linen, payroll and patient transport. Smaller jurisdictions should piggyback on their bigger neighbour’s buying, and for some specialised technologies, a national approach makes sense.

Spending on temporary doctors and nurses has surged since COVID. Hospitals often end up bidding against one another, driving wages up. States should set maximum daily rates, as Queensland does, or consider an in-house locum agency, like Western Australia’s.

There’s also a clinical dimension to scale: centralising some procedures in high-volume surgical centres is often safer and cheaper. States should steadily consolidate where the evidence supports it, and make sure patients who need help to travel to hospital get it.

Time for a productivity pact

Governments are currently debating the next national health agreement. Recent deals have mostly been about slicing up the funding pie, not making it go further. Now there’s a chance to change that.

With productive prices, and a fairer federal cap, states can give their health systems more certainty and better incentives.

Add tougher, more realistic hospital budgets and savings through scale, and we’ll get more care for every hospital dollar.

Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute and Elizabeth Baldwin, Senior Associate, Health Program, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Online gaming giant Roblox has just announced it will start checking users’ ages from early December in an attempt to stop children and teenagers talking with adults.

In what the company has described as a move that sets a “safety gold standard” for the industry, it says it will be the first online gaming or communication platform to require facial age assurance to access chat features for all users.

This requirement comes into effect in Australia just days before the country’s social media age restrictions launch on December 10. It also comes at a time when Roblox – which boasts nearly 380 million active monthly users worldwide – finds itself embroiled in several lawsuits and facing growing public concerns about child grooming and other harms on the platform.

So how exactly will the age requirement work? And will it actually help to keep users – more than half of whom are under 16 – safe?

A global rollout

The age check requirement will be rolled out first in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands in early December. It will be expanded globally in early January.

Roblox will require the checks for all users who want to access chat features.

Age checks will involve either facial age estimation enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) or ID verification. Once the age check is complete, users will then be grouped by age and only allowed to chat with people of similar ages.

Roblox says its age checks (to be run by Persona, a third-party identity verification platform) will be “fast” and “secure”, with the Roblox app using the camera on the user’s device.

Users will take a video selfie and be required to move their face in specific directions, to ensure a real person is being checked, to estimate their age.

Once the video is processed it will be deleted, immediately.

Roblox under fire

At the moment Roblox will not be included in Australia’s social media ban for under 16s. However, the company has come under fire in recent months over concerns about grooming, gambling behaviour, and other potential harms for children on its platform.

In April 2025, a California man was accused of kidnapping and engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a 10-year-old child he met on Roblox.

This year, several lawsuits have been launched against Roblox.

Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Roblox for “ignoring [American] online safety laws while deceiving parents about the dangers of its platform”.

Separate lawsuits were filed in Kentucky in October, and Louisiana in August, accusing Roblox of harming children.

Florida also filed a criminal subpoena in October alleging Roblox was “a breeding ground for predators”.

Roblox announced in September that it would implement safety measures in Australia “as a result of eSafety’s engagement with the platform”. These measures include:

• making accounts for users under age 16 private by default
• introducing tools to prevent adult users from contacting under 16s, without parental consent
• switching off by default direct chat and “experience chat” within Roblox games, until a user has completed an age check
• not allowing voice chat between adults and children 15 and under.

Unlike many other platforms, Roblox does not encrypt private chats. This enables the company to monitor and moderate the conversations.

Age checks won’t fix other problems

While these measures will likely be welcomed by parents and others concerned for child safety online, they are not foolproof.

There are limitations to age assurance technologies, which can estimate a person to be between one to three years older – or younger – than their actual age.

This means some children may be assigned into an incorrect age grouping. It also means some adults over 18 may be estimated to be under 18, enabling them to chat with younger people.

Parents whose accounts are linked to their child’s account will be able to correct their child’s age. All users over 13 will be able to correct their age by uploading ID into the system, which may raise concerns about data privacy for users.

There may also be people who lack the appropriate ID necessary to make the corrections, which may restrict their access to age-appropriate features on the platform.

Roblox also allows users to be “trusted connections” and chat with age-checked users 13 and older, with whom they have an existing real-world connections. This will be verified via a QR code or phone number. This means parents will need to check these connections carefully and continue to monitor children’s interactions.

While Roblox’s restrictions will limit interactions to users of similar ages, that doesn’t mean many of the other potential harms – such as cyberbullying – won’t occur within a peer group.

There are also other potential harms that young users may encounter that may not involve chat features. These include virtual sexual assault, as highlighted by a recent investigation by Guardian Australia into Roblox.

The eSafety Commissioner will continue to monitor Roblox and other platforms in future, and these may be classed as age-restricted social media under the legislation if warranted. Meanwhile, parents and other carers should review eSafety’s advice about the upcoming ban and steps they can take to keep their kids safe online.

Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

WeChat is best known as China’s all-purpose “super-app”. It is used for everything from messaging and mobile payments to shopping and government services.

As of June 2024, WeChat reported a staggering 1.37 billion active monthly users globally. For many Chinese-speaking diaspora communities – such as in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom – the app is a lifeline to their homeland and communities.

But my new research, published this week in Policy & Internet, shows WeChat has also become a powerful – and largely overlooked – component of China’s policing and public security infrastructure.

In fact, the app is now functioning as a “police app”. It’s a kind a digital toolkit allowing police to collect intelligence, accept crime reports, verify identities and access citizen data through a private platform that is deeply embedded in everyday life.

From a social platform to a policing tool

Public security bureaus in China began creating official WeChat accounts in 2012.

By 2017, more than 50,000 police accounts existed. Many offered far more than simple announcements.

Across provinces in China, police are now using WeChat to:

• operate “internet police stations” where citizens report crimes and disturbances
• collect digital tips, images and clues from users
• run real-time emergency “WeChat alarms”
• verify identities using national ID data
• link WeChat inputs to provincial “police clouds” and population surveillance databases.

In some jurisdictions, WeChat has even become a frontline policing tool.

In Guangzhou city, for example, railway police built a WeChat-based alarm system allowing citizens to send incident details directly to police dispatch. This would then trigger real-time audio and video communication.

In Zhejiang province, officers used WeChat-based facial and ID card scanning to rapidly identify individuals.

In several towns, thousands of “WeChat police groups” were created, pairing residents with local officers and blurring the line between neighbourhood governance and digital surveillance.

These functions go far beyond convenience. They show how a commercial platform has become an extension of the state’s security apparatus.

A patchwork of purposes

My research draws on 53 government procurement documents and additional Chinese-language media reports on two WeChat accounts known as “public security WeChat” and “WeChat policing”. Procurement documents are a great source of data. They are common in research in contexts where information is curated or suppressed.

The research shows how police agencies across China are integrating WeChat directly into their daily operations.

Wealthier provinces such as Fujian and Shanghai invested heavily in integrating WeChat with existing public security systems, enabling hundreds of services through the app.

Fujian province alone aimed to link WeChat with services across ten cities and more than 300 functions.

Other localities treated WeChat as a superficial PR tool. Some accounts offered little more than positive police stories or traffic announcements. Others became “zombie accounts” – created to meet digitisation targets but never properly maintained.

This patchwork reflects broader challenges in China’s digital modernisation. Local agencies face unequal resources, tight performance quotas and limited technical capacity.

For some, deep integration is possible. For others, the use of WeChat is merely symbolic compliance with government modernisation quotas.

Filling a gap for the state

The Chinese government has spent a decade pushing public security agencies to deliver more services online. Yet many local police units lack the expertise or funds to build bespoke digital systems.

WeChat offers a shortcut.

Because it already handles identity verification, payments, location data and messaging for more than a billion users, it can serve as a ready-made platform for police.

Tencent, WeChat’s parent company, has positioned itself strategically. It offers customised WeChat modules to public security departments as a commercial service

The result is a public-private security infrastructure: state needs and corporate incentives moving in the same direction.

Around the world, governments are increasingly partnering with private tech companies for policing and security.

In the United States and Europe, for example, Palantir and similar firms provide predictive policing and data-analysis platforms.

China’s version is different because WeChat is both a consumer platform and a part of the state’s digital infrastructure.

When policing functions are embedded inside an app billions of people rely on for daily life, the boundary between public service and surveillance becomes blurred.

A new future of platform power and state surveillance

For citizens, WeChat-based policing can make bureaucratic processes faster and more convenient.

But it also means everyday digital activities such as sending messages or paying bills and reporting disturbances could feed into a security architecture operated jointly by the state and a private company.

For WeChat, being compliant with the demands of the state will likely be a crucial business survival strategy.

For example, following China’s national crackdown on Tencent and the broader tech sector between 2020 and 2022, Tencent’s founder promised:

Tencent will continue to resonate with the needs of the nation and the times.

As China continues to centralise its digital governance, WeChat’s role in public security is likely to deepen – representing a new future of platform power and state surveillance.

Ausma Bernot, Lecturer in Technology and Crime, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The next time you board a commercial flight and are told how to sit in the brace position for an emergency landing, consider this: did you know that international plane safety testing only requires adult male crash test dummies?

Even with car crashes, male dummies are still used for the majority of crash tests worldwide and in Australia. Bizarrely, until just three years ago, the only supposedly “female” crash test dummies used in car safety tests were just shrunken versions of male dummies.

As a former airline pilot now completing a PhD in aviation safety, I’ve been researching the history of aeroplane and car safety. And I’ve been shocked at how little real-world testing is still being done to keep women safe in the air and on our roads.

The problem with crash test dummies

Crash test dummies, called “anthropomorphic test devices”, were first developed for the military in 1949, then adopted by the automotive industry in the mid-1960s.

One of the most widely used test dummies today for both aeroplanes and cars is the Hybrid III “average” man: 175cm tall, 78kg, first created in 1976. That’s meant to represent a 50th percentile or average-sized man and is even written into US regulations for certification safety testing.

Automotive safety testing does include a “small female” dummy for around 25% of tests. However, the dummy required to be used is not actually shaped like an average biological female.

Supposedly “female” dummies have been made and used over the years, such as the Hybrid HIII-5F.

But at just 149cm tall and 48kg, it’s more like the size of a 12-year-old girl. And this dummy (widely used in car testing, including in Australia) is actually a scaled down version of the widely used average male Hybrid III – with plastic breasts swapped in for its chest.

It was only three years ago that a team of Swedish engineers led by pioneering researcher Astrid Linder finally unveiled the first dummy built to mimic an “average woman” of 162cm and 62kg.

The creation of a new female dummy is a step forward. But using that more accurate “average” female dummy is not yet a legal requirement for car or plane testing.

Women’s higher risk of serious injuries in cars

In cars, women are more likely to be seriously injured in crashes, even at low speeds.

Women sit further forward than men when driving, even if they are the same height. We need to, as we have different limb proportions than men.

In crashes, women are often labelled “out of position drivers” — simply because car designs are based on the average male. Half the world’s population is not sitting wrong; it’s a design flaw.

Startlingly, some car protection systems designed and tested on male dummies have been shown to increase injury severity in women, while decreasing the injury in men.

Aeroplanes are only required to test with male dummies

When it comes to aeroplanes, all research, testing and aircraft certification – including seat and seat belt design, as well as the brace positions to adopt before a crash – use only “average” male dummies, such as the Hybrid III male dummy modified for aviation.

Aeroplanes get safety certified in the country they’re made. The two big global manufacturers are Boeing and Airbus. Boeing planes are assembled and certified in the United States by the Federal Aviation Administration, while parts of Airbus planes are built across Europe, China and Canada, certified by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.

The US and the European Union aviation safety agencies largely harmonise their standards for crash-worthiness and safety testing through international agreements. They follow standards and recommended practices set by global engineering association, SAE International.

Other national authorities, such as Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, rely on those international safety certification standards, rather than each country re-testing aeroplanes.

The lack of aeroplane safety research for women

As just one example, US regulations for testing emergency landings are very clear about what to use in those safety tests: the average male dummy. There is no requirement to use a female dummy.

Though I have been searching for it, there has been no research on the effect this male-centric focus has on female aeroplane passengers or crew safety.

Despite clear evidence that women experience different — and often more severe — injury outcomes in car crashes, there is no publicly-accessible research on this in aviation.

Women are not simply smaller men

Body proportions, muscle mass and limb length differ between the sexes. Research into injuries from car crashes in the United Kingdom has found men possess 8% greater skeletal mass and a different body mass distribution than women.

Women generally have a smaller height and shoulder width, but a larger hip circumference than men. Female sex hormones lead to more lax ligaments, influencing joint stability.

Physiological differences between women and men matter to safety outcomes.

Such differences need to be considered in better future testing for aeroplanes and cars. One design does not fit all when it comes to safety.

Natasha Heap, Program Director for the Bachelor of Aviation, University of Southern Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s decade-old Indigenous Procurement Policy has been hailed by both sides of politics as a success in Indigenous economic policy.

Started in 2015 as a way to address under-investment in Indigenous businesses when the federal government awards contracts, it’s maintained bipartisan support. In ten years, around 80,000 government contracts worth a combined A$12.6 billion have been awarded to more than 4,400 Indigenous-owned businesses.

But my new research – based on freedom of information requests released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency – shows half of the $7 billion spent in the first eight years of the policy went to just 18 businesses.

It also found contracts have flowed mainly to businesses based in major cities – led by Canberra.

These findings are timely, as the federal government is already scaling up its targets for Indigenous procurement between now and 2030, from 3% to 4% of government contracts.

What my research found

While the National Indigenous Australians Agency reports annual spending under the Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) at an aggregate level, my new research is the first detailed public analysis of the IPP’s distribution of contracts.

My research, published this month in the Australian Journal of Public Administration, examines all contracts of $10,000 or more awarded to Indigenous businesses under the IPP from 2015–16 to 2022–23. These contracts represent more than 99% of the total value of contracts awarded.

In the first eight years of the IPP, from 2015 to mid-2023:

• 12,800 contracts worth $7 billion were awarded to more than 900 Indigenous firms.

• 6,415 or 50% of these contracts went to just 11 businesses

• $3.5 billion – or 50% of the $7 billion – of these contracts went to just 18 businesses

• 47% of the total value was awarded to businesses of between 50% and 51% Indigenous ownership, with an additional 27% to businesses with unidentified Indigenous ownership status

• 5,272 contracts – or more than 40% of the number – and 30% of the value of contracts ($2.1 billion) were awarded to businesses in Canberra. That’s despite the Australian Capital Territory being home to just 1% of Indigenous Australians.

So a very small number of businesses, concentrated in capital cities and especially Canberra, have thrived under the IPP, compared to the much larger total.

That’s despite the fact that, by 2022, there were close to 14,000 Indigenous businesses across Australia.

Why it matters

The IPP makes up only a relatively small slice of federal government goods and services purchases. But this shift has generated a substantial redirection of economic injection into the Indigenous business sector.

Yet because the scale of economic investment has been so large, it’s easy to lose focus on how this investment has been distributed nationally.

Indigenous business people, communities and politicians have raised questions about how widely the benefits of the IPP have been shared. For instance, as recently as last month, several senators raised concerns about issues of access to the IPP for many Indigenous businesses.

Changes now underway

The first decade of the IPP has shown the potential of public procurement as an investment in the growing Indigenous business sector.

But even the federal government has acknowledged the policy needs to work better.

Earlier this year, the government announced changes aimed at “ensuring that the economic benefits of the IPP are genuinely flowing to First Nations Australians as intended”.

Those changes include new rules to strengthen eligibility criteria to access the IPP, starting from July 2026. They’re also aiming to make it easier to report non-Indigenous firms that fake or exaggerate the Indigenous ownership and management of their business to apply for government contracts – known as “black cladding”.

Measuring success beyond raw numbers

Public procurement is a competitive process. As such, it never going to provide equitable opportunities for all businesses.

However, my new research shows the distribution of IPP contracts was highly concentrated until at least 2022-23, both geographically and in the number of businesses that won half of the contracts. That means other Indigenous businesses missed out on valuable economic opportunities.

As the IPP reforms continue to be made into 2026, it’s crucial the policy moves beyond just reporting the number and value of contracts awarded as its measures of success, to increasingly incorporate more Indigenous-defined measures of success for the IPP.

For example, this could involve introducing a greater focus on ensuring firms outside major cities are also well placed to win procurement contracts. It could also include accurately valuing the social impact of Indigenous businesses in the tender process.

The IPP has shown it has great potential. It’s time to make it work better not just for a federal government based in Canberra, but for Indigenous businesses right across the nation.

Christian Eva, Research Fellow, POLIS: The Centre for Social Research and Policy, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new “complete” monthly consumer price index (CPI) will be released next week, and will become Australia’s primary measure of inflation.

This new release will finally bring Australia into line with the other advanced economies in the Group of 20, which all publish inflation data every month. It will make it easier to compare inflation trends with other nations.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, headline inflation from the complete monthly CPI will become the new target for monetary policy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been publishing a monthly CPI “indicator” since 2022. But it only had a partial coverage.

The inflation report measures price changes in a fixed “basket” of goods and services each month.

In an updated explanation of the new data published on Tuesday, the bureau said prices of 87% of the CPI basket of goods and services will be updated each month. That’s up from 50% previously.

A quarterly series (an average of the three months) will continue to be published.

What does the new monthly measure mean for our understanding of inflation?

The monthly series will be more volatile

A monthly consumer price index can swing a lot reflecting temporary fluctuations in the volatile prices of goods such as petrol, fruit and vegetables. These get smoothed out somewhat – but not totally removed – in a quarterly index.

The inflation rate based on the new monthly series will therefore be more volatile than that based on the quarterly. We will need to build up some history before we know just how much more volatile. But the experience with the partial monthly measure (and experience in other countries) provides a guide.

The Reserve Bank has commented it “will take time to learn about the properties of the monthly CPI data”.

The Reserve Bank will “initially continue to focus on measures of underlying inflation from the quarterly CPI”. It will forecast the quarterly rather than the monthly CPI.

The monthly index will sometimes give earlier warning of a changing trend in inflation. For example, in mid-2025 the jump from 1.9% in June to 3.0% in August was a warning that inflation was no longer falling.

But it can also give misleading signals. In late 2022, the monthly index showed inflation jumping from 7.4% to 8.4%. But the quarterly index revealed inflation had peaked at 7.8% in the December quarter.

In mid-2023, the monthly index showed inflation picking up from 4.9% in July to 5.6% in September; yet the quarterly index showed inflation was continuing to decline.

In mid-2025 the monthly index showed inflation was down to 1.9%, below the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band, leading some commentators to expect a run of further interest rate cuts. But we now know (underlying) inflation has been staying stubbornly near the top of the Reserve Bank’s band.

The Melbourne Institute has produced a monthly Australian inflation gauge since 2002. But it isn’t much quoted, perhaps because of the volatility.

Too much information?

Encouraging the media and the public to pay more attention to the monthly index might create the impression there’s more inflation than there is.

Behavioural economics says people are “loss averse”. They pay more attention to bad news (high inflation) than good news (low inflation). The monthly figures mean the media will be reporting inflation news 12 times a year, rather than four.

Media reporting each month might amplify things. When the monthly number is low, this may get less attention. Some commentators might even succumb to the temptation to “annualise” a month’s movement, multiplying by 12. This can present a misleading, or alarming, picture.

Over the longer term, the more volatile annual inflation rate based on the monthly data may be within the 2-3% target band less often than the rate calculated from the quarterly data.

The Reserve Bank’s task of restraining inflationary expectations may therefore become harder with the focus shifting to the new monthly measure.

John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For many men the gradual thinning of hair is about more than just their appearance. Finasteride, a drug widely prescribed for the treatment of male pattern baldness has been used effectively for many years for this deeply personal problem.

Yet, behind its use are growing concerns about its link to the development of depression, anxiety, and even suicidal thoughts.

There is now critical discussion among both users and health-care professionals about the potential hazards associated with its continued use.

So how does the drug work? And what does the evidence say about the risk of developing a mental health problem?

How does finasteride work?

Finasteride is used to treat androgenetic alopecia, also known as male pattern baldness. It works to regrow hair and prevent the further loss of hair.

One of the key causes of pattern baldness is the production of a hormone called dihydrotestosterone which the body makes from testosterone. When it binds to the follicles of hairs, it initiates a process called hair follicle miniaturisation. This is where the growth cycle of the hair becomes progressively shorter, resulting in thinner and weaker hair.

Finasteride works by blocking the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. By blocking the enzyme, dihydrotestosterone concentrations can be reduced by around 60–70% for the majority of men.

Finasteride was first approved in the late 1990s as a prescription-only medicine and is taken as a daily 1 milligram oral tablet. Medications available at a higher 5 mg daily dose are not used for baldness, but as a treatment for non-cancerous prostate enlargement.

This medication is not indicated for women, even though they can also have this type of hair loss.

How can it impact your mental health?

Changes in mental health are not listed as an established side effect in Australian guidance given to health-care professionals.

Based on clinical trials, the most common effects include:

• decreased libido
• erectile dysfunction
• reduced semen production.

The guidance also describes an increased risk of prostate cancer and a potential risk for breast cancer. Yes, men can get breast cancer too.

While initial clinical trials conducted to obtain approval for the drug didn’t demonstrate mental health concerns, monitoring of patients using the drug has since indicated a potential increased risk of depression and suicidal thoughts. But as this is based on patients self-reporting symptoms, according to the guidance there is no definitive link.

However, in May 2025, the European Medicines Agency safety committee stated suicidal thoughts was a confirmed side effect of finasteride. The European Union also advises patients that finasteride can cause a depressed mood and depression.

Similarly, in a warning about compounded finasteride, the United States Food and Drug Administration stated in April 2025 that topical formulations of the drug has similar side effects to the oral version. These include depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

What should you do if it is affecting your mental health?

If you notice changes in your mental health while taking the drug, try not to handle significant mood changes by yourself. If you’re feeling unusually low, anxious or emotionally unstable, check in with a doctor so they can help you figure out whether finasteride is contributing to your mood and what support you may need.

If the symptoms are mild, they may suggest pausing finasteride to see whether things improve, or continuing with additional mental health support. If your symptoms are more severe, stopping the medication and getting prompt medical review may be appropriate.

If you are taking finasteride and are worried about its side effects, it is safe to stop immediately. Most side effects ease once the medication is out of your system, although a small number of people have reported symptoms that persist.

If you do decide to stop, this will mean that your hormone levels will gradually return to baseline and the hair growth seen with the drug will be lost over time.

If finasteride is not the right fit for you, there is another evidence-based alternative.

Topical minoxidil is a first-line treatment that can be used on its own or with other treatments and is available from pharmacies over the counter. It only works while it’s being used and may irritate the scalp, but its effectiveness is well-established and widely recommended.

While depression and anxiety are associated with minoxidil, the incidence is much lower because of their topical application.

There is also a medication called dutasteride. However, as it works in a similar way to finasteride, it may also increase your risk of developing mental health problems. So it is best to avoid dutasteride if finasteride is not suitable for you.

If this story has raised any issues for you, please contact one of the services below:

• Lifeline: 13 11 14 or lifeline.org.au

• Suicide Call Back Service (ages 15+): 1300 659 467 or suicidecallbackservice.org.au

Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University and Jasmine Lee, Pharmacist and PhD Candidate, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia has made major progress in curbing drink driving. Decades of random breath testing, enforcement and powerful social media campaigns have cut alcohol-related road deaths significantly.

Yet new data show more fatal crashes now involve drugs than alcohol.

So, how has drug driving become so prevalent despite strict laws? Why has deterrence succeeded for alcohol but faltered for drugs? And what policy and behavioural changes can reverse this growing source of road trauma?

National trends

National crash data confirm the changing face of road risk.

Between 2010 and 2023, fatal crashes involving drug driving rose from 7.6% to 16.8% – an increase that makes drug driving the most common risk factor in fatal crashes.

During the same period, crashes linked to drink driving fell from 21.6% to 12%, while those linked to not wearing seat belts dropped from 15.3% to 14.7%.

A breakdown of drivers and motorcyclists shows how drastically the balance has shifted.

Among drivers, the share of fatalities involving an illegal blood alcohol concentration has fallen steadily – from about 30% to 14% between 2008 and 2023.

Among motorcyclists it dropped even further, from 27% to 10%.

Yet over the same period, deaths where drugs were detected surged in both groups – roughly quadrupling for drivers and motorcyclists alike, now accounting for about one in five motorcyclist fatalities.

State-level data

Last year in Queensland, there were 49 road fatalities involving drugs, compared with 42 involving alcohol.

In July 2023, the state expanded roadside screening to include cocaine, with more than 1,400 positive detections since.

In New South Wales, drug driving charges have risen more than 30-fold since 2008. Testing volumes have increased, but so, too, has the percentage of positive results, from roughly 2% to peaks near 18%.

Toxicology records confirm a parallel rise in the proportion of road deaths where drugs are detected compared to alcohol, indicating the trend cannot be explained by the increase in testing volume alone.

In Victoria, about 3% of licensed drivers are tested for drugs each year, targeting cannabis, methamphetamine and MDMA.

South Australia has just announced its testing regime will be expanded to include screening for cocaine.

How does testing work?

Drivers are first screened for alcohol when they are stopped. If no alcohol is detected, police may ask for an oral-fluid test using a saliva swab.

The process detects trace amounts of illicit drugs, not impairment itself.

The swab collects saliva, producing an initial result within minutes. If a test shows a positive reading, a second sample is taken and sent to a laboratory for confirmation.

Unlike alcohol testing, which measures a driver’s blood-alcohol concentration against a defined legal limit, drug testing operates under a zero-tolerance rule.

This means any measurable amount of the targeted drugs – cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA or cocaine in most states – is an offence.

Roadside drug tests are more complex and costlier than breath tests.

In 2024, Australian police conducted about 10.3 million random breath tests, resulting in roughly 58,000 positive detections – a positive rate of 0.6%.

By contrast, there were only 500,000 roadside drug tests but they yielded more than 52,000 positive results – a tenfold higher detection rate.

Behavioural factors

Recent studies show drug driving has grown mainly for three overlapping reasons:

• perception among drivers they won’t get caught
• perception of weaker social stigma around drug driving
• drug testing remaining far less frequent than alcohol testing.

Many drivers believe they won’t be caught. Exposure to roadside drug testing remains low – in some states, fewer than 2% of licensed motorists are tested in a year.

Meanwhile, some social media users send out “police-location” alerts which can help other drivers avoid enforcement sites.

These factors lower the perceived risk of apprehension.

Recent Australian research also found a stark contrast in how drivers view alcohol and drug impairment.

Participants often described drink driving as more dangerous and socially unacceptable whereas drug driving was often considered less risky and less likely to attract police attention.

Misconceptions and lack of awareness about the impairment effects of drugs may also contribute: drug users often perceive their driving ability as unimpaired.

In reality, the drugs most often detected have very different impairment profiles – but all, in their own ways, increase the risk of a crash.

Stimulants such as methamphetamine or cocaine can make drivers more aggressive and reckless. Cannabis slows reaction time, impairs people’s judgement of time and distance, and reduces coordination, particularly within the first few hours after use.

Using drugs together, or combining them with alcohol, further amplifies impairment.

What can be done?

Australia’s success in curbing drink driving came from the right mix of laws, visibility and social messaging.

Tackling drug driving will require the same balance but adapted to new realities.

Four strategies could make a difference:

Testing strategically. Sheer volume isn’t enough. Enforcement should focus on unpredictable, data-driven deployments – targeting high-risk times, routes and driver groups. Deterrence improves when testing resources are used strategically.

Creating more visibility. Drivers don’t need to be tested to be deterred. Regularly seeing roadside operations can raise the perceived risk of being caught.

Countering evasion networks. Social media platforms and group chats that warn users about testing locations undermine deterrence. Police can counter this by tracking these alerts and rotating testing sites and times.

Reframing the message. Public campaigns must highlight how long impairment lasts, the risks of mixing substances and the illusion of control many drug-using drivers report. Australia’s iconic anti-drink driving slogans – such as “if you drink, then drive, you’re a bloody idiot” – helped build powerful social norms. A new generation of drug driving campaigns will need to do the same.

Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

An increasing number of Australian school students are applying for an early offer to university, before they have their exam results back.

Last Thursday, nearly 16,000 students in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory got an early offer through the University Admissions Centre, after a 3% growth in applications from last year. This follows a 19% increase in applications between 2023 and 2024.

But amid some concerns about the popularity of these schemes – what does it do to students’ motivation for their final exams? – there has been little research into who is doing this and why.

In our new report we survey almost 4,000 Year 12 students about their thoughts on early offers.

How do early offers work?

Many Australian universities allow Year 12 students to apply for an undergraduate place in a wide range of courses before they finish the school year.

Criteria for entry include a combination of Year 11 results or predicted ATAR, a recommendation from school, personal statements or extracurricular activities.

Typically announced from September, the scheme allows students to receive early acceptance into university before undertaking their final exams. There may be conditions students still need to meet, such as receiving certain scores and passing Year 12. But some offers are unconditional.

This is in contrast to the main round of offers, which come out in January, after exams are over and results are released.

Our research

In our new report, we analysed data from the GENERATION study, a national survey of young people conducted by the Australian National University. Students were recruited from all Australian states and school sectors. Here, we report findings from 3,821 young people who were completing Year 12 in 2024.

University aspirations were high among these Year 12 students, with 69% reporting they planned to go to university, either immediately after finishing school or sometime in the future.

In this round of data, we looked at which students were also applying for early offers, and their motivations for doing so.

Who applied?

We surveyed students between May and July of 2024. Overall, 46% of all Year 12 students reported they were either planning to apply, were in the process of applying, or had already applied to a university through an early offer scheme.

There were significant differences between states and territories.

For example, 71% of students in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory reported planning to apply for an early offer, as most universities in these jurisdictions have early offer schemes and there is a centralised application process.

Fewer students applied for early offers in Victoria (37%) and South Australia (25%). This is likely because two of the largest universities in Victoria did not have an early offer scheme in place, and no universities in South Australia have a scheme.

Female students more likely to apply

Female students were more likely to apply than their male peers (60% compared to 44%). Students from private schools were slightly more likely to apply for an early offer than students from government schools (57% compared to 54%).

We also explored whether educationally disadvantaged students were more or less likely to apply for an early offer.

We already know students from an equity group – those from regional/remote areas and disadvantaged schools and those with a disability or from an Indigenous background – are less likely to attend university than the general population. The federal government wants to boost university participation from these underrepresented groups.

Overall, we found the percentage of students who intended to apply for an early offer was lower for equity students (47%) compared to students not in an equity group (59%). However, among students who planned to go to university, the proportions were similar (64% and 69% respectively).

Some students said applying early allowed them to take advantage of equity schemes. As one government school student told us:

Some universities offer equity scholarships for disadvantaged students. I’m a foster kid who left home to escape domestic violence and abuse, so these opportunities are really helpful.

Why are they applying?

Students also reported other reasons for applying for an early offer. This included guaranteeing a place at university. As one student from an ACT government school told us, he wanted to “more effectively plan my future”.

Other students wanted a safety net if other plans did not work out. A Victorian private school student explained, “I want to have as many options as possible for university […].”

Students also told us an early offer could reduce stress in an already stressful year of exams, future planning and decisions. In a previous report, we found 31% of Year 12 students reported significant levels of distress. As one student from a Tasmanian private school told us:

I do get quite anxious and suffer from burnout. [An early offer] gets the stress of applying for uni out of the way early.

Do students slack off?

Some schools have raised concerns students who get an early offer no longer try as hard with their studies for the remainder of Year 12.

While the timing of our survey means we can’t directly test this hypothesis (students were surveyed before getting offers), we did test whether levels of student engagement in Year 11 were associated with planning or applying for an early offer. We had measured the same students’ engagement levels in an earlier survey in 2023.

We found 67% of highly engaged students – those who reported active participation in class and worked hard to meet teacher expectations – wanted to apply for an early offer. This compares to 54% of students rated as low engaged students in Year 11.

So this does not suggest students applying for an early offers scheme intend to slack off. Rather it suggests highly engaged students are planning to apply, perhaps because they want more certainty and to relieve stress.

The next round of our survey (currently being conducted) will give us more insight, as we track the same group through end of school and beyond.

Ben Edwards, Professor, Child and Youth Development and Longitudinal Studies, Australian National University; Jessica Arnup, Research Fellow, Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University, and Kate Doery, Research Officer, Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The blue and red boxes with white dots are immediately recognisable as containing Domino’s pizzas. The pizza chain is Australia’s largest and is run as a franchise, with the ASX-listed public company Domino’s Pizza Enterprises holding the Australian master franchise rights.

Industry analysts IBISWorld calculate Domino’s has 4.2% of the fast food and takeaway market in Australia.

But recent reports suggest all is not well with many of the store owners, who are struggling with rising costs and declining profitability.

Troubling reports

The central issue appears to be what the federal government describes in its code of conduct as the “the imbalance of power between franchisors and franchisees”.

The Australian Financial Review has reported troubling claims in two key areas:

• Domino’s appears to have doubled the margin on the key food ingredients it sells to franchisees and increased its advertising levy, according to a letter from store owners represented by the Australian Association of Franchisees. This could reduce their profitability

• Domino’s Australian chief operating officer, Greg Steenson, reportedly encouraged franchisees in a presentation to take advantage of restructuring schemes that allow insolvent companies to continue to trade by negotiating repayment plans with the tax office and other creditors.

In a letter to Domino’s quoted in the report, the franchisees said their earnings have remained flat for 15 years, and have not kept up with inflation.

A long history of disputes

A former franchisee told a parliamentary inquiry into the franchising model the margin squeeze meant

franchisees can be ripped off by [Domino’s Pizza Enterprises] when forced to buy supplies at a higher price than they could get through their wholesalers.

He said the cost of food, labour, rent and other fixed costs had risen, but in 2019 pizzas were still sold at 1990s prices. “Nobody is left to pay for this but the franchisees,” the former owner said.

According to the Financial Review article, the cost of supplies remains a problem for franchisees. Time will tell whether Domino’s proposed 70 cent increase in pizza prices will help.

In response to questions from the Financial Review, Domino’s said the food margin had not “materially changed” in five years, despite volatility in ingredients prices.

Government reviews found the previous regulations had loopholes that did not sufficiently protect franchisees. There have been a string of high-profile disputes involving auto services company Ultra Tune, coffee chain 85 Degrees Coffee, Pizza Hut and others.

Following a 2024 inquiry, changes to the code of conduct were introduced this year.

Advertising costs on the rise

Advertising expenditure comes from what is now known as a “special purpose fund” in the code of conduct. Franchisors need to provide franchisees with disclosure about how the money is spent.

In 2017, the consumer regulator Australian Competition and Consumer Commission fined Domino’s A$18,000 for allegedly slipping on its obligations to advise franchisees about its marketing spend.

Ensuring franchisees have a genuine say in how their increased contribution is spent could help to address any imbalance of power between Domino’s and its franchisees.

Franchisees reportedly now pay 6% of their earnings to Domino’s for marketing and advertising, up from 5.35%. That is in addition to 7% of gross sales paid as royalties, and other costs for email and bookkeeping.

What insolvent means

The insolvency law for small businesses is explained by the Australian Taxation Office as a process that enables financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts and continue to trade.

The press reports say the franchisees of about 65 Domino’s stores were on repayment plans with the Australian Taxation Office. Many franchisees own two or more outlets.

Under the Corporations legislation, companies on these repayment plans may be trading insolvent, or believe they will become insolvent. Insolvent means they cannot pay their debts when they fall due. If this is the case, a key question that needs to be answered by Domino’s is whether their franchised outlets can become profitable.

In another media report, Domino’s was quoted as saying it disputed the number of stores on repayment plans, adding it was a “significantly smaller” number of franchisees.

The company was contacted for comment but did not respond before deadline.

What this means for the stores

So what does this mean for Domino’s store owners who may be trading insolvent?

Under the law, the restructuring process allows eligible small business companies:

• to retain control of the business, property and affairs while developing a plan to restructure with the assistance of a small business restructuring practitioner
• to enter into a restructuring plan with creditors.
  

If a company proposes a restructuring plan to its creditors, it is taken to be insolvent. This is a game changer for the franchisee and its creditors.

Franchisees receive protection from creditors who want to enforce rights under existing contracts. A franchisee’s creditors include suppliers, its landlord, employees, the tax office and the franchisor (in this case, Domino’s).

Currently these store owners are protected from any creditors pushing them to pay their debts. The restructuring process gives the store owners some breathing room while the debt negotiations take place.

The imbalance of power persists

Despite government inquiries and reviews, it seems the imbalance of power between the Domino’s franchisees and their franchisor persists.

But Domino’s can’t afford to stay the same. Franchisees need to make a profit. The move to enter restructuring could be a temporary band aid.

Domino’s largest shareholder and executive chairman, Jack Cowin, was appointed in July after the former chief executive left after just seven months. Cowin understands the franchised fast food sector and has pledged to lead a cost reduction program that will improve the profitability of stores.

Jenny Buchan, Emeritus Professor, Business School, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.