エピソード

  • What Labor's visa crackdown actually changes for students, tourists and backpackers
    2026/10/16
    This episode covers Labor's visa crackdown, the topic of host Miko Santos's conversation with Melbourne-based immigration lawyer Johanna Bertumen Nonato. She breaks down which changes are already law and which are still just announcements, starting with student visas losing the ability to include secondary applicants and visitor visas now carrying a mandatory no-further-stay condition. The conversation covers why construction and housing trades are picking up extra weight in the skilled points system, even though the legislation for that formula hasn't landed yet. Nonato also addresses the Coalition's proposal that onshore workers return home before reapplying, and closes with practical advice on checking a migration agent's credentials before acting on their guidance. The episode matters for anyone mid-application or advising someone who is.Key topics & takeaways* Most student visas and the 485 visa can no longer include secondary applicants, with ASEAN/Pacific exemptions under strict conditions* Visitor visas now carry a mandatory 8503 no-further-stay condition, affecting onshore partner, parent and child visa plans* Working holiday visa ballots cap second-year places at 45,000 and third-year at 5,000* Construction and housing trades get extra points under skilled visas, but the points formula itself hasn't been legislated yet* Points outcomes for occupations like nursing versus trades still depend on individual profile, not occupation alone* Employer sponsored visa salary threshold now sits at $79,423 plus super* Checking a migration agent against the MARA register matters more than forum anecdotesFollow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when it matters.Guest & Host InformationHost: Miko Santos, Part8a podcast.Guest: Johanna Bertumen Nonato is a Melbourne-based immigration lawyer who writes and speaks on Australian visa policy for the Filipino-Australian community. She has previously appeared on SBS Filipino discussing skilled migration changes. bridgeaus.com.auSources, links & further reading* BS Filipino podcast episode on visa changes and skilled migration priority – SBS [https://www.sbs.com.au/language/filipino/en/podcast-episode/visa-changes-which-jobs-are-australias-priority-for-skilled-migration/dr8lielmq]* New Core Skills list opens job prospects – The Philippine Times [https://philtimes.com.au/new-core-skills-list-opens-job-prospects/]* BridgeAus website [https://bridgeaus.com.au/]* BridgeAus TV YouTube channel [https://www.youtube.com/@bridgeaustv4360]This episode is not a sponsored video/audio. If you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings, we will receive a small commission.If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue the conversation with you on Twitter @realmikosantos!This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's independent podcast management company.Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial RegisterGot a News Tip?Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    24 分
  • Card surcharge ban: loopholes, higher prices and the return of cash
    2026/10/09
    This episode covers the card surcharge ban and what it actually means for shoppers and small business owners. Host Miko Santos talks with Dr Marian Makkar, a marketing academic at RMIT University, about why the surcharge ban has pushed some retailers to raise base prices instead of removing the cost altogether. Makkar explains that the ban stops surcharges but not other fees, such as platform or service charges, leaving a loophole retailers can still use legally. She argues the shift to a single final price makes it harder for consumers to see what they're actually paying for. The conversation moves into how this could push more people back toward cash, particularly younger consumers used to tap-and-go and buy-now-Key topics & takeaways* Why Makkar thinks the surcharge ban should have shifted costs from banks to retailers, not onto small businesses* How some retailers have folded the surcharge into higher sticker prices instead of removing it* The loophole: the ban covers surcharges but not platform, service or other fees* Why cash in hand could make consumers more careful spenders than tap-and-go* Why younger consumers may find a return to cash harder, given buy-now-pay-later habits* Who Makkar thinks should lead financial literacy education: parents, schools, community and not-for-profit groupsFollow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when it matters.Guest & Host InformationHost: Miko Santos, presenter of Part 8a.Guest: Dr Marian Makkar is a marketing academic at RMIT University in Melbourne, working on consumer culture, luxury consumption and the sharing economy. She spent 14 years in PR and luxury retail before moving into academia. https://www.marianmakkar.com/Sources, links & further reading* Marian Makkar personal site – https://www.marianmakkar.com/* Marian Makkar research page – https://www.marianmakkar.com/research* Marian Makkar profile – The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/profiles/marian-makkar-674218* Dr Marian Makkar profile – RMIT University – https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/economics-finance-and-marketing/research/research-groups/cctmd-research-group/members/dr-marian-makkarContent warnings & disclaimersThis episode discusses cost of living pressure and financial hardship. Comments on investing, lending and scams are general commentary, not personal financial advice.This episode is not a sponsored video/audio. If you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings, we will receive a small commission.If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue the conversation with you on Twitter @realmikosantos!This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's independent podcast management company.Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial RegisterGot a News Tip?Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    26 分
  • RBA cash rate rise to 4.60 per cent: what it means for mortgages, rents and inflation
    2026/10/02
    This episode covers the Reserve Bank's latest cash rate rise, up a quarter point to 4.60 per cent, the fourth increase this year and the highest level since late 2011. Host Miko Santos speaks with Dr Angel Zhong, finance academic and Deputy Dean of Research and Innovation at RMIT University, about who is hurt first and why. Zhong estimates a typical mortgage holder faces $90 to $120 in extra monthly repayments once lenders pass on the rise and explains how renters can also face increases when landlords pass on their own higher costs. The conversation moves to why underlying inflation, measured by the trimmed mean at 3.6 per cent, has stayed elevated for three months, touching on labour market tightness, weak productivity, an ongoing oil shock, and a live debate about whether AI data centres are adding to price pressures. Zhong also flags the risk of unreliable social media financial advice when households are under strain.Key topics & takeaways* RBA raises cash rate to 4.60 per cent, the fourth rise this year and highest since late 2011* Typical mortgage holders face $90 to $120 extra in monthly repayments* Renters exposed to landlord cost pass-through, subject to state rent-increase rules* Trimmed mean inflation at 3.6 per cent for three months, still above the 2-3 per cent RBA target* The drivers of sticky inflation include a tight labour market, weak productivity, and an oil shock affecting shipping and groceries.* Debate over whether AI data centre demand for chips and electricity is contributing to inflation.* Financial stress raises risk of households turning to unreliable social media finance advice.Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when it matters.Guest & Host InformationHost: Miko Santos, presenter of Part 8a.Guest: Dr Angel Zhong is Deputy Dean, Research and Innovation in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, and a regular media commentator on monetary policy, retail investing and financial markets. https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/z/angel-zhongSources, links & further reading* Dr Angel Zhong profile – RMIT University https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/z/angel-zhong* RBA says inflation upside risks are getting concerningly real – Banking Daily https://www.bankingdaily.com.au/articles/rba-says-inflation-upside-risks-are-getting-concerningly-real* Short-term pain, long-term gain – Riverine Herald https://www.riverineherald.com.au/news/short-term-pain-long-term-gainContent warnings & disclaimersThis episode discusses cost of living pressure and financial hardship. Comments on investing, lending and scams are general commentary, not personal financial advice.This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue the conversation with you on Twitter @realmikosantos!This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's independent podcast management company.Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial RegisterGot a News Tip?Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    24 分
  • OpenAI Medicare breach explained: why "rogue AI" is the wrong label, with AI ethicist Dr Rebecca Johnson
    2026/09/27
    The OpenAI Medicare breach made headlines as a case of “rogue AI”. Dr Rebecca Johnson, an AI evaluation and governance researcher, rejects that label. On The Part 8A, she tells host Miko Santos that the agent did what its settings allowed. The failure sits with the people at OpenAI who designed the test, chose Australia as the place to run it, and waited weeks to tell anyone.She explains why most AI tests only check whether the model got the right answer, not how it got there. She also covers why Silicon Valley’s values don’t transfer neatly to Australia and why a popular ethics benchmark was built on a Reddit forum.Her argument for policymakers is direct. After the OpenAI Medicare breach, Australia should demand logs of these experiments and the right to run its independent tests on AI models designed with local communities. She says we’re moving too slowly.Key topics & takeaways* Why calling it “rogue AI” shifts blame away from the company that built and tested the agent* The gap between outcome-based testing (did it get the answer?) and trajectory-based testing (did it break through a wall to get there?)* How using Australia as a live test environment reflects values that clash with ours, according to Johnson* OpenAI’s slow notification, sent to a public Services Australia inbox rather than by phone* Johnson’s case for independent, Australian-designed AI evaluations: “Someone checking their own homework” isn’t good enough* Value pluralism, and why Sam Altman’s idea of taking the “median value of the planet” would drown out smaller communities* Bad proxies in AI benchmarks, from a Reddit forum used as aSources, links & further reading* OpenAI’s agent hacked Australia’s Medicare website, PM Albanese says – Fortune [https://fortune.com/2026/09/23/openai-agent-hacks-australia-medicare-sam-altman-anthony-albanese/]* Medicare Australia: “Extreme concern” over OpenAI breach of health database – CNN [https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/23/business/australia-openai-agent-hack-intl-hnk]* OpenAI says agent hacked Australian government website without being told to do so – CNBC [https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/24/openai-agent-hacked-australian-government-website-.html]* Medicare hack alert went to inbox checked once a day and took five days to be escalated – SBS News [https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/openai-agent-hacked-medicare-albanese-reveals/qas79d9ta]* Measuring the Machine: Evaluating Generative AI as Pluralist Sociotechnical Systems – Rebecca Johnson, doctoral thesis [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.20545]* World Values Survey – World Values Survey Association [https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org]* Aligning AI With Shared Human Values (the ETHICS dataset) – Hendrycks et al. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02275]* Machine Bias – ProPublica [https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing]Content warnings & disclaimersContains brief strong language (the name of a Reddit forum) and discussion of racial bias in the US criminal justice system.Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.Five Key Takeaways* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers used a legitimate-looking 100-point identity check to build trust early on.* Banks let large, unusual transfers through — including $1.1 million in under three hours — because Sylvia had sent money to the same account before, and the pattern wasn’t flagged as new.* Anti-money-laundering reporting obligations sit with government regulators, not with the customer. Sylvia argues that’s the biggest structural gap letting scams slip through.* Australia’s new Scams Prevention Framework is meant to share responsibility across banks, telcos and platforms, but Sylvia says it’s made recovery harder, since victims now have to build a case against multiple large institutions with almost no information of their own.* Sylvia co-founded the Scam Victim Alliance after meeting other seven-figure-loss victims at a 2024 Canberra press conference. The group now runs weekly support sessions and helps survivors through the AFCA complaints process.Detailed SynopsisContent note: this episode discusses financial loss, disputes with banks and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14.The ClickIt started with $250 and a television show. Sylvia was scrolling Facebook in 2019 when she saw an ad for a trading platform claiming a Shark Tank endorsement. She ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    29 分
  • Money mules and money laundering in Australia: how graph theory tracks dirty money
    2026/09/24
    Episode summaryMoney mules are often ordinary people. Many are international students or others trying to make ends meet, recruited through job ads that promise $1,000 for an hour’s work. In this episode of The Part 8A from The Financial Register, host Miko Santos talks with Professor Asha Rao, a mathematician and cybersecurity expert at RMIT University. They look at money laundering in Australia the way a mathematician does: strip away the dollars and map only the connections.Rao explains why laundering is so hard to spot inside the dense web of everyday banking, and why most cases surface only when someone spends far beyond their income. She shows how graph theory can shrink hundreds of thousands of accounts down to a network small enough for police to check.She also unpacks a tension in Australia’s AML/CTF Act. The secrecy that stops criminals learning how they’re caught also leaves researchers without data. The incoming Scams Prevention Framework won’t touch money laundering directly, she says. Her advice to anyone offered easy money: don’t react straight away.Key topics & takeaways* What a money laundering network looks like as a mathematical graph, and why nothing in the picture gives it away* Why laundering usually comes to light only when someone on a $50,000 salary suddenly owns yachts and houses* How “work from home, earn $1,000” job ads turn international students into money mules who find out only when police knock* Why police focus on stopping mules rather than blaming them, and where banks and AUSTRAC fit in* How the AML/CTF Act’s secrecy rules starved open research of data for a decade, until IBM released simulated transaction data* How graph theory narrows a network of 400,000 people to 10 or 20 accounts, giving police a starting point rather than a crystal ball* Rao’s rule for any too-good-to-be-true offer: count to 10 slowly before you react at allTimestamps* [00:00] Cold open – how criminals blend into millions of ordinary transactions* [01:12] Meet the guest – Professor Asha Rao, RMIT University* [02:38] Laundering as a graph – nodes, edges and a very dense network* [05:24] The $1,000-an-hour job ad – how money mule schemes recruit* [09:52] Blame the students or the banks? – AUSTRAC, bank penalties and what police actually do* [11:10] The data problem – why the AML/CTF Act stops banks sharing, and what that means for research* [15:02] What the Enron emails showed – shrinking a huge network to 10–20 nodes* [17:12] Protecting the innocent – how investigators check a small flagged network* [24:17] Should the law change? – why Rao wants detection methods kept secret* [25:33] The Scams Prevention Framework – why it won’t tackle money laundering* [27:32] Parting advice – don’t react, let your brain catch upGuest & host informationHost: Miko Santos, journalist and founder of Kangaroofern Media Lab, host of The Part 8A from The Financial Register.Guest: Professor Asha Rao is Professor of Mathematics and Cyber Security at RMIT University and a former Associate Dean of Mathematical Sciences there. In 2020 she became the first female director (interim) of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute. Her research applies graph theory to problems including money laundering detection. She was inducted into the 2021 Victorian Honour Roll of Women in the Trailblazer category. Sources, links & further reading* AUSTRAC and CBA agree $700m penalty – AUSTRAC [https://austrac.gov.au/node/260]* IBM Transactions for Anti Money Laundering (AML) dataset – IBM Research via Kaggle [https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ealtman2019/ibm-transactions-for-anti-money-laundering-aml]* Realistic Synthetic Financial Transactions for Anti-Money Laundering Models – Altman et al. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.16424]* Money laundering typologies and indicators – AUSTRAC [link needed]* Scams Prevention Framework – Australian Treasury [link needed]* Enron email dataset [link needed]* Professor Asha Rao, Victorian Honour Roll of Women 2021 – Victorian Government [https://www.vic.gov.au/professor-asha-rao]Content warnings & disclaimersCorrection: In the episode, the penalty paid by Commonwealth Bank is recalled as about $1.2 billion. The penalty agreed between AUSTRAC and CBA was $700 million, resolving Federal Court proceedings over serious breaches of AML/CTF laws. austracFollow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcast so next week’s episode lands in your feed.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.Five Key Takeaways* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    29 分
  • Inside Australia's Scam Crisis: One Survivor's Fight Against Banks, Loopholes and Blame
    2026/09/17
    Sylvia Chou is a registered tax agent, a Fellow of CPA Australia and a qualified financial planner. In 2019, she clicked on a Facebook ad claiming to be a Shark Tank-endorsed trading platform. A curious $250 payment turned into a $2.6 million loss within three months, after scammers used fake identity checks to build her trust and escalate slowly.In this episode of The Part 8A podcast, Sylvia explains how the scam worked, why her bank let a $1.1 million transfer through without question, and why she believes Australia’s financial system has a structural gap that leaves victims exposed. She also talks candidly about the public backlash, the darkest period that followed, and how meeting other scam victims in Canberra in 2024 led her to co-found the Scam Victim Alliance, now a national support network for survivors.Content note: this conversation touches on financial loss, bank disputes and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you personally, Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.Five Key Takeaways* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers used a legitimate-looking 100-point identity check to build trust early on.* Banks let large, unusual transfers through — including $1.1 million in under three hours — because Sylvia had sent money to the same account before, and the pattern wasn’t flagged as new.* Anti-money-laundering reporting obligations sit with government regulators, not with the customer. Sylvia argues that’s the biggest structural gap letting scams slip through.* Australia’s new Scams Prevention Framework is meant to share responsibility across banks, telcos and platforms, but Sylvia says it’s made recovery harder, since victims now have to build a case against multiple large institutions with almost no information of their own.* Sylvia co-founded the Scam Victim Alliance after meeting other seven-figure-loss victims at a 2024 Canberra press conference. The group now runs weekly support sessions and helps survivors through the AFCA complaints process.Detailed SynopsisContent note: this episode discusses financial loss, disputes with banks and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14.The ClickIt started with $250 and a television show. Sylvia was scrolling Facebook in 2019 when she saw an ad for a trading platform claiming a Shark Tank endorsement. She watched the show regularly and recognised some of the people who were quoted in the comments. Out of curiosity, she clicked through and paid $250 to open an account. Worst case, she thought, that’s all she’d lose.The SetupThe platform didn’t ask for real money straight away. It asked for identification: a driver’s licence, proof of address, and a “100-point check”, exactly like opening a bank account. To a finance professional who runs the same checks on her own clients, the process looked like diligence, not danger. She topped up to $10,000 as a starting point. Every step made the platform feel more legitimate.The EscalationOver the following months, the amounts grew. One transfer alone moved $1.1 million in under three hours. Her bank didn’t flag it, because she’d sent money to that account before. By the time Sylvia understood what was happening, she had lost $2.6 million.The FalloutThe public response was harsh. After a news story about her case ran on Facebook, one comment read: “I’m glad she’s not my accountant.” Others suggested that if she had so much money, she must be greedy for wanting more.Sylvia says the loss itself wasn’t the hardest part. It was watching people question her professional judgement and her character at the same time. During the worst of it, she says she thought seriously about ending her life. What kept her going was the thought of the friends who had lent her money and trusted her to pay it back.Finding Each OtherSylvia lobbied on her own for years, with limited effect. That changed in 2024, when she met a group of fellow scam victims at a press conference in Canberra, supported by an advocate she names as Debbie Pope. Between just three people in that room, total losses exceeded $5 million.Sylvia says standing with people who understood exactly what she’d been through, without judgement, was the moment the isolation started to lift. That meeting became the starting point for the Scam Victim Alliance.The Fight With the BanksSylvia is currently in disputes with three of Australia’s big four banks: the one she sent money from, the one that handled a ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • Beyond the Ban: How Parents Can Protect Children from Online Predators and Cyberbullying
    2025/11/23
    Australia is implementing a social media ban for children under 16, and this interview with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey from UniSA Education Futures explains the developmental science behind the decision. Children’s brains are still developing executive functioning and critical thinking skills through their teenage years, making them vulnerable to sophisticated online predators, cyberbullying, misinformation, and harmful content ranging from pornography to eating disorder promotion. The ban serves as a protective mechanism—similar to age restrictions on driving—to give children time to mature cognitively before facing these risks. However, Dr. Ey emphasizes that the ban alone isn’t enough. Media literacy education must become as important as math and English in schools, while parents need to educate themselves about online risks, maintain open communication with their children, and reassure them that no problem is too big to solve together. The interview explores whether the ban will effectively reduce harm or simply shift risks to platforms like gaming, and discusses why education remains the most powerful long-term protection strategy.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.Five Key Takeaways* Cognitive Development Timeline Drives Policy: Children’s executive functioning skills and critical thinking abilities continue developing until around age 16-17, with peak sexual development occurring between ages 10-17, making adolescents particularly vulnerable to online risks including predatory behavior, misinformation, and content promoting self-harm or eating disorders during this crucial developmental window.* Comprehensive Risk Landscape Beyond Cyberbullying: Social media exposure encompasses far more than bullying—risks include sextortion (perpetrators coercing sexual images then using them for control), child sexual abuse, false information shaping perceptions, conspiracy theories, body image dysphoria, addiction, depression, suicidal ideation, and access to dangerous content like bomb-making instructions or hate speech.* Perpetrators Outpace Both Police and Children: Child sexual abuse perpetrators are sophisticated actors who remain consistently ahead of law enforcement detection methods, operating secretively and manipulating children through grooming techniques—if police struggle to identify and trap these perpetrators, expecting cognitively developing children to recognize and resist them is unrealistic without protective measures.* Education Trumps Regulation as Long-Term Solution: While the ban provides temporary protection, Dr. Ey emphasizes that media literacy education represents a more effective long-term strategy than regulation alone, arguing it should receive equivalent priority to mathematics and English in curricula, with systematic monitoring and assessment of what children learn about recognizing and responding to online risks.* Parental Communication Provides Critical Safety Net: Children who fall victim to online grooming or send compromising images often remain silent due to fear of consequences or punishment, sometimes resulting in tragic outcomes including suicide—parents must establish that no problem is too big to address together, creating an approachable environment where children feel safe reporting uncomfortable or suspicious online interactions immediately.Detailed SynopsisThis interview examines Australia’s imminent social media ban for children under 16 through a conversation with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey, a child development expert from UniSA Education Futures. The discussion provides scientific context for the policy while exploring its practical implications and limitations.Dr. Ey grounds the policy rationale in developmental psychology, explaining that while the internet offers tremendous opportunities for learning, connection, and entertainment, it also creates a risk environment for which children are neurologically unprepared. The adolescent brain undergoes significant development between ages 10-17, a period that coincides with both sexual maturation and the formation of executive functioning skills necessary for critical thinking and risk assessment.The scope of online risks extends well beyond the commonly discussed cyberbullying. Dr. Ey catalogs a disturbing range of harms: sextortion schemes where perpetrators manipulate children into sending sexual images then use those images for ongoing control and abuse; direct child sexual exploitation; exposure to harmful instructional content including bomb-making guides; pornography; hate speech; misinformation campaigns; conspiracy theories deliberately designed to distort ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    28 分
  • Gas Prices vs. Climate Goals: Inside Australia's $500 Billion Energy Policy Debate
    2025/11/15
    This interview explores Australia’s current energy policy challenges through a conversation with a political leader advocating for change. At the heart of the discussion is a striking paradox: Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of natural gas, yet the country is building import terminals to bring gas back at higher prices. The speaker argues that current government policies are driving up electricity costs while failing to reduce emissions, costing taxpayers an estimated $75 billion to date with projections of over $500 billion more by 2035. The conversation examines the tension between meeting international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement and delivering affordable energy to Australian families and industries. Key policy proposals include streamlining environmental approvals for gas projects, opening new gas basins, and prioritizing energy affordability while still reducing emissions responsibly.Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.Five Key Takeaways* The LNG Export Paradox: Australia ranks as the world’s second or third-largest LNG exporter due to abundant natural gas reserves, yet the country is simultaneously constructing import terminals to purchase gas back at inflated prices—a situation the speaker characterizes as nonsensical for Australian consumers and industry.* Staggering Climate Policy Costs: Australia has already spent approximately $75 billion on emissions reduction efforts since 2005, with estimates suggesting an additional $500 billion will be required to meet the 2035 targets, even as power prices climb and emissions plateau or increase.* Environmental Approvals as Policy Bottleneck: The current environmental approval regime is identified as a critical obstacle preventing natural gas from reaching domestic markets, with accusations that government funding for environmental activist groups actively restricts supply expansion.* Paris Agreement Flexibility: While committed to the Paris Agreement framework, the speaker emphasizes that nationally determined contributions (NDCs) should be revised based on national interests and changing global circumstances, noting that many countries have already walked back or modified their commitments.* Gas as Transition Fuel Strategy: Natural gas is positioned as essential infrastructure serving three critical functions—industrial manufacturing, power generation, and emissions reduction as a transition fuel—making affordable gas access fundamental to both economic competitiveness and climate objectives.Detailed SynopsisThis interview captures a pivotal moment in Australia’s ongoing energy policy debate, recorded during a visit to the Sutherland Shire area of Sydney. The conversation reveals deep tensions between Australia’s climate commitments and the practical economic pressures facing households and industries struggling with rising energy costs.The discussion opens with firsthand observations from a powder coating facility, where rising gas and electricity prices are creating palpable economic strain. This real-world context frames the broader policy critique that follows. The speaker establishes a fundamental argument: that current national energy objectives are “working backwards” from unachievable long-term targets, driving electricity price increases in the process.A central paradox emerges as the interview progresses. Despite Australia’s position as a global LNG powerhouse—the world’s second or third-largest exporter—domestic gas markets face supply constraints severe enough to justify building import terminals. This scenario, the speaker suggests, represents a policy failure that defies common sense for ordinary Australians experiencing energy bill shock.The Paris Agreement becomes a key flashpoint in the conversation. When challenged about previous statements regarding “bureaucrats in Paris,” the speaker articulates a nuanced position: commitment to the Paris framework while reserving the right to revise Australia’s nationally determined contributions based on national interest. This position is contextualized within broader international trends, noting that many nations have modified or watered down their climate commitments as circumstances evolved.Historical comparison provides quantitative weight to the argument. The speaker notes that over the 20 years since 2005, Australia has nearly doubled its emissions reduction efforts compared to developing nations. Meeting Labor’s 2050 targets would require doubling those efforts again—at a cost the speaker deems unsustainable given current economic pressures.The critique extends to what the speaker characterizes as policy-driven...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    27 分