There are now many more people walking the streets in Australia wearing glasses that can subtly film and record the world around them. That’s in large part thanks to Kmart, which recently introduced – and then rapidly sold out of – cheap “camera glasses”.

These glasses are from Kmart’s in-house brand, Anko. They sell for only A$89 – quite the discount from similar products offered by Meta and Ray-Ban, which start at $337.

The push to make camera glasses a major consumer trend comes at a cost to the privacy of the wearer, and everyone around them. We know little about what happens with data from the devices, or who will see the images. Indeed, on Friday, federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland asked Australia’s privacy commissioner to urgently review the technology.

So are current privacy laws strong enough to handle this new wave of wearable tech?

More than a decade of development

Smart glasses themselves are not new. Google launched Google Glass in 2013 to much media fanfare and celebrity endorsement.

Yet that basic variant failed to break into the market because the technology was underwhelming, the clunky and obvious appearance left much to be desired, and users were widely derided as “glassholes”.

Modern iterations are far more aesthetically pleasing. And they are less obtrusive: it is less obvious to you and everyone else that you are wearing a high-tech computer on your face.

Kmart’s budget camera glasses perform similar functions to the higher-end models (albeit perhaps in a slower, more limited way).

Running on HeyCyan software, they have embedded cameras to analyse and record photos and videos of what the wearer sees, microphones to record sound, and speakers to enable the wearer to take phone calls and listen to podcasts or music.

Images, video and sound are recorded onto memory in the device, but can be downloaded into a connected app on the wearer’s phone, enabling recorded content to be edited, shared and uploaded to websites.

From covert filming to falling over

The risk receiving the most attention is the capability of these glasses to covertly film bystanders and unsuspecting women in public for social media content, potentially leading to a rise in harassment, voyeurism and stalking in public for social media content.

Uploaded videos compound the abuse. And there’s the potential harm from distraction if the wearable tech “augments” the wearer’s view with digital information in their line of sight, creating a very real potential for physical risks such as falls, trips and car accidents.

Companies and employers should also consider the risks, for example, that smart glasses will record confidential information, trade secrets or bank account details.

It’s also worth noting Meta is reportedly developing “super-sensor” glasses that could record even when you aren’t interacting with them. This would provide companies with unprecedented access to the most private parts of your life, whereabouts and preferences.

Such data could be sent to data-labelling firms and, depending on the product and terms, used to train AI models.

So, what of the law?

It isn’t clear how Australia’s highly fragmented, partial and out-of-date privacy laws apply to advances in privacy-intrusive and ambient technologies such as camera glasses.

Most of the federal Privacy Act, including the parts about collection, storage and use of personal data, apply only to public and private-sector organisations (the latter only above a certain size). The activities of individuals who wear camera glasses and record and share video or photos are not covered – although a company that collects and uses personal data, including photos, through the apps would need to obey privacy law.

But wearers might face other legal risks.

The Privacy Act does include a a right to sue in cases where a person seriously invades your privacy by intruding on your seclusion or misusing information relating to you – if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It can also be illegal to record conversations without consent under surveillance laws. These laws vary from state to state.

In New South Wales, for example, it’s illegal to record or publish private conversations without consent (with some exceptions).

Online publication of personal information about a person (or members of some groups) “in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing or harassing” is an offence under the new federal anti-doxxing provision.

The eSafety Commissioner has also powers to seek to take material offline where it is bad enough to be considered cyberbullying or cyberharrassment.

In other words, we have laws, even if they are a bit all over the place. And victims of the worst kinds of abuse of camera glasses’ capabilities could have some way to get recourse.

It’s time for privacy by design

But do we really want to live in a world full of constant low-grade recording?

As we are surrounded by technologies that degrade the privacy of people who never even got the chance to click through a privacy policy, do we want to be constantly second-guessing our conversations, or confronting strangers about their recording? Are there better options? Should the technology be banned?

In our view, a more nuanced conversation would be better. After all, these technologies can be a life-changer for people with disabilities, opening up spaces and opportunities otherwise closed to them.

There are ways to more actively balance different rights and interests as this new wave of technology hits us.

Major employers and social institutions (such as schools or universities) could consider policies that protect their shared spaces.

And perhaps, rather than putting all the responsibility on individuals to negotiate this new world, what Australia also needs is a more serious discussion about making sure our privacy (and other consumer) laws really push for better privacy by design in consumer and commercial products.

After all, the form technology takes is not inevitable, it is a choice: one where we should have some say over the terms.

Kimberlee Weatherall, Professor of Law, University of Sydney and Milica Stilinovic, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Governing Immersive Tech Project, University of Sydney

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

Many Australians still remember the 2016 census because of the online outage that dominated headlines on census night. It was the first time a majority of Australians were expected to complete the census online. However, the website crashed, in what became widely known as #CensusFail.

It wasn’t just any crash. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) took the online census offline after a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks. Known as DDoS, these attacks overwhelm a website with internet traffic, making it unavailable to legitimate users.

While no data was ever leaked, the website was unavailable for almost two days, undermining public confidence in the security of one of Australia’s largest collections of personal information.

Ten years later, the latest census will take place on August 11 2026. This year, around 85% of Australians are expected to complete it online.

The successful 2021 census reflected the cyber security improvements the ABS had made since 2016.

So how secure is the 2026 census? What did its latest cyber security audit find, and what can Australians do to protect themselves from scams while completing it online?

Why the census is an attractive target for cyber criminals

The census is Australia’s largest national data collection exercise.

Although the information collected is protected by strict privacy laws, the sheer scale and national significance of the census make it an attractive target for cyber criminals.

It’s also one of the country’s biggest online events, with millions of Australians expected to log on to the same website and complete it within a relatively short period.

Cyber criminals are increasingly targeting governments because they hold valuable information and provide essential public services. Even if attackers can’t steal the data, they may still try to disrupt services and undermine public confidence.

Lessons from 2016

The 2016 census outage is often remembered as a major cyber security failure. While no census data was compromised, the disruption damaged public trust.

The ABS has since invested heavily in improving its cyber security. Those improvements were evident during the 2021 census, when the ABS reported repelling almost 1 billion attempted cyber attacks and blocking more than 130,000 malicious internet addresses associated with attempts to attack or disrupt the online census service.

However, cyber security is an ongoing process rather than a one-time fix. Ahead of the 2026 census, an independent audit listed several areas requiring further work.

What the audit found

In May 2026, the Australian National Audit Office found the ABS needed to address key remaining cyber security vulnerabilities and complete critical security activities before census night.

It also identified shortcomings in cyber risk management and broader planning across the bureau’s information and communication technology environment – the digital infrastructure that supports the collection, processing and protection of census data.

The audit made four recommendations:

• strengthening cyber risk management
• establishing cyber security advisory arrangements earlier in the census planning process
• improving security architecture documentation, and
• better managing risks across the ABS’s broader information and communication technologies.

In its response, the ABS said it had fully implemented the first two recommendations and had made “substantial progress” on the remaining two, which would be implemented before census night.

The biggest cyber risk may not be the census website

For most Australians, the greatest cyber risk is unlikely to be someone breaking into the census system.

Instead, it may be phishing scams, where cyber criminals impersonate the ABS. These can include fake emails, text messages and websites designed to trick people into handing over personal information or clicking malicious links. The bureau has warned Australians to be alert to these scams.

Scammers know many Australians will expect to receive census-related communications. By impersonating trusted organisations such as the ABS and using authentic-looking emails, text messages and websites, they can make phishing attempts appear more legitimate.

How to complete the census safely

A few simple precautions can greatly reduce your risk.

Make sure you are on the correct website. Complete your census through the official census website, your myGov inbox if you’ve subscribed to census updates, or a paper form. Double-check the web address before entering any personal information.

Stay alert. Don’t click links in unexpected emails or text messages claiming to be from the ABS. If you’re unsure whether a message is genuine, go directly to the official ABS website rather than following a link.

Be aware of misinformation. The ABS will never offer prizes or incentives for completing your census. The bureau will also not ask for passwords, banking details, tax file numbers or identity documents.

If you receive a suspicious message claiming to be from the ABS, report it to the bureau itself and to Scamwatch.

Every census depends on public trust. While the ABS has strengthened its cyber defences since 2016, Australians also have an important role to play by recognising scams and using official census channels. A quick check to confirm that a message or website is genuine can help protect your personal information.

Ritesh Chugh, Professor, Information and Communications Technology, CQUniversity Australia

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

Trying to get an ageing parent into care can feel like trying to land a plane in a storm while also looking after kids in the back row. This is the reality for the “sandwich generation”: adults who are supporting ageing parents while raising their own children.

The pressure becomes intense when a parent has a sudden health crisis and decisions have to be made quickly. In that moment, adult children are pushed into an unfamiliar, complex and expensive aged care system, often with very little guidance.

Accessing care often means long wait lists, complex forms and significant out-of-pocket costs. And recent changes mean many older Australians will pay more for their aged care, whether delivered at home or in a residential facility.

For most people, the first step into formal care is support at home.

What does home-based care look like?

The Commonwealth Home Support Program provides basic help such as cleaning, meals and transport. It’s usually delivered by local councils or community organisations.

These services are heavily subsidised, but are rationed and prioritised for those with the greatest need, especially full- and part-pensioners.

Many families find that what is offered is helpful, but not enough.

As needs increase, people may be approved for a higher level of home support, now called a Support at Home. This is designed for people who need coordinated, ongoing help to stay at home, such as personal care, nursing, shopping and housework.

But this isn’t an on-demand service you can “order” when a crisis hits. Waiting times for approval and funding can stretch to many months.

In the meantime, most care is provided by family members, often on top of work and childcare, or by paying privately if the family can afford it.

This gap is one of the hidden pressures on the sandwich generation.

Who pays for Support at Home?

Support at Home funding is divided into three broad categories:

• clinical care (for example, nursing or allied health)
• independence support (help with mobility, self care or staying safe)
• everyday living (things such as cleaning, shopping or gardening).

Clinical care is fully funded by government.

Recipients are expected to contribute to the cost of independence and everyday living support. These services are priced at market rates, which are much higher than the basic home support under the Commonwealth Home Support Program.

Many families experience “bill shock” when the first statements arrive and realise that “government funded” care still comes with large personal contributions.

What this might look like in practice

Consider Tom, a fictional homeowner and part-pensioner with A$500,000 in financial assets.

Tom has been approved for a level 5 Support at Home package, which includes physiotherapy, nursing, personal assistance, transport and domestic assistance, including cleaning.

His package funding is split 15% to clinical care, 40% to independence support and 45% to everyday living.

Clinical care is fully covered by government.

Tom still needs to contribute 17% of the costs for independence support ($2,749 per year) and 35% of the costs for everyday living ($6,181 per year).

Even with a substantial package, his out-of-pocket costs are significant. This isn’t unusual.

If Tom’s health declines further, residential aged care may be the next step.

To move into a government-subsidised residential aged care, he needs a formal assessment that confirms he can no longer safely stay at home, even with support.

Once approved, he still has to find a home with a vacancy that is willing and able to take him.

Who pays for residential aged care?

Residential aged care brings a new layer of financial complexity. If someone has assets above $214,884, they are treated as a market payer and must fund their own accommodation.

This can be done through:

• a large lump sum payment called a refundable accommodation deposit, often priced at around $750,000
• a daily accommodation payment
• or a mix of both.

The daily payment for a $750,000 refundable accommodation deposit is $173.22 per day.

In addition to accommodation, residents pay a basic daily fee (currently $66.80) and, depending on their means, additional amounts such as a hotelling supplement and non-clinical care contributions.

For Tom, this adds up. His cost of care is $300.42 per day, or more than $100,000 per year.

These numbers highlight an uncomfortable truth: residential aged care is expensive, even for people receiving a pension and even when the government is contributing. Means assessment doesn’t mean it’s actually affordable.

Start these conversations early

The system is hard to navigate even for professionals, let alone people encountering it for the first time in a crisis.

For those in the sandwich generation, the emotional load can be as heavy as the financial one. They’re often making decisions on behalf of parents who are frightened, unwell or reluctant to accept help.

Without clear planning and open conversations about preferences, finances and care options, families may end up taking the first place offered rather than the option that best aligns with their loved one’s values and needs.

Starting conversations early – before a fall, a hospital admission or a sudden health crisis – can make a real difference.

Talk about what “a good old age” looks like, what kind of care is acceptable, where someone wants to live and how savings should be used to support care at home can help families avoid rushed decisions later.

Starting these discussions early is one of the few things the sandwich generation can actually control.

Jemma Briscoe, Adjunct Lecturer in Finance, University of Technology Sydney

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

A former NRL player yesterday alleged shocking inducements from betting companies to keep gambling, including receiving cocaine as well as free alcohol and food at race meetings.

Luke Bateman’s testimony came on the first day of a two-day Senate inquiry into new online gambling laws, which began yesterday.

It is examining two bills the federal government has introduced to restrict online wagering in Australia.

The betting companies denied any wrongdoing, but the allegations put the issue of betting inducements into the spotlight.

Critics take aim

There are many critics of the changes Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced in April.

Most of the concerns raised by critics relate to the lack of a total ban on media advertising and marketing for wagering providers, which was recommended by the 2023 report of the Murphy inquiry into online wagering.

This report also recommended a host of other reforms including the abolition of inducements to gamble. This has not been proposed by the government’s bills.

Inducements were defined by the Murphy inquiry as: “advertising and direct messaging [including] offers such as deposit matches, multi-bets, bonus bets, rewards programs and early cash-outs”.

Witnesses told the Murphy committee they has been offered millions of dollars in “free betting money” and that inducements had rekindled gambling habits they had sought to escape.

Even after self-excluding from gambling operators, witnesses reported receiving inducements from other operators, or from “affiliates” who received a trailing commission for referring punters to an operator.

Amendments to the National Consumer Protection Framework for online gambling have prohibited inducements from being offered to encourage people to open an online wagering account.

But evidence to the Murphy inquiry suggested these could be easily bypassed.

Evidence to the Senate inquiry included damning allegations from Bateman, who told the committee the inducements he received included cocaine provided by the wagering companies, as well as interstate trips featuring free alcohol and food at race meetings. He was also offered bonus bets.

He said:

There were times where I would be flown interstate and taken to race days, put in marquees with alcohol and food provided all day, things like that. Before getting there, the VIP manager would offer ‘hey mate, what drugs do you want? Do you want a couple of bags for this weekend? We’ll organise that for you’.

Prominent gambling reform advocate Tim Costello, also giving evidence, told Senators TAB and SportsBet had provided accommodation, escorts and drugs to a high roller who is currently detained at Silverwater Prison in Sydney, facing charges. Costello said:

They were flying him to grand finals. They were offering him escorts, drugs, whatever he wanted. He was doing turnover of more than $20 million a month.

It’s unclear whether police or gambling regulators will investigate these allegations.

Why inducements are so dangerous

Australian research indicates such direct messaging is a powerful marketing tool that can “encourage a nearly immediate, and arguably impulsive, betting response, which may increase gambling-related problems.”

A more recent Australian study found “exposure to wagering direct messages, and the inducements they promote, directly increases betting, betting expenditure and betting-related harm.”

And a 2025 European study reported:

Inducements increased the amount spent on bets by over 10% and almost halved the number of people opting not to bet. Those with evidence of problem gambling were disproportionately affected. Inducements also led to decision errors, making bettors three times more likely to choose bad bets.

Given this evidence – and the evidence of those with personal experience – it’s hard to understand why inducements should not be prohibited, as the Murphy inquiry’s recommendation 16 urged:

The Committee recommends the Australian government prohibit all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and that it do so without delay.

Is the government doing enough?

All in all, it’s hard to mount a convincing case for inducements to continue. Nonetheless, Communications Minister Anika Wells tried to argue the national self-exclusion register, Betstop, offered a way for people to avoid inducments:

I would say to people who are either suffering from gambling harm or […] who have been advocating in the space of inducements, to assist the cause by making sure that people who might benefit from BetStop are aware of BetStop

Yet evidence demonstrates wagering affiliates continue to contact people who want to stop gambling: multiple companies have breached Betstop, including Entain, which breached it about 500 times (and was not penalised for doing so).

The Australian Communications and Media Authority also reported other breaches, noting that “breaches of the […] rules can lead to significant harm.”

As with almost all other recommendations of the Murphy Inquiry’s report, the federal government has taken no action on banning inducements.

The government has also never explained why it has failed to take action, beyond assurances it has “got the balance right”.

Like many of the decisions the government has apparently made about gambling, the reason they are ignoring inducements seems remarkably unclear.

This is an issue that affects millions of Australians every year. The Australian National University Centre for Gambling Research estimated nearly 20% of Australian adults gambled at risky levels in 2025. Another 6% were affected by someone else’s gambling.

They deserve some clarity – and more effective regulation of wagering operators.

Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

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

In the past ten days, two of the companies leading the artificial intelligence (AI) boom discovered their own powerful, semi-autonomous models had hacked into real-world systems during testing in four distinct incidents.

These weren’t just lab mishaps. In several cases, the models recognised signs suggesting they’d broken into real systems – and only one stopped as a result.

The incidents show testing advanced AI models is no longer a controlled exercise. And the companies behind them need to do more to keep AI’s most dangerous capabilities safely contained.

When a test becomes reality

The first report came from OpenAI, the lab behind ChatGPT. Some new models under testing for “maximal cyber capabilities” found a previously unknown security hole to access the internet from their supposedly isolated testing environment.

From there, the models used stolen credentials and more exploits to access the servers of open-source AI platform Hugging Face to find solutions to the problems they were being tested on. OpenAI didn’t even know about the breach until days after Hugging Face had detected and contained it.

The second report followed in a matter of days. Prompted by OpenAI’s disclosure, rival lab Anthropic combed back through its own cyber-security evaluation logs. The company discovered that three separate Claude models which were supposed to be in sealed environments had accidentally been given internet access.

However, the models were told they did not have internet access and were only working in a simulated test rather than the real world. One model managed to extract credentials and data from a real company’s database. Another built and published some malicious software that was downloaded and run by a real security firm.

The most striking part of the Anthropic report is what emerged from the models’ own internal reasoning. In one incident, the model correctly realised it had reached a real system but then talked itself back into believing it was still a simulation.

In another, it recognised the system was real but kept going anyway, in some runs by convincing itself the real company must have been part of the exercise. Only the third model (the most advanced), on concluding a target was genuinely real, stopped.

As Anthropic put it, AI models need awareness of their own situation to decide what actions are permitted or not – but in this case, the models’ understanding of the situation was wrong.

High-risk operations

Taken together, these reports show that even the exercises meant to test whether these models are safe are not really safe, controlled experiments. They are high-risk operations in themselves, which can cause harm in the real world.

The sophistication of these models is increasing with incredible speed. Nobody can credibly claim they are not potentially dangerous, in a world where hacking of sensitive information held by companies, governments and other organisations was already common before autonomous AI entered the picture.

According to a recent estimate by global tech company IBM, AI-enabled attacks are up more than 50% this year and the average cost of a data breach is almost US$5 million.

The AI labs’ bet that their technology can be developed and deployed safely rests on two assumptions. First, a model’s capacity to recognise real-world harm and stop will need to grow at least as fast as its capacity to cause it. Second, the guardrails built into a model – the instructions about what it should and should not do – must be interpreted correctly and consistently by the model, so the model can’t be steered toward purposes its creators never intended.

These assumptions look shaky. In the incidents above, the labs’ own evaluations show models rationalising away evidence that a target was real – and a thriving community already exists to strip safety guardrails from open-weight models entirely, using techniques such as “abliteration”.

Looking to the future – and the past

Beyond the current situation looms something even less predictable: multi-agent systems, where groups of models interact with each other rather than a human overseer. In this case alignment is not something you necessarily control at the level of the individual agent, but is instead an emerging property of a very large collective of agents, which can be much harder to control.

Research on the risk of such systems has already identified several ways this can go wrong. Miscoordination between models, collusion between them, and cascading errors are all real risks that don’t exist in single-agent systems, and can’t be forecast by testing agents individually.

Science-fiction sage Isaac Asimov foresaw these problems some 70 years ago. In his 1957 novel The Naked Sun, robots are programmed not to harm humans. However, a character manipulates their understanding of the situation to make them unwittingly cooperate in a murder.

What now?

There is no doubt AI labs need to take greater care when testing their models. They also need to make a convincing case that security is their priority and is not secondary to the race to maintain market or geopolitical dominance.

The safety of individuals and social and environmental systems should be the primary concern in the development of AI technology. At present there are no meaningful, participatory processes for AI governance, where broad discussions can take place about priorities, values, and how much risk is acceptable to assume in the process. It’s a worry.

Francesco Bailo, Senior Lecturer in Data Analytics in the Social Sciences, Deputy Director of the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance, University of Sydney

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

Visits to a new doctor, physio or specialist often begin with: “Do you mind if I use AI?”

According to Off the Record, a new report by Digital Rights Watch, more than 40% of Australian doctors are now using AI scribes. These tools listen to consultations, feeding what they hear into Large Language Models – similar to ChatGPT or Claude – to generate medical notes.

For clinicians, AI scribes are an easy sell. They eliminate hours of paperwork, freeing energy to focus on the patient. This can profoundly change how chronically burned out doctors feel about their work. And with Medicare only compensating doctors for face-to-face time, and not note-taking, the financial and emotional incentives for practitioners are undeniable.

Yet the benefit for patients is less clear, especially when we have little transparency about who has access to deeply personal medical data, or how this data is handled by these lightly regulated AI scribes.

How do AI scribes work? And what can go wrong?

Many AI scribes don’t just transcribe text. They summarise and interpret conversations based on what the AI assumes a medical professional might say.

However, AIs often hallucinate, confidently stating things that never happened. A doctor counselling a patient to quit smoking might find the AI confidently recorded that the patient was advised to avoid house fires.

AI systems also frequently show biases relating to race, ethnicity, class and gender. For patients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, or those for whom English is a second language, AI interpretations of speech can lead to medical records that wildly diverge from reality.

Early studies suggested up to 90% of AI-generated notes required correction. More recent studies show that approximately 20% of AI clinical notes contain errors significant enough to impact patient diagnoses.

And catching these errors is hard for clinicians, as humans really struggle to identify others’ mistakes under time pressure. This is especially true when automation bias leads humans to accept an AI’s output without scrutiny. But failing to correct these errors harms both patients and any subsequent clinician relying on the notes.

We’ve seen this in the legal space, where judges and lawyers are now forced to meticulously fact-check every submission to ensure no AI hallucinations slip through, slowing down proceedings.

If clinicians must meticulously verify every note for potential AI-related mistakes, the promised productivity gains likely evaporate. If they don’t, the health system will be flooded with unreliable data.

Clinicians aren’t well-equipped

The issues with trust run much deeper. Medical professionals aren’t well-equipped to provide guidance on where the data they give to AI scribes goes.

At the moment, patients are asked just to trust that their clinician understands what is happening. But health-care professionals aren’t AI experts and aren’t well equipped to discuss these privacy issues. Their professional bodies provide only high-level information.

Complicating this is the fact AI scribes typically fail to disclose how data is handled, who has access to it, and what AI models are used. This means that beyond vague assurances that data remains in Australia, health-care professionals simply cannot give patients concrete answers about who is accessing their data or what they are doing with it.

What needs to happen?

Regulators are struggling to keep pace: they’re working with laws that don’t clearly define who is responsible for this rapidly evolving space.

As Digital Rights Watch argues, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) should regulate AI scribes as it would any other medical device. It should be subject to the same safety testing requirements as any other piece of medical equipment.

The TGA currently claims scribes are only medical devices if they provide diagnostic advice. This allows vendors to evade scrutiny.

The TGA’s position ignores how generative AI is used in clinical practice, and that even transcriptions can contain hallucinations or biases that could affect diagnoses. This leaves Australia’s guidance out of step with nations such as the United Kingdom.

Fundamentally, the government must ensure Australians’ private data is properly safeguarded, through both legislation and bodies such as the AI Safety Institute. This should include forcing AI service providers to clearly disclose what data they have access to, how they use it, and who can access it, with rigorous protections to ensure privacy and real penalties for breaches.

More broadly, there is a need for rigorous independent testing to ensure the AI systems with which we interact are fair, reasonable and unbiased for all Australians. This should include testing whether these systems produce genuine productivity gains that are beneficial for patients.

Without these safeguards, Australian patients may lose trust in the medical system. And once that trust is broken, it will hurt us all.

Andrew Cullen, Senior Research Fellow, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

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

The ongoing housing crisis is having severe repercussions on individuals and families in Australia. It has limited young people’s ability to move out, increased the rate of involuntary lifelong renting, and pushed vulnerable populations into homelessness.

These are not the only changes that flow as a result of housing unaffordability. Our new research demonstrates it’s also reshaping how people vote.

An interesting case study

A longstanding body of academic work links individuals’ assets to their political and ideological beliefs, including the parties they vote for.

This literature shows people with more valuable assets are more likely to hold right-leaning political beliefs. They are also more likely to support conservative parties that favour the status quo over efforts to redistribute money and wealth more equitably throughout a society.

For the average person, the family home is the most valuable asset they will ever own. However, surprisingly few studies have considered the influence of home ownership on voting preferences. Australia represents an interesting case study for two key reasons.

First, Australian major political parties differ in their electoral positions regarding housing policy. In particular, the coalition of the Liberal and National parties has historically favoured homeowners through — for example — negative gearing and tax discounts. In contrast, since the 2010s, the Australian Greens and the Labor Party have progressively adopted more pro-renter stances.

Second, Australia’s trend towards housing unaffordability is particularly pronounced by international standards. This is reflected in increased home and rental prices, reduced homeownership rates and increased property-ownership concentration. This situation creates a greater divide in the economic interests of renters and homeowners, potentially shifting (or entrenching) party preferences.

Our research

Our new study explored how housing tenure relates to voting behaviour in Australia. We also wanted to know whether the relationship has become stronger over time.

We analysed survey data from more than 19,000 people participating in ten iterations of the Australian Election Study between 1996 and 2022. The Australian Electoral Study interviews people shortly after each national election, collecting information on their demographic traits, economic position and sociopolitical attitudes.

We analysed these survey data to examine associations between individuals’ self-reported housing tenure and the party they voted for in the last election. We also kept other relevant factors constant, such as age, income, area of residence and social class.

The ‘homeowner, conservative voter’ association

In a first set of analyses, we compared the voting preferences of renters, mortgage holders and outright owners, pooling data from 1996 to 2022.

All else being equal, there is a clear link between home ownership and voting for the Coalition. Specifically, 45.6% of outright owners voted for the Coalition, compared with 44% of mortgage holders and 37.6% of renters.

By contrast, 34.2% of outright owners, 36.3% of mortgage holders, and 38% of renters voted Labor.

In other words, there is a pro-Coalition advantage of 11.4 percentage points among outright owners, and a smaller 7.7 percentage-point advantage among mortgage holders when compared to Labor. For renters, however, we observe a slight Labor advantage of 0.3 percentage points.

The analyses also unveiled interesting patterns for the Greens, who disproportionately attract renters. In fact, our data indicate 23% of Greens votes come from renters, compared with just 11% and 18% for the Coalition and Labor, respectively.

Together, these results align with the premise that the Coalition has been historically successful in attracting homeowners as a key constituency.

They also suggest having a mortgage makes people more likely to vote for policies that redistribute wealth and provide a buffer against interest rate changes.

Renters, on the other hand, visibly lean towards parties that more actively support tenants’ economic interests.

Are things changing over time?

Importantly, our research shows the influence of home assets on voting behaviour is not static. Rather, it has changed visibly over the 26 years between 1996 and 2022, aligning with the increasing cost of living and housing.

Crucially, the data show renters have progressively abandoned the Coalition as their party of choice. While 44% of renters voted for the Coalition in 1996, just 31% of renters did so in 2022.

On the aggregate, these voters seem to have been absorbed for the most part by the Greens, who saw the share of renters voting for them increase from 3% in 1996 to 20% in 2022.

How might future elections look?

Our study provides evidence that homeownership should be a factor to be considered in its own right in analyses of political behaviour, separate from other asset types.

The findings reveal a strong and increasing tendency for renters to vote for left-leaning over right-leaning parties. This could have significant implications for both future election results and party strategies, especially as renters account for an increasing share of the adult population.

At the same time, renters have seen their market power deteriorate, further motivating them to find a party or candidate committed to helping them. Parties that design policies to appeal to renters may therefore reap rewards in future elections.

If the current trend extends into the future, renters may indeed hold the key to reshaping the Australian political landscape.

Francisco Perales, Adjunct Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University and Ferran Martinez i Coma, Professor in Political Science, Griffith University

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

Do you want your toilet to reliably flush, whether you’re at home or on holiday anywhere in Australia? Want to help shape decisions on where new schools get built? Or want people experiencing homelessness to get better services than they do now?

Australian households are now starting to receive instructions in their letterboxes, explaining how to complete the 2026 census.

The data collected in your census form is crucial for everything from sewage systems to hospitals, schools and more.

Here are ten things you need to know about what’s new in the census this year, how much you can be fined if you lie or ignore it, what happens to your data, and how to ask for help.

1. What is the census?

Run every five years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Census of Population and Housing collects a complete survey of who we are, and where and how we live in Australia.

The census collects information on every person in the country on Tuesday August 11 across 10.8 million households. Homeless people and remote communities are also carefully surveyed.

Importantly, it’s not just for Australian citizens: it counts everyone in Australia that night, including international tourists, students and temporary visa holders.

The form is published in 27 languages, from Arabic to Vietnamese.

2. What’s new this time?

There are 12 changes in the 2026 census: two additional questions, and tweaks to ten long-running topics.

Ancestry has been expanded from two responses to four. Religion, health, transport and employment questions have received minor updates.

Gendered language referencing others in the household is now more inclusive.

Wording on the mainstay sex question now reads “sex recorded at birth”. And the controversial “number of children ever born” question returns to ten-yearly collection. It will be asked in 2031 instead.

Two new optional questions for over 16-year-olds ask about sexual orientation and gender (though not about intersex traits). These questions join religion as the only voluntary questions on the census.

3. Do I have to do it? And is there a fine if I don’t?

The census is compulsory. It only takes about half an hour to complete.

If you don’t complete it, the ABS will be in touch. But if you repeatedly ignore it, non-completion can attract a fine of A$364 a day. Deliberately providing false or misleading information risks a fine of up to $3,640.

4. Why does it matter?

Imagine waking up to use the bathroom only to find the sewage isn’t working. The entire neighbourhood can’t flush the toilet. Worse, you’re settling into your Christmas holiday at the coast and the sewage capacity is maxed; you’re one flush away from a caravan park plumbing poonami.

Census data helps make sure there’s sufficient infrastructure everywhere.

Population data from the census helps inform the location and upgrade needs for wastewater treatment facilities.

As an example, Lauceston’s current major sewer upgrades are based in part on population data from the census.

Census data is used in combination with other data, such as water utilities’ records of flushing toilets, to build projections for peak holiday populations. This helps us avoid environmental sewage disasters.

Testing wastewater, combined with census data, even helps calculate drug use and investigate Australians’ health.

School locations and staffing levels are also informed by the census.

Teacher numbers give an indication of the education workforce and its location. Population census data, coupled with school census data, enables a stocktake and anticipation of future trends to avoid school enrolment blowouts.

Censuses are personal for me. I wasn’t counted in the 1996 census because I was homeless. That’s part of why I ended up becoming a demographer – so no one is invisible when it counts.

Improvements to counting people experiencing homeless over the past 30 years mean I wouldn’t be missed today.

The ABS now uses more comprehensive measures to capture rough sleepers, people in supported homeless accommodation, and couch surfers. The census has helped reveal that someone who is homeless is now most often a couch surfer, rather than on the streets.

5. When is the deadline?

You can complete it as soon as you have the form or login details, if you know where you’ll be on census night, Tuesday August 11.

If you need to post back a form, do it as soon as possible.

6. Are my answers actually private?

It’s expected 85% of forms will be completed online this time, up from (80%) in 2021.

Privacy and confidentiality of census information is protected by law.

Once received by the ABS, names and addresses are separated from responses. Completed paper forms are destroyed once data is safely recorded.

7. What happens to my online data?

Sophisticated encryption technology is used to ensure the safety of online census information.

Just like paper forms, once data is processed, identifying information is kept functionally separate to responses. No data is released that might identify an individual.

8. Is Australia unusual in having a census?

Australia is among only a handful of countries that still conduct a traditional census every five years.

The United States and United Kingdom hold their censuses every decade. Many other countries, such as New Zealand, are moving toward alternatives, like using administrative data such as tax data, unemployment and health statistics.

Cost and logistics will likely see traditional census-taking in Australia replaced by administrative data alternatives by around 2040.

9. What if I want a paper form?

Paper copies, including separate personal forms, are available by contacting the ABS online, calling 1800 130 250, or collecting one from a census pop-up hub.

Reply-paid envelopes are provided for returning paper forms.

10. What if I need help?

Information is available online, by phoning the census hotline on 1800 181 227, or in person at an information session.

Help to complete your form, including in languages other than English, is available at fill-in-the-form sessions.

Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University

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

This month, multiple news outlets have reported families’ concerns about rising private school costs during the cost-of-living crisis.

It’s likely this trend will increase, as private school tuition fees rise faster than inflation.

Why are families putting themselves under this pressure? What does it suggest about the broader Australian school system?

Parents are struggling

In Australia, on average, private school fees (including additional costs) sit at around $8,973 for each year of schooling per student. Costs can total over $100,000 over the course of an K-12 private school education.

However, fee averages can differ across Australia.

In 2024, the average tuition fee for a Year 12 student in an independent school (also known as private schools) in NSW was A$15,674. In Victoria it was $20,923.

Private school peak body Independent Schools Australia surveyed 1,508 parents who have kids in independent schools.

Of those surveyed, 75% had adjusted their household budget in the last year to remain in their selected schools. More than half reported struggling to pay school fees, and 28% said they had also cut back on essentials, such as medicine, groceries and transport, to help pay fees.

The survey also reported “one in five receive financial support from other family members”.

An educational shift

Despite the fees, we know families are increasingly choosing independent schools over public schools.

The proportion of Australian students attending independent schools has jumped from 13% in 2006 to 17% in 2025.

At the same time, the number of students attending public schools has dropped. In 2025, 63% of students attended public school. In 2006 it was 67%. Enrolments at Catholic schools didn’t change much throughout this period and remained at around 20%.

Why is this happening?

Our research

Our research, which looked at the impact of philanthropy in Australian public schools, might offer some perspectives as to why.

Over the last two years, as part of an ongoing research project we interviewed 58 public school principals across every Australian state and territory about their experiences with school funding.

We found that many principals perceived parents to be choosing schools based on infrastructure, extra-curricular offerings and facilities they could not match, including basics such as heating or cooling.

All principals interviewed said they had to apply for competitive funding for critical infrastructure in the school, even for necessities such as ramps for students with disability.

Other findings

An Australia Institute study published in June also mirrors these principals’ concerns.

The survey asked 2,230 Australian adults questions about primary and secondary school funding. Participants were recruited online and represented by a range of ages, genders, education levels, regions, household incomes and political preferences.

As part of the study, 801 Australian parents with children in private schools were asked about their schooling choices. It found 38% would have enrolled their child in the public system if their local public school was better funded.

About 41% of respondents said they would still enrol their child in a private school even if their local public school was better funded while the remaining 21% said they were unsure. Respondents were not asked the reasons for their answers.

The bigger picture

Parent choices about where they send their kids to school must be understood in the context of Australia’s broader funding environment.

For instance, public schools in Australia have experienced chronic underfunding. Other than the ACT, most public schools across other states and territories do not currently receive their minimum amount of funding as calculated by the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). The SRS is the measure used to determine the minimum amount of government funding that should be allocated to schools for their students’ educational needs.

In Australia, there is no regulation around how much non-government schools can charge, such as price caps. Nor do tuition fees impact the amount of government funding independent schools receive.

Indeed, Australia’s private schools charge some of the highest fees in the OECD.

It’s important to note not all independent schools charge high fees. But research has consistently suggested school fees of any level are linked with higher levels of “school segregation”. This means advantaged and disadvantaged students are concentrated in separate parts of the school system.

This then leads to overall declines in educational equity and quality.

Australia is among some of the most segregated school systems in the OECD. Australian public schools educate the majority of disadvantaged students.

What should change to help families?

One way to limit high school fees would be to tie them to the amount of government funding a school receives.

That means if a school charges fees, it should receive decreased government funding linked to this. This would encourage schools to maintain low tuition fees and, in turn, keep independent education more affordable for financially-struggling families.

While this measure might be met with political resistance in the Australian context, research has shown the measure has worked in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium. These countries have either prohibited or regulated school tuition fees where they also receive government funding.

With this in mind, a key question emerges: to what extent are private schools that are charging high fees, and receiving full government funding support, responsible for easing some of the burden on parents and families?

Elisa Di Gregorio, Lecturer, School of Education, Adelaide University and Emma Rowe, Associate Professor in Education, Deakin University

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