Real estate agents around Australia are ”encouraging” their tenants to think about giving their landlords a BJ this Christmas as a way to say thank you for providing them with an expensive place to live.

”It’s been a tough year for landlords this year what with some of them having to evict long term tenants and find new ones,” said Eastern suburbs realtor Irwin R Schyster. ”Not to mention, do you know how hard it is to fill in the negative gearing paperwork?”

”You’d think it would be easier when doing it for your 4th or 5th home, but not so.”

When asked if he seriously believes that tenants should fellate their landlords, Mr Schyster said: ”Of course I do.”

”For too long the poor landlord has been victimised, well that should end now.”

”Besides we’re not asking too much of the tenants, it’s not like we expect them to swallow.”

”Though it would be nice if they did.”

”Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a viewing for a sewer drain in Ashfield in an hour. It’s a real steal at $900 per week.”

Mark Williamson

@MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.

The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:

https://bit.ly/2y8DH68

Fossil fuel exports could prove sticking point for international community

Originally published on Global Voices

Flare (Oceania) John Gerrard — A continuous burning gas flare set against the backdrop of the Tongan coast. Author’s photo of video installation at National Gallery of Victoria 5 Dec 2023

Australia’s hopes of co-hosting the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) COP31 (Conference of the Parties) summit in 2026 with Pacific nations may well depend on how the rest of the world sees its progress towards eliminating carbon emissions. Since the election of the new Labor government in 2022, Australia’s international reputation regarding climate action has risen considerably as a result of stronger emissions targets and its enhanced Safeguard Mechanism.

However, the controversy surrounding the hosting of COP28 by the United Arab Emirates, a major oil exporter, may ring some alarm bells. Australia is also a major fossil fuel exporter, namely coal and gas.

There are a number of contentious aspects to the government’s climate policy.

Meeting emissions targets

The Federal Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen was upbeat in his climate statement to parliament before leaving to represent Australia at COP28. He acknowledged the challenges in meeting the goal of a 43 percent reduction by 2030 but argued that:

With policies we have announced and are in the process of implementing, Australia’s emissions are projected to be 42 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030 — compared to 40 per cent in last year’s projections.

However, the government-funded, independent statutory body, the Climate Change Authority, warned in its 2023 Annual Progress Report:

Meeting or surpassing Australia’s 2030 target is crucial – otherwise achieving the more ambitious but essential targets needed down the track will be that much harder. The authority’s assessment is there are real risks of falling short, but working together we can succeed. The challenge is: ‘are we willing to do what it takes?’

There are many people who are sceptical about the minister's claims. Economist John Quiggin looked at some of the data and concluded:

Unfortunately, a closer look at the statement suggests Australia is unlikely to achieve net zero by 2050 in the absence of radical policy changes.

New coal and gas projects

Greenpeace Australia has an online petition against any new coal or gas projects, with particular focus on the concerns of its near neighbours in the Pacific. With 30 new coal and gas projects seeking approval in Australia, with a potential 20+ billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, the petition claims:

As Australia is the third biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world, the Australian Government must listen to Pacific communities and stop new coal, oil and gas projects now.

Approving new fossil fuel projects will endanger countless lives and recklessly lock Australia into more fossil fuels as the rest of the world shifts to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy.

Australia’s Climate Council, an independent non-government organisation, is very clear about the challenge:

For Australia, COP28 comes as our nation continues to work to rebuild its international reputation on climate, after a decade as one of the world’s most notorious climate pariahs.

…If Australia is to be a successful host of COP31 in 2026 … Australia will need to stop adding fuel to the fire and plan for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels.

Pacific Island countries have been pushing for drastic action on fossil fuels, as spelled out in the Port Vila call for a just transition to a fossil-free Pacific in March 2023. The language was watered down in the Pacific Island forum communique in November, following pressure from Australia and New Zealand. A historic climate change agreement was also signed between Australia and Tuvalu, one of the countries threatened by rising sea levels.

The progressive Australia Institute put the case against fossil fuels in this video:

The Institute’s Poly Hemming contends that:

Any policy that does not address the primary cause of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, is not informed by science. Any policy that facilitates new fossil fuels is not a climate policy, it's greenwash. If a government anywhere tells you we need more gas and coal to meet our climate targets they have no climate integrity.

In a June 2023 report, the Australia Institute asserted:

To host a COP in Australia in good faith, it would be fitting for the federal government to demonstrate how it is fulfilling the requests of the Pacific as well as demonstrating to the international community how its climate target and fossil fuel expansion plans are consistent with the Paris Agreement.

The ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) is also concerned about the challenge of coal and gas:

Frustratingly, the Albanese government is taking genuine steps to cut climate emissions at home while enabling the increased and ongoing export of coal and gas to other countries.

The ACF also argues that:

The government says it’s not responsible for the emissions when Australian coal and gas is burnt overseas, but the fact remains that Albanese government decisions are fuelling global warming. It’s the difference between climate accounting and climate accountability.

In developing COP28 news, the ACF has congratulated the Australian government on “its commitment to stopping billions of dollars in foreign aid and loans being spent on fossil fuel expansion”, but wants a similar promise down under.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Australian Conservation Foundation (@ausconservation)

Carbon capture and storage

Australia is putting some hope and resources into the controversial CCS (Carbon capture and storage). This is the process of storing carbon dioxide produced by such areas as mining, power generation and industry in long-term isolation from the atmosphere.

It has many critics, such as Keivn Morrison, Energy Finance Analyst, Australian Gas for The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). He maintains that CCS will have minimal impact and argues that:

CCS only perpetuates oil and gas production, which are major contributors to global GHG emissions each year. Global energy-related CO2 emissions totalled 36.8 gigatonnes in 2022, whereas CCS sequestered a little more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 in the same period. This equates to a rounding error in the total emissions pumped into the atmosphere each year.

Carbon Offsets

The safeguard mechanism relies heavily on carbon offsets and transferable credits for these. A carbon offset is defined as:

A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions — or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through land restoration or the planting of trees) — that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere.

The Australian government’s scheme, called Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), supports projects that sequester (isolate) carbon from the atmosphere. Minister Bowen emphasised its importance in September 2023:

Let me be clear, integrity in crediting real carbon abatement is essential.

The ACCU scheme must deliver real and additional abatement that contributes to our legislated emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

However, not everyone is convinced. At the Conversation, Professors Andrew Macintosh and Don Butler have challenged the effectiveness of many of the offset projects:

Our research shows that most of these projects have low integrity. People are getting carbon credits for not clearing forests that were never going to be cleared anyway, for growing trees that already exist, for growing forests in places that will never sustain them, and for operating electricity generators at landfills that would have operated anyway.

The bid

In a June 2023 report, the Australia Institute maintained:

The current Labor Government’s stated climate ambition may be an improvement over that of the previous government, but its legislated climate target of a 43 per centreduction in emissions by 2030 is not consistent with 1.5°C or 2°C of global warming, and its support for fossil fuel expansion is just as enthusiastic as its predecessor.

Australian governments collectively provide $11 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies making the $700 million Australia has committed to climate finance in the Pacific over four years look particularly meagre.

As this report also pointed out, there is a domestic democratic hurdle facing the current government as well:

The proposition to host a COP will need bipartisan support, because the four years until COP31 will see a federal election take place, bringing with it the possibility of a change in government.

The host of COP31 will be decided before the COP30 meeting in 2025.

Written by Kevin Rennie

Former shock-jock and teacher (yep) Alan Jones has bemoaned the fact that grooming is no longer encouraged in Australian schools. Claiming that the lack of grooming has led to a rise in dangerous beliefs like man-made climate change or the #MeToo movement.

”In my day it was common for a man to get behind a boy, or girl, and show them the way,” said Alan Jones from his harbourside flat. ”We’d all muck in together after a hard day on the rugger pitch and they’d wash my back and I theirs.”

”Those were the days, but not anymore, it’s all the wokesters fault.”

When asked whether he worried that more grooming in schools could lead to students being taken advantage of, Alan Jones said: ”Don’t be ridiculous, kids are there to be molded and inspired.”

”Show me a boy who hasn’t benefited from a man behind him?”

”Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must be off to look for future generations to groom. Right you are.”

Mark Williamson

@MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.

The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:

https://bit.ly/2y8DH68

A while back, the eSafety Commissioner declined to register the proposed Industry Codes that I’ve previously written about. Now, they’ve announced a set of Industry Standards that, after a comment period, will likely be law.

If you run an online service that’s accessible to Australians, these Standards will apply to you. Of course, if you don’t live here, don’t do business here, and don’t want to come here, you can probably ignore them.

Assuming you do fall into one of those buckets, this post tries to walk through the implications, as a list of questions you’ll need to ask yourself.

I’m going to try to focus on the practical implications, rather than “showing my work” by deep-diving into the text of the standards and supporting legislation. This is based only upon my reading of the documents and a miniscule dollop of legal education; if there are things that I get wrong, corrections and suggestions are gladly taken. Note that this is not legal advice, and the Standards might change before they’re registered.

Does the Standard Apply to Your Service?

The first question to answer is whether your service is covered by the Online Safety (Designated Internet Services – Class 1A and Class 1B Material) Industry Standards 2024.

The short answer is “yes, even that one.”

A Designated Internet Service (DIS) is one that allows “end-users to access material using an Internet carriage service.” This is a very broad definition that explicitly applies to Web sites. For simplicity, the remainder of this article will assume your service is a Web site, even though other information services can be a DIS.

In a nutshell, if “none of the material on the service is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia”, your site is exempt. Otherwise, it’s covered (unless one of the other Codes or Standards takes precedence; see below).

So whether you’re Elon Musk or you have a personal Web site with no traffic, this standard applies to you, so long as it’s available to one Australian person – even if none actually visit. Don’t be fooled by “Industry” in the title. That default page that your Web server comes up with when your new Linux box boots for the first time? Covered. Note that it doesn’t even need to be on the public Internet; things like corporate Intranet sites are covered, as are content-free static sites like those used to park domains.

Given how broadly the legislation and standard are written, combined with how prevalent HTTP and similar protocols are on today’s Internet, it’s also reasonable to say that APIs are covered; there’s no inherent restrictions on formats or protocols in the eSafety standards – in fact, the definition of material in the Act includes “data”.

So, to be safe, any server available on the Internet is covered by the eSafety scheme, so long as it can be accessed by Australians.

Do You Need a Risk Assessment?

Assuming that your site is covered by the Standard, your next step is to figure out whether you need to perform a risk assessment.

Assuming that you’re not running a large commercial web site, a (ahem) “high impact” service (i.e., one that specialises in porn, violent content, and similar), or an AI-flavoured service, there are two interesting categorise that might get you out of performing a risk assessment.

The first is a “pre-assessed general purpose DIS.” You can qualify for this if you don’t allow users in Australia to post any material (including comments), or if posting is “to review or provide information on products, services, or physical points of interest or locations made available on the service.” It’s also OK if they are “sharing […] with other end-users for a business, informational, or government service or support purpose.”1

Does it seem like your site qualifies? Not so fast; that only covers “pre-assessment.” A general purpose DIS is a

website or application that […] primarily provides information for business, commerce, charitable, professional, health, reporting news, scientific, educational, academic research, health, reporting news, scientific, educational, academic research, government, public service, emergency, or counselling and support service purposes.

Unless your site falls cleanly into one of those categories, you don’t have a general purpose DIS.2

The second is an “enterprise DIS.” This is a site where “the account holder […] is an organisation (and not an individual).” Basically, if your users are companies or other organisations and not individual people, you don’t have to do an assessment.

What Does Your Risk Assessment Contain?

Assuming you need a risk assessment (spoiler: you probably do, to be safe), you

 must formulate in writing a plan, and a methodology, for carrying out the assessment that ensure that the risks mentioned in subsection 8(1) in relation to the service are accurately assessed.

The risk referred to is that class 1A or class 1B material will be “generated or accessed by, or distributed by or to, end-users in Australia using the service.” Storage of such material is also included (even if it isn’t accessed).

To answer your next question, class 1A material is “child sexual exploitation material”, “pro-terror material”, or “extreme crime and violence material.” class 1B material is “crime and violence material” and “drug-related material.” There are long definitions of each of these kinds of material in the standard; I won’t repeat them here.

Your risk assessment must “undertake a forward-looking analysis” of what’s likely to change both inside and outside of your service, along with the impact of those changes. It’s also required to “specify the principle matters to be taken into account”, including eleven factors such as “the ages of end-users and likely end-users”, “safety by design guidance”, AI risks, terms of use, and so forth.

Your risk assessment has to be written down in detail. You must also “ensure that [it] is carried out by persons with the relevant skills, experience, and expertise” – although it’s not yet clear what that means in practice or how it will be enforced.3

What’s Your Risk Profile?

Once you’ve done a risk assessment, you’ll have a risk profile – one of Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3.

Let’s assume your site has no user-generated content, and you only upload very… normal… content– like this site.4 You’re likely to be Tier 3.

If so, congratulations! Your work is just about done. Sections 34, 40, and 41 of the Standard apply to you – basically, the eSafety Commissioner can demand that you provide them with your risk assessment and how you arrived at it. You also have to investigate complaints, and keep records.

If you’re not Tier 3 – for example, you blog about drugs or crime, or you allow user uploads or comments, there are a whole slew of requirements you’ll need to conform to, which are well out of scope for this blog entry (since I’m mostly interested in the impact of regulation on small, non-commercial sites). Tip: get some professional help, quickly.

What Other Standards Will Apply?

Keep in mind that we’ve gone through just one of the proposed Standards above. The other one is about e-mail and chat services, so if you run a mail server (of any flavour – maybe even on your infrastructure?), a chat server (e.g., Prosody, jabberd), or Mastodon server, buckle up.

There are also another set of Industry Codes that cover things like hosting services, app stores, social media, search engines, and operating systems, if you happen to provide one of those.

Keep in mind that if you change anything on your site that impacts risk (e.g., adding a comment form), you’ll need to re-assess your risk (and likely conform to new requirements for reporting, etc.).

What Does Enforcement Look Like?

There are a lot of small Internet services out there – there are a lot of IP addresses and ports, after all. I suspect many people running them will ignore these requirements – either because they don’t know about them, they think they’re too small, that the eSafety Commissioner won’t care about their site, or they’re willing to run the risk.

What is the risk, though?

Section 146 of the Online Safety Act 2021 sets the penalty for not complying with an Industry Standard at 500 penalty units – currently, AU$156,500 (a bit more than US$100,000).

In practice, the eSafety Commissioner is unlikely to come after any site if its content isn’t problematic in their eyes. Whether you want to rely upon that is up to you. Because the legislation and standard don’t have any exemptions for small services – even with limited audiences – you are relying upon their discretion if you don’t have a risk assessment ready for them.

What Do You Really Think?

Improving online safety is an important task that needs more focus from society, and I’m proud that Australia is trying to improve things in this area. I’m critical of the eSafety Industry Codes and now Standards not because of their objective, but because of their unintended side effects.

Both the enabling instrument and this delegated legislation are written without consideration for the chilling effects and regulatory burden they create on parties that are arguably not its target. Requiring professional risk assessment raises costs for everyone, and creates incentives to just use big tech commercial services, rather than self host – leaning us further into things being run by a few, big companies.

Moreover, if a small personal site is distributing child porn or inciting terrorism, they’re not going to be caught because it doesn’t have a properly considered risk assessment ready to produce on demand – the eSafety Commissioner already has a range of other powers they can use in that case. They don’t have the resources to go after the countless small services out there for compliance issues, so all that will remain is the lingering chilling effects of these pointless requirements.

I get that most people will ignore these requirements, and the eSafety Commissioner is presumably relying upon that to give them the leeway to go after the people they need to target. I just think that creating laws that can be applied with so much discretion – where technically everyone is in violation, and the regulator can pick who they prosecute – is a shitty way to run a democracy.

1. Is it just me, or is “informational” a hole big enough to drive a truck through here? ↩

2. Notably, the site you’re reading this on doesn’t clearly qualify for any of them, and so when these codes are registered, I’ll likely be doing a risk assessment (and posting it), even though it doesn’t allow comments any more (because, spam). ↩

3. This seems to foretell the establishment of a new industry. ↩

4. Although it’s always tempting to write a blog entry that depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of drug misuse or addiction in such a way that the material offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that the material should be classified RC. ↩