Cochlear launches new implant, downgrades guidance
Hearing implant developer and manufacturer Cochlear is sounding out the market, launching its latest implant and cutting earnings guidance on the same day.
Weaker-than-expected sales forced the health technology company to trim net profit expectations to between $390 to $400 million, down from $410 million to $430 million, but still higher than FY24's $387 million result.
Implant sales were expected to increase by around 10 per cent this financial year, with growth weighted to the emerging markets as expansion in developed markets undershot expectations.
The update came as Cochlear launched its latest implant in Australia, the first of its kind with upgradeable firmware and internal memory.
Investors opted to take the good news over the bad, sending Cochlear shares 0.4 per cent higher to $271.65 after dipping more than nine per cent at the market's open.
Jenny Young, one of the first to try the new device, was in her late 40s when her audiologist told her she would need hearing aids.
Phone conversations were hard, she needed friends and family to repeat themselves and the country music shows she loved had become muffled and unclear.
"I just gave up because I didn't know what song was coming on," Ms Young, now 58, told AAP.
She initially ignored her audiologist's advice until life became too difficult.
"Sometimes you felt excluded, and you tended to exclude yourself because you weren't quite sure what was said, and you didn't want to pop in and embarrass yourself," Ms Young said.
After mixed results with hearing aids, her audiologist suggested her for a trial of the Cochlear's new implant, the 8th generation of the device which directly stimulates the auditory nerve, as opposed to hearing aids which amplify sound.
The new internal memory allowed users to store their personal hearing settings on the implant, while upgrades could improve the way the auditory nerve was stimulated, implant program director Robert Briggs said.
"That's a big change, and in the longer run we're hoping new stimulation strategies will allow better clarity of hearing and better speech understanding," Professor Briggs told AAP.
The new device was developed over a decade with the help of Cochlear's 600-strong research and development teams across six global centres.
One in six Australians, or 3.6 million people, suffer from some form of hearing loss.
Cochlear has provided more than 750,000 hearing implants to people around the world over four decades, and helped children born deaf to hear for the first time.
When Ms Young first had the implant, she said interpreting the signals was like learning a new language.
"To me it sounded like a lot of magpies talking all at once in my head," she said.
But with time and a little patience from friends and family, she was soon back where she wanted to be.
"Six weeks after I got my implant, I went to the Deni Ute Muster in the front row and watched my country music," she said.
"It has given me back my social aspect, my confidence ... It's just given me a new lease for life."
She urged anyone noticing changes in their hearing to get checked.
"I just want to suggest anybody that has trouble hearing or think they're having a difficulty - get onto it," she said.
"Don't sit back like I did."
Hearing implant developer and manufacturer Cochlear is sounding out the market, launching its latest implant and cutting earnings guidance on the same day.
Weaker-than-expected sales forced the health technology company to trim net profit expectations to between $390 to $400 million, down from $410 million to $430 million, but still higher than FY24's $387 million result.
Implant sales were expected to increase by around 10 per cent this financial year, with growth weighted to the emerging markets as expansion in developed markets undershot expectations.
The update came as Cochlear launched its latest implant in Australia, the first of its kind with upgradeable firmware and internal memory.
Investors opted to take the good news over the bad, sending Cochlear shares 0.4 per cent higher to $271.65 after dipping more than nine per cent at the market's open.
Jenny Young, one of the first to try the new device, was in her late 40s when her audiologist told her she would need hearing aids.
Phone conversations were hard, she needed friends and family to repeat themselves and the country music shows she loved had become muffled and unclear.
"I just gave up because I didn't know what song was coming on," Ms Young, now 58, told AAP.
She initially ignored her audiologist's advice until life became too difficult.
"Sometimes you felt excluded, and you tended to exclude yourself because you weren't quite sure what was said, and you didn't want to pop in and embarrass yourself," Ms Young said.
After mixed results with hearing aids, her audiologist suggested her for a trial of the Cochlear's new implant, the 8th generation of the device which directly stimulates the auditory nerve, as opposed to hearing aids which amplify sound.
The new internal memory allowed users to store their personal hearing settings on the implant, while upgrades could improve the way the auditory nerve was stimulated, implant program director Robert Briggs said.
"That's a big change, and in the longer run we're hoping new stimulation strategies will allow better clarity of hearing and better speech understanding," Professor Briggs told AAP.
The new device was developed over a decade with the help of Cochlear's 600-strong research and development teams across six global centres.
One in six Australians, or 3.6 million people, suffer from some form of hearing loss.
Cochlear has provided more than 750,000 hearing implants to people around the world over four decades, and helped children born deaf to hear for the first time.
When Ms Young first had the implant, she said interpreting the signals was like learning a new language.
"To me it sounded like a lot of magpies talking all at once in my head," she said.
But with time and a little patience from friends and family, she was soon back where she wanted to be.
"Six weeks after I got my implant, I went to the Deni Ute Muster in the front row and watched my country music," she said.
"It has given me back my social aspect, my confidence ... It's just given me a new lease for life."
She urged anyone noticing changes in their hearing to get checked.
"I just want to suggest anybody that has trouble hearing or think they're having a difficulty - get onto it," she said.
"Don't sit back like I did."
Hearing implant developer and manufacturer Cochlear is sounding out the market, launching its latest implant and cutting earnings guidance on the same day.
Weaker-than-expected sales forced the health technology company to trim net profit expectations to between $390 to $400 million, down from $410 million to $430 million, but still higher than FY24's $387 million result.
Implant sales were expected to increase by around 10 per cent this financial year, with growth weighted to the emerging markets as expansion in developed markets undershot expectations.
The update came as Cochlear launched its latest implant in Australia, the first of its kind with upgradeable firmware and internal memory.
Investors opted to take the good news over the bad, sending Cochlear shares 0.4 per cent higher to $271.65 after dipping more than nine per cent at the market's open.
Jenny Young, one of the first to try the new device, was in her late 40s when her audiologist told her she would need hearing aids.
Phone conversations were hard, she needed friends and family to repeat themselves and the country music shows she loved had become muffled and unclear.
"I just gave up because I didn't know what song was coming on," Ms Young, now 58, told AAP.
She initially ignored her audiologist's advice until life became too difficult.
"Sometimes you felt excluded, and you tended to exclude yourself because you weren't quite sure what was said, and you didn't want to pop in and embarrass yourself," Ms Young said.
After mixed results with hearing aids, her audiologist suggested her for a trial of the Cochlear's new implant, the 8th generation of the device which directly stimulates the auditory nerve, as opposed to hearing aids which amplify sound.
The new internal memory allowed users to store their personal hearing settings on the implant, while upgrades could improve the way the auditory nerve was stimulated, implant program director Robert Briggs said.
"That's a big change, and in the longer run we're hoping new stimulation strategies will allow better clarity of hearing and better speech understanding," Professor Briggs told AAP.
The new device was developed over a decade with the help of Cochlear's 600-strong research and development teams across six global centres.
One in six Australians, or 3.6 million people, suffer from some form of hearing loss.
Cochlear has provided more than 750,000 hearing implants to people around the world over four decades, and helped children born deaf to hear for the first time.
When Ms Young first had the implant, she said interpreting the signals was like learning a new language.
"To me it sounded like a lot of magpies talking all at once in my head," she said.
But with time and a little patience from friends and family, she was soon back where she wanted to be.
"Six weeks after I got my implant, I went to the Deni Ute Muster in the front row and watched my country music," she said.
"It has given me back my social aspect, my confidence ... It's just given me a new lease for life."
She urged anyone noticing changes in their hearing to get checked.
"I just want to suggest anybody that has trouble hearing or think they're having a difficulty - get onto it," she said.
"Don't sit back like I did."
Hearing implant developer and manufacturer Cochlear is sounding out the market, launching its latest implant and cutting earnings guidance on the same day.
Weaker-than-expected sales forced the health technology company to trim net profit expectations to between $390 to $400 million, down from $410 million to $430 million, but still higher than FY24's $387 million result.
Implant sales were expected to increase by around 10 per cent this financial year, with growth weighted to the emerging markets as expansion in developed markets undershot expectations.
The update came as Cochlear launched its latest implant in Australia, the first of its kind with upgradeable firmware and internal memory.
Investors opted to take the good news over the bad, sending Cochlear shares 0.4 per cent higher to $271.65 after dipping more than nine per cent at the market's open.
Jenny Young, one of the first to try the new device, was in her late 40s when her audiologist told her she would need hearing aids.
Phone conversations were hard, she needed friends and family to repeat themselves and the country music shows she loved had become muffled and unclear.
"I just gave up because I didn't know what song was coming on," Ms Young, now 58, told AAP.
She initially ignored her audiologist's advice until life became too difficult.
"Sometimes you felt excluded, and you tended to exclude yourself because you weren't quite sure what was said, and you didn't want to pop in and embarrass yourself," Ms Young said.
After mixed results with hearing aids, her audiologist suggested her for a trial of the Cochlear's new implant, the 8th generation of the device which directly stimulates the auditory nerve, as opposed to hearing aids which amplify sound.
The new internal memory allowed users to store their personal hearing settings on the implant, while upgrades could improve the way the auditory nerve was stimulated, implant program director Robert Briggs said.
"That's a big change, and in the longer run we're hoping new stimulation strategies will allow better clarity of hearing and better speech understanding," Professor Briggs told AAP.
The new device was developed over a decade with the help of Cochlear's 600-strong research and development teams across six global centres.
One in six Australians, or 3.6 million people, suffer from some form of hearing loss.
Cochlear has provided more than 750,000 hearing implants to people around the world over four decades, and helped children born deaf to hear for the first time.
When Ms Young first had the implant, she said interpreting the signals was like learning a new language.
"To me it sounded like a lot of magpies talking all at once in my head," she said.
But with time and a little patience from friends and family, she was soon back where she wanted to be.
"Six weeks after I got my implant, I went to the Deni Ute Muster in the front row and watched my country music," she said.
"It has given me back my social aspect, my confidence ... It's just given me a new lease for life."
She urged anyone noticing changes in their hearing to get checked.
"I just want to suggest anybody that has trouble hearing or think they're having a difficulty - get onto it," she said.
"Don't sit back like I did."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
34 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Scott Power: ASX stocks fall as investors hear mixed news from Cochlear
ASX heath sector falls 1.1% over past five days, while broader markets flat as Middle East tensions flare Cochlear downgrades full-year profit expectations but launches a world first Monash IVF head Michael Knaap resigns after another embryo mix-up Healthcare and life sciences expert Scott Power, who has been a senior analyst with Morgans Financial for 27 years, gives his take on the ASX healthcare sector for the week and his 'Powerplay' stock pick. It was a big week of news for the ASX healthcare sector with the bourse's fourth largest biotech Cochlear (ASX:COH) downgrading its FY25 net earnings ~4% to $390-400 million, compared with prior guidance in February of $410-430m, on "slower-than-expected sales growth over the last few months". Morgans' healthcare analyst Derek Jellinek wrote in a note to clients consensus for the hearing tech company sat at $411m with Morgans at $412m. While Cochlear continues to expect implant units to grow ~10% in FY25, growth will be weighted to emerging markets as developed market growth has been impacted by slower-than expected market growth and a "small loss" of market share in a few countries. Cochlear now expects services revenue to decline by low double-digits compared to prior expectations for a single-digit decline. "COH believes ongoing work to identify and connect with recipients who could benefit from the latest sound processing technology, combined with the introduction of the new off-the-ear Nucleus Kanso 3 sound processor, which is expected to launch in EU and APAC mid-Jun-25, should lift services revenue in FY26," Jellinek wrote. Following a disappointing H1 FY25 result, Morgans highlighted risks in the services segment (around 25% of sales), driven by slower-than-expected uptake of the Nucleus 8 sound processor, which was launched in FY23, and cost-of-living pressures delaying device replacements. But in some positive news, Cochlear also announced the launch of Nucleus Nexa, the world's first and only smart cochlear implant system, saying it was the "outcome of a 20 year investment in R&D". "A couple of key features include upgraded firmwear, the smallest sound processor and internal memory so that has actually countered the profit downgrade they've announced," Power said. Morgans has a hold rating on Cochlear with a 12-month target price of $285.55. Monash chief quits following another embryo mixup A new acting CEO has been appointed to steer the troubled Monash IVF Group (ASX:MVF), which fell ~27% on Tuesday after reporting another embryo implant bungle. Monash announced on Thursday CEO and managing director Michael Knaap had resigned with CFO and company secretary Malik Jainudeen appointed acting CEO. In the latest incident a patient's own embryo was mistakenly transferred to them, rather than their partner's embryo as specified in the treatment plan at Monash's Clayton laboratory in Melbourne on June 5. Monash said it was conducting an internal investigation to determine the cause of the incident and notified the relevant assisted reproductive technology (ART) regulators, the Victorian health regulator and its insurers. It comes after Monash revealed in April a woman had given birth to a baby that was not hers after receiving the wrong embryo at a Brisbane clinic. An independent review by Fiona McLeod AO SC regarding that incident is currently ongoing and has been extended, with the findings yet to be disclosed. Monash confirmed that its updated profit guidance, issued on May 20, remains unchanged, projecting an underlying NPAT of $27.5 million. Morgans maintains a speculative buy on Monash with a 12-month target price of $1. Israel strikes on Iran add to market uncertainty At 1.45pm on Friday the S&P/ASX 200 Health Care index was down 1.1% for the past five days, while the benchmark ASX 200 was flat for the same period. Markets took a tumble on Friday after reports of Israel strikes against Iran's nuclear sites with the Middle East bracing for retaliation. Power said the escalating conflict adds further complexity to global equity markets still very much being driven by macroeconomic factors and geopolitical tensions. "Markets are still very much broader macro driven including with US President Donald Trump's trade and regulatory policies," Power said. "Investors will now be closely monitoring the escalating tensions in the Middle East." Power's Powerplay: EBR completes raise, starts US rollout EBR Systems (ASX:EBR) is Power's stock of the week after announcing completion of a share purchase plan (SPP) and that the first US commercial patients have been implanted with its WiSE CRT System, the world's only wireless solution for pacing the left side of the heart. The procedures took place at St David's Medical Centre and the Cleveland Clinic, two of several leading US institutions participating in this pilot release of the WiSE CRT System, which was approved by the FDA in April. EBR said the cases represented two of the main indications for WiSE. "Clearly, the first commercial patients implanted with WiSE is a key milestone, as EBR has officially transitioned from a pure R&D focus to a commercial entity," Jellinek wrote in a note to clients. He said importantly, the implants were done in advance of reimbursement and the limited market release of WiSE, which remained on track for October, showcasing the unmet medical need in the initial US$3.6m total addressable market and belief in use of the device. "As this device is a novel treatment option requiring physician education, we view the LMR, targeting key heart failure centres in the US, as an appropriate strategic way to build familiarity and experience, prior to full market release," he wrote. "We see sales surpassing US$80m into CY29. "While certainly not a 'hockey stick', we believe it is a methodical, stage-gated rollout to build strong physician support and closely monitor clinical outcomes, helping to pique interest from any would-be suitor." The company also announced today it had finished its SPP raising $xxm and adding to a fully underwritten Institutional Placement raising $55.9m completed in May. Proceeds from the capital raise will be used to advance its US commercialisation strategy for WiSE. Morgans has a buy rating and 12-month target price of $2.86. Two positive studies for Avita Wounds management company Avita Medical (ASX:AVH) has announced the first clinical publication of its Cohealyx product, which is a collagen-based dermal matrix, in the Journal of Surgery. The publication includes two positive case reports on patients with complex hand wounds treated with Cohealyx. In both instances, the patients sustained full-thickness burns following syncopal episode (temporary loss of consciousness due to a drop in blood flow to the brain). The study showed significant acceleration of wound bed vascularisation and autograft readiness, achieving readiness within five to 10 days compared to the typical two to four weeks. "Clearly, a small sample size and this publication represents the first clinical validation of AVH's preclinical findings but it's a strong start and likely the first of many case-studies to come," Morgans' healthcare analyst Iain Wilkie wrote in a note to clients Avita also announced a new study of its flagship spray-on skin treatment Recell showed it reduced hospital stays by 36% compared to traditional skin grafts. Presented at the British Burn Association's annual meeting, the US-based study analysed outcomes for more than 6,300 patients treated with Recell between 2019 and 2024. All patients had burns covering less than 30% of their total body surface area. The findings showed Recell patients spent on average 6.2 fewer days in hospital, delivering an estimated $300m in healthcare savings over the five-year period. Wilkie wrote that the share price had continued to remain weak following series of missed guidance expectations and dwindling cash reserves. "The point with Avita is they've expanded their product range to treat more of the wound complex and what the market is concerned about is do they need to raise additional funds," Power said. "They've told the market they can see a pathway through to profitability or breakeven by the fourth quarter of this calendar year so as each quarter rolls on we will get more confident that they're able to achieve that." Morgans has a speculative buy rating on Avita and 12-month target price of $3.76. Imricor gets CE Mark for NorthStar Mapping System Imricor Medical Systems (ASX:IMR) has received CE mark (European) certification for its NorthStar Mapping system under the new, more stringent European Union Medical Device Regulations (MDR). NorthStar has been approved as a Class IIa medical device with the certification received ahead of schedule. Imricor is advancing technology for real-time interventional cardiac magnetic resonance (iCMR) ablations, enabling cardiac ablation procedures to be guided by live MRI imaging instead of traditional x-ray fluoroscopy. NorthStar is a key component of its product offering. The certifications follows on from recent European approvals received for its Advantage-MR EP Recorder/Stimulator (Advantage-MR), and its second generation Vision-MR Ablation Catheter. "Imricor will now phase out first generation products approved under the old EU regulations, replacing them with new MDR approved devices," Power said. "We expect sales momentum to steadily build over coming quarters." Power said next catalysts to watch for include additional sales orders in Europe and Middle East and US FDA approval for NorthStar. Imricor is also undertaking its Vision-MR Ablation of Atrial Flutter (VISABL-AFL) pivotal clinical trial to support FDA approval of its products, which it hopes to achieve in 2025. In Europe, where Imricor has already received regulatory approval for atrial flutter, the company has started a pivotal VISABL-VT clinical trial for its second indication, ventricular tachycardia (VT). Morgans has a speculative buy on Monash and 12-month $2.28 target price. The views, information, or opinions expressed in the interview in this article are solely those of the interviewee and do not represent the views of Stockhead. Stockhead has not provided, endorsed or otherwise assumed responsibility for any financial product advice contained in this article.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
This deal was bad from the start. Now is our chance to get out
There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Rising number of Aussie families rely on charity to help cover medical costs
MANY Australians may be one medical diagnosis away from financial stress or homelessness, according to GoFundMe data citing $70 million donated to medical fundraisers in 2024. That makes medical treatment the largest category on the GoFundMe crowdfunding platform with more than 30 medical fundraisers launched across the nation every day. Of the $70 million in donations, 75 per cent aimed to cover loss of income due to time off work and out-of-pocket costs. The most common costs listed on medical treatment campaigns, which made up for one in five of all campaigns in Australia, were time off work, parking fees, interstate travel, out-of-pocket treatment expenses and covering rent or a mortgage. Almost half a million Australians chipped in to medical fundraisers, donating on average $105 each. Campaigns that mention the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) received $6.3 million in donations, a 12 per cent increase compared to 2023. GoFundMe says that spike was in line with a 16 per cent year-on-year rise in the number of fundraisers highlighting costs not fully covered by the NDIS, such as modified vehicles, electric wheelchairs or home modifications. The data showed donors contributed $4.9 million to fundraisers referencing mental health, showing a 16 per cent year-on-year growth, while tens of thousands also poured their support into campaigns for people impacted by strokes, a total of $3.7 million. Nicola Britton, GoFundMe regional director, said that despite having access to a universal healthcare system, the real emotional and financial toll of serious medical diagnoses was evident every day. "The fine line between income and out-of-pocket expenses is leaving patients and their families making impossible decisions; a choice between employment and treatment, or being with a loved one during sickness," Ms Britton said. "This is particularly pertinent in Australia, with many having to relocate, or travel, to be closer to specialist care centres. "It is heartening to see so many Australians embracing fundraising tools to help ease the pressure on one another in times of need." Recently launched Hunter-specific GoFundMe campaigns include one to help Hunter Valley pilot Glenn Collins who crashed his stunt plane at Avalon Airshow in March. Mr Collins has undergone a series of intense surgeries and was facing a long recovery, his flying teammates told the Newcastle Herald. It is close to achieving its $90,000 target with the proceeds raised to go towards Mr Collins' medical expenses, rehabilitation, and family support. Belmont woman Erin Healey has also started a GoFundMe campaign to benefit the family of her niece, Erin Healy. The nine-year-old girl was undergoing a brain scan to confirm a diagnosis of cerebral palsy when a large tumour deep inside her brain was detected. "We would like to make life a little less stressful by helping to ease the financial burden of an emergency like this, so her parents can be by her side throughout the healing process instead of having to go to work or worry about how to pay the rent and other costs associated with this condition," Ms Healey said. MANY Australians may be one medical diagnosis away from financial stress or homelessness, according to GoFundMe data citing $70 million donated to medical fundraisers in 2024. That makes medical treatment the largest category on the GoFundMe crowdfunding platform with more than 30 medical fundraisers launched across the nation every day. Of the $70 million in donations, 75 per cent aimed to cover loss of income due to time off work and out-of-pocket costs. The most common costs listed on medical treatment campaigns, which made up for one in five of all campaigns in Australia, were time off work, parking fees, interstate travel, out-of-pocket treatment expenses and covering rent or a mortgage. Almost half a million Australians chipped in to medical fundraisers, donating on average $105 each. Campaigns that mention the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) received $6.3 million in donations, a 12 per cent increase compared to 2023. GoFundMe says that spike was in line with a 16 per cent year-on-year rise in the number of fundraisers highlighting costs not fully covered by the NDIS, such as modified vehicles, electric wheelchairs or home modifications. The data showed donors contributed $4.9 million to fundraisers referencing mental health, showing a 16 per cent year-on-year growth, while tens of thousands also poured their support into campaigns for people impacted by strokes, a total of $3.7 million. Nicola Britton, GoFundMe regional director, said that despite having access to a universal healthcare system, the real emotional and financial toll of serious medical diagnoses was evident every day. "The fine line between income and out-of-pocket expenses is leaving patients and their families making impossible decisions; a choice between employment and treatment, or being with a loved one during sickness," Ms Britton said. "This is particularly pertinent in Australia, with many having to relocate, or travel, to be closer to specialist care centres. "It is heartening to see so many Australians embracing fundraising tools to help ease the pressure on one another in times of need." Recently launched Hunter-specific GoFundMe campaigns include one to help Hunter Valley pilot Glenn Collins who crashed his stunt plane at Avalon Airshow in March. Mr Collins has undergone a series of intense surgeries and was facing a long recovery, his flying teammates told the Newcastle Herald. It is close to achieving its $90,000 target with the proceeds raised to go towards Mr Collins' medical expenses, rehabilitation, and family support. Belmont woman Erin Healey has also started a GoFundMe campaign to benefit the family of her niece, Erin Healy. The nine-year-old girl was undergoing a brain scan to confirm a diagnosis of cerebral palsy when a large tumour deep inside her brain was detected. "We would like to make life a little less stressful by helping to ease the financial burden of an emergency like this, so her parents can be by her side throughout the healing process instead of having to go to work or worry about how to pay the rent and other costs associated with this condition," Ms Healey said. MANY Australians may be one medical diagnosis away from financial stress or homelessness, according to GoFundMe data citing $70 million donated to medical fundraisers in 2024. That makes medical treatment the largest category on the GoFundMe crowdfunding platform with more than 30 medical fundraisers launched across the nation every day. Of the $70 million in donations, 75 per cent aimed to cover loss of income due to time off work and out-of-pocket costs. The most common costs listed on medical treatment campaigns, which made up for one in five of all campaigns in Australia, were time off work, parking fees, interstate travel, out-of-pocket treatment expenses and covering rent or a mortgage. Almost half a million Australians chipped in to medical fundraisers, donating on average $105 each. Campaigns that mention the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) received $6.3 million in donations, a 12 per cent increase compared to 2023. GoFundMe says that spike was in line with a 16 per cent year-on-year rise in the number of fundraisers highlighting costs not fully covered by the NDIS, such as modified vehicles, electric wheelchairs or home modifications. The data showed donors contributed $4.9 million to fundraisers referencing mental health, showing a 16 per cent year-on-year growth, while tens of thousands also poured their support into campaigns for people impacted by strokes, a total of $3.7 million. Nicola Britton, GoFundMe regional director, said that despite having access to a universal healthcare system, the real emotional and financial toll of serious medical diagnoses was evident every day. "The fine line between income and out-of-pocket expenses is leaving patients and their families making impossible decisions; a choice between employment and treatment, or being with a loved one during sickness," Ms Britton said. "This is particularly pertinent in Australia, with many having to relocate, or travel, to be closer to specialist care centres. "It is heartening to see so many Australians embracing fundraising tools to help ease the pressure on one another in times of need." Recently launched Hunter-specific GoFundMe campaigns include one to help Hunter Valley pilot Glenn Collins who crashed his stunt plane at Avalon Airshow in March. Mr Collins has undergone a series of intense surgeries and was facing a long recovery, his flying teammates told the Newcastle Herald. It is close to achieving its $90,000 target with the proceeds raised to go towards Mr Collins' medical expenses, rehabilitation, and family support. Belmont woman Erin Healey has also started a GoFundMe campaign to benefit the family of her niece, Erin Healy. The nine-year-old girl was undergoing a brain scan to confirm a diagnosis of cerebral palsy when a large tumour deep inside her brain was detected. "We would like to make life a little less stressful by helping to ease the financial burden of an emergency like this, so her parents can be by her side throughout the healing process instead of having to go to work or worry about how to pay the rent and other costs associated with this condition," Ms Healey said. MANY Australians may be one medical diagnosis away from financial stress or homelessness, according to GoFundMe data citing $70 million donated to medical fundraisers in 2024. That makes medical treatment the largest category on the GoFundMe crowdfunding platform with more than 30 medical fundraisers launched across the nation every day. Of the $70 million in donations, 75 per cent aimed to cover loss of income due to time off work and out-of-pocket costs. The most common costs listed on medical treatment campaigns, which made up for one in five of all campaigns in Australia, were time off work, parking fees, interstate travel, out-of-pocket treatment expenses and covering rent or a mortgage. Almost half a million Australians chipped in to medical fundraisers, donating on average $105 each. Campaigns that mention the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) received $6.3 million in donations, a 12 per cent increase compared to 2023. GoFundMe says that spike was in line with a 16 per cent year-on-year rise in the number of fundraisers highlighting costs not fully covered by the NDIS, such as modified vehicles, electric wheelchairs or home modifications. The data showed donors contributed $4.9 million to fundraisers referencing mental health, showing a 16 per cent year-on-year growth, while tens of thousands also poured their support into campaigns for people impacted by strokes, a total of $3.7 million. Nicola Britton, GoFundMe regional director, said that despite having access to a universal healthcare system, the real emotional and financial toll of serious medical diagnoses was evident every day. "The fine line between income and out-of-pocket expenses is leaving patients and their families making impossible decisions; a choice between employment and treatment, or being with a loved one during sickness," Ms Britton said. "This is particularly pertinent in Australia, with many having to relocate, or travel, to be closer to specialist care centres. "It is heartening to see so many Australians embracing fundraising tools to help ease the pressure on one another in times of need." Recently launched Hunter-specific GoFundMe campaigns include one to help Hunter Valley pilot Glenn Collins who crashed his stunt plane at Avalon Airshow in March. Mr Collins has undergone a series of intense surgeries and was facing a long recovery, his flying teammates told the Newcastle Herald. It is close to achieving its $90,000 target with the proceeds raised to go towards Mr Collins' medical expenses, rehabilitation, and family support. Belmont woman Erin Healey has also started a GoFundMe campaign to benefit the family of her niece, Erin Healy. The nine-year-old girl was undergoing a brain scan to confirm a diagnosis of cerebral palsy when a large tumour deep inside her brain was detected. "We would like to make life a little less stressful by helping to ease the financial burden of an emergency like this, so her parents can be by her side throughout the healing process instead of having to go to work or worry about how to pay the rent and other costs associated with this condition," Ms Healey said.
