Live Nation
Four Corners: On August 14, 2024 Four Corners reported music promotor, Live Nation operates and owns Anita's Theatre in Wollongong. Live Nation operates but does not own Anita's Theatre. The program also presented a case study of $65+ tickets at the Palais Theatre and listed fees totalling around $30 to $40. Because the insurance fee cannot apply to resale tickets, the fees listed total to around $30, not around $30 to $40 as reported. However, the variable reseller fee (part of the transaction fee for resale tickets) can be higher than was used in the case study, which can push the total fees above $30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
43 minutes ago
- ABC News
Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics
If countries are to meet the Paris Agreement goal of holding 'the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels' and pursing efforts 'to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels', we're now told that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will be insufficient. Given our energy needs and the time it will take to transition to fully renewable sources of energy, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will also be needed, on a large scale. But there is considerable scepticism about CDR. In May, power company EnergyAustralia apologised to its customers after settling a Federal Court case launched by advocacy group Parents for Climate. In a statement published as part of the settlement, the company said: 'Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets.' There are several reasons why that might be true. One that critics frequently cite comes from the fact that the removals certified by carbon offsets can't be guaranteed to last as long as the emissions they are supposed to offset. Is this a good reason for dismissing CDR? CO₂ removal methods and the risk of reversal Broadly speaking, there are two types of CDR methods. 'Nature-based methods' use natural processes — like photosynthesis — to trap CO₂ in ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and farmlands. 'Engineered' methods, on the other hand, typically use advanced technology to capture CO₂ directly from the atmosphere or industrial sites. Both of these methods have drawn criticism. Some argue against investing in new carbon capture methods due to their high costs and technological uncertainties. Others argue that the benefits of nature-based solutions are profoundly limited, not least because of the short time horizon over which forests and other natural sinks can store carbon. The critics of nature-based methods are on to something. If the core idea of net zero emissions is balancing greenhouse gas additions and removals, we need the removals to last as long as the additions. However, the CO₂ we release today can persist in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia. In contrast, many nature-based methods, like planting trees, might only store carbon for a few decades. This criticism highlights a genuine concern: merely planting a tree cannot be considered a valid offset if it eventually releases its absorbed CO₂ back into the atmosphere when it dies. This carries a 'reversal risk' — a risk that CO₂, once stored, will be re-released. However, while reversal risk is undoubtedly important, this doesn't mean that nature-based methods should be dismissed — instead, it means that they need to be managed well. Individual trees die, but provided a forest is properly maintained and managed over the long term, it can still act as a carbon sink. It's the continuous, deliberate maintenance of forests that ensures carbon is consistently captured, even if individual trees within the ecosystem die and are replaced. Additionally, reversal risk is not exclusive to nature-based methods. Engineered carbon removal methods and novel storage technologies also carry their own reversal risks. Storage facilities could fail, or novel technologies might prove less effective or reliable than initially expected. Investing all our resources in engineered CDR is problematic for another reason. Keeping within the 2°C carbon budget requires increasing the use of CDR now — and these technologies are not, even on an optimistic picture, going to be available at the scale required soon enough. Rather than being taken as grounds for dismissing these different CDR methods, we think these criticisms support a different conclusion. Each method on its own faces a serious problem — but they can complement each other, when used together. We must combine them strategically, using the strengths of each to offset the weaknesses of the other. Nature-based methods, if employed sensibly, offer the rapid, large-scale deployment that is needed now to help reduce peak global temperatures and slow warming trends. Engineered solutions, coming on stream later, have the potential for more secure long-term removals. These technologies, once fully developed, offer the prospect of more stable CO₂ storage options, significantly reducing the risk of reversal. What climate mitigation requires A number of companies recently announced they are leaving the Australian government's Climate Active carbon credit scheme amid concerns about its integrity. Some critics of carbon credit markets suggest that they operate simply as a way of allowing companies to buy the illusion of climate action, while continuing with business as usual. However, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right, we will need emission reductions to be accompanied by CDR into the foreseeable future, and we will need well-functioning carbon markets to deliver it. Stabilising the consequences of human activity on the climate will require reducing emissions — but alongside this, it will also require both nature-based and engineered methods of CDR, situated within a well-governed carbon credit market. Christian Barry is Director of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Garrett Cullity is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University Together with a team of international climate scientists and policymakers, they are authors of a new paper discussing these themes at greater length, 'Considering Durability in Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation', forthcoming in Climate Policy.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says
Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Indigenous employment rules dropped from two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts
Indigenous employment rules have been dropped in two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts, meaning $70 billion worth of contracts did not have to hire a minimum number of Indigenous people or use Indigenous businesses. The Audit Office found departments had exempted two-thirds of recorded contracts since 2016, or about 1,475 contracts, from requirements for at least 3 per cent of the workforce to be Indigenous, or that amount of components sourced from Indigenous-owned businesses. Auditors said the exemptions were given "often for reasons that [were] unclear". But even among the contracts that were subject to Indigenous participation rules, just a fifth were actually assessed for compliance — with more than a quarter found to be non-compliant. Commonwealth contracts are subject to Indigenous participation rules if they exceed $7.5 million in value and more than half of that value is spent in a nominated industry in Australia — such as in construction, healthcare, industrial cleaning or wildlife management. Auditors said contract exemptions were rising, and while some were legitimate exemptions, others were given with little explanation. "The inappropriate use of exemptions impedes achievement of the Indigenous Procurement Policy's objectives," auditors said. "Systems have been set up to allow potentially invalid exemptions." Of those contracts that were exempted from Indigenous participation rules, a third listed their reason for exemption under the category "other". Auditors were told by the responsible agency, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, that contracts were sometimes exempted simply because they were "in practice non-compliant" with the rules. For example, between July 2016 and September last year $35 billion worth of Defence Department contracts were exempted — with more than half of those contracts listed as "other" as the reason for exemption. But even among the 870 contracts where Indigenous participation rules were applied, the NIAA only assessed compliance of a fifth of those. Of those assessed, 28 per cent, or 45 contracts, were found not to have complied. The agency had also not updated its guidance to contractors on navigating Indigenous participation rules since July 2020, despite reporting requirements changing in that time. "A commitment to publish guidance tailored for Indigenous businesses was not met," the auditors found. In a response to auditors, the National Indigenous Australians Agency said prior to the introduction of minimum requirements a decade ago, Indigenous businesses secured limited business from the Commonwealth, and the policy had "significantly" increased the rate of purchasing from Indigenous businesses. The agency agreed to review its use of the "other" category for allowing exemptions, but argued it was the responsibility of Commonwealth departments to ensure each met their own obligations.
