The Part 8A

This episode covers the card surcharge ban and what it actually means for shoppers and small business owners. Host Miko Santos talks with Dr Marian Makkar, a marketing academic at RMIT University, about why the surcharge ban has pushed some retailers to raise base prices instead of removing the cost altogether. Makkar explains that the ban stops surcharges but not other fees, such as platform or service charges, leaving a loophole retailers can still use legally. She argues the shift to a single final price makes it harder for consumers to see what they're actually paying for. The conversation moves into how this could push more people back toward cash, particularly younger consumers used to tap-and-go and buy-now-

Key topics & takeaways

* Why Makkar thinks the surcharge ban should have shifted costs from banks to retailers, not onto small businesses

* How some retailers have folded the surcharge into higher sticker prices instead of removing it

* The loophole: the ban covers surcharges but not platform, service or other fees

* Why cash in hand could make consumers more careful spenders than tap-and-go

* Why younger consumers may find a return to cash harder, given buy-now-pay-later habits

* Who Makkar thinks should lead financial literacy education: parents, schools, community and not-for-profit groups

Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when it matters.

Guest & Host Information

Host: Miko Santos, presenter of Part 8a.Guest: Dr Marian Makkar is a marketing academic at RMIT University in Melbourne, working on consumer culture, luxury consumption and the sharing economy. She spent 14 years in PR and luxury retail before moving into academia. https://www.marianmakkar.com/

Sources, links & further reading

* Marian Makkar personal site – https://www.marianmakkar.com/

* Marian Makkar research page – https://www.marianmakkar.com/research

* Marian Makkar profile – The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/profiles/marian-makkar-674218

* Dr Marian Makkar profile – RMIT University – https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/economics-finance-and-marketing/research/research-groups/cctmd-research-group/members/dr-marian-makkar

Content warnings & disclaimers

This episode discusses cost of living pressure and financial hardship. Comments on investing, lending and scams are general commentary, not personal financial advice.

This episode is not a sponsored video/audio. If you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings, we will receive a small commission.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue the conversation with you on Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's independent podcast management company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial Register

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

This episode covers the Reserve Bank's latest cash rate rise, up a quarter point to 4.60 per cent, the fourth increase this year and the highest level since late 2011. Host Miko Santos speaks with Dr Angel Zhong, finance academic and Deputy Dean of Research and Innovation at RMIT University, about who is hurt first and why.

Zhong estimates a typical mortgage holder faces $90 to $120 in extra monthly repayments once lenders pass on the rise and explains how renters can also face increases when landlords pass on their own higher costs. The conversation moves to why underlying inflation, measured by the trimmed mean at 3.6 per cent, has stayed elevated for three months, touching on labour market tightness, weak productivity, an ongoing oil shock, and a live debate about whether AI data centres are adding to price pressures. Zhong also flags the risk of unreliable social media financial advice when households are under strain.

Key topics & takeaways

* RBA raises cash rate to 4.60 per cent, the fourth rise this year and highest since late 2011

* Typical mortgage holders face $90 to $120 extra in monthly repayments

* Renters exposed to landlord cost pass-through, subject to state rent-increase rules

* Trimmed mean inflation at 3.6 per cent for three months, still above the 2-3 per cent RBA target

* The drivers of sticky inflation include a tight labour market, weak productivity, and an oil shock affecting shipping and groceries.

* Debate over whether AI data centre demand for chips and electricity is contributing to inflation.

* Financial stress raises risk of households turning to unreliable social media finance advice.

Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when it matters.

Guest & Host Information

Host: Miko Santos, presenter of Part 8a.Guest: Dr Angel Zhong is Deputy Dean, Research and Innovation in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, and a regular media commentator on monetary policy, retail investing and financial markets. https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/z/angel-zhong

Sources, links & further reading

* Dr Angel Zhong profile – RMIT University https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/z/angel-zhong

* RBA says inflation upside risks are getting concerningly real – Banking Daily https://www.bankingdaily.com.au/articles/rba-says-inflation-upside-risks-are-getting-concerningly-real

* Short-term pain, long-term gain – Riverine Herald https://www.riverineherald.com.au/news/short-term-pain-long-term-gain

Content warnings & disclaimers

This episode discusses cost of living pressure and financial hardship. Comments on investing, lending and scams are general commentary, not personal financial advice.

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue the conversation with you on Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's independent podcast management company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial Register

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

The OpenAI Medicare breach made headlines as a case of “rogue AI”. Dr Rebecca Johnson, an AI evaluation and governance researcher, rejects that label. On The Part 8A, she tells host Miko Santos that the agent did what its settings allowed. The failure sits with the people at OpenAI who designed the test, chose Australia as the place to run it, and waited weeks to tell anyone.

She explains why most AI tests only check whether the model got the right answer, not how it got there. She also covers why Silicon Valley’s values don’t transfer neatly to Australia and why a popular ethics benchmark was built on a Reddit forum.

Her argument for policymakers is direct. After the OpenAI Medicare breach, Australia should demand logs of these experiments and the right to run its independent tests on AI models designed with local communities. She says we’re moving too slowly.

Key topics & takeaways

* Why calling it “rogue AI” shifts blame away from the company that built and tested the agent

* The gap between outcome-based testing (did it get the answer?) and trajectory-based testing (did it break through a wall to get there?)

* How using Australia as a live test environment reflects values that clash with ours, according to Johnson

* OpenAI’s slow notification, sent to a public Services Australia inbox rather than by phone

* Johnson’s case for independent, Australian-designed AI evaluations: “Someone checking their own homework” isn’t good enough

* Value pluralism, and why Sam Altman’s idea of taking the “median value of the planet” would drown out smaller communities

* Bad proxies in AI benchmarks, from a Reddit forum used as a

Sources, links & further reading

* OpenAI’s agent hacked Australia’s Medicare website, PM Albanese says – Fortune [https://fortune.com/2026/09/23/openai-agent-hacks-australia-medicare-sam-altman-anthony-albanese/]

* Medicare Australia: “Extreme concern” over OpenAI breach of health database – CNN [https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/23/business/australia-openai-agent-hack-intl-hnk]

* OpenAI says agent hacked Australian government website without being told to do so – CNBC [https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/24/openai-agent-hacked-australian-government-website-.html]

* Medicare hack alert went to inbox checked once a day and took five days to be escalated – SBS News [https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/openai-agent-hacked-medicare-albanese-reveals/qas79d9ta]

* Measuring the Machine: Evaluating Generative AI as Pluralist Sociotechnical Systems – Rebecca Johnson, doctoral thesis [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.20545]

* World Values Survey – World Values Survey Association [https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org]

* Aligning AI With Shared Human Values (the ETHICS dataset) – Hendrycks et al. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02275]

* Machine Bias – ProPublica [https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing]

Content warnings & disclaimers

Contains brief strong language (the name of a Reddit forum) and discussion of racial bias in the US criminal justice system.

Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcasts so next week’s episode lands in your feed.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers used a legitimate-looking 100-point identity check to build trust early on.

* Banks let large, unusual transfers through — including $1.1 million in under three hours — because Sylvia had sent money to the same account before, and the pattern wasn’t flagged as new.

* Anti-money-laundering reporting obligations sit with government regulators, not with the customer. Sylvia argues that’s the biggest structural gap letting scams slip through.

* Australia’s new Scams Prevention Framework is meant to share responsibility across banks, telcos and platforms, but Sylvia says it’s made recovery harder, since victims now have to build a case against multiple large institutions with almost no information of their own.

* Sylvia co-founded the Scam Victim Alliance after meeting other seven-figure-loss victims at a 2024 Canberra press conference. The group now runs weekly support sessions and helps survivors through the AFCA complaints process.

Detailed Synopsis

Content note: this episode discusses financial loss, disputes with banks and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14.

The ClickIt started with $250 and a television show. Sylvia was scrolling Facebook in 2019 when she saw an ad for a trading platform claiming a Shark Tank endorsement. She watched the show regularly and recognised some of the people who were quoted in the comments. Out of curiosity, she clicked through and paid $250 to open an account. Worst case, she thought, that’s all she’d lose.

The SetupThe platform didn’t ask for real money straight away. It asked for identification: a driver’s licence, proof of address, and a “100-point check”, exactly like opening a bank account. To a finance professional who runs the same checks on her own clients, the process looked like diligence, not danger. She topped up to $10,000 as a starting point. Every step made the platform feel more legitimate.

The EscalationOver the following months, the amounts grew. One transfer alone moved $1.1 million in under three hours. Her bank didn’t flag it, because she’d sent money to that account before. By the time Sylvia understood what was happening, she had lost $2.6 million.

The FalloutThe public response was harsh. After a news story about her case ran on Facebook, one comment read: “I’m glad she’s not my accountant.” Others suggested that if she had so much money, she must be greedy for wanting more.Sylvia says the loss itself wasn’t the hardest part. It was watching people question her professional judgement and her character at the same time. During the worst of it, she says she thought seriously about ending her life. What kept her going was the thought of the friends who had lent her money and trusted her to pay it back.

Finding Each OtherSylvia lobbied on her own for years, with limited effect. That changed in 2024, when she met a group of fellow scam victims at a press conference in Canberra, supported by an advocate she names as Debbie Pope. Between just three people in that room, total losses exceeded $5 million.Sylvia says standing with people who understood exactly what she’d been through, without judgement, was the moment the isolation started to lift. That meeting became the starting point for the Scam Victim Alliance.

The Fight With the BanksSylvia is currently in disputes with three of Australia’s big four banks: the one she sent money from, the one that handled a mortgage refinance during the scam, and the one that held the scammer’s receiving account. She estimates she’s spent around $250,000 on legal fees, with no resolution.She argues that anti-money-laundering reporting obligations are owed to the government, not the customer, and that the current system leaves victims with almost no leverage when something goes wrong.

Building the AllianceThe Scam Victim Alliance is volunteer-run. It holds a weekly online support session every Wednesday night, open to victims of any scam type and any size of loss, from a few thousand dollars to the $12 million case Sylvia says is the largest she’s aware of. The group connects people with a psychologist where needed and helps them collect evidence for the AFCA complaints process, the formal channel for disputing a bank or financial firm’s decision.

Her AdviceSylvia’s message is blunt. If someone you don’t know calls you every day, that’s unusual, not normal relationship-building. If you’re being pushed to act urgently, whether it’s a text claiming to be from your child or an email claiming to be from the tax office, do nothing until the pressure passes. And if you’ve already lost money, let go of the idea of getting it back quickly — recovery services promising otherwise are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

What Readers Will Learn

* How a single, low-stakes ad click can escalate into a six- or seven-figure loss within a few months.

* Why identity checks and “professional” onboarding steps can be used by scammers to build trust rather than protect you.

* What kind of behaviour — daily unsolicited contact, pressure to act urgently — should be treated as a red flag, since spotting one at the very first point of contact usually isn’t realistic.

* Why Australian banks aren’t always required to intervene when a large or unusual transfer goes through.

* How anti-money-laundering reporting protects government interests first, not necessarily the individual customer.

* What the AFCA complaints process involves, and why it can take months of sustained effort.

* Why “recovery services” promising to get your money back are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

* Where to find support if you or someone you know has been affected by a scam.

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial Register

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

Episode summary

Money mules are often ordinary people. Many are international students or others trying to make ends meet, recruited through job ads that promise $1,000 for an hour’s work. In this episode of The Part 8A from The Financial Register, host Miko Santos talks with Professor Asha Rao, a mathematician and cybersecurity expert at RMIT University. They look at money laundering in Australia the way a mathematician does: strip away the dollars and map only the connections.

Rao explains why laundering is so hard to spot inside the dense web of everyday banking, and why most cases surface only when someone spends far beyond their income. She shows how graph theory can shrink hundreds of thousands of accounts down to a network small enough for police to check.

She also unpacks a tension in Australia’s AML/CTF Act. The secrecy that stops criminals learning how they’re caught also leaves researchers without data. The incoming Scams Prevention Framework won’t touch money laundering directly, she says. Her advice to anyone offered easy money: don’t react straight away.

Key topics & takeaways

* What a money laundering network looks like as a mathematical graph, and why nothing in the picture gives it away

* Why laundering usually comes to light only when someone on a $50,000 salary suddenly owns yachts and houses

* How “work from home, earn $1,000” job ads turn international students into money mules who find out only when police knock

* Why police focus on stopping mules rather than blaming them, and where banks and AUSTRAC fit in

* How the AML/CTF Act’s secrecy rules starved open research of data for a decade, until IBM released simulated transaction data

* How graph theory narrows a network of 400,000 people to 10 or 20 accounts, giving police a starting point rather than a crystal ball

* Rao’s rule for any too-good-to-be-true offer: count to 10 slowly before you react at all

Timestamps

* [00:00] Cold open – how criminals blend into millions of ordinary transactions

* [01:12] Meet the guest – Professor Asha Rao, RMIT University

* [02:38] Laundering as a graph – nodes, edges and a very dense network

* [05:24] The $1,000-an-hour job ad – how money mule schemes recruit

* [09:52] Blame the students or the banks? – AUSTRAC, bank penalties and what police actually do

* [11:10] The data problem – why the AML/CTF Act stops banks sharing, and what that means for research

* [15:02] What the Enron emails showed – shrinking a huge network to 10–20 nodes

* [17:12] Protecting the innocent – how investigators check a small flagged network

* [24:17] Should the law change? – why Rao wants detection methods kept secret

* [25:33] The Scams Prevention Framework – why it won’t tackle money laundering

* [27:32] Parting advice – don’t react, let your brain catch up

Guest & host information

Host: Miko Santos, journalist and founder of Kangaroofern Media Lab, host of The Part 8A from The Financial Register.

Guest: Professor Asha Rao is Professor of Mathematics and Cyber Security at RMIT University and a former Associate Dean of Mathematical Sciences there. In 2020 she became the first female director (interim) of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute. Her research applies graph theory to problems including money laundering detection. She was inducted into the 2021 Victorian Honour Roll of Women in the Trailblazer category.

Sources, links & further reading

* AUSTRAC and CBA agree $700m penalty – AUSTRAC [https://austrac.gov.au/node/260]

* IBM Transactions for Anti Money Laundering (AML) dataset – IBM Research via Kaggle [https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ealtman2019/ibm-transactions-for-anti-money-laundering-aml]

* Realistic Synthetic Financial Transactions for Anti-Money Laundering Models – Altman et al. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.16424]

* Money laundering typologies and indicators – AUSTRAC [link needed]

* Scams Prevention Framework – Australian Treasury [link needed]

* Enron email dataset [link needed]

* Professor Asha Rao, Victorian Honour Roll of Women 2021 – Victorian Government [https://www.vic.gov.au/professor-asha-rao]

Content warnings & disclaimers

Correction: In the episode, the penalty paid by Commonwealth Bank is recalled as about $1.2 billion. The penalty agreed between AUSTRAC and CBA was $700 million, resolving Federal Court proceedings over serious breaches of AML/CTF laws. austrac

Follow The Part 8A on Spotify and Apple Podcast so next week’s episode lands in your feed.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers used a legitimate-looking 100-point identity check to build trust early on.

* Banks let large, unusual transfers through — including $1.1 million in under three hours — because Sylvia had sent money to the same account before, and the pattern wasn’t flagged as new.

* Anti-money-laundering reporting obligations sit with government regulators, not with the customer. Sylvia argues that’s the biggest structural gap letting scams slip through.

* Australia’s new Scams Prevention Framework is meant to share responsibility across banks, telcos and platforms, but Sylvia says it’s made recovery harder, since victims now have to build a case against multiple large institutions with almost no information of their own.

* Sylvia co-founded the Scam Victim Alliance after meeting other seven-figure-loss victims at a 2024 Canberra press conference. The group now runs weekly support sessions and helps survivors through the AFCA complaints process.

Detailed Synopsis

Content note: this episode discusses financial loss, disputes with banks and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14.

The ClickIt started with $250 and a television show. Sylvia was scrolling Facebook in 2019 when she saw an ad for a trading platform claiming a Shark Tank endorsement. She watched the show regularly and recognised some of the people who were quoted in the comments. Out of curiosity, she clicked through and paid $250 to open an account. Worst case, she thought, that’s all she’d lose.

The SetupThe platform didn’t ask for real money straight away. It asked for identification: a driver’s licence, proof of address, and a “100-point check”, exactly like opening a bank account. To a finance professional who runs the same checks on her own clients, the process looked like diligence, not danger. She topped up to $10,000 as a starting point. Every step made the platform feel more legitimate.

The EscalationOver the following months, the amounts grew. One transfer alone moved $1.1 million in under three hours. Her bank didn’t flag it, because she’d sent money to that account before. By the time Sylvia understood what was happening, she had lost $2.6 million.

The FalloutThe public response was harsh. After a news story about her case ran on Facebook, one comment read: “I’m glad she’s not my accountant.” Others suggested that if she had so much money, she must be greedy for wanting more.Sylvia says the loss itself wasn’t the hardest part. It was watching people question her professional judgement and her character at the same time. During the worst of it, she says she thought seriously about ending her life. What kept her going was the thought of the friends who had lent her money and trusted her to pay it back.

Finding Each OtherSylvia lobbied on her own for years, with limited effect. That changed in 2024, when she met a group of fellow scam victims at a press conference in Canberra, supported by an advocate she names as Debbie Pope. Between just three people in that room, total losses exceeded $5 million.Sylvia says standing with people who understood exactly what she’d been through, without judgement, was the moment the isolation started to lift. That meeting became the starting point for the Scam Victim Alliance.

The Fight With the BanksSylvia is currently in disputes with three of Australia’s big four banks: the one she sent money from, the one that handled a mortgage refinance during the scam, and the one that held the scammer’s receiving account. She estimates she’s spent around $250,000 on legal fees, with no resolution.She argues that anti-money-laundering reporting obligations are owed to the government, not the customer, and that the current system leaves victims with almost no leverage when something goes wrong.

Building the AllianceThe Scam Victim Alliance is volunteer-run. It holds a weekly online support session every Wednesday night, open to victims of any scam type and any size of loss, from a few thousand dollars to the $12 million case Sylvia says is the largest she’s aware of. The group connects people with a psychologist where needed and helps them collect evidence for the AFCA complaints process, the formal channel for disputing a bank or financial firm’s decision.

Her AdviceSylvia’s message is blunt. If someone you don’t know calls you every day, that’s unusual, not normal relationship-building. If you’re being pushed to act urgently, whether it’s a text claiming to be from your child or an email claiming to be from the tax office, do nothing until the pressure passes. And if you’ve already lost money, let go of the idea of getting it back quickly — recovery services promising otherwise are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

What Readers Will Learn

* How a single, low-stakes ad click can escalate into a six- or seven-figure loss within a few months.

* Why identity checks and “professional” onboarding steps can be used by scammers to build trust rather than protect you.

* What kind of behaviour — daily unsolicited contact, pressure to act urgently — should be treated as a red flag, since spotting one at the very first point of contact usually isn’t realistic.

* Why Australian banks aren’t always required to intervene when a large or unusual transfer goes through.

* How anti-money-laundering reporting protects government interests first, not necessarily the individual customer.

* What the AFCA complaints process involves, and why it can take months of sustained effort.

* Why “recovery services” promising to get your money back are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

* Where to find support if you or someone you know has been affected by a scam.

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial Register

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

Sylvia Chou is a registered tax agent, a Fellow of CPA Australia and a qualified financial planner. In 2019, she clicked on a Facebook ad claiming to be a Shark Tank-endorsed trading platform. A curious $250 payment turned into a $2.6 million loss within three months, after scammers used fake identity checks to build her trust and escalate slowly.

In this episode of The Part 8A podcast, Sylvia explains how the scam worked, why her bank let a $1.1 million transfer through without question, and why she believes Australia’s financial system has a structural gap that leaves victims exposed. She also talks candidly about the public backlash, the darkest period that followed, and how meeting other scam victims in Canberra in 2024 led her to co-found the Scam Victim Alliance, now a national support network for survivors.

Content note: this conversation touches on financial loss, bank disputes and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you personally, Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* A $250 “curiosity click” on a fake Shark Tank-endorsed investment ad grew into a $2.6 million loss within three months, partly because the scammers used a legitimate-looking 100-point identity check to build trust early on.

* Banks let large, unusual transfers through — including $1.1 million in under three hours — because Sylvia had sent money to the same account before, and the pattern wasn’t flagged as new.

* Anti-money-laundering reporting obligations sit with government regulators, not with the customer. Sylvia argues that’s the biggest structural gap letting scams slip through.

* Australia’s new Scams Prevention Framework is meant to share responsibility across banks, telcos and platforms, but Sylvia says it’s made recovery harder, since victims now have to build a case against multiple large institutions with almost no information of their own.

* Sylvia co-founded the Scam Victim Alliance after meeting other seven-figure-loss victims at a 2024 Canberra press conference. The group now runs weekly support sessions and helps survivors through the AFCA complaints process.

Detailed Synopsis

Content note: this episode discusses financial loss, disputes with banks and, briefly, thoughts of suicide. If any of this affects you, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14.

The ClickIt started with $250 and a television show. Sylvia was scrolling Facebook in 2019 when she saw an ad for a trading platform claiming a Shark Tank endorsement. She watched the show regularly and recognised some of the people who were quoted in the comments. Out of curiosity, she clicked through and paid $250 to open an account. Worst case, she thought, that’s all she’d lose.

The SetupThe platform didn’t ask for real money straight away. It asked for identification: a driver’s licence, proof of address, and a “100-point check”, exactly like opening a bank account. To a finance professional who runs the same checks on her own clients, the process looked like diligence, not danger. She topped up to $10,000 as a starting point. Every step made the platform feel more legitimate.

The EscalationOver the following months, the amounts grew. One transfer alone moved $1.1 million in under three hours. Her bank didn’t flag it, because she’d sent money to that account before. By the time Sylvia understood what was happening, she had lost $2.6 million.

The FalloutThe public response was harsh. After a news story about her case ran on Facebook, one comment read: “I’m glad she’s not my accountant.” Others suggested that if she had so much money, she must be greedy for wanting more.Sylvia says the loss itself wasn’t the hardest part. It was watching people question her professional judgement and her character at the same time. During the worst of it, she says she thought seriously about ending her life. What kept her going was the thought of the friends who had lent her money and trusted her to pay it back.

Finding Each OtherSylvia lobbied on her own for years, with limited effect. That changed in 2024, when she met a group of fellow scam victims at a press conference in Canberra, supported by an advocate she names as Debbie Pope. Between just three people in that room, total losses exceeded $5 million.Sylvia says standing with people who understood exactly what she’d been through, without judgement, was the moment the isolation started to lift. That meeting became the starting point for the Scam Victim Alliance.

The Fight With the BanksSylvia is currently in disputes with three of Australia’s big four banks: the one she sent money from, the one that handled a mortgage refinance during the scam, and the one that held the scammer’s receiving account. She estimates she’s spent around $250,000 on legal fees, with no resolution.She argues that anti-money-laundering reporting obligations are owed to the government, not the customer, and that the current system leaves victims with almost no leverage when something goes wrong.

Building the AllianceThe Scam Victim Alliance is volunteer-run. It holds a weekly online support session every Wednesday night, open to victims of any scam type and any size of loss, from a few thousand dollars to the $12 million case Sylvia says is the largest she’s aware of. The group connects people with a psychologist where needed and helps them collect evidence for the AFCA complaints process, the formal channel for disputing a bank or financial firm’s decision.

Her AdviceSylvia’s message is blunt. If someone you don’t know calls you every day, that’s unusual, not normal relationship-building. If you’re being pushed to act urgently, whether it’s a text claiming to be from your child or an email claiming to be from the tax office, do nothing until the pressure passes. And if you’ve already lost money, let go of the idea of getting it back quickly — recovery services promising otherwise are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

What Readers Will Learn

* How a single, low-stakes ad click can escalate into a six- or seven-figure loss within a few months.

* Why identity checks and “professional” onboarding steps can be used by scammers to build trust rather than protect you.

* What kind of behaviour — daily unsolicited contact, pressure to act urgently — should be treated as a red flag, since spotting one at the very first point of contact usually isn’t realistic.

* Why Australian banks aren’t always required to intervene when a large or unusual transfer goes through.

* How anti-money-laundering reporting protects government interests first, not necessarily the individual customer.

* What the AFCA complaints process involves, and why it can take months of sustained effort.

* Why “recovery services” promising to get your money back are frequently a second scam targeting the same victims.

* Where to find support if you or someone you know has been affected by a scam.

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Financial Register

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

Australia is implementing a social media ban for children under 16, and this interview with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey from UniSA Education Futures explains the developmental science behind the decision. Children’s brains are still developing executive functioning and critical thinking skills through their teenage years, making them vulnerable to sophisticated online predators, cyberbullying, misinformation, and harmful content ranging from pornography to eating disorder promotion.

The ban serves as a protective mechanism—similar to age restrictions on driving—to give children time to mature cognitively before facing these risks. However, Dr. Ey emphasizes that the ban alone isn’t enough. Media literacy education must become as important as math and English in schools, while parents need to educate themselves about online risks, maintain open communication with their children, and reassure them that no problem is too big to solve together. The interview explores whether the ban will effectively reduce harm or simply shift risks to platforms like gaming, and discusses why education remains the most powerful long-term protection strategy.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* Cognitive Development Timeline Drives Policy: Children’s executive functioning skills and critical thinking abilities continue developing until around age 16-17, with peak sexual development occurring between ages 10-17, making adolescents particularly vulnerable to online risks including predatory behavior, misinformation, and content promoting self-harm or eating disorders during this crucial developmental window.

* Comprehensive Risk Landscape Beyond Cyberbullying: Social media exposure encompasses far more than bullying—risks include sextortion (perpetrators coercing sexual images then using them for control), child sexual abuse, false information shaping perceptions, conspiracy theories, body image dysphoria, addiction, depression, suicidal ideation, and access to dangerous content like bomb-making instructions or hate speech.

* Perpetrators Outpace Both Police and Children: Child sexual abuse perpetrators are sophisticated actors who remain consistently ahead of law enforcement detection methods, operating secretively and manipulating children through grooming techniques—if police struggle to identify and trap these perpetrators, expecting cognitively developing children to recognize and resist them is unrealistic without protective measures.

* Education Trumps Regulation as Long-Term Solution: While the ban provides temporary protection, Dr. Ey emphasizes that media literacy education represents a more effective long-term strategy than regulation alone, arguing it should receive equivalent priority to mathematics and English in curricula, with systematic monitoring and assessment of what children learn about recognizing and responding to online risks.

* Parental Communication Provides Critical Safety Net: Children who fall victim to online grooming or send compromising images often remain silent due to fear of consequences or punishment, sometimes resulting in tragic outcomes including suicide—parents must establish that no problem is too big to address together, creating an approachable environment where children feel safe reporting uncomfortable or suspicious online interactions immediately.

Detailed Synopsis

This interview examines Australia’s imminent social media ban for children under 16 through a conversation with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey, a child development expert from UniSA Education Futures. The discussion provides scientific context for the policy while exploring its practical implications and limitations.

Dr. Ey grounds the policy rationale in developmental psychology, explaining that while the internet offers tremendous opportunities for learning, connection, and entertainment, it also creates a risk environment for which children are neurologically unprepared. The adolescent brain undergoes significant development between ages 10-17, a period that coincides with both sexual maturation and the formation of executive functioning skills necessary for critical thinking and risk assessment.

The scope of online risks extends well beyond the commonly discussed cyberbullying. Dr. Ey catalogs a disturbing range of harms: sextortion schemes where perpetrators manipulate children into sending sexual images then use those images for ongoing control and abuse; direct child sexual exploitation; exposure to harmful instructional content including bomb-making guides; pornography; hate speech; misinformation campaigns; conspiracy theories deliberately designed to distort reality; content promoting negative body image and eating disorders; and platforms that facilitate addiction patterns while exacerbating depression and suicidal ideation.

Schools teach critical thinking, Dr. Ey notes, but primarily in academic contexts—problem-solving exercises and curriculum-based challenges. This educational approach doesn’t adequately prepare children to identify and respond to bad-faith actors, sophisticated manipulation tactics, or the psychological techniques employed by online predators. These perpetrators represent a particular challenge because they operate with deliberate deception and remain consistently ahead of law enforcement capabilities.

This creates what Dr. Ey characterizes as an impossible expectation: if trained police officers with specialized resources struggle to identify and apprehend child predators operating online, how can society reasonably expect cognitively developing children to recognize these same threats and protect themselves effectively?

The social media ban emerges from this analysis as a protective mechanism rather than a comprehensive solution. Dr. Ey draws an explicit parallel to driving age restrictions—society doesn’t permit children to drive until 16 not because driving is inherently wrong, but because children require time to develop the physical coordination, judgment, and risk assessment capabilities that safe driving demands. Similarly, the social media ban provides a developmental buffer period.

However, Dr. Ey repeatedly emphasizes that the ban alone represents only partial protection. Gaming platforms, text messaging, and other digital communication channels remain accessible and carry similar risks. This reality necessitates a comprehensive educational approach involving multiple stakeholders.

For parents, Dr. Ey outlines specific responsibilities: self-education about social media platforms and internet safety through resources like the eSafety Commissioner website; direct conversation with children about the reasons behind the ban and the specific risks it addresses; creating an approachable communication environment; and crucially, reassuring children that no mistake or problem is too serious to address together.

This last point receives particular emphasis. Dr. Ey explains that children who become victims of grooming or who make mistakes like sending compromising images often remain silent due to fear of parental anger or punishment. This silence allows abuse to continue and intensify. In worst-case scenarios, children overwhelmed by shame and fear have taken their own lives rather than face consequences they perceived as insurmountable. Establishing unconditional support and problem-solving partnership becomes a literal life-or-death communication priority.

Schools carry complementary responsibilities. Dr. Ey argues that media literacy education should receive equivalent curricular priority to mathematics and English. Current Australian curriculum includes these components, but without systematic monitoring, assessment, or verification that students are actually learning protective skills. This represents a fundamental pedagogical gap.

The educational approach must extend beyond traditional internet safety to encompass critical media literacy—teaching children to recognize false information, understand AI-generated content, identify manipulation tactics, and develop healthy skepticism about online interactions. Schools occupy a unique position to deliver this education systematically and universally.

When asked whether media literacy might prove more effective than regulation, Dr. Ey responds affirmatively. Teaching children to recognize and manage risk creates more durable protection than any regulatory framework. However, she qualifies this by noting that education requires time to take effect, while children face immediate risks. The ban buys time for educational interventions to work while children continue maturing.

Regarding the ban’s effectiveness in reducing cyberbullying specifically, Dr. Ey predicts mixed outcomes. Some children experiencing bullying will likely welcome the protection the ban provides by reducing harassment opportunities. However, bullying won’t disappear because alternative platforms remain accessible. The fundamental principle holds: reducing opportunity for harm represents improvement even when complete elimination isn’t achievable.

The interview addresses socioeconomic concerns about differential access creating inequality. Dr. Ey rejects this framing based on device penetration data—approximately 80% of children age eight and older possess mobile phone access, with tablets and computers providing additional access points through family devices and schools. The ubiquity of device access means essentially all children face online risks regardless of socioeconomic status. The ban therefore provides relatively equal protection across economic strata.

Throughout the conversation, Dr. Ey maintains that risk cannot be entirely eliminated. Perpetrators will adapt and migrate to unregulated platforms. Children will find ways to access restricted services. The internet’s fundamental architecture creates access opportunities that no regulatory framework can completely control.

This reality makes education paramount. Once devices enter children’s hands—which happens early and nearly universally—education about recognition, response, and reporting becomes the primary protective mechanism. Parents and schools must provide this education proactively, comprehensively, and with appropriate sophistication about the actual threats children face.

Dr. Ey predicts that as the ban implementation progresses, researchers will observe measurable reductions in online grooming incidents and cyberbullying statistics. While acknowledging the absence of pre-implementation research evidence, she anticipates the ban will demonstrate protective effects through post-implementation data analysis.

The interview concludes with Dr. Ey reiterating the central tension: regulation provides immediate but incomplete protection, while education offers more comprehensive long-term safety but requires time and consistent implementation. Effective child protection demands both approaches working in concert, with realistic expectations about what each mechanism can accomplish.

What Readers Will Learn

Child Development Science:

* How executive functioning skills develop through adolescence and why this timeline matters for online safety

* The relationship between sexual maturation (ages 10-17) and vulnerability to exploitation

* Why critical thinking taught in academic contexts doesn’t automatically transfer to social risk assessment

* Cognitive differences between adolescent and adult brains that affect decision-making and risk recognition

Comprehensive Risk Understanding:

* The full spectrum of online harms beyond cyberbullying: sextortion, grooming, harmful content, misinformation, body image issues, and mental health impacts

* How sophisticated perpetrators operate and why they consistently outpace law enforcement detection

* The psychological manipulation tactics used to control children and prevent them from seeking help

* Why gaming platforms and messaging services present similar risks to social media

Practical Parenting Strategies:

* Specific resources for parent education (eSafety Commissioner materials)

* How to create communication environments where children feel safe reporting problems

* Language and approaches for discussing online risks without creating fear or shame

* Why unconditional problem-solving partnerships can prevent tragic outcomes

* Warning signs that children may be experiencing online abuse or manipulation

Educational Policy Implications:

* Why media literacy should receive equivalent priority to core academic subjects

* The gap between curriculum inclusion and actual learning outcomes in internet safety education

* What comprehensive critical media literacy encompasses beyond basic internet safety

* How schools can systematically teach recognition of false information, AI content, and manipulation

* The distinction between academic critical thinking and applied risk assessment skills

Regulatory Framework Analysis:

* How the under-16 ban functions as a developmental buffer mechanism

* Realistic expectations about what regulation can and cannot accomplish

* Why the ban provides protection despite not eliminating all risk

* How regulatory measures interact with educational approaches for comprehensive protection

* The parallel between age restrictions on driving and social media access

Communication Skills for Difficult Conversations:

* How to discuss sextortion, grooming, and sexual abuse with children age-appropriately

* Creating reporting pathways for children experiencing uncomfortable online interactions

* Balancing protection with age-appropriate autonomy and skill development

* Reassurance techniques that encourage disclosure rather than silence

* How to respond when children have already made mistakes or been victimized

Long-Term Protection Strategies:

* Why education represents a more effective long-term solution than regulation alone

* How to balance immediate protective measures with developmental skill-building

* The role of ongoing parent education as platforms and risks evolve

* Creating family media use policies that adapt as children mature

* Preparing children for eventual unrestricted internet access through gradual skill development

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you, over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Readmencari.com

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

This interview explores Australia’s current energy policy challenges through a conversation with a political leader advocating for change. At the heart of the discussion is a striking paradox: Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of natural gas, yet the country is building import terminals to bring gas back at higher prices.

The speaker argues that current government policies are driving up electricity costs while failing to reduce emissions, costing taxpayers an estimated $75 billion to date with projections of over $500 billion more by 2035. The conversation examines the tension between meeting international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement and delivering affordable energy to Australian families and industries. Key policy proposals include streamlining environmental approvals for gas projects, opening new gas basins, and prioritizing energy affordability while still reducing emissions responsibly.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* The LNG Export Paradox: Australia ranks as the world’s second or third-largest LNG exporter due to abundant natural gas reserves, yet the country is simultaneously constructing import terminals to purchase gas back at inflated prices—a situation the speaker characterizes as nonsensical for Australian consumers and industry.

* Staggering Climate Policy Costs: Australia has already spent approximately $75 billion on emissions reduction efforts since 2005, with estimates suggesting an additional $500 billion will be required to meet the 2035 targets, even as power prices climb and emissions plateau or increase.

* Environmental Approvals as Policy Bottleneck: The current environmental approval regime is identified as a critical obstacle preventing natural gas from reaching domestic markets, with accusations that government funding for environmental activist groups actively restricts supply expansion.

* Paris Agreement Flexibility: While committed to the Paris Agreement framework, the speaker emphasizes that nationally determined contributions (NDCs) should be revised based on national interests and changing global circumstances, noting that many countries have already walked back or modified their commitments.

* Gas as Transition Fuel Strategy: Natural gas is positioned as essential infrastructure serving three critical functions—industrial manufacturing, power generation, and emissions reduction as a transition fuel—making affordable gas access fundamental to both economic competitiveness and climate objectives.

Detailed Synopsis

This interview captures a pivotal moment in Australia’s ongoing energy policy debate, recorded during a visit to the Sutherland Shire area of Sydney. The conversation reveals deep tensions between Australia’s climate commitments and the practical economic pressures facing households and industries struggling with rising energy costs.

The discussion opens with firsthand observations from a powder coating facility, where rising gas and electricity prices are creating palpable economic strain. This real-world context frames the broader policy critique that follows. The speaker establishes a fundamental argument: that current national energy objectives are “working backwards” from unachievable long-term targets, driving electricity price increases in the process.

A central paradox emerges as the interview progresses. Despite Australia’s position as a global LNG powerhouse—the world’s second or third-largest exporter—domestic gas markets face supply constraints severe enough to justify building import terminals. This scenario, the speaker suggests, represents a policy failure that defies common sense for ordinary Australians experiencing energy bill shock.

The Paris Agreement becomes a key flashpoint in the conversation. When challenged about previous statements regarding “bureaucrats in Paris,” the speaker articulates a nuanced position: commitment to the Paris framework while reserving the right to revise Australia’s nationally determined contributions based on national interest. This position is contextualized within broader international trends, noting that many nations have modified or watered down their climate commitments as circumstances evolved.

Historical comparison provides quantitative weight to the argument. The speaker notes that over the 20 years since 2005, Australia has nearly doubled its emissions reduction efforts compared to developing nations. Meeting Labor’s 2050 targets would require doubling those efforts again—at a cost the speaker deems unsustainable given current economic pressures.

The critique extends to what the speaker characterizes as policy-driven supply restrictions. Environmental approval processes are identified as creating significant delays for gas projects, with the additional claim that government funding supports environmental activist organizations working to limit gas development. This creates a feedback loop that constrains domestic supply while Australia continues exporting LNG internationally.

The proposed alternative centers on what the speaker calls “stepping on the gas”—a policy framework that would streamline approvals, open new gas basins, facilitate private sector pipeline development, and recognize natural gas’s critical role across power generation, industrial use, and manufacturing. The fundamental principle articulated is that increased supply, coupled with grid balance and affordable energy as the primary objective, would deliver better outcomes for both prices and emissions.

Throughout the interview, the speaker emphasizes a commitment to honesty with voters about policy realities and costs, contrasting this approach with what’s characterized as misleading claims from the current government. The argument frames energy affordability not as opposition to climate action, but as essential to maintaining public support for realistic emissions reduction that matches technological capabilities and international comparability.

What Readers Will Learn

Policy Analysis Skills:

* How to evaluate the real-world costs of climate policy implementation beyond headline targets

* Understanding the relationship between energy supply dynamics and electricity pricing

* Recognizing the gap between international climate commitments and domestic policy execution

Australian Energy Market Fundamentals:

* Why Australia’s position as a major LNG exporter doesn’t automatically translate to domestic energy security

* The role of natural gas in Australia’s energy transition and industrial base

* How environmental approval processes impact energy project development timelines

Climate Policy Economics:

* The financial scale of Australia’s emissions reduction efforts: $75 billion spent, $500 billion projected

* How nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement function in practice

* Why countries revise their climate commitments and the factors driving those decisions

Political Communication Strategies:

* How policy positions are framed around “national interest” versus international agreements

* The use of concrete examples (powder coating facilities, import terminals) to illustrate abstract policy critiques

* Techniques for presenting alternative policy frameworks while maintaining climate credibility

Critical Thinking Applications:

* Evaluating claims about emissions trends (reductions under previous government vs. current flatlines)

* Understanding trade-offs between energy affordability and climate ambition

* Recognizing how supply-side interventions (or restrictions) impact market outcomes

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you, over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Readmencari.com

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

This episode examines the concerning rise of far-right extremist groups in Australia, focusing on the August 31st "March for Australia" protests that drew thousands across major cities. Dr. Simon Copland, an expert in online extremism from Australian National University, explains how groups like sovereign citizens—people who believe governments are illegitimate—have grown significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The conversation reveals how these movements use social media to spread anger and false information, particularly targeting immigrants as scapegoats for Australia's housing and cost-of-living crises. Despite organizers claiming otherwise, neo-Nazi groups actively participated in and spoke at these rallies, showing the interconnected nature of Australia's extremist ecosystem.

While the numbers weren't as large as feared, the movements are becoming more emboldened and violent, posing real security threats. The episode also explores the disturbing connections between anti-immigration sentiment and misogynistic beliefs, particularly through movements like "Tradwives" that promote both traditional gender roles and white supremacist ideologies.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* COVID-19 Catalyst: The sovereign citizen movement experienced significant growth in Australia following pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates, as people felt direct government intervention in their lives for the first time

* Social Media Manipulation: Far-right groups excel at using digital platforms to spread disinformation and create anger, exploiting social media algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy

* Scapegoating Strategy: Despite evidence that immigrants contribute positively to Australia's economy, extremist groups falsely blame them for housing shortages and economic problems to divert attention from real causes like corporate profiteering

* Neo-Nazi Integration: Despite organizers' denials, neo-Nazi leaders like Thomas Sewell actively spoke at March for Australia events, revealing coordination within Australia's far-right ecosystem

* Violence Escalation: While protest numbers were lower than expected, extremist groups are becoming increasingly emboldened and willing to engage in violence, presenting genuine security threats

Detailed Synopsis

This episode of PART 8A provides crucial insights into Australia's evolving far-right landscape through an in-depth conversation with Dr. Simon Copland, a leading researcher in online extremism at Australian National University. The discussion centers on the August 31st "March for Australia" protests, which drew an estimated 15,000 people in Adelaide alone, making it one of the largest far-right demonstrations in recent Australian history.

Dr. Copland begins by explaining the sovereign citizen movement—a pseudo-legal ideology originating in the 1970s that views governments as illegitimate unless individuals personally consent to their authority. This movement has found fertile ground in Australia since 2022, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic's lockdown measures and vaccine mandates. For many Australians, these policies represented the first significant government intervention in their daily lives, creating resentment that extremist groups successfully exploited.

The conversation reveals the sophisticated digital strategies employed by these movements. Dr. Copland explains how far-right groups leverage social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement, often through content that generates anger and outrage. This creates a feedback loop where false information about immigration, housing, and social issues spreads rapidly, reaching vulnerable individuals during times of economic distress.

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the deliberate scapegoating of immigrants for Australia's housing and cost-of-living crises. Dr.Copland provides specific examples, including how one March for Australia organizer was connected to a major property developer holding thousands of empty properties—highlighting how those truly responsible for housing shortages deflect blame onto vulnerable communities.

The episode explores the troubling intersection of misogyny and racism within these movements, examining phenomena like the "Tradwives" movement in the United States. This reveals how anti-immigration sentiment often connects to broader ideologies promoting traditional gender roles and white supremacy, creating a comprehensive worldview that appeals to various grievances.

Despite organizers' claims of excluding extremist groups, the interview exposes clear evidence of neo-Nazi participation and leadership in these events. Thomas Sewell, leader of the National Socialist Network, not only attended but spoke at Melbourne's rally, demonstrating the porous boundaries between different extremist factions.

Dr. Copland provides crucial context by comparing Australia's situation to international trends, noting that while far-right movements haven't achieved the political success seen in the United States or Europe, concerning indicators are emerging. These include increased support for fringe parties, growing negative sentiment toward immigration in polling, and most alarmingly, increased willingness among extremist groups to engage in violence.

The episode concludes with practical guidance for monitoring these movements' evolution, emphasizing the need for continued vigilance from researchers, journalists, and policymakers to prevent Australia from following the path of radicalization seen in other Western democracies.

What Readers Will Learn

* Historical Context: Understanding of how the sovereign citizen movement developed and why it resonates in common law countries like Australia

* COVID-19 Impact: How pandemic policies inadvertently accelerated extremist recruitment by creating widespread resentment toward government authority

* Digital Manipulation Tactics: Specific strategies used by far-right groups to exploit social media algorithms and spread disinformation effectively

* Economic Scapegoating: How extremist leaders deliberately redirect anger about legitimate economic problems toward vulnerable minority groups

* Ideological Intersections: The connections between anti-immigration sentiment, misogyny, and white supremacist beliefs within modern extremist movements

* International Comparisons: How Australia's far-right landscape compares to more advanced extremist movements in the US and Europe

* Warning Signs: Key indicators that researchers and policymakers should monitor to assess whether extremist movements are gaining mainstream traction

* Security Implications: Why even small numbers of radicalized individuals pose significant threats to community safety

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you, over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Readmencari.com

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

In this explosive episode of Santos Unfiltered, host Miko Santos interviews Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst at the Australian Institute, about a seismic shift in Australian diplomacy.

For the first time since World War II, Australia has expelled a foreign ambassador - this time Iran's representative - following shocking revelations from ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation).

The intelligence agency directly linked Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to anti-Semitic attacks on Australian soil, including synagogue firebombings in Melbourne. This 17-minute deep-dive explains the unprecedented diplomatic fallout, national security implications, and what this means for Australian-Iranian relations, the Jewish community's safety, and Australia's broader Middle East policy.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* Historic Diplomatic Action: Australia expelled Iran's ambassador - the first such expulsion since WWII - giving them seven days to leave the country after ASIO provided concrete evidence of Iranian interference

* Terror Financing Allegations: ASIO alleges Iran directly paid Australian actors to carry out anti-Semitic attacks, including the Melbourne synagogue firebombing that created widespread fear in the Jewish community.

* IRGC Terrorist Designation: Australia will officially list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, a move the Conservative opposition had been demanding for years.

* Rare Foreign State Attack: Physical attacks directed by foreign nations on Australian soil are extremely uncommon, making this case particularly significant for national security agencies.

* Geopolitical Complications: This action strains Australia's complex Middle East relationships, especially as the country prepares to recognize Palestine at the UN General Assembly while maintaining security intelligence cooperation with Israel.

Detailed Synopsis

This episode delivers breaking analysis of one of Australia's most significant diplomatic moves in decades. Amy Remeikis reveals how ASIO's investigation into anti-Semitic attacks across Australia uncovered a shocking international conspiracy. What initially appeared to be lone-wolf incidents were actually coordinated attacks allegedly funded by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The conversation explores the rapid government response - within 24 hours of receiving ASIO's findings, Australia evacuated its diplomats from Iran and expelled the Iranian ambassador. Remeikis explains why this unprecedented action represents such a dramatic escalation, comparing it to Australia's continued diplomatic relations with Israel despite ongoing tensions over Gaza.

Key discussion points include the vulnerability of Australians currently in Iran, the effectiveness of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and the delicate balance between addressing anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli actions. The interview also examines how this crisis fits into Australia's broader national security strategy and its relationships with Five Eyes intelligence partners.

Remeikis provides crucial context about Australia's geographic protection, its role as a "middle player" internationally, and why foreign interference in Australian affairs is so unusual. The episode concludes with analysis of how this decision might reshape Australia's intelligence relationships and diplomatic positioning in the Middle East.

What Readers Will Learn

* The complete timeline of Australia's unprecedented diplomatic response to Iranian interference

* How ASIO investigates and responds to foreign state-sponsored attacks on Australian soil

* The legal and practical implications of listing foreign military units as terrorist organizations

* The complex relationship between anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel, and foreign interference

* Australia's unique position in Middle East geopolitics and intelligence sharing

* The challenges facing dual nationals and diaspora communities during diplomatic crises

* How geographic isolation affects Australia's national security strategy and international relations

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you, over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Readmencari.com

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

Australia made a big decision in August 2025 to officially recognize Palestine as a country, joining other Western nations like the UK, France, and Canada. This podcast features Dr. Martin Kear from the University of Sydney, who explains why this happened now, what it means for Middle East peace, and how Australian politics is reacting.

The conversation covers complex topics like Hamas, Palestinian leadership problems, and whether a two-state solution can actually work.

Dr. Kear explains these complicated international issues in a way that helps listeners understand the bigger picture of this historic policy change.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

Five Key Takeaways

* Coordinated Western Response: Australia's recognition aligns with a coordinated movement by Western nations including the UK, France, and Canada, representing a significant shift away from US-controlled Middle East peace processes

* Domestic Political Controversy: Opposition leader Susan Lee criticized the decision after Hamas praised Australia's move, creating a political divide over whether recognizing Palestine legitimizes terrorist organizations

* Palestinian Leadership Crisis: Current Palestinian Authority President Mohammed Abbas faces an 80% disapproval rating, with Dr. Kear identifying imprisoned leader Marwan Barghouti as the only figure capable of uniting Palestinians democratically

* Democratic Legitimacy Debate: Western demands to exclude Hamas from future Palestinian governance conflict with democratic principles, as Hamas won legitimate elections in 2006 and remains popular among Palestinians

* Two-State Solution Skepticism: Dr. Kear expresses doubt about achieving a sovereign Palestinian state, citing Israel's permanent settlement strategy and unwillingness to withdraw from East Jerusalem

Detailed Synopsis

This episode of Part8A examines Australia's groundbreaking decision to recognize Palestinian statehood, announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for presentation at the September 2025 UN General Assembly.

Host Miko Santos interviews Dr. Martin Kear, a specialist in Palestinian politics from the University of Sydney, to unpack the multifaceted implications of this policy shift.

The conversation begins with Dr. Kear explaining the momentum behind Australia's decision, attributing it to growing international frustration with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the dormant Middle East peace process controlled exclusively by Israel and the United States. He emphasizes how this coordinated recognition by Western nations, particularly those with Security Council membership like France and the UK, represents an attempt to bypass traditional diplomatic channels and apply meaningful pressure on Israel.

A significant portion of the discussion addresses domestic Australian political reactions, particularly opposition criticism following Hamas's endorsement of the recognition.

Dr. Kear contextualizes Hamas's response within their broader political objectives, explaining how their October 2023 attack aimed to disrupt the normalization of Israeli occupation rather than expressing mere hatred of Israel.

The interview delves deeply into Palestinian governance challenges, highlighting the legitimacy crisis facing the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas's authoritarian leadership. Dr. Kear advocates for inclusive democratic processes that allow Hamas participation, arguing that Western exclusion of democratically elected representatives undermines Palestinian self-determination and repeats colonial patterns of imposed governance.

The discussion concludes with skeptical assessments of long-term prospects for Palestinian sovereignty, examining how Israeli settlement strategies have systematically undermined the viability of a two-state solution, while considering Australia's potential role as a middle power in future diplomatic initiatives.

What Readers Will Learn

* Geopolitical Strategy Analysis: Understanding how coordinated diplomatic recognition serves as an alternative to traditional peace process mechanisms and the strategic implications of bypassing US-controlled negotiations.

* Democratic Governance Complexities: Insights into the tension between Western security concerns and democratic legitimacy in Palestinian politics, including the challenge of excluding popular movements from governance structures.

* Middle East Policy Evolution: Comprehensive analysis of how Australia's recognition fits within broader Western policy shifts toward Palestine and the changing dynamics of international Middle East diplomacy.

* Palestinian Political Landscape: Detailed examination of Palestinian Authority leadership challenges, the role of Hamas in Palestinian politics, and the search for legitimate representation that can unite Palestinian factions.

* Two-State Solution Realities: Critical assessment of the practical obstacles to Palestinian sovereignty, including settlement expansion, Jerusalem's status, and the international community's limited leverage over Israeli policy.

This is not a sponsored video/audio. A small commission will be paid to us if you purchase anything through some of the affiliate links in our product listings.

If you want to chat more about this topic, I would love to continue this conversation with you, over Twitter @realmikosantos!

This podcast is powered by Kangaroofern, Australia's Independent Podcast Management Company.

Thanks so much for listening to our podcast!

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe so you'll be notified when a new episode is posted in the Apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Stitcher or via RSS. 

If you think others could benefit from listening, please share it on your socials.

You can also subscribe to the podcast app on your mobile device. 

If you found value in this episode, leave us an Apple Podcast review. Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts and expose our show to more awesome listeners like you. 

This is a premium episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to the episodes, visit Readmencari.com

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

While mainstream media serves corporate interests, you deserve the truth.

Your Mencari subscription—less than a coffee per week—powers real independent journalism. Our reporters dig into the stories powerful people desperately want buried. No corporate masters. No political handlers. Just the uncomfortable truths that matter most right now.

This is journalism without compromise, funded directly by readers who refuse to be misled. If this reporting opened your eyes, hit Restack so others can see what they're missing.

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe