Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Extreme weather events are the new normal. The use of nuclear weapons by Vladimir Putin’s Russian military is now an unthinkable possibility. And Xi Jinping’s China, our largest trading partner and rising superpower, is pulling down the shutters.

So no pressure then, for our freshly-minted 31st prime minister as he flies into the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in Tokyo this week.

The immediate challenge facing incoming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong is to reassure allies and friends of continuity and certainty. But more than that, the change of government presents an opportunity to build confidence in Australia’s capacity, once taken for granted, for visionary leadership and humble decency.

Remind me, what is the Quad?

The Quad involves India, Japan, the United States and Australia. It began in 2007, under George W Bush and John Howard, but Kevin Rudd, Australia pulled back because of concerns about America’s approach to China.

Prime Minister Turnbull revived the arrangement in 2017 as concerns mounted about China’s military expansion in the South China Sea. In March 2021 the Quad leaders issued a joint statement. “The Spirit of the Quad” spoke of a “rules-based maritime order in the East and South China seas” that supported a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”.

Read more:
Explainer: what exactly is the Quad and what’s on the agenda for their Washington summit?

At this week’s meetings, Japan and India will be looking for signs Australia is serious about engaging with Asia. Another old friend with deep and long-established links in Asia, France, will be looking for signs of a reset. The US will be reviewing its expectations of what Australia, under a Labor government, is prepared to contribute to both the Quad security dialogue and to the AUKUS trilateral security pact.

Albanese and Wong share much in common with US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Their face-to-face meetings this week in Tokyo have the potential to reset the allies’ approach to China and the Indo-Pacific well beyond what was every likely or possible under Donald Trump and Scott Morrison.

The China question

One of the greatest challenges of our time is to reverse the slide in relations between China and the West. The stakes are immense, not just for defence and security, or trade and the economy, but also global responses to climate change, and the future course of Chinese society and the lives of 1.4 billion people.

Biden and Blinken will also be looking for signs that the new Albanese Labor government is as committed to AUKUS as was the Morrison government. The revelation last week that, contrary to expectations in Washington DC, Labor was not consulted about AUKUS, raised doubts about the functioning of the security pact.

The operational details of how AUKUS could transform our immediate security environment, have also not been fully spelt out. As with the Quad, the potential benefits, and threats, to Australia go well beyond hard-core defence and security issues.

New opportunities with Wong

For decades, Australia’s engagement with Asia has lacked the sustained investment of financial, political, and social capital that is needed. Albanese says that he wants to change this, singling out Indonesia as a key priority for his government.

Despite living on the edge of the largest and fastest developing economies and societies on the planet, Australia has been far too lazy, shortsighted, and miserly about truly engaging with Asia. Our current woes with Chinese trade bans point to a failure to engage more broadly with both China and the rest of Asia.

Under Penny Wong, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has the potential to play a critical role in securing Australia’s broader security interests. Wong’s personal backstory, as well as her formidable intellect, will be key assets in our engagement with Asia.

The challenges facing the new defence minister – understood to be Richard Marles – intersect tightly with those facing Wong. The shocking invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the unexpected course of the war, contain many lessons for Australia. The first is the importance of international alliances and institutions, such as NATO and the European Union. Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it was easy to be critical of NATO and the EU, and question their utility and substance. Not any more.

The Quad, AUKUS, ANZUS, and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, together with ASEAN, are very different entities to NATO and the EU, but the war in Ukraine casts them in a fresh light. Diplomacy, trust and relationship-building are as critically important to defence and security as tanks, trucks and planes.

Other lessons from Ukraine

Australia’s next Defence White Paper, likely to be released in 2023, is going to be shaped by the both the rise of China and the decline of Russia. The experiences of the war in Ukraine, the critical role of logistics, the utility of certain kinds of equipment such as tanks, and the impact of organisational culture will be closely studied.

Read more:
With a new Australian government and foreign minister comes fresh hope for Australia-China relations

In all of this, there are challenges as well as great opportunities for Australia. Already it is clear that intelligence, IT and drones have played a critical role in defence of Ukraine. Australia has considerable capacity to innovate and develop related critical systems, hardware and technology, to the benefit of both national and regional security.

It should go without saying that Australia needs to both prepare for war and to do everything that it possibly can to avoid war. The later depends very much on the former, together with diplomacy and relationship building.

Don’t forget climate change

War, in the worst-case scenario, constitutes an existential threat. So too does climate change.

The remarkable outcomes of the 2022 federal elections point to the realisation of millions of Australians that more frequent and severe, fire, flood, drought and intense heat events represent an immediate security threat.

Neither the LNP nor Labor intended for this to be climate election. But it clearly was. This was an instance of ordinary voters being well-ahead of the leaders of the two larger parties.

The impacts of climate change will contribute directly to political and social stability in our region. Crises in food and water security, rising sea levels and severe weather events, and an increased impact of animal-to-human diseases such as COVID-19, mean that responses to climate change are integral to managing national and regional security.

The nation and the region is watching and looking to the new Australian government for leadership on security and this includes climate change.

Read more:
The teals and Greens will turn up the heat on Labor’s climate policy. Here’s what to expect

Greg Barton receives funding from the Australian Research Council. And he is engaged in a range of projects working to understand and counter violent extremism in Australia and in Southeast Asia that are funded by the Australian government.

– ref. As Albanese heads to the Quad, what are the security challenges facing Australia’s new government? – https://theconversation.com/as-albanese-heads-to-the-quad-what-are-the-security-challenges-facing-australias-new-government-183435

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catharine Coleborne, Dean of Arts/Head of School Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle

Higher education did not figure prominently in the election campaign. The biggest issues facing the sector, in particular the arts, humanities and social sciences, could never be fully addressed in six weeks, but the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) urges the incoming Labor government to act on three issues as a priority.

The first is the impacts in Australia’s universities of the former Coalition government’s Job-Ready Graduates Package announced in June 2020. The changes included enormous fee increases for humanities, arts and social science (HASS) subjects.

The second issue is the Research Commercialisation Action Plan released in February this year.

Third, the acting minister for education and employment, Stuart Robert, wrote to the Australian Research Council (ARC) in December 2021 to direct that a significant portion of research funding be awarded to projects that demonstrate a strong connection with Australia’s manufacturing priorities. Research funding for the arts, humanities and social sciences is shrinking.

Taken together, these three policy shifts represent a sustained assault on the arts, humanities and social sciences. Ministerial vetoes of ARC discovery grants in late 2021 added to the picture of federal government disregard for our fields of education and research and their role in Australian society.

Read more:
Here’s what the major parties need to do about higher education this election

The myths about ‘job-ready’ graduates

The Job-Ready Graduates Package was announced in 2020. Student fee increases of 113% apply to most arts degree subjects from 2022. This has had a direct impact on inflation.

The previous government assumed that studying these subjects will not get you a job, despite its own graduate outcomes data showing the opposite. According to Universities Australia, 36% of domestic students and 11% of international students were enrolled in arts, humanities and social sciences in 2018. Yet the government inferred that these disciplinary fields contribute little to Australia’s cultural and economic interests.

According to research commissioned by the Council of Deans, graduates from the HASS fields make up two-thirds of the Australian workforce. The QILT Employer Satisfaction Survey of 2021 showed graduates of “society and culture” degrees exceed the national average in their preparedness for employment.

Read more:
3 flaws in Job-Ready Graduates package will add to the turmoil in Australian higher education

A blinkered approach to research commercialisation

The research commercialisation plan will focus research efforts on the six national manufacturing priorities identified in the Modern Manufacturing Strategy.

Researchers in the humanities and social sciences will find it almost impossible to attract funding under these priorities. The creative industries might have better prospects in some areas such as design for new technologies.

However, the Coalition government’s own policies were contradictory. The National Research Infrastructure Roadmap, released in April 2022, points to “outcomes from research in the creative arts, humanities and social sciences disciplines” as being “critical to achieve the economic, social and environmental benefits we strive for”. The roadmap suggested this research will “play an important role in ensuring social acceptance and uptake of research outcomes, adoption of new technologies and ensuring ethical and responsible development and application of emerging technologies”.

The Council of Deans welcomed this recognition of the value of HASS research.

Read more:
Will the government’s $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture

HASS research suffers from meddling in grants

In December 2021, acting minister Robert asked that discovery grants be assessed under a strengthened national interest test. He also asked the ARC to “bring forward a proposal to enhance and expand the role of the industry and other end-user experts in assessing the National Interest Test of high-quality projects”.

We have argued these proposals represent a major shift for researchers in Australia. They would further entrench the changes that are pushing research dollars away from arts, humanities and social sciences.

Not only this but, as I noted at a Senate hearing on the ARC Amendment Bill 2018, applying a national interest test to inquiry-driven research links funding decisions to immediate, commercial and political concerns. Our STEM colleagues agree.

ARC research grants have also been subject to vetoes by government ministers, drawing condemnation both in Australia and internationally. The vast majority of grant vetoes since 2005 have affected humanities and social science projects, with the government showing ignorance of our contribution. Senator Amanda Stoker, for example, representing the education minister at a Senate estimates hearing in February, said:

“We are very happy to stand by the decision to reject a research project on how climate shaped the Elizabethan theatre. Presumably it’s something about how the theatre might have needed a roof or something.”

Read more:
Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants

What next?

The value of our disciplines can be seen in every part of Australian life. Without arts, humanities and social sciences research we would not be using languages to build peace and diplomacy in our region, or have our current social institutions forging democracy. We would not have “Big History”: the study of how how humans and our environment have co-existed and influenced change over time leading to the profound understandings of humanity’s origins through interdisciplinary research. We would have little shared conceptual knowledge of our nation’s ancient histories and Indigenous cultures.

We have extensive collective experience as deans of these disciplinary fields in almost every university in Australia. We argue that researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences have been highly responsive to the need to forge relevant research.

We look forward to working with the next minister for education to implement changes to these policies that will benefit our universities and the hundreds of thousands of students studying in our degree areas.

Catharine Coleborne is the President of the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH), the peak body for Deans (and equivalent roles) of these fields across Australia and New Zealand, representing 43 university members.

– ref. 3 big issues in higher education demand the new government’s attention – https://theconversation.com/3-big-issues-in-higher-education-demand-the-new-governments-attention-183349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

Labor has inherited an economy with a pretty full “head of steam”.

Domestic demand is growing strongly, fuelled by

• households flush with cash (and enriched by big increases in property prices)

• full pipelines of housing construction and government-funded infrastructure

• businesses apparently keener to invest than for more than a decade.

Unemployment has fallen to its lowest for 48 years with only 1.3 unemployed for each vacant job.

And Australia has also been one of very few economies to benefit financially from the impact of the conflict in Ukraine on food and energy prices.

Stormy weather

But Labor has also inherited an economy which, like most others at the moment, is experiencing a sharp acceleration in inflation. As a result, interest rates are likely to climb significantly over the next 18 to 24 months, weighing on Australia’s many heavily-mortgaged households.

And Labor will have to deal with the consequences of the ongoing slowdown in – and the deterioration in relations with – Australia’s major customer, China.

It might also have to confront a sharp slowdown, if not a recession, in the US and much of the rest of the industrialised world.

And it might do so with limited room to deploy fiscal (spending and tax) tools, thanks to the deterioration in Australia’s public finances.

Limited mandate

Like every first-term federal and state government in the past 30 years, the Albanese government comes into office with only a limited mandate – one in which the list of things it has promised not to do is longer than the list of things it has promised to do.

It has mandates for:

• more ambitious action on climate change, for which it will be supported by the bevy of independents elected in formerly safe Liberal seats

• improved standards in aged and disability care

• cheaper child care

• more technical and further education and university places

• more spending on social and affordable housing and

• collecting more tax from multinational corporations.

But it has no mandate for reforms that might lift Australia’s woeful productivity performance over the past decade, beyond whatever contribution any of the aforementioned policies might make, at the margin.

And, having acknowledged its policies will marginally add to the projected budget deficits over the next four years, it has no mandate for anything that would put Australia’s public finances on a more sustainable medium-term trajectory (as its counterpart in New Zealand did in its budget handed down last week).

Read more:
Albanese wins with a modest program – but the times may well suit him

In particular, it lacks a mandate to find the revenue required to fund the extra spending on aged and disability care, and health, which the Australian people clearly want, or for the extra spending on defence that the Australian people seem likely to get, whether they want it or not.

If it truly wishes to make a lasting difference to Australia’s medium term prospects – in the way that the Hawke and the Keating governments did – Labor needs in its first term to lay the groundwork for a more expansive mandate for its second term.

The most effective way of doing this would be to commission a series of inquiries into a limited number of issues posing the greatest medium-term challenges for Australia.

Among them would be ways of lifting productivity growth, housing affordability, tax reform, federal-state financial relations, the performance of Australia’s education system, and inequality.

If the inquiries had well-crafted terms of reference and were led by well-chosen people tasked with identifying solutions and making the case for change, Labor could then use their findings to create a more ambitious platform for 2025.

It is what Prime Minister John Howard did. Having promised ahead of the 1996 election that he would “never, ever” introduce a goods and services tax, he used that term to make the case for introducing such a tax in his second term, put it to the 1998 election, and won.

Prepare for that second term now

Bob Hawke did a similar thing to Howard with his 1983 national economic summit and 1985 national taxation summit, expanding the boundaries of what was politically possible while keeping faith with those to whom he had promised not to do certain things in his first term.

Read more:
The teals and Greens will turn up the heat on Labor’s climate policy. Here’s what to expect

The alternative approach of abandoning promises shortly after taking office, adopted by the Abbott government in its first budget in 2014, and Queensland Premier Campbell Newman in 2012, is usually fatal.

Not since 1931 has a first-term federal government failed to secure a second term. This makes it possible to lay the groundwork now for that term, creating the mandate to allow Labor to do what it won’t be able to do in its first.

Saul Eslake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A new dawn over stormy seas: how Labor should manage the economy – https://theconversation.com/a-new-dawn-over-stormy-seas-how-labor-should-manage-the-economy-183518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Phillimore, Executive Director, John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University

Western Australia’s promise to be the kingmaker on federal election night has finally been delivered.

During the count, the rest of the country saw a slow but steady accumulation of Labor gains despite a fall in its primary vote. There was also a solid but unspectacular swing to it on a two party preferred (2PP) measure. But WA moved decisively and dramatically into the Labor camp. This is evident in both votes and seats.

Labor won four seats from the Liberals: Swan, Pearce, Hasluck and Tangney. So it now holds nine of WA’s 15 seats in the House of Representatives – the first time it has held a majority of WA’s federal seats since 1990. The Liberals also look very likely to lose the prized seat of Curtin to a teal independent. This would leave them with just five seats, in a state where they won 11 out of the 16 that were available in 2019.

Read more:
State of the states: six politics experts take us around Australia in the final week of the campaign

Massive swings for Labor’s primary and 2PP votes

These seat gains to Labor come on the back of massive primary and 2PP vote swings. Labor’s first-preference vote in WA jumped from 29.8% in 2019 to about 37.3% this time around.

In 2019, Labor’s primary vote in WA was 3.5 percentage points below its national share of 33.3%. Now, it is 4.5 percentage points above – a turnaround of 8 percentage points.

According to the ABC on Sunday evening, Labor in WA has about 55.3% of the 2PP, compared with about 52.2% nationally. In 2019, Labor won only 44.4% of the 2PP in WA, compared with 48.5% nationally. Labor in WA has gone from second-lowest to the highest 2PP share of any state.

These results reflect massive swings across the state and in individual seats.

In the Liberals’ two most marginal seats, Pearce and Swan, the swings to Labor on a 2PP basis are 14.9% and 13.1% respectively. Electoral boundaries for Pearce were redrawn after the last election, favouring Labor and reducing the total number of WA seats to 15. In Hasluck, Labor’s other target seat, there was an 11.5% swing, which means outgoing Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt has lost his seat.

A few months ago, Premier Mark McGowan talked about Tangney as a possibility before Labor expectations were hosed down. Now, a swing of 12.1% has seen Ben Morton, a close colleague of Scott Morrison, defeated. Meanwhile, Labor’s most marginal seat, Cowan, previously on a margin of 0.9%, now has an 10% buffer.

Labor also looks like it may pick up a third Senate seat for the first time in a half-Senate election, with the Greens also winning a seat. This could tip the balance of power in the Senate.

The final blow to the Liberal Party is the likely loss of Curtin, held by Celia Hammond. Despite a 13.9% margin, it seems to have fallen to independent Kate Chaney.

Four steps to success in the West

We can think of the election outcome in WA as the result of four distinct steps along the electoral map.

First, WA Labor has been a serial underperformer in federal politics, so merely shifting towards the average national Labor vote share was always likely to deliver it at least one seat, possibly two. The lack of contentious issues in the campaign relating to tax or the resources industry, plus the increased attention paid to WA by federal Labor, helped turn the dial in Labor’s direction.

Second, McGowan’s ongoing popularity disproved the notion that state politics don’t translate federally. Clearly, in 2022, they did. Federal Labor was able to capitalise on Labor’s strong brand in those Perth suburbs where it did so well in the 2021 state election. This enabled it to make a second big step forward in its primary vote.

Read more:
Meet Mark McGowan: the WA leader with a staggering 88% personal approval rating

Coalition mistakes

Third, the Coalition federal government shot itself in the foot in 2020 when Morrison criticised the WA government’s border closures, and even more so when it supported Clive Palmer’s High Court case against them.

This was a major contributor to the Liberal Party’s decimation at the state poll in March 2021, leaving it with just two lower house MPs and depriving it of staff and resources, and thus not well positioned to withstand Labor’s strong campaign this time around. In addition, the WA Liberal Party’s failure to address internal organisational and factional issues left it open to a successful challenge in its Curtin heartland.

Fourth, WA’s relatively benign experience of the pandemic, plus Palmer’s unpopularity, meant most disaffected Liberal voters switched directly to Labor rather than to other right-wing parties. The United Australia Party and One Nation between them look to have only won 6.2% of the vote in WA, compared with 9.2% nationally.

Only one WA-based Labor MP, Madeleine King, is regarded as a certainty for a ministerial portfolio. But with federal Labor owing so much to WA, satisfying the ambitions and expectations of his WA MPs, and the broader WA community, will be an early challenge for Anthony Albanese.

John Phillimore worked as an adviser to state Labor governments in Western Australia in the 1980s and between 2001 and 2007

– ref. Swing when you’re winning: how Labor won big in Western Australia – https://theconversation.com/swing-when-youre-winning-how-labor-won-big-in-western-australia-183599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Women were everywhere and nowhere in the 2022 federal election.

The message from the weekend’s vote was that the things that really matter to women and their communities matter at the ballot box, too. Even if they were not part of the conversations the major parties were having.

We know that women have been trending away from the Liberal Party, for almost 40 years. And we also know polls suggest women care about climate change more than men and of course we know they care about being respected and living in safety.

Big wins across the country

The most conspicuous winners on Saturday night were the so-called teal candidates.

From Zoe Daniel and Monique Ryan in Melbourne to Zali Stegall, Sophie Scamps, Kylea Tink and Allegra Spender in Sydney and Kate Chaney in Perth, politics-as-usual is being revolutionised by independent women.

Here we have seen a swathe of well-credentialed professional women secure stunning victories in metropolitan seats that have historically provided the Liberal Party with its power base. This is a trend started by former independent Cathy McGowan in 2013 in Indi. McGowan, who has continued to advise the current crop of candidates, wanted local members who actually listened to their constituents.

The teals made gender equality one of their top priorities, also situating it within an interlinked set of policy positions including anti-corruption and climate change. And they have been rewarded with history-making wins. Their impact on Australia’s political scene is already seismic and we’re barely 24 hours post-election.

Read more:
The big teal steal: independent candidates rock the Liberal vote

Not just teals

But we also saw significant gains from women in other parts of the political spectrum.
Liberal MP Bridget Archer held her seat against the tide, having stood up for integrity issues and LGBTIQ+ rights during the last parliament.

Also in Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie increased her Senate team to two, with the likely election of Tammy Tyrrell.

In Western Australia, Labor’s surprise success stories were female candidates like Zaneta Mascarenhas turning blue seats red. And in Sydney, independent Dai Le showed the major parties they can’t take local communities for granted, after she ousted parachuted Labor star Kristina Keneally.

This election is a stark warning about treating communities with contempt.

What will Labor do now?

We have known for some time the Coalition had “women problems” (Tony Abbott’s first cabinet had just one woman – Julie Bishop – in 2013). These were exacerbated in 2021 with Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape at Parliament House and the dismissive way the Coalition and Scott Morrison responded to concerns.

Anthony Albanese and Labor have pledged to do more. It was noticeable the incoming prime minister made specific references to women in his victory speech and was prominently introduced by incoming Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong.

He has already appointed Linda Burney, the first female Aboriginal woman elected to the House of Representatives, as Indigenous Affairs Minister. Tanya Plibersek is expected to take the lead on women’s policy as Minister for Women.

But what have they promised and it is enough?

Sexual harassment

Labor’s commitment to fully implement all the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 55 Respect@Work recommendations is welcome news to the thousands of women who participated in the March4Justice last year.

We of course now need to watch to make sure this happens the way Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins intended.

Labor will also now have carriage of Jenkins’ other recommendations – to improve the culture at parliament house. This includes Labor Party culture.

Economic security

Labor says Australia should be “leading the world in equality between women and men”.

In policy terms, Labor is pledging to make childcare cheaper and to support women in insecure work. This means that wages in female dominated industries – such as care work – need to lead the policy discussion.

But there’s also a need for greater focus on the gendered nature of poverty and disadvantage. More could be done around fixing the adequacy of income supports. We know that most people who receive parenting payments (more than 90%) are women. More also needs to be done to invest in social housing, in addition to the lack of affordable housing over all.

It is reasonably clear the new Albanese government recognises the structural barriers to genuine equality. But with the Coalition’s stage three tax cuts totalling $15.7 billion annually backed by Labor – a legislated change that will overwhelmingly benefit high-income men – it is difficult to see how much-needed structural reform is to be funded and implemented.

Read more:
Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands

Violence against women and children

Labor says it is making a “record” $3 billion investment into women’s safety. As part of this, it is pledging $77 million on consent and respectful relationships education. It will also spend $157 million for more community workers to support women in crisis and put ten days of domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards.

Policymakers frequently fail to grasp the depth, complexity, and impact of violence on women and children. There are also clear links between women’s safety and economic security, including the need to address income support, homelessness, and housing.

The economic cost of violence against women and children is huge, but the policy debate is constantly framed in terms of money spent. We will need to watch this area closely for signs of real progress and lives being saved and better supported.

Who are ‘women voters’?

Finally, we also need to be cautious about how we speak about “women” and “women voters”.

An effective gender agenda needs to take account of the diversity of women’s interests.
Analysts do women a tremendous disservice by supposing that women are a single voting block or socially homogeneous group.

Diversity is something feminists have long attempted to place squarely at the centre of policy discussion. This includes economic and cultural differences in a population in which diversity is not a politically “marginal” issue but simply a description of mainstream Australian society.

Women have been angry, hurt and disappointed by major party politics in recent years. The results of the weekend show change at the ballot box is possible. We can only hope it now translates into change where it is needed most.

Camilla Nelson has received funding from the Whitlam Institute.

– ref. Women stormed the 2022 election in numbers too big to ignore: what has Labor pledged on gender? – https://theconversation.com/women-stormed-the-2022-election-in-numbers-too-big-to-ignore-what-has-labor-pledged-on-gender-183369

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Williams, Associate Professor, Griffith University, Griffith University

There’s an ancient observance in Chinese history that an earthquake is an ominous omen of coming political change. When the ground shakes it’s said the heavens are withdrawing an emperor’s mandate and encouraging people to rise up against a dying dynasty.

A few days ago, a sizeable quake shook Macquarie Island 1,500 km off Tasmania. While that island is hardly Canberra, Australia’s own electoral gods – the good burghers of the capital cities’ suburbs – nonetheless forced a tectonic shift in Australian politics on Saturday.

The aftershocks are likely to reverberate around the nation’s party system for years to come. Labor leader Anthony Albanese may still form majority government but, even if not, a few trends remain clear.

Political realignments

The first is the devastation of the Liberal Party. There was a 6% swing against the Coalition but this is largely a Liberal, not Coalition or National party problem. That’s roughly the size of the quake that demolished Paul Keating’s Labor government in 1996 and delivered an electoral “realignment” where “aspirational” working class Australians first moved to the Liberal-National Coalition.

Saturday’s movement from the Liberals (and, to a lesser degree, Labor) to the teals and Greens across the suburbs suggests another political realignment has occurred.

A second trend is the electorate’s rejection of outgoing Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s personal “bulldozer” style – a leadership type he foolishly acknowledged in the final week of the campaign.

But this is a Liberal problem as much as Morrison’s: when a party puts all its electoral eggs in the leadership basket (and encourages its leader to behave presidentially via “captain’s pick” pre-selections), the party has nothing left to sell when those leadership eggs are broken.

Existential crises

Third, and even more critically, Saturday was a rejection of a Liberal party that had become so conservative in its social, climate and wage policy that voters in the inner and middle suburbs could no longer stomach it. Only in the outer suburbs, provinces and regions (especially in Queensland and Tasmania, and particularly among older, male and blue-and fluoro-collar voters) did the conservative vote hold up.

This leads to a fourth theme – an existential crisis as to who the Liberals are and whom they represent. With moderate and progressive Liberals, most commonly in safe and leafy Liberal seats, wiped out on Saturday in a red wave in Perth, a green wave in Brisbane and a teal wave in Sydney and Melbourne, the next Liberal party room is likely to be the most conservative since the Menzies’ era.

There is a great irony here. At a moment when (especially younger, educated urban and suburban) Australians have jumped to the centre-left and demanded action on climate change, cost-of-living and government integrity, a now-battered Liberal party – likely to be led by the very conservative Queenslander Peter Dutton – may be more resistant to the progressive zeitgeist than ever.

If the Liberals cannot reconcile its deepening conservatism – based in Queensland where the Liberal National Party lost only two seats in Brisbane while maintaining all regional representation from Caboolture to Cape York – with an increasingly progressive electorate across Australia’s inner and middle suburbs, its longer-term prospects come into question.

Read more:
State of the states: six politics experts take us around Australia in the final week of the campaign

Moreover, given the Liberals have seen support spin off in three directions – to Labor, the teals and to the populist right of Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer (especially in Queensland) – the party that has governed federally for 51 of the past 73 years might be out of office for more than a decade.

While the Senate count is far from complete, it already appears Hanson is struggling to be re-elected. It’s also evident that the Liberal Democrats under former premier Campbell Newman, as well as the United Australia Party, have spectacularly fizzled despite Palmer spending millions.

Labor faces its own threats

But Labor faces its own existential threat in suffering a primary vote locked in the low 30s across Australia, and in the high 20s in Queensland. With fewer than one in three Australians now opting for Labor – and just over one in four Queenslanders – hundreds of thousands of capital city dwellers now see the Greens and teals as the only forces able to deliver on climate, integrity and equality.

This is certainly the case in Brisbane where the Greens – building on recent Brisbane City Council and state seat successes – have picked up the western Brisbane electorate of Ryan, and are set to win Griffith and Brisbane, too. If so, the departures of up-and-coming Labor MP Terri Butler and Liberal MP Trevor Evans will be a mammoth loss to the parliament.

Labor’s identity and mission are also in question. Albanese, while only the fourth Labor opposition leader to take office since the end of World War II, is the first to come to the top job without a comprehensive platform of policy reform.

Last, this election reveals that Australian voters, wracked with fears over the cost-of-living, unrepresentative leadership and weak climate policy, were indeed in the mood for change. But that change, toward the Greens and independents, took a turn few expected, and did not occur at all in regional Queensland.

Once again, the 2022 federal election reminds us that Queensland is indeed different.

Paul Williams is a research associate with the T J Ryan Foundation.

– ref. Queensland bucks the national trend (again) and this spells trouble for both the Liberals and ALP – https://theconversation.com/queensland-bucks-the-national-trend-again-and-this-spells-trouble-for-both-the-liberals-and-alp-183597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong

The most amazing thing about the election was the very low primary vote for the ALP and the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party has lost seats to both Labor and the “teal” independents.

But the National Party has lost no seats (although Flynn is still very close) and its vote has declined only marginally. The problem with calculating swings for or against the Nationals is that candidates in Queensland stand for the Liberal National Party and then choose membership of either the Liberal or Nationals party room.

So the result for the Nationals has been very much steady state with essentially no real change since the previous election. This isn’t necessarily surprising as the ALP struggles to achieve 20% of the vote in many rural electorates.

If there’s to be a significant challenge to a National incumbent then it needs to come from either a minor party, as has happened in two seats in the New South Wales parliament with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (SFF), or from a high profile independent.

At the 2022 election there were a number of independents in National seats, but none had sufficient votes to make a significant challenge. This is not surprising as most National electorates are geographically very large and independents invariably have a power base in only part of the electorate.

Minor parties flop

As for the various minor parties – SFF, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and the United Australia Party (UAP) – none have performed very well at this election.

The PHON vote went up overall as the party ran candidates in more electorates than 2019. However, in those electorates where PHON had run previously its vote tended to decline, especially in Queensland.

Despite its massive campaigning the UAP vote stayed under 5%. It made no real impact.

Coalition holds onto regional and rural seats

One thing worth noting is the Nationals performed well in Victoria, with a slight increase in its primary vote. There was a swing to the Nationals in both Gippsland and Mallee.

When one looks at the rest of Australia, the Liberals successfully held onto their rural seats in both South Australia (Barker and Grey) and Western Australia (O’Connor, Forrest and Durack). If one then looks at Tasmania, which is largely regional in nature, there has been a swing of around 2% to the Liberals.

There are some interesting implications in these election results. The first is that the balance between the Nationals and the Liberals in the Coalition has changed, so that in any future arrangement, the Nationals will have a more prominent voice. This assumes, of course, that the coalition continues now that both parties are in opposition.

The second is the Liberals have been far more successful in rural and regional Australia than in the cities. This will also shift the balance for the Liberals between city and country, in favour of the country.

At the same time, the largest contingent of Coalition members in the parliament will come from Queensland and the Liberal Party may well be led by a Queenslander.

The Liberals now largely represent outer suburban and regional Australia. This is where its strength lies. It will need to decide on its future strategy. Does it seek to rebuild the Howard “broad church” by attempting to win back the seats lost to the teal independents, or does it attempt to remake itself more explicitly as a regional/outer suburban party?

City and bush divide

This election seems to indicate a major division opening up between the city and the bush. This coincides with a siloing of the population, such that the affluent increasingly do not rub shoulders with the less well off.

Labor will not make any inroads into the bush in the foreseeable future, beyond the regional seats it already holds such as Bendigo and Ballarat.

The Liberals may have to look at waving goodbye to what it once considered to be its “blue ribbon” seats. This election may indicate Australians are not moving closer together but further part.

Perhaps Australia is approaching a crossroads.

Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council..

– ref. Nationals vote holds steady. Will the Coalition become a party of the regions and outer suburbs? – https://theconversation.com/nationals-vote-holds-steady-will-the-coalition-become-a-party-of-the-regions-and-outer-suburbs-182856

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The rout of Scott Morrison goes beyond the defeat of his government. It has left behind a Liberal party that is now a flightless bird.

The parliamentary party has had one wing torn asunder, and its path to recovery will be difficult and painful.

It has lost a clutch of moderates, and with them the person who would have been potentially the most unifying figure in opposition, Josh Frydenberg.

Peter Dutton, now the most likely next leader, is divisive within the party and community; he would wield a hard fist against the new government but have trouble rebuilding his own side and changing his style.

Meanwhile the postmortem will get ugly. As outgoing minister Jane Hume put it succinctly on Sky News, “We should gut the chicken properly before we read the entrails – and there’ll be a lot of gutting.”

The Coalition’s loss goes to multiple factors, but Morrison personally carries much of the blame. On Saturday, he was torn down by a combination of quiet Australians and noisy ones.

His arrogant, or ill-informed, assumption seems to have been the teals were just a bunch of irritating women, and that professional people – including and especially female voters – in traditional Liberal seats would buy the government’s insulting argument these candidates were “fakes”.

They weren’t fakes – they were the genuine article. They embodied the thinking of many people, who previously voted Liberal and had concerns about climate, integrity and gender equity. But especially, and fundamentally, the rise of these candidates was a sign of community frustration and anger at the way politics is being played.

Morrison thought that whatever he lost to the teals – and almost no one expected him to lose anything like this much – he would pick up with the outer suburban tradies, the “quiet” ones.

Don hi-vis jackets as much as often as possible. Get your advancers to organise photo ops so you could put on aprons in coffee and food-serving places around the country. Kick footy balls. Oh, and install Katherine Deves in Warringah to dog-whistle on the trans issue to electorates many kilometres away.

Well, the tradies turned out to be harder voters to move or keep than the inner city professionals, and Morrison lost out in that transaction. The tradies are more worried about cost of living than culture wars.

For some time Morrison, reading polls and focus group reports and hearing from some alarmed backbenchers, was trying to catch up with the political zeitgeist. But it was too little too late, and moreover his efforts had unintended consequences.

He negotiated a deal with Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce for the net-zero 2050 emissions target. But the revised climate policy lacked medium-term ambition and so didn’t combat the teals. It also set off a “climate war” among Coalition troops and supporters, with a sharp negative reaction from the right.

Recognising his own deep unpopularity – he couldn’t set foot in many Liberal seats during the campaign – Morrison promised to be more empathetic if re-elected. However his last-minute “bulldozer gear change” narrative became a complete muddle, convincing nobody.

In the run-up to the election, with the polls showing the government was flagging, the Liberals put their hopes in Morrison’s reputation as a campaigner.

But that reputation was always over-egged – the 2019 “miracle” win came as much from the unpopularity of Labor’s policies and then leader, Bill Shorten.

Morrison was banking on wearing down Anthony Albanese during a relatively long six-week campaign. The government would play the man, and Albanese certainly made that easier with his mistakes.

But the electorate had also decided to play the man, and that man wasn’t Albanese. Voters had made up their minds against the government before the campaign, and many were given a middle-ground landing spot by the teals.

The election delivered lethal variations of the maxim that all politics is local. Labor’s bid to install former senator Kristina Keneally in the Sydney seat of Fowler was rejected by the voters, who likely would have got behind a well-known local Asian-Australian candidate, lawyer Tu Le, if Labor had put her up.

On a much bigger scale, Western Australians have had their revenge over Morrison’s attacks on their state during the pandemic (joining Clive Palmer’s border challenge; drawing an unfortunate comparison with cave people). Something of the same reaction has hit the Liberal vote in Victoria, where many people resented the attacks on Premier Dan Andrews.

Albanese, Australia’s 31st prime minister, was, it turns out, born under a lucky political star. Leave aside the log cabin story. In the days of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor governments, he wasn’t talked of as a likely future prime minister.

If Shorten had won the last election, Albanese, now 59, would never have reached the leadership. Time would have been against him.

Uncharismatic but dogged and canny, Albanese kept his nerve and held the party together over a difficult term dominated by a pandemic that initially helped incumbent governments and sidelined oppositions.

In an unwelcome byelection, he held the seat of Eden-Monaro, when a loss could have posed a threat to his leadership. He saw off mutterings as colleagues grew nervous about whether he could deliver government.

He set, and stayed with, the small-target strategy. He weathered the vicious and unrelenting attacks from the Murdoch media, in their newspapers and from Sky News commentators.

All the while, Morrison was doing for him what Shorten did for Morrison in 2019: alienating voters.

We don’t yet know whether Albanese will be in majority or minority government, although Labor’s chance of a majority were said to be improving on Sunday. If it were minority government, there are so many crossbenchers he wouldn’t have any trouble securing confidence and supply and passing legislation.

As leader of the house in the minority Gillard government, Albanese is experienced in dealing with crossbenchers, which would stand him in good stead.

There is speculation about the pressure he will be under, including from inflated Greens (at least one extra in the lower house and perhaps more) and the teals, to be more ambitious on climate policy.

But he needs to act with caution. Trust is low in the Australian electorate, and it is not a bad rule – unless circumstances change substantially – to say what you’ll do and do what you say.

“I want to change the country, I want to change the way politics works in this country,” Albanese declared on Sunday. To the extent he can do either, establishing and maintaining trust, in himself and in his government, will be vital.

He is promising to gather premiers and chief ministers together soon, which is a sound move. The federation is in need of some greasing.

While main attention is always on the prime minister, the incoming Labor government is fortunate in having a strong frontbench, several of whom have been in office before.

Sworn in on Monday, Albanese will fly off to Tuesday’s QUAD, the highly significant grouping of the leaders of United States, Japan, India and Australia. Although on one level the timing might look inconvenient, it is actually extraordinarily fortuitous.

Albanese, with little experience in foreign affairs, now has the immediate opportunity not just to participate in the QUAD’s collective discussion, but to have bilateral meetings with Japan’s Fumio Kishida, India’s Narendra Modi and US president Joe Biden.

It’s icing on the cake as he starts his term.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison was routed by combination of quiet Australians and noisy ones – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-was-routed-by-combination-of-quiet-australians-and-noisy-ones-183600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne

Labor’s win in Saturday’s election heralds real change in health policy. Although Labor had a small-target strategy, with limited big spending commitments, its victory represents a value shift to a party committed to equity and Medicare, and, potentially, a style shift to a hands-on, equity-oriented health minister.

Labor’s shadow health minister, Mark Butler, is expected to be the new health minister, subject to a reshuffle caused by two Labor shadow ministers losing their seats.

Butler is very different from his predecessor. He was Australia’s first minister for mental health and ageing in the Gillard government. He also held the equity-focused ministries of housing, homelessness, and social inclusion. He has written a book about ageing in Australia, published by Melbourne University Press.

The new minister faces two urgent policy priorities: primary care and COVID.

Fixing primary care

Outgoing health minister Greg Hunt released an unfunded strategy paper on budget night. It aimed to improve primary care – a person’s first point of contact with the health system, usually their GP or practice nurses. The paper had languished on his desk for months and was the result of years of consultation and consensus-building.

One of the largest and most important Labor commitments during the campaign was almost A$1 billion over four years for primary care reform, about A$250 million in a full year.

The funding commitment is cast broadly, promising to improve patient access to GP-led multidisciplinary team care, including nursing and allied health and after-hours care; greater patient affordability; and better management of complex and chronic conditions.

Presumably, a key way this will be effected will be through voluntary patient enrolment. A patient would enrol with a practice, and the practice would get an annual payment for that enrolment. This was promised for people over 70 in the 2019–20 budget but not delivered.

This new policy is a welcome start for reform in primary care and signals the importance that a Labor government attaches to the sector.

The Strengthening Medicare Fund was only sketched out in broad terms before the election, and provides insight into the new ministerial style. The details of the policy will be thrashed out in a taskforce which will include key stakeholders. Most importantly, the taskforce will be chaired by the minister – no hiding behind consultants; he or she will hold the hose.

Read more:
Labor’s health package won’t ‘strengthen’ Medicare unless it includes these 3 things

Reducing COVID deaths

Another crucial early challenge for the minister will be addressing the continuing COVID pandemic.

COVID deaths continue: three times as many people have died this year than in the previous two. The coalition delegitimised any form of action, including mask wearing and vaccine mandates, as part of its undermining of state public health measures, especially action by Labor states.

The prevalence of third dose vaccinations, necessary for adequate protection from Omicron, sits at about two-thirds of the over-16 population, much lower in the under-16s, meaning that many in the population are not protected.

Public hospitals are bursting at the seams, with staff overwhelmed. This needs urgent attention, and the Coalition strategy of ignoring it and saying it was someone else’s problem, must be dumped. Labor vowed to “step up the national strategy” late in the election campaign.

Read more:
Reducing COVID transmission by 20% could save 2,000 Australian lives this year

Aged care support

Hopefully Labor’s shadow aged care minister, Clare O’Neil, will continue in this role post-election. She proved more than a match for her hapless opponent, Richard Colbeck.

Labor made big commitments in aged care, creating a significant point of difference with the Coalition, despite the Coalition’s investments in the 2021–22 budget.

In addition to the Coalition commitments, Labor promised 24/7 registered nurse coverage in residential aged care facilities, and to support a wage rise for aged care workers. The latter is particularly important because without a wages uplift, the staff shortages in the sector will continue.

Read more:
Labor’s plans for aged care are targeted but fall short of what’s needed

A new approach

Labor won’t engage in climate denialism or use climate policy as a political wedge.

Recognising and addressing climate change is an important issue for the health sector and, of course, the community more broadly as the teal surge and the Greens’ wins demonstrated.

Labor has committed to establishing a centre for prevention and disease control, which should provide a framework for addressing social and economic determinants of health.

Potentially as important in terms of policy style are Labor’s public service policies. The “consultocracy” which thrived under the Liberals will be shown the door, replaced by public servants doing the job the public service has always been available to do.

Read more:
First Nations people in the NT receive just 16% of the Medicare funding of an average Australian

Obviously, a new Labor government will not be able to be meet all the community’s pent-up aspirations in a single term.

Nevertheless, it is disappointing Labor did not commit to phasing in universal dental care – the crucial missing piece of Australia’s universal health coverage.

Butler and his colleagues have a huge agenda on their plates. Starting with primary care is a good first focus, as without those foundations in place, the whole system cannot work well.

Stephen Duckett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labor has a huge health agenda ahead of it. What policies should we expect? – https://theconversation.com/labor-has-a-huge-health-agenda-ahead-of-it-what-policies-should-we-expect-182764

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

The federal election result is highly problematic for the Liberal Party. Aside from finding itself on the opposition benches for the first time in nine years, the Liberal Party lost support in what were once its strongest electorates in Victoria. The biggest blow of all came in losing former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong.

It’s a devastating result that must now start a conversation about the party’s policy agenda at the state and national level.

Read more:
A narrow Labor win and a ‘teal bath’: all the facts and figures on the 2022 election

How Victoria’s electoral map was reshaped

Victoria, like Western Australia, had been the subject of a routine electoral redistribution before this election by the Australian Electoral Commission. This resulted in a new seat being created to the west of Melbourne, Hawke, to reflect the state’s changing population. In the process, it redrew the boundaries of many seats.

Even before the campaign began, the Liberal Party looked to be in trouble in Victoria. At the national level, opinion polls were showing Labor ahead on the all-important two party preferred vote.

Despite this, the experience of 2019, when polls got it wrong, injected some doubt as to whether Labor could really win the election. For example, one nightmare situation for Labor could have been enjoying a boost in the support in seats it already held, but being unable to win seats from the Coalition.

The possibility of this occurring was quickly extinguished on election night as Chisholm, the most marginal seat held by the government in Victoria, showed a strong swing to Labor. A two-party preferred vote swing of over 8% meant Gladys Liu could not defend the seat, held by a margin of just 0.5%.

The story continued in other parts of the state such as the seat of Deakin, which covers suburbs including Ringwood and Croydon in eastern Melbourne. It is held by right faction luminary Michael Sukkar but, with a two-party swing of almost 6% to Labor, looks likely to be a Labor gain.

Read more:
Is this the end of the two-party system in Australia? The Greens, teals and others shock the major parties

In the inner-metropolitan seat of Higgins, Liberal incumbent Katie Allen’s primary vote fell by over 6%. The seat, once held by Treasurer Peter Costello and then Kelly O’Dwyer, is now looking almost certain to be won by Labor.

Even in the once-relatively safe seat of Menzies, which was previously held by Kevin Andrews, the Liberal party’s primary vote fell by over 9%. The candidate who replaced Andrews, Keith Wolahan, must now wait for the final votes to be counted to know his fate because, at the time of writing, he was ahead by just 45 votes.

There were some rare bright spots for the Coalition in Victoria. The Nationals were able to defend their seats while, in the outer-metropolitan electorate of La Trobe, Jason Wood has strengthened the margin he holds the seat by over 3%.

Inner Melbourne turns teal

One major development in Victoria was the performance of the teal independent candidates, especially in the inner metropolitan seats where the Liberal Party had performed very strongly over many decades.

The electorate of Goldstein had been held by the Liberal Party since its creation in 1984, and has been represented by MPs who became senior ministers, including David Kemp (1990-2004) and Andrew Robb (2004-2016). The incumbent, Tim Wilson, was defending a healthy two-party preferred margin of 7.8%. However, this evaporated as independent Zoe Daniel won the seat after the Liberal’s primary vote collapsed by over 13%.

The seat of Kooyong, which was held by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, also fell to a teal independent, Monique Ryan, who finished with a higher primary vote than the incumbent.

The defeat in Kooyong has added significance. This was the seat that was held by the Liberal Party’s founder and longest serving prime minister, Robert Menzies. The defeat of the party here indicates its policy agenda is no longer resonating with what was once its core constituency.

Where to from here?

The losses in Victoria for the Liberal Party pose significant challenges. At a national level, the loss of Frydenberg, Allen and Wilson deprives the party of insights from Victorians, something that it can ill afford when trying to arrest the slide in popularity in this state.

The absence of Frydenberg in particular will also diminish the experience the party has, especially in the Treasury portfolio, and will likely have implications for the party’s policy direction.

The absence of these MPs, as well as the possible absence of Sukkar, also has important organisational implications for the party at the broader state level. The Liberal Party had significant party infrastructure that was built around the inner metropolitan electorates. Kooyong, Deakin and Higgins all had “200” clubs, which are important fundraising bodies for the Liberal Party. It remains to be seen how the party can continue to fund-raise in the same way without a local MP.

In electoral terms, the Liberal Party has gone backwards in Victoria, losing seats to not just its main rival in Labor, but also new challengers in the form of the teal independents. It will need some serious soul-searching to find its way back from here.

Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Victoria turns red and teal as Liberals are all but vanquished in greater Melbourne – https://theconversation.com/victoria-turns-red-and-teal-as-liberals-are-all-but-vanquished-in-greater-melbourne-183595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Lee, Associate Professor, Indigenous Leadership, Swinburne University of Technology

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s acceptance speech opened with a generous acknowledgement of Traditional Owners and a full commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The new government also celebrates the first female Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney, as another significant and historic occasion.

Albanese’s commitment to the Uluru Statement from the heart made it clear it is an exciting time to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and participate in building our democracy.

No other election victory speech has placed Indigenous Peoples as central to the incoming government’s policy. Labor’s win thus represents a positive turning point in the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and other Australians.

What does this mean for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?

An Indigenous Voice to Parliament and Government is one of three aspects of the Uluru Statement, alongside truth-telling and Treaty.

In 2020 I sat on the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice. This was the federal government consultative process that put together the framework for how Indigenous peoples could have a say in parliament and government. Across 2020 and 2021, the working groups for Indigenous Voice heard from almost 9,500 Indigenous and other Australians who offered their thoughts on how a Voice to Parliament might work in practice.

Yet, Labor’s track record in living up to the big policy and social moments is patchy. For example, the 2008 National Apology for Stolen Generations was a bold move to recognise the trauma of colonisation in separating families.

However since that speech, there has been significant increase of Indigenous children in out of home care. This growth jumped in 2008 with the establishment of Close the Gap and has been a consistent trend throughout the Labor and Liberal years since the Apology.

Two options

Instituting an Indigenous Voice under Labor can go one of two ways.

Labor could implement the framework for Indigenous Voice designed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. Our design was tested in wide-ranging public feedback from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. This can be implemented without the need for constitutional reform. This Voice to Parliament would not depend on anything more than the creation of an Act of parliament. This would constitute a national Indigenous body that represents local and regional Indigenous Voices from country to city.

The other pathway is constitutional enshrinement of an Indigenous Voice, which would require a referendum.

We do not need to have constitutional enshrinement of an Indigenous Voice to begin the process of government and parliament deeply listening to Indigenous Peoples for equity in decision-making. Indeed, it is better that we hold off on enshrinement and let the establishment of Indigenous Voice work out the foundations of a historic relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the rest of Australia.

I am full of hope that Indigenous Voice to Parliament and Government will be a powerful example of how we maintain democracy in Australia. If a parliament and government is from the people and for a people, then Indigenous Voice is a perfect place to test how we hear and respond to issues that are representative. Indigenous Voice is not a third chamber, but rather the process in which our gaps of relationship-building are filled.

Read more:
The Uluru Statement must be core to promises made by all parties in the lead-up to the federal election

Hope for the future

People are hurting, through fire, flood or pandemic, and the previous government have badly let us down in addressing this. Politics is not just the act of leadership – Indigenous Voice can be a place where harmonious and practical advice can demonstrate how working together has mutual benefits.

It is exciting to think how far we might come as an Australian population when we look to Indigenous-led processes of inclusion as a model for those other marginalised voices. It is this basis of a healthy and connected relationship to each other, and to Country, that we might have the makings of reaching a democratic fullness of parliament and government.

This election has been surprising, because we could not assume obvious winners in the choice of multiple opinions, parties, independents and positions. What has been beautiful is the idea that an Indigenous Voice is no longer a wedge issue, but something genuine of our Australian character to stand for – a right to have a fair go.

Dr Emma Lee has consulted on the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice. Dr. Lee has also received funding from the Australian Research Council Grant DP200101394 Making policy reform work: a comparative analysis of social procurement.

– ref. Prime Minister Albanese’s victory speech brings hope for First Nations Peoples’ role in democracy – https://theconversation.com/prime-minister-albaneses-victory-speech-brings-hope-for-first-nations-peoples-role-in-democracy-183454

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, CEO, Climateworks Centre

Public concern over climate change was a clear factor in the election of Australia’s new Labor government. Incoming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed to action on the issue, declaring on Saturday night: “Together we can take advantage of the opportunity for Australia to be a renewable energy superpower”.

Following Labor’s win, frontbencher Richard Marles said the new government would stick to the climate policies it took to the election. But it’s not yet clear if Labor can form a majority in the lower house, or will rely on support from the teal independents and Greens MPs – all of whom campaigned heavily for stronger climate action.

Independent Monique Ryan, a pro-climate teal MP projected to win Kooyong, on Sunday declared she would work with a minority Labor government if it went further on climate policy – including ramping up its 2030 emissions target. Other crossbenchers are likely to take a similar stance.

Labor’s climate and energy policies provide an important foundation for progress. But there are some sectors of the economy that still need far more focus. So what might the next parliament bring on climate action?

Read more:
Scott Morrison defeated – Labor to govern in minority or majority

Towards net-zero

Saturday’s federal poll was the first where Australia had a national commitment to net-zero emissions. Whoever won government faced the task of normalising the target within government and across the economy, and accelerating rapid real-world emissions cuts.

Under the Morrison government, Australia pledged to reach net-zero by 2050. But our research, conducted with the CSIRO, has shown Australia could get there by 2035.

Such a target would be consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5℃. It would also unlock our competitive advantage in a net-zero world – one where we can be a major player in exporting green energy and other low-emissions commodities.

Labor’s Powering Australia plan would reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030, based on 2005 levels.

Analysis shows Labor’s proposed target, while far more ambitious than the previous government’s, is consistent with 2℃ of global warming. This is not yet in line with the Paris Agreement goal for “well below” 2℃ warming.

Read more:
A narrow Labor win and a ‘teal bath’: all the facts and figures on the 2022 election

In minority government, Labor would come under pressure from the crossbench to adopt a stronger 2030 goal. Incumbent Warringah independent Zali Steggall, for example, is calling for at least 60% emissions reduction by 2030, and the Greens want even more.

Greens and teal independents are aligned with Labor on legislating Australia’s net-zero emissions target and reinvigorating institutions such as the Climate Change Authority.

A climate change bill, which Steggall and others championed in the last parliament, is more comprehensive. It would provide legislated timeframes for action on climate change, and implement a process ensuring targets are in line with the science.

The teals are likely to support Labor’s plans to standardise company reporting on matters such as climate risk and emissions. The move brings Australia in line with international best practice and will bring substantial benefits.

So too will Labor’s commitment to net-zero emissions in the federal public service by 2030, which will stimulate demand for low-carbon goods and services.

A gap to be addressed by the Labor government is creating roadmaps to net-zero for sectors and key regions. These could be integrated into Labor’s proposed National Reconstruction Fund, and should be devised in collaboration with the states and industry, as well as communities and workers affected by the global shift to net-zero.

The electricity sector produces about one-third of Australia’s emissions. The teals and Labor both went to the election aiming for renewable energy to comprise 80% of the electricity mix by 2030, which is about the pace of change needed.

Two major new Labor policies will be the basis for this:

• Rewiring the Nation: includes A$20 billion in new electricity transmission infrastructure. If designed sensibly, the investment will unlock further private investment

• Powering the Regions: investment in ultra low-cost solar banks, community batteries and improving energy efficiency in existing industries.

Yet more must be done – for example, more planning and new energy market rules. These should ensure the future energy system is no bigger than it needs to be, and that zero-emissions energy by 2035 is produced at least cost.

Read more:
No, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy

Spotlight on industry

The Greens and teals want to halve emissions from Australia’s industrial sector by 2030. Labor’s current plans for industry aren’t that specific – and a crossbench with the balance of power is likely to pressure Labor in this area.

Labor’s policies on industry emissions comprise two main building blocks:

• National Reconstruction Fund: $3 billion from the fund will aid industry’s low-carbon transition, including for manufacturing of green metals such as steel and aluminium

• a revised “safeguard mechanism” requiring big polluters to reduce emissions.

Australia’s energy-intensive industries are already planning their response to shifting global markets. Labor must help these industries manage the change at the scale and pace required.

A broader transport plan

In transport, Labor has proposed removing taxes and duties on lower-cost electric vehicles – making them cheaper – and adopting Australia’s first electric vehicle strategy.

The party has already committed to 75% of all new Commonwealth fleet cars being low- or no-emissions by 2025. The teals want 76% of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. The Greens would also push for a far stronger electric vehicle policy.

Labor will also take steps to establish high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast. But its transport policy essentially ends there. It could do more on public and active transport, as well as decarbonising freight and aviation.

A broader transport strategy – especially involving infrastructure planning and investment – would help the transport sector move towards net-zero.

Strip emissions from buildings

Labor’s Housing Australia Future Fund is rightly focused on building new social and affordable housing, but is silent on net-zero. All governments have agreed to a zero-carbon buildings trajectory – now it’s time the federal government worked proactively with the states to achieve this.

The forthcoming review of the National Construction Code is a chance to bring in higher energy performance standards for new buildings.

But existing homes and business premises also need attention. A package of funds and regulations to drive electrification and energy performance gains there would bring lower energy bills and better health outcomes to many Australians.

A sustainable land sector

Labor policies will support innovation in agriculture, including reducing methane emissions from livestock and other carbon farming opportunities. There will also be crossbench support for increased tree planting and soil carbon storage, as well as more spending on low-carbon agriculture practices and technologies.

Under Australia’s carbon credit scheme, landholders are granted carbon credits for activities such as retaining and growing vegetation. Serious questions have been raised over the integrity of the scheme, and dealing with these issues should be a priority for the new government.

Many of Australia’s natural systems, such as rivers and other ecosystems, are stressed or near failure. The land sector both contributes to this alarming trend and can be part of the solution, and will be badly affected if the problems are not addressed.

Many farmers have shifted their practices in response to climate and environmental threats. But the new government should create a roadmap to place the land sector in a wider environmental context. This would ensure the sector seizes investment opportunities and plays its part in a sustainable future.

Such a plan would also help Australian agriculture shore up its share of global food exports in a world increasingly demanding low-emissions products.

A bigger, bolder vision is needed

The new Labor government has three years to steer Australia in a world that expects – and badly needs – every nation to take rapid climate action across the economy.

Australians have voted for a parliament with a stronger climate action agenda. More will be needed beyond the headline measures.

The onus is on all Australians help shape and implement these changes and ensure the nation not just survives, but thrives in a warmer world.

Read more:
‘A new climate politics’: the 47th parliament must be a contest of ideas for a hotter, low-carbon Australia

Anna Skarbek is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute. Anna is on the board of the Green Building Council of Australia, the Centre for New Energy Technologies and Sentient Impact Group. She is a member of the Blueprint Institute’s strategic advisory council and the Grattan Institute’s energy program reference panel.

Anna Malos is part of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute.

– ref. The teals and Greens will turn up the heat on Labor’s climate policy. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/the-teals-and-greens-will-turn-up-the-heat-on-labors-climate-policy-heres-what-to-expect-183532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, CEO, Climateworks Centre

Public concern over climate change was a clear factor in the election of Australia’s new Labor government. Incoming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed to action on the issue, declaring on Saturday night: “Together we can take advantage of the opportunity for Australia to be a renewable energy superpower”.

Following Labor’s win, frontbencher Richard Marles said the new government would stick to the climate policies it took to the election. But it’s not yet clear if Labor can form a majority in the lower house, or will rely on support from the teal independents and Greens MPs – all of whom campaigned heavily for stronger climate action.

New Kooyong independent Monique Ryan, one of a host of new pro-climate teal MPs, on Sunday declared she would work with a minority Labor government if it went further on climate policy, including ramping up its 2030 emissions target. Other crossbenchers are likely to take a similar stance.

Labor’s climate and energy policies provide an important foundation for progress. But there are some sectors of the economy that still need far more focus. So what might the next parliament bring on climate action?

Read more:
Scott Morrison defeated – Labor to govern in minority or majority

Towards net-zero

Saturday’s federal poll was the first where Australia had a national commitment to net-zero emissions. Whoever won government faced the task of normalising the target within government and across the economy, and accelerating rapid real-world emissions cuts.

Under the Morrison government, Australia pledged to reach net-zero by 2050. But our research, conducted with the CSIRO, has shown Australia could get there by 2035.

Such a target would be consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5℃. It would also unlock our competitive advantage in a net-zero world – one where we can be a major player in exporting green energy and other low-emissions commodities.

Labor’s Powering Australia plan would reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030, based on 2005 levels.

Analysis shows Labor’s proposed target, while far more ambitious than the previous government’s, is consistent with 2℃ of global warming. This is not yet in line with the Paris Agreement goal for “well below” 2℃ warming.

Read more:
A narrow Labor win and a ‘teal bath’: all the facts and figures on the 2022 election

In minority government, Labor would come under pressure from the crossbench to adopt a stronger 2030 goal. Incumbent Warringah independent Zali Steggall, for example, is calling for at least 60% emissions reduction by 2030, and the Greens want even more.

Greens and teal independents are aligned with Labor on legislating Australia’s net-zero emissions target and reinvigorating institutions such as the Climate Change Authority.

A climate change bill, which Steggall and others championed in the last parliament, is more comprehensive. It would provide legislated timeframes for action on climate change, and implement a process ensuring targets are in line with the science.

The teals are likely to support Labor’s plans to standardise company reporting on matters such as climate risk and emissions. The move brings Australia in line with international best practice and will bring substantial benefits.

So too will Labor’s commitment to net-zero emissions in the federal public service by 2030, which will stimulate demand for low-carbon goods and services.

A gap to be addressed by the Labor government is creating roadmaps to net-zero for sectors and key regions. These could be integrated into Labor’s proposed National Reconstruction Fund, and should be devised in collaboration with the states and industry, as well as communities and workers affected by the global shift to net-zero.

The electricity sector produces about one-third of Australia’s emissions. The teals and Labor both went to the election aiming for renewable energy to comprise 80% of the electricity mix by 2030, which is about the pace of change needed.

Two major new Labor policies will be the basis for this:

• Rewiring the Nation: includes A$20 billion in new electricity transmission infrastructure. If designed sensibly, the investment will unlock further private investment

• Powering the Regions: investment in ultra low-cost solar banks, community batteries and improving energy efficiency in existing industries.

Yet more must be done – for example, more planning and new energy market rules. These should ensure the future energy system is no bigger than it needs to be, and that zero-emissions energy by 2035 is produced at least cost.

Read more:
No, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy

Spotlight on industry

The Greens and teals want to halve emissions from Australia’s industrial sector by 2030. Labor’s current plans for industry aren’t that specific – and a crossbench with the balance of power is likely to pressure Labor in this area.

Labor’s policies on industry emissions comprise two main building blocks:

• National Reconstruction Fund: $3 billion from the fund will aid industry’s low-carbon transition, including for manufacturing of green metals such as steel and aluminium

• a revised “safeguard mechanism” requiring big polluters to reduce emissions.

Australia’s energy-intensive industries are already planning their response to shifting global markets. Labor must help these industries manage the change at the scale and pace required.

A broader transport plan

In transport, Labor has proposed removing taxes and duties on lower-cost electric vehicles – making them cheaper – and adopting Australia’s first electric vehicle strategy.

The party has already committed to 75% of all new Commonwealth fleet cars being low- or no-emissions by 2025. The teals want 76% of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. The Greens would also push for a far stronger electric vehicle policy.

Labor will also take steps to establish high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast. But its transport policy essentially ends there. It could do more on public and active transport, as well as decarbonising freight and aviation.

A broader transport strategy – especially involving infrastructure planning and investment – would help the transport sector move towards net-zero.

Strip emissions from buildings

Labor’s Housing Australia Future Fund is rightly focused on building new social and affordable housing, but is silent on net-zero. All governments have agreed to a zero-carbon buildings trajectory – now it’s time the federal government worked proactively with the states to achieve this.

The forthcoming review of the National Construction Code is a chance to bring in higher energy performance standards for new buildings.

But existing homes and business premises also need attention. A package of funds and regulations to drive electrification and energy performance gains there would bring lower energy bills and better health outcomes to many Australians.

A sustainable land sector

Labor policies will support innovation in agriculture, including reducing methane emissions from livestock and other carbon farming opportunities. There will also be crossbench support for increased tree planting and soil carbon storage, as well as more spending on low-carbon agriculture practices and technologies.

Under Australia’s carbon credit scheme, landholders are granted carbon credits for activities such as retaining and growing vegetation. Serious questions have been raised over the integrity of the scheme, and dealing with these issues should be a priority for the new government.

Many of Australia’s natural systems, such as rivers and other ecosystems, are stressed or near failure. The land sector both contributes to this alarming trend and can be part of the solution, and will be badly affected if the problems are not addressed.

Many farmers have shifted their practices in response to climate and environmental threats. But the new government should create a roadmap to place the land sector in a wider environmental context. This would ensure the sector seizes investment opportunities and plays its part in a sustainable future.

Such a plan would also help Australian agriculture shore up its share of global food exports in a world increasingly demanding low-emissions products.

A bigger, bolder vision is needed

The new Labor government has three years to steer Australia in a world that expects – and badly needs – every nation to take rapid climate action across the economy.

Australians have voted for a parliament with a stronger climate action agenda. More will be needed beyond the headline measures.

The onus is on all Australians help shape and implement these changes and ensure the nation not just survives, but thrives in a warmer world.

Read more:
‘A new climate politics’: the 47th parliament must be a contest of ideas for a hotter, low-carbon Australia

Anna Skarbek is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute. Anna is on the board of the Green Building Council of Australia, the Centre for New Energy Technologies and Sentient Impact Group. She is a member of the Blueprint Institute’s strategic advisory council and the Grattan Institute’s energy program reference panel.

Anna Malos is part of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute.

– ref. The teals and Greens will turn up the heat on the new Labor government’s climate policy. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/the-teals-and-greens-will-turn-up-the-heat-on-the-new-labor-governments-climate-policy-heres-what-to-expect-183532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI), University of Technology Sydney

An Albanese government in Canberra means an improved trajectory in Australia-China relations is a real possibility.

Sure, there will be no “re-set” like we saw in the heady days of 2015. The world has changed; Australia and China certainly have.

And, of course, Beijing will need to be ready to chart a different course, not just Canberra.

After all, in 2020 it was Beijing’s decision and Beijing’s decision alone to respond to political disagreements by cutting off senior level dialogue and hitting Australia’s exports.

Further tempering the outlook is that the architect of China’s assertive foreign policy turn, President Xi Jinping, is expected to be re-instated for a third term when the Communist Party of China meets for its 20th National Congress later this year.

But the Morrison government’s actions and reactions were not irrelevant. The current dire state of bilateral relations between Canberra and Beijing was not inevitable.

Missed opportunities

It is an observable fact, for example, that the Morrison government abandoned the more diplomatic approach it had pursued in 2019.

Rock bottom in Australian diplomacy came in March this year, when an airliner crashed in southern China, killing 132 people.

Yet in contrast to the leaders of the UK, Canada, India and others – all countries that have had their own acute challenges with Beijing – neither the prime minister nor his foreign minister, Marise Payne, saw any reason to issue even a short statement of condolences.

Imagining Canberra has no agency to promote a relationship recovery also misses the fact every other capital in the Asia-Pacific region has managed to maintain relations with Beijing in a more constructive state.

The role and value of diplomacy

A recent poll by the Australia-China Relations Institute shows the Australian public recognise the current situation is not as one-sided as Canberra or Beijing like to suggest.

A clear majority of respondents, 78%, agreed that, “The responsibility for improving the relationship between Australia and China lies with both countries”.

Some commentators insist there is no prospect of an improvement. They typically point to there being bipartisan agreement “China has changed” and to overwhelming agreement between the major parties on the suite of policies justified in response.

But this assessment dismisses the role and value of diplomacy.

As Allan Gyngell, former head of the Office of National Assessments said:

It is not beyond the capacity of effective diplomacy to return the situation between Australia and China to something more closely approximating that of other US allies.

Penny Wong as foreign minister

The Chinese embassy in Canberra will have cabled back to Beijing the conciliatory diplomatic touches incoming foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, has pursued from opposition.

Morrison has claimed

Australia has done nothing to injure [the] partnership [with China], nothing at all.

But in May last year, Wong insisted the differences between Australia’s interests and China’s interests,

do not mean that there’s nothing we can do. They don’t mean that there’s no room for improvement in our own actions.

And unlike the Morrison government, Wong took time to express her condolences after the China plane crash tragedy in March.

Another difference is Wong looks beyond just Washington and London for insight into Australia’s challenges.

In November last year, she singled out Singapore, saying:

Their insight into China, their insight into the region, are second to none […] [Singaporean] Prime Minister Lee [Hsien Loong] is a thinker and a leader whose writing and speeches on these issues, I think, are second to none.

It was Singaporean Prime Minister Lee who stood next to Morrison last June and offered the following advice

There will be rough spots [with China] […] you have to deal with them. But deal with them as issues in a partnership which you want to keep going and not issues which add up to an adversary, which you are trying to suppress.

A new opportunity

There’s one other factor pointing to a more positive future. Beijing has form in using the arrival of a new government as an opportunity to undertake a face-saving adjustment.

The Australia-China relationship began to sour during the government of Malcolm Turnbull (between September 2015 and August 2018). Turnbull’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop, did not visit China in the final two and a half years of her tenure.

Morrison was the Turnbull government minister responsible for signing off on the ban of Chinese technology company, Huawei, from Australia’s 5G rollout.

Yet when Morrison subsequently emerged as prime minister, Beijing took the opportunity to invite his new foreign minister for a formal visit less than three months later. A month after Morrison won another term in May 2019, he secured a meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping.

Beijing would now also recognise that any plan it once had to change Canberra’s political decision-making by disrupting Australia’s trade has been a dismal failure.

It not only cratered Australian elite and public opinion, but damaged China’s reputation as a responsible great power and reliable trade partner elsewhere (notably in North America and Europe).

All this raises the prospect that when the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Australia and the People’s Republic rolls around in December, the occasion might now be marked with some celebration – not just awkward silence.

James Laurenceson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. With a new Australian government and foreign minister comes fresh hope for Australia-China relations – https://theconversation.com/with-a-new-australian-government-and-foreign-minister-comes-fresh-hope-for-australia-china-relations-182785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

The election results are in and Labor has won enough seats to form government, either as a majority or with the support of independents. What will this mean for political integrity?

The main election promise Labor has made on integrity is to establish what it says will be a “powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission” (sometimes shortened to NACC).

So, what is Labor’s model for an anti-corruption commission?

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on an independent anti-corruption commission? We asked 5 experts

Power for public hearings

Labor has proposed a robust commission with strong powers, coupled with checks and balances to ensure it does not abuse its powers.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious and systemic corruption by Commonwealth ministers, public servants, ministerial advisers, statutory office holders, government agencies and MPs.

Crucially, it would have the power to conduct public hearings if it believes it’s in the public interest.

Labor’s model balances the seriousness of allegations with any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation or unfair exposure of a person’s private life.

This is a proportionate model that enhances public trust through public hearings, but also takes into account legitimate concerns about damage to an individual’s reputation.

By contrast, the Coalition’s proposed model did not include the power for public hearings.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will have the power to make findings of fact, including findings of corrupt conduct. It could refer matters involving criminality to law enforcement authorities.

Unlike the Coalition’s policy, the National Anti-Corruption Commission will also have retrospective powers to investigate alleged misconduct from 15 years ago.

Labor’s National Anti-Corruption Commission can act in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers and public complaints, consistent with other integrity bodies.

By contrast, the Coalition’s model did not allow referrals from the public.

Importantly, the strong powers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be counterbalanced by external accountability mechanisms to “watch the watchdog” via parliament and the courts.

There would be oversight by a parliamentary joint committee. Its decisions would also be subject to judicial review, to ensure the body’s compliance with the law, due process and other standards.

Can Labor deliver by Christmas?

Labor has promised to pass legislation establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of the year. Is this feasible?

There are still some aspects of Labor’s model that remain unclear, such as the budget that will be allocated to establish and run the body.

For the commission to be effective, it requires sufficient funding and staff to carry out its investigations.

Also, the full design of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has not been announced, such as how many commissioners or deputy commissioners it would have.

It is also unclear whether it would have a corruption prevention division, which is a pro-integrity function that monitors major corruption risks across all sectors.

These details would need to be worked through expediently to get a bill up by Christmas.

Labor has said it will draw on a draft bill proposed by independent MP Helen Haine in 2020. This may potentially expedite the drafting process.

The composition of the Senate will also be crucial to determine whether Labor can pass this bill, especially if the Coalition seeks to block it.

The electorate has spoken. The time is overdue to introduce a federal anti-corruption commission.

It is time for the new government to act – without delay. Australians deserve a robust system of accountability that will keep our politicians honest.

Read more:
The ‘car park rorts’ story is scandalous. But it will keep happening unless we close grant loopholes

Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What has Labor promised on an integrity commission and can it deliver a federal ICAC by Christmas? – https://theconversation.com/what-has-labor-promised-on-an-integrity-commission-and-can-it-deliver-a-federal-icac-by-christmas-182945

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

The Australian Labor Party will form government either outright or in a minority government.

The ALP has so far gained a small 2.8% two-party preferred national swing (though much higher in Western Australia, around 10%).

The crossbench may double in size with a progressive-leaning “potpourri” of candidates including Greens and “teal” independents.

Roughly a quarter of Australians voted for a minor party in the 2019 election (24.7% in the House of Representatives).

This time, it’s predicted over 33% of the electorate voted for minority parties or independents. Such votes in the inner city seats in particular are changing the political equation for the major parties.

The major parties look like only gaining two-thirds of the overall vote. In the past they’ve had more than 80% of the vote, confirming a long-term trend of decline in vote for the major parties. The ALP might take government with only around a third of the vote, so the “third force” of politics in Australia must be taken seriously from now on.

Read more:
The big teal steal: independent candidates rock the Liberal vote

This hi-vis election broadly ignored women, especially professional women.

As I commented for CNN, for too long the Australian parliament has been run like private gentleman’s clubs of yesteryear with a culture that prioritises protection for the powerful over professionalism for all.

This election might be the final straw for that culture, and a wake-up call for party campaign strategists.

The ALP is entitled to think a win is a win. But the dominance of the major parties may be over.

So, what’s going on?

It has been a difficult three years for many Australians; for many the most difficult of their lives, dealing with the pandemic and natural disasters.

It was always possible this election might throw up unusual results, especially as the major parties ran business-as-usual, frankly lacklustre, mostly forgettable and negative campaigns focused on the character of the leaders and gotcha moments.

Many undecided voters remained undecided after the three leaders’ debates. Despite the leaders talking predominantly about the short-term cost of living, perhaps it seems voters want urgent leadership on long-term climate adaptation in a government with integrity safeguards.

The Liberals lost many of their blue-ribbon seats to “teal” independent candidates, and both the ALP and Liberals may have lost several inner city seats to the Greens.

It’s likely the major parties were not strong enough on climate change beyond targets, not comprehensive enough on gender equality issues and were silent on higher education cuts in university seats.

The major parties’ campaigns did not disrupt voters’ disengagement and disillusion with politics generally either.

The Greens

Queensland always keeps national pundits on their toes, and this time the “miracle” looks like it’s going the Greens’ way.

It has won the lower house seat of Ryan, and at the time of writing is leading in Griffith. The Greens are also a chance in the seat of Brisbane.

In Victoria, the Greens again won the now safe seat of Melbourne, and may also pick up Macnamara.

The Queensland Greens were confident of their campaign in Griffith, Ryan and Brisbane with concerted door-knocking for many months, targeting issues like aircraft noise and rental rights, and engaging with young people.

The Greens candidate in Ryan, architect Elizabeth Watson-Brown was a quiet but effective grassroots campaigner.

The Greens may also pick up the sixth Queensland Senate seat in a fight with Pauline Hanson.

This bears out recent findings that Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan are particularly exposed to climate risks, as identified in the Climate Council report “Uninsurable Nation”.

Griffith’s Climate Action Beacon conducted one of the most ambitious climate change surveys yet conducted in Australia.

We found this could be the “climate election” because 87% of the respondents indicated they believe climate change should be a priority for the government. This was also the findings of the ABC’s Vote Compass.

The Nationals’ vote held this election, so it’s clearly the Liberal Party that has suffered with its voter base.

United Australia Party

Prior to election day, UAP was polling about 3% and so far is around 4.3%.

It’s possible UAP preferences may have an impact on several Western Sydney seats, but beyond that, there was no clear impact despite the $70 million spent on the United Australia Party campaign advertising. The UAP face controversy about a misleading advert about the World Health Organisation on the final day of the campaign.

Craig Kelly was thumped in the seat of Hughes, ending his parliamentary career.

Ralph Babet is still a chance for the final Victoria Senate spot.

Read more:
Labor to form government as both major parties’ primary votes slump

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

One Nation got a national first preference vote of 3.1% in 2019, an increase on the 1.29% it received in 2016.

More candidates ran in this election, pushing up the vote overall but the party did not increase their vote in seats previously contested.

Pauline Hanson herself was almost invisible in the campaign, partly because she tested positive to COVID during the campaign. But she may retain her Senate spot.

More to come

Susan Harris Rimmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the ONI.

– ref. Is this the end of the two-party system in Australia? The Greens, teals and others shock the major parties – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-end-of-the-two-party-system-in-australia-the-greens-teals-and-others-shock-the-major-parties-182672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Morrison government has been resoundingly defeated, with Labor headed for office, although whether in a minority or majority was unclear late Saturday night.

The election has been a triumph for the teal independents, with up to five new teals set to join a record crossbench.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is expected to lose his seat of Kooyong to teal independent Monique Ryan.

According to the ABC, Labor has won the Liberal seats of Chisholm and Higgins in Victoria, Robertson and Reid in NSW, Boothby in South Australia, and in Western Australia Swan, Pearce, Hasluck, held by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, and Tangney held by Special Minister of State, Ben Morton.

But Labor frontbencher Kristina Keneally is expected to be defeated in her bid to win the Sydney seat of Fowler. The seat is likely to taken by independent Dai Le.

Apart from Kooyong, teal independents have defeated Liberals in Goldstein in Victoria, and North Sydney and Mackellar in NSW, with Wentworth in the balance.

Frydenberg told supporters on Saturday night that while mathematically it was still possible to win, it was definitely difficult.

The election has also been a big victory for the Greens, which have won Ryan from the Liberals in Queensland. The Greens may also pick up the Queensland Labor seat of Griffith. The Liberal seat of Brisbane is in play between Greens, Labor, and the Liberals. In the previous parliament, the Greens have only had the seat of Melbourne held by their leader Adam Bandt.

Scott Morrison conceded defeated before 11pm. He announced to supporters that he would quit the leadership.

“I will be handing over the leadership at the next party room meeting to ensure the party can be taken forward under new leadership which is the appropriate thing to do,” Morrison said.

“Tonight, it’s a night of disappointment for the Liberals and Nationals, but it’s also a time for Coalition and members and supporters all across the country to hold their highs head.

“We have been a strong government, we have been a good government. Australia is stronger as a result of our effort over these last three terms”

“We hand over this country as a government in a stronger position than we left it than we inherited it when we came to government those years ago under Tony Abbott,” he said.
Albanese said “Tonight the Australian people have voted for change. My Labor team will work every day to bring Australians together”.

“I want to find that common ground where we can plant our dreams,” he told supporters.

He said: “Together we can end the climate wars”.

“I hope my journey in life inspires Australians to reach for the stars.”

The loss of Frydenberg leaves Peter Dutton as the favourite to become leader of the opposition.

The Coalition and Labor both have very low primary votes, an indication of the disillusionment of voters with both sides.

In Western Australia, where Morrison campaigned on Friday, the Liberal vote collapsed.

Finance Minister and senior moderate Simon Birmingham, speaking about Warringah, where independent Zali Steggall has retained her seat against controversial Liberal candidate Katherine Deves, said: “I think it sends a message about what Australians believe when it comes to issues of respect, of inclusion, of diversity.

“And the message is Australians want people to respect their lives but they also want have a strong and profound respect for the lives of others under the circumstances of others and I think what we are seeing there is a strong message.”

Birmingham said there had been a “contagion effect” from Warringah that punished Liberals in adjacent seats.

Teal independent Zoe Daniel, who has won Goldstein, named after suffragette Vida Goldstein, who failed in her effort to enter federal parliament, said: “Today I take her rightful place”.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Scott Morrison defeated – Labor to govern in minority or majority – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-defeated-labor-to-govern-in-minority-or-majority-183594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Nethery, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies, Deakin University

One of the most stunning features of the 2022 election has been the challenge from teal independents in Liberal seats.

At the close of counting on Saturday, the teal independents have polled much stronger than expected, and look to have succeeded in electing a swathe of new independents to the House of Representatives. As Liberal Party commentator Tony Barry told the ABC, “the Liberals have lost their base”. It was not a blood bath, but a “teal bath”.

The headline story is the success of neurologist Monique Ryan who looks poised to take the blue-ribbon seat of Kooyong from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. But teal candidates have stormed other electorates in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Canberra.

Read more:
Why teal independents are seeking Liberal voters and spooking Liberal MPs

The teal wave

When we are talking about “teals” we are talking about the 23 independent candidates, most of them women, who have challenged traditionally Liberal-held seats or Senate spots. All have received support from fundraising organisation Climate 200.

Climate 200 convener Simon Holmes a Court credited the success, particularly in inner Melbourne, to a huge volunteer effort. “This community independents movement is incredible,” he told the ABC.

The results so far

Counting is still continuing and it needs to be noted that high numbers of postal and pre-poll votes will favour the major parties. So we will need to watch some of these seats in coming days before the results are confirmed.

ABC election analyst Antony Green has already given:

• North Sydney to independent Kylea Tink, defeating Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman
• Mackellar to GP Sophie Scamps, defeating Liberal MP Jason Falinski
• Goldstein to with former ABC journalist Zoe Daniel, defeating Liberal MP Tim Wilson.

Along with Kooyong, business leader Allegra Spender was ahead of Liberal MP Dave Sharma in Wentworth.

Independents Kate Chaney in Perth’s Curtin and Rob Priestly in regional Victoria’s Nicholls were also putting up a huge fight as counting closed on Saturday. Caz Heise in Cowper in northern NSW was also recording a strong independent vote.

Other independents with Climate 200 backing were also comfortably re-elected: Zali Steggall in Warringah, Helen Haines in Indi, Andrew Wilkie in Clark and Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie in Mayo.

Taking into account the likely election of Dai Le – a non-Climate 200 independent candidate against Labor’s Kristina Keneally in Sydney’s Fowler – the independent numbers on the cross bench could double in size.

In the Senate, teal candidate David Pocock is in a close race for the second ACT Senate spot, with Liberal incumbent Zed Seselja.

What does this mean?

These results far exceed expectations before polling day. Noting the very strong results for the Greens, particularly in Queensland, we have seen an extremely clear vote for more action on climate change, more integrity in politics and more action on gender equity. These were all central planks of their campaigns.

Voters who would normally have voted for a moderate Liberal, but would have been unlikely to vote Labor or Greens, were given a viable choice – and they took it with both hands.

In an election full of different results and surprises, this block of independents is going to markedly change the composition of the lower house. The precise nature of their role and power will be determined when we know if Labor will rule in a majority or minority.

These results also mean that the Liberal Party has been stripped of its moderate MPs.
Minister for Finance Simon Birmingham lamented the loss of his colleague Zimmerman on Saturday night, saying the party would have to “make up for the absence of those [moderate] voices”.

Birmingham also blamed the “contagion effect” of Katherine Deves’ controversial candidacy in the neighbouring seat of Warringah, arguing this has turned potential Liberal voters in other seats. It might well be argued that Deves had a similarly adverse effect on the campaigns in other long-held Liberal seats on the North Shore and surrounds, such as Mackellar and Bennelong.

Read more:
How the Liberals lost the ‘moral middle class’ – and now the teal independents may well cash in

But of course these results reflect something much more serious and much deeper than a preselection problem.

What should follow now is a period of soul-searching within the party, and a decision on how it will challenge these seats in the future. Where will be party’s base lie in the future?

Meanwhile a new crop of MPs have given “politics as usual” a huge shock.

From the beginnings of Cathy McGowan’s victory in Indi in 2013, we now have an established model for community-backed candidates to win seats in parliament. The teals will have a steep learning curve in Canberra (without the infrastructure of established parties to support them) but they have already made a difference.

We should expect to see similar challenges in both Labor and Liberal seats in elections to come. The Australian political system is well and truly on notice.

Amy Nethery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The big teal steal: independent candidates rock the Liberal vote – https://theconversation.com/the-big-teal-steal-independent-candidates-rock-the-liberal-vote-183024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

With 53% counted at Saturday’s federal election, the ABC is calling 72 of the 151 House of Representatives seats for Labor, 52 for the Coalition, two Greens and nine Others. 16 seats remain in doubt.

Primary votes were 35.3% Coalition (down 6.2% since the 2019 election), 31.9% Labor (down 1.4%), 12.4% Greens (up 2.0%), 5.1% One Nation (up 2.0%), 4.4% UAP (up 1.0%) and 10.9% for all Others (up 2.6%). Labor is projected to win the two party vote by a 51.2-48.8 margin, a 2.7% swing to Labor.

The Poll Bludger’s model has 69 Labor wins to 47 for the Coalition. When seats where a party is ahead are assigned, Labor has 77, the Coalition 60, independents 10 and Greens three. That would put Labor just above the 76 needed for an outright majority. The Poll Bludger’s two party projection is 52.3-47.7 to Labor.

If Labor wins a majority, they can thank WA. Usually one of the most anti-Labor states at federal elections, the Poll Bludger currently has a 55.2-44.8 Labor two party win there, a 9.8% swing to Labor. Labor is ahead in ten WA seats to four for the Liberals with one independent.

In inner city seats, the Liberals will likely lose Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s Kooyong (Vic), Goldstein (Vic), Higgins (Vic), North Sydney (NSW), Wentworth (NSW), Ryan (Qld) and Brisbane (Qld). However, Higgins was the only clear Labor gain, with the rest either going to independents or the Greens. Labor has likely lost Griffith to the Greens and Kristina Keneally’s Fowler to an independent.

I will have more tomorrow morning about the Senate and close House contests.

The results are an indictment on both major parties. Owing to the education divide, the Coalition lost support in wealthy urban seats, but it was the Greens and independents who gained, not Labor. The Coalition probably lost these seats owing to Scott Morrison’s record on climate change, and because of increasing education polarisation.

Read more:
Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities?

Inflation is another key reason the Coalition lost this election. The 12-month inflation rate to the March quarter of 5.1% combined with the 2.4% rise in nominal wages meant that real wages fell 2.7% in those 12 months, and were down 2.2% since the 2019 election.

Read more:
Newspoll and Ipsos both give Labor clear leads in final polls; counting of early votes

Without this large fall in real wages, the Coalition would have been likely to offset losses in wealthy urban seats with gains from Labor in regional and outer suburban seats. It’s an indictment on Labor that voters didn’t turn to it.

The final two party vote will not be available for weeks as the electoral commission will not start a two party count in seats that were not contests between Labor and the Coalition until the main business of deciding elected members is over.

But with both major parties slumping, the best final pollster of the election was the Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that had primary votes of 34% Coalition, 31% Labor, 14% Greens, 6% One Nation, 4% UAP, 6% independents and 4% others.

Read more:
Labor’s lead narrows in three new national polls; and seat polls galore

More to come

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labor to form government as both major parties’ primary votes slump – https://theconversation.com/labor-to-form-government-as-both-major-parties-primary-votes-slump-183111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

It really started unravelling for Scott Morrison on All Saints Day, November 1 2021, when French President Emmanuel Macron branded him a liar.

Asked by Bevan Shields, who is now editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, whether he thought Morrison had lied to him over the Australian government’s decision to jettison its submarine contract with France, Macron uttered the now immortal words:

I don’t think; I know.

Within 48 hours, the man Morrison replaced as prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said publicly that Morrison had a reputation for telling lies. “He’s lied to me on many occasions,” Turnbull said. “Scott has always had a reputation for telling lies.”

This emboldened the media, for whom the word “liar” raises a red flag. Calling someone a liar is defamatory: it makes ordinary reasonable people think less of the person.

Read more:
Is Morrison gaining a reputation for untrustworthiness? The answer could have serious implications for the election

Establishing a defence is complex. It might seem straightforward: either a person told the truth or they didn’t. But in defamation law, it would be necessary to establish that the person intentionally said things they knew to be materially untrue and did so habitually. Plaintiff lawyers can drive a horse and cart through that.

So mostly the media edit it out, using approximations such as “untruth” or “falsehood”.

However, not long after Turnbull’s public accusations, the online news site Crikey.com felt it had become safe to publish a story that began:

Since Crikey published its initial dossier of Scott Morrison’s lies in May 2021, the number of untruths uttered by the prime minister has continued to grow — as has his reputation for mendacity.

The story then outlined the defamation problem:

When Crikey decided to detail Scott Morrison’s habit of lying back in May, there was some concern. Could we really call the prime minister a liar? Lawyers were consulted; the dossier we’d put together was double- and triple-checked.

Six months later, things were very different. It was not merely possible but fashionable to label Morrison a liar, having become the height of chic among the French.

Macron and Turnbull had created a situation in which, when it came to lying, Morrison had no reputation to defend. The defamation laws do not protect a reputation that has not been earned.

These accusations ripped the scab off a festering wound inside the Coalition parties caused by dismay at Morrison’s character more generally.

On February 1 2022, Channel Ten’s political editor and columnist for The Australian, Peter van Onselen, confronted Morrison at a televised National Press Club lunch with what he said were leaked text messages between the former New South Wales premier, Gladys Berejiklian, and an unnamed serving cabinet minister.

In this exchange, Berejiklian allegedly described Morrison as “a horrible, horrible person”, adding she did not trust him and that he was more concerned with politics than with people. She later said she did not recollect sending such a text, but did not deny it.

Responding to her, the cabinet minister allegedly described him as a “complete psycho”.

Later the same month, yet another leak revealed that the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, had called Morrison a “hypocrite and a liar” in a text sent on to Brittany Higgins, a month after her allegations of having been raped in the office of the then defence minister, Linda Reynolds, became public.

Speaking of Morrison, Joyce told Higgins:

He is a hypocrite and a liar from my observations and that is over a long time. I have never trusted him and I dislike how he earnestly rearranges the truth to a lie.

He later apologised to Morrison.

Other aspects of Morrison’s character came into focus in late February, when turmoil inside the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party over the pre-selection of candidates for the May 21 election erupted into the open.

The central allegation was that Morrison’s pro-consul on the pre-selection committee, Alex Hawke, was deliberately sabotaging the process by failing to turn up at meetings. This would back the party into a corner, enabling Morrison to impose his own candidates at the last minute in defiance of party rules.

Then in April, Michael Towke, whom Morrison defeated in a highly controversial pre-selection fight for the seat of Cook in 2007, called Morrison a “compulsive liar” and accused him of using a racial slur against Towke’s Lebanese ethnicity as part of manoeuvres that eventually saw Towke’s original 82-8 pre-selection win overturned in favour of Morrison.

Statutory declarations to this effect were also leaked; Morrison denied the allegation of racism.

The impact of this series of events on Morrison’s 2022 election campaign was significant. He no longer found it expedient to say, as he had in 2019, “If you vote for me, you get me.”

Entering the last week of the campaign, he set about trying to re-invent himself, saying he was “a bit of a bulldozer” and promising to change after the election.

It was clearly a recognition that his deficiencies of character were a drag on his chances of re-election, but it inevitably raised two more questions: who is the real Morrison, and can his promise to change be believed?

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Liberal campaigners believed voter discontent with him was so strong it could sweep the government from office.

The same article quoted one Liberal Party member as saying voters at some early voting centres “hated” Morrison, and another that resentment at him was dragging the government down.

The newspaper also reported that an analysis of the campaign showed Morrison had avoided visiting key electorates where his appearance was reckoned to risk damaging the chances of the Liberal candidates.

These included four seats where moderate Liberals were facing serious challenges from “teal” independents: Treasurer Josh Frydenberg in Kooyong, Tim Wilson in Goldstein, Dave Sharma in Wentworth and Trent Zimmerman in North Sydney.

Read more:
‘His beating heart is a focus group’: what makes Scott Morrison tick?

Plausibility has always been the foundation on which Morrison’s electoral appeal rested. But as has been noted previously, that is very unstable terrain on which to build political success.

The seismic eruptions set off by Macron’s accusation seven months before election day destroyed that foundation and with it any chance the Liberal-National Coalition had of pulling off another miracle win.

Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘I don’t think, I know’: how 5 words from the French president triggered a ruinous run on Morrison’s character – https://theconversation.com/i-dont-think-i-know-how-5-words-from-the-french-president-triggered-a-ruinous-run-on-morrisons-character-179755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marija Taflaga, Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University

It is incredible the government that led Australia through the pandemic with one of the highest vaccination rates, some of the lowest per capita death rates and, comparatively, a good story to tell on the economy has decisively lost government.

How did it come to this?

Read more:
How the Liberals lost the ‘moral middle class’ – and now the teal independents may well cash in

A legacy of lost opportunities

As I wrote after his miracle win in 2019, Morrison had the chance to use his towering authority as a proven winner to shape the government’s agenda. And this he duly did.

He made a virtue of his pragmatism: Morrisons’ government racked up billions in debt to save the economy, but made it clear which sectors were out of favour. The flaws in the COVID vaccine rollout stemmed from early decisions designed to maximise the government’s political benefit.

But when the strategy fell apart due to a lack of forethought and capacity, the states took up the slack and the military was brought in.

The government flirted with industrial relations reform before shelving it as too risky.

The Commonwealth Integrity Commission saga revealed precisely the government’s true preferences on accountability.

The government’s response to women’s anger – try as it might – only succeeded in comprehensively showing they did not understand the problem.

Morrisons’ three-year long crab walk on a 2050 emissions target illustrated both his political skills but also his impotence in the face of the Nationals, upon whom he was dependent to govern.

The government’s shock when its religious freedom bill failed, demonstrated where it was prepared to fight and die.

At the end of three years and a six-week campaign, the same question about what a Coalition government even wanted to do with another term was – unbelievably – still hanging in the air.

Morrison – a brilliant communicator and a bulldozer

Morrison has always been a brilliant communicator and his message has been clear all along: despite a rapidly changing world, he would defend, as far as possible, the status quo.

Like all successful Liberal leaders, Morrison did dominate his government and did shape it in his own image.

An overt political lens was foremost in everything his government did. Morrison was spot-on when he described himself as a bulldozer.

But it wasn’t that he rushed to policy solutions, in a crash or crash-through style; it was that he bulldozed over political problems, burying them in spin.

By governing so cynically, the Morrison government eroded the goodwill it would need to see it through the inevitable missteps that occur when governing in extraordinary times.

What now for the Liberal Party?

After almost a decade in power the Coalition government’s policy legacy is comparatively thin. Instead, its achievements are obscured in the popular memory by leadership instability and the policy churn it unleashed.

Both phenomena are symptomatic of a party that has increasingly struggled to debate ideas generally, and which missed a critical opportunity to do so in opposition between 2007 and 2013.

Indeed, the problems the Liberals faced in 2019 remain the same, if not more pressing. This is a party that has to manage several competing ideological standpoints and lacks the internal institutional machinery to manage debates and settle disputes.

Its primary mechanism to resolve policy disputes remains leadership change.

The most obvious area where this will be difficult for the party is climate change. Having lost its majority, the party’s position on climate change remains unfinished business.

The deal struck by Morrison in government on climate change was fragile, and with the loss of many pro-climate candidates it remains to be seen whether the Coalition will adhere to the agreement – especially as opposition clears the policy decks.

The teal independents’ victory will see the federal Liberal party room shift further to the right.

The likely defeat of Josh Frydenberg, the leading Liberal left/moderate leadership candidate in a seat one once held by the Liberal Party’s founder, Sir Robert Menzies, leaves that wing of the party without clear leadership in the lower house (especially after so many other moderates have also lost their seats).

Should Morrison resign tonight or fail to be reaffirmed by the party room, the leadership of Peter Dutton, the most likely leader in opposition, would likely see the Liberal Party take a different direction across several policy domains.

At a practical level, the loss of once rock solid blue ribbon seats removes resources from the moderate/left faction of the Liberal party.

With the lost seats also goes several staff positions and the resources of an electoral office.

It will also renew the factional conflict over candidate selection at both the state and federal levels as the balance between the left/moderate and right/far right factions within the NSW and Victoria in particular is hotly contested.

Organisationally, the party is riven in several states by factional conflict focused overwhelmingly on controlling candidate selection.

Its organisation has continued to drift and degrade as its party membership grows older (around 70 years of age) and questions are raised about the sincerity of new recruits given the history of alleged branch stacking scandals.

Given the success of the female “teal” independents, it is hard not to think what the Liberal party might look like today if it had found a way to replicate Labor’s recruitment of women into the parliament.

Across the world, women are more likely to worry about climate change and cross-national studies show centre-right women are less conservative than their male counterparts.

Perhaps a party with 50% women might have shifted the Coalitions’ internal culture and made it able to hear a major shift going on within the electorate.

These are uncertain days for the Coalition and the Liberal party. There will always be a need for a centre-right party in Australia.

But the loss of so many from the moderate wing will, if not amended in coming elections, radically shift the balance of power internally within the party and its position within the Australian party system.

Marija Taflaga receives funding from the ARC for a project that looks into the career pathways of political elites.

– ref. What now for the Liberal Party? A radical shift and a lot of soul-searching – https://theconversation.com/what-now-for-the-liberal-party-a-radical-shift-and-a-lot-of-soul-searching-183362

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Labor’s successful bid for government – only its fifth victory from opposition since the first world war – was based on an experiment that no one could have known would work.

It was a small-target strategy of a kind that has never seen Labor come from opposition to government at an election in the federal sphere. It offered a low-key campaign, led by a man with 25 years of parliamentary experience. But no one would see Anthony Albanese as a charismatic figure in the mould of Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke or Kevin Rudd.

That might offer Albanese and Labor opportunities. It has raised the expectations of voters as any opposition seeking government must do, but it has not raised them too far. It has been circumspect about what it is likely to be able to achieve in a first term.

Especially in recent days, Albanese laid more emphasis on the magnitude of the task to be faced by a new government, given the size of Australia’s debt. We can expect some further lowering of expectations in the days, weeks and months ahead, as the constraints of budget deficits, ballooning debt and increasing inflation do their work on the new government.

The campaign received its political and moral ballast from Albanese’s support for minimum wage increases in line with inflation. Most of the media pack proclaimed this another of Albanese’s gaffes.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Albanese and Morrison caught on fly-papers of wages, gender

But many of this country’s journalists display little feel for public sentiment – as they showed when they famously misread the import of Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech – and on this occasion they failed to see that Albanese had for the first time established his campaign’s central thread.

It was a rather modest claim: that low-paid workers should not suffer a further decline in their living standards. That large sections of the media saw this as dangerous adventurism tells us as much as we need to know about who the present system is working for and who it is working against.

The story Albanese told was not just about himself (although there was a lot about his late mum), but about what he would stand for in government. From this point, Albanese began to connect more directly with the traditional values of his party and provided a clearer indication of what he would do if presented with the reins of power. He began to talk more cogently and persuasively about universal provision, with childcare especially in his sights.

Why should people earning over half a million get support?, the media pack asked this one-time socialist firebrand. Because Labor believes in universalism, he replied, as it had shown over so many years with Medicare. And because it recognised in childcare provision a public good that would boost the economy, was just to women and was good for society.

Yes, this was the language of Whitlamite social democracy – always a risk for Labor, which many electors suspect of being profligate with taxpayers’ money. But it was also an idea rooted in Labor’s long-standing approach to welfare.

Alongside its support for targeted, means-tested support, Labor has long supported certain types of universal provision – going right back to its maternity allowance of 1912. Medicare was another example. Albanese started to sound like a leader capable of showing that his party had a Labor soul.

The messages about wages and childcare were increasingly part of a broader narrative about a caring economy and society that also informed his commitments to improving the provision of aged care.

In the COVID era, this was a message rather more potent than most commentators imagined it might be. Its potency was increased in rough proportion to the sincerity, authenticity and conviction that Albanese displayed in delivering it.

Yes, Albanese also spoke about clean energy and climate change, but his messages have been carefully calibrated to avoid the problems that Labor experienced in electorates where such messages remain unwelcome to many voters – the so-called coal seats. And he was willing to discuss national security and foreign policy, too, as well as his commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Read more:
The story of ‘us’: there’s a great tale Labor could tell about how it would govern – it just needs to start telling it

But the stress was on bread-and-butter issues. He often sounded like a state Labor leader making a bid to become premier. I do not intend this observation as a criticism, because I am convinced this was a deliberate and sensible approach. After all, Labor has frequently won government from opposition in the states and territories over the past half-century. It has rarely done so federally.

Read more:
Elect me and I’ll govern like Bob Hawke: Albanese

Albanese emphasises co-operation, collaboration and teamwork. He will not make the same mistakes as Rudd, in imagining that he has received some magical mandate from “the people” that allows him to bypass the party that he leads, with its various claims and demands on anyone who leads it. He will work with a team of ministers that looks unusually capable. He talks of holding an employment summit: a nod in the direction of the Hawke government’s consensus politics.

He is a textbook case of what the late Graham Little, the political psychologist, would have called a group leader. “Group leaders pay attention to the many ways people need and depend on each other,” Judith Brett explains, “specialising in the politics of sympathy and compassion and taking care not to put themselves too far ahead of the people they lead.” This is a traditional Labor leadership style: pre-Whitlam, and certainly anti-Rudd.

It is also likely to affect Albanese’s relations with the crossbench. If he scrapes a majority, he would do well to govern as if he doesn’t. A third of the electorate has voted in the House of Representatives for minor parties and independents; at the last election, it was just under one in four.

He cannot afford to ignore the constituencies to which the Greens and teal independents in particular have so successfully appealed in this campaign. He will need minor party and independent support in the Senate. He may well need their goodwill and numbers in the House of Representatives in a second term.

These might be considered constraints on the government, but they need not be: it is easy to imagine Albanese, who did so much to keep the parliamentary show on the road during the Gillard years, tackling this task of forging productive relations with the minor parties and independents with an aplomb that would almost certainly have been beyond Morrison.

In that respect at least, the times may well suit him.

Frank Bongiorno is a member of Kim For Canberra (Senate election) and has donated to Climate 200.

– ref. Albanese wins with a modest policy program – but the times may well suit him – https://theconversation.com/albanese-wins-with-a-modest-policy-program-but-the-times-may-well-suit-him-182521

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The federal election is on Saturday. Polls close at 6pm local time; that means 6pm AEST in the eastern states, 6:30pm in SA and the NT and 8pm in WA. 124 of the 151 House of Representatives seats are in the eastern time zone, 12 combined in SA and the NT and 15 in WA.

The Coalition notionally holds 76 of the 151 seats, Labor 69 and there are six crossbenchers. Gains and losses for parties and crossbenchers will be measured against this. This does not include Craig Kelly’s defection from the Coalition to the UAP in Hughes.

Read more:
Where are the most marginal seats, and who might win them?

The final Newspoll, conducted May 13-19 from a sample of 2,188, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week. Primary votes were 36% Labor (down two), 35% Coalition (steady), 12% Greens (up one), 5% One Nation (down one), 3% UAP (steady) and 9% for all Others (up two).

54% were dissatisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (up one) and 41% were satisfied (down one) for a net approval of -13, down two points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved six points to -5.

The incumbent-skewed better PM measure was tied at 42-42 after a 43-42 Morrison lead last week. Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

Labor has a 53-47 lead in both Newspoll and Ipsos, and the Coalition would need Newspoll to be at least as wrong as it was in 2019 to get to a 50-50 two-party tie. It’s not impossible for the Coalition to win, but Labor is far more likely to win this election, probably with a solid majority in its own right.

Read more:
As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time?

In the final Newspoll before the 2019 election, Morrison had a net +1 approval rating while then Labor leader Bill Shorten was at -8, and Morrison led by 47-38 as better PM. This year’s leaders’ ratings are far worse for Morrison. And Newspoll now weights by education.

Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor

The final Ipsos poll for The Financial Review, conducted May 15-18 from a sample of 1,996, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a four-point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight’s Ipsos. Primary votes were 36% Labor, 35% Coalition, 13% Greens, 5% One Nation, 3% UAP and 8% for all Others with undecided excluded.

With undecided included, primary votes were 34% Labor (down one), 33% Coalition (up four), 12% Greens (steady), 15% for Others including One Nation and UAP (down one) and 5% undecided (down two).

By 2019 preference flows, Labor led by 51-44 (52-40 previously) – the headline figure excludes undecided. By respondent preferences, Labor led by 49-40 (50-35 previously). This poll’s result of 53-47 was probably rounded in the Coalition’s favour, but the last Ipsos was probably rounded to Labor.

51% disapproved of Morrison’s performance (steady), and 34% approved (up two), for a net approval of -17, up two points. Albanese’s net approval was up two to -4. Albanese led Morrison by 42-39 as preferred PM (41-36 previously).

I covered the final Resolve (52-48 to Labor), Essential (51-49 to Labor) and Morgan (53-47 to Labor) polls on Wednesday. Morgan continued polling this week, but see no evidence of a further shift towards the Coalition.

In an additional question from the Resolve poll, 40% supported Albanese’s proposal to increase the minimum wage by 5.1%, 27% wanted the minimum wage increased by a smaller amount and 16% wanted it kept unchanged.

The question was flawed as it presented Morrison’s argument against the minimum wage increase, but no argument for Albanese, for example that this increase is in line with the 12-month to March inflation rate of 5.1%.

Counting of early votes

With Friday’s data to be added, the ABC’s election analyst Antony Green said pre-poll votes cast so far as a percentage of overall enrolment have surpassed that in 2019, even though early voting started a week earlier in 2019. 27% of enrolled voters have voted pre-poll in 2022, compared to 25% at the same point in 2019.

With an increasing number of people voting early, major pre-poll booths have not reported results until very late on election night; these booths often have 10,000 or more votes, and can have a large impact on seat results.

To address this issue, legislation was passed last year to allow sorting of votes to begin at 4pm local time in pre-poll booths, two hours before polls close. That means election officials can sort votes into piles for various candidates, but not start a count until 6pm. This change will hopefully decrease the time until pre-polls start reporting.

As well as votes cast at early voting centres, 15.9% of enrolled voters have applied for postal votes, up from 9.4% in 2019. Green says that in 2019 84% of postals were returned and 81% accepted in the count. Postals will not be counted on election night, and their inclusion in later counting will shift results towards the Coalition.

Economic data: wage price and jobs report

The ABS reported Wednesday that the wage price index rose 0.7% in the March quarter and 2.4% in the 12 months to March. But inflation increased 2.1% in the March quarter and 5.1% in the 12 months to March. So real wages were down 1.4% in the March quarter and 2.7% in the 12 months to March.

The ABC said the last time wage growth was above its long-term average of 3.1% annually was in 2013. This is the worst real wage growth since the introduction of the GST. Greg Jericho at The Guardian said real wages are 2.2% below where they were at the 2019 election, 1.5% below the 2016 election and near their level at the 2013 election.

The ABS reported Thursday that the unemployment rate dropped 0.1% from March to 3.9% in April, and the underemployment rate was down 0.2% to 6.1%. The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Australians employed – was steady at 63.8%.

The ABC said this is the lowest unemployment rate since 1974. But I believe the reason the government has struggled in the polls in the lead-up to this election despite very good job reports is the decline in real wages.

Seat polls: Higgins, Goldstein, Curtin and Pearce

The Poll Bludger reported Thursday that a Redbridge poll of Goldstein (Vic, Lib, 7.8% margin) for Climate 200 gave Liberal incumbent Tim Wilson 36.0% and teal independent Zoe Daniel 26.9% with 8.4% undecided. 53% of voters for other candidates would preference Daniel, 13% Wilson and 34% undecided. The Poll Bludger gets 54.6-45.4 to Daniel.

The Poll Bludger reported Wednesday that a uComms poll in Higgins (Vic, Lib, 2.6%) for the left-wing Australia Institute, conducted May 2 from a sample of 836, gave Labor a 54-46 lead from primary votes of 37% Liberals, 30% Labor and 20% Greens.

An Utting research poll of Curtin (WA, Lib, 13.9%) for The West Australian, conducted May 16 from a sample of 514, gave independent Kate Chaney a 52-48 lead over the Liberals. Primary votes were 38% Liberals, 32% Chaney, 13% Labor and 9% Greens.

A YouGov poll for Labor of Pearce (WA, Lib, 5.2%) gave Labor a 53-47 lead. This poll was conducted May 15-16 from a sample of 411. It has a similar result to an Utting research poll of Pearce (52-48 to Labor) that I reported Wednesday.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Newspoll and Ipsos both give Labor clear leads in final polls; counting of early votes – https://theconversation.com/newspoll-and-ipsos-both-give-labor-clear-leads-in-final-polls-counting-of-early-votes-183120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Two cases of monkeypox have been detected in Australia, following reported cases in several European countries. Both are in men just returned from Europe.

Health authorities have said the cases are not a cause for panic, but to remain vigilant for symptoms if you have just returned from overseas.

Read more:
European outbreak of monkeypox: what you need to know

What is monkeypox?

Monkeypox is caused by an orthopoxvirus that is closely related to the virus that caused smallpox, variola. Smallpox only infected humans, but monkeypox is an animal virus that occasionally infects humans after they are bitten or scratched by a monkey or other animal.

It is a respiratory virus and can also spread to humans without contact, probably through aerosols. However, it does not usually spread easily between humans, and typically only in close contacts. Studies have found about 3% of contacts of a monkeypox case will be infected.

A week or two after exposure, infection starts with fever, headache, swelling of the lymph nodes and muscle ache. Skin eruptions usually appear within one to three days of the fever commencing, and in most cases affect the face, hands and feet.

There are two types of the virus, one which has a fatality rate of about 1% and one with a fatality rate of about 10%. The UK outbreak outbreak appears to be the less severe type, but 1% is similar to the fatality rate for COVID, so it is still a concern. It is more severe in children.

Why is it emerging now?

It was first identified in humans in 1970, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is a re-emerging disease that’s been causing large outbreaks in Nigeria and DRC since 2017.

Scientists have puzzled over why a previously rare infection is now becoming more common. The vaccine against smallpox also protects against monkeypox, so in the past, mass vaccination against smallpox protected people from monkeypox too. It is 40 years since smallpox was declared eradicated, and most mass vaccination programs ceased in the 1970s, so few people aged under 50 have been vaccinated.

There are even fewer in Australia, where mass smallpox vaccination was never used, and an estimated 10% of Australians have been vaccinated. The vaccine gives immunity for anything from five to 20 years or more, but may wane at a rate of about 1-2% a year.

Our research shows waning of immunity from smallpox vaccination may explain the increasing outbreaks of monkeypox – it is more than 40-50 years since mass vaccination ceased.

Current outbreak

In September 2018, a case of monkeypox occurred at a naval base in Cornwall, UK, in a person who had travelled from Nigeria. Simultaneously, a second case occurred in Blackpool in an unrelated person returning from Nigeria, and a nurse also became infected in the hospital.

In the current outbreak, the first case in the UK had travelled from Nigeria, where there have been over 500 cases and 8 deaths since 2017.

Read more:
Monkeypox in Nigeria: why the disease needs intense management

The current outbreak in the UK is the largest outside of Africa and has spread to many countries in Europe, North America and now Australia.

Clusters have occurred among men who have sex with men, a pattern not seen before. The initial importation could have spread at a venue or within a community that resulted in more spread in the same group.

This is an unusual outbreak, with unrelated cases in different locations in the UK. This could be explained by substantial numbers of asymptomatic infection, but asymtomatic infection is uncommon and usually in people who have had the smallpox vaccine.

In a well-studied outbreak in the US linked to imported animals, only three in 20 cases were asymptomatic, and they had been vaccinated. The other 17 cases all had the rash.

Most people infected in the current epidemic are too young to have been vaccinated, so substantial asymptomatic infection is unlikely. Further, smallpox does not transmit in asymptomatic people, so it is unlikely monkeypox will be very different.

Serological studies to measure asymptomatic infection are being done in the UK and should shed more light on this hypothesis. Hopefully further investigations can help us understand the epidemiologic links between cases in the UK and elsewhere.

This is the first time there has been travel-related spread from outside of the African continent, where the virus is endemic in animals. There have been a number of travel related importations to the UK, Singapore, Israel and other countries from Nigeria and DRC since 2017, but now the source of spread appears to be the UK, which is unprecedented. Given visits between the UK and Australia are very common, it is not surprising we now have cases here.

Preventing further outbreak

There are effective vaccines against monkeypox – the second and third generation smallpox vaccines, both live virus vaccines using the vaccinia virus. Vaccinia is another orthopoxvirus that confers immunity against smallpox and monkeypox, but can have serious side effects in some people, especially those with compromised immune systems.

Mass vaccination would not be warranted because of the side effects. The best strategy is to identify contacts and vaccinate them, rather than mass vaccination.

This is called “ring vaccination” and was used to eradicate smallpox. Monkeypox has a long incubation period (one to two weeks), so being vaccinated post-exposure can protect.

The third generation vaccines do not replicate in the body and can be used in immunocompromised people. However they are expensive and it’s unlikely Australia would have much supply. For health workers who will be at risk of exposure, the use of third generation vaccines should be considered if the epidemic grows.

There are also effective antivirals against monkeypox and smallpox which were not available before smallpox was eradicated.

Given the unusual nature of this epidemic, it would be wise to ensure we have a stockpile of antivirals and enough of both types of vaccines, together with regulatory processes to use them against monkeypox.

Isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts works to curtail epidemics. We would also do well to draw on the contact tracing infrastructure developed during COVID, so contacts can be rapidly identified and quarantined, and the spread of the virus curtailed.

Raina MacIntyre is on the WHO SAGE Ad Hoc advisory group on smallpox and monkeypox, and has received funding for advisory boards and for a smallpox a table top exercise from smallpox vaccine manufacturers Bavarian Nordic and Emergent Biosolutions (the latter also make a smallpox antiviral); and from antiviral manufacturers SIGA Technologies and Meridien Medical. She is a recognised global expert on smallpox, an area she has done research on since 2005. In May 2022 she was part of a two-day global roundtable on smallpox and monkeypox hosted by Bavarian Nordic.

– ref. Monkeypox in Australia: what is it and how can we prevent the spread? – https://theconversation.com/monkeypox-in-australia-what-is-it-and-how-can-we-prevent-the-spread-183526

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ataus Samad, Lecturer, Western Sydney University

With the election almost upon us, thoughts are more than ever turned to political survival. While getting pre-selected and winning elections are the initial, difficult challenges of a political career, a major ongoing one is surviving in the treacherous galaxy of politics.

As part of our study of political leadership, during 2021 we interviewed 13 politicians from across the Australian political spectrum. They included federal and state ministers, senators, federal and state members of parliament, and mayors of local government (for ethics reasons, participants are not named).

As part of this, we looked at the complex reasons a leader’s political career might end, from the perspectives of politicians themselves.

Read more:
‘It’s not work-life balance, it’s work-work balance’ Politicians tell us what it’s like to be an MP

‘Bad luck’

While some of our interviewees told us “good leaders don’t fail”, there are plenty of reasons – beyond the ballot box – a political career can be brought to an involuntary end.

In recent years we have seen a huge number of leaders resign or be dumped, at both the state and federal level. Some have left for family reasons, but there have also been leadership spills, corruption investigations and harrassment allegations.

But a political career can end for more other, more complex reasons. As I have previously written, politicians today are under scrutiny 24/7 by the public, members of opposing parties and the media. The pace is relentless and unforgiving. Indeed, politicians rely heavily on their staff, colleagues, and other sources of support and information to do their jobs. As one former politician told us:

Sometimes they might not have the right people around them, because you can’t do everything yourself.

Another interviewee observed how precarious the situation is:

Good leaders can be provided with the wrong information; [there are] some things that cause leaders to fail which are just plain bad luck.

Beyond bad luck or bad advice (or bad advisers), politicians also need to make their own sound judgements. Being unwilling to listen to bad news may also lead to failure in political leadership:

Some leaders I think only want to hear the good news. They don’t like to hear bad news and they don’t like dealing with issues. They see leadership is more as a badge of honour, rather than a responsibility.

All about timing

One of the major criticisms of politicians today is not having the foresight to deal with emerging issues, such as climate change. But is this a symptom of what has come before?

While having a vision is essential to be an effective leader, sometimes being ahead of the political times can be disastrous. Former prime ministers who tried to enact policies on climate change may agree. As one interviewee observed:

You can fail as a leader because you try something that’s just too hard. Hard stuff sometimes takes years, and sometimes really good leaders are just ahead of the trend. And so, they can bring a small group with them, but they can’t transition it to a larger community. And sometimes it’s just not the right time.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Numbers fly as unedifying campaign draws towards its close

Caution when it comes to policy or big agendas can perhaps also be understood in the context of an unforgiving media cycle and inability to have in-depth discussions. Another interviewee noted how easily the news agenda can spiral out of control and be diverted into difference issues:

I think quite often things happen that are beyond your control and then the public will call upon you and actually run it down. You can be very popular one night and very unpopular next day depending on your last decision and slight comment that you might make innocently but they have an effect what you say doesn’t matter.

Unethical behaviour

But of course, it’s not all bad luck and bad timing. Politicians who participated in this research spoke of their good intentions and of leadership as being about serving the community. But they conceded there are politicians who joined politics to serve their personal interests. As one noted:

At the moment, I think we have more people in public life who are thinking about what they can get out of it and how they’re going to be able to reward themselves, rather than how they can serve the people that put them there.

The NSW ICAC has unearthed numerous examples of politicians who have not acted in the public interest. For some, this has even resulted in jail time.

Use-by dates

All politicians would say they’d like to leave at a time of their choosing. But this is harder than it sounds. It is an unusual, powerful and all-consuming role, that becomes much more than a job.

Interviewees noted that not getting out in time may lead to a politicians’ downfall.

there comes a time when leadership is redundant. There comes a time when you’ve given what you can give […] And quite often you see people who persist long after their time.

However, anyone looking at a loss on Saturday can take some heart. One interviewee explained the job losses of former prime ministers John Howard and Bob Hawke as part of a “natural cycle of change”.

I don’t think we could see the replacement of every prime minister as being a sense of failure.

Ataus Samad is affiliated with the Australia & New Zealand Academy of Management, Association of Advanced Collegiate Schools of Business, and Ethnic Communities Council of NSW Inc. In the past worked with politicians as a member of advisory board and a staff. Currently working as a lecturer at the Western Sydney University.

– ref. ‘Some leaders only want to hear the good news’: politicians tell us how political careers can end – https://theconversation.com/some-leaders-only-want-to-hear-the-good-news-politicians-tell-us-how-political-careers-can-end-182590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Giuffre, Senior Lecturer in Communication, University of Technology Sydney

You’ve probably heard the name Harry Styles. He is the current “real big thing” in popular music.

But how did a former boy band star become such a huge musician and award-winning artist in his own right – and does he deserve all the breathless praise?

The hype began in 2010 as a member of mega group One Direction. Paul McCartney gave them his blessing as they clearly tapped into The Beatles legacy.

On a break since 2016, One Direction is still breaking records online. Their 2015 music video Drag Me Down recently passed one billion views on YouTube – seven years after its release.

Since going solo, Styles has wowed audiences as a fashion icon and performer, releasing his third solo album, Harry’s House, this week.

Styles’ latest single, As It Was, is already a world record holder for daily streams across multiple platforms, debuting in its first week with 43.8 million plays.

As a solo artist, he has won a swag of international awards, including Grammys, Brits and ARIAs.

His 2019 album, Fine Line, debuted at number one on the Billboard charts and is the most recent album to make it to Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.

While Styles has groups of young female fans who have followed him since One Direction, his current fan base is much broader, brought together by the community and mood built through his music.

Substance as well as style

Styles’, um, style has been likened to iconic musician David Bowie in terms of gender and genre fluidity. NPR describes him as “dressed in the finery of rock’s legacies”. GQ called him “one of the best dressed men in the world” with “elegance and bold choices”.

In 1980, Bowie appeared on the cover of his album The Man Who Sold the World in a “man dress”. In 2020, Styles wore a tailor-made lace Gucci gown on the cover of Vogue.

The nature of his public profile means there has been intense scrutiny about his personal life. Styles has been repeatedly asked about his sexual orientation. His response has been to call these questions “outdated”.

In responding in this way he provides strong leadership for the young mainstream. He is essentially saying no one should need to justify or explain who they love.

Popular music becomes really powerful when artistic statements lead to action. Styles does this most overtly in the song Treat People With Kindness, which he performs draped in pride flags. This is a clear act that tells LGBTQA+ fans they are welcome.

Of course, Styles is privileged in terms of money, race and gender – and this means he can make art and take risks with less to lose than others.

As Billy Porter reminds us, queer people of colour have been challenging expectations about representation for decades, often as a matter of necessity rather than mere choice.

Read more:
Friday essay: will the perfect men’s dress ever exist – and would men wear it?

The personal and communal in action

In addition to fine songwriting, which he does with some regular collaborators, Styles also draws from a diverse pool of influences.

Iconic artist Stevie Nicks referred to him as “the son I never had”. In return, Styles said Nicks’ songs “made you ache, feel on top of the world, make you want to dance, and usually all three at the same time”.

At Coachella in April 2022, he invited Shania Twain to perform with him. Introducing her, he said: “in the car with my mother as a child, this lady taught me to sing”.

The next week he invited Lizzo on stage, and together they performed I Will Survive, a tribute to their shared love of 1970s music.

Collaboration with other artists – particularly artists from different perspectives – shows Styles is open to exploring different territory.

Popular music doesn’t have one “sound” over time – it changes with fashion, technology and culture. Staying relevant means being able to embrace different ways of doing things.

Harry’s House

His new album, Harry’s House, shows another evolution in Styles’ musical career.

It builds on his pop music background and travels around between 70s style folk storytelling and various eras of great dance music. Lyrically, it moves from cryptic – “I bring the pop, you bring the cinema” – to explicit – “if you’re getting yourself wet for me, I guess you’re all mine”, mostly
drawing praise from music critics.

Popular music matters because it brings people together. Harry Styles, and popular music like his, does this on a mass scale. Whether the Style (sorry) is your taste or not, his value is not only demonstrated in the millions of sales, but in the power of the connections he builds between his fans.

Read more:
That’s what makes them beautiful: why One Direction fans are smarter than you

Liz Giuffre does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The rise and rise of Harry Styles: how did the former boyband member become the biggest name in pop? – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-rise-of-harry-styles-how-did-the-former-boyband-member-become-the-biggest-name-in-pop-183128

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Harris, Associate Professor in Education, University of Newcastle

Contract and casual workers in Australian universities have borne the brunt of revenue losses and funding cuts to higher education and research. When the government refused to provide JobKeeper to public universities during the COVID pandemic, thousands of academics on contracts got the boot.

My research, with Nerida Spina, Simon Bailey, Mhorag Goff and Kate Smithers, aims to understand and support the working lives of academics in insecure employment. We have solutions for both governments and universities to reduce the burden of widespread precarity.

This precarity doesn’t just affect individuals. Insecurity, systematic underpayment and a lack of support for contract and casual workers in the sector are eroding Australian intellectual capital. This impacts the education and employment opportunities of our students.

Read more:
Wage theft and casual work are built into university business models

The lack of secure employment opportunities for academics is resulting in a “brain drain” as researchers take their skills to international markets. As science PhD candidate Miro Astore calculated last month, the government has invested a million dollars to educate him but he’s about to leave Australia and might never return.

It is true casualisation and precarious employment conditions have been commonplace in academia for decades. However, we are now aware of the endemic wage theft from casual and contracted university staff. This week the tertiary education regulator TEQSA again warned universities about underpaying staff.

Despite recent legislation aimed at transitioning casuals who work regular hours into ongoing roles, fewer than 1% of casual academics have been converted to ongoing, secure employment. One casual tutor at Flinders University, who had taught for almost 16 years during teaching periods, this week lost his bid in the Fair Work Commission to be converted to a permanent part-time position. The result of this test case is the final straw for many in the sector.

Read more:
Unis offered as few as 1 in 100 casuals permanent status in 2021. Why aren’t conversion rules working for these staff?

What can government do?

With these pressures in mind, the next government must address this crisis in Australian higher education. Our research reveals necessary government reforms to stop the leaking of talent as well as the practical steps universities can take to support precarious academics and improve the quality of degree programs for all Australians.

The next government must:

• urgently lift higher education funding

• hold universities to account for underpaying staff

• amend legislation covering the transition of casuals to ongoing employment.

What can universities do?

At a local level, universities can quickly address three key issues.

1. Receiving grant funding and publishing your research is key for all academics.

Grants are the heart of research, allowing researchers to build new knowledge. Australian Research Council (ARC) grants are the biggest prize of all. Yet being on fixed-term contracts often excludes academics from applying for these grants.

Academics in ongoing roles need to push back against institutional practices that marginalise the contribution of contract researchers.

2. One of the biggest influences on how researchers experience contract work is their direct manager.

Our research reveals the importance of managers having regular open and honest conversations with academics about the duration of contracts and supporting them in their research and teaching work. This work is the central role of the university.

Read more:
The casual staff who do 80% of undergrad teaching need more support — here’s a way unis can help

3. Casual and fixed-term staff often miss out on training and conferences that can help them build their skills.

Academics are generally not paid when attending professional development. So our university educators are having to use their own time, and possibly miss out on paid work, to stay on the cutting edge for our students.

While university staff can – and should – push back against precarious work, higher education policies wield the ultimate influence. And higher education policy has been largely absent from this election campaign.

So what have the parties offered?

Labor’s headline higher education policy is A$481.7 million in funding for an additional 20,000 university places for students over the next two years. It also offered extra funding for universities that offer courses in “national priority areas like clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health and education, or where there are skills shortages”.

Labor has promised to reform the sector through an Australian universities accord. There is very little detail, however, about what this might look like.

The Coalition’s higher education policy centres on research commercialisation and building collaboration between industry and universities. The cornerstone of this policy was a promise of $362 million over five years for six “Trailblazer Universities”. These are pegged as partnerships between industry partners, small-to-medium enterprises and universities to “supercharge their research translation and commercialisation capabilities”.

Both sides of politics promised more places at university for young Australians. Yet neither released any plans to support those who will be teaching them. Their silence on how universities can provide high-quality education to these extra students speaks volumes.

Read more:
Here’s what the major parties need to do about higher education this election

If these policies are really about supporting educational and employment opportunities for young Australians, surely the government needs to consider what happens to these students in universities. An essential starting point is to ensure all academics – regardless of their employment status – are supported and paid appropriately for their work.

Jess Harris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Here’s what the government and universities can do about the crisis of insecure academic work – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-government-and-universities-can-do-about-the-crisis-of-insecure-academic-work-183345

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and Emma La Rouche, from the University of Canberra’s Media and Communications team, look at the last week of the campaign as Australians head to the polls.

Michelle and Emma discuss key wage and unemployment figures playing into the campaign, Labor taking a (modest) gamble with its costings, and the impact (or lack of it) of Anthony Albanese’s mistakes. Also, will those polls perform better than in 2019?

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. VIDEO: It’s not just politicians on tenterhooks – pollsters are too – https://theconversation.com/video-its-not-just-politicians-on-tenterhooks-pollsters-are-too-183519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Hurlimann, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, The University of Melbourne

It will be impossible to tackle climate change unless we transform the way we build and plan cities, which are responsible for a staggering 70% of global emissions. Yet, Australia’s national policies on urban environments are seriously inadequate.

For our ongoing research, we have interviewed more than 140 built environment professionals – architects, urban planners, property developers and more – about their experiences of barriers to climate change action.

They said Australia’s policies, or lack thereof, prevent the necessary action to not only address cities’ contribution to climate change, but also to protect cities from its impacts. As one urban planner told us, “there’s just no appetite for it” in federal government.

The incoming government must strengthen urban development policies if we’re to have any hope of meeting Australia’s net-zero emissions by 2050 target. This requires integrated action across built environment sectors.

Cities in a changing climate

Two types of climate change action are urgently needed in cities:

1. mitigation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including from manufacturing and construction materials, and from the energy used to operate buildings, amenities and infrastructure

2. adaptation: ensuring cities can endure climate change impacts such as increased bushfires, rising sea levels, drought, heatwaves and other severe weather events.

Cities are associated with most of humanity’s consumption of natural resources, such as coal and gas for energy use, and coal and iron to make steel. This means cities release enormous amounts of emissions.

Take the carbon footprint of Greater Melbourne, as an example. Melbourne released an estimated 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2009, or 25.1 tonnes per person. Of these, 4.5 tonnes are from construction and real estate services; the second highest contribution.

Materials such as steel, concrete, aluminium and glass are abundant in city infrastructure, and their production releases significant emissions.

The City of Melbourne has a stock of 1.5 million tonnes of materials per square kilometre. If we built the city today, construction alone would result in 605,000 tonnes of emissions per square kilometre. It would also use 10 petajoules of energy – the same as 700,000 cars driving from Melbourne to Sydney.

The construction industry requires better legislative drivers, including building codes, that encourage the use of recycled materials to reduce emissions.

Read more:
‘A new climate politics’: the 47th parliament must be a contest of ideas for a hotter, low-carbon Australia

Cities also bear a high cost of climate change impacts, particularly heatwaves and floods.

During heatwaves, cities can be up to 12 degrees hotter than surrounding rural areas.

Cities are also prone to flash flooding, as the high proportion of sealed surfaces such as concrete in urban areas can’t soak up water when it rains, like soil can. This makes them vulnerable to storm damage.

Barriers to climate action

Over the last five years, we’ve conducted in-depth interviews with 140 professionals working across built environment sectors.

They identified a number of key barriers to effective climate mitigation and adaptation in cities, such as a dearth of urban development policy addressing climate change, particularly at the federal level.

They also identified a lack of government leadership, and financial constraints in the fiercely competitive property and development environment. An urban planner said:

We don’t even have a strategy for settlement in this country, let alone […] an urban development strategy. So, that’s where a lot of our climate change issues arise from: our cities and our urbanisation.

A federal urban policy agenda, if well designed and implemented, could help coordinate and fund urban development activities, providing leadership which industry would follow.

For example, it could determine where infrastructure (such as transport), services (such as hospitals), and housing are needed, and provide incentives for their sustainable construction.

Another barrier to effective climate action our interviewees identified was the tensions between local, state and federal governments, and the uncertainty about which level of government is responsible for taking action, including responding to disasters.

We saw this uncertainty most recently during the recent floods in New South Wales and Queensland, when there were delays in allocating emergency funds and assistance to people in need.

A property professional told us:

Climate change action needs to be driven by all governments, federal, state and local – it has to create a level playing field. The property industry and its developers will not try any [climate] action unless they think it will differentiate them and they would make money out of it.

What will happen to homes?

Decades of climate change knowledge are presently poorly translated into built environment policy. As the planet continues to warm, this will have dire consequences on Australia’s most populated areas, such as exacerbating inequities.

In some at-risk locations – such as towns built on floodplains or in bushfire-prone areas – local governments will have to manage increasing climate change impacts on declining budgets, as property values and revenue from council rates decline.

Read more:
Lismore faced monster floods all but alone. We must get better at climate adaptation, and fast

Properties that can’t adapt to climate change, or for which the cost to adapt is prohibitive, will be unable to gain insurance. A recent analysis by the Climate Council found climate change impacts, particularly flooding, will make 1 in 25 Australian properties uninsurable by 2030.

This will reduce their value. Houses in areas prone to flooding or sea level rise have been found to be in a worse state of maintenance and repair. This compromises residents’ health and safety.

The people worst hit by climate change impacts will be disadvantaged populations living in areas where property is cheap, and these groups will find it hardest to recover when disaster strikes.

So what needs to change?

Thanks to our interviews, we can identify a few ways to help address climate change action in cities. This includes:

• federal regulation of the built environment to boost climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as by strengthening the construction code

• ambitious emissions reduction targets consistent with international goals, and translated into action across urban sectors

• greater resources, such as funding and professional development opportunities, to support action

Our interviewees also identified the need for stronger leadership, more policy certainty and more cohesive collaboration across all levels of government.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

What might this look like in practice?

Regulating land use with urban density and connectivity in mind would see homes, workplaces and services like hospitals easy to get to by walking, cycling or public transport. Likewise, improving building codes and design regulations would see buildings with less reliance on air conditioning or heating.

The incoming government should do everything possible to ensure we live a world that doesn’t exceed a temperature rise of 1.5℃ of warming this century. This cannot happen without stronger national policies on the built environment.

Anna Hurlimann receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200101378). She has in the past received a Brookfield Multiplex Construction Innovation Grant. Anna is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Geoffrey Browne receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200101378) and has previously received funding via a ‘Brookfield Multiplex Construction Innovation’ Grant. Geoff is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia.

Georgia Warren-Myers receives funding from funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200101378). She has in the past received funding from Brookfield Multiplex Construction Innovation Grant, an Australian Property Research and Education Fund grant and the NSW Government. Georgia is a member of the Australian Property Institute and the Urban Land Institute.

Judy Bush receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200101378). Judy has previously received funding from Hamton Host-Plus JVMV Pty Ltd. Judy is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia.

Sareh Moosavi receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200101378). She is a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects.

– ref. Australia’s cities policies are seriously inadequate for tackling the climate crisis – https://theconversation.com/australias-cities-policies-are-seriously-inadequate-for-tackling-the-climate-crisis-182769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Tingay, John Curtin Distinguished Professor (Radio Astronomy), Curtin University

The United States Congress recently held a hearing into US government information pertaining to “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAPs).

The last investigation of this kind happened more than 50 years ago, as part of a US Air Force investigation called Project Blue Book, which examined reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (note the change in name).

The current hearings are the result of a stipulation attached to a 2020 COVID-19 relief bill, which required US Intelligence agencies to produce a report on UAPs within 180 days. That report appeared in June last year.

But why would governments be interested in UAPs? One exciting line of thought is UAPs are alien spacecraft visiting Earth. It’s a concept that gets a lot of attention, by playing on decades of sci-fi movies, views about what goes on in Area 51, and purported sightings by the public.

A much more prosaic line of thought is governments are interested in unexplained aerial phenomena – especially those within their own sovereign airspace – because they may represent technologies developed by an adversary.

Indeed, most discussion at the recent hearing revolved around potential threats from UAPs, on the basis they were such human-made technologies.

None of the public testimony went any way towards supporting a conclusion that alien spacecraft have crashed on, or visited, Earth. The hearings did include closed classified sessions that presumably dealt with more sensitive security information.

There is no doubt unexplained phenomena have been observed, such as in footage obtained by navy pilots (above) showing fast moving airborne objects. But the leap to aliens requires far more substantial and direct evidence – incredible evidence – that can be widely scrutinised using the tools of science.

After all, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is a fascinating question of science and society. So the search for extra-terrestrial life is a legitimate pursuit, subject to the same burden of evidence that applies to all science.

A drop in an ocean

On and off over the past decade, I’ve used radio telescopes to perform wide ranging experiments to search for technosignatures – signs of technological civilisations on planets elsewhere in our galaxy (the Milky Way). But after decades of many teams of experts using powerful telescopes, we still haven’t covered much territory.

If the Milky Way is considered equivalent to the Earth’s oceans, the sum total of our decades of searching is like taking a random swimming pool worth of water out of the ocean to search for a shark.

On top of that, we’re not even sure sharks exist and, if they do, what they would look like or how they would behave. While I believe life will almost certainly exist among the trillions of planets in the universe – the sheer scale of the universe is a problem.

Read more:
Do aliens exist? We asked five experts

What would it take to make contact?

The vast volume of the universe makes it very difficult to achieve interstellar travel, receive signals, or communicate with any potential far-off lifeforms (at least according to the laws of physics as we know them).

Speeds are limited to the speed of light, which is around 300,000 km per second. It’s pretty fast. But even at that speed it would take a signal roughly four years to travel between Earth and the nearest star in our galaxy, which is four light years away.

But Einstein’s theory of special relativity tells us that, in practice, the speed of a physical object such as a spacecraft will be slower than the speed of light.

Also, thanks to the inverse square law of radiation, signals get weaker in proportion to the square of the distance they have travelled. Over interstellar distances, that’s a killer.

So for planets hundreds or thousands of light years away, travel times are likely in the many thousands of years. And any signals originating from civilisations on those planets are incredibly weak and difficult to detect.

Cover ups?

Could it be aliens have crashed on Earth and the US government is just covering it up, as Republican Congressman Tim Burchett claimed in his reaction to the hearing?

For airlines belonging to the International Air Transport Association, the chance of plane crash is about one in a million. That begs the question: do we think an alien spacecraft that can travel for thousands of years, across interstellar distances, is more robust and better designed than our planes?

Let’s say it’s a hundred times better. Which means the chance of a crash is one in a hundred million. So to end up with alien wreckage stashed away at Area 51, we would need one hundred million visits from alien spacecraft. That would be 2,739 visits from aliens per day, every day, for the past 100 years!

So, where are they? The near-Earth environment should be constantly buzzing with aliens.

With radars constantly scanning space, billions of mobile phone cameras, and hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers photographing the sky (as well as professional astronomers with powerful telescopes), there should be a lot of really good evidence in the hands of the general public and scientists – not just governments.

It’s much more likely the UAPs presented in evidence are home-grown, or due to natural phenomena we don’t yet understand.

In science, Occam’s Razor is still a great starting point; the best explanation is the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts. Until there is much more – and much, much better evidence – let’s conclude aliens haven’t visited yet.

I can’t lie though, I’m hoping I’ll see a time when that evidence exists. Until then, I’ll keep searching the skies to do my bit.

Steven Tingay receives funding from Western Australian Government, Australian Government, and international funding agencies. He is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Is there evidence aliens have visited Earth? Here’s what’s come out of US congress hearings on ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ – https://theconversation.com/is-there-evidence-aliens-have-visited-earth-heres-whats-come-out-of-us-congress-hearings-on-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-183443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Curtin, Professor of Politics and Policy, University of Auckland

All budgets are about economics and politics, and 2022’s was no different. The Labour government continued its economic rebuild through commitments to infrastructure and industry, low- and middle-income earners’ living costs, and the successful implementation of signature reforms in health and climate.

Commentators judged it largely responsible, given the backdrop of international disruption, risks of continued inflation and stretched supply chains. The reaction to how New Zealand’s women fared, however, has been mixed.

Politically, Labour needed to reassure both core and softer voters with this budget. And since the 1990s, women have been an important source of soft votes for Labour. Under John Key, National closed the gender gap that had opened under Helen Clark’s previous administration.

But women voters began to return to Labour in 2017 and overwhelmingly supported Labour in 2020. The NZ Election Study shows 51% of women respondents voted Labour compared to 21% for National. These figures suggest support from women cannot be taken for granted.

Hits and misses

What did the 2022 budget offer New Zealand’s diverse communities of women and non-binary people? There was some good news: the NZ$580m package for Māori and Pacific initiatives and additional funding for the prevention of family and sexual violence were welcome.

So were increases for specialist mental health and addiction services, to health practitioners for care of intersex children and young people, and to ACC for injuries that birthing parents suffer. Sole parent beneficiaries will now receive child support payments as income. And because women continue to earn on average less than men, the additional $350 cost-of-living payment matters.

Read more:
A budget for the ‘squeezed middle’ – but will it be the political circuit-breaker Labour wants?

But it isn’t all good news. The equal employment opportunities commissioner has highlighted the cost-of-living payment excludes beneficiaries, and pay gaps affecting Māori, Pacific, ethnic communities and disabled whānau have been overlooked.

Such gaps could be addressed if government ministries were required to undertake intersectional analysis of their budget proposals to ensure inequalities based on such things as race, gender, ethnicity, class or sexual orientation aren’t reinforcing one another.

For example, we know women were disproportionately affected by COVID-19 job losses, with
wahine Māori and Pacific women experiencing the highest rates of unemployment. We also know the underutilisation rate for women is almost four percentage points higher than for men.

Women in work

The budget’s investment in construction, advanced manufacturing, digital tech and agricultural industries, along with the continuation of the Apprenticeship Boost have been positively received.

But as with previous budgets, inclusive outcomes are complicated by the gender segregation within our labour market. To be fair, the government has funded initiatives to encourage women to move into these industries, and the number of women working in construction has increased by 12,600 since 2020.

Read more:
The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty

Proportionally, however, women are only 15% of the sector (a two point increase over two years). Likewise, there has been little increase in the representation of women employed in manufacturing.

Figures from the digital technology sector are harder to distil. According to industry group NZTech, only 27% of digital technology roles were held by women, while employment of Māori and Pacific Peoples was at 4% and 2.8% respectively.

The 2022 OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand, and the NZTech and Digital Skills Forum, have both identified the need to develop digital apprenticeships, design inclusive education pathways, and actively support careers for women, Māori and Pacific people in this sector.

Genuine well-being

We also need to remember that continuing to invest in the care economy and social sectors will benefit post-pandemic recovery.

Caring for future generations through climate change mitigation and emissions reductions was also a significant part of this budget. The $150 million investment in clean vehicles, and $109 million for active and public transport initiatives, are commendable.

But applying an equity and gender analysis to these initiatives would reveal the complexities associated with assuming that all New Zealanders will be able to avail themselves of these “greener” options.

For example, New Zealand’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment identified how the impacts of climate change can exacerbate existing inequities for those marginalised by ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, age, literacy or health.

Read more:
Collapse of negotiations with care workers shows little has changed in how the government views the work of women

While women are interested in electric vehicles, the extended (permanent for some) discounts on public transport fares are more likely to benefit them than a clean vehicle rebate; women are more likely than men to use public transport, in part because of their lower income levels.

But cost is not the only barrier to using public transport. Safety is also important, meaning connection times between services, regular rural and regional services, street lighting and distances between stops and work or home matter to women.

The budget statement released in December 2021 included evidence that New Zealand women felt a lot less safe than men. The Treasury cites OECD figures that reveal New Zealand’s gender gap on feeling safe is second highest, only slightly better than Australia.

So there is more work for the government to do to ensure inequities are systematically addressed through public policy and the budget process. Perhaps the best starting point would be a requirement that all state agencies include gender in their calculations and analysis. That way
New Zealand can truly be a leader on budgeting for “well-being”.

Jennifer Curtin is the recipient of a Endeavour Fund grant (2018-22) which has supported her research into designing a gender responsive budgeting system for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Dr Suzy Morrissey is affiliated with the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll).

Komathi Kolandai and Oluwakemi Igiebor do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labour’s fourth ‘well-being budget’ still comes up short on the well-being of women – https://theconversation.com/labours-fourth-well-being-budget-still-comes-up-short-on-the-well-being-of-women-182842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peggy Kern, Associate professor, The University of Melbourne

It’s been a big week and you feel exhausted, and suddenly you find yourself crying at a nice nappy commercial. Or maybe you are struck with a cold or the coronavirus and the fact your partner used up all the milk just makes you want to weep.

You may indeed feel sad about being sick or tired, but why the tears? Why can’t you hold things together?

Tears serve multiple psychological functions. Tears act as a physical indicator of our inner emotional state, occurring when we feel intense sadness or intense joy.

Inside our brains, strong emotions activate the central autonomic network. This network is made up of two parts: the sympathetic system (which activates our “fight or flight” response when we perceive danger) and the parasympathetic nervous system, which restores the body to a state of calm.

Strong emotions activate the sympathetic part of this system, but when we cry, the parasympathetic part is activated, making us feel better.

Read more:
Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

What happens when we’re stressed or tired?

We are trained from a young age to control our emotions, with socially sanctioned times to express emotion, refraining from physical displays of negative emotion. For example, crying during a sad movie is fine, but crying at work is usually seen as less acceptable.

The prefrontal cortex, or the cool, thinking part of our brain, responds to the emotional signals released by the central autonomic network, helping us regulate the emotional response to deal with our emotions in controlled ways. The prefrontal cortex is like the main processor of your computer, managing tasks to keep the system functioning well.

Unfortunately, the more stressed and tired we are, or if we experience extended periods of physical or emotional pain, the sympathetic system remains activated. The prefrontal cortex becomes overwhelmed, like a computer that has too many programs running all at once.

The brain becomes less able to regulate our emotions in the expected ways, resulting in visible emotional responses, such as tears or angry outbursts. We might not even realise how overwhelmed we are until tears are running down our face after a seemingly minor incident or experience.

Some people are more likely to cry than others. Women tend to cry more than men, though the extent to which this is due to biological aspects versus expectations of society is unclear.

People who score high on the personality traits of empathy or neuroticism are more likely to cry more often. Excessive crying can also be a physical indication of depression, as the brain is overwhelmed with emotional pain.

What’s the point of tears?

Beyond psychological reasons, tears play several social roles. Even as our society might disapprove of strong expressions of emotions, tears actually help to create and sustain social bonds.

Tears can act as a cry for help, visibly showing others we are not OK and need support. Tears often generate feelings of sympathy in others, helping us connect with them. Tears can also occur when we feel deep sympathy for another person, crying along with them, which further strengthens social bonds.

Read more:
Are creative people more prone to psychological distress or is the ‘mad genius’ a myth?

Beyond psychological and social reasons, there are also physical reasons for tears. For instance, when we are tired, we work hard to keep our eyes open, which dries out the eyes. Our bodies produce tears to counteract the dryness, keeping the eyes moist so we can see clearly.

Watery eyes are also common in respiratory illnesses such as cold, flu, and the coronavirus. When we have an infection in the body, white blood cells are mobilised to fight the bug. These extra white blood cells can inflame the blood vessels in the eye, which causes the eye ducts to clog, bringing tears.

Tears are a natural part of human functioning. Especially with the pressures the past few years have brought, sometimes there’s nothing better than a good cry to relieve overwhelming emotions. But if you find yourself excessively crying, it might be helpful to talk to your doctor about possible physical or psychological causes.

Peggy Kern does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do we get teary when we’re tired or sick? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-get-teary-when-were-tired-or-sick-180661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

Dogs have an exceptional sense of smell. We take advantage of this ability in many ways, including by training them to find illicit drugs, dangerous goods and even people.

In recent years, a dog’s sense of smell has also been used in the medical field. These remarkable animals can be trained to sniff out cancer, diabetes, and extraordinarily, epileptic seizures before they occur.

Early in the pandemic the possibility of using dogs to sniff out COVID was explored in a few countries. And although the results of these early trials surpassed most people’s expectations, many questions remained. These included how well these findings would stand up to more rigorous scientific scrutiny and how well dogs would perform outside the artificial environment of the research laboratory.

Read more:
Yes, dogs can sniff out COVID. But not after dinner, when they need a nap

In the past week we have moved closer to answering these questions, with an article published in BMJ Global Health, which found dogs could detect COVID almost as well as PCR tests, in some circumstances.

What did the researchers test?

This article reported the results of two studies. In both studies, four dogs were tested to see how well they detected COVID from skin swabs taken from people with or without COVID (according to the gold-standard test, PCR).

These dogs didn’t just come off the streets; they had already had a significant amount of training in sniffing out drugs, dangerous goods or cancer.

Read more:
The scent of sickness: 5 questions answered about using dogs – and mice and ferrets – to detect disease

The first study

In the first study, the researchers looked at whether the dogs could identify COVID in the skin swabs of 420 volunteers, 114 of whom had tested positive to COVID by PCR.

The study was rigorous, with various precautions against the results being compromised. This included an elaborate study protocol that involved a number of separate assistants and a dog handler. None of them knew whether the sample was from someone with COVID, so they could not influence the outcome, intentionally or unintentionally.

The dogs detected COVID with a sensitivity of 92% (which refers to their ability to correctly identify those with infection) and a specificity of 91% (their ability to correctly identify those without infection).

Although there was some variation between dogs, they all performed exceptionally well. There are no significant disclaimers here, this was a great result.

The second study

The second study was important as its goal was to see how well the dogs could do in the messiness of the real world. This real-life trial involved the dogs sniffing 303 incoming passengers at Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport in Finland. Each passenger also took a PCR test.

The dogs matched the PCR results in 296 out of 303 (98%) of the samples and they correctly identified the swabs as negative in 296 out of 300 (99%) samples.

The important consideration in interpreting this result is this happened during airport screening, a situation where you wouldn’t expect many people to test positive.

In this type of low-prevalence environment, you want dogs to be able to screen passengers with a high “negative predictive value”. That is, you want the dogs to be able to identify people who are not carrying the virus to differentiate them from those who may be carrying it. Then you would carry out confirmatory PCR testing on that last group.

In an environment where the prevalence of COVID is around 1%, such as an airport, the researchers estimated the “negative predictive value” for dogs screening for COVID to be 99.9%. That is, the dogs would be expected to correctly exclude 99.9% of passengers as having COVID. This is another fantastic result.

Read more:
Want to cut your chance of catching COVID on a plane? Wear a mask and avoid business class

Low tech and instant

In a world where we rely on expensive technological solutions, there is something reassuring about finding a low-tech option for screening COVID.

Importantly, however, the study highlights dogs are quick to train for this task and are ideal for screening in high-throughput settings, such as airports, given how accurate they are and the fact they give instant results.

Although nothing should surprise us about our closest friend, another incredible outcome from this study was the suggestion the dogs may have been able to distinguish between the variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

While other possible explanations cannot be excluded, the performance of the dogs seemed to drop with the emergence of the Alpha variant. This was attributed to the dogs being able to identify a difference between this variant and the wild-type virus on which they were originally trained.

These studies confirm nothing could be further from the truth when we say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Read more:
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can sniffer dogs really detect COVID almost as well as a PCR test? Turns out they can – https://theconversation.com/can-sniffer-dogs-really-detect-covid-almost-as-well-as-a-pcr-test-turns-out-they-can-183363