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

Whatever the result on May 3, even people within the Liberals think they have run a very poor national campaign. Not just poor, but odd.

Nothing makes the point more strongly than this week’s release of the opposition’s defence policy.

As events played out, its Wednesday launch in Perth was overshadowed by the death of Pope Francis on Monday. But regardless of that unforeseeable event, the timing was extraordinarily late. Early birds had started voting at pre-poll places on Tuesday. The popularity of pre-polling means that, for many voters, the tail end of the formal campaign is irrelevant.

The Coalition regards defence and national security as its natural territory. It is pledging to boost defence spending to 2.5% of GDP within five years – $21 billion extra – and to 3% within a decade. The policy set up a contrast with Labor.

So why leave its release until the campaign’s penultimate week? The opposition’s line is that it wanted to see what money was available. Dutton said, “It would have been imprudent for us to announce early on, without knowing the bottom line”. The explanation doesn’t wash. If defence is such a priority, it should have been towards the front of the queue for funds.

That wasn’t the whole of the problem. The announcement consisted literally of only these two figures, wrapped in rhetoric. It didn’t come with any meat, any policy document setting out how a Coalition government would rethink or redo defence.

Shadow minister Andrew Hastie was at the launch, but he has been hardly seen nationally in recent months. He says he’s been working behind the scenes, and also he has a highly marginal Western Australian seat (Canning) to defend.

But Hastie, 42, has been underused. From the party’s conservative wing, he is regarded as one of the (few) bright young things in the Liberal parliamentary party. He has been touted as a possible future leader. Given the general weakness of the Coalition frontbench, wasting Hastie has been strange.

A captain in the Special Air Service Regiment who served in Afghanistan, Hastie has seen his share of combat. In 2018, he expressed the view that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles, saying “my personal view is the fighting DNA of close combat units is best preserved when it’s exclusively male”.

This week he was peppered with questions about his opinion (questioning triggered by a similar view being expressed by a disqualified Liberal candidate). But the issue is a red herring.

Hastie, a former assistant minister for defence, says he accepts the Coalition’s position that all defence roles are and should be open to qualified women. In the Westminster system, the obligation is for ministers to adhere to the agreed policy – that doesn’t mean someone might not have a different personal view.

Putting together an election campaign requires judgements at many levels, ranging from how big or small a target to be, and the balance between negative and positive campaigning, to candidate selection and which seats the leader visits.

The length of the formal campaign is in the prime minister’s hands. Anthony Albanese has sensibly kept this one to the typical five weeks, but a couple of past PMs made bad decisions, by running very long campaigns: Bob Hawke in 1984 and Malcolm Turnbull in 2016. Both lost seats, while retaining power.

While keeping the formal campaign short, Albanese was canny in hitting the road as the year started with a series of announcements. That gave him
momentum and some clear air. This also became more important when Easter and the Anzac holiday weekend intruded on the formal campaign. The Coalition looked dozy in January.

In the event of a Coalition loss, the nuclear policy will be seen as a drag. In campaigning terms, it has been a bold throw of the dice, although admittedly not nearly as bold as the Coalition’s sweeping Fightback blueprint for economic reform in the early 1990s. That looked for a while as if it might fly, but was eventually demolished by Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Elections are not conducted in vacuums. Context can be important, and it has been particularly so in this campaign.

As has repeatedly been said, Donald Trump hovers over these weeks, and it’s the Coalition that is disadvantaged. This is not just because Dutton struggles to deal with the government’s barbs that he is Trump-like – more generally, some voters who might have been willing to change their vote appear to be thinking now is not the time.

If the Coalition defies the current apparent trend to Labor and scores a win in minority government, critics of its campaign will be eating humble pie. Seasoned election watchers remember the salutary lessons of 1993 and 2019, when the polls were wrong. In those elections, the government was returned.

Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud have both suggested the Coalition’s internal polling, which concentrates on marginal seats, is better for it than the media’s national polls.

If Labor loses this election, it will be left wondering how an apparently textbook campaign failed to nail the votes.

If the Liberals lose, their post-mortem reviewers will home in on various faults. One will be the policy lateness (not just the defence policy), meaning voters didn’t have time to absorb the offerings. Another will be the fact some policies were not fully thought through, or road tested. The consequences of the foray on working-from-home should have been anticipated. “Shadows” have often put policy preparedness behind going for a political hit on the day.

Read more:
Election Diary: Dutton backs down on working-from-home crackdown after outcry threatens to cost votes

Even now, the opposition is struggling when quizzed about its plan to cut 41,000 from the public service. Dutton says the numbers will only go (by attrition or voluntary redundancy) from those working in Canberra. The Coalition also says frontline services and national security areas will be protected.

A source familiar with the public service points out, “If you sacked 41,000 in Canberra, you would decimate the national security bureaucracy and if you exempted national security you would barely have 41,000 public servants to sack”.

If the Coalition has a disastrous loss, with few or no net gains, the criticism of its campaign will be scarifying. If it loses by only a little, the critics will say that a better planned and organised campaign, preceded by a lot more policy work, might have pushed it across the line.

To be successful, an opposition needs a great deal of elbow grease, and so far the Coalition doesn’t look as though it has used enough of that.

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. Grattan on Friday: Coalition’s campaign lacks good planning and enough elbow grease – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-coalitions-campaign-lacks-good-planning-and-enough-elbow-grease-254992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carole Cusack, Professor of Religious Studies, University of Sydney

➡️ View the full interactive version of this article here.

Carole Cusack 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. Inside the elaborate farewell to Pope Francis – https://theconversation.com/inside-the-elaborate-farewell-to-pope-francis-255020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Ghezelbash, Professor and Director, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

People who apply for asylum in Australia face significant delays in having their claims processed. These delays undermine the integrity of the asylum system, erode public confidence and cause significant distress to people seeking asylum.

There are, at the time of writing, 28,691 applications for a protection visa awaiting a decision at the Department of Home Affairs. At least 43,308 applications await review at the Administrative Review Tribunal.

For people seeking asylum who have their initial applications refused and seek review in the Administrative Review Tribunal and in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the process can often take more than ten years.

Whoever wins the upcoming election inherits the daunting task of addressing this issue.

Our research evaluated data on Australia’s previous attempts to increase efficiency of asylum processing. We also examined international best practice for designing fair and fast procedures, including lessons from recent successful asylum reforms in Switzerland.

Here are five ways to make Australia’s asylum process more efficient.

1. Recognise fairness enhances efficiency

In most countries with asylum systems, processing is neither fair nor fast.

When trying to increase efficiency, many governments have limited the ability of a person seeking asylum to fairly put forward their case.

Australia, the United States, and many countries across Europe have introduced accelerated or fast-track procedures that drop essential safeguards including:

• the right to an interview
• access to legal assistance, and
• the opportunity to respond to information that undermines their claim for asylum.

But these efforts don’t just undermine fairness. They also contribute to slower processing.

Such measures tend to lead to more appeals, and more cases being overturned by courts and tribunals. This contributes to longer delays.

Our research into Australia’s now-abolished fast-track procedures demonstrates this. This policy was introduced by the Coalition government in 2014, with the aim of speeding up processing and reducing the backlog of asylum applications.

It included the creation of a new streamlined review process before the Immigration Assessment Authority. Applicants were generally not interviewed or allowed to put forward new information.

The resulting system was not only unfair; it was also excruciatingly slow.

Four in five cases were appealed to the court. About 37% of these were overturned. The delays created by increased litigation clearly counteracted any time saved.

One of the best ways to improve the efficiency of asylum processing is to ensure applicants can present their cases effectively from the outset.

2. Fund legal representation for those who can’t afford a lawyer

Research shows legal assistance increases efficiency.

Lawyers can help assist people to prepare and present their case properly, and ensure that they get a fair hearing (reducing the chance of a lengthy appeal).

Promisingly, in 2023 the federal government announced A$48 million in funding for legal services for people seeking asylum.

It’s crucial this funding is maintained, and is sufficient to meet demand.

3. Invest in decision-makers

Once a person lodges their claim for asylum, it’s first assessed by the Department of Home Affairs. If the application is denied, the applicant can seek review at the Administrative Review Tribunal, which reassesses the merits of the application.

If the tribunal rejects the claim, the court can conduct a limited review focusing only on whether the decision was lawfully made.

A fast process is only possible if we have enough of all these decision-makers across the system.

This requires investment in training and hiring suitably qualified decision-makers who are equipped to handle the volume and complexity of asylum claims.

This is underway. The federal government has invested $58 million in October 2023 towards hiring additional Administrative Review Tribunal members and Federal Circuit and Family Court judges for asylum cases. It’s also hiring more staff at the Department of Home Affairs.

Australia’s next government should consider taking a data-driven approach to calculate the decision-making capacity required for existing and future caseload.

4. Prioritise simple cases for faster processing

Not all asylum cases are equally complex; some can be resolved relatively quickly.

Australia needs a robust and transparent triaging system to identify and prioritise simpler cases for faster processing.

This would significantly improve overall efficiency and allow decision-makers to focus on more complex cases.

The Department of Home Affairs’ current approach to triaging is a “last in, first out” system that prioritises new asylum applications for rapid processing.

However, this leads to substantial unfairness for applicants who lodged their claims earlier, who may face long processing delays.

The department needs an approach to streaming based on case complexity, to ensure all cases are finalised as quickly as possible.

5. Better coordination across decision-making bodies

The various bodies involved in asylum processing – including the Administrative Review Tribunal, the Federal Circuit and Family Court and the Department of Home Affairs – need to coordinate to improve efficiency and cut delays.

Any government reforms aimed at increasing the efficiency of asylum procedures must be system-wide.

By taking a holistic view, we can ensure that increased efficiency at one stage does not inadvertently create bottlenecks or inefficiencies in another.

A fundamental shift

Overall, Australia needs a fundamental shift that recognises fairness contributes to, rather than detracts from efficiency.

That shift is essential for developing a fair and fast asylum process that will serve the best interests of applicants, the government and the Australian public.

Daniel Ghezelbash receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Robert Bosch Foundation. He is a board member of Refugee Advice and Casework Services, Wallumatta Legal, and the Access to Justice and Technology Network. He is also a Special Counsel at the National Justice Project.

Keyvan Dorostkar receives an Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Mia Bridle receives an Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

– ref. 5 ways to tackle Australia’s backlog of asylum cases – https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-tackle-australias-backlog-of-asylum-cases-254071

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

Every election cycle the media becomes infatuated, even if temporarily, with preference deals between parties. The 2025 election is no exception, with many media reports about preference “deals” being made.

However, it is important to remember that voters are not required to follow the how to vote cards of the parties they vote for, and only major party voters have a significant percentage who follow the cards.

Other than the Greens and One Nation, minor parties lack resources to put people at every polling place who will give voters how to vote cards. As a result, how to vote follow rates for most minor parties are low.

At the 2022 Victorian state election, for example, seven seats had preferences for all voters data entered into a computer system. The Poll Bludger said Sunday that in these seven seats, about 30% of Labor voters exactly followed their party’s how to vote card.

In seats where the Liberals were making an effort by staffing polling places, over 50% of their voters followed the card. But in Preston, a Labor vs Greens contest, only 29% of Liberals followed the card.

The major parties will usually be the final two candidates in a seat, so their preferences are not distributed.

Despite all this, there may be political consequences of preference recommendations.

At this election, Labor is recommending preferences to the Greens ahead of the Coalition in all seats except in the Victorian Labor-held seat of Macnamara (an “open” ticket without a recommendation between the Greens and Liberals owing to concerns about the Jewish vote in that seat).

The Coalition is recommending preferences to One Nation ahead of anyone else in 139 of the 147 seats One Nation is contesting.

Recommending preferences to the Greens may make Labor seem too left-wing to some voters, and recommending preferences to One Nation may make the Coalition seem too right-wing and pro-Trump. One Nation will recommend preferences to the Coalition ahead of Labor in all seats it contests, the same recommendation they used in 2022.

The Poll Bludger said the Greens will be recommending preferences to Labor in all seats at this election. Occasionally, the Greens issue open tickets. The difference is worth about 5% of the Greens vote, so if the Greens had 10% in a seat, Labor’s two-party vote would be 0.5 points higher with a Greens recommendation to preference Labor than otherwise.

Trumpet of Patriots will put the incumbent party last in seats they contest. The Poll Bludger said Clive Palmer’s previous United Australia Party did this in 2022. But in 2022, Labor had a higher share of UAP preferences in seats it held than in Coalition-held seats, the opposite of what would be expected if these recommendations had made a difference.

Trumpet of Patriots is only getting 1% or 2% in current national polls, so their how to vote preference recommendations are not worth worrying about.

In 2022, Greens preferences (that is, voters who put the Greens as 1 on their House of Representatives ballot) went to Labor over the Coalition by 86–14. One Nation preferences went to the Coalition over Labor by 64–36. These figures are national, and use the Labor vs Coalition two-party count in seats where one major party missed the final two.

Both the Greens and One Nation are using the same preference recommendations between Labor and the Coalition as in 2022, so their voters’ preferences won’t change because of recommendations.

Seat-specific recommendations

The Liberals are recommending preferences to teal independent Kate Hullett in the Western Australian Labor-held seat of Fremantle, after they put her behind Labor in the WA state seat of Fremantle at the March 8 state election. This will increase Hullett’s chance of defeating Labor.

If the final two in Macnamara are the Greens and the Liberals, The Poll Bludger said Labor’s decision to issue an open ticket will give the Liberals about 2% of the 10% swing they would need to gain Macnamara.

The Liberals will recommend preferences to Labor in the Tasmanian Labor-held seat of Franklin ahead of an anti-salmon farming independent. They will also recommend preferences to Labor ahead of Muslim Vote-backed independents in the NSW Labor-held seats of Watson and Blaxland. These recommendations will make it difficult for any of these three independents.

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. Preference deals can decide the outcome of a seat in an election – but not always – https://theconversation.com/preference-deals-can-decide-the-outcome-of-a-seat-in-an-election-but-not-always-255005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

For each Australian federal election, there are two different ways you get to vote.

Whether you vote early, by post or on polling day on May 3, each eligible voter will be given two ballot papers: one for the House of Representatives (the “lower house”) and one for the Senate (the “upper house”). Each of these two ballots uses a slightly different system, so it’s worth understanding how your numbered boxes translate into real results.

Knowing how preferences work is key to making your vote count, before you get to enjoy your hard-earned democracy sausage.

The House of Representatives (lower house)

Australia is divided into 150 electorates, each of which is represented by one member in the House of Representatives. To elect them, we use a system called full preferential voting.

On your green lower house ballot paper, all the candidates will be listed in a random order. You write a “1” in the box beside the candidate who is your first choice. This is called your first preference. You then write a “2” beside your second-choice candidate (your “second preference”), and so on until every candidate has a number.

To make sure your vote counts, you need to number every box. If you skip a number, use the same number twice, or leave a box blank, your vote becomes informal and won’t count. So, it’s important to double-check. If you do make a mistake, don’t worry – you can just ask for a new ballot paper from a polling official.

Once voting closes, the counting part is where things get interesting.

First, officials from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) – an independent and impartial body – sort the ballot papers into piles according to each ballot paper’s first preference, then count them. If any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, they win and are declared elected.

If no one gets over 50%, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is knocked out (the technical term is “excluded”). Their ballot papers are then “redistributed” to the second preference candidate marked. This continues – eliminating the lowest-polling candidates and redistributing their preferences – until someone crosses the 50% threshold. This preference distribution process helps ensure the winner has majority support.

But what does this look like? You can find out by numbering your preferences in the great farm animal election.

As you’ll see, your first pick may be knocked out during vote counting, but maybe your second or third preference will get across the line.

The Senate (Upper House)

There are 76 members of the Senate: 12 from each state and two from each territory. Voting for senators is a bit different from the lower house in that it is partial preferential, and you can vote either “above the line” or “below the line”.

Your white senate ballot paper will have several columns listing parties and groups. Party names appear above the thick black line, and individual candidates appear below it.

If you vote above the line, you must number at least six boxes. When it comes to counting the votes, your preferences will then be distributed to candidates in the party in the order that their party has listed them. Parties decide this order beforehand.

So, say you put a 1 next to the Liberal Party, which has three candidates, a 2 next to Labor, which also has three candidates, then number four more boxes. Your first three preferences would be for the three Liberal candidates, then your fourth to sixth preferences would be for the Labor candidates because you put them second. This then continues for each of the six boxes you numbered.

You can try voting above or below the line with this sample senate ballot. It will tell you to keep numbering boxes to ensure your vote is valid.

If you vote below the line, for individual candidates, you must number at least 12 boxes. But you can number all of them if you want – it can be satisfying to put someone last!

Just like in the House of Representatives, you put 1 beside your first choice, 2 beside your second, and so on. You don’t have to stay within the same column – you could have a Greens candidate as your first choice, a Liberal as your second, then another Greens candidate as your third, for example.

Because the upper house elects multiple candidates per state, using a combination of voting methods and a quota system, the Senate count is more complex.

One thing to be mindful of is the “exhausted” vote. If you only number the minimum (six above the line or 12 below) and all your preferred candidates are excluded, your vote can no longer be redistributed. But any of your preferences used to elect a candidate before that point still count.

Make your vote count

Australia’s voting system is designed to make sure your vote has an impact, even if your first-choice candidate doesn’t win. That’s why understanding how preferences flow is so important.

For those of us who have grown up here, it’s easy to think of voting as a chore rather than a privilege. But we’re so lucky to be able to go to a polling place without fearing violence or intimidation.

To be able to cast a vote in a system that – despite some flaws – is free and fair is a global rarity. So make sure you double-check your numbers, and think carefully about where your preferences are going – then enjoy that democracy sausage knowing you’ve made your vote count.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is preferential voting and how does it work? Your guide to making your vote count – https://theconversation.com/what-is-preferential-voting-and-how-does-it-work-your-guide-to-making-your-vote-count-254286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Mortimore, Lecturer, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

If elected, the Coalition has pledged to end Labor’s substantial tax break for new zero- or low-emissions vehicles.

This, combined with an earlier promise to roll back new fuel efficiency standards, would successfully slow the transition to hybrid and battery electric vehicles (EVs).

The Albanese government pitched these tax breaks as a way to make EVs cheaper to buy and more competitive with internal combustion engine cars. Since the tax break came in, EV popularity has surged. Almost 100,000 people have taken out a novated lease on an EV between mid-2022, when the scheme began, and February 2025.

The Coalition has been consistently critical of the tax breaks on cost grounds. The scheme has been far more popular than government forecasts envisaged, leading to concerns about a cost blowout. Rather than the A$55 million forecast for 2024-25, the scheme has cost ten times that – $560 million. EV buyers are much more likely to be wealthy, meaning the tax break has been snapped up by people who need it less. The policy is, however, encouraging car suppliers to import more affordable EVs.

These concerns don’t mean Labor’s policy is bad. Far from it – this tax break is currently the only policy working to drive down transport emissions, now the second-largest source of emissions in Australia. The Coalition has given no indication it would replace the EV tax break with other ways to cut transport emissions.

What is this tax break – and did it work?

In mid-2022, the Albanese government introduced a tax break to encourage uptake of electric vehicles. The measure initially covered hydrogen fuel-cell, battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, but plug-in hybrids are no longer eligible as of April 1.

The tax break works by giving EV buyers who are current employees a fringe benefits tax exemption for low- or zero-emissions vehicles both held and used for private use. The fringe benefits tax is a flat tax of 47% levied on the car benefit provided by the employer. For the exemption to apply, the retail price of the car has to be under the threshold for the luxury car tax of $91,387.

People in high incomes brackets often like to negotiate with their employer to have a car included as part of their salary package so they can reduce their taxable income. The fringe benefits tax is levied on these types of benefits.

The scheme works by exempting purchasers of new EVs from fringe benefits tax. A battery electric Hyundai Kona retailed for around $60,000 last year – 32% more in price than its internal combustion engine equivalent. The fringe benefits tax of around $11,700 annually ends up being larger because of the EV’s high sale price. Without this exemption, the tax acts as a major disincentive for the uptake of EVs.
By and large, electric vehicles cost significantly more than their traditional counterparts. This price gap is dropping as new manufacturers enter the market, but it’s still there. While EVs have lower fuel costs, the higher upfront cost has put off many prospective buyers. This is the issue Labor’s tax exemption was intended to fix.

Has the scheme worked? Overall, yes. In 2022, EVs accounted for just 3.3% of all new cars sold in Australia. By 2023, almost two-thirds of battery electric, vehicles were sold to private buyers, a 145% increase. And in 2024, the figure had almost tripled to 9.6%. Without this tax incentive, Australia’s uptake of EVs would most likely be much lower.

If a future Coalition government ended the tax break, Australia would return to the pre-2022 era, where fringe benefits tax acted as a significant disincentive for EVs.

The tax break isn’t perfect – but it’s better than nothing

Australia’s main power grid now runs on an average of 40% clean energy. As a result, emissions have been tracking downward in these sectors. But transport emissions are still rising. Transport is now Australia’s second-largest source of emissions – almost 100 million tonnes (Mt) out of our total emissions of 434 Mt. By 2030, transport is projected to be the largest source of domestic emissions.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations agreed at least 20% of light vehicles on their roads would be low- or zero-emissions by 2030. But Australia is lagging well behind the pack on the shift to cleaner transport.

At present, just 1% of Australia’s car fleet is electric. Even EVs make up close to 10% of new sales, changing the makeup of the entire fleet (16.8 million) will take years.

By contrast, almost 90% of new cars sold in Norway are electric, according to a 2024 report from the International Energy Agency. In China it’s just under 60%, Sweden it’s 60%, Netherlands 30%, the UK 25% and the United States 10%.

These countries have used a combination of tax incentives and fuel efficiency regulations to drive rapid uptake. While Labor has moved to introduce both of these, progress hasn’t been as fast.

Back to the fuel guzzlers?

Australians rely heavily on cars. But the long lack of fuel efficiency standards mean many models sold here emit much more than in other OECD countries – 150 grams per kilometre versus 107 across 29 European Union nations as of 2023. Put another way, a new car in Australia uses 40% more fuel than its equivalent in the EU. Many drivers prefer big cars, such as the top-selling Ford Ranger.

If the Coalition ends the tax break and pulls the teeth of new emissions standards, it would bring recent modest progress to a halt.

The Coalition has rightly pointed out the inequity of the tax break as it stands. My research has shown this could be fixed. Throwing the scheme out without proposing another way to cut transport emissions is disheartening.

Anna Mortimore receives funding from Reliable Affordable Clean Energy Cooperative Research Centre for 2030 (RACE for 2030).

– ref. Back to the fuel guzzlers? Coalition plans to end EV tax breaks would hobble the clean transport transition – https://theconversation.com/back-to-the-fuel-guzzlers-coalition-plans-to-end-ev-tax-breaks-would-hobble-the-clean-transport-transition-255211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pi-Shen Seet, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Edith Cowan University

Once again, housing affordability is at the forefront of an Australian federal election.

Both major parties have put housing policies at the centre of their respective campaigns. But there are still concerns too little is being done to address supply.

One of the biggest hurdles is an ongoing shortage of skilled tradespeople, and difficulties attracting new workers. The construction industry accounts for 9% of Australia’s workforce. Yet an estimated 35% of workers lack formal qualifications.

On Wednesday, Labor announced an election promise to fast-track formal trade qualifications for about 6,000 experienced but unqualified tradies.

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program would start in 2026 and cost A$78 million.

This program should help address some of the skills shortages in the sector. But it will be a long time before these benefits begin flowing through the system. And Australia is still likely to fall short of the government’s ambitious new home targets.

Recognising skills we already have

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program is intended to partly bridge the gap in construction skills shortages through a process called “recognition of prior learning” – and by offering free training to fill any skill gaps.

In principle, recognition of prior learning allows individuals with substantial and relevant industry experience to attain formal qualifications without lengthy training programs.

A similar approach was adopted in the healthcare sector as an emergency response to the pandemic, to boost the number of qualified workers.

For the construction industry, it will encompass workers currently in the industry who have not completed an apprenticeship, as well as skilled migrants in Australia whose abilities remain unverified.

This process can improve pay and conditions for participants. But it can also potentially fast-track their entry into the qualified workforce, addressing immediate skills shortages.

Read more:
A grab bag of campaign housing policies. But will they fix the affordability crisis beyond the election?

Will it work?

Labor’s new initiative mirrors an existing program at the state level, the New South Wales government’s Trade Pathways for Experienced Workers Program.

According to Labor, this program saw 1,200 students earn their qualifications in an average time of seven months (as opposed to several years).

It’s important to note this includes trades from all sectors of the NSW economy. But it is much faster than the traditional process of skill recognition. The Parkinson Review of Australia’s migration system found this process can take up to 18 months for a skilled migrant and cost over $9,000.

Read more:
Australia has a new National Skills Agreement. What does this mean for vocational education?

Increased housing supply? Not soon

Combined with other initiatives such as incentive payments for construction apprentices, the new Advanced Entry Trades Training program should help address some skills shortages in the sector.

Australia’s peak construction industry body, Master Builders Australia, praised the proposal, citing its own analysis suggesting for every new qualified tradie, an extra 2.4 homes can be built.

Even with these initiatives, the sector will likely fall short of the 83,000 additional skilled tradespeople needed to meet the Albanese government’s target to build 1.2 million new homes over five years.

And it may mainly solve a categorisation issue. Currently, only about 80% of employers in the construction sector in Australia require all job applicants to hold a formal qualification.

Crucially, it doesn’t address the core problem of attracting higher numbers of suitable people to a very traditional industry and helping them finish their qualifications. Almost half of construction sector apprentices do not complete their training.

Other challenges

There are other challenges for recognition of prior learning schemes more broadly.

Research into recognition of prior learning for construction sector apprentices suggests some Australian employers and training providers may be averse to fast-tracking training. About 64% of assessed apprentices had prior experience and skills, but only 30% had their training shortened.

These issues are even more complex when considering accelerated pathways for skilled migrants from a range of countries. There are some significant, well-documented challenges in transferring or recognising vocational qualifications across international boundaries.

More to be done

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program may go some way to alleviating a skills shortage in construction. But it will only partially address the broader issues of supply.

Australia’s vocational education and training systems are complex, making it difficult to predict the outcomes.

The proposed program does not address the problem of rising construction material costs and shortages. This problem is worsened by the declining productivity of the housing construction sector, which has halved over the last 30 years.

Declining productivity isn’t just down to skilled labour shortages. It has also been attributed to other factors such as complex planning approvals, limited innovation, and a predominance of small firms.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Many experienced tradies don’t have formal qualifications. Could fast-tracked recognition ease the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/many-experienced-tradies-dont-have-formal-qualifications-could-fast-tracked-recognition-ease-the-housing-crisis-255108

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

With ongoing cost of living pressures, the Australian and New Zealand supermarket sectors are attracting renewed political attention on both sides of the Tasman.

Allegations of price gouging have become a political issue in the Australian federal election. At the same time, the New Zealand government has announced that “all options” are on the table to address a lack of competition in the sector – including possible breakup of the existing players.

But it is not clear breaking up the supermarkets or other government interventions will improve the sector for shoppers and suppliers.

In 2022, I co-authored a government-commissioned analysis looking at whether New Zealand’s two main supermarket groups should be forced to sell some of their stores to create a third competing chain.

We found it was possible under some scenarios that breakup could benefit consumers. But key uncertainties and implementation risks meant consumers could lose overall.

A lot hinges on whether breakup causes supermarkets’ input costs to rise or product variety to fall. Even in more positive scenarios at least some consumers could be left worse off.

Watchdog concerns

Competition authorities – the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and New Zealand’s Commerce Commission – have conducted supermarket sector studies. They each expressed concern at significant barriers to entry and expansion in the sector and supermarkets’ resulting high levels of profitability.

This year, the ACCC concluded margins earned by Australia’s main supermarkets are among the highest of supermarket businesses in comparable countries. Similarly, in 2022 the Commerce Commission found New Zealand’s supermarkets were earning excess profits of around NZ$430m a year.

While high profits might mean that market power is being abused, it could also mean managers are doing a good job. Or have had a great run of luck. Alternative explanations for high profits would need to be ruled out before putting fingers on regulatory triggers.

Barriers to entry

The starting point is to acknowledge that high profits and prices go hand in hand with barriers to entry and challenges in achieving economies of scale.

In other words, some sectors are less competitive than others simply because a lack of demand or high costs make it unprofitable for additional competitors to either enter or remain in the market.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand, with low population densities and large service areas, face high costs of nationwide supply. They also face significant shipping distances from other countries. This limits the ability of overseas entrants using their existing buying and supply infrastructures.

That said, some barriers to entry might be artificial or caused by existing firms stifling new competitors.

Existing supermarkets in both countries have gained controlling stakes in the land needed to set up new supermarkets – something regulatory settings can prevent.

Another challenge for new chains is the process of getting planning and land use consents – something policymakers can address.

This points to key elements of a test for whether supermarkets are charging too much. One is a recognition that there can be natural reasons for limited competition, and unless technologies or consumer preferences change that will remain the case.

Another is a focus on the things that can be changed – whether at the firm or policy level – in a way that benefits consumers and suppliers. Finally, policymakers need to consider whether the benefits of implementing them outweigh the costs.

Testing the market

Building on work developed by Nobel economist Oliver Williamson, a “three-limb test” was used in the 2017 government-commissioned assessment of fuel pricing in New Zealand that I co-authored. The same could be used to assess the supermarket sector.

That three-limb test asks

• are there features of the existing industry structure and conduct giving cause for concern
• can those causes for concern be remedied
• would the benefits of remedying those concerns outweigh the costs of doing so?

If the answer to all three limbs is yes, that suggests suppliers are charging too much (or delivering too little) since there are practical ways to improve on the status quo.

A virtue of such a test is that is can be applied in any sector where there are high firm concentration, barriers to entry and high profit margins.

Importantly, the test looks beyond just what firms are (or are not) doing and asks whether policy and regulatory settings are ripe for improvements too.

The test is also pragmatic – it shouldn’t trigger changes unless they are clearly expected to do more good than harm. This is important if interventions are risky, costly or irreversible, especially in sectors that are important to all of us.

Politicians on both sides of the Tasman are floating the possibility of supermarket breakup, among other possible interventions. The three-limb test helps to identify whether any proposed interventions are a good idea and whether supermarket prices are higher than they need to be.

Richard Meade co-authored a 2022 study funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment examining the costs and benefits of breaking up New Zealand’s major supermarkets. The views expressed in this article are his own, and do not purport to represent those of any other party or organisation.

– ref. This may be as good as it gets: NZ and Australia face a complicated puzzle when it comes to supermarket prices – https://theconversation.com/this-may-be-as-good-as-it-gets-nz-and-australia-face-a-complicated-puzzle-when-it-comes-to-supermarket-prices-254987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erika K. Smith, Associate Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University

This article contains mention of racist terms in historical context.

Every Anzac Day, Australians are presented with narratives that re-inscribe particular versions of our national story.

One such narrative persistently claims “fuzzy wuzzy angel” was used as an “affectionate” name for local stretcher-bearers of sick and wounded Australian soldiers during the New Guinea campaign of 1942 to 1945.

Papua New Guineans called Australian soldiers masta (master), taubada (big man), and bos (boss). Australian soldiers called Papua New Guinean people by racist phrases including boong, nigger, kanaka, coon, boi, boy and wog.

Our new research shows that, far from being “affectionate”, the phrase fuzzy wuzzy angel is best understood in this context – and in the context of 500 years of anti-Black racism.

These other offensive terms used by soldiers are largely gone from the public domain, yet fuzzy wuzzy angel persists. We decided to explore this apparently acceptable form of contemporary racism.

Power relations across the centuries

In 1526 the Portuguese explorer Jorge de Menezes named islands in the west of what is now West Papua Ilhas dos Papuas.

“Papuas” was a borrowed word by the Portuguese of Malay/Indonesian origin, meaning “frizzled” or “curly-haired”. The islands were therefore known as the “islands of the frizzy-haired people”.

In 1545, the Spanish explorer Yñigo Ortiz de Retez named the east mainland Nueva Guinea (New Guinea). As historian J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke describes it, Ortiz de Retez saw a physical resemblance to the “frizzy haired inhabitants […] of the Guinea Coast in West Africa”.

The first usage we found of the phrase fuzzy wuzzy angels relating to the New Guinea campaign was in an article in the Sydney’s The Daily Mirror in 1942. A war correspondent reported troops along the Track were reciting a “catchy verse with a swing in it”.

The “catchy verse” appears to borrow directly from the 1892 poem Fuzzy Wuzzy, by English writer Rudyard Kipling. Kipling borrowed the phrase from how British soldiers referred to the Beja warriors of north-east Africa during the Mahdist (Anglo–Sudan) War of 1881–99.

Shortly after the poem was published in The Daily Mirror, the image of the “fuzzy wuzzy angel” was immortalised in a photograph. George Silk’s image shows Raphael Oimbari (Hanau village, Oro Province) walking with injured Australian soldier Private George “Dick” Whittington (2/10th Battalion) on Christmas Day, 1942.

While Whittington was identified as the injured soldier, it wasn’t until the 1970s that Oimbari was identified and named as the Papua New Guinean guide.

The cultural journey of Kipling’s poem in Africa to Australian infantry on the Kokoda follows the same route as Spanish and Portuguese sailors from African Guinea to Papua New Guinea.

This focus on frizzy or fuzzy hair homogenised Blackness under the colonial gaze.

Continuing racial relations

Far from being just stretcher bearers, local people during the Kokoda Campaign were often forced to support the Australian war effort in roles including cooks, cleaners, labourers, construction workers, farm hands and carriers of ammunition.

These roles have also disappeared from our national narrative, along with the more racist forms of address.

In place of historically accurate accounts is a distilled national narrative: iconic stretcher bearers “affectionately” known as fuzzy wuzzy angels.

There was little interest in the Australian war story in Papua New Guinea and the Kokoda Track between the end of the war and the early 1990s. Then, in 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating kissed the foot of the Kokoda Memorial.

Attention by subsequent prime ministers and an increased number of books and films propelled the Kokoda Track into mainstream Australian consciousness.

Prime Minister John Howard made the “affectionate” usage claim in a speech to Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Bill Skate in 1998.

Papua New Guinean scholar Regis Tove Stella wrote in 2007 that fuzzy wuzzy angel is “belittling and consistent with the discourse of paternalism that largely characterised colonial administrative policy”.

Yet we continue to see Indigenous perspectives erased in favour of the “affectionate” account.

When Malcolm Turnbull laid a 75th anniversary wreath in April 2017, the Australian Associated Press included this explanatory paragraph:

Local Papua New Guinean men, dubbed affectionately the ‘Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels’, assisted and escorted wounded and injured Australian soldiers along the trail.

In 2024, “affectionate” was reinscribed by Peter Dutton in an address to parliament to honour Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.

500 years of a racist phrase

Australia’s northernmost island, Saibai Island of Zenadh Kes/Torres Strait Islands, is less than 4 kilometres from Papua New Guinea – yet most Australians know little about our closest neighbours.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinea’s independence from Australia, mobilised by the Whitlam government, some 25 years behind the post-war decolonisation movement.

Yet official decolonisation has not stopped Australians from insisting that it is affectionate – and, by implication, not racist – to use colonial naming practices that date back some 500 years.

This article draws on research conducted during Erika K. Smith’s doctoral candidature which was financially supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and a Western Sydney University Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

Ingrid Matthews 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 phrase ‘fuzzy wuzzy angels’ is far from affectionate – it reflects 500 years of racism – https://theconversation.com/the-phrase-fuzzy-wuzzy-angels-is-far-from-affectionate-it-reflects-500-years-of-racism-253953

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Peng, Lecturer in Accounting, The University of Queensland

For Australians approaching retirement, recent market volatility may feel like more than just a bump in the road.

Unlike younger investors, who have time on their side, retirees don’t have the luxury of waiting out downturns. A sharp dip just before, or as you begin drawing down your superannuation, can leave lasting damage.

It’s not just about watching your super balance dip.

The real danger comes if you need to start withdrawing funds during a slump. Doing so can lock in losses and make it harder for your remaining savings to recover. The timing of poor market returns is known in finance circles as “sequencing risk”. And it can shorten the life of your retirement savings.

What’s going on in markets?

So far in 2025, global shares as measured by the MSCI World Index have fallen 4.6%. Concerns over stubborn inflation and trade tensions that will hurt growth are keeping investors on edge.

If your superannuation is in a “balanced” option, with diversified investments in stocks, bonds, private markets and cash, your balance will have fallen by less than this amount.

Zoom out and the story looks better. Over the past year, total returns for the MSCI index remain strong, up 6.5%.

It’s a reminder that downturns are often followed by rebounds. We saw this during the COVID crash in 2020, when markets plummeted, only to recover more than 50% over the following year.

Still, for those nearing retirement, the timing of these dips matters more than the averages. Uncertainty makes planning all the more crucial.

Is your super still in high gear?

Many Australians don’t know exactly how their super is invested. Most people are in default “balanced” or “lifecycle” options, which automatically shift from high-growth assets like shares to safer investments like bonds and cash as retirement approaches.

This design helps cushion your balance from big market hits as you near retirement. But if you’ve chosen a high-growth option or haven’t reviewed your investment settings in years, you could still be heavily exposed to volatility.

In that case, now’s the time to consider your options:

• delay retirement by a year or two to give your portfolio time to recover

• move to part-time work instead of retiring fully, reducing how much super you need to draw down

• review your budget. You can’t control the markets, but you can control your spending plans.

Don’t panic – reacting emotionally can cost you

When markets fall, it’s natural to feel the urge to switch your portfolio mix from stocks into cash. But this can turn temporary losses into permanent ones.

Instead, consider more measured steps. Transition-to-retirement strategies let you draw a partial income while keeping most of your super invested.

Annuities – which offer guaranteed income for life or a fixed term – are another option. Newer products also address longevity risk, which is the risk of outliving your savings.

What does a 5% drop really mean?

Let’s say you’re 65 and have a super balance of A$200,000 (for men, that’s roughly the median; for women, it’s lower due to factors like lower lifetime earnings and career breaks).

A 5% fall translates to a $10,000 loss. That might not seem huge, but if you were planning to draw down 5% of your balance annually – about $10,000 a year – that loss could effectively wipe out an entire year’s retirement income.

It doesn’t stop there. If left invested, that $10,000 could have continued to grow. Over a 20-year retirement, and assuming a 5% annual return, that $10,000 could have grown to over $26,000.

For retirees with smaller super balances or higher withdrawal rates, the impact of a market dip can be even more significant.

Many experts now expect long-term returns to be more modest than in recent decades. Ageing populations, climate change and shifting global dynamics are likely to weigh on growth.

This makes it even more important to avoid switching entirely into cash, which can erode your savings through inflation over what could be a 20- or 30-year retirement.

A smarter path to retirement

The best approach is to gradually shift your investments in the years leading up to retirement – not all at once in response to a market dip. Lifecycle options do this automatically, but if you’re managing your super yourself, it’s worth getting advice.

Your super fund’s website likely offers tools and calculators to help. ASIC’s MoneySmart retirement planner is another great resource. And don’t underestimate the value of calling your fund to ask:

• How is my super invested?

• Does this match my age and risk tolerance?

• What are my options if I want to make changes?

The bottom line

Retiring in a volatile market isn’t easy, but panic isn’t a plan. By understanding your investment mix, taking advantage of flexible retirement strategies, and seeking advice when needed, you can navigate uncertainty more confidently.

Planning for retirement isn’t about avoiding all risk – it’s about managing it. With the right tools and mindset, you can stay on course, even when markets wobble.

Read more:
How much do you need to retire? It’s probably a lot less than you think

Natalie Peng 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. Markets are choppy. What should you do with your super if you are near retirement? – https://theconversation.com/markets-are-choppy-what-should-you-do-with-your-super-if-you-are-near-retirement-255017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judith Brett, Emeritus Professor of Politics, La Trobe University

Beatrice Faust is best remembered as the founder, early in 1972, of the Women’s Electoral Lobby (WEL). Women’s Liberation was already well under way. Betty Friedan had published The Feminine Mystique in 1962, arguing that many women found life as a full-time housewife and mother unfulfilling. With prevailing social assumptions denying them meaningful work, they were bored and frustrated, trapped by an ideal of domesticity that had become a prison.

Consciousness raising groups were meeting to understand how patriarchal assumptions had limited their members’ lives and self-understandings. Campaigns for equal pay, for childcare, for abortion law reform, were underway. In 1970 Germaine Greer, who had been at Melbourne University with Faust in the late 1950s, published The Female Eunuch, with its attack on the suburban consumerist nuclear family.

WEL began when Beatrice invited ten carefully-selected women to meet in the upstairs room of her Carlton terrace. The idea behind WEL was simple, as many brilliant ideas are. It was to survey political candidates for the 1972 federal election on their position on various issues of central concern to women and then to publicise the results.

American feminist activists Gloria Steinem and Patricia Carbine had surveyed the candidates for the forthcoming US presidential election and rated them according to their responses. After 23 years of Coalition government, momentum was building behind the Labor party and its dynamic leader, Gough Whitlam, and a Labor victory seemed within reach. So why not do the same here?

Compared with much of Women’s Liberation, WEL was a reformist project. It was not attempting to overthrow the patriarchy or hasten socialism, but to position women’s concerns high on the mainstream political agenda and to achieve practical reforms that would make a difference to women’s lives. Scores of women joined that first year. For many, it transformed their lives, and by the end of the year WEL had become an effective feminist lobby group.

When Faust started WEL she already had a decade of political activism behind her, in civil liberties and in the campaign to decriminalise abortion, which was illegal in all Australian states and territories. Like many other sexually active young women before the contraceptive pill was readily available, Faust had abortions, three in fact.

She had another reason to campaign for reform of the abortion laws. Her mother had died 12 hours after giving birth to Beatrice. She had been advised to have an abortion, but she was a Catholic and had refused. Her mother’s death was the defining fact of Faust’s life. The motherless child was sickly, and her childhood miserable. She believed that her father blamed her for his wife’s death and that she was unwanted and unloved.

The pioneering political psychologist, Harold Lasswell, said of political activists that they try to solve for others what they cannot solve for themselves. There was nothing Faust could do about her mother’s death, but she could agitate to ensure other children were not born unwanted, as she felt herself to be.

Repealing the laws that made abortion illegal, together with better sex education and easily available contraception, were her core political missions. She also agitated against the wowserish censorship regime limiting what adults could read and see in 1960s Australia, and publicly celebrated and privately enjoyed the pleasures of sex.

Faust grew to sexual maturity during the 1950s when a repressive public sexual morality was already fraying, both from the emergence of a confident youth culture and the decline in the moral authority of churches.

The advent of reliable contraception in the early 1960s turbo-charged this, removing the fear of pregnancy that had kept respectable unmarried people chaste. With the pill separating sex from reproduction, sex could become, as Faust put it, a recreational activity pursued for pleasure. The implications of this are still playing out, in the unstable co-existence in the contemporary moment of constrained public discourse with private sexual licence.

Faust was a passionate advocate of sex education so that men and women could better understand their own and each others’ sexuality. Contrary to many in the women’s movement, she did not believe that differences between men and women were only the result of social roles and conditioning. The social constructions of gender built on biological foundations, Faust believed. This meant if a woman was to live as an autonomous social being and to have sexual agency, she needed to understand her body, and how it differed from the bodies of other women and of men. For her and her mother, biology had been a sort of destiny, so when the women’s movement started mocking biology, she disagreed.

Faust was not just a political activist. She was also in her time a public intellectual, who wrote books, articles, op eds and reviews and commented frequently in the media. Because of her unusual openness about her sexuality, she became a go-to person as constraints loosened during the 1970s on the public discussion of all matters sexual.

Her sexual style, she claimed, was masculine, giving her an androgenous perspective that made her as sympathetic to men as to women, and which informed her provocative perspectives on pornography, rape and paedophilia. Describing herself as “a sceptical feminist”, she was wary of the misandry she believed informed feminist separatism and feared that second-wave feminism was succumbing to the same sexual puritanism that had weakened the first.

Many of her views will be challenging for contemporary readers. It’s hard for societies to get the balance right on sex. Too much repression is harmful as is too much licentiousness, the needs and desires of men and women need balancing, a range of individual differences accommodated, and violence and depravity confronted.

Whatever the prevailing norms, not everyone will be happy. We need to be able to talk about this, to discuss issues around age of consent, sexual assault, victim blaming, gender identity and more, without being told “you can’t say that”. Faust was never afraid to say what she thought. She was fearless.

Fearless Beatrice Faust (MUP), by Judith Brett, is available from April 23.

Judith Brett 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. Provocative, progressive and fearless: why Beatrice Faust’s views still resonate in Australia – https://theconversation.com/provocative-progressive-and-fearless-why-beatrice-fausts-views-still-resonate-in-australia-252027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

In the past week, at least seven women have been killed in Australia, allegedly by men. These deaths have occurred in different contexts – across state borders, communities and relationships. But are united by one truth: they are part of the ongoing national crisis of men’s violence against women and children.

While in the first four weeks of the election campaign there was silence from the major parties on this issue, now – with one week to go – both have released their commitments.

The Coalition announced its plan last night, following Labor’s promises earlier in the week.

Neither represent a commitment to ending gender-based violence. They both propose a patchwork of largely reactive initiatives. These will fail to deliver holistic reform to prevent violence and to intervene early enough to meaningfully reduce it.

What has Labor pledged?

Labor’s “commitment to women” announcement focuses on addressing financial abuse, a “fast growing and insidious form” of abuse. Key strategies proposed include:

• preventing perpetrators from using tax and corporate systems to accrue debts as a form of coercive control

• making perpetrators liable for debts incurred by the victim-survivor because of coercive control

• and exploring options to stop perpetrators accessing the superannuation of victim-survivors after death.

Labor has also pledged $8.6 million for perpetrator responses, including early interventions for young people.

What about the Coalition?

The Coalition’s approach is much more scatter gun, providing a list of disconnected strategies. It outlines 14 commitments.

The announcement promises to improve support by expanding the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program and the Leaving Violence Program (which provides one-off funding to help cover the cost of leaving an abusive relationship).

The Coalition will also increase crisis helpline support to ensure victim-survivors “have their calls answered and get the immediate assistance they require”.

This is much needed. Frontline services are consistently under-resourced and have been calling for at least $1 billion annually to meet demand.

The question of funding

The Coalition’s $90 million pledge, with no clear timeframe or detail on how it will be distributed, represents less than 10% of what frontline services say is needed every year.

Labor’s earlier announcement does not detail the funding commitment that will be allocated to their suite of proposed initiatives, other than to say $8.6 million will be provided for perpetrator interventions.

Neither party has committed to multiyear funding models for domestic, family and sexual violence frontline services. This is essential for workforce retention and to ensure consistent delivery of trauma-informed care.

We cannot criminalise our way out

Law and order responses dominate the Coalition’s announcement. These include implementation of a national domestic violence register and the development of uniform national knife laws.

Legal accountability is important and we need to improve information sharing across state and territory borders. But we cannot police or prosecute our way out of a problem rooted in structural inequality and social attitudes. It also fails to recognise that for many victim-survivors, the criminal legal system can be re-traumatising and does not meet their justice needs.

The Coalition also commits to introducing new offences for online coercive behaviour and spyware use. This would be a significant legal shift by introducing family and domestic violence offences and bail laws for certain abusive behaviours at the federal level.

It’s unclear how this would translate into state and territory criminal laws, or whether it is even necessary. All states and territories currently have laws prohibiting stalking and monitoring behaviours. Some states are in the early stages of developing or implementing coercive control offences.

The Coalition has also reiterated its 2023 promise to hold a Royal Commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.

Indigenous scholars and organisations have previously rejected this proposal, particularly in light of the failure of the Northern Territory Intervention which required the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act to implement.

Evidence shows First Nations-led solutions should be prioritised over punitive approaches.

What’s missing?

The proposals from the two parties miss several critical areas.

There’s no mention of sexual violence. While it would be optimistic to hope this is yet to come, it’s disappointing to see it has fallen off the agenda.

The proposals don’t say anything about housing or recovery support beyond emergency accommodation. A lack of access to safe, long-term housing is one of the most significant barriers for victim-survivors escaping and recovering from violence. In the middle of a broader housing crisis, this is an essential component of any strategy.

Children remain largely invisible. While the Coalition’s announcement commits to improving child protection, it offers nothing on delivering age-appropriate crisis responses, and to support the recovery needs of children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right.

Read more:
Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election?

Much has been written in recent weeks about the need to effectively engage men and boys, but they’re also barely mentioned by either party.

Finally, there is no discussion of the need for greater monitoring and evaluation efforts. We cannot fix what we do not measure.

Both parties’ announcements promise to build on the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, which aspires to eliminate gender-based violence in one generation.

Nearly three years into the delivery of that plan, the persistent prevalence of this violence shows we must do more. We need visible, bipartisan leadership that treats this issue with the same gravity we afford to other national emergencies.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault. The Men’s Referral Service (call 1300 766 491) offers advice and counselling to men looking to change their behaviour.

Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.

– ref. The major parties have announced their plans to address domestic and family violence. How do they stack up? – https://theconversation.com/the-major-parties-have-announced-their-plans-to-address-domestic-and-family-violence-how-do-they-stack-up-255127

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wayne Peake, Adjunct research fellow, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney University

The story goes that the late billionaire Australian media magnate Kerry Packer once visited a Las Vegas casino, where a Texan was bragging about his ranch and how many millions it was worth.

Packer produced a coin from his pocket and said: “I’ll toss you for it: my cash against your ranch”.

The Texan declined.

This story may or may not be true. But it is consistent with the old maxim that Australians love a punt and will bet on just about anything, even on two flies crawling up a wall (which one will fly off first?).

A rich history

Australians are the biggest (or worst) gamblers in the world per capita. How did it come to this?

By the 1830s, following European settlement in Australia, there was a steady stream of migrants who were taking the ultimate gamble – resettling on the other side of the world.

The discovery of gold in the 1850s then encouraged a torrent of speculators often armed with no more than a shovel and a wheelbarrow.

Most remained insolvent but some found bonanzas. Gold-rich towns, Melbourne in particular, developed rapidly. Modern enclosed racecourses soon followed.

At first, gambling was restricted to side bets between the horses’ connections.

That changed in 1882 when Englishman Robert Sievier visited Australia. He was the first bookmaker to stand on a regular pitch, accept cash bets and pay winners after each race.

Sievier soon had numerous imitators on course – bookmakers registered with race clubs, betting on races like the Melbourne Cup, which by the 1890s attracted 100,000-plus racegoers.

Some fun on the front line

People bet off-course too – in barber shops and saloons, not only on the races but rowing events, cycling and “pedestrianism” (foot races).

Despite state betting acts passed in 1906 intended to restrict gambling, by the first world war, capital cities were dotted with racecourses.

Male racegoers were encouraged to “play up and play the game” – as the famous 1892 imperialist poem Vitai Lampada by Henry Newbolt urged – and enlist in the defence forces.

When their enthusiasm curbed in 1917 after causalities at the front seeped back, governments reduced the number of race meetings but this caused crowds at those remaining to treble.

Meanwhile, at the front lines, Australian soldiers adopted the egalitarian coin-toss game of two-up: a game where coins are spun in the air and bets are laid on whether heads or tails are facing up once they settle on the ground.

Two-up remains a facet of the Australian psyche today – illegal, although authorities turn a blind eye on Anzac Day, supposedly out of respect for returned soldiers.

This concession reflects the connection in Australia between mateship, the “Anzac legend”, sport and gambling.

The pokie problem

After the first world war, racecourse attendances grew even larger.

The 1929 Depression eroded them but the emergence of racing radio broadcasts and the spread of the telephone network fed a regrowth in illegal off-course betting, especially in New South Wales.

That state was also the scene of the next big, and perhaps most significant, development in gambling in Australia: the legalisation of poker machines in 1956.

“The pokies” were originally restricted to registered clubs: mostly returned servicemen clubs, but in 1997, the NSW Labor government allowed them into hotels, where they soon rendered the less exciting “dancing joker” card machines extinct.

The other states long resisted the temptation to legalise pokies. As a result, coaches loaded with would-be players from Victoria visited clubs at New South Wales border towns such as Corowa.

The pokies were finally legalised in Victoria in 1991, later in other states. In Western Australia they remain legal in casinos only.

Poker machines are widely regarded as a more insidious and dangerous form of gambling – in most other countries they are restricted to casinos.

Since then, pokies have become a major part of Australia’s gambling landscape. In fact:

• Australia has less than 1% of the world’s population but 18% of its poker machines.
• Australians are the world’s biggest gambling losers per capita, gambling away at least $25 billion a year, and possibly even $31.5 billion.

The options are endless

Poker machines reign as the dominant form of gambling in Australia, but there are many more options: lotteries and instant lotteries (“scratchies”), Keno and sports betting, which is fast replacing horseracing as the main business of the so-called corporate bookmakers that have emerged in the past 25 years.

As technology continues to advance, online gambling – which is difficult to regulate and control – might be the biggest ongoing threat to gamblers.

Wayne Peake 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 biggest losers: how Australians became the world’s most enthusiastic gamblers – https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-losers-how-australians-became-the-worlds-most-enthusiastic-gamblers-252496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nazia Pathan, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University

If there’s a disease that seems to run in your family, if you’ve had a negative reaction to a drug or wondered why a standard treatment didn’t work on you, the answers may lie in your genes.

The unique sequence of DNA that acts as a blueprint for building and maintaining your body often plays a major role in shaping your predisposition to diseases and reactions to drugs.

Genes in the DNA make proteins, which can act as biomarkers or influence other types of biomarkers. Biomarkers are molecules in the body that help measure health conditions, such as those detected in blood or urine tests.

Blood glucose, for example, is a biomarker for diabetes, cholesterol levels can be biomarkers for heart diseases and albumin is a protein used to assess kidney and liver functions.

Tailoring treatments

By understanding a patient’s unique genetic profile, biomarker readings and lifestyle information, doctors could tailor the most effective and safest treatments for that individual.

Genetics offer the opportunity for individualized health care that can improve patient outcomes, save lives and alleviate strain on the health-care system.

This is the promise of personalized medicine, which is already making a difference in areas such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, mental health and rare diseases.

The question is, are we prepared to seize this golden opportunity in Canada?

Genetic testing and data

Canadians are not averse to genetic testing. By 2018, a survey by Abacus Data showed around 11 per cent of Canadian adults had used direct-to-consumer genetic testing and analysis kits, and 60 per cent were open to ordering a test.

This level of interest highlights a general acceptance of and readiness for genetic advancements in health care, which is encouraging, since we need much more reliable, population-level genetic information to make the most of this opportunity.

Current genetic data is either scattered across relatively small, fragmented groups, which is severely limiting from a broader research perspective, or held by private companies. These companies have varying regulatory standards, raising concerns about privacy and data security, especially if a company is financially unstable or ceases to exist. This recently occurred when genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy.

Read more:
With 23andMe filing for bankruptcy, what happens to consumers’ genetic data?

The better model is publicly managed biobanks, which prioritize broad societal health over profit and offer stronger data protection through robust regulation of access, storage and usage. Strict oversight ensures the protection of individual privacy while promoting transparency.

The potential of biobanks

In this age of big data, biobanks have become some of the most transformative tools in medical research, enabling scientists to study the relationships between genes, health and disease on an unprecedented scale.

This is possible because of technological advancements that allow large-scale genetic and biomarker testing, the adoption of cloud-based servers, and improvements in statistical modelling, machine learning and artificial intelligence.

Establishing a biobank begins with collecting small amounts (five to 10 millilitres) of blood, saliva or tissue from consenting participants in the presence of health experts.

Biobanks use next-generation sequencers to perform the genetic sequences at high speed, while the latest proteomics platforms enable measurement of thousands different biomarkers from a very small amount of blood. The resulting genetic and biomarker profiles are curated and made accessible through platforms like a national library.

Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are paving the way with national efforts such as the UK Biobank and the All of Us Research Program.

The British Biobank houses genetic and health data from more than 500,000 participants. Similarly, the U.S. program aims to enrol more than one million participants.

Genomics in Canada

As a genetic epidemiologist, I have had the opportunity to identify several potential genetic targets by using these treasure troves of information.

The problem is that we don’t yet have a ready way of knowing if the results are directly applicable to the Canadian population.

This is about to change. Genome Canada has launched the Canadian Precision Health Initiative to sequence the genomes of at least 100,000 Canadians.

A Pan-Canadian Genome Library (PCGL) is also in the works to harmonize genetic data produced across Canada. It aims to capture, store and provide access to Canadian genomic data in a secure and ethical manner. Although this work is in the developmental phase, and the target population size remains unclear, these efforts are significant.

These visions are closer to becoming a reality with the recent announcement of a $200 million investment in the Canadian Precision Health initiative. This is in addition to the more than $1 billion previously invested in health genomics research projects.

These funds will support Canada’s Genomic centres, the PCGL, and enhance the translation of genomics into real-world applications, boosting the development of personalized medicine and advanced diagnostics to treat diseases.

A potential model for the world

Canada, with its uniquely diverse population, has a rare opportunity to lead the way in equitable, multi-ethnic genetic research that would address current biases that predominantly focus on individuals with European ancestry.

This would ensure that everyone in Canada, including Indigenous communities, can benefit from this health-care revolution in an equitable, ethical and safe manner that balances privacy with the opportunities for groundbreaking research.

With public trust and robust oversight, and making population-level data internationally accessible, Canada’s biobank initiative could become a model for the world in the golden era of personalized medicine.

Nazia Pathan, PhD 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 golden era for personalized medicine is approaching, but are we ready? – https://theconversation.com/a-golden-era-for-personalized-medicine-is-approaching-but-are-we-ready-250336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Yiu, Associate Professor, School of Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s unaffordable housing market has left many low and middle-income families reliant on the accommodation supplement to cover rent and mortgage payments.

But our new research has found the scheme, which costs the government almost NZ$5 billion a year, might not be an effective tool in addressing the country’s housing affordability crisis.

Introduced in 1993, the accommodation supplement is a weekly, means-tested payment designed to subsidise part of a household’s rent or mortgage. The supplement is calculated independently of actual rent or mortgage payments.

But our study looking at data from Auckland between 2019 and 2023 found accommodation supplement rental subsidies were not delivering meaningful improvements in affordability for renters. Subsidies used to support mortgage payments, however, appeared to be more effective in offering relief to low-income households wanting stable and affordable housing.

Our results raise questions about whether the current policy of subsidising private rentals is working to address housing affordability in New Zealand.

Renters left behind

Our study compared the proportion of household disposable income spent on rent between households receiving the supplement versus those in the same income group who did not receive it.

The results revealed a striking gap.

In 2023 renters in the middle-income bracket who received the accommodation supplement were spending, on average, 35.6% of their income (including the supplement) on rent. Similar households without the subsidy spent 25.85% of their income on rent. This suggests the support is not significantly narrowing the affordability gap between subsidised and unsubsidised renters.

This study also picked up potential signs of landlords inflating the rents for tenants receiving subsidies. This is known as “subsidy capturing”. On average, middle-income tenants receiving the accommodation supplement paid NZ$539.40 per week in rent in 2023. Non-recipients paid $502.90. That’s a 7.3% difference.

Further research is needed to determine whether this discrepancy is due to rent inflation or differences in housing quality. But the finding aligns with international studies showing that subsidies can unintentionally drive up market rents.

If landlords are capturing part of the subsidy by increasing rents, then the benefit meant for vulnerable tenants is being diluted.

Greater promise with mortgage support

Our data suggests mortgage support seems to level the playing field more effectively than rental assistance. The mortgage-to-income ratio for subsidised households stood at 25.55% and 29.95% in 2022 and 2023, respectively (income includes the supplement). This closely matches the 26.6% and 27.5% recorded for non-subsidised households in the same income group.

One reason for the difference in the effectiveness of the supplement is that homeowners are typically required to contribute more upfront – a deposit – giving them a greater financial stake in their housing. This commitment may encourage better financial decisions and housing choices. It may also offer long-term benefits such as asset building and housing stability.

Rental subsidies are essential for immediate relief, especially in emergencies or periods of transition. But our research calls into question their effectiveness in enhancing affordability. More targeted support for low-income homeowners could offer a more sustainable path forward.

Intentions must match results

The accommodation is undoubtedly grounded in good intentions. But considering how much of the national budget is being spent on housing-related welfare, it is essential the programmes deliver the best possible results for taxpayers.

Measuring effectiveness is not about questioning the intent but about ensuring public resources truly achieve meaningful objectives.

Simply increasing funding for subsidies is unlikely to solve the problem. As New Zealand confronts an ongoing housing affordability crisis, this study adds to growing evidence that policy effectiveness – not just how much is spent – is what truly matters.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The billions spent on NZ’s accommodation supplement is failing to make rent affordable – so what will? – https://theconversation.com/the-billions-spent-on-nzs-accommodation-supplement-is-failing-to-make-rent-affordable-so-what-will-254779

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

This election has been lacklustre, without the touch of excitement of some past campaigns. Through the decades, campaigning has changed dramatically, adopting new techniques and technologies. This time, we’ve seen politicians try to jump onto viral podcasts.

To discuss old and new campaigning, we’re joined by professor of history at the Australian National University, Frank Bongiorno.

Many decades ago, campaigns were marked by lots of public meetings, and with them came hecklers. Bongiorno says politicians

needed to be able to command an audience and to deal with interjectors in a big public meeting. Radio was really coming into its own.

Very famously – not in a political campaign and not as prime minister – but Menzies made a number of broadcasts that are still remembered. [That was] back in the earlier part of the 1940s, when he was out of government. The most famous of which is the “Forgotten People” broadcast in 1942.

Over time, campaigns have focused more on the leaders, in the style of the United States.

[It’s] another aspect perhaps of the Americanisation and presidentialisation of our political system, that focus on party leaders in that kind of way. The 1984 debate was between Bob Hawke as prime minister and Andrew Peacock. I think many people thought that Peacock actually got the better of Hawke on that occasion and that was really, in some ways, the assessment of the whole campaign.

…That does speak to the American influence in particular. Very famously of course there was the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, that is such an important part of the collective memory of Kennedy’s success in that election in 1960.

Do debates still have any impact on campaigns? Bongiorno says “they have become something that I think a lot of people shun.”

They do seem rather neutral affairs, in which the pundits’ ideas about who won don’t seem to probably matter very much to most voters.

On the move from traditional media sources to an online campaign, Bongiorno says,

A lot of the campaign now is fought online. And I guess that trend began really as long ago as the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the parties would maintain campaign websites. It seems so long ago and so primitive, compared to where we are now.

And social media took off from about the middle of the first decade of this century. Facebook and YouTube came into their own in 2007. Twitter, now called X, in 2010… The use of memes really took off about 2019. And I think TikTok, which is often particularly used by younger people, from about 2022.

He says scare campaigns have become harder to report on or rebut, due to more targeted online campaigns and advertising.

Everything depends on your algorithm. The election campaign that I’m seeing when I go into my feed for X or for Facebook will be quite different to my next door neighbour’s, for instance, who could have a totally different sense of what’s happening in the campaign, what are the issues that matter, where the sort of balance of public opinion is.

On this year’s record start to pre-poll voting, Bongiorno says it makes timing more important than ever.

It means that whatever the parties are saying now, whatever candidates are saying and doing in the media over the next little while, is going to have no impact on anyone who’s already voted. So it can only be those who are still to vote.

It probably makes leaving the release of policy – and perhaps even costings as well – to the last minute a riskier venture, because if you do have goodies on offer, they’re going to miss anyone who has already voted.

It does mean that the parties need to be pretty careful in how they’re timing the release of particular aspects of their policy offerings.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: historian Frank Bongiorno on dramatic shifts in how elections are fought and won – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-historian-frank-bongiorno-on-dramatic-shifts-in-how-elections-are-fought-and-won-255113

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

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

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. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

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

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

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. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion in plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-in-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)

Urban flooding is a major problem in the global south. In west and central Africa, more than 4 million people were affected by flooding in 2024. In Ghana, cities suffer damage from flooding every year.

Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, has established a task force to find ways of improving flood resilience in the country. This is partly driven by an increase in flooding incidents in cities such as Accra and Kumasi in the last decade.

We are urban planning and sustainability scholars. In a recent paper we analysed whether flooding in Accra, Ghana’s capital, was caused by climate change or poor land use planning.

We conclude from our analysis that flooding is caused by poor and uncoordinated land use planning rather than climate change. We recommend that the physical planning department and other regulatory agencies are equipped to ensure the effective enforcement the relevant land use regulations.

Mixed push factors

The Accra metropolitan area is one of the 29 administrative units of Ghana’s Greater Accra region. It is the most populous region in Ghana, with over five million residents, according to the 2021 Housing and Population Census.

We interviewed 100 households living in areas such as Kaneshie, Adabraka and Kwame Nkrumah Circle. These areas experience a high incidence of floods. Representatives of agencies such as the Physical Planning Department of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, the National Disaster Management Organisation and the Environmental Protection Agency were interviewed too, about:

• the nature and areas most prone to flooding in the study area

• the frequency of flooding

• land use planning and regulations and their influence on flooding.

About 40% of the people we interviewed attributed flooding to both weak enforcement of land use regulation and changes in rainfall patterns. Most of the households (52%) said floods in Accra were the result of weak enforcement of land use regulations, while 8% blamed changes in land use regulations.

We also analysed recorded data on flood incidence and rainfall. We found no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. For example in 2017 there was a decrease in rainfall, but an increase in flooding.

This finding points to the fact that rainfall isn’t the only factor contributing to flooding in the city.

The agencies and city residents reported that between 2008 and 2018, they could see that more people were encroaching on the city’s wetlands by building homes and commercial infrastructure. This has changed the natural flow of water bodies. The Greater Accra Metropolitan and its environs has major wetlands such as Densu Delta, Sakumo Lagoon and Songor Lagoon.

Interview respondents noted that the siting of unauthorised buildings and the encroachment on buffer zones of water bodies in the city could have been averted. They blamed political interference in the enforcement of land use regulation. The government makes the situation worse in two ways, they said:

• planning standards and regulations are neglected in the development process. The processes involved in acquiring development permits are cumbersome and expensive, so people go ahead and develop without permits.

• regulatory institutions and authorities are ineffective. This is clear from the fact that planning happens chaotically. No attention is given to the ecological infrastructure that’s needed.

The way forward

We conclude that land use malpractices remain the dominant causes of flooding in Accra. They include:

• poor disposal of solid waste, which eventually blocks drains and results in water overflow during heavy rains

• building on wetlands as a result of non-compliance or non-enforcement of land use regulations.

There is an urgent need for Ghana’s cities to adopt best practices in waste management. These include recycling of plastic waste and composting for urban agriculture. An environmental excise tax was introduced in 2011 to fund plastic waste recycling and support waste management agencies.

The increasing encroachment on wetlands should be addressed through the strict enforcement of buffer regulations. Planning authorities and the judiciary can collaborate on this. The city must also encourage green infrastructure, like rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, street trees and rain harvesting systems.
Research has shown these to be environmentally sustainable and cost-effective approaches to managing storm water.

Another suggested approach is the introduction of the polluter pays principle in city management. This is a system where city residents who are involved in the pollution of the environment are made to pay for the cost of mitigating the impact. Residents who dispose of waste indiscriminately and encroach on wetlands would be made to pay for the cost of the environmental degradation. Cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki have applied this principle in the management of their industrial discharge and contaminated waste.

Finally, there should be incentives for city residents to promote environmental sustainability. For example, a deposit refund system has been introduced in several states in the US and Australia. In this system, consumers are made to pay a deposit after purchasing items that can be recycled, such as plastic bottles, and the deposit is reimbursed to the consumer after the return of the empty bottles to a retail store.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Flooding incidents in Ghana’s capital are on the rise. Researchers chase the cause – https://theconversation.com/flooding-incidents-in-ghanas-capital-are-on-the-rise-researchers-chase-the-cause-254000

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University

Just as voting has begun in this year’s federal election, the Coalition has released its long-awaited defence policy platform. The main focus, as expected, is a boost in defence spending to 3% of Australia’s GDP within the next decade.

If elected, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says a Coalition government will spend A$21 billion over the next five years to bring defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. It would aim to reach 3% five years after that.

This sounds impressive, but as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie notes, this isn’t a huge increase, given it’s over many years.

In dry fiscal planning terms, Labor’s defence spending plan would amount to 2.23% of GDP in budget year 2028–29, while the Coalition’s plan would be expected to reach around 2.4% by that time.

While the Coalition’s costings are yet to come, its plan is arguably affordable – if need be through deficit financing.

What’s in the Coalition plan?

The Coalition’s extra money would go to numerous capabilities:

• purchasing 28 extra F-35 joint strike fighter jets from the United States

• accelerating the infrastructure and shipyard building capacity in Western Australia (some in Hastie’s electorate) to support the AUKUS submarine plan

• improving Australian Defence Force (ADF) recruitment and retention

• and boosting “sustainment” (that is, maintenance of military equipment, weaponry and systems and personnel training).

Hastie is particularly enthusiastic about improving the Australian defence industrial base, which he says involves ramping up purchases of defence equipment from small and medium-size enterprises.

There is some logic to this. In the past few years, some spending on new acquisitions has been shifted to sustainment. This was necessary, as the long-term defence plan when Labor came to power in 2022 did not accurately estimate how much money would be needed for the new equipment then entering service.

This is not unusual. There is always optimism within the Department of Defence that new equipment will be cheaper to operate than it actually turns out to be.

Given significant money has already been moved to sustainment under Labor defence budgets over the past few years, it’s plausible we don’t actually need as much money for this as the Coalition asserts.

This might be fortunate as the F-35 purchase is likely to be considerably more than the $3 billion the Coalition touted last month, given inflation and issues with the program in the US.

Problems with the plan

The biggest problem with Dutton’s plan is the same one faced by both the Morrison and Albanese governments. Strong rhetoric is consistently at odds with slow progress on defence force modernisation. The Coalition policy continues this bipartisan tradition.

Hastie repeated several times at his news conference with Dutton in Perth that the country faces the “most dangerous strategic circumstances since the second world war”.

Yet, this sense of urgency is not reflected in the extra $21 billion in spending the Coalition is proposing. The F-35 fighter jets, the major centrepiece of the plan, are unlikely to be in service until the first half of the 2030s.

Similarly, the naval shipbuilding (which is necessary and already in train) also won’t begin to deliver greater capacity until well into the next decade.

The only high-priority item outlined by the Coalition appears to be accelerating spending on the infrastructure needed to base US and UK nuclear attack submarines in Western Australia from 2027.

Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that a drive through the area where this infrastructure is being built would reveal few signs of any progress, particularly when it comes to housing.

This comment highlights a policy incoherence problem for both parties. Accelerating the construction of defence infrastructure will drag tradies away from building homes for other Australians – and contribute to construction cost increases.

The Coalition’s planned cuts in skilled worker migration will further exacerbate this problem.

This throws up another issue. The Coalition has criticised Labor for cutting or delaying defence equipment projects costing some $80 billion while in government, yet it has offered no plans to return these specific projects to the defence budget.

As Hastie observed, these cuts and delays were, in part, to land-force capabilities, such as the infantry fighting vehicle program. A shift to a more maritime focus and away from equipment better suited to wars in the Middle East is reasonable, given the stress both parties have placed on China’s naval buildup.

Little to feel inspired about

Interestingly, Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that AUKUS is “a structural imposition” the current defence budget can’t meet.

This suggests that when the AUKUS deal was agreed to under former Prime Minster Scott Morrison, there was inadequate funding for the program and it is now consuming other defence acquisition plans.

Given this, the Coalition’s plans to grow defence spending to 3% of GDP in ten years may be prudent – and necessary – mainly to meet the looming AUKUS funding shortfalls. This again may be problem for both parties, given their strident support for AUKUS at seemingly any cost.

Hastie is keen to increase Australian self-reliance, in part, through building up the Australian defence industry.

However, the Coalition plan doesn’t offer many specifics on how Australian industry will benefit. Instead of buying yet more American-built F-35s, for instance, the Coalition could have given thought to buying the innovative Ghost Bat uncrewed air vehicles made in Queensland.

This shortcoming highlights the biggest disappointment with the Coalition plan. It is “steady as she goes” approach in a world of increasing volatility.

There really needs to be some fresh thinking on defence, particularly given the growing doubts about the Trump administration’s stance on its security alliances. Australia may need to be more self-reliant as Hastie claims, but this policy platform – as well as Labor’s – won’t achieve this possibility.

The reason the Coalition is emphasising the 3% of GDP figure is that there are no new ideas. A great opportunity for an imaginative recasting of Australian defence has been missed.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

Peter Layton 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. Australia needs bold ideas on defence. The Coalition’s increased spending plan falls disappointingly short – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-bold-ideas-on-defence-the-coalitions-increased-spending-plan-falls-disappointingly-short-255106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar of Civil Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.

However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.

Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.

When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.

What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.

Planning ahead with multiple options

The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.

When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.

A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:

New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.

For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.

Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.

Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.

Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.

Success stories

Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.

In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.

Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.

Status quo feels safer than adaptation

These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.

Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.

However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.

Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.

Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.

Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.

Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.

– ref. Rather than short-term fixes, communities need flexible plans to prepare for a range of likely climate impacts – https://theconversation.com/rather-than-short-term-fixes-communities-need-flexible-plans-to-prepare-for-a-range-of-likely-climate-impacts-254698