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

Labor expanded its national lead in a Resolve poll as a DemosAU MRP poll had One Nation winning 12 House seats. In Victoria, the Coalition has a 51–49 lead in a Resolve poll. As the SA Liberal leader resigned, a new poll gave Labor a 61–39 lead.

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted December 2–7 from a sample of 1,800, gave Labor a 55–45 lead by respondent preferences, a two-point gain for Labor since the November Resolve poll.

Primary votes were 35% Labor (up two), 26% Coalition (down three), 14% One Nation (up two), 11% Greens (down one), 8% independents (up one) and 6% others (steady). By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead by above 56–44.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved six points to +6, with 48% giving him a good rating and 42% a poor rating. Albanese’s net approval has surged 12 points in the last two months.

Despite the drop in the Coalition’s vote, Sussan Ley’s net approval jumped ten points to +3. Albanese led as preferred PM by 41–26 (39–25 previously).

On keeping the cost of living low, there was a 31–31 tie between Labor and the Liberals (the Liberals had led by 28–27 in November). Labor led by 36–33 on economic management (31–29 previously).

Given information about Australia’s current migration intake, 53% thought it too high (up four since September), 33% about right (up six) and 4% too low (down one). But just 5% rated immigration their most important issue, putting it sixth on issue importance with cost of living dominating as 42% rated it most important.

The social media ban on children under 16 will start on Wednesday. By 58–35, respondents were not confident it would be effective (68–25 in December 2024). Among the 395 respondents who were parents of children aged 10–15 years, this was tied at 47–47. By 67–15, parents supported the ban.

Poll shows more seats for One Nation

MRP polls use modelling to estimate seat outcomes. A national DemosAU MRP poll, conducted October 5 to November 11 from a sample of 6,928, had Labor winning 98 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (up four since the May election), the Coalition 29 (down 14), One Nation 12 (up 12) and 11 for all Others (down two), with zero Greens (down one).

Nationally, Labor led the Coalition by 56–44 (55.2–44.8 at the election). Primary votes were 33% Labor (34.6% at the election), 24% Coalition (31.8%), 17% One Nation (6.4%), 13% Greens (12.2%) and 13% for all Others (15.0%).

The slump for the Coalition since the election and the surge for One Nation is allowing One Nation to win seats where the Coalition is third on primary votes behind Labor and One Nation. Coalition preferences then assist One Nation.

Coalition gains to lead Victorian Resolve poll

The Victorian election will be held in November 2026. A Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal November and December Resolve polls from a sample of over 1,000, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead by respondent preferences. Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate for its state polls.

Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up six since October), 28% Labor (down two), 12% Greens (steady), 9% independents (down one) and 11% others (down four). The Coalition’s primary vote was 39% in November, before Jess Wilson replaced Brad Battin as Liberal leader, and 37% in December.

Wilson’s net likeability was +14, the highest for a Liberal leader since Resolve started polling in 2021. Labor Premier Jacinta Allan’s net likeability improved four points since October to -17. Wilson led Allan as preferred premier by 41–24 (33–27 to Battin previously).

By 78–9, respondents supported the government’s proposal for young people to be judged and sentenced as adults for certain crimes.

Also in Victoria, a Freshwater poll for The Herald Sun, conducted November 21–24 from a sample of 1,220, had a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous Freshwater poll that was conducted in mid-November, before Wilson replaced Battin.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (steady) and 30% Labor (steady) with no other parties listed. Labor Premier Jacinta Allan’s net favourability was down four points to -32, while Wilson’s net favourability was +15, the same as Battin’s. Wilson led Allan as preferred premier by 47–31 (Battin had led by 45–34).

While both the Resolve and Freshwater polls are close on voting intentions, Wilson’s big lead as preferred premier and Allan’s poor ratings suggest it will be difficult for Labor to retain government next November.

SA Liberal leader resigns as poll has huge Labor lead

Last Friday South Australian Liberal leader Vincent Tarzia resigned, with Ashton Hurn elected unopposed as Liberal leader on Monday. Tarzia is the third state Liberal leader to resign or be ousted since November 18, after Battin in Victoria and Mark Speakman in New South Wales.

The SA election will be held on March 21. A poll by new pollster Fox & Hedgehog, conducted November 24 to December 5 (before Tarzia’s resignation) from a sample of 1,000, gave the incumbent Labor a 61–39 lead from primary votes of 41% Labor, 21% Liberals, 13% One Nation, 12% Greens and 13% for all Others.

Premier Peter Malinauskas had a 51–19 approval rating, while Tarzia was at 25–17 disapprove. Malinauskas led as preferred premier by 54–18. SA Labor was at 43–27 approve, while the SA Liberals were at 36–25 disapprove.

The best-rated federal politician in this SA-only poll was One Nation leader Pauline Hanson (38–36 approve). Albanese was at 41–33 disapprove and Ley at 29–16 disapprove. Labor won SA by 59.2–40.8 at the federal election, four points above their national result. With Albanese at +6 net approval in the national Resolve poll, this poll is implausible.

A DemosAU SA poll in October gave Labor a blowout 66–34 lead, and a YouGov poll in May gave Labor a 67–33 lead.

WA DemosAU poll has big Labor lead

DemosAU has the first Western Australian state poll since Labor easily won the March election. It gave Labor a 56–44 lead (57.1–42.9 at the election). Primary votes were 41% Labor, 30% Liberals, 6% Nationals, 13% Greens and 10% for all Others. This poll was conducted November 10–26 from a sample of 1,012.

Labor premier Roger Cook had a +8 net favourability, with 35% giving him a positive rating and 27% negative. Liberal leader Basil Zempilas was at -3 net favourability (33% negative, 30% positive). Cook led by 47–34 as preferred premier.

Labor’s big lead came despite very poor net approval of -53 for its handling of both housing and cost of living, which were the two most important issues.

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. Labor gains in Resolve poll as DemosAU poll has One Nation winning 12 House seats – https://theconversation.com/labor-gains-in-resolve-poll-as-demosau-poll-has-one-nation-winning-12-house-seats-271097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miriam McCaleb, Fellow in Public Health, University of Canterbury

We already know excessive smartphone use affects people’s mental health and their relationships.

But when new parents use digital technologies during care giving, they might also compromise their baby’s development.

Smartphone use in the presence of infants is associated with a range of negative developmental outcomes, including threats to the formation of a secure attachment.

The transition into parenthood is an ideal time for healthy behaviour change. Expectant parents see a range of professionals, but as we found in our new study, they don’t receive any co-ordinated support or advice on managing digital devices in babies’ presence.

One of the new mums we interviewed said:

Literally nothing has come up around […] screen time, or especially breastfeeding and things like that […] it’s interesting because it’s such a big part of our lives.

Another participant said:

I haven’t had anyone talk to me about tech use, at all.

Adult smartphone use is not mentioned in well-child checks. We argue this is a missed public health opportunity.

Secure attachment is important for a baby’s development. They need hours of gazing at their families’ faces to optimally wire their brains. This is more likely when the parent is sensitive to a baby’s cues and emotionally available.

But ubiquitous smartphone use by caregivers has the potential to disrupt attachment by interrupting this sensitivity and availability.

Babies’ central nervous system and senses are immature. But they are born into a rapidly moving world, filled with voices and faces from digital sources. This places a burden on caregivers to act as a human filter between a newborn’s neurobiology and digital distractions.

Disrupting relationships

Psychologists have described the phenomenon of frequent disruptions and distractions during parenting – and the disconnection of the in-person relationship – as “technoference”.

A caregiver’s eyes are no longer on the infant but on the device. Their attention in gone, in a state described as “absent presence”, and the phone becomes a “social pollution”.

It’s unpleasant for anyone on the other side of this imbalance. But for babies, whose connection to their significant adults is the only thing that can make them feel safe enough to learn and grow optimally, it causes disproportionate harm because of their vulnerable developmental stage.

During the rapid phase of brain growth in infancy, babies are wired to seek messages of safety from their caregiver’s face. Smartphone use blanks caregivers’ facial expressions in ways that cause physiological stress to babies.

When a caregiver uses their phone while feeding an infant, babies are more likely to be overfed. The number of audible notifications on a parent’s device relates to a child’s language development, with more alerts associated with fewer words at 18 months.

If that’s not reason enough to reign in phone use, evidence also shows that smartphone use can be a source of stress and guilt for parents. This suggests parents themselves would benefit from more purposeful and reduced smartphone habits.

Some public health researchers are urging healthcare workers to consider the parent-infant relationship in addition to the respective health of the baby and caregiver themselves.

This relational space between people is suffering as a result of the social pollution of smartphone-distracted care. Babies’ brains grow so fast, we mustn’t let this process be compromised by the distraction of the attention economy.

Our research shows new parents could use information and support around the use of digital devices. We also recommend that other family members modify their smartphone habits around a new baby. Whānau can create a family media plan and make sure they have someone to talk to about this issue.

Health policies should focus on early investment in parents and children, by prioritising education and action on smartphone use around babies. This would benefit the wellbeing of new parents and the lifelong development of infants.

Miriam McCaleb 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. Caregiver smartphone use can affect a baby’s development. New parents should get more guidance – https://theconversation.com/caregiver-smartphone-use-can-affect-a-babys-development-new-parents-should-get-more-guidance-270449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nisa Salim, Director, Swinburne-CSIRO National Testlab for Composite Additive Manufacturing, Swinburne University of Technology

As the cold season ends and we fold away our favourite wool jumpers and silk scarves, some fascinating material science is about to unfold quietly in our wardrobes.

Subtle chemical and biological processes will decide whether our clothes stay as cosy as ever or emerge next winter yellowed, brittle and ridden with holes.

Some of our favourite winter garments, made from natural fibres such as wool and silk, feel soft or luxurious – but they are far from inert. At the molecular level these fibres are protein-rich structures that interact constantly with the environment.

These complex structures are what makes the fibres comfortable to wear, and also what makes them vulnerable to storage conditions.

The reason moths want your clothes

Wool is made up of a protein called keratin and silk is composed primarily of one called fibroin. These molecules give the fibres their unique warmth and strength. But proteins, as we all know, are also very nutritious.

When wool or silk is stored with traces of sweat, body oils, skin cells or food residues, it becomes even more attractive to insects and microbes. In particular, clothes moths.

Contrary to popular belief, adult clothes moths do not eat clothes. They are simply the delivery system for larvae, which will consume and damage your favourite garments.

The adult moths are attracted to unwashed, protein-rich materials such as wool, silk, fur and cashmere, and there they quietly lay eggs. These eggs hatch into larvae with amazingly strong digestive enzymes.

In a closed wardrobe, the larvae feed undisturbed, chewing through the fibres and creating the small holes that we discover months later.

What the larvae are actually doing is breaking down long protein chains into smaller fragments, thereby weakening the structural integrity of the fibre. Once that molecular architecture is compromised, the fabric loses its strength and becomes prone to tearing.

Another enemy: moisture

Even if your wardrobe is moth-proof, moisture itself can be a slow-acting threat to natural fibres. When we wear wool or silk, small amounts of sweat become trapped within the fibre network.

Sweat contains salts, fatty acids and other types of mild acids produced by our muscles. If these residues remain in the fabric during long-term storage, they can cause two chemical processes called oxidation and hydrolysis, which weaken the bonds holding the fibres together.

This is why wool garments sometimes turn yellow in storage. The colour change is a signal that fibre proteins have chemically changed, most often due to oxidation.

The effect on silk is to reduce its lustre and make it brittle over time, which is a symptom of broken molecular bonds within the fibres. This means the fibre can no longer flex the way it once did.

If you store your garments in a damp environment, these chemical processes accelerate and so does the damage. Moisture also creates a perfect habitat for mould, bacteria and other microorganisms that produce enzymes capable of degrading protein fibres even further.

How to protect your clothes

What can you do to protect your garments? A gentle wash at the end of winter keeps clothes fresh and prevents a lot of the above undesirable effects.

A mild wash removes sweat, salts and oils that trigger oxidation, eliminates food traces that attract insects, reduces microbial and enzymatic activity and finally refreshes the fibre structure without damaging it.

For wool, this means a cool, wool-safe wash cycle or handwashing with a pH-balanced detergent. For silk, it must be a gentle, low-agitation wash.

Remember, the goal is not harshness but removing contaminants. Once these are gone, the fibre is more stable and less appealing to moth larvae.

Ideal storage conditions for wool and silk are similar to how we store food items in the pantry: cool, dry and away from direct light.

Conditions should be cool but not cold, because stable temperatures reduce condensation and microbial growth. Dry too, since moisture is the enemy of both chemical and biological stability.

Avoid airtight bags, because they trap humidity and increases fibre degradation. Breathable cotton garment bags are much safer. Direct sunlight can break down protein chains over long periods, so keep the light levels low.

Deterrents and synthetic fibres

Common natural moth deterrents like cedar and lavender don’t kill insects, but they do make the environment far less inviting to moths.

Even better, the latest research explores bio-based protective fibre coatings, which deter larvae and offer antimicrobial benefits without affecting feel or wearability.

If you are dealing with synthetic fibres (such as polyester or nylon), you have an entirely different degradation scenario.

Synthetics don’t attract moths because they don’t have animal-based proteins. However, they are still susceptible to oxidation, hydrolysis, and loss of elasticity caused by repeated stretching or exposure to heat.

Synthetics may survive moth season untouched, but they still benefit from being clean, dry and stored away from direct heat or sunlight.

Preserving clothes and reducing waste

Taking some time to care for garments at the end of winter doesn’t just help you, either. Caring for clothes has significant environmental implications.

Textile waste is a growing issue, contributing heavily to landfill burdens. Extending the life of a wool jumper or a silk shirt from seasonal damage saves new purchases and decreases textile waste.

When we understand the science at play, our simple habits of washing before storing and keeping garments dry become meaningful, responsible actions.

Nisa Salim 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. Putting away your winter clothes? Science explains how to keep them safe over summer – https://theconversation.com/putting-away-your-winter-clothes-science-explains-how-to-keep-them-safe-over-summer-271089

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

The clock is ticking for the Commonwealth government to strike a new hospital funding deal with state and territory governments before its end-of-year deadline.

While states and territories are responsible for running Australia’s public hospitals, funding is split between the Commonwealth, and state and territory governments. The proportion of funding the Commonwealth contributes is at the centre of negotiations.

Negotiations so far have been predictably ugly. The states have hit out at the Commonwealth, saying much of the extra pressure comes from patients who are “stranded” in hospitals because they can’t get an aged care bed or appropriate disability accommodation, both of which Commonwealth responsibilities.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has warned the states to rein in the growth of hospital funding if they want to strike a deal, which would be due to start in mid 2026.

The states say that’s unreasonable, with Queensland Premier Tim Nicholas asking:

Does he want us to go out there and close the front door to our emergency departments or stop taking ambulances delivering sick patients to our emergency wards?

As negotiations continue this week, so too will the “blame game”, where each side blames the other for problems in public hospitals.

So how did we get here? And what might happen next?

Equal funding under Whitlam

Fifty years ago Commonwealth-state relations in health were transformed when the Whitlam government introduced Medibank. Under Medibank, the Commonwealth shared public hospital costs equally with the states. This has remained the Holy Grail, at least for the states, of how the funding split should work.

The ink was barely dry on those new funding arrangements when the Whitlam government lost office and the incoming Fraser government started to dismantle Medibank.

Fast forward to 1984. The Hawke government reinstated universal health insurance with a new name, Medicare. However, it didn’t reintroduce hospital cost-sharing. Instead, it made a new agreement to compensate the states. Commonwealth grants to the states started increasing in line with population growth and wage and general inflation.

This insulated the Commonwealth from covering all the costs of activity increases, as the population started needing more hospital care. It also insulated the Commonwealth from meeting the costs of hospital-specific inflation, which tends to be higher than general inflation.

When it comes to public hospitals, everyone seems to be waiting – waiting for emergency care, waiting for elective surgery, waiting to get onto a ward. Private hospitals are also struggling. In this five-part series, experts explain what’s going wrong, how patients are impacted, and the potential solutions.

How hospital funding reforms failed

The states thought they had won the day when a new basis for funding was foreshadowed from 2012. Under the Rudd-Gillard formula, the Commonwealth agreed to meet 45% of the growth in public hospital costs, scheduled to increase to the magic 50%.

But the Commonwealth added an efficiency measure: it would only pay for growth at an independently set “national efficient price”. So rather than funding being based on population increases, it was to be based on “activity” – the number and type of patients treated, paid at the set price for that treatment. It also got a new name: the National Health Reform Agreement.

Unfortunately, this new approach was also consigned to the dumpster before it actually started, as the incoming Abbott government reverted to funding increases based simply on population and non-health inflation.

However, in 2016 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull re-instituted the Commonwealth’s commitment to share the costs of the growth in public hospital services, though only at 45%. And even this was capped at maximum growth in funding of 6.5% per year.

So states were on the hook again if admissions grew faster than inflation, or health costs grew faster than general inflation, with the Commonwealth committing to only share growth up to the 6.5% cap.

Because the growth in costs has proven to be greater than the Commonwealth cap of 6.5%, the Commonwealth share has declined over time. By 2023-24, the latest year for which data are available, the Commonwealth share was only 38%, well short of the states’ aspiration of 50%.

So far from the Commonwealth share increasing over time, it has shrunk. States are picking up more and more of the growth in costs, squeezing state budgets and impacting patients’ access to care.

Didn’t Albanese ‘fix’ hospital funding?

The declining Commonwealth share led to pressure on the new Albanese government to put more money on the table for the next agreement, which it did. In December 2023, National Cabinet endorsed a Commonwealth proposal to increase its:

contributions to 45% over a maximum of a ten-year glide path from 1 July 2025, with an achievement of 42.5% before 2030.

It also:

endorsed the current 6.5% funding cap being replaced by a more generous approach that applies a cumulative cap over the period 2025-2030 […].

Importantly, under the new arrangements, the Commonwealth share would no longer be based on the share of the growth in costs. Rather, the Commonwealth’s share would be based on total costs rather than just the growth in costs – and this rate would increase over time.

But then a spanner was thrown into the works. The Commonwealth offer was based on historic growth in costs of around 6% per year. The independently determined growth in the national efficient price for 2025-26 was about twice that, blowing the Commonwealth estimates of the cost of its offer out of the water.

This, coupled with the Commonwealth linking increased health funding to increased state funding for disability services, meant negotiations ground to a halt.

The Albanese government extended the 2020-2025 plan by one year in the lead up to the May 2025 federal election.

Read more:
Hospitals will get $1.7 billion more federal funding. Will this reduce waiting times?

What’s likely to happen next?

Commonwealth, state and territory government officials met yesterday for more negotiations but are yet to come to an agreement.

Eventually, there will be a compromise and a new agreement will be signed, perhaps with some commitments to improving public hospital efficiency.

The new deal will provide an overall increase in funding. But the states will continue to complain that is not enough.

The Commonwealth will quietly pat itself on the back that it has taken the hospital funding issue off the table for another few years.

Stephen Duckett was a coauthor of the Report prepared for State Treasurers which analysed the drivers of public hospital cost increases.

– ref. Hospitals in crisis: why state and federal governments are fighting about funding – https://theconversation.com/hospitals-in-crisis-why-state-and-federal-governments-are-fighting-about-funding-270285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melinda Hildebrandt, Education Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Year 12 Students across Australia will receive their ATARs this week and next. It’s a significant moment, with the ATAR often dominating media coverage of schooling at this time of year.

But as the 2025 results come in, it’s worth taking a closer look at the ATAR’s evolving role and relevance.

Our new report looks closely at who uses the ATAR, who doesn’t, and what that means for students and universities.

What is the ATAR?

The ATAR or Australian Tertiary Admission Rank is a number between 0 and 99.95 showing how a student performed in their scaled Year 12 subjects compared to all students in their age group (students who get between 0 and 30 are told they received “30 or less”).

Scaling is the process that adjusts Year 12 subject results so they can be compared fairly.

So the ATAR is a ranking, not a mark. An ATAR of 70.00 means the student is ahead of 70% of their age group – not that they achieved 70% on their school assessments.

Universities use the ATAR to compare students from different schools, subjects and states, to help select applicants for certain courses.

Who is using it?

Not all Year 12 students intend to go to university. Many pursue apprenticeships, vocational education or full-time work instead.

In 2024, 64% of Australia’s Year 12 students received an ATAR. This varies significantly across states and territories, from 79% in New South Wales and 72% in Victoria to 38% in Western Australia.

To get an ATAR students must select an the ATAR pathway and complete the required combination of subjects. Students who don’t do this can still receive their senior secondary certificate, to say they have completed school.

The proportion of students receiving an ATAR has been trending down in Victoria and Western Australia since 2019, with South Australia the only state showing an increase.

The result is a national system where the ATAR is prominent but far from universal.

What about uni entry?

Even for many students who go straight from school to university, the ATAR is not always relevant. In 2023, for recent school leavers (those who have completed Year 12 in the previous three years) who used their school credentials as a basis for entry:

• 63% were admitted on their ATAR alone

• 7% used their ATAR plus additional criteria. For example, an extra test, portfolio or audition

• 30% were admitted solely on the basis of other (non-ATAR) criteria.

So the ATAR was not considered at all for 30% of Australians who started their undergraduate degree based on their recent secondary school certificate. And this group represents only part of the picture.

This is because for nearly half of all students commencing a bachelor’s degree, universities do not consider recent secondary school education. These students enter via bridging or enabling programs, work experience, vocational education and training, or previous tertiary study including those who change courses. For these students, the ATAR is not recorded as playing any part in the admission process.

Universities use the ATAR in very different ways

Australia’s 39 public universities also use the ATAR in very different ways. For example, at one institution, admissions out of Year 12 rely almost solely on the ATAR. At another, this drops to around 10%.

Group of Eight universities (which include some of Australia’s most prestigious universities, such as the University of Sydney and University of Melbourne), remain the most ATAR-reliant. Many regional universities draw heavily on alternative entry schemes.

It also depends what field of study we are talking about. Engineering, science and IT courses tend to use the ATAR most heavily. Creative arts, education and agriculture courses lean more on other selection criteria such as portfolios, interviews and auditions.

Students’ background and the ATAR

The use of ATAR for admission to university also varies by student background. The likelihood of using a non-ATAR pathway increases with the level of student disadvantage.

Our analysis shows 39% of low-socioeconomic status (SES) school-leaver entrants and more than half of Indigenous entrants enter via non-ATAR criteria. This is compared to 26% of high-SES entrants and 30% of non-Indigenous entrants.

Evidence shows the ATAR can reproduce and amplify inequality when it is used as the primary measure of student achievement.

Where to from here?

Our analysis shows a national admissions system that is diversifying. Schools and universities now use a wider mix of pathways to recognise student capability. The ATAR is certainly part of this system, but it’s not the single route into tertiary study.

This suggests students and their families need clear and early guidance. They should understand from early high school how different pathways connect to different futures – including where an ATAR is needed and where it is not. Then they can make more confident decisions about subjects, qualifications and careers.

This matters for education policy as well. The task is not to replace the ATAR, but to ensure the policy settings around it keep pace with reality.

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. How important is the ATAR? 30% of Year 12s who go to uni don’t use it – https://theconversation.com/how-important-is-the-atar-30-of-year-12s-who-go-to-uni-dont-use-it-271091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod McNaughton, Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The government’s recently released Tertiary Education Strategy 2025–2030 signals a shift towards harnessing the sector to address New Zealand’s long-standing productivity issues. But the strategy and its goals aren’t necessarily aligned.

Universities and polytechnics are now expected to promote innovation, accelerate commercialisation and build significantly stronger entrepreneurial capabilities. Measuring those things will be the challenge.

The strategy identifies “particular gaps in market-driven entrepreneurial skills” and instructs universities to expand entrepreneurial education, especially for graduate researchers.

It also acknowledges that more people will build careers through self-employment, freelancing or portfolio work.

In parallel, a new national intellectual property policy gives academic staff the first right to commercialise government-funded research, signalling a stronger expectation that universities will generate new ventures and technologies.

The country wants more innovators, founders and risk-takers. Yet several elements of the strategy, especially the way performance may be assessed, risk unintentionally discouraging the very entrepreneurial pathways it aims to promote.

The wrong metrics?

Graduate earnings are one example. Early-career income is widely used internationally as a marker of labour-market relevance, and the strategy treats it as a key success measure. But entrepreneurship rarely begins with high or stable income.

Founders typically experience several years of irregular or low earnings before ventures become viable.

When systems use earnings as a key indicator, the fear is universities will shift focus toward producing graduates for established, well-paid sectors, and away from entrepreneurial endeavours.

But earnings are only one of several tensions.

The strategy’s strong emphasis on labour-market alignment, employer co-design and responsiveness to current skill shortages can tilt institutions toward preparing graduates for today’s jobs rather than tomorrow’s industries.

Many entrepreneurial opportunities emerge in sectors too new to appear in occupational forecasts, from synthetic biology and climate technologies to AI and autonomous systems.

Innovation depends on experimentation and exploration, not simply meeting existing demand. Students will become innovators when exposed to new knowledge, not legacy skills.

Establishment versus experiment

The strategy highlights efficiency, tighter accountability, and improved retention and completion rates. These metrics reward predictable, linear progression.

But entrepreneurial careers are often nonlinear: students may take breaks to build prototypes or pursue opportunities, and researchers may divide their time between academic work and emerging ventures.

Under an overly prescriptive framework, such behaviour can appear as inefficiency rather than evidence of ambition.

Even the strategy’s treatment of vocational and foundation learning reinforces traditional employment pathways. It emphasises work-based training and immediate workforce attachment.

Yet for many, including Māori, Pacific and regional communities, micro-enterprise, social entrepreneurship and locally-driven innovation are vital tools for economic resilience. A narrow employment lens risks sidelining these and other forms of entrepreneurial value creation.

Stronger industry involvement presents another challenge. While collaboration with employers is essential, those invited to shape curricula are typically large, established firms.

Their priorities differ from those of emerging industries and new ventures. If incumbent voices dominate programme design, the system may become less open to disruption, experimentation and the needs of smaller firms and emerging industries.

What other countries have learned

Several countries, including the United Kingdom, have already confronted these tensions. The Knowledge Exchange Framework, for example, assesses universities on employment outcomes as well as on commercialisation, licensing, community enterprise and research partnerships.

The UK-based Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests assessing medium-term trajectories rather than early-career earnings by using the highest earnings of graduates three to five years after graduation, taking into account prior attainment, demographic characteristics and subject studied.

This demonstrates the potential complexity of trying to get such measures right.

The New Zealand strategy identifies the metrics, but not their detailed definition. The details will matter if we truly want to encourage more innovation and entrepreneurship – not just more students graduating on time, hoping to find jobs.

The strategy does send a strong and welcome signal that innovation and entrepreneurial capability are essential to the country’s future. Its emphasis on commercialisation, creativity and adaptability is aligned with international evidence on what drives productivity in modern economies.

However, as the next step, we must ensure the strategy’s performance measures align with its ambition.

Entrepreneurship rarely looks like a high salary, a tidy CV, or even timely degree completion. It does look like risk-taking, refining and long-term value creation.

It is messy and takes time. If tertiary institutions are judged primarily on short-term, conventional indicators of success, they may be pushed to prioritise safer pathways at the expense of innovation.

If that happens, the system risks promoting entrepreneurship in theory, while constraining it in practice.

Rod McNaughton 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. NZ needs more entrepreneurs. Will its new tertiary strategy reward real risk takers? – https://theconversation.com/nz-needs-more-entrepreneurs-will-its-new-tertiary-strategy-reward-real-risk-takers-271498

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Most Australians have probably noticed the proliferation of tobacconists and “convenience stores” in the last few years. These stores aren’t making much from the limited offerings on public display. Rather, their profitability comes from under-the-counter sales of untaxed tobacco and illegal vapes.

The growth of illegal tobacco sales has reached the point where the national accounts produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) have been significantly distorted. The ABS has announced it is taking steps to

measure the consumption of illicit nicotine-related products to supplement existing measurement.

The extent of illicit consumption, and the associated loss of revenue is, by its nature, hard to measure. The Australian Taxation Office estimated a net loss of over A$3 billion in 2023-24, but this amount has almost certainly risen since then.

Where the – illegal – profits are

Before looking at how this decision will affect the national accounts, it’s worth asking how we got here. The short answer is that, over the past decade or so, the tobacco excise has been steadily increased to the point where there are big profits to be made from dodging the tax.

But that’s not the whole story. Taxes on spirits have also been raised substantially. At the current rate of $106/litre of alcohol plus GST, tax makes up around two-thirds of the price of a typical bottle of spirits, similar to the case with tobacco.

Yet we haven’t seen a return of the “sly grog” shops that were common in Australia until the 1960s, when the 6pm closing of pubs was abolished. And despite heavy taxes on gambling, illegal casinos seem to be a thing of the past.

What explains this difference? The sale of alcohol and gambling services is subject to licensing restrictions, managed by state authorities and enforced by police.

By contrast, until very recently, nicotine products have been treated as normal grocery items. Enforcement was limited until state governments started tightening up the law with changes that have just come into effect.

The states have begun shutting down tobacconists found to be breaching it, and even threatened jail for landlords.

The Australian Taxation Office, along with the Australian Border Force, makes serious efforts to prevent illegal importation of tobacco products, as well as seizing tobacco crops grown here. But it appears unable or unwilling to do much against retailers who sell cigarettes under the counter.

State police forces have been slow to enforce the law.

Their reluctance here contrasts with the reasonably effective licensing enforcement of alcohol and with the stringent measures taken against suspected users of drugs like ecstasy.

But the imbalance between the incentive to dodge the tax and the risks of being caught remains. Until it is resolved, the federal government would do well to defer planned further increases in taxation.

A question that remains open is whether the growth of illegal tobacco has led to an increase in smoking. Evidence here is mixed. A government survey in 2022-23 showed a continued decline in smoking, alongside an increase in vaping.

However, a more recent Roy Morgan survey suggests an increase of smoking among young people as a result of the vaping ban.

How to account for the shadow economy

Now, back to the ABS. The objective in producing national accounts statistics such as gross domestic product (GDP) is to measure economic activity, giving a guide as to whether the economy is operating at full capacity. That’s important for the Reserve Bank in setting interest rates, but it isn’t a measure of wellbeing.

As critics have often pointed out, GDP pays no attention to whether the production being measured is socially desirable, neutral or harmful. Similarly, the ABS has always been aware that not all economic activity is legally recorded.

The solution, in the past, has been to add a 1.5% adjustment to GDP to take account of unrecorded (shadow economy) activity. There hasn’t been a perceived need for anything more detailed.

But with illicit tobacco estimated to be about 25% of sales in 2023-24 and higher now, this adjustment is no longer sufficient.

Both major supermarkets have said their tobacco sales have halved just in the past 12 months, the sharpest fall on record.

The ABS estimates growth in final household consumption expenditure has been underestimated by more than 0.5 percentage points over the past year, which is a big deal given the typical annual increase in consumption spending is around 5%.

Keeping pace with a changing economy

Finally, it’s worth noting this isn’t the only issue the ABS is looking at in response to an ever-changing economy.

As more and more households meet their electricity needs through rooftop solar, the ABS has faced a conceptual issue. This might be thought of as household production, like growing your own vegetables or cooking your own meals, which isn’t counted in GDP.

But the ABS has decided it’s better to regard solar rooftops as a home-based small business, whether the electricity is self-consumed or fed back into the grid.

As distinctions between home and work, and between licit and illicit production become increasingly blurred, statisticians will need to make more and more judgements like this.

John Quiggin 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. Illegal tobacco is messing up economic data. That won’t stop until it’s managed like alcohol – https://theconversation.com/illegal-tobacco-is-messing-up-economic-data-that-wont-stop-until-its-managed-like-alcohol-271304