In 2020 the Morrison government allowed Australians to raid their superannuation to get through during the pandemic. This week Scott Morrison proposed letting people raid their super for a home deposit.
Helping people own their home is an important social good. But the latest data on superannuation savings and drawdowns – graphed below – shows how early access to super in the pandemic has already widened the retirement savings gap between men and women.
Allowing early access to superannuation as a housing policy risks increasing inequality and widening the gender gap between men and women in retirement even further.
How much super do most Australians have?
The first graph shows median superannuation savings by gender and age from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ most recent survey of Household Income and Wealth (published in April).
This survey covers the 2019–20 financial year and includes the first part of the federal goverment’s COVID-19 early super release scheme, which ran from April to December 2020. The scheme allowed a A$10,000 withdrawal before June 30 2020, and a further $10,000 after. A total of $38 billion was withdrawn, with $20 billion of that in the 2019-20 year.
Median rates are a better reflection of the “average” than the mean, because the latter can be easily skewed upwards by a small number of very high income earners. The mean super balance for the 25-34 age group, for example, is $42,000 for men and $34,500 for women, compared with the median of $25,500 and $22,000 respectively.
It is worth noting what this implies for the Coalition’s super home buyer proposal, which would allow up to 40% of super to be withdrawn for a home depsit. Based on 2019-20 numbers, for those aged 25 to 34 with median super balances this would amount to $10,200 for men and $8,800 for women.
Who’s most likely to withdraw super?
The next two graphs shed light on who is most likely to draw down their super when given the chance. This data comes from the latest instalment of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, published in December 2021. The focus is on those aged 18-64.
HILDA is a nationally representative longitudinal survey, which means it surveys the same people each year. In 2020 it asked 17,000 survey participants if they withdrew any superannuation under the COVID-19 scheme, and how much.
Not surprisingly, those on lower incomes, with lower educational qualifications, who were renting and had lower financial literacy, were more likely to have withdrawn super. Those aged 25-34 were most likely to withdraw.
Estimates based on HILDA data show that 12.7% of men and 9.5% of women made a withdrawal in 2020. The mean amount withdrawn was $12,758 for men and $10,264 for women. The median amount withdrawn by both groups was $10,000.
In interpreting these numbers we must factor in that women tend to have lower balances from which to draw, and that those in greater financial need are more likely to withdraw their super if allowed.
The pandemic has widened the gender gap
These factors are reflected in the next graph showing the gender gap in super balances has widened between June 2019 and June 2021. These numbers are based on data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority published in January 2022.
These male-female differences in superannuation savings are large, and the gap increases with age. It means women, on average, retire with significantly less savings than men and face greater economic insecurity in old age.
To ensure greater equality in retirement incomes, we need policies to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination, as well as pay superannuation contributions during paid parental leave.
We also need to ensure that super contributions are appropriately preserved until retirement.
Housing affordability is a serious problem, and supporting Australians to achieve home ownership is an important goal, as is assisting them meet financial needs. But early access to superannuation is not the way to do it.
Alison Preston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The past term of government has been tough for arts and culture in Australia. Culture was among the worst affected by the pandemic of any aspect of society: the first to lock down; the last to have health restrictions lifted.
Those looking for a genuine vision for Australian arts and culture won’t find it with the major parties.
The Coalition has not put out an arts or cultural policy, instead running on its record of pandemic stimulus and a claim of record funding) to the arts portfolio in the most recent budget.
That is cold comfort for a sector still struggling to recover from its biggest setback in a century. March’s federal budget slated funding cuts of roughly 19% for the federal arts portfolio that Paul Fletcher heads.
The Australian Labor Party released its policy on Monday evening at the Espy Hotel in Melbourne. Labor’s arts platform at this election is surprisingly modest.
Labor’s arts spokesperson Tony Burke gave a wide-ranging address which touched on Labor’s history of cultural policy at the federal level. There were also some bite-sized policy commitments, such as $84 million for the ABC and $80 million for a First Nations art gallery in Alice Springs.
According to Burke, Labor will “relaunch” a cultural policy if elected, promising to consult widely. But there are few specific or concrete promises, and many decisions are deferred.
Notably, there was no promise of new money for the Australia Council, the nation’s primary federal cultural agency. Labor has also refused to make a specific promise on local content quotas for streaming platforms like Netflix. As of publication, Labor’s arts policy wasn’t even published on the party’s campaign website.
There are some genuinely big visions being advanced for the arts and culture in this election. They are coming from independents such as Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Jo Dyer in Boothby, and especially from the Greens.
There are transformative funding promises, including a $1 billion content fund for Australian screen production and another $1 billion for the performing arts. The Greens want to double the Australia Council’s funding, ramp up funding for game production, and inject $30 million into the Indigenous media sector.
You could argue such promises are cheap, because there is no political scenario in which the Greens will sit on the government benches or control the Treasury. But their policy is also strong on regulation, where a Greens cross-bench will likely wield significant legislative power in the next Senate.
The Greens are pushing for streaming platforms to invest 20% of their earnings from Australian subscribers into Australian content (some of the teal independents are also backing this). If implemented, it will lock in meaningful levels of local content on Australian screens.
The most original proposal put forward by the Greens is their policy for a trial of a basic income for artists, paying up to 10,000 artists $772.60 a week for a year. The policy is modeled on a trial of basic incomes for artists in Ireland, where it is specifically targeted at redressing the crippling precarity of cultural labour markets.
Hanson-Young spruiks her policy as supporting artists “to develop their craft, build their portfolios and support them to keep creating.” By directly seeking to create income for artists, it is a potentially far-reaching policy intervention.
The artists’ wage proposal is clearly a long way off being legislated in Australia. But putting forward new ideas is a critical role for minor parties. As John Maynard Keynes recognised in the 20th century, policy ideas that seem far-fetched today can quickly move to the mainstream when the winds of change blow in the right direction.
With the Coalition increasingly preoccupied with the prosecution of culture wars, and Labor huddled in a defensive crouch, it is now up to the minor parties and independents to advance a larger vision for Australian culture in the next term of government.
If the cards fall her way in the Senate, Hanson-Young may be in a position to drag Labor towards implementing some bold ideas.
Ben Eltham has previously received funding from the Australia Council for the Arts. He is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, where he has previously co-written a report about federal cultural policy. He is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents workers in the cultural sector.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben White, Professor of End-of-Life Law and Regulation, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology
The last state in Australia, New South Wales, has todaypassed its voluntary assisted dying bill. This means the vast majority of the population now lives in a jurisdiction where voluntary assisted dying is, or will be, lawful.
However, voluntary assisted dying is not yet available in NSW. As in other states, there is an 18 month implementation period to establish how it would work.
Here’s what’s just happened in NSW, what can be learned from other states, and what to expect next.
The NSW legislation reflects the broad Australian model of regulating voluntary assisted dying in the other states.
It will be available to an adult with decision-making capacity who has an advanced and progressive illness that will cause death, likely within six months (or 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions).
Other eligibility criteria include the patient is suffering, and their choice is voluntary and enduring. Two senior doctors, who have completed mandatory training, will each conduct a rigorous eligibility assessment. A voluntary assisted dying board will be established to ensure the system is operating safely.
Each state has variations in its voluntary assisted dying laws. One of note in NSW is a person can choose between taking the medication themselves or having a health practitioner administer the medication to them.
In other states, although both methods are allowed, self-administration is the default method.
During the 18 months between the legislation passing and implementation, NSW can benefit from the experience of the five other states.
Victoria was the first to have legalised voluntary assisted dying in 2019 followed by Western Australia in 2021. Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland have also passed similar legislation but their laws are not yet in force.
This just leaves the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory without voluntary assisted dying laws.
One key lesson for NSW is for people to access voluntary assisted dying, there need to be sufficient doctors trained and willing to participate from the start.
This requires the legislatively-mandated training to be ready early, and incentives and supports provided for doctors to undertake it. It also requires knowing which doctors may be open to participating.
A linked issue from Victoria and WA is the critical facilitating role played by “voluntary assisted dying care navigators”. These health professionals support patients, families and other health professionals who wish to seek or provide voluntary assisted dying, and guide them through the complex eligibility assessment procedure.
This role includes the vital function of connecting patients with doctors. The establishment of this small but critical workforce, well before voluntary assisted dying is available, is essential.
We need enough health staff to support people and their families to navigate the system. Shutterstock
A final observation from other states’ implementation is the importance of education for key stakeholders.
Potentially eligible people can only access voluntary assisted dying if they are aware it exists. So there needs to be a clear public communication strategy to tell the community that voluntary assisted dying is available, and where to find more information.
Building awareness for the broader health workforce (beyond those providing voluntary assisted dying) is also important.
These two groups are linked. Evidence shows people wanting more information about end-of-life law are likely to ask health professionals.
The end of 2023, when the NSW voluntary assisted dying laws are expected to begin, may seem a long time away. But the experience of other states has been that there is little time to waste. This is a major health, legal and community initiative and implementing it is challenging.
There will be patients seeking access to it as soon as the law begins. So the system must be ready.
In WA, there was higher-than-anticipated early demand. Within the first four months of the law being implemented, 50 terminally-ill people chose to die using voluntary assisted dying. As a state with a significantly larger population, NSW should be anticipating more.
So work must start now to ensure that as soon as the NSW law begins, there is a functional system ready to support people eligible for voluntary assisted dying.
How about the territories?
As territories, the NT and ACT cannot legislate on voluntary assisted dying. The Commonwealth passed legislation in 1997 to prohibit this.
However, there have been repeated calls for this to change. If this were to occur, this would open the possibility for the territories to follow the lead of the states and pass their own laws permitting voluntary assisted dying.
Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben White is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government.
Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider.
National security has been a feature of this election campaign, but there’s been little substantive difference on key issues of foreign policy. Last week’s foreign policy debate between Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne and Shadow Minister Penny Wong barely touched on differences in policy.
Labor’s proposed policies for the Pacific are positive for Australia’s foreign policy, and include some wins for these workers.
But the plan so far does not make it clear how it will address rampant wage theft, exploitation and unsafe working conditions faced by Pacific workers in Australia.
And reforms made under the Coalition government have so far failed to fix systemic problems that have led to some Pacific Island workers being exploited.
The recent Solomon Islands-China security pact revealed Coalition weaknesses in the Pacific. Labor soon proposed a suite of policies it said would “restore Australia’s place as the partner of choice for the countries in the Pacific”.
It proposed a new “pacific engagement visa” to provide pathways to permanent migration, the first of its kind in the existing Pacific labour mobility schemes.
This visa would initially allow about 3,000 Pacific Islanders to migrate annually to Australia.
Other proposed reforms include:
the travel costs of Pacific migrant workers to be paid by the federal government, instead of by employers
allowing Pacific migrant workers to bring their families with them
in a move welcomed by unions, a new dedicated agricultural visa would replace a contentious “Ag visa” introduced last year.
Mistreatment, wage theft and exploitation
The existing Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which emerged from a series of reforms to older schemes, was launched in 2022.
It is more heavily regulated than other temporary workers visas. Still, significant concerns remain about workers on these schemes
Both Labor and Coalition governments have overseen various iterations of the scheme where exploitation and wage theft occurred. Since 2012, 30 workers have reportedly died on the Pacific Labour Scheme visa and a previous iteration, the Seasonal Worker Program.
Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Job Security heardfrom Pacific Islander seasonal workers who experienced wage theft and unsafe working conditions.
Pacific workers have experienced reduction in promised hours and pay deductions. One investigation revealed seasonal farm workers receiving as little as A$9 a week after deductions.
Critics have likened the poor conditions, underpayment and “skimming” of paychecks to modern slavery and “blackbirding” – where Pacific Islanders were lured or taken forcibly to work in Australia.
A scheme that serves too many masters
The problem with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is it serves too many masters.
Leaders in Pacific Island states like it because it provides overseas sources of work for citizens. For Australia, this scheme provides a positive soft diplomacy tool in Pacific engagement.
Yet, labour migration has also been shaped by the interests of Australian agricultural and horticulture sectors keen to fill a labour shortage.
In revisions of the Pacific labour program under the Coalition, industry interests have been prioritised ahead of workers.
And while Labor’s focus on increasing numbers of the overall intake through permanent residency is welcome, it raises questions about how it will ensure greater protections for workers.
The extent to which its plan will protect Pacific Islanders from exploitation is not clearly outlined in their policy platform. It only promises a “review” of the scheme and the provision of “whistle-blower” status to all temporary migrant workers.
A policy priority
Both major parties acknowledge labour mobility is important to Australia’s relationship with Pacific Island nations.
As we have seen during the election campaign, constructive and genuine engagement with the Pacific region is critical to Australia’s national interests.
But addressing serious concerns about exploitation in existing schemes is crucial.
There is debate about whether to keep the scheme specific to the Pacific or extend it to Southeast Asia – so getting this scheme right is important.
Whoever wins on May 21, protecting Pacific workers in Australia must be a policy priority, as temporary migration will continue to rise post-pandemic.
Emily Foley receives funding from the Department of Education Skills and Employment via the Research Training Program.
Rebecca Strating receives external funding from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, US Department of State, UK High Commission in Australia, and Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.
AAP Image/Lukas Coch and Mick Tsikas, Shutterstock
One of the recommendations from the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for the establishment of a First Nations Voice to parliament, enshrined in the Constitution. This would ensure First Nations people are formally consulted on government decisions and legislation affecting their communities.
However, for a Voice to parliament to be enshrined in the Constitution, it would need to be passed at a referendum.
A recent survey found significant public support for a First Nations voice to parliament.
However, it seems Labor and the Coalition are clashing on what this might look like in practice.
We asked five experts to grade the major parties’ policies and past actions on pursuing a Voice to parliament.
Coalition
WATCH: 5 Experts rates the Coalition government policies and past actions on pursuing a Voice to Parliament.
Labor
WATCH: 5 Experts rates Labor’s policies and past actions on pursuing a Voice to Parliament.
Dr Dani Larkin is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.
Eddie is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.
Dr Emma Lee has consulted on the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice. Dr. Lee has also received funding from the Australian Research Council Grant DP200101394 Making policy reform work: a comparative analysis of social procurement.
James Blackwell is a member of the Uluru Dialogue at UNSW, which is campaigning to support the Uluru Statement From the Heart and its sequence of constitutional reforms.
Sana Nakata receives funding from Australian Research Council (DP200100728; LP200200046).
Finance Minister Grant Robertson has delivered a Budget that will many asking “Is that all there is?” There is a myriad of initiatives and there is increased spending, but strangely it doesn’t really add up to much at all for those hoping for a more traditional Labour-style Budget.
The headline $350 “Cost of Living Payment” for some lower-income New Zealanders will be well received as at least doing something to ameliorate the impact of inflation. But it won’t go very far, and a Labour Government might be expected to do more for those at the bottom during a crisis.
The lack of other bolder initiatives will also have progressives scratching their heads about what the Government is up to and why they aren’t doing more.
Of particular surprise is the Government’s announcement that the other cost of living package measures, such as the fuel duty reduction and half-price public transport, are soon to end. Instead of being extended or even made permanent, these are only going to be extended by two months. This is a major blow to progressives and environmentalists who assumed it would be either extended indefinitely or transformed into an entirely free public transport package.
Yes, Robertson has found a few million to make the reduced public transport fares permanent for Community Services Cardholders, but this is mild stuff for those looking for a bigger initiative than a targeted fix that won’t really have a huge impact on reducing emissions.
The Government promised that this Budget would be focused on climate change, but there really isn’t anything in this to give much confidence that this Government is serious about tackling the problem. After Monday’s very poorly-received announcement from Climate Minister James Shaw, this will further dent confidence that Jacinda Ardern’s so-called nuclear-free moment in emissions reductions is really going to happen.
The Government has worked hard to try and find some initiatives to make up for the lack of substantial Labour-style initiatives, deciding to announce their response to the Commerce Commission’s supermarket study – with plans to legislate to stop the current duopoly from stifling competitors from getting land to build new stores.
This is something of a fake Budget initiative – it’s not about budgetary and fiscal policy, despite the Government putting a price tag of $11m on the change. Although it will be a welcomed regulatory change, which will hopefully lead to lower prices, by including this in the Budget it shows just how desperate Labour was to find some boldness for today’s announcements.
Even when it comes to health spending, there really isn’t too much of interest in this Budget. There’s the extra spending of $11bn, but this is mostly just to make the new health reforms work by paying off the debt of the district health boards that are being disbanded. The Government is choosing to make a virtue of this necessity, but it hardly shows vision and adds any real capacity to hospitals. It is mostly money that has already been spent by health boards after decades of government (National and Labour) underfunding.
Similarly, millions more are being spent on housing, but although this looks like significant new money, it’s really just to keep the current government building programme going.
There are other progressive initiatives around reform of child support benefits, more insulation retrofitting and heating of homes, and improved for dental health funding for those on low incomes. But these are hardly radical or very large.
As a sign of how mild the Budget really is, it’s worth trying to locate any particular initiative that would be totally out of place under a National government. Certainly, it’s not that hard to imagine Bill English or Nicola Willis delivering this Budget. It’s hard to see any one particular Budget spend that a “compassionate conservative” or electorally-minded National government couldn’t have signed itself up to.
Yes, National will find plenty of rhetoric to throw against this – perhaps on levels of debt, spending, or even on the targeted Māori spending in health, but it’d be hard for Christopher Luxon or Nicola Willis to build up much enthusiasm for criticising what’s been announced.
Even the name of the Budget, “A Secure Future”, is a rather National-style and conservative term. It hardly screams “radical”, “leftwing” or “boldness”, but more about “security” which is a traditional term of conservatives.
What’s more, Robertson is selling his fifth Budget with very conservative lines. He starts his Budget speech, for instance, boasting about how the Government has recently won the approval of the IMF and OECD for their economic management, as well as receiving a Triple-A ratings from the global credit agencies.
Robertson’s other big boast is how his government is managing to get debt down and a return to surplus faster than the last National government did following the global financial crisis. Today he talks about taking a “responsible fiscal approach” that keeps a lid on debt. This is hardly socialist stuff.
In fact, Robertson makes a real effort to emphasise how gloomy the world economy is right now. He argues that uncertainty and volatility are huge. Of course, he’s right. And here in New Zealand there is also much despair and pessimism about the financial future.
Robertson will be hoping to hit the right note, electorally, in creating a conservative budget during a time of fear and gloom. Many voters are naturally wanting to see a steady ship, rather than a visionary and bold “adventure”.
Progressives on the left will despair that such a National-lite Budget does little to deal with the big issues of our time, but it probably manages to win over a number of wavering voters who might be thinking of supporting the real party of conservatism. The calculation will be that voters, with little in substance to differentiate between the major parties, will stick with the leadership that saw New Zealand through the gobal pandemic in much better shape than most other countries.
The risk, which has often dogged centre-left governments, is that trying to occupy the same political space as the opposition leads to erosion of core support to protest and non-voting, while the new-found swinging voters are usually very fickle.
A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine the Implications of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict and how it impacts on regional security architecture.
In particular, we assess Finland and Sweden’s move to become NATO members and whether Turkey will prevent this from occurring.
Also, this week, Russia’s Vladimir Putin hosted the leaders of Russia’s equivalent to NATO – the CSTO, which stands for the Collective Security Treaty Organization and includes: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
Belarus’ authoritarian leader, Aleksandr Lukashenko, was the only leader of the CSTO to speak persuasively about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Paul and I analyse the CSTO meeting and discuss its relevancy from a security and geopolitical perspective and what implications all this has on the East Asia region.
You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:
Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.
It is often lamented that Indigenous peoples’ electoral power is insignificant in Australia, except perhaps in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari.
But our new analysis of Indigenous populations in marginal seats at the upcoming federal election suggests Indigenous votes could matter — and not just in remote Australia.
As we show below, there are 15 marginal seats across Australia where the number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margin at the last federal election.
That means Indigenous peoples have considerably more potential electoral power than has been appreciated. Bringing together an Indigenous voting bloc would require rallying enrolled voters, and persuading non-enrolled eligible Indigenous voters to participate.
Invisible electoral power of Indigenous peoples
Indigenous people make up a relatively small part of the Australian population — just 3.3% at the 2016 Census. This fact leads some prominent figures to consider Indigenous participation in elections as ineffective. However, because the Indigenous population is not evenly spread across Australia, there are strategic opportunities for Indigenous people to exercise electoral power.
Minority groups in marginal seats can wield significant electoral influence. For example, Australian citizens of Chinese-Australian ancestry are considered to hold decisive electoral power in some marginal electorates.
Indigenous votes are generally considered to be decisive only in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Lingiari covers all the Territory except Darwin with just under half of the population being Indigenous. Here, Indigenous voters are widely acknowledged to be crucial in a close electoral contest.
Our analysis shows Indigenous votes could be important in several seats beyond the Northern Territory. The table below describes 15 seats where the estimated number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margins at the 2019 federal election.
These include other remote seats such as Leichhardt and Kennedy in northern Queensland, and Durack, which covers most of Western Australia. But this list of electoral divisions also includes several urban marginal seats such as Lilley in northern Brisbane, Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, and Cowan in Perth.
However, most of these 15 seats are in regional areas, particularly in NSW and Tasmania.
Our paper uses data from the Australian Electoral Commission. These data suggest fewer than half of Indigenous voters are both enrolled and cast a vote. This creates challenges for parties and independents alike. However, addressing these challenges creates significant opportunities.
If Indigeonus people who are eligible to vote but that until now haven’t, did vote, these previously inactive voters would outnumber the 2019 electoral margins in ten of the 15 marginal seats listed above. In other words, if non-voting Indigenous peoples enrolled and voted, they would be decisive in these ten seats.
Low rates of Indigenous electoral participation mean that campaigns aiming to appeal to Indigenous voters might rely on tactics more generally used in countries with voluntary voting systems. These include “get out to vote” campaigns and the provision of policies that aim excite a “base” of voters. These are quite different strategies to those typically used in Australia, which tend to appeal to the middle of the political spectrum.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is currently the subject of a complaint being mediated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. West Arnhem Regional council Mayor Matthew Ryan alleges the AEC has suppressed votes through indirect discrimination.
In April, the AEC told NITV news it was increasing efforts to encourage Indigenous people to vote in the federal election, including speaking to community leaders and partnering with Indigenous media. “That is a really critical issue for us,” commissioner Tom Rogers said.
But the AEC needs to provide more support to Indigenous voters. This would require facilitating remote enrolment, improving access to the ballot box, providing interpreter services where appropriate, and further investment in voter education programs.
Equally importantly, parties and/or independents would need to offer attractive policies that support Indigenous peoples’ aspirations and visions for the future.
Of course Indigenous peoples, like all other groups in society, are unlikely to vote as a single cohort. Research has demonstrated Indigenous voters do change their votes between parties in response to policies and choice of representatives. But it is up to those running to garner support.
In his 2014 essay “A Rightful Place”, Noel Pearson spoke of the “feeble democratic participation” of Indigenous peoples. We believe this view of Indigenous electoral frailty to be misguided and disempowering. The discussions about Indigenous electoral insignificance can become self-fulfilling, as Indigenous peoples think their vote doesn’t matter, so they don’t vote. This results in their electoral power going unrealised.
We do not believe electoral participation alone will advance Indigenous interests in this country. It must be used alongside other strategies including activism, lobbying, and establishing a First Nations Voice. However, harnessing the electoral power of Indigenous peoples may offer opportunities to further progress in these areas.
Electoral empowerment can only begin when Indigenous peoples recognise that their votes matter. As the youthful Indigenous population grows older and more Indigenous people reach voting age, potential electoral power will only grow.
The question then becomes how we can support Indigenous communities to wake up this electoral power and wield it to promote the sustainable self-determination of Indigenous peoples.
Francis Markham 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. He is not a member, employee or officeholder of any political party.
Bhiamie Williamson 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.
In recent years, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s northeast coast has seen multiple events of mass coral bleaching as human-caused global warming has driven sustained high temperatures in the ocean.
Alongside the Coral Sea is another spectacular natural wonder: the rainforests of the World Heritage-listed wet tropics of Queensland.
It turns out the same climate change forces contributing to coral bleaching have also taken a toll on the trees that inhabit these majestic tropical rainforests.
In new research, we and our co-authors found that mortality rates among these trees have doubled since the mid 1980s, most likely due to warmer air with greater drying power. Like coral reefs, these trees provide essential structure, energy and nutrients to their diverse and celebrated ecosystems.
A 50-year record
Our study was based on 20 plots of trees in rainforests in northeast Queensland, which were created and monitored in a project begun in 1971 by a forest scientist named Geoff Stocker.
These plots were later incorporated into the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, and the monitoring has been carried on by CSIRO scientists based in Atherton, Queensland.
The plots are typically half a hectare (5,000m²) in size. In each plot the species and diameter of all trees larger than 10cm diameter at breast height were recorded.
A 50-year study revealed tree deaths are on the rise in the tropical forests of Queensland. Alexander Schenkin, Author provided
The plots were revisited at intervals ranging from two to about five years. Tree diameters were recorded again, along with any new trees that had grown into the 10+cm size class, and any trees that had died.
Over the years, a few additional plots were initiated and contributed to our analyses. But these 20 provided a uniquely long record and formed the core of the dataset.
The lifespan of trees
With many plots visited multiple times, and many tree species on each plot, we were able to estimate the average percentage of trees in each species that died in a given year (the “annual mortality rate”). We also examined how this rate has changed over time.
Until about the mid 1980s, the average annual mortality rate was around 1%. This means that any given year, each tree had about a one in 100 chance of dying.
This corresponds to an average tree lifespan of about 100 years.
However, beginning in the mid-1980s, the annual mortality rate began to increase. By the end of our dataset in 2019, the average annual mortality rate had doubled to 2%.
These results match a similar pattern in tree deaths in the Amazon rainforest at the same time, which suggests the increase in tropical tree mortality may be widespread.
A doubled annual mortality rate means that trees are only living half as long as they were, which means they are only storing carbon for half as long.
If the trend we observed is indicative of tropical forests in general, this could have big implications for the capacity of tropical forests to absorb and mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
Thirsty air
What caused the increasing mortality rates of the tropical trees?
A first guess might be temperature stress: the average air temperature of the plots has increased in recent decades.
However, we did not find that temperature directly caused the increasing mortality rates. Instead the mortality rates correlated better with the drying power or “thirstiness” of the air, which scientists call the “air vapour pressure deficit”.
You’re probably familiar with the idea of relative humidity. It tells you how much water vapour there is in the air, as a percentage of the maximum amount the air can hold.
Climate change is making the air ‘thirstier’, taking more water from trees by evaporation. Alexander Schenkin, Author provided
When temperatures rise, the air’s capacity to hold water vapour increases exponentially. Each degree of warming lets the air hold about 7% more water vapour.
So if the air temperature increases, and the relative humidity stays the same, the air will have a bigger capacity to take on more water vapour.
To a first approximation, this is what has happened with global warming. Air temperature has increased, relative humidity has remained approximately constant, and the air has become thirstier.
This means the drying power of the atmosphere (or “evaporative demand”) has increased. This is what we found best explained the increasing mortality rates in Australian tropical trees.
What’s next
If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, both the air temperature and the air vapour pressure deficit will continue to increase. Our results suggest that in all likelihood this will cause a further acceleration in the increasing mortality rates of tropical rainforest trees.
Like coral reefs, tropical rainforests may then experience relatively rapid changes in species composition, biodiversity, and three-dimensional structure, threatening these prized Australian ecosystems as we know them. The best way to mitigate this threat is to urgently reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, in order to slow global warming and eventually stabilise the global climate system.
The number of voters the Coalition is attempting to sway in the final days of the campaign varies widely, depending on how the targeted voters are defined. But the historical precedent for success to which commentators refer isn’t persuasive.
The party leaders’ final policy announcements and campaign appearances are about shoring up support among voters not yet fully “committed”, pulling “softly committed” voters away from other parties, and persuading those with no clear party preference.
These are the voters pollsters more properly categorise as “don’t knows”, or perhaps “won’t says”, rather than “undecided” – a category that can apply to those who have indicated a choice but aren’t certain about it.
The media will puzzle endlessly over the effectiveness of the leaders’ appeals. Making sense of the evidence, based on varying notions of “commitment”, will be difficult.
The 2004 election is a key reference point. But evidence for a late swing, often said to have saved John Howard that year, needs to be examined carefully.
Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of ‘don’t knows’
Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of “don’t knows”. The greater the “don’t knows”, the greater the uncertainty about voting intentions and the more difficult it is to decide what to do with them.
Should pollsters ignore them on the grounds they will not vote or vote informal? Or find some other way of working out how they might vote?
Conveniently, pollsters also have a way of ensuring the number of “don’t knows” is small. Respondents who initially refuse to say how they intend to vote are usually asked to which party they are “leaning”. Thanks to this step, none of the polls report a “don’t know” figure of more than 7%.
None of the pollsters say how big the share of “don’t knows” is before the “leaning” question is asked. But the proportion is sure to be much greater than 7%.
The ultimate way of minimising the “don’t knows” is not to register them at all.
Jim Reed, who conducts the Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, insists respondents choose a party or independent: no “don’t knows” allowed.
But what of respondents who appear ‘decided’ but are not ‘committed’?
However, having forced respondents to choose, Resolve asks respondents: “How firm are you with your vote?”
In its latest poll, recent 86% of respondents are “committed”, 14% are “uncommitted” – a much bigger number than the “don’t knows” reported by other polls.
Party pollsters have their own ways of defining those voters who might be still be “in play”. They ask, for example, about the “hesitations” voters have about Labor/Albanese or the Liberals/Morrison.
The major parties obviously think carefully about the voters they might be able to shift from a minor party or independent, or between Labor and Liberal.
But they also hope to persuade voters who are going to vote first for other parties or independents, to preference them so that they get their vote, two-party preferred.
The numbers the parties are looking to influence vary, but they are much higher than the conventional “don’t knows” or Resolve’s “uncommitted”.
Ahead of the Liberals’s policy speech, the prime minister put the number of voters “either undecided or opting for a minor party of independents” at about 25%.
In the Weekend Australian, Dennis Shanahan put the number even higher. In addition to those intending to vote for minor parties or independents, he says, are those who are “officially uncommitted”, totalling “at least one in three voters”.
There are not enough ‘undecideds’ to neutralise Labor’s lead
Where the proportion that “don’t know” is small, and the gap on the two-party preferred wide – as it is in some, though not all, of the polls – the chances of the “don’t knows” making a difference isn’t great.
In theory, Labor needs 51.8% of the two-party vote to win.
So, even if the “don’t knows” split 2:1 in favour of the Coalition, this would only reduce the the gap in the Morgan poll from six points (47-53) to four (48-52) – not enough to prevent a Labor majority. In the Newspoll, it would reduce it to six (47-53).
The “uncommitted” vote offers the Coalition much greater hope. But caution is called for.
It’s not clear the number of “uncommitted” voters now is much greater than it has been at other elections.
More to the point, there have been few if any elections when, in the last week, it has been the “uncommitted” voters who have turned things around.
Take 2004 with a grain of salt
For those contemplating a boil-over, the 2004 election looms large.
Behind in the polls with about a week to go, the story goes, Howard wrong-footed Labor with his forests’ policy; Labor then shot itself in the other foot when Mark Latham, with a day to go, appeared to grab Howard’s hand and pull Howard towards him.
According to then Liberal campaign director, Brian Loughnane, Latham’s handshake generated more feedback to Liberal Party headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and “brought together all the doubts and hesitations that people had about Mark Latham”.
But the Coalition’s support peaked not at the end of the campaign but in the first few weeks.
It went on to win by a massive majority: 24 seats. Well before the final week, the Coalition already had it won.
Whether or not the “uncommitted” prevent Labor winning this time, the part they played in securing the 2004 win for Howard is more Liberal legend than political science.
Murray Goot receives funding from no organisation but has received funding from the Australian Research Council and various government bodies and formal inquiries in the past.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
Mick Tsikas/AAP
With severe staffing cuts, pressures for instant productivity and a priority on producing clickbait, few would think we are in a golden age for journalism. Few, either, would think that the media have distinguished themselves in this election campaign.
There have been periods in the past – such as the last three years of Menzies’ reign or the first four to five years of the Fraser government – where the Canberra press gallery achieved peak passivity.
In my view, sadly, those periods are now matched by the gallery’s poor performance in the lead up to the 2022 election. Exploiting this passivity has also become a key part of the government’s re-election strategy.
Car parks and the 2019 campaign
During the 2019 election campaign, the Morrison government promised A$660 million to build 47 car parks near train stations, justified as part of its strategy to reduce urban congestion. Two-thirds of the car parks were in Melbourne, even though Sydney had a majority of the nation’s most congested roads, and three quarters of them were allotted to Liberal-held electorates.
The Coalition won the 2019 election in what was described as a ‘miracle’ victory. Rick Rycroft/AP/AAP
The government pledged six to the marginal Liberal seat of Goldstein, and three to Liberal-held Dunkley. The Labor-held seat of Isaacs lies between these two, and has almost a dozen railway stations, but it was not allocated any. After Labor won Dunkley, two of the car parks were cancelled.
In June 2021, the auditor-general found that in the lead up to the government’s announcements, there were no data produced on current car parking, or commuter numbers, and decisions were made with no input from the relevant bureaucrats. Several of the projects involved funding from state or local governments, but little if any consultation had been had with those governments before the announcements. Tellingly, a major working document was titled “top 20 marginals”.
In November 2021, the government said that just three of the 47 car parks had been completed, and that work had started on another six.
The government endured some embarrassment in July 2021 after the publication of the auditor-general’s report, but largely shrugged it off.
The infrastructure minister leading up to the 2019 election, Alan Tudge, denied ever having seen the document titled “top 20 marginals”, while Morrison avoided answering the question.
The Auditor-General was scathing about the car park grants. Alan Porritt/AAP
Finance Minister Simon Birmingham dismissed the criticism because the Coalition had won the 2019 election. Move over John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson: according to the Birmingham Doctrine, democracy is anything you can get away with.
It was a policy cynically conceived and then cynically abandoned. It was based on the belief that thanks to media passivity and lack of curiosity, they could get away with it.
The passivity continues: in October 2021, the government claimed 33 of the projects would be either completed or under construction by the end of 2022. I have not seen any media reports testing whether this assertion is still true.
Morrison won his gamble.
Part of a pattern
If the lack of news coverage of the broken promises on the car parks were a single example, it would be bad enough, but it seems to be part of a pattern.
After the Hayne banking royal commission reported in February 2019, the government said it would implement all its recommendations. Since then, it has quietly abandoned several of the key ones. The Age/Sydney Morning Herald economics editor Ross Gittins recently wrote a scathing column about it, but it has received little attention elsewhere.
Commissioner Kenneth Hayne does not smile for the cameras while presenting his banking royal commission report to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg in February 2019. Kym Smith/AAP
Similarly, the government pledged to implement the recommendations of the aged care royal commission, released last year. How many media have since followed up their implementation? Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services Richard Colbeck has been allowed a convenient invisibility throughout the election campaign.
Early in the campaign, an excellent ABC Four Corners investigation by Linton Besser highlighted how well-connected company Aspen Medical had won several government contracts, some without any open tender process. Neither that report nor more general probing of whether the government’s widespread outsourcing has delivered value for money to the public has been widely pursued by the media.
Journalism is hard, but needs to be better
Media coverage is not helped by the fact the largest commercial employer of journalists in the country – News Corp – is simply a propaganda arm for the government, and their mediocrity sets a tone for others. Nor is performative aggression at media conferences a substitute for probing reporting.
The Morrison government has been able to campaign in the comfortable belief that with a few exceptions such as its failure to establish an integrity commission, its record over the past three years would not be subjected to probing examination by the news media.
Rodney Tiffen ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law. President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics., Griffith University
Some epidemiologists, including Mike Toole from the Burnet Institute and other public figures, are critical that little attention is being paid to these fatalities.
Public health officials are focused on hospitalisations, which remain relatively low, and the case fatality rate (the proportion of those with the illness who die), which is falling, in part due to the high vaccination rate. So governments are easing the remaining restrictions.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said yesterday that every COVID death was a “terrible loss” but Australians wanted to “move on”.
Do we have the balance right, from an ethics perspective?
Our ethical responsibilities
COVID policy-making and ethical decision-making are challenging, and there is room for a diversity of views. But there are three areas of responsibility we should focus on.
First, in the election run-up, voters deserve to know where each party stands, such as their intended policy response to any surge in fatalities (perhaps driven by a new virus variant). There also must be a review of lessons learned.
Second, we should each consider what we are personally willing to do for the wider community. Getting that booster, or vaccinating your children, can be both personally and socially worthwhile.
Third, our community has vulnerable people, for whom infection might be a death sentence. If we see someone wearing a mask and carefully socially distancing, we should respect their efforts. Above all, if you have any indication you might be infected, take extra care not to risk exposing others.
Simply put, the pandemic isn’t over yet, and we’re going to have to continue relying on each other.
Questions of political and personal ethics
When we’re thinking about how many COVID fatalities are acceptable, we need to distinguish the different ethical questions that face us.
One is the question of policy. What should our governments be doing in response to the high death toll? Should they employ some new mix of vaccine/booster mandates, lockdowns, contact-tracing, travel restrictions, mask mandates, and the like?
Then there’s the question of our own personal behaviour. We can all make efforts to limit the risk of spreading the virus to other, perhaps vulnerable, people.
Ethics is a higher standard than law, and not every moral obligation should be compelled by government.
It can seem commonsense that we should do all we can to prevent harms to vulnerable people. But mainstream ethical theories resist this intuitive idea.
The theory of utilitarianism focuses purely on consequences. Utilitarianism tells us to maximise the sum total happiness of all sentient beings. While this approach can be very demanding, it would resist a stringent response to COVID, for two reasons.
First, utilitarianism gives no special obligation to fellow citizens. Because we live in a wealthy country, our best strategic investment is usually to look further afield, and to reduce global extreme poverty. This focus would be the same for COVID too, such as by directing our efforts to boost global vaccine efforts.
Second, utilitarianism will note that most COVID fatalities are among the elderly. Utilitarianism values all happiness equally – whether of a child or a 90-year-old.
But saving the life of a 90-year-old is likely only to net a few more years of happy existence. Saving the life of a child would likely deliver more than 20 times that number. In technical terms (such as those used by the World Health Organization), saving the child yields an enormous net gain in “disability-adjusted life-years” (DALYs).
For both these reasons, with widespread vaccination limiting COVID’s harms in Australia, the utilitarian would resist directing enormous efforts to constrain local fatalities.
Utilitarianism would have us direct our efforts to boost global vaccine coverage. Shutterstock
Guidance from ethical theory: duties and rights
Another common ethical approach is to focus on actions rather than outcomes. For these duty-based approaches (the technical term is “deontological”), the end does not justify the means.
Unlike utilitarianism, duty-based approaches would allow us to prioritise locals. They also would be wary about discriminating between young and old, as all life is equally valuable.
Duty-based approaches hold we should avoid risking harm to others, and should be generous to those in need.
However, because duty-based approaches value things like freedom, responsibility and integrity, they limit these obligations.
Sweeping obligations to save others erodes the space for people to pursue their chosen callings, fashion their own diverse life plans, and nurture close relationships.
Consider a comparison
Both ethical theories align in treating COVID consistently with other threats to life and well-being. This makes sense.
Consider one of the leading causes of death in Australia: cancer. Australia employs many policy responses to this ongoing threat. We ban asbestos and tax cigarettes. We publicly fund medical research and healthcare. We run campaigns to slip, slop, slap.
Yet we could do more. We could raise taxes and direct more resources into research and treatments. We could ban tobacco outright. We could even ban going to the beach during high-UV periods!
Instead – and taking a leaf from the ethical theories considered above – we direct our efforts towards impactful policies, and avoid intruding too far into people’s personal decision-making.
Sensible ethical responses to COVID will behave similarly. In terms of both public policy and personal decision-making, we need to remember the pandemic isn’t over yet. Just as we do for other serious threats to our lives and well-being, we will all have a continuing role to play.
Hugh Breakey no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
About one in three LGBTIQ+ voters are not sure who to vote for, or are considering changing who they vote for, this federal election, according to a survey by Equality Australia.
So, if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer or otherwise part of the rainbow community, you might be wondering what the major parties have to offer you.
Health care and LGBTIQ+ issues are among the top concerns for the roughly 850,000 LGBTIQ+ Australians eligible to vote this election. So let’s look at what each party has promised on health.
Improving health and aged care are central Labor platforms this election. Labor plans to make it easier to see a doctor, set up urgent care clinics, and cut costs of medications.
Laborhas promised to consult more with LGBTIQ+ people about their health needs. It will support the national LGBTIQ+ mental health and support hotline, QLife, with a one-off grant to help the service reach more people. Labor also wants to set up a new taskforce to end Australia’s HIV epidemic.
Labor has promised to expand an LGBTIQ+ support hotline, and to consult on health-care needs. Shutterstock
LGBTIQ+ people would benefit from a stronger health system, but there is not much detail on how Labor’s health reforms would make health care more inclusive for LGBTIQ+ Australians.
Also missing from Labor’s health commitments is specific support for transgender people. Its 2021 national platform said it wanted to ban gay conversion practices and unnecessary medical treatment of intersex people, but these have not been election promises this year.
The Greens have also focused on affordable health care this election. They want to expand Medicare to include dental and mental health care by reinvesting private health insurance rebates into the public system.
Out of all the major parties, The Greens have made the most LGBTIQ+ specific commitments this election. They propose A$285 million “to ensure all LGBTIQ+ people have access to holistic and comprehensive health services regardless of whether they live in a capital city or a rural town”. There will be funding for LGBTIQ+ community-run organisations, health services and research.
The Greens have promised access to holistic and comprehensive health services for LGBTIQ+ people. Shutterstock
The Greens will dedicate funding to cover out-of-pocket costs for trans people accessing gender affirming health care.
They also plan to commit $132 million to act on The Darlington Statement, which advocates for intersex people.
All these commitments might seem ambitious. But they are supported by research and recommendations from LGBTIQ+ organisations.
The Liberal Party promises support for primary and preventative health care, expansion of telehealth services, more funding for public and private hospitals, and cost cuts for private health insurance.
Its women’s health platform is based on an almost $54 million commitment to “make it easier for more Australians to become parents”. Aged care is also a big feature of its platform, as is mental health.
The Liberal Party has promised funding to help more Australians become parents. Shutterstock
The Coalition assures voters it is “committed to supporting the mental health of the LGBTIQ+ community – particularly the LGBTIQ+ youth – as demonstrated by the ongoing investment in child and youth mental health and LGBTIQ+ specific programs and services”.
The Liberal Party recently announced a $4.2 million funding boost over three years for national services to support LGBTIQ+ mental health.
However, the Coalition has a patchy history when it comes to LGBTIQ+ health. Liberal and National Party members have opposed marriage equality and LGBTIQ+ inclusive sex education.
Some Coalition members recently supported religious exemptions allowing discrimination against LGBTIQ+ staff and transgender students in faith-based schools.
Liberal Party candidate for Warringah, Katherine Deves, is vocally opposed to transgender women participating in women’s sport. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended Deves, wrongly saying “gender reversal surgery for young adolescents” is a “significant issue”.
Labor and the Coalition make big promises to fund and support mental health. But these efforts are undermined by both parties’ support for religious discrimination and their lack of leadership on transgender inclusion in health care and in public life more broadly.
When it comes to LGBTIQ+ issues this election, most have played out in the mainstream media as the “transgender issue”. However, this misses some of the real issues that matter to this community – freedom from discrimination and access to quality health care.
Ruby Grant is a board member of LGBTIQ+ advocacy group, Equality Tasmania. She has previously received research funding from the Tasmanian Government.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
Climate change and reducing emissions has figured little in the 2022 federal election campaign. But after many years of inadequate national climate policy, the need for sensible, long-term measures is now dire.
The first task of the government in Australia’s 47th parliament must be to increase the national emissions target for 2030. But this is just the first step. Australia urgently needs a proper policy framework to get the nation on a lower emissions path – systematically and for the long term.
A long to-do list on climate policy awaits the new government and those that follow. The issues before us are too difficult, too important and too pressing to abandon them to political point-scoring or ideological zealotry.
The climate change issues before us are too great for political point-scoring. Dan Himbrechts/AAP
The to-do list
Years of climate policy inaction has left plenty of low-hanging fruit ready for the next government to harvest.
On Australia’s emissions reduction out to 2030, the Coalition already expects to do better than the existing 26-28% target. If returned to government, the Coalition could formally raise the target – but presumably there would be no appetite to raise it by much.
Labor has pledged 43% emissions reduction by 2030 – a target, like the Coalition, based on 2005 emissions levels. But that still falls short of the 46-50% cut urged by the Business Council of Australia, and is far less that the pledges of many other developed countries.
A meaningful target is needed to bolster confidence to low-carbon investors and signal to our international peers that we’re playing our part.
The next government needs to ensure continued private investment for new renewable energy generation, and help bring power infrastructure online quickly and affordably. That means meaningful reform in the national electricity market and working constructively with the states.
And however much it may go against political instinct, the next government must face up to the coal industry’s coming decline. It will need to manage coal plant closures without delaying the renewables transition, and plan for the inevitable fall in export demand for coal and later, gas.
Economies in regions such as central Queensland and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales will change. The federal government has a role in helping prepare for this, again in collaboration with the states.
Importantly, the next federal government must push Australia’s industrial sector to get more energy efficient and shift to renewables. That will keep energy-intensive industries globally competitive in the long term.
Australia’s industry must cut its emissions. Daniel Munoz/AAP
Making the existing “safeguards mechanism” effective is the obvious way to start. It should become a “baseline and credit” scheme covering all medium and large industrial polluters, with financial penalties for being above an emissions threshold and financial incentives for being below.
This would create a quasi-carbon price that can later be the stepping stone to a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme. Carbon taxes and emissions trading are widespread elsewhere in the world and a natural part of a comprehensive climate policy package.
The next government must help ensure the transition to electric cars, trucks and trains is smooth, speedy and fair – including through road tax reform. And it should adjust policy and regulation to further decentralise our energy system, including having electric cars providing power to the grid when and where needed.
In the building sector, we need meaningful national energy efficiency standards, low-carbon construction requirements and a push away from gas for heating.
But what about the cost? Many politicians have created fear by claiming strong climate action means economic doom. In reality, many carbon-saving investments pay for themselves over time in the form of lower energy costs. Others cost extra but bring benefits such as cleaner air and more secure energy supplies.
The decline of fossil fuel exports will hurt Australia economically, but this is out of our hands. The task here is to foster economic diversification, which should be central in national industry policy.
Beyond the question of lower emissions, it’s high time the federal government got serious about adapting to climate damage that’s already happening and will worsen.
The task for the next government, then, is to help make happen the large investments that will safeguards Australia’s future. This message should be attractive to politicians who want to be seen as leaders.
Politicians have claimed climate action will bring economic doom. Lukas Coch/AAP
Making it happen
There is also more work to do to deeply understand the pathways to a cleaner economy in Australia, the problems we face and the opportunities that can be ours.
As just one example, properly funded science will help Australian agriculture progress towards the net-zero emissions goal. It would also help the sector better understand how to respond to challenges such as changed growing conditions and more frequent or severe floods and bushfires.
As a nation, we must also get serious about identifying where and how Australia could become a major player in the energy and commodity industries of a low-carbon world. Australia could be a major international supplier of clean energy and zero-carbon commodities.
To get there requires building trust and bringing everyone along.
Net-zero as a rallying point
So where to begin for the next government? A good start would be convening an inclusive process towards a proper, long-term strategy for Australia to reduce its emissions.
The goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 is a rare point of general agreement on climate policy – both across the political spectrum and among the main lobby groups.
But how might we get there? What will it mean for different industries and regions? Where do the economic upsides lie? What are the social pressure points? Finding answers to these questions should be the basis for a real national conversation – one that includes businesses, unions, communities, non-government organisations, the research sector and the media.
Such a process would be very different from that behind the document accompanying the Coalition government’s net-zero announcement late last year. Whoever is in government next has the chance to run an inclusive process that fully maps out the options and implications of net-zero.
Whether the next government likes it or not, it will have to deal with climate policy. Obviously, the election outcome will be the key determinant for how far the next government is willing to go.
A Labor government would clearly plan to do more than a returned Coalition government. Either is likely to do more if governing in a parliamentary minority and supported by pro-climate independents.
Yet to get strong, wholehearted action at federal level would require a sea change in politics that presently is not on the cards. The climate wars of yesteryear are the root problem.
At some point this decade, however, Australia needs a complete political reset on climate policy. In a world that needs to act urgently and deeply on climate change, the political contest should be over how best to do much more.
When Marilyn Garson’s memoir of working in Gaza was published, Radio NZ scheduled an interview. On the day of the interview, RNZ first promoted and then cancelled it. In response to her OIA request, RNZ disclosed this internal email:
The RNZ quote about a 2019 Gaza interview … bookended “balance” the Israeli way. Image: Marilyn Garson
It reads in full, “Hi guys, given the huge flood of formal complaints we get any time we do a Palestine story without Israeli balance, [e]ither we have to drop it or set up another interview — which you would have to mention before and after tonights one.”
We hear about Israel casually, without always hearing from Palestine before and after. But we are not allowed to hear a first-person story of Gaza unless it is bookended by something, anything, from Israel. That’s not journalistic balance, that’s a one-way concession to the possible inconvenience of complaint.
On Sunday, May 15, Nakba Day, Wellington Mayor Andy Foster was advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to disallow an already-approved display of Palestinian colours on a public building.
Although the same building had recently displayed Ukrainian colours without evident concern for the Russian ambassador’s feelings, MFAT advised that “displaying the Palestinian colours could result in complaints from the Israeli ambassador and other Israeli groups.” The Mayor shut it down — leaving Justice for Palestine to get the job done on the following evening.
Again, Palestinian expression was forbidden because someone might complain. Forget the validity of the complaints – there were none to evaluate. The mere prospect of Palestinian stories or the display of a Palestinian flag was problematised in advance.
When the right to be Palestinian in public is made contingent, policy has become racially intolerant. We share this space and we are prevented from enjoying it equally. That makes the suppression of Palestine everyone’s issue.
MFAT’s advice angers us as Jews MFAT’s advice is further inappropriate in ways that anger us as Jews. A government ministry issued advice that “displaying the Palestinian colours could result in complaints from the Israeli ambassador and other Israeli groups.”
The Israeli ambassador is a guest in Aotearoa, whose presence ought not to drive our municipal policy. Given the frequency with which his government is characterised as apartheid, and given the exceptional brutality it has displayed in the past week, he might benefit from seeing the healthy exercise of pluralist public expression.
See our joint open letter to the Prime Minister on the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and the desecration of her funeral procession by Israeli police.
And exactly who are these “other Israeli groups” whose sensitivities preempt citizens’ peaceful public expression? Is Mossad operating here again? Or does a ministry of our own government truly not know the difference between the Jewish community of New Zealand and an Israeli interest group — can that possibly be??
MFAT, RNZ, Mayor Foster; we are Aotearoa Jews and you need to outgrow your stereotypes of our community.
Members of Aotearoa’s Jewish community express our identities in many ways. Some Jews place a nationalist project called Israel at the centre of their identity.
We and other Jews who love justice oppose the apartheid that Israel enacts in our names. We sharply distinguish it from our Jewish identity and we accept a responsibility to pursue justice and peace for all who live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
We hold equal citizenship You do not aid Aotearoa’s Jews by marginalising our Palestinian neighbours. Do not prevent us from sharing our city and our airwaves by perpetuating such a zero/sum model of belonging. We hold equal citizenship and we enjoy equal rights to public space and expression.
We are members of a pluralist community that needs to unite against exclusion or racism in all of its forms.
Our support of Palestinian expression is pro-democratic, not anti-anyone. We uphold Palestinian rights as we expect others to stand with us when we need them.
Our safety lies in the mutual respect we build with our neighbours. That is a necessity, not a nicety. We live together in a dangerous time and we are each others’ best hope.
Alternative Jewish Voices. Republished with permission.
Aotearoa New Zealand has reported 9570 new community cases of covid-19 and a further 32 deaths today, bringing total publicly recorded deaths with the coronavirus 1017.
In a statement, the Ministry of Health said the total number of deaths was up by 31 from yesterday as they had removed a case which had been previously reported twice.
“This case was initially reported on March 10. The deaths being reported today include people who have died over the previous six weeks, since April 5.”
The seven-day rolling average of reported deaths is 17.
“Of the people whose deaths we are reporting today; two people were from Northland; nine from the Auckland region; two from Bay of Plenty; two from Taranaki; one from Tairawhiti; four from MidCentral; two from Hawke’s Bay; three from the Wellington region; one from Nelson-Marlborough; four from Canterbury and two from Southern.
“One person was in their 20s; four people were in their 40s; two in their 50s; four in their sixties; nine in their 70s; nine in their 80s and three were aged over 90.
“Of these people, 10 were women and 22 were men.”
The seven-day rolling average of community case numbers is 8024 — last Wednesday it was 7533, the ministry said.
It said there are 425 people in hospital, including nine in ICU.
Papua New Guinea police have been tasked to furnish a full investigation report on the death of Deputy Prime Minister Sam Basil and his bodyguard First Constable Neil Maino.
Prime Minister James Marape told Basil’s children that “no stone would be left unturned” by police as they investigate the deaths.
He was speaking on Sunday during the arrival of the casket of his deputy at the Jackson’s International Airport ceremonial car park.
Basil died in a head-on vehicle collision along the Bulolo Highway in Morobe Province last Wednesday night.
“I have instructed the police to give a full account of the last steps of the Deputy Prime Minister, the journey the oncoming driver took, and every circumstance behind what happened in the lead-up to his passing,” Marape said.
“A report is expected for us to bring to full conclusion the passing of our nation’s Deputy Prime Minister.”
Marape gave this assurance to family members, people of Bulolo and Morobe, friends, members of Basil’s United Labour Party (ULP), members of the disciplined forces and the public at the airport.
“Sometimes, in life, it is not easy to understand why such tragic circumstances happen in this manner,” he said.
Words cannot express loss Marape said words could not fully express the loss of Basil to the nation.
“We stand with the family, we stand with the people and Wau-Bulolo, we stand with the people of Morobe Province, we stand with the United Labour Party, we stand with every citizen — men and women, boys and girls — of our beloved country to receive the Deputy Prime Minister of our country,” he said.
PNG Deputy Prime Minister Sam Basil … died last week after a collision along the Bulolo-Lae Road. Image: Johnny Blades/RNZ
“It is his last time to leave Lae for Port Moresby, and for the last time to be with us in Port Moresby, for us to accord him the respect he deserves and send him back to rest.
“It is a moment none of us thought would happen, I never thought it would happen.”
Marape said he was in a meeting last Wednesday night when news came from Lae of the accident.
“I asked those who were seated with me to offer a prayer for him (Mr Basil), as we were hearing that he was struggling,” he said.
“Today, the nation is coming to grips with the passing, for the first time, of a deputy prime minister of our country while serving in office.
Highest dignity promised “This is very, very sad.”
Marape told Basil’s family that the entire country joined with them in mourning the loss of their father, husband, son and brother.
He said Basil and himself first entered Parliament in 2007 and he was privileged to have served with him in Cabinet as a minister and later as DPM.
“He excelled to the highest standard in service to his people of Wau-Bulolo – which was second to none, to Morobe and to Papua New Guinea,” Marape said.
“The nation will give the highest dignity to a servant of our nation who has passed.
“We will give him, in his final tour-of-duty, the highest recognition that he deserves.”
Miriam Zarrigais a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney
Shutterstock/The Conversation
Every three months the Bureau of Statistics releases the lesser-known cousin of the consumer price index. It’s called the Wage Price Index (WPI) and it records changes in the overall level of wages, in the same way the price index records changes in the overall level of consumer prices.
Rarely does it generate headlines, but coming three days before an election and showing the worst performance ever compared with the consumer price index, it has provided concrete evidence that the buying power of wages is shrinking.
Contrary to hopes that lower unemployment would spark higher wages growth, the WPI barely budged in the year to March: climbing 2.4%, up from 2.3% in the year to December.
The consumer price index for the year to March grew twice as fast, by 5.1%
It means real wages (the buying power of wages) shrank 2.7% over the year to March in aggregate – one of the fastest and steepest declines ever.
Coming right at the end of the campaign, the news reinforces a traditional Labor concern (living costs) and diminishes a traditional Coalition selling point (superior economic management).
And it’s a full frontal challenge to conventional economics.
Here are just three of the conventional thoughts it has thrown into doubt.
Wages are determined by supply and demand
Conventional economics treats the price of labour like the price of any other commodity (such as fruit at a market), determined by supply (if there’s too much the price will fall) and demand (if a lot of people want it the price will rise).
That is held to mean that, even if there is still some unemployment, wages will grow faster if employers find it hard to find workers (as they are now) and slower if workers find it hard to find jobs (as was the case when unemployment was higher).
There is said to be a special unemployment rate – the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, NAIRU – below which wages will start to grow quickly, entrenching accelerating inflation.
The problem is that the NAIRU can’t easily be observed, and moves around.
The Treasury and Reserve Bank once believed NAIRU was close to 7%, then 6%, then 5% or lower. Now they are not sure it exists.
With unemployment well below the rates they once believed would push up the growth rate, there is growing doubt about whether it can.
Part of the reason is that unlike the market for fruit (or pork bellies or flat whites), institutions and bargaining power affect what happens to wages in addition to supply and demand. De-unionisation, insecure work, and deregulation of the wage-setting process have shifted the balance of power away from workers.
Labour markets are flexible
Decades of changes to Australia’s wage-setting system were sold as allowing labour markets to respond more smoothly to changes in supply and demand, ensuring workers were more closely paid in accordance with what they produced (productivity).
But a lot of (anti-worker) rigidity remains. One source is punitive public sector pay caps, which even the Reserve Bank says are contributing to weak wage growth.
Anthony Albanese sparked an important debate when he said wages should at least keep up with inflation.
Scott Morrison said this would be like “throwing throwing fuel on the fire” of inflation. But Wednesday’s figures seem to indicate that inflation has a life of its own. It is soaring while wages growth is not.
And after adjusting for productivity growth (which has been surprisingly resilient, averaging 2% per year for the past two years), unit labour costs have grown the slowest in years, by just 1.5% per year since 2019.
Whatever is causing inflation, it isn’t firms passing on higher wage costs to their customers. Some are passing on higher profit margins. In anything, what we are experiencing is more like profit-price inflation than wage-price inflation.
During the COVID crisis, profits climbed to a record high as a share of GDP while labour compensation (mainly wages) fell to its lowest point in postwar history.
While economic truisms are being reassessed, voters are in the process of coming to grips with what stubbornly low wages growth means for them. Many more of them make their living by selling their labour than by taking profits.
Jim Stanford is a member of the Australian Services Union
On the eve of the election, the Coalition has said it will impose a higher “efficiency dividend” on public service agencies over the next four years in an effort to cut public service spending and address the budget deficit.
An efficiency dividend is a measure, first introduced by Labor in the late 1980s, that reduces the budgets of public sector agencies by a certain percentage.
The current efficiency dividend is 1.5%, but the Coalition has promised to boost the figure to 2% for the next three years, with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg saying:
What we are doing is offsetting that spending with an increase in the efficiency dividend by half a per cent, which will raise more than A$2.3 billion […] The annual departmental bill across the Commonwealth is about $327 billion. What we’re saying is it will be reduced to about $324 billion, as a result of this additional measure.
Across-the-board cuts to the public service via the so-called efficiency dividend represent a blunt instrument to achieve budgetary savings.
They have been used by both sides of politics over the years. They allow politicians to avoid taking responsibility for cuts on the pretence they are only about efficiency and that the public sector agency heads can manage them with no impact on services to the public.
But there have been many reviews over the years, including by parliamentary committees, that have revealed the efficiency dividend often does impact the level and quality of services, particularly for smaller agencies and particularly over time.
It can lead to increased charges, reduced services (for example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Year Book no longer comes out annually) and increased waiting times.
While Labor has strongly criticised the Coalition’s proposed increase in the dividend, its criticism is a little hollow as it has said it will retain the efficiency dividend.
Labor is also proposing an additional cut in spending on administrative expenses through cuts to funding of consultants, contractors and labour hire – only some of which will be redirected to new public service positions.
Of course, taxpayers should expect the public service to pursue efficiencies and increased productivity – administrative expenses should not be automatically increased in line with increases in input costs. In particular, there is scope to use technology better to drive down costs and improve service provision.
But this requires new investments as recommended by an independent review of the Australian public service, led by David Thodey AO.
Following the Thodey report’s release in 2019, the government agreed to an audit of its current IT investments but we are yet to see that audit.
Nor has any mention been made of new investments that might deliver the efficiencies the government expects, let alone achieve the improved services Thodey was looking for.
In the absence of a more nuanced and targeted approach to make genuine efficiency gains, there is also the risk of further reducing the capability of the public service.
It is likely to mean further reducing resources for longer-term research and being less able to enhance public service wages where there is a need to attract key skills (such as in information technology).
A lazy cost-saving measure
While Labor and the unions are highlighting the likely impact on public service numbers, I would be less concerned on that score if the measure was genuinely about efficiency.
The concern I have is that this is not only a lazy cost-saving measure: it also reflects antipathy towards the public service as an institution.
We have seen this before with the imposition of staffing caps, in addition to the caps on administrative expenses. These have forced greater use of consultants and labour hire, even where this is less efficient than using public servants.
And we have seen it in the rejection of key Thodey report recommendations, not only about removing the staffing caps but also about enhancing the role of the public service commissioner. This would have ensured more merit-based senior appointments and a more appropriate way of setting pay and conditions.
Andrew Podger 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.
Every election is unique, but each also presents comparisons and contrasts with elections past.
In this podcast, Australian National University history professor Frank Bongiorno gives his insights into the current battle but also takes the long views of campaigns.
Bongiorno talks about the role of leaders in what’s often dubbed the “presidential” election age (“a kind of proxy for judgements about policy”) and how Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese are presenting themselves.
The debate on wages and inflation has overtones of the arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, but “sort of minus the policy”.
This was supposed to be a “khaki” election, but the khaki has faded during the campaign, perhaps unsurprisingly. Most often, Australians are solidly focused on domestic issues when they vote.
The “teals” have been a special feature of this campaign. But are they a new version of other breakaways, like the Australian Democrats of old?
The rise of voter disillusionment is a feature of recent elections, as is the detachment of voters from the major parties. Not so long ago, about seven in ten voters voted at each election the same way as they had voted throughout their lives, Bongiorno says, based on the ANU’s Australian Election Study. But now it is just under four in ten. “That means there’s a growing number of voters whose support is biddable, and the independents and minor parties are benefiting from that kind of loosening of the hold of the major parties over the voters.”
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.
Australia is no stranger to disasters like droughts, floods, bushfires and heatwaves. The problem is, they’re going to get worse. And then worse again. As the global temperature ratchets up, these disasters will grow in size, frequency and intensity. We will have to get much better at adapting, and do this even as we phase out fossil fuels to stop climate change getting worse.
Climate adaptation is about working with our new reality, rather than clinging to the way things were done in the past. We must accept our climate and environment has already changed, with more major upheavals on the way. If we don’t, we’ll be caught napping by “unprecedented” events which just keep on coming.
While local and state governments have led the way on climate adaptation to date, we have much more to do, as the worrying lack of preparation for the floods that devastated Lismore makes clear.
Do both: climate adaptation and emissions reduction
Many people believe climate adaptation is a red herring, diverting resources and attention away from emissions.
This is simply not true. We must do both. The world has already warmed 1.2℃ since the industrial age began, and is heating up by just under 0.2℃ per decade. There is also a lag time between fossil fuels burned today and the extra warming this causes.
Climate change is already here, and will only intensify. We must urgently slash emissions while also helping our communities be ready. The good news is adaptation often helps lower emissions, and vice versa.
It can be hard to picture what climate adaptation looks like. So take the hard-hit town of Lismore as an example. Official warnings did not reach this Northern Rivers community. When these monster floods hit, these communities were largely left to save themselves. If it hadn’t been for neighbours undertaking rooftop rescues, the death toll would likely have been much higher. In the aftermath, many residents have been living in tents and caravans while struggling to find affordable housing.
To be ready for the next floods, Lismore would benefit from:
rebuild using flood-resistant designs and materials
coordinating community preparations
exploring land-swap or changing land-use planning for high-risk areas
better coordination between government agencies
better warnings delivered sooner.
As soon as you consider the problem, it becomes clear there is no silver bullet. We need to plan ahead of time, rather than try to scramble to respond to disasters as they grow in size and frequency. Preparing and planning saves lives and cuts costs.
Drawing on local community strength is vital, as the Northern Rivers has shown Australia. But it is not enough by itself. Movements like Resilient Byron and Resilient Lismore show how locally led adaptation can assist communities. They could do more, with directed long-term investments and support.
What have we done so far?
The knowledge we already have about surviving in the world’s most arid inhabited continent is a start. First Nations communities have a sophisticated understanding of caring for country, while Australian farmers are among the best climate-risk managers globally, after a rocky start.
To date, most government-led climate adaptation happens at local and state levels. Highly innovative approaches have come from local governments, such as a council-led land-swap to get people permanently out of flood plains in the Lockyer Valley. Victoria’s state government has a climate adaptation program to help the natural resources sector prepare for possible futures, while Queensland has a strategy for local governments to find the greatest risks to coastal areas and plan for adaptation.
While these are welcome, we must do much more at a national level. In this area, we seem to be going backwards. In 2007 the federal government invested heavily in climate adaptation, but these initiatives were progressively dismantled after the 2013 election. Today, disaster spending is focused on recovery rather than preparation. While that might be politically rewarding, it is extraordinarily expensive.
On a national scale, our current climate adaptation strategy lacks clear targets and timelines. Not only that, it does not connect the dots between the levels of adaptation required and different scenarios for cutting emissions. We hope the new framework being produced by the National Reconstruction and Recovery Agency will better incorporate adaptation.
What does well-adapted look like?
Our political parties differ substantially on climate adaptation efforts. Liberal and National Party policies barely mention climate adaptation. Labor has disaster preparation policies, such as up to A$200 million per year on disaster prevention and recovery, while the Greens are most ambitious with plans to both slash emissions and boost adaptation through initiatives such as making housing better able to cope with floods and cyclones.
Climate adaptation pays dividends – regardless of who takes government. Active climate adaptation would save Australia A$380 billion in gross domestic product over the next 30 years.
We cannot let climate adaptation be the plaything of day-to-day politics. To have any chance of success, we need a robust bipartisan strategy. We should look to countries such as the UK which has laws requiring a national climate risk assessment every five years as well as a program coordinating and reporting adaptation actions across the country.
There is support for these measures in Australia, with 72% of us in favour of introducing national climate risk assessments giving our state and local governments access to up to date information on flood projections, neighbourhoods most vulnerable to heatwaves and expected levels of sea level rise. Crucially, this would let us pick out the best ways we could adapt.
Australia also needs a national climate adaptation hub, a one-stop shop offering advice to all levels of government, communities, non-governmental organisations and the private sector on the adaptation strategies available and ways to scale up the best approaches.
We must act now to make the best of the future coming towards us. We know a great deal about what we’ve set in motion by heating up our planet. Now we must prepare for what this brings. And we have to do it together.
Johanna Nalau receives funding from Australian Research Council. She is also a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th Assessment Working Group and the Co-chair of Science Committee in the World Adaptation Science Program, United Nations Environment Programme.
Hannah Melville-Rea is affiliated with an independent think tank, the Australia Institute.
Prof Mark Howden is a Vice Chair of the IPCC Working Group II.
A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will examine the Implications of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict and how it impacts on regional security architecture.
In particular, we will assess Finland and Sweden’s move to become NATO members and whether Turkey will prevent this from occurring.
Also, this week, Russia’s Vladimir Putin hosted the leaders of Russia’s equivalent to NATO – the CSTO, which stands for the Collective Security Treaty Organization and includes: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
Belarus’ authoritarian leader, Aleksandr Lukashenko, was the only leader of the CSTO to speak persuasively about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Paul and I will analyse the CSTO meeting and discuss its relevancy from a security and geopolitical perspective and what implications all this has on the East Asia region.
Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.
You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:
Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.
GPs have been sounding the alarm over rising costs of providing care – compounded by the pandemic and more complex demands. Many have said they are abandoning bulk billing, the Medicare scheme that pays doctors a flat rate for providing consultations.
GPs earn considerably less than other medical specialists, sometimes two or three times less annually. If GPs maintain high rates of bulk billing and the Medicare repayment rate doesn’t cover their costs, practices become unsustainable.
Health-care quality can also decline, as GPs try to see more patients in a day to clock more bulk-billing fees. But opting out of bulk billing, as our specialist colleagues have done, could mean some patients lose access to care.
Meanwhile, more than 13% of voters who responded to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll were worried about health. Cost-of-living pressures were also on their list of concerns before the election.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has long supported GPs moving away from bulk billing so they don’t have to depend on government to set their incomes. This time around, many GPs will heed the call, and leave patients with a larger gap fee to pay. Here’s why.
General medical practices are essentially small, private businesses, which are free to set their own fees and working conditions. Medicare is a government insurance scheme to help patients access private GPs.
Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) fees are raised each year in accordance with the government’s Wage Price Index. This approach has long been criticised for failing to keep pace with inflation in the health sector.
Compounding this lag, rebates were frozen in 2013 as a cost-cutting measure for attendance items until July 2018.
Total spending on health in 2021–22 is estimated to be A$98.3 billion, representing 16.7% of the federal government’s total expenditure. Around 6.5% of total health expenditure is allocated to delivering GP services.
The gap between the AMA-recommended fee (around $86) and the Medicare rebate for a standard GP consult ($39.10) has grown by $13.50 over a decade to around $47. Average patient out-of-pocket costs for services directly provided by GPs have increased by 50% over the last decade.
Some 88.4% of GP services were bulk-billed in the final quarter of 2021, an increase of 0.3% on the previous year, according to the Department of Health. But much of this increase can be explained by mandated bulk-billed telehealth consultations under COVID rules, which replaced in-person consultations during lockdowns. The percentage of bulk-billed consultations was also down on the previous quarter.
Health care consumer confidence
So, health care costs in Australia are rising faster than cost of living pressures and wages growth. And there is ample evidence out-of-pocket costs create barriers to people getting health care – especially for many who need it most: rural populations, young families, those with disabilities and chronic conditions.
Earlier this year, a large survey found 30% of people with chronic conditions were not confident they could afford health care if they became seriously ill; 14% of people with chronic conditions said they could not afford healthcare or medicine now.
Rising out-of-pocket costs for health care is an important issue the major parties have not yet substantially addressed during the election campaign. The Labor party has finally come to the table with a funding promise to better support GPs and primary care, which the AMA has applauded as a good start.
Some 14% of people with chronic health conditions say they can’t afford medical care. Editor supplied, CC BY
General practices have worked hard to adapt to funding squeezes by creating efficiencies of scale (boosting practice size); adopting new technology, and seeing more patients with shorter consultation times. But around half are concerned about the long-term viability of their practices.
Anecdotally, younger GPs say they are thinking about leaving face-to-face general practice, finding the demands and expectations unsustainable. Even sadder is their perception the specialty has been devalued and deskilled.
Due to the lower income and status of general practice, medical students have a limited interest in pursuing it as a career and registrar training places go unfilled.
So, the GP workforce gets older. Some 50% of GPs are now over 50. Around 80% of GPs think better pay would attract more graduates to the specialty.
The pandemic has compounded the strain on our health workforce, with GP clinics shouldering significant responsibility for testing, vaccinating and caring for COVID patients. Staff and supply shortages and inadequate funding models have put substantial stress onto an already busy and demanding career.
It’s understandable that many GPs are opting out of bulk-billing. But there are no simple solutions for delivering high quality health care to everyone.
Adopting new funding models, including more blended payments – moving away from fee-for-service and incorporating “pay for performance” funding – could ease the strains on general practices.
Our health system is due for some courageous reforms. GPs have long advocated for better telehealth, reducing the current funding bias towards procedural medicine, and more consultation tiers, to improve quality of care. A strong Medicare system is important to provide a safety net, ensuring equitable access for all Australians.
David King 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.
Imagine there is a public speaking square in your city, much like the ancient Greek agora. Here you can freely share your ideas without censorship.
But there’s one key difference. Someone decides, for their own economic benefit, who gets to listen to what speech or which speaker. And this isn’t disclosed when you enter, either. You might only get a few listeners when you speak, while someone else with similar ideas has a large audience.
Would this truly be free speech?
This is an important question, because the modern agoras are social media platforms – and this is how they organise speech. Social media platforms don’t just present users with the posts of those they follow, in the order they’re posted.
Rather, algorithms decide what content is shown and in which order. In our research, we’ve termed this “algorithmic audiencing”. And we believe it warrants a closer look in the debate about how free speech is practised online.
Our understanding of free speech is too limited
The free speech debate has once more been ignited by news of Elon Musk’s plans to take over Twitter, his promise to reduce content moderation (including by restoring Donald Trump’s account) and, more recently, speculation he might pull out of the deal if Twitter can’t prove the platform isn’t inundated with bots.
Musk’s approach to free speech is typical of how this issue is often framed: in terms of content moderation, censorship and matters of deciding what speech can enter and stay on the platform.
But our research reveals this focus misses how platforms systematically interfere with free speech on the audience’s side, rather than the speaker’s side.
Outside the social media debate, free speech is commonly understood as the “free trade of ideas”. Speech is about discourse, not merely the right to speak. Algorithmic interference in who gets to hear which speech serves to directly undermine this free and fair exchange of ideas.
Algorithmic audiencing happens through algorithms that either amplify or curb the reach of each message on a platform. This is done by design, based on a platform’s monetisation logic.
Newsfeed algorithms amplify content that keeps users the most “engaged”, because engagement leads to more user attention on targeted advertising, and more data collection opportunities.
This explains why some users have large audiences while others with similar ideas are barely noticed. Those who speak to the algorithm achieve the widest circulation of their ideas. This is akin to large-scale social engineering.
Algorithmic audiencing has a material effect on public discourse. While content moderation only applies to harmful content (which makes up a tiny fraction of all speech on these platforms), algorithmic audiencing systematically applies to all content.
So far, this kind of interference in free speech has been overlooked, because it’s unprecedented. It was not possible in traditional media.
And it is relatively recent for social media as well. In the early days messages would simply be sent to one’s follower network, rather than subjected to algorithmic distribution. Facebook, for example, only started filling newsfeeds with the help of algorithms that optimise for engagement in 2012, after it was publicly listed and faced increased pressure to monetise.
Only in the past five years has algorithmic audiencing really become a widespread issue. At the same time, the extent of the issue isn’t fully known because it’s almost impossible for researchers to gain access to platform data.
But we do know addressing it is important, since it can drive the proliferation of harmful content such as misinformation and disinformation.
Individually, Twitter users should heed Elon Musk’s recent advice to re-organise their newsfeeds back to chronological order, which would curb the extent of algorithmic audiencing being applied.
You can also do this for Facebook, but not as a default setting – so you’ll have to choose this option every time you use the platform. It’s the same case with Instagram (which is also owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta).
What’s more, switching to chronological order will only go so far in curbing algorithmic audiencing – because you’ll still get other content (apart from what you directly opt-in to) which will target you based on the platform’s monetisation logic.
And we also know only a fraction of users ever change their default settings. In the end, regulation is required.
In return, the public expects platforms to facilitate a free and fair exchange of their ideas, as these platforms provide the space where public discourse happens. Algorithmic audiencing constitutes a breach of this privilege.
As US legislators contemplate social media regulation, addressing algorithmic audiencing must be on the table. Yet, so far it has hardly part of the debate at all – with the focus squarely on content moderation.
Any serious regulation will need to challenge platforms’ entire business model, since algorithmic audiencing is a direct outcome of surveillance capitalist logic – wherein platforms capture and commodify our content and data to predict (and influence) our behaviour – all to turn a profit.
Until we are regulating this use of algorithms, and the monetisation logic that underpins it, speech on social media will never be free in any genuine sense of the word.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne
Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, provides financial protection against the cost of medical bills, and makes public hospital care available without any charge to the patient. For the large majority of Australians in urban settings, it is a brilliant system – providing subsidised access to care.
But subsidised access is only useful for those who have access. If there is no doctor nearby, there is nothing to subsidise. This creates a huge inequity – most of Australia has good access to doctors, but the Northern Territory does not.
And what’s worse, there is no effective policy to redress the inequity that payments flow to areas where there are doctors.
In our recently published paper, we found NT residents receive roughly 30% less Medicare funding per capita than the national average (A$648 compared with A$969).
The gap is worse for First Nations Australians in the NT, who attract only 16% of the Medicare funding of the average Australian.
We measured the extent of the problem over the years 2010–20. We used the federal government’s published figures on Medicare to explore the impact of this uneven workforce distribution on Medicare billing in the NT.
The differences are stark.
The inequitable funding is even worse when the poorer health status of First Nations Australians and the additional costs associated with geographical remoteness are taken into account.
The NT has a younger age profile than the rest of Australia, but this explains only one-third of the gap.
What’s going wrong with the funding?
Despite Medicare’s intended universality, the NT is systematically disadvantaged.
People in the Territory have poorer access to primary health care, which includes GP services and those provided by Aboriginal community-controlled health services.
Aboriginal health services receive some special additional funding separate from the Medicare-billing funding. However, even with that extra funding, there is still a shortfall to NT residents of about A$80 million each year.
The NT government receives a relatively higher proportion of the GST funding pool in recognition of its challenges with remoteness and Indigenous services. But this is calculated assuming NT residents have the same access to Medicare as all other Australians. As we have shown, they don’t and so the extra GST funding does not result in a fair funding stream to meet NT primary care needs.
The outcome of inadequate primary health care funding is increasing reliance on hospital services. People’s chronic health conditions worsen if they’re not well managed in the community and this increases the risk they will need a hospital admission, especially for “potentially preventable hospitalisations”. NT hospitals experience excessive pressure of workload and complexity as a result.
Poorer access to primary care services results in more hospitalisations. Shutterstock
We have shown previously that effective primary health care for remote patients with chronic, long-term diseases can substantially reduce their use of hospital services and result in better health outcomes at a lower cost.
When visiting the NT in 2000, one of the architects of Medicare, John Deeble, observed the funding failure first hand and suggested another form of health-care financing was needed to adequately support remote primary health care.
In terms of health equity and our national commitment to close the life expectancy gap for First Nations peoples, the status quo is undeniably short-changing our efforts.
What needs to be done?
There needs to be a reset in how we finance remote primary health care services in the NT.
The value proposition is excellent. Due to the extreme health needs and vulnerable populations, the return on investment is high – more than A$5 in saved acute care costs for every dollar invested.
The federal government’s Health Care Homes funding reform trial was very successful in remote NT communities. For the first time, service providers received flexible funding to care for patients’ chronic conditions, rather than a fee for each service they provided. It also enabled the provider and patient to develop a relationship.
Unfortunately the Health Care Homes program ended in June 2021, and has not been renewed. This program should be reinvigorated for chronic disease care in the NT and extended to include other core programs of mental health and suicide prevention, and child and maternal health.
The federal government should take this opportunity to get remote primary health care financing right and ensure Medicare funds reach those who need them most.
Acknowledgement: Xiaohua Zhang, Jo Wright, and Maja Van Bruggen from the Northern Territory Department of Health are co-authors of the journal article on which this article is based.
John Wakerman receives funding from The Australian Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and the NT Primary Health Network.
Paul Burgess has previously received grant funding as an investigator on MRFF, NHMRC and the Digital Health CRC funded projects. No funding was received for the work that led to this publication. Paul works for the NT Government.
Rus Nasir worked for the NT Government as acting director of Aboriginal health.
Yuejen Zhao works for the NT Govnernment.
Stephen Duckett 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.
Mentions of arts and cultural policy have been thin on the ground this election. The Coalition has not released any specific arts policies during the campaign, and Labor’s arts policies have only just been announced in the last week before everyone heads to the polls.
While arts isn’t one of the big talking points this election like health or climate change, it is still an important policy area for many. In response to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll, readers told us they were interested in support for the ABC and Australian literature, arts and humanities.
One reader said they were hoping for “the recognition of the arts in relation to the well being of people”. Another said they wanted a cultural policy “catering to the smaller/gig economy not just the big players/organisations”.
So what do we know about the major parties’ commitment to the arts, and how do they stack up? We asked five experts to analyse and grade the major parties’ arts and cultural policies. No one gets an A, but there are a couple of Fs.
Here are their detailed responses:
Coalition
Labor
Ben Eltham has previously received funding from the Australia Council for the Arts. He is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, where he has previously co-written a report about federal cultural policy. He is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents workers in the cultural sector.
Brendan Keogh has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council
Kirsten Stevens has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Peter Tregear is Chair of IOpera, a chamber opera company which has received financial support from the Federal Government’s RISE fund. He is also a founding member of Public Universities Australia, an alliance of organisations and individuals lobbying to promote the public value and function of Australian universities.
Tully Barnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Denying the severity of a crisis neither removes nor lessens the problem. Sticking to the status quo because it doesn’t suit our work practices, or social and economic norms, not only delays the inevitable, it compounds the problem.
The crisis, whether a pandemic or climate change, must dictate the timetable. Given the urgency of the crises we face, that timetable needs to be equally urgent. The world needs much more regular reporting on progress (or lack of it) for action and adaptation to keep pace.
Society’s response to the COVID-19 health crisis demonstrated the ability of citizens and governments to adapt rapidly when provided with information daily. The chronic crises of climate change and biodiversity loss require similar treatment: global assessments should be published annually, not once every few years.
The pace of the pandemic, with half-a-billion people infected and over six million deaths to date, demanded daily epidemiological data from the outset to manage the response. Failures in timely or accurate monitoring and reporting, and naïve responses, led to more deaths and illness, and many suffering with long COVID for years.
Nature will not wait for changes in scientific knowledge or public opinion, nor for electoral cycles to shift politicians’ priorities. The lessons of the pandemic should now be applied to other global crises.
Interrelated crises
Decades of evidence of fossil-fuel-driven climate change means it is now accepted as fact by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
While regionally variable, the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events related to climate change – including wildfires, droughts, floods, landslides and heatwaves – have international consequences for human health, property loss and food security. In turn, these may lead to mass migration, government instability and military conflict.
Most citizens now grasp the interrelated nature of the climate crisis and the loss of the biodiversity on which food security and healthy ecosystems depend.
The pandemic, climate and biodiversity crises are interconnected (see diagram below). One study lists 52 interactions covering equity, governance, public health, food systems, water availability, hygiene, urbanisation and infrastructure. These are symptoms of the unsustainable human impacts on the planet and its biodiversity.
Diseases from wildlife (zoonoses, such as SARS-CoV-2) result from the intrusion of people and their domestic animals into wildlife habitats, combined with poor hygiene in marketplaces. All are exacerbated by climate change which additionally drives shifts in the distribution of people, domestic animals and wildlife. Author provided
Since its inception in 1988, the IPCC has scheduled rigorous assessments of scientific data and knowledge of climate change. This work involves thousands of scientists and numerous meetings, at five- to eight-year intervals. Most importantly, these form a scientific consensus approved by governments.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) follows a similar path. Special reports and assessments from both organisations provide salient and up-to-date scientific information to governments worldwide. These run to thousands of pages and are expensive to produce.
But the accelerating pace of climate change, loss of biodiversity and now regular extreme events dictate that the IPCC and IPBES must shift their assessment cycles from once every few years to yearly. The transformational adaptation of society called for by the IPCC should also apply to its own scientific reporting.
Annual reports may not need to be as detailed and comprehensive and could have fewer authors, while still maintaining breadth of expertise, geographic representation and diversity. Workloads and costs would be reduced by the data-gathering and analysis covering just one year.
Accountability and action
Reports could be more succinct, with less jargon, by focusing on the facts and their meaning. This would streamline production and increase efficiencies. Annual assessments could then be synchronised with government and business budgeting and planning, as the climate and biodiversity crises are also economic problems.
In turn, this would enable governments to adjust policies and funding priorities, investments, taxes and fines on an annual basis. Crucially, they could highlight any failures to meet the previous year’s promises.
Still only 2.8% of the ocean is designated to be fully protected from human impacts, and 3.2% partially. Despite international commitments under the United Nations Law of the Sea in 1982, it seems 94% of the ocean is not being managed in an environmentally sustainable way. We are a long way from the new target of 30% by 2030.
Action can never be guaranteed, but annual accessible assessments and a better-informed population would mean greater accountability, particularly as election cycles would cover multiple reports.
Social and political change
There have been calls, too, for monthly data on emissions on top of annual national reporting on progress to climate change targets. And while some agree that the present IPCC assessment process is untenable, their proposal is to halt further IPCC assessments altogether.
We argue that more frequent assessments will lead to the societal and political change needed. Other shifts in societal behaviour – reducing smoking, alcohol abuse, healthy diets, drunk driving and promoting recycling – took years of convincing scientific evidence to take hold.
This process of shifting individual behaviour that then translates into government action is well under way with the climate and biodiversity crises. We’re optimistic that increased government efforts can address the crises, with their delays making action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions a higher priority every year.
Shortening and simplifying the process to make primary data more accessible to society, as demonstrated during the pandemic and commonly seen in the reporting of weather and climate (though sadly not for biodiversity data) is a starting point.
A globally representative and diverse panel of scientists can oversee the process, interpreting the observations in the light of peer-reviewed research, as already happens with assessments. All of this will guide solutions to ensure the health of our planetary ecosystem and the future of all its inhabitants.
Mark John Costello was a lead author in a regional chapter and co-lead of a cross-cutting chapter in the IPCC WG2 6th Assessment. His participation in the IPCC was supported by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. He was the first chair of OBIS and served as vice-chair of the GBIF Science Committee.
Katherine Kelly 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
AAP/Lukas Coch/Mick Tsikas
The final Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted May 12-17 from a sample of 2,049, gave Labor just a 52-48 lead by 2019 election preferences, a two-point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight’s Resolve. By respondent preferences, Labor’s lead was narrower at 51-49, a three-point gain for the Coalition.
Primary votes were 34% Coalition (up one), 31% Labor (down three), 14% Greens (down one), 6% One Nation (up one), 4% UAP (down one), 6% independents (up two) and 4% others (steady). 86% said they were now committed to their first preference (up 10), while 14% were not yet committed (down 10).
50% thought Scott Morrison was doing a bad job and 43% a good job for a net approval of -7, up two points. Anthony Albanese gained three points for a net approval of -8. Morrison led as preferred PM by 40-36 (39-33 previously).
Labor and Albanese led the Liberals and Morrison by 32-30 on keeping the cost of living low (34-28 previously). On economic management, the Liberals led by 40-30 (42-27 last time).
The poll supplemented its usual online sample of about 1,400 for campaign polls with several hundred respondents interviewed by telephone.
In the three polls so far this week, Resolve has had the most dramatic narrowing. Essential has generally had better results for the Coalition than other polls, and Labor’s lead after preferences has been as low as one point twice this year. The narrowing in Morgan was not all it seemed.
I don’t think the Coalition’s campaign launch on Sunday and their housing policy is responsible, as the fieldwork for these polls began well before then. With Morrison’s ratings still well in negative territory, the narrowing may reflect hesitation about voting Labor.
I expect more polls from Newspoll, Ipsos and perhaps a final Morgan poll by Friday night.
Essential: 48-46 to Labor with undecided included
The final Essential poll, conducted May 11-16 from a sample of 1,600, gave Labor a 48-46 lead with undecided included (49-45 last fortnight). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (steady), 35% Labor (steady), 9% Greens (down one), 4% One Nation (up one), 3% UAP (down one), 6% Others (up one) and 7% undecided (up one).
With undecided excluded, the two party would be 51-49 to Labor. Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated 51.6-48.4 to Labor by 2019 preference flows.
49% disapproved of Morrison’s performance (up one since April) and 43% approved (down one), for a net approval of -6, down two points. Albanese’s net approval was up one point to +1. Morrison led as better PM by 40-37 (40-36 previously).
34% said the government deserved to be re-elected (up one since last fortnight), and 49% said it was time to give someone else a go (up three).
Morgan poll: Labor’s lead narrows to 53-47, but …
A national Morgan poll, conducted May 9-15 from a sample of 1,366, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week’s poll. Primary votes were 34% Labor (down 1.5), 34% Coalition (steady), 13% Greens (steady), 4% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (steady), 9% independents (up 0.5) and 5% others (up one).
This two party result is based on 2019 preference flows. Until last week, Morgan was using respondent preferences, which were better for Labor. Bonham gets a Labor lead of 53.9-46.1 from Morgan’s primaries, implying Morgan miscalculated the 2019 flows.
It’s likely Morgan’s high independent vote is because they continue to ask for independents in all seats, even though most seats don’t have viable independents. Resolve was the other pollster that used to have high independent votes, but dropped the independent option in its last poll in most seats, leading to a surge for the Greens.
It’s not mentioned in the poll report, but Labor’s two party estimate using respondent preferences was actually up 0.5 points from the previous week to a 56.5-43.5 lead for Labor.
Seat polls galore, but mainly in NSW and WA
As I’ve said before, seat polls have been unreliable at past elections. The polls listed here are relatively poor for Labor in WA, but strong in NSW, which most of these polls focused on. There are two potential NSW losses for Labor: Eden-Monaro and Hunter, but far more for the Coalition.
Data for the seat polls would mostly have been collected last week, before any national narrowing began.
Polls were good for “teal” independents in Wentworth and Goldstein, and for Labor in inner Brisbane seats, but none of these polls surveyed a regional Queensland seat.
A note on seat margins: in Australia, the margin is the winning party’s two party percentage minus 50%, not the difference between the two leading candidates. For example, Parramatta is Labor held by a 3.5% margin, meaning that Labor won it by 53.5-46.5 at the 2019 election, a 7.0% difference.
Utting research robopolls of four WA seats were conducted May 12-13 from samples of 400 per seat for the WA Sunday Times. Compared to March polls of the same four seats, these are much better for the Coalition. Labor would still gain Swan and Pearce.
In Swan (Lib, 3.2% margin), Labor’s March lead is down from 59-41 to 53-47. In Pearce (Lib, 5.2%), Labor’s lead reduced from 55-45 to 52-48. In Hasluck (Lib, 5.9%), the Liberals lead by 55-45 after trailing 52-48 previously. And in Tangney (Lib, 9.5%), the Liberals have a 54-46 lead after a 50-50 tie last time.
WA has nearly always been much more pro-Coalition at federal elections than the country overall. These polls suggest that it has reverted to type. Labor’s national poll leads may reflect swings to Labor in the eastern states since the campaign began.
At a federal level, Western Australia has always favoured the Coalition. Shutterstock
Polls for the Industry Association were reported by Sky News on Sunday. They surveyed seven NSW seats from samples of 800 per seat. Fieldwork dates and pollster used were not mentioned.
In Robertson (Lib, 4.2%), Labor led by 58-42. In Reid (Lib, 3.2%), Labor led by 53-47. In Parramatta (Lab, 3.5%), Labor led by 54-46. In Gilmore (Lab, 2.6%), Labor led by 56-44. In Shortland (Lab, 4.5%), Labor led by 57-43. In Hunter (Lab, 3.0%), Labor led by 51-49. And in Lindsay (Lib, 5.0%), the Liberals led by 57-43.
The report also said that similar polling earlier in the campaign showed losses for the Coalition in Banks (Lib, 6.3%) and Bennelong (Lib, 6.9%).
The weighted share in a Compass poll of North Sydney (Lib, 9.3%), conducted in the week of May 6 from a sample of 507, gave the Liberals 40.5%, Labor 21.6%, an independent 13.6% and the Greens 12.9%. Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated this would be 50.5-49.5 to Labor.
A Redbridge poll of North Sydney for Climate 200, conducted May 3-14 from a sample of 1,267, gave the Liberals 35.5%, the independent (Kylea Tink) 24.8% and Labor 18.9%. Bonham said respondent preferences gave Tink a 54.5-45.5 lead over the Liberals.
A Redbridge poll for independent Allegra Spender in Wentworth (Lib, 1.3% vs independent Kerryn Phelps in 2019), reported by The Guardian, gave the Liberals 36%, Spender 33.3%, Labor 11.7%, the Greens 6.2% and UAP 5.3%. Spender would win from these primary votes.
The Poll Bludger reported Tuesday that a Laidlaw poll of Fowler (Lab, 14.0%), conducted three weeks ago from a sample of 618, had Labor’s Kristina Keneally leading independent Dai Le by 45-38 after preferences with 17% undecided.
In the Victorian seat of Goldstein (Lib, 7.8%), Samantha Maiden reported Saturday that a uComms poll for the left-wing activist GetUp! with a sample of 831 gave independent Zoe Daniel a 59-41 lead over Liberal incumbent Tim Wilson.
uComms has had very strong results in its polls for “teal” independents. The Poll Bludger is sceptical as they have not altered their weighting since the 2019 election, when not weighting by education is thought to have caused the poll failure.
YouGov polls for Labor in May of Brisbane (Qld, LNP, 4.9%), Ryan (Qld, LNP, 6.0%), Bennelong and Higgins (Vic, Lib, 2.6%) from samples of 400 per seat had Scott Morrison’s disapproval rating at 57% in Bennelong, 58% in Ryan, 62% in Brisbane and 65% in Higgins according to The Guardian.
Maiden reported Tuesday that uComms polls for GetUp! in Gilmore, Ryan, Eden-Monaro (NSW, Lab, 0.9%), Page (NSW, Nat, 9.5%) and Macquarie (NSW, Lab, 0.2%) gave Labor a 57-43 lead in Gilmore, 55-45 in Ryan and 56-44 in Macquarie. But the Nationals led by 51-49 in Page and the Liberals by 51-49 in Eden-Monaro.
Tasmanian upper house: Labor loses Huon
Tasmanian upper house elections occurred in Huon, McIntyre and Elwick on May 7. The last two were decided by large margins, but in Huon preferences were distributed Tuesday after the postal reception deadline.
Primary votes were 25.1% Labor, 23.7% for conservative independent Dean Harriss, 22.7% Liberals, 20.9% Greens and 7.8% Local Party. After preferences, Harriss defeated Labor by 52.6-47.4. This means Labor drops from five seats to four in the 15-member upper house.
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.
Fabrice Demeter (University of Copenhagen / CNRS Paris), Author provided
What do a finger bone and some teeth found in the frigid Denisova Cave in Siberia’s Altai mountains have in common with fossils from the balmy hills of tropical northern Laos?
Not much, until now: in a Laotian cave, an international team of researchers including ourselves has discovered a tooth belonging to an ancient human previously only known from icy northern latitudes – a Denisovan.
The find shows these long-lost relatives of Homo sapiens inhabited a wider area and range of environments than we previously knew, confirming hints found in the DNA of modern human populations from Southeast Asia and Australasia.
Little is known about these distant cousins of modern humans, except that they once lived in Asia, were related to and interacted with the better-known Neanderthals, and are now extinct.
The first traces of Denisovans were only found in 2010, with the discovery of an innocuous finger bone in remote Denisova Cave. The extreme cold of the cave meant some ancient DNA was preserved in the bone – and the DNA revealed the finger had belonged to an unknown species of human.
This discovery changed the course of human evolutionary studies, and the newly discovered humans were named Denisovans after the cave where the fossil was found.
The first traces of the Denisovans were found at Denisova Cave in Siberia in 2010. Mike Morley (Flinders University), Author provided
Fossilised teeth from Denisovans were later discovered in the same cave. Two upper and one lower molar were found in sediments that were dated to between 195,000 and 52,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, it was found that genes from Denisovans survived in modern day people from Southeast Asia and Australasia. This implied that the Denisovans had dispersed over a far larger area than anticipated.
The hunt was on to find more evidence of these humans outside Russia, but scientists had no idea what they actually looked like. For the first time in history we knew more about a human’s DNA than their anatomy!
The next twist came when a 160,000-year-old Denisovan jawbone surfaced on the Tibetan Plateau, giving the scientific community a tantalising glimpse of what the bodies of these ancient humans were like and where they lived.
But questions remained: just how far did they spread in Asia, and how did their genetic imprint survive in Southeast Asians and Australasians?
Clearly Denisovans could live in the cold environments of Siberia and Tibet, but could they have also occupied a completely different ecological niche and adapted to a tropical climate?
Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Cobra Cave)
Enter a new cave found by an international (Laos–French–American–Australian) team in northern Laos in 2018, close to the famous Tam Pa Ling cave where 70,000-year-old modern human fossils were found.
The site, named Tam Ngu Hao 2 (or Cobra Cave), was found high up in the limestone mountains and contained remnants of old cave sediment packed with fossils.
The cave sediments contained teeth from giant herbivores, such as ancient elephants and rhinos that liked to live in woodland environments. The teeth were likely washed into the cave during a flooding event that deposited the sediments and fossils.
These sediments were covered by a layer of very hard rock called flowstone, which is formed by water flowing over the cave floor. The sediments and fossils were dated by this study to provide an age for the time of deposition in the cave, and by association a minimum age for the death of the animals.
A young girl’s tooth
A human tooth (a lower permanent molar) was found in the cave sediments, but we could not initially identify what species of human it came from. The humid conditions in Laos meant that the ancient DNA was not preserved.
This tooth likely belonged to a young Denisovan girl who lived around 150,000 years ago. Fabrice Demeter (University of Copenhagen / CNRS Paris), Author provided
We did however find ancient proteins that suggested the tooth came from a young, likely female, human – probably between 3.5 and 8.5 years old.
After very detailed analysis of the shape of this tooth, our team identified many similarities to the Denisovan teeth found on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggested the tooth’s owner was most likely a Denisovan who lived between 164,000 and 131,000 years ago in the warm tropics.
An ancient human hotspot
This fossil represents the first discovery of Denisovans in Southeast Asia, and shows that Denisovans were at least as far south as Laos. This is in agreement with the genetic evidence found in modern day Southeast Asian populations.
They may have been just at home in the balmy tropical climates of Laos as the icy conditions of northern Europe and the high-altitude environments of the Tibetan Plateau. This suggests the Denisovans were very good at adapting to diverse environments.
It would seem that Southeast Asia was a hotspot of diversity for humans. At least five different species set up camp there at different times: Homo erectus, the Denisovans/Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis, Homo luzonensis, and Homo sapiens.
How many of these species overlapped and interacted? Another fossil discovered in the dense network of Southeast Asian caves could provide the next clue to understanding these complex relationships.
Kira Westaway receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Leakey Foundation
Mike W Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Because “women’s issues” have been in the headlines over the last year, it may seem strange they have not been more prominent in the election campaign.
Yet it is clear gender has played a crucial role in defining the choice voters will make in the 2022 election, and female voters may well prove decisive in the election outcome on May 21.
The campaign coverage has obsessively focused on Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison’s performance on the campaign trail, rather than on their fitness to lead the nation.
Each man has offered a different model of leadership. After his success in 2019, Morrison continues to focus on wooing male voters who might vote Labor, with his blokey campaign schtick.
Albanese, too, loves a hard hat and high-vis vest, though he is equally at home holding babies and talking to women. Blair Williams described Albanese’s style of leadership as “state daddy” : a more caring and consultative masculinity.
In the opening weeks of the election campaign, neither side made an explicit pitch to women. However, Ingrid Matthews astutely observed that with its emphasis on care, Labor spoke to women, but given Australia’s history of political misogyny, especially that directed towards Julia Gillard, it was, necessarily “sotto voce”. Male voters, it seems, may still be alienated by a leader who focuses on women’s needs.
Labor, then, has tried to balance appealing to blue-collar men and holding onto the blue-collar and middle-class women who are Labor’s most fervent supporters. Labor’s promise to make gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act was an important signal to these voters.
Morrison, on the other hand, has barely discussed women’s issues, unless you count the participation of trans women in sport. Preselecting the transphobic Katherine Deves was a blunt political calculation by Morrison, designed to vilify a marginalised group and dogwhistle to some outer-suburban voters. The media’s focus on Deves also served to deflect attention away from the Coalition’s failings on women.
Morrison only seemed to realise at the end of week five of the campaign just how toxic he has become for women voters. His promise to these women – “I can change” – made him sound like a bad boyfriend, begging for one more chance.
So where are the women candidates?
It is clear from this stunted, combative election campaign that our political system needs greater diversity. Many women are running in this election, but only two in ten of the major party’s female candidates are running in winnable seats. Both parties have a very long way to go before their party rooms reflect the gender, class and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia.
Since 1999, Australia’s parliament has become less, not more representative of women: we have plunged from 15th in the world to 57th on this measure. In the early 1990s, both major parties had around 11% female MPs: now, the ALP has 47%; the LNP has just 26%.
The ALP used quotas to achieve this shift; the Coalition claims it selects candidates on “merit”. The fact some of their most “meritorious” male candidates now fear losing their seats might give preselectors pause in future.
The rise of (mostly) female independent candidates has highlighted the LNP’s cultural problems with women. Faced with a government that bullied and humiliated many of the women in its ranks, and which has proved intransigent on climate change and corruption, a group of highly capable women have steadily built grassroots campaigns in formerly safe Liberal seats.
The teal independents are highly accomplished, white female professionals, running against “moderate” or self-described “modern” Liberal MPs. They are not former staffers or party hacks. They have tapped a deep well of frustration about politics but have channelled it to build positive, inclusive and local campaigns.
Monique Ryan is one of the ‘teal’ independents contesting historically blue-ribbon Liberal seats. AAP/James Ross
The men of the Liberal party have responded to them with a mixture of outrage, misogyny and petulance. These women had the temerity to challenge Liberal MPs who, in the words of Alexander Downer, “could become truly great men”.
Liberal MP Jason Falinski suggested the money independents were spending on their campaigns was “immoral” because they could be directing their resources to women’s refuges. Matt Canavan even described gender equality as a “luxury” that only the teal seats, not “bogans”, could afford.
The treatment of the independents by the men in the LNP has provided a telling insight for the ways they have treated the women in their own party. It has also offered a glimpse of the ways they regard women, even ones who would normally be inclined to vote for them. Women are fine, provided they know their ‘place’.
How might women vote?
If the polls are to be believed, Australian women are waiting for this government with baseball bats in hand. The gender gap in the 2019 election was the biggest since 1987, and women have continued to desert the LNP ever since, especially after the Brittany Higgins case went public in February 2021.
Polls differ on their assessment of the women’s voting intention, but Roy Morgan puts Labor ahead of the Coalition on two-party preferred at 58-42. On the other hand, men barely differ on their support for the major parties.
Many women will continue to vote for the LNP, driven by political loyalty and economic self-interest. But if Labor wins government on May 21, it will owe much of this victory to women voters. Labor will need to reward their loyalty with policies that address their needs, and resolve factional disputes to ensure their most talented women are on the frontbench.
If the Coalition ends up in opposition, they will have to work hard to restore their standing with women. They might start by reforming preselections. Is it little wonder a political party with such a low proportion of female MPs might struggle to communicate with women? Is it little wonder the talented teal candidates didn’t seek to join the LNP?
Whoever is elected this weekend, Australian women will need to build on their organising of the last two years and insist policies promised are actually implemented. Not only have women shown they cannot be taken for granted, in their collective rage, they can demonstrate their electoral power. Women can, and must, build on this, whoever wins on Saturday.
Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has worked as a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party during this election campaign.
In the seat-by-seat slugfest that is the federal election, transport infrastructure is once again at the forefront. Small, hyper-local projects are a favourite of both major parties this time around. That’s even though small local projects, such as roundabouts and carparks, simply aren’t the job of the federal government, and in practice often go badly.
A better deal for taxpayers would be for whichever party wins government on Saturday to halt this spending on small local infrastructure, and focus instead on nationally significant projects that have been properly assessed by Infrastructure Australia.
There’s a big difference in what the parties are promising. The Coalition has committed an exuberant $18.1 billion worth; Labor a much more restrained $4.7 billion. In both cases, these transport promises are a pale shadow of the 2019 campaign, when the Coalition promised $42 billion worth, and Labor an eyewatering $49 billion.
The Coalition is sticking with the dominant strategy of the past 15 years, which is promising more funding to Queensland – the state where elections tend to be won and lost.
It has promised nearly $900 per Queenslander in transport funding, compared with about $500 for each person in New South Wales and Victoria. Labor hasn’t overlooked Queensland either; although its promises favour Victoria, at close to $400 per person, Queenslanders are next in line, with about $200 worth of transport spending each.
Source: Guardian Pork-O-Meter Data. Notes: Data downloaded 13 May, 2022. Includes promises from 1 January to 10 May, 2022., Author provided
Billion-dollar projects are much less prevalent than they were last election, with just six of them promised so far (five by the Coalition, one by Labor).
Of the six, none has been assessed by Infrastructure Australia as nationally significant and worth building. Two have yet to achieve the first stage of assessment; two are early in the process of being assessed; one didn’t make it onto the list because its costs would outweigh its benefits, and one has been removed from the list because it has been fully funded – although that appears to have happened before a full appraisal was completed.
And that’s even with the newly watered-down requirement for Infrastructure Australia scrutiny: since January 1 2021, only projects that require more than $250 million in federal funding are supposed to be scrutinised, a lax threshold compared with the $100 million threshold that used to apply.
Notes: Data downloaded 13 May, 2022. Includes promises from 1 January to 10 May, 2022. Infrastructure Australia’s priority list addresses identified problems and infrastructure opportunities. At Stage 2, potential investment options have been identified and analysed. Stage 3 projects are investment-ready proposals. The North South corridor was assessed as a Source: Guardian Pork-O-Meter Data., Author provided
It’s prudent for potential future governments to step back from the megaproject binge of recent years. The engineering construction sector has been raising red flags for years about its capacity to deliver the existing pipeline of projects, never mind adding to it.
Even before the pandemic, employment in the sector had surged by 50%, and supply chain disruptions have made it slower, more difficult, and more expensive to source materials. What’s more, the slowing of population growth has dampened the rationale for big new projects, and strengthened the case to maintain and upgrade assets. Even so, both parties are promising more for new construction than upgrades.
Source: Guardian Pork-O-Meter Data. Notes: Data downloaded 13 May, 2022. Includes promises from 1 January to 10 May, 2022., Author provided
In fact, the parties have gone hard for tiny projects. Two-thirds of the promised spend of the Coalition, and nearly half of Labor’s, is for projects valued at $30 million or less. For the Coalition, these include commuter car park upgrades at Panania in the electorate of Banks (NSW), Hampton in Goldstein (Victoria), Woy Woy in Robertson (NSW), and Kananook in Dunckley (Victoria). For Labor, they include upgrading the Mornington roundabout in Franklin (Tasmania), and several roundabout upgrades in Perth.
Source: Guardian Pork-o-Meter data. Notes: Data downloaded 13 May, 2022. Includes promises from 1 January to 10 May, 2022., Author provided
These very small, hyper-local projects may be important to the local community, and popular, but there’s no roundabout or car park in the land that’s nationally significant.
When the federal government encroaches on the turf of state and local government like this, it often goes badly. The commuter car parks that were cancelled in 2021 and 2022 show what can go wrong when a federal government operates outside its proper sphere: projects had to be cancelled because there were no feasible design options, feasible sites, or because the railway station was being merged with another.
Political parties make little secret of the fact they use transport spending to win votes. Indeed, given transport spending seems to be electorally popular, politicians may ask what’s wrong with focusing investment on electorally important states and seats? Well, there are three problems.
First, the quality of the projects promised in the heat of election campaigns is poor, with none of the billion-dollar-plus projects this time around having been positively assessed by Infrastructure Australia.
Second, government decisions should be made in the public interest, and those making the decisions should not have a private interest – including seeking private political advantage, with public funds.
And third, much of the promised spending lies outside the federal government’s proper role of funding nationally significant infrastructure, focusing instead on small hyper-local projects that are the remit of state and local governments.
Voters should demand better. Whichever party wins the 2022 federal election should strengthen the transport spending guardrails.
The government, whether Coalition or Labor, should require a minister, before approving funding, to consider and publish Infrastructure Australia’s assessment of a project, including the business case, cost/benefit analysis, and ranking on national significance grounds.
And the next federal government should also stick to its job: no more roundabouts or car parks, just nationally significant infrastructure that’s been assessed as worth building.
Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities. Marion Terrill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any other company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
There are up to 29,000 people aged under 65 living with dementia in Australia. Our new research shows people with young onset dementia experience delays to diagnosis and a faster decline in their cognitive abilities than older people with the condition.
They must also tackle a challenging maze of accessing support services across both a disability system inexperienced with their care and an aged-care system not suited to meet their needs.
Using the strengths of both sectors could prevent people with young onset dementia from falling through the cracks.
When dementia meets busy lives
People with young onset dementia (defined as any form of dementia that begins before age 65) are usually in their 50s and early 60s. They experience progressive memory loss, difficulty with planning and decision-making, personality changes, and/or language difficulties.
Many people with young onset dementia (also referred to as younger onset or early onset dementia) have dependent children, ageing parents, high-pressure jobs and significant financial responsibilities.
We systematically reviewed 30 studies on Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. Our analysis demonstrated younger people with dementia experience a faster progression of their symptoms than older people with dementia.
Studies that tracked symptoms over time showed that, while younger people generally maintained better physical health than older people while living with dementia, their thinking and language difficulties can worsen quickly.
This has an important impact on their care and support needs – and how often these needs are assessed.
Because the likelihood of developing dementia rises sharply with age, most people with dementia are older than 65.
The unique needs of younger people with dementia prompted the federal government to move funding for their care and support services to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2016. Older people with dementia continue to be supported by the aged-care system.
This division means people with young onset dementia sit at the intersection of two complex service systems. They can access services to support their independence and community participation via the NDIS, but dementia-specific services and housing are still largely delivered by the aged-care sector.
Aged-care providers face difficulty providing tailored support services due to complex eligibility rules, and many have withdrawn their specific programs for young onset dementia.
People diagnosed with dementia before they turn 65 get lost between NDIS and aged care. Shutterstock
The disability sector has little experience with delivering dementia care. Most NDIS participants are aged under 35 years and live with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities and hearing impairments that remain relatively stable over their lifetime.
The sometimes rapidly progressive nature of young onset dementia means care needs can change more quickly than the standard yearly reviews offered by the NDIS. So even when people with young onset dementia receive adequate funding to suit their needs, these needs may change quickly. And there is a major shortage of disability service providers with dementia expertise with whom they can spend their funding.
This is especially true in rural and remote areas, where there may only be one or two people with young onset dementia across a large geographical area.
Strict eligibility rules about the “significance” of disability can also delay NDIS access. People newly diagnosed with young onset dementia may have mild impairments – but there are major benefits to early intervention.
Young people with dementia and their families frequently have to navigate their own care needs and educate the providers they encounter along the way. This can increase their stress.
Aged care isn’t the answer
Despite the difficulties people with young onset dementia and their families experience, our research tells us they want their care to remain in the disability system rather than revert back to the aged-care system. The NDIS philosophy of a strengths-based approach to maximise independence is valued.
The disability sector needs to be better equipped to support people with young onset dementia and others who have progressive impairments.
Training for the disability workforce about progressive neurological conditions including dementia would be a good first step.
Beyond training, better integration of the aged and disability sectors could have mutual benefits.
The disability sector can learn and grow from the rich dementia expertise of the aged care workforce. And the aged care sector can benefit from the disability sector’s experience with delivering strengths-based and goal-directed care. Hours of testimony from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlight how desperately this is needed.
Flexibility in funding rules around the 65-year-old NDIS cutoff point could see co-delivered services capitalise on these respective strengths.
Flexibility could also ensure people aged close to 65 years at the time of their dementia diagnosis can make informed choices about the sector from which they will seek support. Then suitable care that can adjust to their changing needs will stop them falling through the cracks.
Monica Cations receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council Medical Research Future Fund and the South Australian Hospital Research Foundation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susanne Becken, Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Director, Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University
Shutterstock
This year, Qantas announced two plans in direct conflict. In March, Australia’s largest airline group went public with the admirable goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2030 by using new clean fuels, boosting efficiency and using carbon offsets. For the aviation industry, this was a watershed moment, containing world-leading detail and bold links between executive pay and improved sustainability.
But only two months later, Qantas confirmed its order for 12 new Airbus planes capable of ultra long-distance flights, making possible non-stop flights from Sydney and Melbourne to London or New York.
What’s the conflict? These long distance flights must carry substantially more fuel and, as a result, fewer passengers, making them markedly less efficient.
If the aviation industry heads down this route, it will be a backwards step in the fight against climate change. While Qantas intends these flights to be carbon neutral, this will have to involve carbon offsets given there are no other options at present.
As the world gets more serious about climate action, flights like this will come under scrutiny.
Flying the furthest comes with a carbon cost
For decades, Qantas has hoped to overcome Australia’s tyranny of distance, beginning ultra long-haul test flights as early as 1989. These tests didn’t translate into regular flights, however, leaving the door open to key competitor Singapore Airlines, which currently has the world’s top two ultra long flights.
Qantas seems determined to change that. In 2025, the carrier’s new Sydney-London non-stop flight will cover 17,800km non-stop to become the world’s longest flight.
While it might seem like a single flight would produce less emissions, the opposite is true.
The most efficient flights (based on fuel burned per kilometre) are those between 3,000 and 5,000km, depending on aircraft type. By contrast, non-stop ultra long haul flights produce more carbon emissions than two shorter journeys with a stop-over.
The reason is simple physics. Planes flying ultra long distances must carry lots of fuel, especially at take-off, to cover the later stages of the journey. For the new planes Qantas has ordered, it takes about 0.2kg of fuel to transport a kilo a thousand kilometres.
Given the long distance, this means it’s not a very efficient use of fuel. Not only that, but the high fuel load means there is less space for passengers.
That gives an even less favourable result based on the metric of carbon dioxide emitted per passenger-kilometre. For example, the non-stop flight from Auckland to Dubai of 14,193km produces 876kg of CO2 per person in economy class, whereas the same journey with a stop-over in Singapore would produce 772kg. Exact emission rates may differ due to flight paths, freight weight, and weather, among other issues.
So while a typical A350-900 seats between 300 and 350 passengers, Singapore Airline’s existing marathon flights using these planes can only carry half that, naemly 161 passengers. Similarly, the planned Qantas flights would have just 238 passengers, 112 to 172 seats fewer than what Airbus recommends.
As you’d expect, less passengers increases the ticket cost and makes these flights more exclusive, adding to the problem that a small wealthy elite have a disproportionately high environmental impact.
Can long-haul ever be low carbon?
Marathon non-stop flights stand in the way of a wider shift towards a low-emissions world. If airlines are serious about tackling their sector’s growing contribution to fossil fuel emissions, they must look to research into alternative fuels and technologies by programs like the EU’s Clean Sky.
These programs have shown sustainable fuels and new technologies are much better suited to shorter flights. Electric aircraft, for instance, are becoming viable for short flights in the near-term future. In Sydney, electric seaplanes will soon enter the short-hop sector, while hybrid-electric technology has the potential to support flights of up to 1500km, depending on progress in battery technology.
Electric planes are shaping up as a good solution for short flights. Mark Mitchell/AP
So what about long distance? We have two options. One is hydrogen and the other is sustainable aviation fuels.
While there is a huge amount of hype around clean hydrogen at present, the reality is green hydrogen derived from renewable electricity currently makes up just 1% of all hydrogen we produce. We would need a monumental effort to scale up to fill the demand from aviation.
Another challenge is hydrogen’s low energy density, which will restrict flying range to an estimated maximum of 7,000km by 2040.
That leaves sustainable aviation fuel as the only option for long-haul flights. The airline industry is pinning their hopes on fuels derived either from biological feedstocks (used cooking oils or oil derived from algae)
or produced synthetically.
The sustainability of these fuels depends on the feedstock, the production process (which, again, will demand large amounts of renewable energy) and a detailed understanding of impacts on the atmosphere from any gases emitted. That suggests these fuels will likely be expensive, with volumes hard to secure to fully replace fossil fuels. Even so, these fuels will have to be part of aviation’s future.
Algae-derived oil is one possibility for sustainable aviation fuels. Shutterstock
In response, some countries have begun to ramp up their focus and infrastructure spending on rail travel, to encourage new travel patterns. The growing regenerative tourism movement – which emphasises deeper engagement with place and people – signals there is real potential to shift mass travel away from far-and-fast destinations to close-and-deep.
The role of flying in tourism is already changing, and it will change more in coming years. You can already glimpse this in the trends towards more climate-friendly travel closer to home. Soon, electric and hybrid planes will encourage shorter flights in a carbon-constrained world.
As for ultra long-haul flights, it is difficult to picture how these are compatible with the goal of net-zero emissions.
Susanne Becken receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is also a member of the Air New Zealand Sustainability Advisory Panel.
Paresh Pant 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.
There has been speculation the Coalition is hesitant to campaign on schools because education minister, Alan Tudge is currently in career limbo (and has been limiting his public appearances).
Meanwhile, Labor’s education spokesperson, Tanya Plibersek, appeared to be initially frozen out of the campaign, although in the past couple of weeks has been more visible.
Politics aside, what are the major parties offering?
The Coalition, ALP, and The Greens are all pledging a similar investment in mental health and well-being services, and support for respectful classrooms, particularly regarding violence against women. The largest difference between them is an (ongoing) ideological divide when it comes to the curriculum. Meanwhile, the big issues go ignored.
The Coalition
The Coalition is focusing its efforts on “raising school standards” and “improving the quality of teacher training”.
This includes creating a one-year diploma for initial teacher education. Given the current demands on accreditation bodies, this might create administrative burden. It would also need schools to shoulder a greater responsibility for “on-the-job” training.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison during a school visit in Sydney in December 2021. Bianca De Marchi/AAP
The Coalition also has a focus on traditional skills such as literacy, numeracy and STEM, with a clear focus on what the LNP terms “traditional classrooms”, which one can assume to be of students seated in rows with a single classroom teacher. There is an emphasis on Christian and ANZAC content and phonics for reading.
It also includes specified teaching methods through explicit instruction, which is the teacher standing at the front providing information for students to learn rather than explore or discover.
Labor’s headline policy is to offer students with an ATAR score over 80 up to $12,000 a year to study education.
This is part of the party’s bid to improve teacher standards, although it has been criticised by experts who say it implies the current teacher workforce is not up to scratch, which could be interpreted as quite insulting.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese and education spokesperson Tanya Plibersek visit Albanese’s old school in Sydney on day 29 of the campaign. Lukas Coch/AAP
Like the Coalition, it also offers no significant investment or policy to address current staffing shortages or teacher workloads – this is presumably being left to the states to “fix”.
Labor has promised $440 million for building upgrades, improving air quality and mental health support. The ALP also made a $6 million commitment to e-safety in schools. In terms of the curriculum, the ALP provide little detail – they do not detail teaching methods or content.
The Greens
The Greens have pledged $49 billion to fully fund public schools to the Gonski model. At the moment, public schools are funded to only 90% of their recommended school resource standard.
Like Labor, they also promise $400 million for infrastructure, with an additional $224 million to improve air quality post COVID.
Uniquely, the Greens also have made a commitment to close segregated school settings, but have not costed this. Segregated settings are where particular groups of students are taught separate to mainstream students, such as schools for children with a disability. The United Nations and multiple research studies have highlighted significant issues with this segregated settings.
One Nation and the United Australia Party
One Nation have very little policy detail available on education. In one paragraph, they say they want to focus more on traditional values and teaching methods. Then they say they don’t want to see “Western, white, gender, guilt” shaming in the classroom but students should be taught the benefits of a “free-thinking” society.
Similar to One Nation, the United Australia Party has just a few sentences of education policy, which is to remove HECS debt and inject $20 billion into education, although how this money can be used is left unspecified.
The bigger picture
Overall, the critical issues facing education have been left to the states to deal with.
There is new funding available, but neither the Coalition nor Labor are offering significant change from what we are currently doing in schools.
Both are looking at initial teacher education and thus the quality of teachers to improve results (which is highly denigrating to current teachers and does not support the current system).
But much more change is required. It’s important to note that additional funding over the past decade has not changed Australia’s educational decline. Tinkering with the curriculum has also not changed the decline, and neither have previous attempts to so called improve “teacher quality”.
Overall, the critical issues facing education have been left to the states to deal with. Con Chronis/ AAP
Genuine solutions would include an increase to teacher wages, relieve administrative workloads, and allow teacher to focus on planning and teaching within reasonable time requirements and greater support to disadvantaged students.
In other words, it needs a significant reappraisal of the schooling system and conditions for students and staff.
You would be forgiven for being unsure about whether the buying power of wages was rising or falling. On one hand, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese says wages are going backwards.
On the other, Prime Minister Scott Morrison points to “better wages” over his government’s term in office.
To get at the truth, we need to appreciate that prices fluctuate more rapidly than wages do and that underlying economic forces drive the longer term growth in real wages.
These two factors have produced real growth in wages over the past 10 years, but a fall over the past year.
Buying power
The best way to measure changes in the buying power of wages is to examine changes in their “real” value, measured by changes in wages in relation to changes in prices, usually measured by the consumer price index.
The real value of the award rates of pay determined by the Fair Work Commission, including the minimum wage, climbed in all but but one of the ten years between 2011 and 2020, at an average of slightly more than 1% per year.
But the buying power of an award wage fell 2.5% during the last 12 months, because of the unexpected, large rise in consumer prices of 5.1%.
This increase in consumer prices easily eclipsed the most recent – July 2021 – increase in award wages of 2.6% increase in award wages.
The high inflation was caused in part by the impact on fuel prices of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which no one could have anticipated inflation fluctuates much more than wages do in the short run.
This too has grown in real terms over the past decade, by about as much as award rates. And it too has fallen in real terms over the past year, because of the sharp rise in inflation.
Another measure is the Bureau of Statistics’ wage price index which measures the hourly pay for the job, regardless of who is doing it. This is the key cost measure for employers.
Many employees get pay rises through promotions or switching employers. By design, the wage price index does not capture that, and so has grown more slowly.
Even the wage price index has grown faster than inflation, by 4% over the past 10 years, until the last year, when the sudden jump in inflation pushed it behind.
Cost to employers
For employers, the labour cost of delivering a unit of output depends both on how much the worker produces in an hour (known as productivity), and how much the worker is paid for that hour (the wage).
Over the past decade, the Bureau of Statistics’ measure of labour productivity has climbed 12%, while real wages (as captured in the wage price index) have grown only modestly.
This has resulted in a 6% decline in the Bureau’s measure of real unit labour costs, and in the share of national income that goes to labour rather than to capital.
It’s not clear why this happened, but there are suspects.
One is that the total income per person, available to be shared between wages and profits, stagnated for much of the past decade, being no greater by the end of 2018 than it was in 2011.
The recent rise in export prices has boosted national income, but much of it has accrued to the mining sector in the form of profits. The wages share of mining income is only 14%, compared with 55% for the rest of the economy.
The result has been an increase in the share of national income going to profits and a slide in the proportion going to wages.
Other sources of downward pressure on wages growth include high rates of immigration, especially of temporary workers such as students, tight caps on wage increases for state and federal government employees, increased outsourcing to low-wage countries, and declining union membership.
Low union membership not only reduces the power of unions to bargain for higher wages, it also reduces their ability to ensure that the conditions set by the Fair Work Commission are met by employers.
Declining union power
This is of particular concern at a time when there is a large, new, vulnerable group in the workforce: temporary migrants dependent on employers to retain their visas.
As of May 2022, there are signs that wage growth is at last likely to increase, which will be quite an achievement in the midst of COVID.
The signs include low unemployment and underemployment; a record high number of Australians employed, and employed full-time; record high vacancy rates; and robust household spending and profits.
The biggest immediate beneficiaries appear to be younger workers and older workers, and women. There is ground to make up.
Sue Richardson 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.
Almost all governments today support some funding towards promoting their international political and economic agendas through cultural activities overseas: commonly referred to as part of “cultural diplomacy” or “soft power”.
Cultural diplomacy is not new. Julius Caesar brought gladiatorial performance to Britain, not so subtly suggesting Rome’s power. James Cook presented gifts to the Pacific island chiefs – albeit insubstantial ones in return for the highly prized objects he received, now in European collections.
The British Council was established in 1934 to stem the force of Soviet cultural diplomatic success. The Japan Foundation was founded in 1972 to create a more sophisticated view of a Japan emerging from the second world war.
The British Council – photographed here in Washington DC – was established in 1934. Shutterstock
Australia’s efforts have always been paltry.
We have never had an international cultural agency, and the Federal government avenues we do have for supporting international artistic projects, the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australia Council, have shrinking funds.
In the 2000s, I was a member of DFAT’s Australia Indonesia Institute. Our small fund supported almost all the official cultural engagement between the two countries, and even it decreased before our eyes. It didn’t surprise me when leading curator Jim Supangkat asked me in Jakarta: “Where have all you Australians gone?”
In 2021/22, in admittedly difficult COVID times, just one cultural project – the Ubud Writers Festival – was funded through the Australia Indonesia Institute’s tiny A$450,000 allocation for all people-to-people projects between us and our so-important neighbour.
It does not help that the Australia Indonesia Institute, like most of the DFAT bilateral agencies with these precious country colleagues, now has no specialist arts person on its board.
Most Commonwealth government funding and capacity in the area is allocated to individual applicants by the federal arts agency, the Australia Council.
The application forms for funding from DFAT, bilateral agencies like the Indonesia Institute, and the Australia Council are particularly onerous, as is the ensuing reporting of how funds are spent. There are smarter ways all round.
The diminishing role of Australia’s cultural diplomacy has been known for a long time, but there has been a change recently of senior arts and diplomatic figures speaking out.
Former Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby writes in his 2020 book on our general relations with China that:
over the last two decades, Australia has been seen to be regionally inactive. [To change that] active engagement with China in cultural diplomacy should be another essential element of Australia’s statecraft.
Carrillo Gantner’s 2022 book, eloquently titled Dismal Diplomacy, written from his 40 years working particularly in cultural projects with China, pleads for better and more sophisticated relations all round.
In 2018, John McCarthy, former Ambassador to Indonesia (and other places) wrote public diplomacy has “always been the poor relation in Australian foreign policy implementation”:
Canada spends more on public diplomacy than Australia spends on the whole of its foreign service. Excluding public broadcasting, France spends an estimated A$1.9 billion, Germany A$1.6 billion, the UK A$350 million, and the Netherlands A$100 million. Australia spends A$12 million, of which, in most years, our Indonesia program will receive about A$1 million.
Cultural diplomacy comes under the umbrella of the broader public diplomacy described by McCarthy.
The Australia Council’s International Engagement Strategy has had an annual budget over the last five years averaging $2.7 million, while DFAT’s Australian Cultural Diplomacy Grants program currently has an allocation of $400,000. There are other programs here and there that loosely come under the cultural diplomacy tag, so let us average up this figure to around $5 million.
The Goethe-Institut, pictured here in Singapore, has an annual budget of around A$400 million. Shutterstock
Comparisons are hard for specific cultural activity because each country includes different areas, but Australia’s contrast with the specialist Goethe-Institut and British Council are stark. The Goethe-Institut has had fairly stable funding of A$400 million per annum over recent years, and the British Council A$320 million.
On these figures, they spend A$4-5 per capita on cultural engagement and diplomacy, and we spend 20 cents.
Another calculation is through activities. The Arts and Cultural Program described in the Japan Foundation’s recent annual report counts audiences of over five million attendances for 2,300 events it has “organised or supported”.
We are nowhere in that ballpark.
‘How to win friends’
As Jo Caust writes in her recent paper, “support for the arts is not primarily a question of economics. It is a question of values.”
Assessment of the importance of international activities is a bigger issue than straight numbers.
The appreciation of the British Council merited debate recently in the House of Commons, concluding the program provided the United Kingdom with
an object lesson in how to win friends and influence people. […] We intend to continue to ensure that global Britain is a world leader for soft power.
There is an argument Australia needs cultural diplomacy more than others.
We carry the stain of our settler founding, increasingly clearly articulated. The racist White Australia Policy rescinded relatively recently (in 1966) is well known by our neighbours. Our position in the region has always been debatable, something sensed by our neighbours as much as known. Are we in “in” or “out” of Asia? To many, we have a confused cultural identity: one that needs all the help it can get.
We can look to the German and Japanese examples, equally recognising their need to be proactive in their international imaging after events of the last 100 years. They have created serious, professional, cultural diplomatic agendas.
Australia’s cultural diplomacy should be done better, more effectively and with more confidence. The best way forward is to give the running to a central, nuanced, specialist body well equipped to tackle it.
Alison Carroll 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.
Until now, the government’s approach to climate action has largely been about getting the policy architecture right. This work is vital, but it’s more about rearranging possible futures, less about emissions reductions in the near term.
The newly released Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) was supposed to shift gears, to get real about urgent climate action – and it partially achieves this, but only partially.
Budget 2022 will reveal some extra expenditure, but most of the $2.9 billion of climate-relevant funding was confirmed alongside the ERP. It exhibits a sensitivity to the electoral constraints on transformation, less so a sense of realism about what decarbonisation actually demands.
There are significant steps forward. Resourcing for Māori involvement in climate policy is long overdue. Integration of education and social support measures is also helpful.
In this sense, the ERP process is itself a minor victory. For years, policy scholars and public sector mandarins have championed the ideal of joined-up government, without ever doing much in practice. Consequently, the ERP is unique, even unprecedented, by taking a whole-of-government approach, weaving together all core government departments in a 340-page report.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson faces media with a copy of the Wellbeing Budget 2022. Getty Images
Time to be decisive
Some of the best bits of the ERP play to this interconnectedness. Nature-based solutions – that is, enhancing natural ecosystems to address multiple challenges – emerge as a strong connective theme, not only between various sectors, but also across the National Adaptation Plan and Biodiversity Strategy/Te Mana o te Taiao.
The same can be said for planning and infrastructure which is explicit about the overlapping opportunities to reduce emissions across multiple sectors.
Similarly, the rising theme of the “bioeconomy” sheds new light on the importance of forestry, not only as a supplier of timber and carbon removals, but also as feedstock for bioplastics and biofuels to substitute crude oil.
But instead of investments to make this happen, the ERP promises a bioeconomy and circular economy strategy that won’t be complete until 2025. This is the overriding character of the document, where a large proportion of “actions” begin with the words “explore” or “investigate”, or lapse into research, baseline setting and elongated work programmes.
Even well-established ideas, such as congestion charging, are deferred. The government has investigated this policy for more than a decade, but the ERP only confirms it is “considering progressing legislative changes to enable congestion charging”.
The ERP was the moment to be decisive, one way or the other. The failure to do so leaves a lingering suspicion that the ERP’s new slew of pledges may face a similar fate.
Acceptability over ambition
So there are plans, and plans for plans, but still a shortfall of strategy. Energy sector policy, for example, takes a technology-neutral approach rather than narrowing down on priorities, such as geothermal energy, where Aotearoa is known to have natural advantages, expertise, and potential for global impact.
Such opportunities are already identifiable, even in the absence of a central energy strategy (due in 2024). Research, development and deployment take time, so strategic decisions need to be made now, rather than backloaded for later this decade.
The proposal of “climate innovation platforms” might provide the vehicle for strategic innovation, but only if properly resourced. The ERP gives an air of compromise, tending toward acceptability over ambition.
Fortunately, though, the proposed policy mix – along with an improved Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – will take us quite some way.
Emissions pricing in the ERP
Impact of the 2021 update of the price control settings on mitigation compared with.
the total new mitigation needed to meet emissions budgets. NZ Government
The NZ$69 million Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund is being topped up with nearly $680 million, a ten-fold increase, to accelerate industrial decarbonisation.
In transport, this includes $350 million for cycleways and public transport, $40 million to decarbonise the bus fleet by 2035, $20 million to decarbonise freight transport, and $20 million for a vehicle social leasing scheme trial.
Agriculture is also the beneficiary of $710 million from ETS auctioning revenue for agri-tech and research – arguably unfairly, given that agriculture currently sits outside the ETS.
Overshadowing these initiatives is the scrap-and-replace scheme, aimed at subsidising people into electric vehicles (EVs), and already a lightning rod for controversy. The empirical record for scrappage schemes elsewhere, such as the US Cash for Clunkers programme, tends to conclude that emissions reductions are minimal despite the high investment.
Given that replacement cars must be EVs and hybrids, the New Zealand scheme may produce more emissions reductions than previous schemes did. However, the high price of EVs may mean that, even with high subsidies, low-income households cannot easily cover the difference.
Also, the scheme risks perpetuating the dependence on cars that makes transport mode-shift so elusive. Indeed, the $569 million committed to scrap-and-replace is far larger than the $350 million committed to cycleways and public transport.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that a scrappage scheme – for all the flak it will receive from efficiency-minded economists – was perceived as more politically palatable than getting people out of cars.
The ERP is projected to drive enough change to meet New Zealand’s 2030 Paris Agreement pledge. But part of this effort will involve the purchasing of emission reduction credits on international carbon markets, at potentially high prices.
A high reliance on paying for other countries to reduce their emissions reflects a hangover in the New Zealand government’s thinking, dating back to the Kyoto Protocol era. Deferring hard choices now by “planning more plans” might reduce the risk of backing the wrong technologies, but deferral is not without its risks either.
It speaks to the longstanding problem of treating climate change as merely a scientific, technical problem. This implies that, like any puzzle, climate action will benefit from further discovery, analysis and evaluation.
For elected and unelected officials alike, this is irresistible, because commissioning further research and strategy is a way of appearing serious, even prudent, while also avoiding vital decisions and associated responsibilities. The slow-moving quality of the climate crisis, in contrast to the fast-moving pandemic, increases the window for dawdling.
But climate action was always fundamentally about politics. The ERP practices the arts of acceptability but neglects the art of the possible – of making ambitious commitments and bringing the people along.
David Hall is affiliated with the Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group.
Melody Meng and Nina Ives do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Nothing justifies the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the wounding of her colleague Ali al-Samoudi during an Israeli raid on Jenin in the Occupied West Bank. Nothing.
I believe the renowned reporter died at the hands of Israeli armed forces and that she was deliberately targeted because she was a journalist, easily identified by the word PRESS on the flak jacket and helmet that did not protect her from the shot that killed her. Her wounded colleague was identically dressed.
I am left in no doubt about the culpability of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on a number of grounds.
Several eyewitnesses, including an Agence France-Presse photographer and another Al Jazeera staffer, were adamant that there was no shooting from Palestinians near the scene of the killing. Shatha Hanaysha, the Al Jazeera journalist who had been standing next to Abu Akleh against a high wall when firing broke out, stated they were deliberately targeted by Israeli troops.
Israeli spokesmen who initially laid the blame on Palestinian militants became more equivocal in the face of the eyewitness accounts, although they would go no further than saying she could have been accidentally shot from an armoured vehicle by an Israeli soldier.
That is about as close to an admission of guilt as the IDF is likely to get.
However, perhaps the strongest evidence of IDF culpability is the fact that the killing of Abu Akleh is part of a pattern of targeting journalists. Reporters Without Borders — which has called for an independent international investigation of the death that it says is a violation of international conventions that protect journalists — says two Palestinian journalists were killed by Israeli snipers in 2018 and since then more than 140 journalists have been the victims of violations by the Israeli security forces.
30 journalists killed since 2000 By its tally, at least 30 journalists have been killed since 2000.
Of course, those deaths are but one consequence of the IDF’s disproportionate response — in terms of the number of victims — to actions by Palestinian militants over the occupation of the West Bank. Since the present Israeli government took office last year, 76 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israeli forces.
There has been condemnation of such deaths, particularly when they include a number of children. So the reaction to the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh was sadly predictable. In other circumstances the outcry would dissipate and Israeli forces would continue to carry out their government’s wishes.
However, three things may make the condemnation louder, longer and more effective.
First was the fact that, although she was born in Jerusalem, she was a United States citizen. This could well explain the US Administration’s statement condemning the killing and its willingness to back a similarly reproachful UN Security Council resolution.
The second factor was that, although a Palestinian, Abu Akleh was not a Muslim. She was raised in a Christian Catholic family. It may not be a particularly becoming trait but the ability of the West to identify with a victim affects the way in which it reacts.
However, it is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of her death. I am referring to the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police.
Pallbearers assaulted by police The journalist’s coffin was carried in procession from an East Jerusalem hospital to the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Virgin in the Christian Quarter of the Old City where a service was held before burial in a cemetery on the Mount of Olives. However, shortly after the pallbearers left the hospital the procession — waving Palestinian flags and chanting — was assaulted by police.
It is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh’s death … the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR
Mourners were hit with batons, stun grenades were detonated, and a phalanx of armed police in riot gear advanced on the coffin. The procession scattered in disarray and, as the pallbearers tried to avoid the police action, the coffin tilted almost vertical and was in danger of falling to the road.
At that point, an Al Jazeera journalist providing commentary on live coverage of the funeral said an an anguished voice: “Oh my God. Such disrespect for the dead, for those mourning the dead. How is that a security threat? How is that disorderly? Why does it require this kind of reaction, this level of violence on the part of the Israelis?”
Why did the police act as they did? Apparently because it is illegal to display the Palestinian flag and chant Palestinian slogans. Even after Abu Akleh’s coffin was transferred to a vehicle, police ran alongside to tear Palestinian flag from the windows.
The message was clear: There was no contrition on the part of Israeli authorities for the death of the Al Jazeera journalist. The justification for the police action was pathetic. There were lame excuses that stones had been thrown at them. In other words, it was business as usual.
That may not be the way the world sees it. Nor, indeed, the way it may be seen by many ordinary Israelis who would have been affronted by the indignity shown to the remains of a widely respected woman who died doing her job.
‘Time for some accountability?’ Yaakov Katz, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, an English-language Israeli newspaper, said on Twitter: “What’s happening at Abu Akleh’s funeral is terrible. This is a failure on all fronts.” In a later message he asked: “Is it not time for some accountability?”
The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide. That is why, for example, we have seen seven journalists killed in Ukraine, 12 of their colleagues injured by gunfire, and multiple reports of clearly identified journalists coming under fire from Russian forces.
One might have thought the international community — and in particular Israel’s close friend the United States — would have put significant pressure on Tel Aviv to cease such intimidation a year ago after Israeli aircraft bombed the Gaza City building that was home to various media organisations including Al Jazeera and the US wire service Associated Press.
Israel claimed, without any evidence and contrary to AP’s own knowledge, that the building was being used by Hamas, the Palestinian nationalist organisation.
Associated Press chief executive Gary Pruitt said after that attack that “the world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today”. Aidan White, founder of the Ethical Journalism Network described the bombing as a “catastrophic attempt to shut down media, to silence criticism, and worst of all, to create a cloak of secrecy”.
That, no doubt, was what Tel Aviv intended.
Yet there were no recriminations sufficient to change the course Tel Aviv was on. As the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh so tragically illustrates, Israel has continued its policy of intimidation and violence against journalists.
Sooner or later, it will come to realise that such actions diminish a government in the eyes of the world. The death of Abu Akleh and the indignity shown to her remains have added significantly to the damage to its reputation.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide … One of the images of slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh shown in a “guerilla-projection” by a pro-Palestinian group at Te Papa yesterday to mark the 74th anniversary of the Nakba, the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. Image: Stuff screenshot APR
As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.
In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass the Coalition’s “super” housing pitch, five seats to eyeball on Saturday night, and what would happen if the parliamentary numbers were “hung”.
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.
As you head to your local polling place this Saturday, or cast your ballot in an early vote, it’s worth pondering: how does Australia’s voting system really work, anyway?
The fundamentals of our electoral system have been shaped by democratic values enshrined in Australia’s Constitution and pragmatic decisions made by federal politicians since 1901.
I’ve been studying elections and electoral systems for some 65 years.
Here’s what you need to know to understand how the vote you cast this election fits into the bigger picture.
How long are politicians’ terms?
For members of the House of Representatives – three years.
Section 28 of the Constitution says:
Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.
Since the prime minister advises the governor general, it means he or she makes the exact choice of date. Many people object to that, but I don’t. That power hasn’t been abused.
The now dissolved term (the 46th Parliament) was elected in May 2019, so it has run a full term.
Why do we have more seats in the House than the Senate?
The Constitution says there must be approximately double the number of seats in the House compared to the Senate.
Section 24 says:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.
The September 1946 election saw 74 members of the House of Representatives elected to the 18th Parliament (1946-49). There were 36 senators then, six from each of the six states.
Since 1984 there have been 76 senators, 12 from each state and two from each territory.
There are currently 151 seats in the House, which therefore meets the requirement “as nearly as practicable twice the number” of senators.
How are electoral boundaries drawn?
Electoral boundaries are drawn so there are similar numbers of voters in each seat.
Section 24 of the Constitution reads:
The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people…
The number of 151 electorates was determined mid-way during the 45th Parliament (2016-19). In August 2017 the electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, issued the latest population statistics and determined there should be 47 members from New South Wales, 38 Victoria, 30 Queensland, 16 Western Australia, 10 South Australia, five Tasmania, three ACT and two for the Northern Territory.
Where necessary, electoral boundaries are re-drawn according to the principle of “one vote, one value” or, as I prefer to say, equal representation for equal numbers of people.
In July 2020, Rogers acknowledged population growth was above average in Victoria and below average in Western Australia.
That is why the forthcoming election will see 39 members elected in Victoria (up one) and 15 in WA (down one). New boundaries will apply in those two states and the redistributions have been done fairly and with maximum transparency, as always.
Elsewhere the boundaries will be the same as in May 2019.
Since 1949 the system has been one of proportional representation.
That means within each state six Senate seats are roughly distributed according to a party’s share of the vote. So a party getting about 12% of the vote would win one seat, about 26% two seats, about 40% three seats and so on.
This is why the Greens do so well at Senate elections compared to the House of Representatives. With about 10% of the vote for both houses, they presently have nine senators but only one member of the House of Representatives.
This differs from preferential voting for the House of Representatives, introduced in 1918, where voters number candidates in the order of their preferences – first choice, second choice and so on.
How long are senators’ terms?
Senators from the states serve six year terms, and those from the territories serve three year terms.
However, a system of rotation means half the senators’ terms end every three years. So in most elections, half the Senate spots are contested.
But there’s an exception to this rule. Every so often there’s a “double dissolution”, where the entire Senate is elected. That happened most recently in 2016. This parliament was dissolved early because there was a dispute between the two houses, so the entire parliament faced the people.
In a double dissolution, half the senators from the states get three year terms instead of six. This is based on the number of votes.
One Nation’s Pauline Hanson and Larissa Waters of the Greens are good examples of how it works.
Both were elected among the 12 Queenslanders at the 2016 election. However, Hanson was one of the six more popular vote winners, and Waters one of the six less popular vote winners. So, Hanson got a six-year term and Waters a three-year term.
Waters won a higher proportion of votes in the 2019 election, so was elected to a six-year term, expiring on June 30 2025.
Hanson is up for re-election this year, and I predict she will be elected to a six-year term, and therefore her term would expire on 30 June 2028.
Issues with our voting system
About 16.5 million votes will be cast for each house of parliament.
Based on the last two federal elections, I estimate the informal vote will be roughly 800,000 for the House of Representatives (4.9%) and 650,000 for the Senate (3.9%).
By world standards that’s a high number of informal votes, which is thought by many to be a blot on our democracy.
Two reasons for this are because we have compulsory voting, and because ballot papers are unnecessarily complex and voter unfriendly, particularly for the Senate.
The United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand have voluntary voting and simple one-house ballot papers, and the rate of informal voting is negligible. Some argue we should copy them.
There’s also a lack of rules around campaign finance – the stand-out case being the obscene spending by Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.
I argue there’s no need to reform the Constitution and the democratic values it upholds. But there should be legislative changes to improve the system. I expect some democratic reforms during the next term, 2022-25, the 47th Parliament.
These changes wouldn’t require a referendum, just negotiation to ensure passage through both houses. By contrast, changes to the Constitution require a referendum. For that reason reforms by referendum are rare.
Malcolm Mackerras 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.
