Santa is on his way to town. And he’s got a stark message for the boys and girls of Australia – if you’re not nice, you pay a price.

Christmas joy, it seems, is transactional.

The absurd reality of our modern, commercial Christmas is that we go out of our way to make poor children think they are not nice – warning them about the consequences of landing on Santa’s naughty list.

The reality is, no matter how good or bad little girls and boys have been this year, many will end up on Santa’s cost of living crisis list.

While most parents will scrimp and save to provide some semblance of the Christmas which the glossy advertising and syrupy movies demand next week, others have no choice.

Hundreds of thousands of Australian children will get next to nothing this Christmas.

Many parents are already skipping meals to ensure their children don’t go without. For them, there’s no room in the budget for a giant turkey, glistening ham or plum pudding, let alone a PlayStation 5 or iPad.

Food banks and charities can’t keep up with demand. Wonderful organisations like the Salvos run Christmas drives to help keep children’s belief in Santa alive for one more year.

Make no mistake, there will be children waking up on Christmas Day who will roll down the car window to see if Santa found them the night before. Many will be disappointed.

Our kids are being lost into a poverty cycle, wholly because of government systems, rising interest rates, high housing costs and a lack of health and education services to meet their needs.

Poverty is a relentless reality for families. Poverty at Christmas is even worse.

Since Bob Hawke’s 1987 pledge that ‘by 1990 no child will live in poverty’ Australia’s child poverty rate has more than doubled, from 8 per cent to 17 per cent. And it continues to rise.

In 2025, it’s predicted that the real number of children living in income poverty will top the million mark.

“Poverty is a public policy choice,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Just this week the government released its Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, detailing billions of dollars in spending in areas it sees as priorities.”

“If it prioritised ending child poverty, it could do it with the stroke of a pen.”

Sarah Quinton, from the Valuing Children Initiative, the extraordinary organisation behind the End Child Poverty campaign, is calling for state and federal governments legislate an end to child poverty.

“First, to understand and solve poverty, we need to define, measure and report levels of poverty to Parliament. We do not do this, so we do not know how to address poverty,” Ms Quinton said.

“The second crucial element is that for children we need to see poverty from their point of view.”

Tony Pietropiccolo, Founder of the Valuing Children Initiative and Chair of the End Child Poverty campaign says “children don’t pay tax. They can’t vote. They can’t get a mortgage, and they certainly can’t be blamed for wasting their hard-earned on smashed avo’, because they don’t make any hard-earned”.

“This makes them invisible to the government which still defines poverty using the 50-year-old Henderson poverty line, a tunnel vision method that ignores, wellbeing, relationships and most of all, love.”

Professor Sharon Bessell from ANU spoke to more than 130 Australian children through extensive workshops over a two-year period, developed the More for Children framework, which sees child poverty through three frames: material, opportunity and relationships.

Children experience poverty by their relationships: friendships lost when they have to move schools because their parents are priced out of the rental market.

Children can also recognise lost opportunities in life that their friends enjoy: school excursions, camps or support with their learning needs.

And children see poverty in material basics: food, shoes, housing and school supplies.

Children have told Professor Bessell they are aware they are living in poverty, and they acutely know the difference between a want and a need.

Left long enough, these frames of poverty start to affect a child’s mental health. Being on Santa’s nice list doesn’t cut through that kind of pain.

“If your parents are trying their best and you’re also invisible to the system, where else do you turn?” Ms Quinton says.

“Kids this Christmas will just be grateful for a small gift, let alone all the trimmings.”

In June this year, The Australia Institute published a report, Ending Child Poverty in Australia, which concluded that poverty is a government choice.

During the COVID pandemic, the Commonwealth government lifted more than half a million Australians out of poverty by supplementing existing welfare payments.

“In New South Wales alone, the coronavirus supplement lifted 8,000 children out of poverty,” Mr Grudnoff explains.

“When the government phased the supplement out when the pandemic ended, poor families were back where they started.”

“New Zealand legislated to reduce child poverty by 10 percent over 10 years. It is on track to achieve this goal. We could do the same.”

“Helping those doing it toughest in society would be popular, too.”

The Ending Child Poverty in Australia report included polling which revealed 83% of Australians want the government to measure and report poverty rates in Australia.

81% supported setting income support payments in a way which ensured no child lived in poverty.

If the government does nothing, another generation of Australian kids will be consigned to poverty.

The post There’s nothing naughty about being poor. Why Christmas is a horrible time for kids living in poverty appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key findings:

• About as many Australians want property prices to decrease in the future (36%) as want them to increase (33%). One in five (18%) want them to stay the same.
• Australians who own an investment property are the only group where the majority (59%) want property prices to increase.
• Three in five Australian renters (60%) want property prices to decrease.
• Two in five Australians who own their own homes, either with a mortgage or outright, want property prices to increase (42% and 45%, respectively).

“As increasing numbers of Australians are locked out of the housing market, it has become so expensive that only a minority of Australians want prices to keep going up,” says Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Increases in house prices have come at a terrible cost to so many people. Housing should be about having a safe and secure place to live, not a way to make money.”

“Less than half of homeowners want to see house prices rise. Only among those with the most to gain from rising house prices, people who own investment properties, did a majority want to see house prices rise.”

The post Housing bubble or housing trouble? Australians wary of increasing property prices in future appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The three mines are already so large that they would almost cover greater Sydney, or most Australian cities.

“Today’s approval is yet another example of the Australian Government deciding to create more climate change rather than less. Another time that Minister Plibersek was on the side of coal companies, not the environment,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Putting this out just before Christmas is a classic ‘taking out the trash’ tactic. While Australians are trying to enjoy the end of the year, the Minister is doing the bidding of multinational coal companies.

“With every heatwave and every bushfire this summer, Australians should remember that their government is making this problem worse, not better.”

The post Minister’s early Christmas gift to coal companies appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key facts:

• Foreign-owned gas companies export 80% of Australia’s gas
• Nurses and teachers pay more tax than the gas industry
• To date, not a single LNG project has paid a cent in Petroleum Resource Rent Tax

“With Christmas here and a cost-of-living crisis on, Minister King decided to write a piece supporting multinational gas companies,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Oddly for a Christmas piece, Minister King makes no mention of the gift that Australians give to gas companies, year in, year out – free gas.

“Australia got literally nothing for the gas that companies like Chevron, Exxon and Inpex sold for $149 billion over the last four years.

“Gas companies have tripled prices for Australians in recent years, by exporting the majority of the country’s gas. This has contributed directly to the tough Christmas many Australians are about to have.

“It is strange that while Australians are paying more money for their own gas, the Minister wants to write about gas somehow being good for the climate.

“More gas is bad for the climate. More gas exports are bad for Australian gas prices. Australians are being ripped off by the gas industry and they know it.

“Minister King’s use of the last media piece of the year to claim the opposite speaks volumes about her priorities as a Minister.

“Minister King says we need gas to firm renewables. The Australian Energy Market Operator and CSIRO say the opposite – that renewables are far cheaper than gas even with the cost of firming and additional transmission included. Battery costs fell 20% last year,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor to The Australia Institute.

“Minister King is ignoring the expertise of the Australian Energy Market Operator and CSIRO on gas just as Peter Dutton does on nuclear.

“Doubling down on gas won’t just wreck our climate, it will drive up energy bills for Australian households and businesses.

“Australia has an enormous opportunity to process critical minerals in Australia using renewable energy, not gas.

“It’s pretty simple, if we want to reduce emissions we have to burn less fossil fuels, not more. Gas is a fossil fuel that is making Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and natural disasters more frequent.”

The post Minister’s Christmas card to foreign gas companies – for whom every day is Christmas appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Our report finds that vulnerability to heat is unevenly distributed across Australia.

In most states and territories, coastal areas tend to be cooler and have lower concentrations of vulnerable people than inland and rural areas.

This means that extreme heat poses a greater threat to outer-urban and rural areas than inner-urban areas, especially those near the sea.

The states and territories most vulnerable to extreme heat are the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.

In the Northern Territory, 78% of locations are highly vulnerable to extreme heat, as are 57% of locations in South Australia and 52% of locations in Western Australia. In contrast, we have classified the vulnerability to heat of almost all locations in the ACT as ’Medium low’, and of all locations in Tasmania as ‘Low’.

Climate change is exacerbating existing inequalities and disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable Australians.

While all vulnerable people would benefit from support to avoid the risks associated with heat exposure, this report identifies the locations of greatest need because they have a higher concentration of vulnerable people and face a higher likelihood of extreme heat

The post Mapping how extreme heat exacerbates inequality appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The only problem? The report is secret; McKinsey has only shared it with a select group. This is a well-known tactic used by consulting firms to keep their assumptions and conclusions from being scrutinised and criticised.

Not that you would know it from the uncritical reception the report has received from some politicians and journalists, particularly the Australian Financial Review which used the report to attack the government and advocate for its own policy wish list: to cut corporate taxes, encourage industrial relations ‘flexibility’ (in other words, wind back worker and union rights), and cut public spending. The report has been similarly used by the Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, to criticise the government.

Apparently the AFR and Taylor are among the “about 70 business leaders and policymakers” McKinsey briefed on the report. The report is unavailable on the McKinsey website and when the Australia Institute requested a copy, we were told that “[McKinsey] are not distributing this report broadly”.

In short, McKinsey is influencing public policy discourse but refusing to show the work and methodology that might justify its bold statements on Australia’s economic performance. McKinsey’s findings have essentially become ‘irrebuttable’, not because of the rigour of their methodology but because they refuse to show this methodology to any potential critics. This is highly concerning and fundamentally undemocratic; democracy thrives on the proliferation of informed and accurate information, and external review is a key mechanism for vetting the accuracy of statements and identifying any flawed assumptions.

It is reminiscent of the Robodebt scandal, where consulting firm PwC did not just keep their report secret from the public after it “confirmed, in writing, that the Scheme as it existed was a failure”, they buried it.

When it comes to economic analysis, particularly economic modelling, the rule is “garbage in, garbage out”. By keeping their methodology secret, McKinsey is asking Australians to take it on faith that they haven’t shovelled garbage into an economic model. Unfortunately, consulting firms do not have a good track record. It is one reason why the Australia Institute has proposed a Code of Conduct for Economic Modelling, to make transparent aspects of such models, including who (if anyone) commissioned the work, key assumptions, and a discussion of the choice of model.

Peter Dutton has recently demonstrated the importance of transparency and external review for democracy, through release of the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan costings. Unsurprisingly the methodology for these costings is deeply flawed and full of unrealistic assumptions, including underestimating the costs of construction, fuel and operation, and the time taken for nuclear construction, and having zero discussion of the costs of nuclear waste disposal and nuclear generation decommissioning. However, the fact that so many commentators, across various different sectors and news companies, have been able to quickly identify these flaws and publicly critique the plan is testament to the importance of transparency, it is only through public critique that voters can become fully informed on the options available to them.

Unfortunately, the use of secret reports from consultancies is not new to Australia, governments have frequently used research and advice from consultancies to justify their decisions while refusing to make this advice public. In 2014 Boston Consulting Group (BCG) conducted a review of Australia Post’s operations. At this time, the Australia Institute was able to conduct an analysis of the report and identify six specific problems with it. In 2019, BCG conducted another review, costing the Australian public $1.32 million, this time the government avoided scrutiny by refusing to release the report. Those elements that were publicly released indicated the review was again flawed, however a full public assessment of the document was not permitted, undermining accountability and informed public debate.

Secret research used to justify public claims and government decision-making undermines democracy. Transparency means claims can be robustly tested, helping ensure voters are fully informed and decisions are made on the basis of legitimate evidence. Consulting firms will always try to “have their cake and eat it too” – to influence public policy without facing public scrutiny. It is up to journalists, commentators and politicians to refuse to let them get away with it. The public deserves no less.

The post Secret research undermines democracy appeared first on The Australia Institute.

In making his announcement, the treasurer Jim Chalmers said that Marnie Baker and Renee Fry-McKibbin would balance the experience of existing members with “fresh perspectives”. That the RBA needs fresh perspectives is surely not in doubt.

The recent national accounts showed an Australian economy on the precipice. GDP grew by just 0.3 per cent in the third quarter of this year, and just 0.8 per cent over the past twelve months. Thirteen interest rate rises have dramatically reduced private sector demand and investment. As Greg Jericho noted in The Guardian, were it not for public spending, ‘we would now be in a recession and close to 100,000 more people would be out of work.

Not even those figures were enough to move the bankers’ hearts. In its announcement of another rate hold in early December, the existing RBA board said that ‘underlying inflation is still high’ and ‘labour market conditions remain tight’.

Productivity

Another recent statistic clearly caught their eye. Labour productivity – measured in GDP per hour worked – has been looking especially bad lately.

On the face of it, they look worse than in the depths of our last major recession in the early 1990s. In the year to September 1991, labour productivity actually grew by 3.6 per cent. By way of comparison, our labour productivity declined by 0.8 per cent over the last twelve months.

Instead of keeping staff on their books for as long as possible (‘labour hoarding’, as economists call it), firms instead sacked workers in their thousands and gave the Australia an unemployment rate of 12 per cent by 1992. Productivity grew because there were fewer people working.

There is a clear trade-off to be made between reduced productivity and low unemployment in the short term. Recent analysis by KPMG points to the fact that we have a ‘tight labour market’ and high participation rates. This means that there are plenty of low-skilled workers who have come in from the margins of the labour force, and who ‘require additional support to be as productive as other employees’. We need these workers, and their training today is our national productivity tomorrow.

Focus on Full Employment

Productivity growth isn’t in the RBA’s formal remit and never has been. By law, its mission is to work for the ‘greatest advantage of the people of Australia’ to ensure a stable currency, full employment and ‘economic prosperity and welfare’.

Its mission has evolved over the years to meet the needs of a more internationally exposed and financially deregulated economy. Since the mid-1990s, its prime mission has been that of inflation targeting, managing demand to keep price rises somewhere in the order of 2 and 3 per cent.

That mission hasn’t always led to popular decisions. The public have often bemoaned interest rate rises, as have the politicians who bore the electoral cost. In recent months the board has taken that aspect of its mission to extremes. But at least it’s part of their job.

As former minister Craig Emerson rightly says, the RBA has been creating ‘misery for vulnerable working Australians and small business owners that is entirely avoidable’. The new appointees will succeed if they ask bold questions and challenge the predominance of unhelpful indicators in the board’s discussions. The time has come for the RBA to put productivity figures to one side and stick to the script.

The post In worrying about productivity growth, the RBA has strayed beyond its remit appeared first on The Australia Institute.

“Economic management is a full-time job yet the RBA is taking a two-month summer holiday,” said Greg Jericho, The Australia Institute’s Chief Economist.

“Michele Bullock and Jim Chalmers constantly tell us they’re ‘fine tuning’ the economy. That can’t be done with the RBA board all at the cricket.

“With so many Australians suffering, the RBA should cut short its holiday and come back to work in January.”

“The board is currently scheduled to meet on February 17 and 18. It should meet on January 20 and 21,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“If it’s good enough for most Australians to be back at work by then, it’s good enough for the RBA.

“Christmas is a busy time for the economy. Its certainly a difficult, expensive time for consumers. There would be plenty to discuss in January.

“Mortgage holders shouldn’t have to wait one day longer than necessary for an interest rate cut which, let’s face it, is already long overdue.”

The post Rate cut already overdue: RBA should meet in January appeared first on The Australia Institute.

We have made it to the time of year when we all think that if we can just get to the end, that things are going to be better.

It makes sense – we turn over calendars, set resolutions and embrace the potential of a new year.

It’s almost like an extreme, universal experience of the doorway effect, the psychological phenomenon of short term memory loss while crossing from one boundary to another (if you have ever walked into a room to get something and then immediately forgotten why you were there, you have experienced the doorway effect).

But just as we eventually remember what we wanted from the other room, so too do we remember the unfinished business of the year before.

Opening up a new calendar is just the turning of a page. Nothing has fundamentally changed before or after that moment beyond being faced with a blank sheet. And no matter how much we may wish it, the turning of one year to another does not put a full stop on the issues we experienced in the year before.

The world is going to continue to be a complicated, sometimes horrifying, often confounding place. But with that comes the beauty and the simple moments of joy and delight, pleasant surprises and everything in between. Changing the calendar doesn’t change the world. But you, working to bring about change, does.

And so why this time of year would often mean we reflect on the wins – and there have been those – it can be more productive to look at what still needs to be done.

The political situation in Australia is unsettled – we are at the point in the cycle where both major parties are desperately trying to define the other and stamp down on issues rather than address them.  Anthony Albanese visiting salmon workers at Tasmania’s west coast recently, to declare he stands with them, with most reporting framing the visit as ‘shoring up electorates’ instead of an environmental battle to save the Maugean skate, is just one example.

There is a habit within the Australian media to see everything through the binary of politics – and the binary within the binary.  The thought, for example, that the workers who would be impacted by a ban on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour could be helped and supported while also saving the harbour and the skate, is rarely discussed.  Instead, it is a binary choice; workers or the environment. And in this climate, with so much of the media framing situations through Peter Dutton’s take, the Albanese government has not yet found the courage to do what it knows is right.

Housing is another example. Australia’s housing affordability crisis – where people earning the median wage can not afford to buy the median-priced house or unit, let alone anyone earning below that – is not that difficult to solve. Increase supply and lower demand by removing the incentives that treat properties as investment vehicles, instead of what they are – someone’s home. But in the binary world of politics, politicians weigh up people who have homes and the wealth contained within them versus those who don’t. And in that situation, you get comments like those housing minister Clare O’Neil made recently, where she said that the government didn’t want housing prices to drop.

But if nothing is done about housing affordability now then it will mean decades of what we are seeing now – and worse. A government that was bold enough could step in and increase public housing – for anyone who needs it. If we have public housing programs for those in the defence force, then why not teachers, nurses or anyone else who needs it? It’s simple and we know it works. Just like we know that changing the tax incentives and increasing supply will help make housing more affordable again. But that doesn’t fit into the binary world the political and media class like to pretend we live in.

There are so many more examples. We’ll probably spend the next few months listening to a ridiculous back and forth over the Coalition’s nuclear plan, when the policy itself is just a giant distraction ploy. We’ll continue to hear about coal and fossil fuels being the ‘backbone’ of state economies, when the data says differently – and that’s just on the figures, not on the environmental and climate cost. You’ll see vested interests run strong campaigns in favour of the status quo as they attempt to stamp out any push for change. All this and more, in an election year.

But what it means, is that you have so much more power than you know.  Politicians, vested interests and the media might be trying to frame everything through binary choices, but we know you see more. That you, like us, can see pathways through that don’t just mean this or that.  And that the end of the year doesn’t mean we shut the door and start afresh, but that we take what we have learnt and continue to use it for good.  And that we don’t lose focus on what needs to be done.

That being said, we hope you take a moment to reflect on all you have achieved this year, and what you have helped us do.  We couldn’t do it without you. Truly.

And mostly, we also hope that you take some time to rest, switch off and recharge. The numbers might change, but the mission doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean you can’t take some time to remember what you are fighting for.

We’ll be right here when you get back.

Take care of you. Amy x

— Amy Remeikis is the Chief Political Strategist at the Australia Institute

The Big Stories

Power gouge: how AGL and Origin are milking monster profits from battling families

Our analysis shows the extent to which energy companies are gouging Australian customers.

For every $100 paid by a retail customer of AGL, a mere $12 goes towards generating the electricity. Meanwhile, $35 of every $100 goes to the energy company’s profit.

Furthermore, the analysis shows that consumers are paying more than twice as much as big business for the same amount of electricity.

Read more >

NSW spends more money supporting coal than moving away from it

The NSW Government is currently spending significantly more public money promoting coal than helping regional communities’ transition away from it, our new report shows.

The NSW Government’s proposed Future Jobs and Investment Authorities for the Hunter, Illawarra, Central West and North West regions aim to assist coal-reliant communities’ transition. But they are severely underfunded with a collective budget of just $5.2 million.

In contrast, organisations devoted to promoting and prolonging the NSW coal industry have significantly more resources:

• Coal Innovation NSW spent $27 million last year and has a balance of $45 million.
• The coal industry organisation Low Emissions Technology Australia (LETA) is promoted as a $700 million fund. This fund is publicly subsidised, but recently asked to stop receiving contributions due to a significant surplus of funding.

Read more >

The Australia Institute Essential Reading List 2024

As the year draws to a close, the Australia Institute team has compiled a list of our favourite essential reads of 2024.

See the list > 

9,000+ sign petition to protect the Maugean Skate

Intensive salmon farming is risking the extinction of the endangered Maugean skate in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, part of Tasmania’s Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Australia Institute research shows there are many ways to protect Tasmanian jobs, but science tells us there is only one way to protect the endangered skate – salmon farms must be taken out of Macquarie Harbour.

Add your name >

Nuclear costings are a distraction

The Coalition’s release of a report on nuclear energy is little more than a distraction from Australia’s ongoing fossil fuel use and production.

“These are fake numbers so the major parties can have a fake fight about fake climate policies,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Nuclear energy is not suitable for Australia’s energy market because it is expensive to build, can’t turn up or down quickly and the obvious nuclear waste problems.

“Australia needs to get on with the job of cleaning up our industries using technologies that work – renewable energy.”

Read more >

Growing food for a healthier life and healthier planet

Australians are hungry to grow their own food and the reasons are simple: growing your own food is healthier and better for the planet, writes Evie Simpson, research at the Australia Institute.

By investing in community gardens and gardening programs, we can empower more Australians to grow their own food, reduce food waste, and create healthier, more sustainable communities. The benefits go beyond the garden—helping individuals, communities, and the environment thrive.

Read more >

Is it time to implement proportional speeding fines?

If you earn $50,000 a year, a $361 fine is equal to more than a third of your weekly salary. If you earn $200,000, it is less than 1% of your weekly salary. This is not a fair system.

We’ve looked at how a proportional speeding fine system (like Finland has) could work in Australia. Olivia Chollet explains.

Read more >

The Win

In good news for Australia’s transport emissions, electric vehicle sales have reached new heights in Australia, representing almost one in every 10 vehicles bought in 2024, with popularity expected to almost double over the next two years, the Guardian reports.

Read more >

The Bin

Peter Dutton plans to revive Scott Morrison’s ‘gas-fired recovery’, apparently to reduce energy bills.

The problem is, gas is a far more expensive way of producing electricity than renewable energy. Making Australians even more dependent on gas will drive up energy bills for Australian households and businesses.

“It beggars belief that the Coalition would propose cutting energy bills by making Australians more dependent on gas and the multinational gas companies that dominate the Australian gas market”, said Mark Ogge, Principle Adviser at The Australia Institute.

Read more >

The Quote

“House prices need to not increase for a while. Both to restore the price-to-income ratio to something approaching what it was, and secondly, to change everyone’s minds about what housing is about,”

said Alan Kohler, on our Follow the Money podcast.

“Housing should be a place to live, not something you invest in.”

Listen >

Podcasts

Fixing Australia’s housing crisis with Alan Kohler | Follow the Money

Acclaimed financial journalist Alan Kohler joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the policies that created Australia’s housing crisis and how governments can fix it.

Listen now:

Kissing the ring | After America

Don Watson joins us to discuss Trump’s beyond-bizarre cabinet selections, Joe Biden’s tainted legacy, and what this might all mean for Australia on the final episode of After America for 2024.

Listen now:

It’s all Greg’s fault | Dollars & Sense

Greg Jericho answers your burning questions about the economy in the final episode of 2024.

Listen now:

Join our team!

Hiring: Postdoctoral Research Fellow

As a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, you will apply the skills and knowledge gained in your PhD to Australia Institute research projects. You will learn how to extend your research abilities beyond academia and enhance your communications skills so that you can disseminate your research to policymakers, key stakeholders, and the general public.

For further information, please see the position description. The deadline for applications is Sunday 2 February 2025.

Should you have any queries, please email recruitment@australiainstitute.org.au.

What’s On

Climate Integrity Summit 2025 | Wednesday, 12 February, 2025

As the world’s 13th largest economy and the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter, Australia has a special responsibility to lead the effort in a global transition away from fossil fuels and to help our nation’s trading partners, regional neighbours and those most vulnerable to the climate crisis to respond accordingly.

As ecosystem collapse compounds and exacerbates existing environmental, social and economic issues, it also presents entirely new threats to humanity, making Australia’s leadership, fortitude and genuine collaboration at home and on the international stage more important than ever.

Featuring a range of prominent international and local experts, the 2025 Climate Integrity Summit will show how Australia’s domestic and international integrity influences the international context and how the 2025 federal election outcome will shape global climate action.

Tickets >

The post Fixing the housing crisis with Alan Kohler | Between the Lines appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 6 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

To join our free Australia’s Biggest Book Club webinars live, register via our website.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: George Megalogenis, author and journalist // @GMegalogenis

Host: Alice Grundy, Managing Editor, Australia Institute Press // @alicektg

Show notes:

‘Minority Report: The new shape of Australian politics’ by George Megalogenis, Quarterly Essay 96 (November 2024)

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Minority report with George Megalogenis | Summer Book Club appeared first on The Australia Institute.

• 80% of gas produced in Australia is exported, mainly by multinational corporations, mostly royalty-free and paying zero Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.
• The Coalition’s policy appears to place no limits on exports, no gas reservation policy and may even “de-fang the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism”.
• Without addressing exports, or how to reduce household gas use, there will be no reduction energy bills.

“It beggars’ belief that the Coalition would propose cutting energy bills by making Australians more dependent on gas and the multinational gas companies that dominate the Australian gas market”, said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“If the Coalition is elected and revives the Morrison Government’s Gas Fired Recovery, Australians will be even more exposed to global gas prices, which will lead to higher energy bills in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

“Gas is already a far more expensive way of producing electricity than renewable energy. Making Australians even more dependent on gas will drive up energy bills for Australian households and businesses.

“To have increased Australians exposure to global gas prices once was a mistake. To do it again is reckless to say the least.”

The post Dutton revival of ‘gas fired recovery’ bad for households, great for gas companies appeared first on The Australia Institute.

New data from the Queensland Government shows that there are more coal mines in the state now than ever before, with 58 operating in 2024. Production is also up – 224 million tonnes this year compared to 218 million in 2022, although down from the record of 249 million in 2018.

This is obviously terrible news for the world’s climate, the Great Barrier Reef and most life forms on earth.

It also demonstrates that BHP and other mining companies will blatantly lie in their attempts to pay less to governments and communities.

The post Queensland has more coal mines than ever before appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The letter points out some stark facts about how Australia is a terrible neighbour to its Pacific family.

Key points of the open letter:

• Australia’s fossil fuel project approvals undermine the survival and security of Pacific Island communities.
• In September, Australia approved three coal mines which will create 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions, equivalent to the combined emissions from 12 Pacific Island nations for over 250 years.
• In December, Australia refused to reconsider three more coal mines, paving the way for their approval, which could add a further 850 million tonnes of emissions.
• Australia’s actions do not match its commitments to its Pacific neighbours and are contrary to its support as signatory to various Pacific Island Forum Leaders’ communiques.

“Pacific Island nations are already feeling the impact of climate change, with rising sea levels threatening their very existence,” said Leanne Minshull, Strategic Director at The Australia Institute.

“Intense cyclones, king tides and droughts are putting their coast lines, food chains and water supplies in danger.

“Prime Minister Albanese constantly refers to our ‘Pacific family’, travelling the Pacific and ensuring leaders he’s committed to climate change action.

“Then he returns home and leads a government that continues to approve some of the most destructive fossil fuel projects on earth.”

“The most effective climate action a major fossil fuel exporter like Australia can take is to stop approving new gas or coal mines. Until that happens, all other climate action is like trying to patch up a pool while filling it with water.”

The post Neighbour from hell – A Pacific plea to Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On paper, AZEC serves as a platform to support achieving net-zero emissions across the Asia-Pacific region. AZEC allows its 11 partner countries to benefit from Japanese funding for energy projects. Through AZEC, Japan aims to lead the energy transition across Asia. Research by Zero Carbon Analytics shows that, since AZEC was launched in March 2023, 158 project agreements have been signed across the Asia Pacific. Prime Minister Albanese took part via video message in the inaugural AZEC leaders’ summit in December 2023.

But AZEC is not as environmentally friendly as it sounds. It needs to be seen in the context of Aus-Japanese energy politics and trade. In early 2024 Madeleine King, Minister for Resources, visited Japan, a visit to assure her Japanese counterparts and the gas industry that despite AZEC’s name, it would be business as usual on fossil fuels. The core message to Japan was that “Australia is committed to remaining a trusted trade and investment partner for natural gas” and that the “government will continue to provide a stable investment environment for gas explorers and producers”.

King’s briefing specifically anticipated interest for “the development of the Future Gas Strategy, and the long-term policy framework it will provide for LNG gas exports”. The Strategy was then released in May 2024, delivering on promises made to Japan. According to the Strategy, not only is gas “critical” to Australia’s economy and its decarbonisation, but it also supposedly plays a key role in helping trade partners transition to net zero too.

Those arguments don’t stack up.

Until now, the gas industry has paid very little royalties or tax on exported gas, so it is unclear how ongoing gas exports are essential to the economy. Gas is touted as a “transition” fuel, but it has a carbon footprint that is equivalent to, or worse than coal. Furthermore, Japan has the potential to achieve 90% clean electricity by 2035 and has been on-selling Australian LNG due to surpluses to their supply.

So, even if it somehow is Australia’s responsibility to help Japan decarbonise its economy, it is hard to see how expanding gas exports help.

It comes as little surprise that, of the 12 AZEC agreements in Australia, seven of them involve fossil fuel technologies given Japan and Australia’s vested interests in spuriously promoting gas as a transition fuel. An example of such agreement is the “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) between the Northern Territory government and the state-owned Japan Organisation for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC). This agreement establishes a “framework for cooperation in various energy sectors including natural gas, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen production.”

Although the agreement is still in its early stages, it is hard to understand how it fits in a zero-emission framework. As mentioned earlier, natural gas is far from being a carbon-neutral energy source. Carbon capture and storage is an unproven technology that has served to delay fossil fuel phase-outs. As to hydrogen, 99% of global production relies on fossil fuels as feedstock, usually gas (so-called “grey” hydrogen), and Australia’s current and planned production of green hydrogen is barely enough to cover domestic industrial use, leaving no green hydrogen to export.

Many of AZEC’s early-stage MoUs and other “feasibility studies” will only serve to mask ongoing gas exports from Australia to Japan, bringing no benefits to Australians and justifying extending and maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure instead of fostering genuine emissions reduction. This is especially of concern where electrification is a viable alternative to decarbonise.

Continuing on this path is contrary to both the Japanese and Australian governments’ climate commitments: Japan pledged in 2022 to end international financing for unabated fossil fuels alongside other G7 leaders, and the Australian government has announced its ambition to host COP31 and to become “a clean energy superpower”.

More cooperation on genuine decarbonisation across the Asia-Pacific is good. Every dollar invested in fossil fuels is a dollar not spent on renewables, and the only beneficiary from ongoing gas reliance is the gas industry. In 2023, Japanese energy companies have made more than US$14 billion profits from gas.

Australia is giving away its gas for free to the Japanese gas industry to profit from. The status quo contributes to delaying decarbonisation across the Asia-Pacific. If Japan and Australia are serious about climate action, they cannot allow projects involving fossil fuels and unproven technologies to go forward under the guise of AZEC, at the expense of everyone but the gas industry.

The post Japan and Australia’s gas-fuelled obsession endures under Asia Zero Emission Community appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Because of this, mining companies have to pay the NSW Government a “royalty” if they want to dig up and sell coal.

Royalties are not taxes. They are a payment for a resource. Just like a builder has to pay for the bricks used to make a house and pay tax when they sell the house, mining companies have to pay royalties for coal and then pay tax once they sell it.

If NSW were a country, it would be the third-largest exporter of coal in the world, smaller only than Queensland and Indonesia. With all that coal production, the mining industry and politicians frequently claim that coal royalties are large enough pay for services like schools, hospitals, teachers and nurses.

Here’s one quote from former NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro:

“[Coal] is the state’s largest export commodity, and is a major source of revenue, which the NSW Government uses to help fund essential services and infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads and transport.”

But do royalties really fund all these things?

The short answer is no.

How big are royalties?

In 2022-23, coal royalties were only 4.2% of total NSW Government revenue: about $4.5 billion. That figure was unusually high because global coal prices went up after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

From 2013-14 to 2022-23, royalties averaged just 2.4% of government revenue: between $1 and $2 billion.

For comparison, the NSW coal industry exported almost $60 billion of coal in 2022-23.

What’s more, those royalties don’t fund specific programs or services, like schoolteachers or nurses: they’re just lumped with the rest of government revenue. That means they fund on average only 2.4% of any schoolteacher or nurse.

Funding the regions?

The NSW Government also likes to claim that coal royalties are funding specific coal-producing regions, like the Hunter Valley. This is just spin.

NSW has a fund called Royalties for Rejuvenation, which supposedly takes a cut of coal royalties and reinvests it in coal-producing regions.

But here’s the kicker. Not a single dollar has been spent yet.

The government’s simply been putting money into the fund, but it’s all locked up until 2028-29. And the fund is only worth $78 million — less than a quarter of the cost of one recent new regional hospital.

Now the NSW Government wants to establish a new fund called the Future Jobs and Investment Fund, but it doesn’t look like it’ll be getting much more money than the current fund.

The costs of coal

And if that wasn’t enough, the public also has to put up with all the costs of coal.

Coal mining has significant health costs: air pollution causes lung and heart diseases for nearby communities.

Rehabilitating coal mines once they close is also very expensive. Even though mining companies are supposed to pay for rehabilitation, the costs often fall on the taxpayer. The Australia Institute has estimated that filling in the giant holes left behind by open cut coal mines in the Upper Hunter region would cost between $12 and $25 billion. For comparison, the NSW Government only holds about $4 billion in bonds to pay for this rehabilitation.

And of course, there are the costs of climate damage from greenhouse gas emissions. The three new coal mine expansions in NSW approved in September are expected to cause lifetime emissions of 1.357 billion tonnes. That’s equivalent to about three times Australia’s total annual emissions. Even though most of this coal will be burned overseas, the emissions will still end up in the same atmosphere as Australia, so the effect is as if the coal were burned in NSW.

To sum up, NSW produces a lot of coal, but the public — who owns the coal — gets hardly anything from it. Meanwhile, coal companies reap enormous profits.

Remember this spin the next time you hear the coal industry or government telling you coal pays for your schools and hospitals.

The post Coal royalties are a tiny part of the NSW Budget appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key points:

• Coal royalties have averaged only 2.4% of NSW Government revenue over the last decade.
• In 2023–24, coal royalties were 4.2% of total NSW Government revenue, with global coal prices pushed up by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• All coal resources in NSW are publicly owned, and royalties are the price that mining companies pay the public to extract the resource.
• Royalties do not fund specific programs — they are grouped with the rest of government revenue. This means that over the last decade, coal royalties have funded only 2.4% of every teacher or nurse.
• No money has yet been spent from the Royalties for Rejuvenation Fund, the NSW Government program which theoretically redirects royalties back to coal-producing regions.

“Coal companies and politicians keep telling us that coal royalties are huge, and that they fund schools, hospitals, and regional communities all across the state. This report shows that these claims simply aren’t true,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Coal royalties fund a tiny proportion of every school, hospital or regional community. They are not propping up the economy.

“The NSW public owns coal resources, but they aren’t getting their fair share of coal mining revenue. The real money is flowing into the pockets of big corporations.

“What’s more, the public bears the costs of coal mining: health costs from air pollution, the costs of rehabilitating coal mines, and the costs of climate change.

“NSW is one of the biggest coal exporters in the world. With higher royalties, the NSW Government could fund all sorts of much-needed public infrastructure and services.”

The post Coal royalties a tiny part of NSW Budget appeared first on The Australia Institute.

As Australia Institute research identified serious flaws, risks and loopholes in the legislation, delay is welcome – but bittersweet, because electoral reform is needed to increase confidence in politics and democracy.

Good electoral reform would include transparency around political contributions, especially “cash- for-access” payments from vested interests to get exclusive access to politicians; truth-in-political-advertising laws to prevent political players from misleading the public; and upper limits on billionaire and corporate spending on political campaigns.

But the government proposed changes that are flawed in process and substance. Though Special Minister of State Don Farrell has had almost three years to prepare the bill, the 200-plus page behemoth was presented to Parliament with just days for consideration.

Normally, changes to electoral law would go to a parliamentary inquiry, with Australians invited to give their views in submissions and public hearings.

Negotiations between politicians behind closed doors are not good enough when it comes to fundamental changes to Australian democracy.

Substantive flaws include that the proposed new public funding would deliver tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to the major parties but nothing for new entrants; and that caps on spending “per-electorate” have loopholes that parties can exploit, but their independent rivals cannot.

Is the unfairness by mistake or design? Senator Farrell has emphasised that he sees the “Westminster system” as a contest between major parties.

Journalist Jason Koutsoukis reports that when warned his changes would “entrench the two-party system and lock out challengers”, Senator Farrell replied: “That’s the f—ing point“.
Another alleged point of the bill is to curtail Clive Palmer, the mining billionaire who has spent money at recent elections out of all proportion with his support among voters.

However, a loophole designed for major parties – “nominated entities” that can make contributions beyond the donation cap – could be exploited by Palmer to continue funding big campaigns.

That is not the only loophole. A day after the bill was tabled, Liberal-National parliamentarians received a briefing on how it would work. According to journalist Paul Karp, one MP “quipped that the Liberal National Party of Queensland should split so that there would be more entities for donors to give to”.

It took one short briefing for politicians to spot a loophole, but it would take many days of careful study by many eyes to identify every loophole.

There are already-scrutinised electoral reforms that could be implemented when Parliament sits in February, while more risky and novel changes should go to a parliamentary inquiry.

Truth-in-political-advertising laws would be a good place to start. They are in the Labor Party platform, are supported by independents and Greens, and potentially the Coalition – with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton describing them as “probably welcome”.

Senator Farrell’s home state of South Australia has had these laws for almost 40 years, where they are proven to work.

These laws could have passed last week, if the government had not chased the false promise of a deal with the Coalition.

The government has proposed welcome improvements to transparency, including real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the threshold before a donation must be disclosed from about $17,000 to just $1000.

These measures to shine a light on dark money are part of the loophole-riddled Electoral Reform Bill.

The Australian Democracy Network, Transparency International Australia, Centre for Public Integrity and Australia Institute united to call for these non-controversial clauses to be split off, so they can pass on their own merits.

Under careful scrutiny, and following proper parliamentary processes, other parts of the government’s proposed changes may be worth legislating.

The bill proposes a $600,000 limit on how much any one person can donate to political causes each year. If the nominated entity loophole were removed, this could be an effective check on billionaire influence on elections.

It is reminiscent of the Australia Institute’s proposed “mega-donor cap”, which our modelling suggests would dramatically limit the influence of very large donors.

If Parliament returns in February, electoral changes will be at the top of the agenda. No doubt negotiations will continue over summer, particularly between the major parties. They have the most to gain from a deal.

But for Australians to have trust in the process, there must be genuine consultation that includes the public: informing Australians, listening to them and taking on their feedback. Democracy belongs to the people, not the politicians they elect.

Australians are distrustful of politicians, and the unseemly haste to pass the government’s proposed changes to electoral laws via a major party deal would have reinforced this distrust.

But if proper parliamentary processes are followed, there is an opportunity to improve trust in Australian politics and shine a light on the money funding political players.

If the Albanese government took this opportunity, it would have a positive story to tell for the 2025 election.

The post Is it any wonder we’re so distrustful of politicians? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Our organisations partnered to conduct a national survey on Australians’ food growing habits and attitudes towards food waste. The results show that a whopping 45% of Australians—around 9 million people—are growing food at home, and even more are interested in starting edible gardening. And it’s not just a passing trend: a decade ago, the Australia Institute conducted a similar survey which found that one in two Australian households were growing food – to produce healthier food, to save money, and simply because they enjoy it. These results show that growing food is a lifestyle choice driven by the desire for healthier food, to save money, and to live more sustainably.

But as much as the desire to grow food is widespread, there are significant challenges standing in the way—especially for younger generations. This highlights the growing need for gardening programs and community gardens. Our survey revealed that more than three in five people interested in growing food face a significant barrier: lack of space. For those living in apartments or urban areas, and especially those who are renting, a patch of land to plant vegetables or herbs can be hard to come by. This barrier is all the more real for young people, as soaring house prices push them further away from homeownership. The lack of green space is also a challenge for Australians in social and affordable housing.

This is where gardening programs and community gardens become essential. They can provide opportunities for people, particularly younger generations, to engage in food growing—regardless of their living situation. Community gardens offer space for growing food but also foster a sense of connection, education, and collaboration. They allow individuals to learn new skills, access fresh produce, and reduce food waste through composting and worm farming.

It is here that Grow It Local plays a critical role: through their popular and accessible online resources, workshops and community events, Grow It Local have been helping to address gardening barriers for people all over Australia, whether they have a balcony, a patch in a community garden, or acres of space to use for edible gardening.

Beyond the benefits of fresh, homegrown produce, edible gardening helps tackle another big issue—food waste. Our survey reveals that 67% of food growers compost or use worm farms, helping to divert a staggering 361,000 tonnes of food waste from landfills each year – equivalent to seven Sydney Harbour Bridges worth of waste. Even more importantly, the activity has an overwhelmingly positive impact on the wellbeing of growers, and most say that spending time in their edible gardens makes them feel relaxed, happy and healthy. It’s clear that growing food is more than just a practical pursuit—it’s an activity that nurtures both body and mind.

At the report’s launch at Parliament House, Costa Georgiadis – National Patron of Grow It Local – echoed these findings:

“Don’t underestimate the power of growing small amounts of food in large numbers, it connects us to nature, to our communities and to ourselves. Growing food is equal doses of nature, nutrition and mental wellbeing. It’s good for the body, mind and soul.”

The desire to grow food is strong in Australia, particularly among younger generations. However, challenges like limited space and lack of skills are preventing many from taking the plunge. By investing in community gardens and gardening programs, we can empower more Australians to grow their own food, reduce food waste, and create healthier, more sustainable communities. The benefits go beyond the garden—helping individuals, communities, and the environment thrive.

The post Gardening for a healthier life and a healthier planet appeared first on The Australia Institute.

They’re led by high-profile officials who can regularly be found roaming the halls of Parliament House or along the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

They often appear in the media described as “peak bodies” whose purpose is to represent the interests of their members.

But do they really?
And is that all they do?

A new report examining 20 of Australia’s largest and most influential trade associations recommends lifting the lid on how these organisations spend members’ money … and calls for greater transparency around their relationships with politicians.

Key Findings:

There are potential misalignments between the interests of lobby groups and the shareholders of their member companies, including on:

• Climate action
• Public health
• Resistance to competition and regulation.

Recommendations: 

• Trade associations should be required to disclose their members and how much each member contributed.
• Requiring publicly-listed companies to secure shareholder approval of political donations and memberships of trade associations.
• Removing tax deductibility for trade association memberships and political advertising.

“Australians want more transparency regarding the lobbying activities of trade associations, especially where these extend to political donations and campaigns aimed at influencing government policy,” said Dr Monique Ryan, Federal Member for Kooyong. 

“They have little insight into the conduct of organisations which represent them professionally, many of which have no enforceable code of conduct.

“Companies should have to disclose payments made to trade associations to their shareholders, and their trade association memberships and political advertising should not be tax-deductible.

“The public shouldn’t be subsiding an industry lobbying on its own behalf on issues which may be against the public interest.”

“Corporations spend shareholder money on political campaigns that shareholders may not support or even know about – often by funnelling it through lobby groups to avoid taking responsibility for their spending,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“Trade associations are powerful political lobbies that can change the direction of this country’s laws and help bring down governments – but little is known about their operations and funding.”

“There are misalignments between the interests of shareholders and the peak lobby groups being funded on their behalf.

“Misalignments include lobby groups overstating the contribution of their sector in order to win a social licence to operate; downplaying climate or public health risks; and exploiting political connections.”

“InfluenceMap’s analysis consistently finds that industry associations are engaged in advocacy on climate policy much more often than their member companies – and that they often take positions that are not aligned with the majority of their members,” said Jack Herring, Australia Lead at InfluenceMap.

“The Business Council of Australia is a key example of this, frequently advocating for the continued role of fossil fuels, including fossil gas, in Australia’s energy mix – contrary to the scientific consensus – and in doing so representing the interests of its oil and gas membership over other sectors.

“This research from The Australia Institute helps shine a light on those industry associations exerting the most influence over Australia’s policymaking process and makes a clear case for the need for improved disclosure requirements.”

“An increasing number of shareholders and investors are very concerned that coal and gas lobby groups seem to be stuck in time, refusing to recognise that their industries have hit their expiry date,” said Axel Dalman, Head of Research, Market Forces.

“Coal and gas industry associations are blocking progress on climate action that Australians want while pushing for more fossil fuels, endangering a safe environment and sustainable economy.

“Global investors are saying the Australian fossil fuel industry has its head stuck in the sand.”

The post Opaque, powerful and cashed-up – time to clean up the murky world of industry lobby groups appeared first on The Australia Institute.

“These are fake numbers so the major parties can have a fake fight about fake climate policies,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“The modelling released includes zero discussion of nuclear waste or the costs of decommissioning nuclear generation.

“Nuclear energy is not suitable for Australia’s energy market because it is expensive to build, can’t turn up or down quickly and the obvious nuclear waste problems.

“These issues are why no energy companies want to build nuclear in Australia, and key customers like aluminium smelters don’t want nuclear to be built for them.

“This is all a distraction to prolong fossil fuel use and exports.

“Just yesterday, a 50 year extension to Woodside’s enormous gas export facility was approved but it is barely covered because political leaders would rather talk about reactors that will never be built.

“Australia needs to get on with the job of cleaning up our industries using technologies that work – renewable energy.”

The post Nuclear costings are a distraction appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 12 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Politicians love talking about ‘middle Australia’. But beware of this misleading metric’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (December 2024)

The world’s youngest Nobel-winning economist with Esther Duflo, BBC Business Daily (November 2019)

Wealth and inequality in Australia by David Richardson and Frank Stilwell, the Australia Institute (August 2024)

‘Why won’t concrete fly? It’s a key question for Australia’s economy’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (July 2013)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post It’s all Greg’s fault appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key impacts:

• 4.3 billion tonnes of emissions, the equivalent of 24 coal power stations with equivalent annual emissions of WA’s largest coal power station, Muja.
• Ongoing corrosion of the priceless petroglyphs at the World Heritage nominated Murujuga rock art site from acid gas emissions.
• Drive up energy prices for Western Australian households and businesses.

Woodside’s North West Shelf exports more than twice the amount of gas used by Western Australians, and is increasingly turning to WA’s domestic gas reserves to feed it as its offshore fields run out, with serious consequences for WA’s gas supply and energy prices.

Recently published Australia Institute analysis shows Woodside’s exports of WA’s domestic gas reserves have already led to a tripling of wholesale gas and electricity prices, and the extension will lock in those increases for decades.

“This is one of the most climate destroying projects anywhere in the world. It will make WA, and the rest of the world, hotter and drier, and increase the frequency and severity of fires, floods and other disasters,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“Murujuga is one of the most important cultural heritage sites in the world. It is four times as old as Egypt’s Pyramids and eight times the age of Stonehenge. Other nations would never allow the degradation of such important cultural heritage.

“Woodside is running out of offshore gas, so it is coming after WA’s onshore domestic reserves. This has already tripled gas and electricity prices in WA, and this decision will lock those price increases for decades.

“Western Australian households and businesses will pay for this decision through higher energy bills.

“The WA government has again put the interests of multinational gas corporation Woodside ahead of the interests of Western Australians”.

The post WA Government greenlights Woodside gas export extension appeared first on The Australia Institute.

We really need to just stop and marvel at the current situation. For most people, an unemployment rate with a 3 in front during their working life was akin to a sighting of the Yeti. In the past 600 months since December 1974, Australia’s unemployment rate has been below 4% only 24 times – and every month has been in the past 3 years.

This was not expected.

Coming out to the pandemic and the enforced lockdowns both within Australia and of migration from overseas, a common belief was that Australia’s low unemployment was due to a lack of labour supply, and thus in effect the rate was artificially low. And yet despite strong migration growth over the past 18 months, unemployment has remained low – surely delivering a massive body blow to those who espouse the lump of labour fallacy that somehow a job gained by a migrant is one taken from a local worker.

But more surprising is that despite the Reserve Bank raising interest rates 13 times since May 2022, the unemployment rate in that time has risen only from 3.6% to the current rate in November of 3.9%.

The Reserve Bank has been trying to raise unemployment to a level of around 4.5% because it believes that is the level at which unemployment needs to be to keep wage growth steady and inflation below 3%.

And yet unemployment is at 3.9%, and inflation is increasing at 2.8% – down from 4.1% this time last year.

Rather than accelerate when unemployment has been below 4.5%, inflation has decelerated.

Many conservative commentators and economists were also arguing that the government’s changes to industrial relations which allowed for multiemployer bargaining and greater protections for workers would hurt employment and also unsustainably drive up wages.

But in another slap to the orthodox view that Australia cannot sustain unemployment below 4% without wages growing out of control, today the latest enterprise bargaining agreement figures revealed that in the September quarter, the average annual wage growth of agreements approved in the quarter was just 3.6% – down from 4.0% in the June quarter and is also the lowest growth since 2022.

This ongoing period of unemployment below 4% coupled with decelerating wages and inflation growth should provoke a very strong rethink of monetary policy from the RBA. No longer should it see full-employment through the lens of the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” – the so-called “NAIRU” – which is clearly not where the RBA thinks it is, or where it wants it to be.

Unemployment below 4% should not mean interest rates must stay high. All it means is that the RBA has misunderstood the causes of the recent bout of inflation and greatly miscalculated the level of sustainable unemployment.

All economic policy should be geared towards keeping the unemployment rate below 4%. The RBA and the government should seize this opportunity to lock in low unemployment with strong protections for workers and sustainable wage growth that improves living standards. And the RBA needs to stop trying to increase the number of people out of a job just because it wants its out-of-date theory of how the economy works to be true.

The post Let’s celebrate the new normal of unemployment below 4% appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The post Australia is a low-tax country appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 10 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Alan Kohler, author and journalist // @AlanKohler

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

The Great Divide: Australia’s Housing Mess and How to Fix It by Alan Kohler (October 2024)

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Fixing Australia’s housing crisis with Alan Kohler appeared first on The Australia Institute.

If you get caught speeding in Australia, you will be fined with a flat-rate traffic fine. Exceeding the speed limit by 12km/h in New South Wales earns you a $361 fine, whether you are on government benefits or a billionaire. This is not a fair system.

What about the principle: same offence, same price?

If you earn $50,000 a year, a $361 fine is equal to more than a third of your weekly salary. If you earn $200,000, it is less than 1% of your weekly salary.

So, while a speeding fine is nothing more than annoying to a wealthier person, someone on a low-income might have to choose between paying the fine and a medical bill or food.

A minor fine left unpaid can lead to a vicious circle of accrued debts, leading to a loss of licence and further loss of income. In some cases, it can even lead to jail time. Unpaid fines are in fact one of the top concerns for people seeking legal aid.

Australia Institute research shows that a proportional traffic fine system, as is in place in Finland, would be much fairer. In practice, the Finnish system calculates a fine based on the driver’s disposable income and whether they have dependents. Same offence, same proportion of income.

Our modelling estimates that under a proportional system, someone in NSW earning $50,000 a year would see their fine for a 12km/h speed excess decrease to around $171, whereas for someone earning $200,000, it would increase to around $885.

What if a person has no income? Does this mean students and unemployed people can speed as much as they want?

No. The Finnish system is designed so that there is a minimum level of fine: we calculate this as between $32 and $300 depending on the offence. Australia’s existing demerit point system also ensures that there are consequences for dangerous driving.

What about drivers’ behaviour? Would a proportional system increase road safety?

While there’s some evidence that speeding is a “luxury crime”, meaning that wealthy people are more likely than low-income individuals to receive a speeding fine, the main aim of a proportional traffic fine system is fairness.

As far as road safety goes, research shows that driver behaviour is more affected by external elements like road infrastructure, education campaigns and perceptions of enforcement.

Isn’t this just a way for states to raise revenue?

Our modelling shows that, overall, lower-income drivers would see their fines decrease in all states, whereas higher-income drivers would see their fines increase. Overall, traffic fines represent a very small proportion of a government’s revenue.

If there were any additional revenue, it could be directed to improve road safety, as is already the case in states like Queensland and New South Wales.

Sounds great! So, what do we do now?

Some states are already considering options to make the traffic fine system fairer: the ACT is considering income-based fines for minor traffic offences, and NSW has already introduced a discount on some fines for people on government benefits. Our report models how a Finnish-style proportional speeding fines system would work in practice and demonstrates its relevance at a time when cost of living is pushing many Australians into financial difficulties.

The post Australia’s traffic fine system is unfair – is it time to implement proportional fines? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

It turns out, most Australians prefer not to receive presents at Christmas. Moreover, about three out of ten people expect to receive Christmas gifts that they will never use or wear.

Christmas wouldn’t be the same without the spirit of generosity that manifests in gift giving.

This traditional holiday ritual usually plays out by presenting loved ones with gifts that we think they will like. And, in response to the act of kindness, the gift receiver often feels compelled to show gratitude for the act of kindness by feigning the look of joyful surprise to appease the feelings and efforts made by the gift giver.

Such is the dance that happens every Christmas holiday season.

This common dance happens with over three in four Australians (77%) according to a 2024 Christmas polling survey by The Australia Institute.

The look of joyful surprise, however, is likely, unfortunately, fake in many cases based on data from the same survey.

It shows that more than half of Australians would prefer it if people did not buy them gifts at all and 27% expect to receive Christmas presents that they will never use or wear.

This not only leads to billion-dollar financial waste in 2024, but it also creates significant material waste of products that will likely end up in landfill.

As a matter of fact, the survey showed that almost half of Australians (47%) don’t think about how the gifts they give will eventually be disposed of when purchasing gifts for others.

Wrapping paper and gift bags

Wrapping paper and gift bags are another contributor to Christmas waste with seven out of ten Australians (69%) buying wrapping paper and more than one in two Australians (52%) buying gift bags during Christmas, according to The Australia Institute’s 2024 Christmas polling survey.

Only one in four (24%) Australians re-use wrapping paper, while 15% put it in the rubbish bin. Half of Australians put used gift-wrapping paper in the recycle bin. Some wrapping paper can be recycled, and some cannot.

Australians use more than 150,000km of wrapping paper at Christmas time, which is enough to wrap around the planet almost four times.

Most wrapping paper cannot be recycled due to the varying nature of the materials used, such as glitter, foil, plastic coating and cellophane. Certain inks and dyes can also make some wrapping paper hard to recycle.

This means most wrapping paper ends up in landfill where it cannot decompose. A smaller portion of wrapping paper is recyclable. And, fortunately, recycling wrapping paper requires 40% less energy than making new paper from scratch.

On the downside, recycling plants often use electricity from fossil fuels, which can increase greenhouse gas emissions.

December, the month of waste supernova

Gift waste is not the only environmental impact of the holiday. The month of December produces high waste levels due to other holiday accoutrements such as wrapping paper, gift bags, Christmas crackers, excess food becoming waste, decorations, plastics, excess & holiday-printed clothing, textiles and other things

The Center for Biological Diversity revealed that Americans generate 23% more tonnes of waste in December than in other month of the year, according to a 2021 analysis. The data also stated that the United States creates  5.2 million tonnes more waste in December than in other months. This is the equivalent to 28,713 Boeing 747 airplanes.

Australia is the biggest consumer of textiles in the world per capita. Australians are also one of the biggest consumers of single-use plastics in the world per capita.

These statistics show that Australians have a strong overconsumption and waste culture, particularly with plastics and clothing, which are major aspects of holiday celebrations.

With Christmas being a time of hyper capitalism and overconsumption of material things, this would indicate that, like in the US, holiday waste levels are significantly higher in December as a result of Christmas celebrations.

The Australia Institute’s Christmas Waste polling report of 2023 estimated the total figure of Australia’s Christmas waste to be around 275,000 tonnes each year. This figure did not include unwanted Christmas presents.

Australians can be circular during the holidays

The good news is that Australians are displaying impressive levels of circular economy principles in some of the holiday paraphernalia, such as the re-use of gift bags. The Australia Institute 2024 survey revealed two in three Australians (65%) re-use gift bags.

In additional circular activity where food is concerned, three in four Australians (75%) keep leftover food from Christmas meals to eat another time, while only 7% throw it out. Food waste releases methane, a greenhouse gas which contributes to emissions. In last year’s Australia Institute Christmas polling survey, 85% of Australians planned to re-use their Christmas trees again from a previous year.

How to have a merry, sustainable and circular Christmas

As waste levels tend to peak during the Christmas holiday period, it gives a depiction of how intense our waste habits can get.

Shifting our Christmas waste culture could be a compelling pathway towards ending the excessive single use, throwaway and waste culture. And, ultimately embracing a circular economy Christmas holiday rather than a holiday that abides the linear take-make-waste system of production and overconsumption that contributes significantly to environmental degradation.

Adopting a more widespread circular economy Christmas celebration would be ideal for eliminating waste by purchasing fewer disposable items, reusing and repurposing materials for as long as possible to keep them out of landfill.

Here are some habits we can cultivate for a more sustainable and circular Christmas:

Ask your loved ones what they want for Christmas!

The most impactful thing we can do for this and in future Christmases is to imbibe the culture of asking our loved ones what they want for Christmas instead of guessing.

This will save Australians over a billion dollars in 2024 and keep significant amounts of waste from ending up in landfill. 3 in 5 Americans have lied about liking a gift they’ve received, according to a 2020 survey. Almost one-third of people who accepted a gift they didn’t like threw it in the trash based on a 2017 survey by YouGov US.

It’s time for a gift-giving culture shift that will allow our loved ones to be practical and honest about what they want. And, importantly, free them from having to pretend to like the unwanted gifts they are given.

The likelihood that they will keep and use the gifts for longer is much higher. Such honesty will be refreshing and beneficial for our relationships, budgets and the planet, because less stuff will go to landfill.

There’s also a possibility that it might bring a deeper meaning to Christmas and more joy for friends and loved ones.

Also, consider giving gifts that are more environmentally friendly. For instance, gifts that can be reused, repurposed, resold or recycled after the gift receiver has finished with it.

Christmas gift wrapping

Consider reusable fabric gift wraps instead of wrapping paper. Reusable fabric wraps can be reused for many years with little or no energy to maintain them. They can become the new wrapping tradition.

Reusable fabric wraps can come in the form of nice tea towels, secondhand scarves or even through repurposing and redesigning used clothing.

With this culture shift hack in gift wrapping, the fabric wrap also becomes part of the gift, especially if it has a nice design on it. Receivers can use them to wrap future gifts instead of spending money on wrapping paper or gift bags.

New rules for Secret Santa

Suffice to say that this game creates tremendous gift waste. The participants sometimes don’t know each other very well. And in many cases, the game is intended not be taken seriously, which elicits the purchasing of silly gifts that are often made from plastic or other non-recyclable material. And then used very briefly or not at all.

The way to circumvent waste from this game is by asking participants to regift previous unwanted gifts, purchase a secondhand item to gift or gift an existing item from home. This is keeping existing materials in circulation instead of purchasing brand new.

Decorations

Reuse old decorations or purchase secondhand items from op shops and online. Try your hand at DIY or making decorations from materials in nature. This way, they can potentially be composted at the end of life.

Christmas cards

Send E-cards, Christmas text messages and memes instead of buying physical cards that will be read momentarily then discarded.

Gift swap

Regift, donate or host a gift swap where people can bring and exchange unwanted presents as well as other reusable items such as toys, books, clothes, kitchenware, holiday decorations, etc.

Food

Where there is leftover food, refrigerate, freeze, preserve or compost food remains where possible.

The post Just what I’ve always wanted! How pretending to like gifts will cost Australians over $1 billion this Christmas appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The research – which crunches the companies’ own data – reveals $755 of what an average AGL electricity customer forks out each year goes directly to profit for the company, which made more than a billion dollars last year.

Origin electricity customers pump $595 a year into the company’s annual profit, which was more than $2 billion last year.

It’s a similar story with gas. The average Origin customer pours $417.57 into the company’s annual profit. $414.04 of what an average AGL gas customer hands over each year is pure profit for the company.

The discussion paper, by The Australia Institute’s Senior Research Fellow David Richardson, also reveals that households are massively subsidising the bills of big businesses, with consumers paying more than double what businesses pay for a megawatt hour of electricity or gigajoule of gas.

Key findings:

• AGL makes $755.01 profit per customer, per year for household electricity
• Origin makes $595.25 profit per customer, per year for household electricity
• AGL makes $414.04 profit per customer, per year for household gas
• Origin makes $417.57 profit per customer, per year for household gas
• Between June 1995 and June 2024, electricity prices increased at more than twice the rate of inflation.
• Between June 1995 and June 2024 gas prices increased at three times the rate of inflation.
• For every $100 of an AGL customer’s electricity bill $35 is profit, $34 goes to “network costs” (such as the cost of using poles and wires), $15 goes to “other costs” (such as advertising) and just $12 is spent generating electricity. $4 covers “depreciation and amortisation”.
• Households pay more than double what AGL and Origin charge big business for the same unit of electricity.
• Households pay 3.2 times more for gas from AGL than business
• Households pay 2.5 times more for gas from Origin than business

“This is a clear case of price gouging by AGL and Origin. They are the Coles and Woolies of the energy sector,” said David Richardson, Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

“In the case of AGL, the data shows that just 12% of what consumers fork out goes to generating electricity. So, any claim that high fuel prices are responsible for the huge increase in electricity prices just doesn’t stack up.

“Just last week, the Australian Energy Market Operator revealed a record number of Australians are now on hardship plans to pay for their power and gas. At the same time, AGL and Origin are raking in billions of dollars in profits. Australian consumers are being ripped off at a time when they can least afford it.

“Between them, AGL and Origin made more than $3 billion in profits last year. Privatisation has made these monsters where market forces should never have been applied.”

The post Power gouge: how AGL and Origin are milking monster profits from battling families appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 9 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Don Watson, author of ‘High Noon: Trump, Harris and America on the Brink’

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

Donald Trump’s Meet the Press interview (December 2024)

‘High Noon: Trump, Harris and America on the Brink’ by Don Watson, Quarterly Essay (September 2024)

‘The Second Coming’ by Fintan O’Toole, NY Review of Books (December 2024)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Kissing the ring appeared first on The Australia Institute.

But, once again, the RBA has failed.

By leaving interest rates on hold at 4.35%, the Reserve Bank has failed to do what is right for Australians.

It has failed to do what is right for the economy.

And it has failed to learn from its own mistakes.

Australians have suffered unnecessarily for too long. Cutting interest rates would have eased that suffering. Cutting interest rates would have provided some sensible stimulus to an economy which has almost ground to a halt.

“The RBA’s interest rate settings have smashed households and smashed businesses,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Headline inflation is within the bank’s target band. What is it waiting for?

“Last year’s review of the Reserve Bank criticised it for keeping rates on hold for 30 meetings in a row, when a rate cut would have stimulated a stagnating economy. It’s happening again.

“An interest rate cut today would not have been an act of Christmas goodwill. It would have been an act of common sense.

“Now, thanks to the RBA, many Australian families face an unnecessarily bleak Christmas.”

The post RBA fails households and fails the nation – again appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The Minister is now considering two separate reviews which will decide whether the skate survives – or becomes extinct.

The reason the skate is facing extinction is because, in 2012, the salmon industry was allowed to undertake a massive expansion of fish farms in Macquarie Harbour, the Maugean skate’s only habitat. One third of the Harbour is part of the Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area and the skate is one of its natural values.

Pollution from these large, foreign-owned fish farms has led to severely depleted oxygen levels in the harbour’s waters.

Now, the powerful salmon lobby – grossly exaggerating its importance to the local economy – wants to be exempt from environmental laws.

A newspaper advertisement promoting the petition states: “The salmon industry in Tasmania is owned by three foreign corporations, including JBS, which has been convicted of corruption. None of their salmon farms have paid company tax in Australia since 2019 according to Australian Tax Office data.”

“Australians are not stupid. They are starting to see through the lies and spin of these powerful multinational corporations,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“Now we need Australians to ensure their politicians don’t fall for the misinformation being spread by these corporations pillaging Australian waters.

“We are asking for people who care about saving the skate from extinction, people who care about ensuring our government keep its promises, to sign our petition to end salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

“Of course we need to look after workers who would be affected. There are lots of ways we can do that, but there is only one way to save the skate.”

The post Australians urged to support Minister to keep her promise on “no more extinctions” appeared first on The Australia Institute.

In per capita terms, South Australia’s prosperity has improved twice as fast as the national average.

Yet, new research reveals state funding for services and infrastructure has not kept up with this growth.

State public sector workers have borne the brunt of this restraint: their wages have lagged far behind inflation, resulting in a painful real wage cut for thousands of employees.

South Australia enjoys a stable, diversified economic base and the state’s labour market has been operating at or near-record low levels of unemployment.

Unfortunately, this economic progress has not been reflected in improvements in state-funded public services.

A new research report by the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute shows that real wages for state public servants in SA have declined by as much as 10% since 2019.

“This represents a one-tenth reduction in the real purchasing power of their salaries, imposing severe financial stress on tens of thousands of households – and undermining consumer spending and economic growth,” said Jack Thrower, Research Economist at The Australia Institute.

“It doesn’t have to be this way. South Australia has abundant fiscal capacity to repair this damage to real compensation for public sector workers.

“Rebuilding public employees’ wages to catch up to past inflation should be a vital priority for the South Australian government.”

The post Left behind: South Australian public servants go backwards while the SA economy surges forward appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Before they make their decision on interest rates on Tuesday, the Reserve Bank board should read the RBA review, particularly where it criticised them for not reducing interest rates from 2016 to 2019. Back then, inflation was outside the RBA’s target band of 2% to 3% but, unlike today, it was not too high but too low. Inflation was less than 2% for almost that entire period.

Given the high rates of inflation over the last two and half years you might think, what’s the problem with low inflation? Isn’t inflation bad?

While high inflation can cause problems, so does low inflation. Low inflation means the economy is stagnating. It is a sign that it is not growing as fast as it could and because of that unemployment is higher than it needs to be. The correct monetary policy response to inflation being below the target band is to cut interest rates and stimulate the economy.

But back in 2016, rather than cut, the RBA kept rates on hold for a record 30 consecutive meetings. The longest period in RBA history. The review was scathing, saying this was responsible for approximately 270,000 additional people being out of work for a year.

So why didn’t the RBA cut rates?

It’s because they keep getting the link between unemployment and inflation wrong.

Before the pandemic, the RBA thought that unemployment was too low. To simplify a whole lot of economic theory, the RBA believes if unemployment gets too low businesses won’t be able to find workers to fill their vacancies. Businesses will then have to poach them from other businesses by offering higher wages.

But if there is an economy-wide shortage of workers then it’s a zero-sum game. Businesses that lose workers to businesses paying higher wages will, in turn, bid up wages to fill their vacant positions. The result is rapidly rising wages. These higher wages eat into the profits of businesses, so businesses use their market power to put up their prices which causes inflation.

This is known as a wage price spiral. Simply put, the RBA believes low unemployment leads to higher inflation.

This theory is not always wrong, but it is dependent on unemployment being so low that workers are so hard to get that businesses offer higher wages. The RBA estimate of how low unemployment needed to be to set off a wage price spiral was very wrong then and it’s very wrong now.

While the RBA sat on its hands, refusing to change interest rates for almost three years from August 2016 to May 2019, wages stayed at historically low levels. They were stuck at about 2%. Not only did wages not rapidly increase, they languished at rates rarely seen.

The fact that wages were not increasing should have tipped them off that inflation was not going to rise. Instead of looking at what was actually happening they believed their economic models that were telling them a completely different story.

By about the middle of 2019, having waited almost three years, they finally realised their mistake and reluctantly cut interest rates.

Right now, the RBA is refusing to cut interest rates, in part because they are worried that unemployment is too low. Sound familiar?

But is unemployment too low?

Wages growth is heading down not up, having peaked at the end of last year. Inflation is falling as well. In fact, inflation is now in the RBA’s target band. But still the RBA waits. And all indications are that they will wait again at this week’s meeting. They will repeat the mistake the RBA review called them out on a year and a half ago.

Just like before the pandemic, the cost of this misjudgment is also high. People with a mortgage paying more than they have to. More people being unemployed.

Just like before the pandemic, the RBA is convinced that low unemployment will set off higher wages and inflation. Everyone makes mistakes but point of the review is to look at what went wrong and not repeat those mistakes.

The post Another hold likely. So, what was the point of the RBA review? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Despite a clear election campaign commitment to listen to Pacific Island nations and act on climate change, the Australian government continues to enable and encourage new and expanded fossil fuel projects.

When it comes to climate change, Australia’s actions matter. Accelerated by Australia’s continued supply of fossil fuels, climate change poses a serious, direct and immediate threat to human and environmental security.

In the Pacific and the Torres Strait, rising sea levels caused by climate change threaten to inundate entire islands.
Australia has a long and shared history with Pacific island countries and has co-signed legally binding international treaties and agreements, such as the Paris Agreement and the Boe Declaration, pledging action on climate change.

The Labor Party’s election campaign in 2022 boasted climate commitments and intentions to restore Australia’s relationships and reputation with our Pacific “brothers and sisters”.

Just four days into her new role as Foreign Minister Penny Wong spoke to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in Fiji: “Whether it manifests in rising sea levels in Pacific Island countries, or in disastrous bushfires and catastrophic flooding back at home in Australia, we can see that climate change is happening across the Pacific family. I want to assure you that we have heard you.”

But it is difficult to see how the Albanese Labor Government has succeeded in restoring Australia’s climate leadership, or how it has listened to or acted on Pacific climate priorities. In its first term, the Albanese government has announced the Future Gas Strategy, which locks Australia in for new gas to 2050 and beyond, and has approved seven new coal mines.

In 2024, the Australian government provided $11.1 billion in fossil fuel subsidies.

Just this week, Australia argued in the International Court of Justice against developing international laws to oblige countries to act on climate change – directly undermining submissions and advocacy from Pacific Island nations.

Australia’s failure to adequately respond to climate concerns is not new or limited to Pacific Island nations.

Australia has also failed to address domestic climate concerns.

At the 2024 Climate Integrity Summit, Torres Strait Island elder Dr Aunty McRose Elu, argued: “Australia’s response to climate change is one of the weakest in the world. Our leaders say they care, but they ignore the scientific evidence and do things that will ensure our communities will go under the water. We are running out of time.”

In 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Australia violated Torres Strait Islanders’ rights by failing to protect them from climate change. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus committed to consider and respond to the UNHRC report “in due course” – as of December 2024, there has been no formal response.

For decades, Pacific Island and Torres Strait Island leaders have articulated their key priorities for climate action with clarity. The previous government’s 2022 Strengthening Australia’s relationships in the Pacific Inquiry acknowledged Pacific Island nations’ deep concern about climate change, and recommended that support for climate change mitigation and adaptation should be a high priority in Australia’s immediate regional assistance program.

Despite clear messages from the Pacific, in 2024, Australia has chosen to conduct another long and resource intensive inquiry into Australia’s response to the priorities of Pacific Island countries and the Pacific region, rather than engage in genuine climate action.

A history of Pacific climate advocacy

Pacific leaders and civil society organisations have consistently advocated for Australia to uphold and fulfil its commitments to listen to and act on warnings of the existential threat of climate change.

The Paris Agreement,

• a legally binding international treaty on climate change that was adopted at COP21 in Paris in 2015. The Alliance of Small Island States, which includes Pacific Island nations, led negotiations to include the long-term temperature goal of 1.5 degrees in the Paris Agreement, in line with safe limits for the Pacific.

The Boe Declaration,

• adopted by the Pacific Islands Forum and Australia in 2018, is a regional security agreement that acknowledges that “climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific”.

The Loss and Damage Fund,

• was established at COP28 in 2023, following decades of Pacific advocacy, to compensate developing states for the climate harms caused by wealthy countries and help them respond to climate impacts. Pacific Island leaders and civil society organisations have called for a significant increase in contributions to the loss and damage fund. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, the Australian government committed just $50 million to the fund – less than 1 per cent of what it allocates to fossil fuel subsidies.

Pacific leaders have advocated for Australia to commit to:

The Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific

The Call was issued by the governments of Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Tonga, Fiji, Niue and Solomon Islands following a Pacific Islands Forum Economic Ministers Meeting in Suva in 2023.

The Port Vila Call proposes:

• A fossil fuel-free Pacific and a global, just and equitable phase-out of coal, oil and gas;
• New Pacific-tailored development pathways based on 100 per cent renewable energy;
• Expanded public and private finance for the just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy;
• Redoubled efforts to reaffirm, strengthen and codify legal obligations with respect to the global phase-out of fossil fuels.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

The treaty was established in 2019 and aims to “accelerate a transition to renewable energy for everyone, end the expansion of coal, oil and gas, and equitably phase out existing production in keeping with what science shows is needed to address the climate crisis”.

The treaty has been signed by Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Niue, Timor-Leste, Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Colombia, Samoa, Nauru and the Republic of Marshall Islands, and is endorsed by the World Health Organisation and the European Parliament.

Despite clear and consistent calls from Pacific neighbours and allies, Australia is showing no signs of a climate course correction.

• Australia’s emissions are increasing.
• Seven new coal mines have been approved since the 2022 election.
• The Future Gas Strategy locks Australia in for new gas until 2050.
• The Australian government has contributed just $50 million to the Loss and Damage Fund.
• In contrast, the 2024 federal budget included over 200 times more in fossil fuel subsidies – $11.1 billion.
• Australia is yet to respond to the UNHRC finding that Australia violated Torres Strait Islanders’ rights by failing to protect them from climate change.
• Australia has signed the Falepili Union, a security pact which in recognition of “the importance of collective sovereignty, whereby a country’s actions can impact on its neighbours”, will assist people from Tuvalu to migrate to Australia because “we believe the people of Tuvalu deserve the choice to live, study and work elsewhere, as climate change impacts worsen”. Enele Sopoaga, former prime minister of Tuvalu, said at the Australia Institute’s 2024 Climate Integrity Summit that he has “never seen anything so brazen, so disrespectful, as this agreement”.
• In December 2024, Australia argued in the International Court of Justice against developing international laws to oblige countries to act on climate change.

For the Australian government, the climate crisis is also a crisis of integrity. As His Excellency Anote Tong, former president of Kiribati said at the Climate Integrity Summit 2024, “I know we get development assistance to build our climate resilience. Isn’t it funny that we are getting that assistance but at the same time, you’re [Australia is] doing the very thing that is destroying our homes.”

The post Our crisis of integrity looms in the Pacific appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Owned by BHP, Mitsubishi and other multinational corporations, these mines will impact koalas, gliders and many other threatened species.

Minister Plibersek’s decision was not surprising.

The Environment Council of Central Queensland had previously asked her to reconsider other coal mines. She reconsidered … and then approved the mines anyway.

That decision set up the embarrassing situation of Australia’s Environment Minister fighting in court to approve coal mines, alongside mining companies against environment groups.

To be clear, when the Environment Minister had to choose a side – coal companies or the environment – she chose coal companies.

And there’s plenty more in the coal companies’ stockings.

Research out this week from The Australia Institute shows that the NSW government spends five times more money promoting coal than it has budgeted for helping mining communities’ transition away from coal.

The state’s four regional “Future Jobs and Investment Authorities” are supposed to “support communities reliant on the coal industry to secure their long-term economic future as the global demand for coal declines over time”.

These authorities have a combined initial budget of just $5.2 million and a promise of more money in 2028.

By contrast, Coal Innovation NSW spent $27 million on programs that promote the coal industry in 2022-23 (latest available), including into that perennial “clean coal” boondoggle, carbon capture and storage.

Despite decades of talk and subsidies, NSW has precisely zero functioning carbon capture and storage projects.

Another funder of all “clean coal” ideas is the $700 million fund, Low Emissions Technology Australia (LETA), previously known as Coal21.

LETA is funded by coal companies, which can partially deduct payments to LETA from their royalty obligations, providing a handy public subsidy.

LETA has so much money that it recently told coal companies to stop paying it. I swear I’m not making this up.

“Given the current high levels of cash against lower project cash commitments,” LETA said, “the raising of future payment notice invoices is to be suspended.”

In other words, as the world heads into a climate crisis, there is a low-emissions technology group begging for less funding. They just can’t use all the money.

Can you imagine any other climate research group asking for less money? That they had no ideas to explore? Nothing urgent to do?

No discussion of largesse to the coal industry would be complete without mentioning the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme, which refunds fuel tax to major diesel users, particularly the mining industry.

The scheme costs the Australian government $10 billion per year, more than is spent on the army ($9 billion), and almost as much as government school funding ($11 billion).

A lot of ink gets spilled arguing over whether this scheme is a fossil fuel subsidy.

The OECD and the International Energy Agency say it is, while the Minerals Council and the Productivity Commission say it’s not.

What is not debated is the cost, or the benefit it provides to the coal industry.

The Fuel Tax Credit Scheme provides more than $1 billion to the coal industry each year, money that could otherwise have been spent on schools, hospitals or aged care.

Look over there! What’s that?! Is it the Grinch coming to steal the coal industry’s biggest Christmas present?

Maybe not actual Grinches, but the Greens and crossbenchers like Kate Chaney, David Pocock and Allegra Spender have said that they want to reform the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme.

One option for reform would be to place a cap on use of the scheme, meaning it would still benefit farmers but the handout to mining companies would end.

Just like a child threatened with coal for Christmas, the Minerals Council of Australia responded to the crossbenchers with a tantrum, somehow claiming that making their members pay fuel tax will push up prices for everyone else.

This is nonsense, unless you are one of the few people who go to the supermarket and buy coal by the cargo ship load.

That didn’t stop Mining Minister Madeline King from backing the Minerals Council, declaring that the subsidy would not change and that even discussing it was “misinformation”.

So while Christmas 2024 is looking good for the coal industry, the next parliament might keep a much closer eye on whether the miners have been naughty or nice.

It is worth spelling out the implications of this.

Community independent politicians are pushing for a reform that would take billions of dollars from the likes of BHP and Glencore and spend it on social services.

If the next parliament can wind back Australia’s biggest fossil fuel subsidy, a policy that has both major parties’ support, what else might it be able to do? Housing? AUKUS? Jobseeker?

We’ll find out if we’re all good in 2025.

The post Can you imagine any other climate research group asking for less money? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

But the fight over salmon farming is different. All three major companies are owned by multinational corporations. Tassal is owned by a major Canadian company and Petuna is owned by a Japanese-New Zealand corporation. The third main salmon company in Tasmania, Huon, is owned by JBS. JBS is a Brazilian corporation infamous for corruption. JBS’s bribery of Brazilian politicians played a big part in its expansion and its arrival in Tasmania.

These corporations literally want Tasmanians to accept their crap.

To be more precise, the poo and other discharge from salmon farms in Macquarie Harbour generates the same amount of nitrogen pollution as sewage discharged by a city of half a million people – that’s more than double Hobart’s.

Dumping the equivalent of two Hobart’s worth of sewage in a World Heritage-listed harbour has consequences. And the best-known is the impact on the Maugean skate, a stingray-like creature that has been around since the dinosaurs and lives nowhere else in the world.

Extinction bells have been tolling for some time for the skate. Scientific advice to the Australian Government is unequivocal that salmon farming is the key threat to its survival.

Top Australian independent scientists have confirmed this. This unique animal is recognised internationally as one of the natural values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area because of its direct linkages to Gondwana.

These scientists have also told us how to save the skate: stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

What would happen if salmon farms were removed from Macquarie Harbour?

According to the salmon companies’ own documents there are 109 salmon farming workers on the West Coast, some of which are drive in-drive out. State-wide there are around 1,500 jobs in the salmon industry. Excuse the maths, but the salmon jobs in Macquarie Harbour make up just 7% of the industry. The salmon industry itself makes up less than 1% of Tasmanian jobs.

Such a small change can be easily managed by the salmon industry and governments. Ending salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour would make zero financial difference to Tasmanian or Australian Governments, because the salmon industry pays no tax. According to Australian Tax Office data, no company tax has paid by Tasmanian salmon farms since 2019, despite selling over $4 billion worth of fish in that time. Free pollution, few jobs, no tax.

Despite spin from the industry and Tasmanian Government, Australia Institute polling shows that seven out of 10 Tasmanians want fish farms out of sheltered, inshore waters.

This mirrors the 2022 Tasmanian Parliamentary inquiry recommendation and would include Macquarie Harbour. When we asked Franklin voters – the heartland of salmon farming – whether they support stopping fish farming in Macquarie Harbour, 56% said they did. The majority of Australians (58%) across the political spectrum support stopping fish farming in areas where it is putting the Maugean skate at risk of extinction.

All Australia Institute polling and research is available on our website. This cannot be said for the salmon industry, which refuses to publish its recent EMRS poll or the Deloitte report its exaggerated jobs claims are based on.

According to our polling, Tasmanians, and Australians more broadly, support what the science is telling us we need to do: stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. They want the skate to survive. They don’t want World Heritage listed harbours filled with fish poo to benefit tax-shy foreign companies.

This is a real case of industry spin and political calculations against a unique species and the community interest.

Salmon companies are ripping off Tasmania and Tasmanians know it.

The post Salmon spin and pollution all a bit fishy appeared first on The Australia Institute.

So, while it might be a season of joy, it’s also the season of waste, which is bad for the environment and bad for the hip pocket.

The Australia Institute surveyed 1,009 Australians between 13 and 15 November 2024 on issues relating to gift giving, consumption and spending habits during Christmas time. The margin of error is ±3%.

Key Findings:

Australians waste more than $1 billion on buying Christmas gifts for people that don’t get used.

Nearly one in two Australians (47%) do not think about how the gifts they buy for others will eventually be disposed of.

Over three in four Australians (77%) like buying gifts for people at Christmas, but over half of Australians (52%) would prefer it if people did not buy them gifts at Christmas.

A greater number of Australians buy gift wrapping paper (69%) than gift bags (52%). However, gift bags are more likely to be reused (65% of those who use gift bags reuse them) than wrapping paper (24% of those who use wrapping paper reuse it).

Nearly two in three Australians (64%) agree that it is better for the economy when people buy fewer things that don’t get used.

“Reducing waste at Christmas time is beneficial for the environment and can also help Australians feeling the pinch of the cost-of-living crisis,” said Nina Gbor, Director, Circular Economy & Waste Program at The Australia Institute.

“Embracing the principles of a circular economy over the linear take-make-waste model could help bring a deeper meaning to Christmas.

“Surprising loved ones with meaningful gifts is a beautiful holiday ritual, however, many Australians do not want the gifts they receive.

“Both gift giver and receiver can enjoy Christmas even more with by knowing that the gifts we give and receive are needed, used with less likelihood of being discarded or ending up in landfill.

“In the amalgamation of the cost-of-living and environmental waste crises, we cannot afford to keep up a ritual that for the most part is not economically or logistically beneficial to the gift giver, receiver and, to make matters worse, contributes to environmental degradation.

The post Never used, never worn: the billion-dollar Christmas waste appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 5 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘What do the latest GDP figures tell us? That the RBA is still getting it very wrong’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (December 2024)

Wages are growing faster than inflation – but workers are $8,000 worse off than 3 years ago by David Richardson and Greg Jericho, the Australia Institute (November 2024)

‘Election FactCheck: Has the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began?’ by Peter Whiteford (reviewed by Roger Wilkins), The Conversation (June 2016)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post The economy is people appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The Australia Institute challenges those making unsubstantiated claims to a debate about what needs to be done in Macquarie Harbour.

“It’s time to start calling out the lies, exaggeration and misinformation,” said Eloise Carr, Director, Australia Institute Tasmania.

“It’s factually incorrect to describe the industry in Macquarie Harbour as ‘small.’ Currently, 9,500 tonnes of salmon and trout come out of the harbour annually. The amount of nitrogen pollution this contribute to the harbour is the same as the sewage discharged from a city the size of Hobart.

“Dumping the equivalent of Hobart’s worth of sewage in a World Heritage-listed harbour has consequences. And the best-known is the impact on the endangered Maugean skate, a stingray-like creature that has been around since the dinosaurs and lives nowhere else in the world.

“The science could not be clearer: fish farming is the primary threat to the skate. That’s what Australia’s top scientists are telling us.

“The Tasmanian Government has a track record of ignoring problems until they blow up and this is no exception. It’s embarrassing. It’s now up to the Australian government, specifically the Environment Minister, if they want to keep ignoring the facts or take action to actually regulate the harmful impacts of this industry.”

The post Another day, another bumper catch of misinformation from the salmon industry appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key points:

● The NSW Government’s proposed Future Jobs and Investment Authorities for the Hunter, Illawarra, Central West and North West regions aim to assist coal-reliant communities’ transition. But they are severely underfunded with a collective budget of just $5.2 million for all four authorities.

● These Authorities are not able to access increased funding from the Future Jobs and Investment Fund until 2028-29.

● Organisations devoted to promoting and prolonging the NSW coal industry, by contrast, have significantly more resources:

○ Coal Innovation NSW spent $27 million last year and has a balance of $45 million.

○ The coal industry organisation Low Emissions Technology Australia (LETA) is promoted as a $700 million fund. This fund is publicly subsidised, but recently asked to stop receiving contributions due to a significant surplus of funding.

The report calls for the abolition of Coal Innovation NSW and associated funds. It also recommends royalty deduction subsidies to LETA be immediately abolished.

“The NSW Government is far more focused on promoting coal than helping communities move away from it,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“The current approach undermines both the state’s emissions reduction efforts and the future of regional communities.

“What governments do is more important than what they say. Regional communities need funding to transition smoothly, but instead the lion’s share of government funding is used to promote speculative technologies that assist the coal industry.

“The NSW Government has the opportunity to lead the way by redirecting funds and ensuring these communities thrive in a post-coal economy. It should impose a moratorium on new coal projects, abolish Coal Innovation NSW and end royalty deductions for coal industry promotion.

“In contrast to the meagre funding in NSW, the German Coal Commission budgeted $3.4 billion per year to allow its regions to move past coal. This is what genuine climate leadership and caring for communities looks like. Unfortunately, the NSW Government has a long way to go.

“This research shows that the NSW Government is happy to use the budget to subsidise the coal industry, just as its response to the Newcastle coal port protests showed that it was happy to sacrifice democratic rights for the coal industry.”

“Coal mining has devastated our once-beautiful agricultural valley, damaging the environment and eroding the fabric of our community,” said Beau Blenman, a 7th generation Hunter Valley local who has worked in mining for over two decades.

“The toll from coal mining in the Hunter has been severe, from polluted air to degraded aquifers. Despite the government’s claims of caring about biodiversity, mining rehabilitation efforts here have been woefully inadequate.

“We’re witnessing our weather systems change while foreign-owned companies profit at the expense of our land and people.”

The post NSW government now spending more public money on coal boosting than coal transition appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Truth and trust can be funny things.

Holding someone’s trust means people believe what you say to be true. Speaking the truth consistently wins people’s trust.

But trust isn’t always treated with the deference it should be.  Too often it can be abused, with truth usually the first to pay the price.

There were a few instances this week which had us thinking about trust and the role it plays in dictating what is true or not.

One was the somewhat slavish and uncritical reporting of the Business Council of Australia’s ‘Regulation Rumble’  report which loudly declared Victoria the “worst state in Australia to do business”.

Headlines across Australia’s media outlets swallowed the conclusions: ‘Victoria ranks last for business amid state spending splurge’, ‘Victoria ranked worst state in Australia for business’ and ‘Victoria ranked worst for business as Labor debates brand damage in Albanese stronghold’ were just some of the headlines. And not just at News Corp – that last one was the ABC.

To the casual observer, it seems that media outlets are faithfully reporting on an independent report. But a cursory glance at the ABS data on business investment – you know, the raw numbers of where private business is putting its money – showed investment in Victoria was outstripping nearly every other state.

The difference came down to feels versus data.  The BCA was ranking what cost businesses money – looking at planning systems, payroll taxes, property taxes and charges, retail trading hours, workers’ compensation premiums etc. Which makes sense – the goal of the BCA, which exists to advocate for businesses (and yet is never treated in the same way as unions, which exist to advocate for workers) is to improve conditions for capital. It exists to pressure state governments into creating the most favourable conditions possible for business.

The ABS, on the other hand, measures the numbers.

And as chief economist Greg Jericho pointed out, the numbers show not only is Victoria proving desirable for private business investment, it’s doing better than most jurisdictions in Australia.

Then let’s turn to News Corp’s defence of the gas industry, with its breathless headlines across the nation on Monday to ‘Step on the Gas’.  The Sun Herald called it an exclusive.  The crux of the coverage? ‘We must step on the gas or the lights will go out’.

Turn the page though, and you’ll find a little disclaimer (and we mean little) – these cheerleading articles were sponsored by Santos, APA Group, Tamboran Resources and Jemena.

All major gas companies who have more than a small vested interest in expanding Australia’s fossil fuel industry. The Guardian’s Adam Morton was one of the few within the media to call it what it was: selling readers a lie.

It’s the same tactics being used by the salmon farming industry in Tasmania.  Media reports will tell you that a $1.3 billion industry is at risk because all the science for saving the endangered Maugean Skate says to stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

But what people aren’t being told is that of that billion or so in sales that the three foreign-owned companies make each year selling salmon, very little of it comes back to the people of Tasmania.

Not in jobs – the whole industry is only responsible for 0.5% of Tasmania’s workforce.

Not in company tax – the most recent public records show no tax was paid.

And not in environmental benefit – the pollution from this industry is what is killing the skate and choking its habitat, Macquarie Harbour, which sits within Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Molding truth to fit the narratives of vested interests does eventually come at a cost; losing people’s trust. And once lost, it is almost impossible to win back.

Once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it. But facts aren’t partisan. And it is why the research from the Australia Institute is more important than ever. Our only interest is following where the research leads us.

It’s why we don’t take your trust for granted. And why we will continue to shout the truth – based on facts and evidence – even when it is uncomfortable. Even when it goes against the political tide.

It was your trust in us that helped us win the battle to have more scrutiny on the electoral changes that would have entrenched the two-party system.

It’s your trust in us that enables us to continue taking on the gas industry and other vested interests, because it is what is right for the nation.

It’s your trust in us that lets us continue to place issues that really matter on the agenda – not for political points or influence, but because it’s what we should be talking about.

We don’t take that trust lightly.  Thank you for yours.  We won’t let you down.

As always, take care of you. Amy x

— Amy Remeikis is the Chief Political Strategist at the Australia Institute

The Big Stories

How not to battle inflation | Stephen Long

Economists including former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser are increasingly convinced there are more effective tools than interest rates to fight inflation – but what are they?

“Profit gouging, supply shortages, climate change, all these things [are driving inflation]. Putting up interest rates won’t deal with that, but it’ll make life worse.”

Read: How not to battle inflation by Stephen Long in the Saturday Paper

In his Guardian column, Greg Jericho writes that the economy is now so weak due to the Reserve Bank’s 13 interest rate hikes that were it not for Commonwealth and state government spending and investment, we would now be in a recession and close to 100,000 more people would be out of work.

“The RBA board should urgently reconsider their policy and start undoing the damage.”

The RBA’s next cash rate decision comes Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 2:30 PM AEDT.

Read more >

International Court of Justice: what countries are legally required to do to combat climate change 

Australia was one of the first countries to present oral pleadings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the court began to examine what countries are legally required to do to combat climate change and what is their responsibility to assist nations most affected.

Despite our Government’s clear election commitment to act on climate change, Australia argued against developing international law to meet the existential threat of climate change, and that the rule of prevention does not apply to harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

This comes just after the launch of Climate of the Nation, our annual report tracking Australia’s attitudes towards climate change and energy.

We found three quarters (75%) of Australians believe the nation’s climate policy should be based on best-practice science, free from industry influence, and almost two-thirds (64%) want credible action to address fossil fuel production – in line with a commitment made at COP28 – if Australia is to co-host the COP31 summit in 2026.

Read more >

Australia records its hottest-ever spring

This year’s spring was at least 1C warmer than any spring from last century, with temperatures 2.5C above pre-industrial levels.

We published a new report that found that extreme heat fuelled by climate change also will exacerbate inequality. It shows outer-urban and rural areas are most as risk, because they have a higher concentration of vulnerable people and face a higher likelihood of extreme heat.

All the more reason to stop approving new gas and coal mines, with a sense of urgency.

Read more >

Australia’s actual emissions have barely changed since 2005

Last week, DCCEW released new emissions data. When looking at this information, it is crucial to remember that the reported emissions level is distorted by the Government’s inclusion of dodgy ‘land use’ emissions.

A big reason why is there was massive land clearing occurring in 2005, which when stopped, is recorded as “emissions” reduction.

When you look at actual emissions from the rest of the economy, the fall is a mere 1.8% since 2005.

Read more >

Our book launch

Last week we were delighted to officially launch our new book, What’s the Big Idea? to a local audience in Canberra.

Editor Alice Grundy was the MC for the evening

With speeches from Amy Remeikis, Greg Jericho and Allan Behm, it was an uplifting reminder that the solutions are there, Australia just needs the courage to implement them.

Get your copy today >

The Win

Electoral reform impasse provides opportunity for real scrutiny

Thank you to the more than 21,000 people who signed our petition calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the rushed changes to our electoral laws. The bill did not pass after talks between the government and Coalition failed to end in an agreement, resulting in the perfect opportunity for further scrutiny of the proposed changes.

We delivered the petition to Parliament at a press conference with independent MPs Helen Haines, Dr Sophie Scamps, Dr Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney.

You can add your name to the petition here to ensure that when the Electoral Reform Bill returns for debate, it will undergo the appropriate scrutiny.

While the donation disclosure changes in the proposed bill were positive, the Australia Institute has identified serious concerns with the Australian Government’s bill.

Video: Bill Browne explains >

The Bin

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has given an early Christmas present to coal companies by refusing to reconsider the impacts of three mine expansions.

The Living Wonders case saw a Federal Court challenge to the approvals of these projects, arguing that their climate impacts would affect species and ecosystems protected under federal environment law.

Instead of joining the environment groups, in court Minister Plibersek sided with the coal companies, winning the case and an appeal in July.

This brings these enormous coal mines one step closer to approval.

Read more >

The Quote

Coal fired power is the most unreliable form of power,

— Minister for Climate Change and Energy, The Hon Chris Bowen MP

“There has not been a single day in the past 18 months without some coal-fired generation experiencing unplanned outages.”

Most recently, unplanned coal power plant outages saw Sydney at risk of blackouts.

Podcasts

What’s the point of Australia? | Follow the Money

Australia Institute Chief Political Analyst Amy Remeikis joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the slings and arrows of the political year, why Australia doesn’t use its power on the international stage, and how next year’s federal election campaign is shaping up.

Listen now:

Return to Trumpland with Zoe Daniel | After America

Zoe Daniel MP, Independent Member for Goldstein and former foreign correspondent, joins Dr Emma Shortis to talk about the incoming Trump administration, Australia’s relationships with the United States and China, and the role of independent politicians in Australian defence and foreign policy-making.

Listen now:

Making America pay | Dollars & Sense

President-elect Trump says he’s going to make other countries pay with a sweeping new tariff regime—but in reality, everyone will lose.

Listen now:

What’s On

Minority Report with George Megalogenis | 11am AEDT, Friday 4 December

Australian politics is shifting. The two-party system was broken at the last federal election—and another minority government is a real possibility after the next election.

Join journalist George Megalogenis to discuss his new Quarterly Essay, ‘Minority Report: The new shape of Australian politics’ for Australia’s Biggest Book Club

Free, RSVP >

Näku Dhäruk The Bark Petitions with Clare Wright | 11am AEDT, Friday 13 December

Join award-winning author and professor of history Clare Wright in to discuss her landmark new book, Näku Dhäruk The Bark Petitions: How the people of Yirrkala changed the course of Australian democracy, for our final Australia’s Biggest Book Club webinar for 2024.

Free, RSVP >

The post Fighting for Facts | Between the Lines appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Wholesale electricity prices in WA’s gas-dependent grid have also tripled. Much of the cost has been absorbed by WA taxpayers though household rebates and subsidies to Synergy.

The increase echoes the east coast experience where the decision to allow the export of onshore gas tripled within a few years, devastating manufacturing, driving up electricity prices and increasing household energy bills.

The proposed 50-year extension of Woodside’s NWS export terminal with access to WA domestic gas onshore reserves would lock in exposure to global prices indefinitely.

“Just another example of what the WA mining industry wants, the WA government gives – and (separately) what the WA government wants, the Federal government gives,” said Saul Eslake, one of the nation’s most respected independent economists. 

“It is astonishing the WA government caved into lobbying from the gas industry and repeated the mistake of east coast governments a decade ago, exposing the WA domestic gas market to global prices,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“Gas producers are making windfall profits from higher gas prices paid by Western Australian households and businesses through their taxes and higher energy bills.

“The McGowan government’s decision to appease the gas industry and allow the export of WA’s domestic gas reserves is costing WA businesses and households dearly. Let’s hope the Premier Cook doesn’t repeat the mistake.

“If the government approves Woodside’s proposed 50-year extension of their NWS export terminal, they will lock in WA’s exposure to high global gas prices for decades.”

The post Triple trouble: WA wholesale gas and electricity prices soar since approval of onshore gas exports appeared first on The Australia Institute.

First, a bit of history.

Until 2020, Western Australians didn’t experience the energy price pain of their east coast cousins because all its domestic gas reserves were reserved for the domestic market. Up until then, all the gas WA exported came from offshore reserves, mostly in Commonwealth waters. That changed four years ago, when the WA Labor government allowed the export of onshore gas.

Why did the WA Labor government change the policy?

Good question.  Woodside started running out of offshore gas for its giant North West Shelf export terminal, and decided to turn to the domestic reserves to keep feeding it. But it needed some help.

Enter media magnate and fossil fuel investor Kerry Stokes and his company Beach Energy.  Beach Energy owned the licence for some of WA’s onshore gas reserves and wanted to export that domestic gas because gas sold on the international market fetches higher prices than it does domestically.

Beach Energy made a deal with Woodside to export its domestic gas.  And then it used its considerable influence to lobby the Western Australian government to let them do it.  In August 2020, while most attention was on the pandemic and the border closures, then-premier Mark McGowen announced Woodside could export WA’s domestic gas for five years – and a lot of it … the equivalent of around a quarter of the total gas used in WA!

So, what is the problem?

Woodside now wants to extend the deal for another 50 years.  And that’s terrible news for Western Australians.

See, from the moment WA began to export its domestic gas, WA gas prices were exposed to the global gas markets where prices are much higher.  Gas producers could then force Western Australian customers to compete with international customers for WA’s own gas.

In the four years since the deal has been in place, gas prices have TRIPLED in WA.  You’re not hearing a lot about that yet, because residential energy pricing is regulated in Western Australia, so state-owned energy corporations have so far absorbed the price increases (although being state-owned, you’re still paying for it, just in a roundabout way).

Those state-owned corporations tend to have long term gas contracts, so the price increases from the spot market also takes a bit longer to flow through (think of it like a fixed interest mortgage term – you may be locked in for one price now, but you know that term will expire, and you’ll be exposed to the market).  The household energy subsidies have also helped reduce the impact – but they won’t last forever either.

And it is not just gas.  Western Australia uses gas to produce a lot of its electricity, meaning electricity prices have tripled as well.

You know all those complaints about mistakes the east coast made with its gas market and what it did to east coast prices?  Imagine that happening to Western Australia … but all in one hit.

There are lots of other issues with the deal, including the devastating environmental impact.

But there are two things we know for sure – this deal will increase energy bills for WA households and Woodside will make a lot of money.

WA needs to say no.

The post North West Shelf extension: a disastrous deal for WA households appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 3 December 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst // @amyremeikis

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Paul Fletcher – Why Majority Government is in the National Interest, and the Teals are not, The Sydney Institute (December 2024)

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post What’s the point of Australia? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Minister Plibersek says she will listen to the science and follow the law. Australian government scientists are unequivocal that salmon farming is the key threat to the skate’s survival. Top Australian independent scientists have confirmed this. Scientists have also told us how to save the skate: stop salmon farming.

“Is anyone other than the AWU seriously suggesting we should not listen to science and not follow the law?” said Eloise Carr, Director, Australia Institute Tasmania.

“But, of course, if they want to do what the AWU says – as the elected government – that’s obviously their choice to make.

“Democracy is about choices. We used to hunt whales, log the Daintree and mine asbestos and all those industries created some jobs.

“There are lots of places where salmon can be grown but only one place in the world where the Maugean skate can live. If we chose a bit more salmon over the last of the dinosaur fish, then it speaks volumes about our priories.”

“It would not be difficult or expensive for governments to look after workers while also saving the skate. Dividing the recent $21 million taxpayer funded subsidy to the salmon industry among its workers could have instead been a payment of around $210,000 per worker.”

Before all of this we need to be dealing in facts. There is a lot of misinformation being spread in this debate.

TASMANIAN SALMON JOBS

By the salmon industry’s own admission, there are 109 salmon industry jobs in Macquarie Harbour. They’re not all local jobs, either, with some drive-in, drive-out workers.

“SHUTTING DOWN SALMON”

Macquarie Harbour comprises just 10% of local salmon production and 5% of jobs in the industry. Removing salmon farms from the harbour would not shut down the local salmon industry.

THE SALMON FARMS ARE FOREIGN-OWNED

This is not a local owned industry. It is dominated by three big players, all foreign owned. Tassal was bought out by Canadian company, Cooke Inc. Huon Aquaculture was bought out by JBS, based in Brazil and Sealord is New Zealand/Japanese owned. As a result, the profits of these companies go offshore, and they don’t pay tax here. So … big money, free pollution of a World Heritage Area and no tax.

JOBS “SUPPORTED BY” SALMON

Statements like ‘supported by’ require further consideration. Lots of other industries support regional businesses like bakeries, cafes, general stores, mechanics and so on. These jobs do not rely on the salmon industry as the industry would like people to believe. Tourism on the west coast employs far more people than fish farming and would be negatively impacted if Maugean skate became extinct.

WHAT TASMANIANS WANT

Tasmanians want fish farms out of inshore waters. Suggesting only inner-city mainlanders are the only ones who want to protect this World Heritage Area is a lie. The Australia Institute has polled mainland Australians and Tasmanians several times. 7 in 10 Tasmanians want the government to follow the science and save the skate.

The post Tasmania’s great skate debate – cutting through lies and misinformation appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The ICJ is hearing pleadings in response to a UN General Assembly request last year for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” Advisory opinions of the ICJ are non-binding but are legally and politically persuasive.

The Australian argument relied heavily upon existing multi-lateral agreements such as the Paris agreement and that, in effect, this and other treaties displaces all other international law.

Central to case before the ICJ is the customary obligation of prevention. On this, Australia argued that the rule of prevention does not apply to harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. According to Australia’s pleading, emissions cannot meet the conventional test that harm must involve a direct and proximate harm from an identifiable source spreading from one state to another, such as pollution flowing through a river from one state to another. Further, the harm from greenhouse gas emissions is from the cumulative build up; historic emissions from multiple state and countless individual actors. Harm is widespread and not localised.

The Australian government also argued that there was no international agreed or consistent view of how to apply the rule of prevention in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.

States have not been able to agree on how to apply the rule of prevention in multi-lateral forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chante (UNFCCC). As such, the international court should not try to extend the rule of prevention to greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, Australia argued if the rule of prevention does apply; compliance with UNFCCC and the Paris agreement already meet any prevention requirements.

“The fact the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ last year for an opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, is proof that a significant number of nation states are not satisfied with current multi-lateral agreements and are seeking a legal opinion, unconstrained by obligations to protect national interests that bind negotiators at forums such as the UNFCCC”, said Leanne Minshull, Strategic Director of the Australia Institute.

“Listening to the oral pleadings of Australia and it’s consistent referral to existing multilateral agreements, it felt as though they were saying to the court – relax we already have this under control. Whether it’s Australians facing a climate fuelled cost of living crisis, or a Pacific islander watching their country be washed away – ordinary people understand, we don’t have this under control.

“As an Australian, I would have liked to hear our government plead a case that looked for global solutions rather than rely on sophistry to limit our legal obligations to ourselves and others.”

The post Australia argues against developing international law to meet the unique existential threat of climate change appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On the cards are tens of millions in taxpayer funding for the major parties, donation caps, and limits on campaign spending – though the rules are much stricter for independent challengers than for major party MPs. They are the biggest changes to Australian democracy in decades – and Australians saw the legislation only last Monday.

The Albanese government is also rushing a social media age ban. It did graciously allow a parliamentary inquiry for this one. Don’t bother writing something – it gave only 24 hours for submissions, and “would appreciate” nothing more than two pages long.

But South Australia takes the cake for pushing new laws through before anyone has time to react.

Two weeks ago, Premier Peter Malinauskas announced Labor, Liberal, Greens and One Nation parliamentarians all supported his legislation to massively increase the amount of public money going to political parties and MPs while simultaneously banning most political donations. The bill will deliver political parties millions of dollars in extra funding while putting limits on newcomers’ fundraising.

Only once the bill was introduced to the Legislative Council did cracks appear; it was described as “rushed”, “a bit of a leap of faith”, an “election vanity project” and compared to the movie Sophie’s choice.

But no one would vote against it. One day later, it passed the Legislative Council at 11pm, under literal cover of night. It is expected to sail through the Labor-dominated House of Assembly this week.

South Australian parliamentarians have staked their reputations on these dramatic changes, even though the proposed laws have never been tested in a public inquiry. South Australians will become the financiers and underwriters of the political parties. Taxpayers are up for about $15 million-$20 million dollars extra over a four-year electoral cycle.

It is an attractive proposition for the major parties, as it is likely to lock in increased levels of funding for the foreseeable future.

Whether it is so attractive to the South Australian public is unclear.

The proposal is expensive. It comes with no improvements in how democratic or accountable the parties are. The political parties will not have to publish annual reports explaining where the money goes, adopt freedom of information or whistleblowing policies, or be subject to rules we impose on other publicly-funded institutions like art galleries and museums.

Will South Australians think the extra spending is worth a reduction in political donations from vested interests? Maybe – but no one has cared to find out.

The government held one consultation, on an earlier and very different draft of the legislation. SA Attorney-General Kyam Maher has refused to publish the submissions, but later reporting confirms that most submissions that expressed an opinion were negative.

The government took two years to draft a bill. That attempt was undemocratic, unfair, and very possibly unconstitutional. It threw together a revised bill over a few months, but has refused to expose that version to even the perfunctory consultation that the original received.

South Australians got to see the new bill only after Labor, Liberal, Greens and One Nation had all agreed to allow it through it following extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations.

In a Westminster democracy like Australia, major changes to electoral law like those proposed by the Malinauskas and Albanese governments would normally go to a parliamentary inquiry. Concerned citizens would make public submissions, and a committee of interested parliamentarians would consider the evidence and interrogate it in public hearings.

This gives the public confidence that all issues have been considered, forces the executive government to answer to elected representatives and lets parliamentarians satisfy themselves that they understand the laws they are about to vote for.

Given South Australia’s secret consultation went so badly, perhaps it is not surprising that neither state or federal governments have held a public inquiry.

The irony of these laws is that they are intended to increase trust in parliamentarians, but the government does not trust Parliament to hold an inquiry, does not trust the public with the submissions it received, and will not subject its legal advice to public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, political parties and MPs will receive tens of millions of dollars as a direct result of rushing these changes through the parliament. The government is giving more public money to South Australian politicians than they have ever had before – while circumventing its duty to scrutinise this very legislation.

A “crash through” approach to legislation has come to define the Malinauskas government. Last year, anti-protest laws were workshopped live on talkback radio, and passed by the House of Assembly within 48 hours. The universities’ merger is another captain’s pick.

Previous parliaments have also rushed complex legislation, at the expense of democracy and accountability. The 2021 changes to the South Australia’s Independent Commission Against Corruption legislation are a prime example of poor legislative practice, but it appears this government and many of the MPs involved in that debacle have failed to learn any lessons from it.

The one silver lining is that this affair proves that when politicians really want something done, they unite to make it happen. The reviews, inquiries, consultations and all the rest are optional. In this case, it is public money for politicians that gets priority treatment.

South Australians are entitled to ask why issues such as climate action, an end to homelessness or fixing ambulance ramping do not get this type of prioritisation.

The next time a politician tells you it is all too hard, complicated or expensive, or that significant change takes time, it might be worth reminding them that they were able to ram tens of millions of dollars of new funding for political parties through the parliament, with minimal scrutiny or review, in just a few short weeks.

The post If MPs want more public money, they should do their jobs first appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The discrepancy between what the BCA argues and what the data says is due to the reasons behind the BCA’s report. Notionally the report is designed to rank the states in order of places to do business. In reality, it is designed to pressure state governments to reduce taxes and regulations in order to increase the profits of companies.

This is made clear by the criteria – the BCA noted that it “examined planning systems, payroll taxes, property taxes and charges, retail trading hours, workers compensation premiums and licences to do business”. That is, anything that costs businesses is bad regardless of the impact it might have on the community through perhaps better services funded by state revenue.  It concluded that South Australia was the best place to do business and that “this was largely driven by it having lower payroll taxes, lower property charges and less voluminous business licensing.”

The BCA has a very clever media strategy, and its report got wide coverage.

The AFR ran with “The report names Victoria as the worst state or territory to run a business, with its onerous regulations acting against growth and investment on many measures”. The Australian went with “Victoria ranks last for business amid state spending splurge”. The Herald Sun had “Victoria ranked worst state in Australia for business”. Even the ABC swallowed the story whole, running with “Victoria ranked worst for business as Labor debates brand damage in Albanese stronghold”.

After such a blizzard of stories you would think Victoria must be a wasteland of business investment, with companies and businesses fleeing the state for the friendlier climes of New South Wales or South Australia.

And yet the opposite is the case.

Rather than listen to the BCA, journalists would have done better to look at the data provided by the Bureau of Statistics.

In the 2023-24 financial year, new private business investment in Victoria grew 7.2% only behind the strong mining investment of Western Australia. Over the same period, private business investment in NSW grew just 4.8% while in South Australia (the supposed best place to do business) it fell 0.2%.

Clearly a one-year growth figure can involve some cherry-picking. And yet even when we examine the past two financial years, the picture is good for Victoria. Since 2021-22, Victoria’s private business investment has grown 17.9% – the fastest in the country.

Indeed over the period since December 2013 when the then Andrews government took office, business investment growth in Victoria has outpaced that of NSW by 61% to 49%.

If Victoria is such a bad place to do business, you would think businesses would be less willing to invest there!

The lesson is for journalists and other to stop listening to the BCA and its vested interests, and look at the data. The figures don’t lie.

The post Sorry BCA – the data shows businesses like investing in Victoria appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 28 November and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: The Hon Zoe Daniel MP, Independent Member for Goldstein // @zoedaniel

Host: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

Greetings from Trumpland: How an unprecedented presidency changed everything by Zoe Daniel and Roscoe Whalan (March 2021)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Return to Trumpland with Zoe Daniel appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Tasmanian MPs’ rate of pay has been frozen since 2018. Before then the base salary of Tasmanian members of parliament increased annually. It was last increased in July 2018 to $140,185 per year.

Figure 1: Members of parliament base rate of pay 1996-97 to 2023-24

It is up to the Tasmanian Parliament to set MPs rates of pay. Because they have been frozen, Tasmania now has the lowest base salary when compared with other states, territories and the Commonwealth.

Rate of pay if it was indexed

Wages can be linked to the growth in a number of different indexes. Table 1 shows how the base salary of Tasmanian MPs would have increased if it had been linked in five different ways:

• The Australian CPI
• The Hobart CPI
• The Australian WPI
• The WPI for Health care and social assistance
• The minimum wage

Table 1: Tasmanian MPs base rate of pay if they had been indexed

Table 1 shows that Tasmanian MPs would have been paid $178,048 in 2023-24 if their salaries had kept pace with increases to the minimum wage, or $172,070 if they had been indexed in line with Australian CPI.

Figure 2 shows how much higher in dollar terms the base rate of pay of Tasmanian MPs would be if it had been indexed in the ways described above. Indexing base payments to MPs in line with any of these five measures would mean an extra $24,424 and $37,863 per year.

Figure 2: Increase from current wage if pay had been indexed

Freezing MPs’ pay means that their real wage, the amount of goods and services they can buy with their wage, has fallen. Since 2018, MPs’ real wages have fallen by $31,885 or 23%.

The post Tasmanian MPs rate of pay appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The media like to point to Victoria’s debt and deficit but they do so by including government fixed capital investment in the deficit. This might seem to the layperson as perfectly reasonable, but it is not how accounting works in the private sector and it presents a distorted picture of the state of the budget.

Including capital investment in a similar manner would, for example, see BHP’s 2024 profit drop from its declared US$20.7 billion to a marginal US$0.2 billion. Many other profitable companies would be in deficit were their budgets measured in the same way that now has the media suggesting the Victorian state finances are in deep trouble.

In 2022-23 (the latest year of ABS data), Victoria’s general government sector actually made a profit (net cash flow from operating activities) of $4.0 billion. Victoria’s budget papers also show a $1.4 billion surplus from operating activities in 2023-24.

The problem is that when the deficits reported in the media include Victoria’s investments it makes it seem like such things are bad. However, if BHP (or other companies) invests in new plants, it is generally accepted that that is a good decision – something that increases capacity and productivity. But, according to the media, if Victoria invests in infrastructure and other capital it adds to the deficit and is thus axiomatically a bad thing.

We need to be much more honest about how we report government debt. Most home buyers for example know they are getting into debt when they buy a house – indeed they are getting into more debt than they likely ever will in their entire life. But these people know that having their own home is worth going into debt. They will be paying it off as they use it. The same situation occurs with Victoria’s “debt”. Victoria’s roads, schools and hospitals will be used while the debt is paid off. Those schools, roads and hospitals (and other infrastructure) also add to Victoria’s economic potential and improve the lives of Victorians.

And importantly, Victoria is not going “broke”. Victoria now has assets of $412.9 billion, much higher than its total liabilities of $177.5 billion giving Victoria a net worth of $235.4 billion. Yes, liabilities have increased – but so too has Victoria’s net worth. Victoria’s public net worth increased 24% from 2020-21 to 2022-23 – nearly 3 times the level of inflation in the Victorian economy over that period.

Even better, from 2020-21 to 2023-24, Victoria’s economy grew faster than every other state – up 12% compared to NSW’s 8.1% growth and the 9.4% growth of Australia’s GDP.

This is hardly an economy or state budget in crisis, and it is time some more rational and common-sense reporting reflected that.

The post Sorry media, neither Victoria’s budget nor its economy is in bad shape appeared first on The Australia Institute.

It finds that wealthy, coastal areas of major cities are generally less vulnerable to extreme heat than inland suburbs, and that rural areas are generally more vulnerable than urban areas.

Extreme heat is the number one cause of weather-related illness and death in all parts of Australia, except Tasmania, and Australians on low incomes who are older and/or have a long-term health issue are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat.

Doctors for the Environment Australia say the research is a vital tool which will help governments to save lives.

Key findings:

• The top 10 locations most vulnerable to extreme heat are: Mt. Isa (QLD), Katherine (NT), Charters Towers (QLD), Broken Hill (NSW), Barcaldine – Blackall (QLD), Port Pirie (SA), Alligator (NT), Humpty Doo (NT), Mildura (North) (VIC), and Derby (WA). Half of these are in Queensland and the Northern Territory.
• The states and territories most vulnerable to extreme heat are the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. In the Northern Territory, 78% of locations are highly vulnerable to extreme heat, as are 57% of locations in South Australia and 52% of locations in Western Australia.
• In all major cities, outer suburban locations are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat than inner-city and coastal locations.
• By 2025, the Northern Territory will experience an estimated 232 days of extreme heat (over 35°C) every year.

“Climate change is exacerbating existing inequalities and disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable Australians. We need policies – on climate and social services – that reduce this inequality,” said Morgan Harrington, Research Manager at The Australia Institute.

“Immediate and targeted action on climate change, including phasing out the use of fossil fuels, will help slow the rate at which Australia warms. Reducing fossil fuel subsidies could free up resources to help fund initiatives to lessen inequality, including by providing support to vulnerable people during heatwaves.”

“We still have choice. We can take climate action now to avoid the number of extreme heat days from increasing, or we can deal with the consequences later.”

“Heat is a fast-emerging health crisis,” said Dr Kate Wylie, Executive Director of Doctors for the Environment Australia and Adelaide-based GP.

“Dangerous heat places extra strain on our bodies and leads to increasing hospitalisations and deaths.

“Those who are hit the hardest are older people, babies, pregnant women, people with chronic medical conditions, such as heart, lung and kidney diseases, as well as those living in poorly insulated homes, in areas with little shade, people in cities and renters.

“This Australia Institute report is a needed resource for identifying areas where the most vulnerable Australians will be affected by extreme heat, and it will save lives.

“The report is also a potent reminder that the world is getting ever hotter and that we must reduce the temperature to protect our health. To do this we must phase out fossil fuels, which are the major drivers of worsening climate change and the hotter more chaotic weather we’re seeing in Australia and around the world.”

The post Extreme heat fans flames of inequality appeared first on The Australia Institute.

White-collar crime weakens Australia’s social fabric, subverts our democracy, and distorts our economy. Corporate scandals – from the financial misconduct revealed by the Banking Royal Commission to the PwC tax scandal, to revelations of corporate wage theft and tax evasion –demonstrate white-collar crime remains common and widespread.

White-collar crimes are often hidden and hard to detect. For example, consumers may never find out that a secret price-fixing cartel has kept product prices artificially high. Whistleblowing, the act of revealing information about illegal or unethical behaviour of an organisation, brings covert conduct into the open where it can be detected, prosecuted, and deterred. And when whistleblowing is encouraged, trust between conspirators breaks down because they know that co-conspirators or bystanders have an incentive to expose their wrongdoing.

Australia has strengthened protections and supports for private-sector whistleblowers. However, these policies remain inadequate and whistleblowing in Australia is still a personally costly and risky act.

The Australia Institute originally proposed creating a whistleblower rewards system in 2003 and has done so again in 2024.

The United States has several whistleblower rewards systems that have reduced white-collar misconduct including financial crimes, fraud, and foreign corruption. The most successful, the False Claims Act, criminalises knowingly submitting false claims to the federal government.

Whistleblowers, including the employees or ex-employees of a company defrauding the government, can sue on behalf of the government. If the suit is successful, the whistleblower can receive 15 to 30% of recovered proceeds. As shown in the chart above, the False Claims Act has recovered nearly US$53 billion since 1986 with whistleblowers receiving nearly US$9 billion in rewards.

The largest whistleblower reward ever awarded was US$279 million (AU$400 million), related to a legal settlement of US$1.1 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal this related to the telecommunications giant Ericsson over “allegations it conspired to make illegal payments to win business in five countries”.

Implementing a whistleblower rewards system would provide regulators with a new and effective tool in reducing white-collar crime across Australia. Such a system would pay for itself many times over. By reducing the prevalence of white-collar crime, a whistleblower rewards system would help rebuild Australia’s damaged social fabric, enhance the integrity of its economy, and help ensure democracy is not undermined by corporate misbehaviour.

The post An Australian whistleblower rewards scheme could reduce white-collar crime while raising billions in revenue appeared first on The Australia Institute.

These rising costs are likely to intersect with and amplify inequality between Australian states. There are substantial economic and social inequalities between Australian states, notably by some metrics Australia’s richest state (Western Australia) is about twice as prosperous as South Australia and Tasmania, even when population differences are considered.

According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics the average earnings for someone with a bachelor’s degree is about $80,000 in South Australia, $83,700 in Tasmania, and above $90,000 in all other states. While graduate earnings differ, university is not any less expensive in Hobart and Adelaide than elsewhere: a three-year arts degree is likely to cost about $50,000 at the University of Sydney, the University of Adelaide, and the University of Tasmania.

Differences in earnings between states mean that these degrees are likely to take far longer to pay off for Tasmanians and South Australians. In simple terms, comparing HECS repayments for someone on average earnings with the size of a $50,000 student debt, it will take South Australians and Tasmanians about 15 years to repay this debt, around five years longer than those in the other states.

This is inequality has been amplified by the expanding cost of degrees, particularly the Morrison government’s decision to drastically increase the cost of popular degrees such as arts. If these student debts are closer to $20,000, as was the case before the Morrison reforms, it would only take South Australians and Tasmanians around six years to repay, only two years longer than the other states. All of these rough figures optimistically assume that graduates are able to find appropriate work in their home state at this average earnings level.

Given the consistently high cost of university and significant differences in graduate earnings across the country, it is unsurprising that South Australian and Tasmanian university graduates often migrate to other states for work. Unfortunately, these ‘brain drains’ may expand interstate inequality.

When skilled workers move from less to more prosperous states, it can help boost productivity and economic growth in their new state while leaving skill shortages behind in their home states.

The Government has announced a range of reforms to the HECS system, including wiping 20% of existing student debts and adjustments to HECS repayments. While these reforms will deliver necessary relief, they do little to address the underlying cause of ballooning student debts: the expensive cost of university education.

While the Government has announced it is working on plans to adjust the cost of university degrees, few specific details have yet been announced. Hopefully, these plans help reduce rather than exacerbate interstate inequalities.

The post The time taken to pay off HECS is worsening the inequality between the states appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 27 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Welcome to Trump’s trade war – where no one wins because everyone just pays more for things’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (November 2024)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Making America pay appeared first on The Australia Institute.

You might expect that our politicians would be concerned by the fact that all their policies fail. Instead, the government rammed two new housing affordability bills through the parliament yesterday which are more of the same.

The best you can say about the government’s two new policies is that they will have no impact on the housing market.

The list of policies that both sides of politics have claimed will fix the problem is long. First home buyer grants, government support for social and affordable housing, first home buyers accessing super to buy a home, plus many, many more.

All the while anger is growing as house prices keep rising.

There are two things you can do to make something cheaper. You can increase supply or decrease demand. Or both. If there is a bumper crop of apples (more supply), then the price of apples goes down. When fewer people wanted to buy DVDs (less demand) the price of DVDs went down.

The first problem is many of these policies don’t increase supply or decrease demand. In fact, some of them do the opposite.

The various first-home-buyer grants gave first-home buyers more money to buy a house (increase demand). They all show up the auction and bid up the price of homes making them more expensive.

The Coalition’s plan to allow first-home buyers to access their super will act like a super-charged first-home-buyer grant. While they claim it is a policy designed to help people buy their own home, it will actually lock more people out of home ownership and strip super from those that do manage to get in.

In the last few years there has been much more focus on increasing the supply of housing with calls for state governments to loosen planning regulations to increase density, particularly around transport hubs. So, can we build our way out of this affordability crisis?

Increasing supply will help make housing cheaper, but housing supply is not the cause of the affordability crisis, and it will be difficult to build our way out of it.

But, ‘wait’, I hear you say, hasn’t all the talk been that we’re not building enough homes to keep up with the increase in population?

It might surprise people to know that over the last 12 years the number of homes has been growing faster than the population. Since 2011 the population has increased 21% while the number of homes has increased 24%. The supply of homes is increasing faster than the population.

If it isn’t a lack of homes, what has caused the affordability crisis?

The problem is on the demand side. Over the past 20 years there has been a big increase in investment demand for housing. Compared to first home buyers, investors are more likely to be richer and have higher incomes.

They have flooded into the housing market biding up the price and locking people out of the market.

What caused the rush of investors? It was the interaction of two tax concessions, negative gearing and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount.

In 1999 the then Howard Government introduced a 50% discount on the tax of capital gains. That means that if you owned an investment property for more than 12 months you got half the capital gain tax free.

This meant selling a house for more than you bought it was a great way to earn income. Negative gearing meant you could afford to bid up the price of houses and make a loss because you could write the loss off on tax.

Every home where an investor beats out an owner occupier means one less homeowner and one more renter. For people who can buy a home, the higher prices have meant bigger mortgages, paying more in repayments, and having less to spend on everything else.

The solution is to cut back negative gearing and the CGT discount. This will reduce investor demand for housing and make housing cheaper. It will also raise billions in extra revenue that can be used to build more houses, increasing supply.

The Labor Party know that cracking down on investor tax concessions will make housing more affordable, they took exactly this policy to the 2019 election. What they fear is the Coalition running a scare campaign against them.

But what both the major parties should fear is the growing anger of those trapped out of home ownership and those burdened with massive mortgages. More phony housing affordability policies that do nothing to fix the problem will only fuel voter disenchantment.

The post Two new housing policies, both doomed to fail appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Scientific evidence shows salmon farming operations are the primary risk and ‘almost certain’ to be ‘catastrophic’ to the skate.

The Australia Institute commissioned polling by Dynata, which surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,009 Australians between 13 and 15 November 2024 about their attitudes towards fish farming in Macquarie Harbour where it is putting the endangered Maugean skate at risk of extinction. The margin of error is ±3%.

Key findings:

• Nearly three in five Australians (58%) support stopping fish farming in areas where it is putting the endangered Maugean skate at risk of extinction. One in six (17%) oppose. This is similar to the 61% who supported this in 2023. The same proportion of Australians (17%) opposed the measure in 2023.
• The majority of Australians across all voting intentions, except One Nation voters, support stopping fish farming in areas where it is putting the Maugean skate at risk of extinction. Support is highest among Greens voters (74%), followed by Labor (58%) and Coalition (54%) voters.

“Saturday marks 12 months since the review of fish farming in Macquarie Harbour began. A decision from Minister Plibersek is urgently needed if we are to prevent the extinction of Maugean skate in its only home and return the harbour’s ecosystem to health,” said Eloise Carr, Director, Australia Institute Tasmania.

“After a year of waiting, our research shows that Australians support what the science is telling us we need to do: stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. A majority of voters from across the political spectrum support this.

“This is a matter of national environmental significance, not only because the endangered skate is protected under national environmental law, but also because it is one of the natural values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. A third of the harbour is World Heritage. What happens to the skate and the health of the harbour is of global significance.

“Numerous Tasmanian polls show more than 7 in 10 Tasmanians want fish farms out of sensitive inshore waters, now this survey confirms Australians also want action on this matter of national environmental significance.”

“The science could not be clearer. Top Australian independent scientists have confirmed this to Minister Plibersek. Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour has been identified by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as the key threatening process for the endangered Maugean skate. The best available evidence concludes unacceptable impacts from salmon farming are occurring.

“The Minister’s own Department has advised her that fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is ‘almost certain’ to have a ‘catastrophic’ impact on Maugean skate and should have been removed before last summer.”

“National environment law requires a decision from federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek ‘as soon as practicable’ on the reconsideration of the 2012 decision that allowed large scale salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. The Minister has had 12 months to make that decision, yet we still do not have an outcome.”

The post Tide of public opinion supports stopping fish farming in Macquarie Harbour appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The changes would significantly benefit Labor and the Coalition, giving them a huge financial advantage over independents and minor party candidates seeking a seat in the Australian Parliament.

The Australia Institute petition, launched just over a week ago, states:

Trust in our democracy is embedded in strong electoral laws and processes.

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill risks undermining this trust by being unfair, rushed, and shrouded in secrecy.

We call on you to immediately establish a parliamentary inquiry, with public hearings, to assess the proposed changes to Australia’s electoral laws.

This must happen before major changes to Australian electoral law are put to Parliament for a vote.

The petition has attracted more than 18,000 signatures.

In the past, even small changes to our electoral system have been scrutinised by a parliamentary committee. Petitioners agree that should happen before these proposed changes are passed.

“The integrity of Australian elections is too important for the Albanese government’s proposed changes to be rushed through without scrutiny, including a thorough parliamentary inquiry,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“Politicians voting together to give political parties more money will reduce trust in government unless the public is included in the process.

“The legislation has been public for less than two weeks, but politicians have already spotted loopholes to get around the donation cap. The Australia Institute also identifies major issues around how the spending cap is applied and the taxpayer-funded windfall for the major parties.

“A delay until February or after the next election leaves time for an inquiry with public contributions on a fair and democratic funding model for Australian politics.”

The post Electoral reform impasse provides opportunity for real scrutiny – which voters demand appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 26 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Sign the Australia Institute petition, calling on the Government to establish a parliamentary inquiry, with public hearings, to assess the proposed changes to Australia’s electoral laws.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website. Pre-order by 1 December and save $5 on the RRP.

Guest: The Hon Helen Haines MP, Independent Member for Indi // @helenhainesindi

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post The major party stitch-up with Helen Haines appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The big reasons for the decline in price growth are that inflation across the world has slowed – and Australia is very much part of the world economy – and because the government sought to reduce prices by introducing an electricity rebate.

The drop in electricity prices has been dramatic.

In October the amount of electricity that in June last year would now have cost $100 now just cost $69.83. And while that is significant enough, had there not been the Commonwealth government rebate and the other state rebates in WA, Tasmania and Queensland, the average cost of that $100 worth of electricity would be $116.

In essence, the actions of state and federal governments have knocked 40% off the average cost of electricity bills across the county.

That is no small thing.

It serves to remind everyone that governments do actually have a vital role to play in combatting inflation.

Higher interest rates reduce the amount of income households have to spend and thus slow the economy and reduce demand. But in a situation like we currently find ourselves, where households are already spending less than they normally would and company profits and supply-side issues have mostly driven price rises, higher interest rates only slow the economy while having little impact on inflation.

When people are affected by higher prices due to things outside their control and also at a time when their wages are failing to keep pace, the right thing is for governments to act to ease the burden.

The government’s decision to implement the electricity rebate was a sensible economic policy that has directly helped people, and also achieved its aim of reducing the overall level of inflation.

It is just another reason why the RBA should cut rates next month. Inflation should not be left to the RBA, and at the moment, the high interest rates is only hurting people and doing little actual benefit.

The post The latest figures show governments can (and should) reduce inflation appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Approval would expose WA’s domestic gas market to global gas prices, repeating the policies that have created havoc in east coast markets. This would permanently increase both gas and electricity bills for households and businesses in WA.

“Woodside is asking for a 50-year extension of one of the largest fossil fuel projects in the world,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“This decision would add billions of tonnes of emissions into our atmosphere, making heatwaves, droughts and floods more frequent and extreme in WA and the rest of the world.

“If the WA Government caves into lobbying from the gas industry it will expose WA consumers to global prices.

“This would be a repeat of the mistake of east coast governments a decade ago that led to chaos in east coast markets.

“Western Australian households and businesses will pay with higher energy bills for decades if the government kowtows to Woodside.”

The post WA Labor approval of Woodside North West Shelf extension would permanently increase energy bills appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key findings:

• The proposed laws have not been the subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry. These are normal for even minor changes to electoral laws, and these changes are among the largest ever in the state.
• The South Australian government conducted a secret, internal consultation; later reporting confirmed that the majority of submissions it received were opposed to the proposed laws.
• The government’s independent review recommended administrative funding be decreased, from $1.4 million a year for each major party to $1.2 million. Instead, it was increased to $1.6 million.
• This alone gives Labor and Liberal an additional $3.2 million every four years.
• The proposed laws increase major party administrative funding in South Australia by 66 times compared to 10 years ago.
• The proposed laws introduce “nominated entities” to grandfather in assets of major parties.
• There is no principled reason for the special allowance for parties with exactly two MPs; it exists only to paper over the fundamental problems with a per-MP funding model.

“Behind Premier Malinauskas’ proposed ban on most political donations is around $18 million in new taxpayer funding for political parties and candidates; the vast majority goes to the two major parties,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“This legislation will make election campaigns and politicking in South Australia bigger and more expensive than ever – but with the public picking up most of the tab.

“In the house of review, parliamentarians described these dramatic changes to South Australian democracy as ‘rushed’, ‘a bit of a leap of faith’, an ‘election vanity project’, ‘Hobson’s choice’ and ‘Sophie’s choice’. That should set off alarm bells that this risky experiment needs to be rethought.

“The South Australian Parliament should test the robustness of this proposal through a Parliamentary Inquiry, at the very least.

“Trust is earned, and South Australia’s parliamentarians can earn public trust by subjecting new money for politicians to the same scrutiny as they would any other law.”

The post South Australian electoral experiment deserves much closer scrutiny appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The report also reveals Australians grossly overestimate what some of our biggest polluters really contribute to the economy, in terms of tax, royalties and employment in Australia.

Overall, voters believe the government is not doing enough to combat climate change, especially when it comes to verifying and explaining claims of “net zero” or “carbon neutrality”.

Key findings:

• 70% of Australians support a polluter-pays mechanism
• 50% think the government is not doing enough to tackle climate change
• 70% say gas companies should pay royalties on the gas they extract and sell
• Australians think gas and oil companies pay 55 more tax (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, aimed at making companies pay for the natural resources they extract and sell) than they actually pay
• 52% of Australian oppose subsidies for the expansion of the coal, oil and gas industries
• Three quarters (75%) of Australians believe the nation’s climate policy should be based on best-practice science, free from industry influence
• Almost two-thirds (64%) want credible action to address fossil fuel production – in line with a commitment made at COP28 – if Australia is to co-host the COP31 summit in 2026

“Politicians seem to think the cost-of-living crisis has led to voters to take their eyes off the ball when it comes to climate change. This report proves that is not the case,” said Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director of The Australia Institute.

“Even though Australians are doing it tough with high interest rates, high prices and high inflation, a huge majority still want meaningful action on climate change and believe governments are not doing enough.

“The Climate of the Nation report has repeatedly shown the vast majority of Australians want our biggest polluters to pay for the damage they do.

“They think gas and oil companies pay huge amounts of tax and employ huge numbers of people. This could not be further from the truth. While these wealthy multi-nationals make huge profits selling Australia’s natural resources overseas, many pay little or no company tax.

“Australians want governments to listen to the science and take action to protect the environment, not protect those making huge profits destroying the environment.”

The post Pay up: Australians say it’s time big polluters paid for the damage they do to the environment appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Growing your own helps cut down waste during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, with almost two thirds of growers composting or worm farming, preventing mountains of food waste from ending up in landfill.

On Tuesday November 26, Australia’s favourite gardener, Costa Georgiades, will join independent MP Sophie Scamps, along with representatives from The Australia Institute and Grow it Local to launch Grow Your Own 2024 – Growing food to feel better, eat better and help the planet.

Please join us for a symbolic seed-planting and media conference in the Senate Courtyard at 9:45am.

The groundbreaking new research found:

• 45% of Australians now grow their own food.
• The most common reasons for growing food are to access healthy food (69%) and to save money (60%).
• Of those who do grow their own food, 84% grow vegetables and 55% grow fruit trees/herbs.
• 67% of growers also compost food waste or have their own worm farm. That saves 361,000 tonnes – the equivalent of seven Sydney Harbour Bridges – from going into landfill.
• Of those who don’t grow their own food, around two-thirds say they’d like to, but don’t have the space or knowledge to do so.
• Victorians (48%) lead the nation when it comes to growing their own food, followed by Queensland (43%), WA (41%) and NSW (38%).
• The health benefits are not just physical. More than two thirds of people who grown their own food say it makes them happier and more relaxed.
• Nearly half (49%) of growers say they eat more fresh produce as a result of growing their own food.

“One of the best things you can do for your health and for the health of the planet is to grow your own food,” said Dr Sophie Scamps, Federal Member for Mackellar.

“Getting active in the garden is great for both mental and physical wellbeing, and homegrown, pesticide-free fruit and veggies are tastier, boost your health and trim your budget.

“It also cuts down plastic and transport pollution. My prescription for a healthy family and planet is to grow your own food.”

“Don’t underestimate the power of growing small amounts of food in large numbers,” said Costa Georgiadis, National Patron of Grow It Local.

“It connects us to nature, to our communities and to ourselves.

“Growing food is equal doses of nature, nutrition and mental wellbeing. It’s good for the body, mind and soul.”

“Growing your own food is a great way to access fresh produce and promote health, relaxation and happiness,” said Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director of The Australia Institute.

“We’ve found that people who start growing food develop a greater appreciation for food and waste less,” said Paul West, Grow It Local Co-Founder.

The post Millions of Australians plant a seed for a healthy life and a healthy planet appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 21 November and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Ruth Mitchell, Board Chair, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War // @drruthmitchell

Host: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

Risky Business: An update on super funds and nuclear weapons by Rosemary Kelly and Margaret Beavis (September 2024)

Super-powered nukes: Aussie funds and weapons of mass destruction, Follow the Money (October 2024)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

Subscribe for regular updates from the Australia Institute.

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post The worm kingdom appeared first on The Australia Institute.

In a report released in July, the Human Rights Law Centre found there had been 49 laws passed over the last two decades eroding Australians’ right to protest – many aimed at those protesting inaction on climate change.

The Australia Institute polling reveals voters from all parties agree that peaceful protest has a right to play in our democracy, including 79% of Labor voters, 75% of Coalition voters and 73% of One Nation voters.

Key findings

• Seven in 10 Australians (71%) support federal legislation to protect the right to peaceful protest
• Four in five of those aged 18–29 (80%) support legislation protecting the right to protest
• Four in five Australians (79%) agree peaceful protest has a role to play in Australia’s democracy

“Peaceful protest has an essential role to play in democracy and it played a major role in helping women win the right to vote, ending Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War and protecting significant parts of Australia’s history and culture such as The Rocks,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“It is clear that a majority of Australians support the right to peaceful protest, even if they don’t always agree with each individual protest.

“The Australian Parliament and police forces should make clear their support for the right to peaceful protest rather than simply provide commentary on individual protests and protesters they do not agree with.

“Vocal opposition to peaceful environmental protesters and strategic silence about other protests is no way to protect the rights of Australians or our fragile democratic culture.”

The post Australians overwhelmingly support the right to peaceful protest appeared first on The Australia Institute.

It finds that restrictive visa settings are at the root of the many cases of exploitation. This includes the fact that PALM workers are not allowed to leave their employer without approval from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR). These employers are allowed to make deductions from the wages of PALM workers, which means they are sometimes left with just $100-$200 per week.

Over two years, IARC participated in a series of forums for migrant workers engaged in supplying Australia’s two major supermarkets with fruit and vegetables. IARC also regularly advises PALM workers referred to the service as a result of experiencing workplace exploitation.

Key findings

• PALM workers are regularly threatened with deportation by their employer, which underscores the lack of information they receive about their visa status and workplace rights.
• PALM workers in Bundaberg, QLD, were unable to meet basic living standards, leading them to sleep rough and line up at soup kitchens.
• In the Riverina region of NSW, most PALM workers that had ‘disengaged’ from the scheme had left their employer as a result of exploitation.

The report, entitled ‘Preventing Migrant Worker Exploitation in Australia’, was prepared for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Professor Tomoya Obokata, who is in Australia on a two week visit that will end with a press conference in Canberra on November 27.

Key recommendations

• All visa holders (including PALM visa holders) should be free to change employers without jeopardising their visa pathway.
• Migrant workers wishing to stay in Australia long-term should be able to apply for permanent residency without needing to be sponsored by an employer.
• Specialist immigration community legal centres should receive greater funding to advise exploited migrant workers on their immigration options and workplace rights.

The report and its recommendations build on research by The Australia Institute, which found:

• The number of PALM workers who are injured or die whilst in Australia is increasing. Between 2020 and 2023, there were 233 critical injuries and 45 deaths.
• PALM visa holders often pay more in tax than Australians doing the same work.
• Many PALM visa holders find it almost impossible to access their superannuation once they leave Australia.

On a recent visit to Australia as a guest of The Australia Institute, Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos-Horta said the PALM visa system was exploitative and needed urgent reform.

“PALM workers come to Australia to work, and to provide a better life for their families back home, but too often Australia fails them,” said Joshua Strutt, CEO and Principal Solicitor of IARC.

“Many PALM workers endure shocking exploitation at the hands of Australian employers, including severe workplace injuries, horrendous living conditions, and significant underpayments.

“We have seen PALM workers who have gone blind and lost limbs in Australian workplaces due to not being provided with proper safety equipment or medical care. The PALM visa scheme is complicit in this exploitation as it forces people into working for these employers and makes it almost impossible to leave.”

“The PALM program subjects people from Pacific Island nations and East Timor to conditions that would be illegal for other workers,” said Morgan Harrington, Research Manager at The Australia Institute.

“If our government is genuine about forging partnerships with our neighbours then the program needs to provide genuine opportunities.”

The post Visa rules risk modern slavery for Pacific workers appeared first on The Australia Institute.

In one of his most recent columns for the Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist and author Will Bunch highlighted a quote a top aide to former US President George W. Bush gave to journalist Ron Suskind in 2004.

The context was the Iraqi invasion and the war on terror.  Suskind reported the aide, widely believed to be Karl Rove (which Rove denies) told him:

“…that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community’,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore”.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Bunch dug up the quote to remind readers that trying to discern rationality and structure around the irrational and erratic was a pointless exercise that only served bad faith actors who were actively shaping new realities that only served them.

The wider point? Don’t get distracted by the individuals.  Target the systems they operate in.

It’s a good reminder.  As political pundits continue to argue over identity politics (and truly, what does that even mean – everyone has an ‘identity’, even the ‘quiet’ Australians the Coalition like to centre) and the merits of individual decisions, the very systems that dictate your life escape scrutiny.

It’s why it is so important to maintain the rage – and direct it at the systems that prop up the individuals who so infuriate you.  Because if there is one thing politicians know how to do, it’s how to navigate those systems and use them to further their own agendas, rather than yours.

They know you don’t have time to look into the intricacies of legislation, or regulation changes, and therefore rely on 30 second sound bites selling changes to stay informed.

Like the electoral changes the government – with help from the Coalition – is rushing through the parliament.

The strategy is very similar to that deployed in South Australia, where equally significant changes were also rushed through without any public scrutiny.  That bill was described as “a grand experiment”, “Sophie’s choice”, “fraught with anomalies” and “being concerned about voting in favour of the leopard that eats your face off” – even by politicians who ended up voting for it.

The federal electoral changes proposed by the Albanese government, with the Coalition in the driver’s seat over whether or not they pass, do nothing to make the electoral playing field fairer.  In fact, quite the opposite – it will make it harder for independent and new minor party candidates to enter the parliament.

Bill Browne, the Director of the Democracy & Accountability program at the Australia Institute says the rush to pass the new laws could hinder people’s (already fragile) trust in democracy, not enhance it (as was the alleged aim).

And look, yes, there are some good things in there.  The bill widens the definition of ‘gift’ to include payments to attend fundraising events and functions, lowers the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 and introduces real time disclosure laws – so you should find out who is financially supporting political candidates and parties a lot sooner.

There’s also a provision similar to the mega-donor cap that the Australia Institute proposed last year, to stop any one millionaire or billionaire from having too much influence.

But overall, it seems designed to entrench the two-party system.  Under this legislation, the major parties and incumbents have a pretty big leg up over independents and other new entrants when it comes to election spending and donations – and the major parties are getting ready to wrap it all up and put a bow on it, without any outside scrutiny.

The Special Minister of State, Don Farrell said he had done “extensive consultation” on the bill.  Independent senator David Pocock who met with Farrell in June on the issue and was told he had no information, requested Farrell tell the Senate who he met with since July.

On Thursday, Farrell sent Pocock the list. In August Farrell met with independent MPs Helen Haines and Rebekha Sharkie.  In September he met with Liberal senator Jane Hume, Ed Cavanough from the McKell Institute, and AEC Commissioner Tom Rogers.  In October, Farrell held meetings with Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes-a-Court and the AEC deputy commissioner. And earlier this month, ahead of introducing the bill, Farrell met with the ALP National Secretary Paul Erickson and then cabinet ministers Tony Burke, Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher.  And that’s the entire list.

The false sense of urgency around this bill doesn’t make sense.  None of the measures will be in place for the next election.  But if voting trends continue, and people continue to abandon the major parties in favour of more diversity in their representatives, they’ll have to look a lot harder to hear those different voices.

Because they’ll be outgunned in electoral spending, fundraising and even the ability to enhance name recognition.  It’s not fair.  And it’s certainly not enhancing democracy.

It’s not too late to have your voice heard – sign the Australia Institute’s petition demanding the parliament send these major electoral changes to a parliamentary committee for scrutiny.

After all – this is your democracy.  You have the greatest right to be heard in all of this. You have told us you don’t want these important systemic changes to be rushed.  Now tell them.

Remember, keep your eye on the systems and what changes they are trying to make and focus your energy there.  Because nothing motivates politicians more than an informed voter.  Use that power.

And as always – take care of you.

— Amy Remeikis, Communications Specialist at the Australia Institute 

The Big Stories

Good COP, Bad COP

The Australian Government has made no secret of its desire to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference in partnership with Pacific Island Countries in 2026 (COP31), to “help restore Australia’s reputation” on climate.

Last year at COP28, parties to the Paris Agreement, including Australia, signed an agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels with Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen saying that “…all nations of the world have acknowledged the reality that our future is in clean energy, and the age of fossil fuels will end.”

It remains to be seen if we’ll be any better than the host of the currently wrapping-up COP29, Azerbaijan, who has called gas and oil a ‘gift of the gods’ and has used the conference to procure deals on fossil fuels.

Pacific Island countries have repeatedly called for Australia to end its fossil fuel addiction. To be a credible co-host of a Pacific COP31 and follow through with the promise made at COP28 the Australian Government would at the very least;

• Announce an end to fossil fuel subsidies by 2026
• Announce it will not approve any new coal or gas projects by 2026
• Announce significantly increased funding for Pacific countries to better address the impacts of climate change they face

Read more >

Go Home on Time Day

Despite new Right to Disconnect laws coming into force earlier this year, new research reveals Australians are still working an average of five weeks’ unpaid overtime each year.

Each year, the Centre for Future Work publishes a report for Go Home on Time Day, showing the extent of unpaid overtime in Australia.

This year’s report shows that, while the situation has improved, the average worker performs 3.6 hours of unpaid overtime each week. If the average worker was paid for the real hours they worked, they’d be almost $300 per fortnight better off, with an extra $7,713 in their pockets each year.

Read more >

Eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change Australian elections

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 is over 200 pages of complicated and technical changes to how democracy works in this country. It passed the House of Representatives just two days after it was first made public.

This has all happened unusually fast. Even parliamentarians and political scientists are struggling to get their heads around what would change and what it would mean for Australian democracy.

Here are eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change elections, and eight ideas for how to improve it, from Bill Browne, the Australia Institute’s Director of Democracy & Accountability.

Read more >

Last chance to preorder our book and save!

To mark The Australia Institute’s 30 years of big ideas, we have asked some of our good friends and leading thinkers from Australia and around the world to share a big idea for a better Australia.

In our first 30 years, The Australia Institute has shown how to make the impossible feel inevitable, and the radical seem reasonable. The works in this inspiring volume serve as a reminder that the solutions are there, Australia just needs the courage to implement them.

This week is your last chance to preorder your copy and save $5 off the sticker price!

The Win

The UK has announced a new emissions reduction target: 81% below 1990 levels by 2025.

The Guardian reports that this shows the Australian government should set an ambitious climate target that will quickly drive investment and create clean industries.

Read more >

The Bin

When questioned about her voting against a ceasefire in Gaza, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said “It’s not good…if we don’t have a positive relationship with the US.”

Do we really want our elected MPs to make decisions for us based on appeasing the US, instead of acting in Australia’s interests?

Watch >

The Quote

“This is what and who the Australian government is tying our security, and our agency, to. And Musk. And Gaetz. And RFK. And Hegseth. And Miller. And Noem.”

– Dr Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs at the Australia Institute

Donald Trump is wasting no time in setting up his administration and it should come as no surprise that some of his picks for key positions of power are drawn straight from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.

As Emma Shortis told The New Daily this week, Trump’s efforts to distance himself from its radical agenda were always unconvincing.

This has big implications for Australia. Navigating the inevitable crises and internal warfare that will characterize this administration, as it attempts to implement its radical agenda, will be about a lot more than just ‘managing’ Trump. The Australian government will soon have some very important choices to make about the future of Australian security.

Read more >

Podcasts

The uninsurables: how climate change is pricing people out of home insurance | Follow the Money

Walkley Award-winning journalist Stephen Long joins Alice Grundy to discuss climate change, skyrocketing premiums and the serious impact they’re having on inequality.

Listen now:

Standing up to Trump with Malcolm Turnbull | After America

Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s 29th Prime Minister, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss why sucking up to Trump will get Australian leaders nowhere and how the AUKUS “shocker” is making Australia more dependent on the United States, right at the time America is becoming less dependable.

Listen now:

All I want for Christmas… | Dollars & Sense

…is an interest rate cut, says Greg Jericho.

Listen now:

What’s On

Unparliamentary with Rachel Withers | 1pm AEDT, Tuesday 26 November

Unpack the big political and policy issues at Unparliamentary with Rachel Withers, freelance journalist and commentator.

Free, RSVP >

Policy School: Fossil fuel subsidies | 11am AEDT, Thursday 28 November

Ending fossil fuel subsidies should be the first order for any government serious about fairness and climate action. Join Australia Institute Research Director Rod Campbell to discuss what these subsidies are, why they still exist and what can be done about them.

Free, RSVP >

Climate obligations on trial | 11am AEDT, Tuesday 3 December

How is Australia representing itself on the global stage on climate? Join the Australia Institute and Greenpeace Australia Pacific to analyse Australia’s testimony to the International Court of Justice over a landmark UN resolution on our obligations under international law to protect the climate.

Free, RSVP >

The post Donations for me but not for thee | Between the Lines appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 21 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Australia took its interest rate medicine – and it has poisoned our living standards’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (November 2024)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Small change for Big Cash appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The winner will be announced on Saturday, 30th November at the 40th Annual Stanleys Awards at Old Parliament House.

This year’s shortlisted cartoons are as follows:

Megan Herbert

Judy Horacek

Glen Le Lievre

David Pope

David Rowe

Congratulations to the shortlisted cartoonists!

The 40th Stanley Awards and two-day conference will be held in Canberra, November 29-30. See the full list of events and book your tickets here.

The post Shortlist for the Australia Institute Climate Cartoon Award appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 is over 200 pages of complicated and technical changes to how democracy works in this country. It passed the House of Representatives last night – just two days after it was first made public – but it is the Senate, the house of review, that will decide whether it becomes law.

This has all happened unusually fast. Even parliamentarians and political scientists are struggling to get their heads around what would change and what it would mean for Australian democracy.

Here are eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change elections, and eight ideas for how to improve it.

1. There would be more public funding of incumbent parties and politicians

In Australia, parties and candidates receive about $3 per vote they receive. Everyone casts two votes – one for the House of Representatives and one for the Senate – so every election you decide how about $6 of taxpayer money is distributed.

Because parties and candidates get this money after the votes are counted, it only benefits those who are contesting the next election. A new party or candidate doesn’t get any money for their first campaign.

This bill would increase per-vote public funding to $5 per vote. This will cost another $41 million per three-year election cycle, with about three-quarters (75%, or $32 million) going to major parties.

How could this be improved?

By redirecting the taxpayer money we already spend on public funding to a system that new entrants can participate in too – like the democracy vouchers in use in the City of Seattle.

2. There would be new administrative funding for each MP

As well as new per-vote public funding, the bill introduces $17 million in new administrative funding: $90,000 per election cycle for a member of the House of Representatives and $45,000 per cycle for a senator.

If this funding were already in place, it would have been worth $8.1 million for Labor, $4.7 million for the Liberals, $1.6 million for the Nationals and $0.9 million for the Greens.

New parties and candidates – who also have administrative costs – get nothing.

There’s no explanation for why senators get half as much as members of the House of Representatives. The cynical theory is that it is intended to reduce funding to minor parties, who hold more seats in the Senate than in the House.

Overall, if the bill passes then Labor and Liberal will each receive about $50 million in public funding per election cycle, and about $150 million total will be spent on parties, sitting MPs and candidates. $60 million is new funding, on top of what they are already paid under existing laws.

How could this be improved?

By putting a reasonable cap on administrative funding going to a party; by funding all parliamentarians equally; and by making administrative funding accessible to new parties and candidates.

3. There would be a cap on donations to fund campaigning

Gifts to fund election campaigning are capped at $20,000 per calendar year (with the option to give before and after an election, for a total of four opportunities to give in a three-year election cycle). That’s a cap from a donor to any one candidate or party.

However, there are actually nine registered Labor parties: one for every state and territory and one federal, so there are nine opportunities to give to Labor in a given calendar year ($180,000 per year or $720,000 in an election cycle). The Liberal Party has eight parties, and the National Party five – so someone can still donate over a million dollars to the Coalition every election cycle.

This is not lost on political parties; after the Liberal party room were briefed on the changes: “One participant in the debate quipped that the Liberal National party of Queensland should split so that there would be more entities for donors to give to.”

48 hours and they already spotted a loophole.

How could this be improved?

A higher cap, like $60,000, that applies per electoral cycle would be fairer. That way, parties that have been collecting donations every year since the last election have the same overall cap as candidates and parties who get started in the months ahead of an election.

4. “Nominated entities” give the major parties a way around donation caps

The bill creates “nominated entities” where parties can park their assets, accumulated over decades, and continue to receive funding outside the gift cap.

Exactly how these entities will work is still unclear, but we know that in Victoria they are used to give large amounts of money to major parties outside of the donation caps that apply to everyone else. In fact, an independent review this year recommended that Victoria abolish nominated entities – and they are the subject of a constitutional challenge on the basis that they infringe political communication.

How could this be improved?

Scrap nominated entities. Everyone should compete on a level playing field.

5. There are spending caps with loopholes for political parties

Spending caps limit how much can be spent on an election campaign: $90 million across the whole country, and no more than $800,000 targeting each of Australia’s 150 seats.

A cap on per-seat spending may seem reasonable, but there are glaring loopholes:

• All of an independent candidate’s campaigning counts towards their $800,000 cap. But a party candidate’s campaigning only counts if it names the candidate. “Vote Labor” or “Vote Liberal” is uncapped.
• A party can count some of its advertising towards its Senate cap, even if it also names its candidate in a particular seat.
• A party can promote ministers and shadow ministers across the whole state, and not count that promotion towards the particular seat that the minister is running in.

Not to mention that a sitting member of Parliament already has millions of dollars in incumbency advantages; a challenger needs to spend more money just to catch up.

How could this be improved?

By allowing higher caps for new entrants than for sitting members of Parliament and by counting all of a party’s spending in a seat towards the cap, just like everyone else.

6. There will not be truth in political advertising laws

Even though political campaigns will be getting another $40 million or so in taxpayer funding, there will be no guarantees that this public money must be spent on accurate advertising. In Australia, it is still perfectly legal to lie in a political ad.

The Albanese Government has introduced a separate bill that would implement truth in political advertising laws, but they are neglecting it. Even though truth in political advertising laws are tried and tested (they have been in place in South Australia for almost forty years), they have been put on the backburner.

How could this be improved?

By passing truth in political advertising laws before any increase in public funding for political campaigns. The legislation is in Parliament, it just needs to be prioritised.

7. The process has been rushed and deeply flawed

The Albanese Government has had over two years to develop proposed election reforms. It received a report from the parliamentary inquiry in June last year. It has delayed the legislation multiple times because it is so complicated and potentially unconstitutional.

The changes don’t even come into effect until 2026, for the 2028 election.

But the Government want to push the legislation through in just a few days, before anyone has time to analyse it.

How could this be improved?

By holding a parliamentary inquiry into any major changes to Australian elections. That’s the Australia Institute’s position, and polling research shows four in five Australians agree – as do thousands of Australians who have signed our petition so far.

8. There are positive changes: more transparency for political donations

The bill also widens the definition of gift to include cash-for-access payments, closing a loophole. It also lowers the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 (for gifts funding election campaigning not other party and candidate fundraising) and brings in real-time disclosure.

How could this be improved?

Spin off these non-controversial and non-complicated improvements to transparency into their own bill, and pass that alongside truth in political advertising laws.

Conclusion

Rushed legislation that would dramatically change how Australian elections work needs careful consideration, including by a multiparty committee that all Australians give feedback to.

Even a preliminary look shows loopholes and unfair treatment. Our democracy depends on getting these changes right.

The post Eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change Australian elections appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 13 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Stephen Long, Senior Fellow and Contributing Editor, the Australia Institute // @StephenLongAus

Host: Alice Grundy, Research Manager, Anne Kantor Fellows, the Australia Institute // @alicektg

Show notes:

Premium price: The impact of climate change on insurance costs, the Australia Institute (November 2024)

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post The uninsurables: how climate change is pricing people out of home insurance appeared first on The Australia Institute.

If the average worker was paid for the real hours they worked, they’d be almost $300 per fortnight better off, with an extra $7,713 in their pockets each year.

It all adds up to a staggering $91 billion a year being denied to Australian workers – which is 1.7 times more than the federal government spends on education.

The updated research found that, ironically, workers are hungry for more paid hours, likely due to soaring interest rates, grocery prices, energy bills and rents.

The annual survey, released for Go Home On Time Day today, found that more than a third of bosses still expect staff to work more than their rostered hours … for nothing.

Right to Disconnect laws came into effect in August and will be extended to employees of small businesses next August.

Go Home on Time Day is an initiative by the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, now into its 16th year.

• Key findings:
  The average worker performs 3.6 hours unpaid overtime each week. Full-time employees average 4.1 hours a week.
• Workers aged 18 to 29 do most unpaid overtime, average 4.4 hours per week.
• A staggering 70% of people who work unpaid overtime say their bosses expect them to work extra hours.
• 42% of workers say the extra hours make them physically tired, while 32% say they’re stressed or anxious. 29% say the unpaid overtime interferes with their personal life or relationship. More than 1 in 5 say it leaves them sleep-deprived.
• The most common reasons for working extra hours are too much work (41%) and staff shortages (31%).

“Our research shows that unpaid overtime is robbing Australian workers of over $91 billion dollars per year, adding to cost-of-living pressures, interfering with family life and reducing wellbeing for millions” said Fiona Macdonald, Acting Director, Centre for Future Work.

“The Go Home on Time survey shows that employers’ expectations and demands are driving workers to do millions of hours of overtime for free, at the same time as many workers want more paid hours.”

“While availability creep continues to erode work and life boundaries for millions of workers, new Right to Disconnect laws may already be having a positive effect as we have seen some reductions in unpaid overtime compared with previous years.”

The post Go Home on Time Day 2024: Exposing the $91 billion rip-off smashing exhausted Aussie workers appeared first on The Australia Institute.

With the government on the verge of rushing laws into the House of Representatives today, 1,009 people were asked if a major change to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party parliamentary committee first.

Key findings: 

• Four in five (81%) agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party committee, including a third (33%) who strongly agree. Just 5% disagree.
• Major party voters are most likely to agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multiparty committee: 83% of Labor and Coalition voters agree, as do four in five Greens voters (80%), three in four Independent/Other voters (76%) and two in three One Nation voters (66%).

“The integrity of Australian elections is too important for the Albanese government’s proposed changes to be rushed through without scrutiny, including a thorough parliamentary inquiry,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program. 

“Politicians voting together to give political parties more money will reduce trust in government unless the public is included in the process.

“The changes are not due to start until the election after next, around 2028, so why the unseemly haste to pass them in the last sitting weeks of the year?

“When similar changes have been introduced at the state level, they have had perverse outcomes including giving political parties preferential treatment over independents; funding some parties excessively while not funding others at all; and allowing major parties to ‘pile in’ to target seats in defiance of spending caps.

“Major political parties run about 200 candidates each federal election, many of whom have no chance of winning, so any ‘per candidate’ limit on donations or spending affects independent candidates far more than it does the parties.

“Better donation disclosure laws and truth in political advertising are tried and tested policies, and could be passed for this election, while changes that could make Australian elections less competitive are sent to a parliamentary inquiry. This would also allow parliament to consider public funding models that give voters control over how their money is distributed, like the democracy voucher system developed in the City of Seattle.

“The devil is in the detail – loopholes in how donations are defined could end up allowing some vested interests an outsized level of influence on political parties and their policies.”

The post New polling reveals overwhelming opposition to rushing through political donation laws appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This income is from the sale of gas exported from INPEX’s which exports around the same amount of gas as consumed in all of eastern Australia each year. The Australian Government charges INPEX no royalties for this gas, effectively giving them the gas for free.

Two other entities, INPEX Australia PTY LTD and INPEX ALPHA PTYT LTD paid $6.7 million corporate income tax, making up just 0.3% of the combined income of the four entities. The complex and opaque structure of INPEX’s Australian operations means there may be other entities operating in Australia, that have paid some corporate tax.

Despite this extraordinary situation, INPEX has complained loudly about Australian energy policy and this week the former INPEX general manager, Stuart Knowles, has been appointed as Northern Territory Coordinator, with powers to exempt controversial gas projects from environmental regulations.

It is extraordinary that a foreign owned company, making billions of dollars annually exporting Australia’s gas, paying virtually no corporate tax, PRRT or royalties is so outspoken about how we mange our resources and protect our environment. Governments are meant to represent the interests of Territorians and Australians, not foreign owned gas corporations.

The appointment of the former general manager of INPEX to a position where he can exempt gas projects from environmental regulations is a classic example of revolving door between industry and government that leads to corporate capture of our institutions.

The post Appointing the former INPEX general manager as the NT interim Territory Coordinator is a terrible move appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Workers holding Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) visas can be the difference between fruit being harvested or left to rot on the vine.

But, in return for the critical work they do to keep some sectors of our agriculture industry afloat, PALM visa holders pay more tax than Australians doing the same work and find it almost impossible to access their superannuation.

The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme allows Australian businesses to hire workers from ten countries in the Pacific region.

PALM visas are issued for short- or long-term jobs (up to nine months or four years, respectively), provided those jobs are classified as low-skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese consistently talks about being part of a “Pacific Family”, lauding the PALM program as a key component of that close regional relationship.

But the Australia Institute’s new report finds the PALM program is in urgent need of reform if Australia is to truly treat these workers like family.

No way to treat family

PALM visa holders often pay more in tax, in both wages and compulsory superannuation contributions, than Australian residents in the same jobs.

PALM workers could be paying an estimated $184m in tax each year to the Australian government — a fifth of the $920m Australia paid in ‘support’ to participating Pacific nations this year.

It is almost impossible for PALM visa workers to access their superannuation entitlements once they return to their home countries, meaning they are likely missing out on millions in unclaimed entitlements.

If they do manage to access their entitlements, they are taxed at a rate that takes away more than a third of their superannuation.

The amount of money that PALM workers spend in Australia—on accommodation, expenses, tax and superannuation—is greater than the amount they are able to send home, meaning that Australia’s economy benefits more from their labour than their home countries’.

The path forward

Recommended reforms include automatically transferring superannuation payments to workers’ home countries or paying superannuation entitlements directly to workers as they are unlikely to retire in Australia.

Pacific workers come to Australia to do hard jobs that Australians don’t want to do, like fruit picking and meat packing. But they are overtaxed and exploited for the pleasure

— Gemma Killen, Research Manager at The Australia Institute and co-author of the report.

It is alarming that vulnerable workers who do not earn very much money are paying more tax than Australian residents who do the same work. It is equally alarming that these workers struggle to access their super once leaving the country.

The PALM scheme is often framed in terms of mutual benefit but, in reality, the economic benefits are weighted heavily in Australia’s favour. The Australian government claims to be a friend to Pacific countries but is not treating Pacific workers accordingly.

The Australian government could easily reform the system so that workers are paid more and face less administrative burdens to access their payments.

The post Pacific Labourers overtaxed and exploited in Australia appeared first on The Australia Institute.

• The Albanese Government has announced the broad strokes of its plans to introduce:
  • Donation caps (how much can be given to parties and candidates)
  • Expenditure caps (how much parties and candidates can spend)
  • Increase public funding (taxpayer money going to parties and candidates).
• Changes to electoral law often have perverse outcomes:
  • Existing public funding models used in Australia already unfairly advantage sitting MPs and established parties over challengers and new entrants.
  • Donation caps fail to prevent cash-for-access payments to ministers and shadow ministers.
  • Spending caps allow major parties to concentrate their spending on target seats, in effect allowing them to outspend independent candidates in that seat.
  • Existing donation caps in Victoria have already concentrated power among a small group of people.
• The Australia Institute has identified nine principles for fair political finance reform that should be satisfied before any changes are made.
• Australia Institute polling research finds that three in five Australians oppose public funding for political parties and candidates, and seven in 10 oppose increased public funding, but there are alternative funding models.

“The integrity of Australian elections is too important for the Albanese government’s proposed changes to be rushed through without scrutiny, including a thorough parliamentary inquiry,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“Politicians voting together to give political parties more money will reduce trust in government unless the public is included in the process.

“The changes are not due to start until the election after next, around 2028, so why the unseemly haste to pass them in the last sitting weeks of the year?”

“When similar changes have been introduced at the state level, they have had perverse outcomes including giving political parties preferential treatment over independents; funding some parties excessively while not funding others at all; and allowing major parties to ‘pile in’ to target seats in defiance of spending caps.

“Major political parties run almost 200 candidates each federal election, many of whom have no chance of winning, so any ‘per candidate’ limit on donations or spending affects independent candidates far more than it does the parties.

“Better donation disclosure laws and truth in political advertising are tried and tested policies, and could be passed for this election, while changes that could make Australian elections less competitive are sent to a parliamentary inquiry. This would also allow parliament to consider public funding models that give voters control over how their money is distributed, like the democracy voucher system developed in the City of Seattle.”

“The devil is in the detail – loopholes in how donations are defined could end up allowing some vested interests an outsized level of influence on political parties and their policies.”

The post Rushed changes to federal political donation laws could hinder, not enhance, democracy appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Healthcare should be universal, but your postcode has a big impact on life expectancy. People who live in inner metropolitan electorates (the inner parts of Australia’s capital cities) live almost a year (0.8) longer than people in outer metropolitan electorates (the edges of Australia’s capital cities).

But life expectancy falls even more for people who live in electorates outside the capital cities. In electorates where the majority of people live in major regional cities life expectancy falls by more than a year (1.1) compared with outer metro electorates. In rural electorates the results are even worse. Almost half a year (0.4) lower than provincial electorates.

This means that those in inner metro electorates can expect to live on average 2.3 years longer than there fellow Australians in rural electorates.

But this is more than just about the distance from healthcare services. This is about rich and poor. In South Australia the relatively wealthy rural electorate of Mayo has an average life expectancy of 84.5 years, while the relatively poor outer metro electorate of Spence has a life expectancy 4 years lower than that at 80.5 years.

It is even worse for indigenous Australians. The Northern Territory electorate of Lingiari, which has the highest proportion of indigenous Australians, has the lowest average life expectancy at just 75.5 years.

All Australians deserve access to high quality healthcare regardless of where they live or how much they have.

The post Research shows people living in rural areas have a much lower life expectancy appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 14 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @GrogsGamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @ElinorJ_L

Show notes:

‘It’s time for the RBA to admit its fears of a wage-price spiral were misguided – and cut interest rates’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (November 2024)

How Governments Can Help with the Cost of Living, the Australia Institute’s Policy School

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post All I want for Christmas… appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 24 October 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Pre-order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Co-President of the Club of Rome // @SDDecleve

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebony_bennett

Host: Alice Grundy, Research Manager, Anne Kantor Fellows, the Australia Institute // @alicekgt

Show notes:

Earth for All – A Survival Guide for Humanity, The Club of Rome (2022)

The Limits to Growth, The Club of Rome (1972)

‘COP28 did not deliver. We need better global governance and brave leadership’ by Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Reuters (December 2023)

Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia 2024, The Australia Institute (May 2024)

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Hitting our limits: the climate and COP29 appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The reforms are being billed as a way of removing political donations from election campaigns and ending political fundraising during state election campaigns. In place of those donations, the Australia Institute estimates between $15 million and $20 million in public funding will be shared among political parties and candidates for elections.

The government says it will “restructure the public funding model, increase administrative funding, introduce an advance payment scheme, amend party registration and nomination requirements” and insert new definitions into the legislation, including for the term, ‘donation’.

All of that sounds great.  Attorney-general Kyam Maher says it will “help to ensure power is kept in the hands of voters and give both established and new voices an equal footing in state elections”.

What does it actually do? 

Here is where we get to those pesky details. Director of the Democracy and Accountability Program at The Australia Institute, Bill Browne, has taken a pretty long look at the bill and found some small print the big headlines haven’t gone into.

Of the extra $15-$20 million in public funding for politicians per electoral cycle, about 75% of the money would go to the major parties.  New candidates and entrants to the electoral cycle will only receive about 1 or 2% of that money.   That is because the way the legislation is worded, most new public funding in the bill is based on the number of MPs a party has in the SA Parliament, rather than the amount of public support they enjoy, or how many members a party might have.

The bill will also cap how much private money independent candidates and minor parties without existing parliamentary representation can raise, while giving them much less public funding than incumbents – the MPs and parties already represented in parliament.

That’s not exactly ‘leveling the playing field’.

MPs and political staffers can still pay what’s known as a ‘levy’ to their party, which is one of the traditional ways political parties can fundraise – and historically, these ‘levies’ can raise more money than private donations.

At the same time, third parties, like corporations and lobby groups, can spend large amounts on election campaigning. They can take the money they would have donated to a political party, and spend it on their own political ad campaign.

How did this happen? 

Instead of going through the usual review process in which legislation is sent to an inquiry where these sorts of issues can be probed and examined, and then recommendations to fix them are made, the South Australian Labor government instead consulted behind closed doors with existing political players.

The government was trumpeting its legislation as having multi-party support, and rushed it through the upper house.  But it makes sense those already in the parliament would, for the most part, like this bill – it benefits them while making it very difficult for anyone wanting to challenge the current system to enter.

We have seen this play out before.

In 2021, the South Australian Parliament rushed through changes to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which significantly altered the powers the watchdog held, rendering it all but toothless.  That included limiting the definition of ‘corruption’ to specific offences related to public officers.

What needs to happen to fix this? 

It is not too late to have a proper inquiry into the legislation, where people can make submissions on what needs to be done to make the bill fairer, and actually increase transparency and integrity around these reforms.

It’s one thing to call your bill “Accountability and Integrity” legislation, but it’s quite another to actually walk the walk.

Having the bill considered through a proper public review will at least allow experts to air some of these concerns and allow South Australians a say in what is a major change to their democracy.

The reforms are being sold as increasing accountability and integrity around political donations and election campaigns – so what do they have to hide?

The post Secretive and rushed: Unpacking SA’s new electoral laws appeared first on The Australia Institute.

But, in return for the critical work they do to keep some sectors of our agriculture industry afloat, PALM visa holders pay more tax than Australians doing the same work and find it almost impossible to access their superannuation.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese consistently talks about being part of a “Pacific Family”, lauding the PALM program as a key component of that close regional relationship.

But this new report finds the PALM program is in urgent need of reform if Australia is to truly treat these workers like family.

Key Findings:

• PALM visa holders often pay more in tax, in both wages and compulsory superannuation contributions, than Australian residents in the same jobs.
• PALM workers could be paying an estimated $184m in tax each year to the Australian government — a fifth of the $920m Australia paid in ‘support’ to participating Pacific nations this year.
• It is almost impossible for PALM visa workers to access their superannuation entitlements once they return to their home countries, meaning they are likely missing out on millions in unclaimed entitlements.
• If they do manage to access their entitlements, they are taxed at a rate that takes away more than a third of their superannuation.
• Recommended reforms include automatically transferring superannuation payments to workers’ home countries or paying superannuation entitlements directly to workers as they are unlikely to retire in Australia.

“Pacific workers come to Australia to do hard jobs that Australians don’t want to do, like fruit picking and meat packing. But they are overtaxed and exploited for the pleasure,” said Gemma Killen, Research Manager at The Australia Institute and co-author of the report.

“It is alarming that vulnerable workers who do not earn very much money are paying more tax than Australian residents who do the same work. It is equally alarming that these workers struggle to access their super once leaving the country.

“The PALM scheme is often framed in terms of mutual benefit but, in reality, the economic benefits are weighted heavily in Australia’s favour. The Australian government claims to be a friend to Pacific countries but is not treating Pacific workers accordingly.

“The Australian government could easily reform the system so that workers are paid more and face less administrative burdens to access their payments.”

The post No way to treat family: Pacific Labourers overtaxed and exploited appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Well, that was quite the week, wasn’t it?

We wouldn’t blame you if you’re feeling a little bit flat.  While many people may have thought they were prepared for a Trump victory, thinking it and seeing it happen are two very different things.  Moo Deng may have tried to warn us Trump was heading for a conclusive victory, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t still hopes America would choose differently.

And while there are concerns over how Trump will handle domestic concerns, particularly for immigrants, women and minorities, the result of this election doesn’t just change the United States – it has ramifications for the world.

The world order as we know it looks set to be turned on its head.

Trump hasn’t been shy in expressing his love of the fossil fuel industry, something which clearly resonated with Australia’s Gina Rinehart who was spotted at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago as one of the soon-to-be 47th president’s “special people”, which will make meeting the world’s climate goals even more difficult.

Rinehart believed she was on the winner’s ticket from the beginning – she met with the Trump campaign the first time round in 2016, after which she urged the Australian government to adopt his economic policies.

Fast forward eight years and Australia’s richest woman hasn’t changed her tune, telling the Australian newspaper early last week “the world would be better off with more leaders like Trump”.

It makes Australia’s mission even more clear – now is the time for bold, evidence-based climate policy which makes the change we all know needs to happen – and we don’t need the United States to do that.

There is so much opportunity for Australia to lead, to find its voice in this new world order, unshackled from the leadership of the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter. With the U.S. committing to pulling out of the Paris Agreement, multi-lateral climate negotiations will be undermined. But the planet will continue to get warmer no matter if Trump privatises the United States weather service or not, and if his administration chooses to undo the projects already underway as part of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, then other countries will step in to claim that space.  Transition and action is inevitable – the climate isn’t waiting for the United States to sort itself out.  There is no need for Australia to wait either.

There is an opportunity for Australia to find its own voice and leadership in this new arena – a long overdue shift that would see Australia mature as a nation, and a climate leader. 

As Australia Institute International & Security Affairs Advisor Allan Behm said in the most recent episode of the Follow the Money podcast, “the challenge for Australia is “to recognise that we do have a lot of power, that power is deeply relevant to the long term interests of the United States and that power gives us agency to impact, modestly, but effectively on how the United States thinks about itself”.

To ensure that happens, we need to make sure our own house is in order.  You would have heard Ebony Bennett and others at the Institute speak about the importance of strengthening our own institutions to prevent the politicisation of public pillars in Australia.  It is why getting the National Anti-Corruption Commission right is so important. You can sign our petition to Fix the NACC here.

Change the government, change the country isn’t just an old truism – it’s right.

Governments appoint the board members, directors and leaders of our statutory bodies. They choose the judges who will preside over the laws.  Trump’s election now means Trump appointees will sit on the US Supreme Court until at least 2050, but the influence Australian governments have over this second tier of governance is never truly examined.  It’s just another reason why whistleblower protections are crucial to ensure trust in the institutions that are the foundation of our democracy.

There are always going to be vested interests trying to de-rail what is not only right, but crucial – for our democracy, life as we know it and the planet.

Only last week, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce lept to the defence of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp after the Greens leader Adam Bandt raised the media baron and his companies’ influence during a parliamentary debate; “he’s [Bandt] making the inference that both the government and the opposition are somehow unduly affected by the actions of NewsCorp and that it decides the process of government,” Joyce decried.

It’s often in the denials you’ll find those unspoken truths.

Change is not easy.  And at times it can all seem pointless. But you have so much more power than you know, and that’s why they fight back so hard.

So take some time – and then join us in outlining a new way forward for Australia. And if you need a little bit of a distraction, you can always follow British art critic John Ruston’s 1860 advice for when he needed a break from the “disgust and fury at the way the mob is going on” and go and look at some penguins.

“One feels everything in the world so sympathetically ridiculous, one can’t be angry when one looks at a penguin”.

Take care of yourself.

— Amy Remeikis, Communications Specialist at the Australia Institute 

The Big Stories

Australian democracy: a model for the world

The US election is a timely reminder that, for all its faults, Australian democracy is a model for the world: with independently administered elections, where voters can list their true preferences without throwing away their vote, and compulsory voting that ensures that the voices of the disadvantaged and disaffected are heard.

Researchers from the Australia Institute appeared before a parliamentary committee to recommend improvements to Tasmania’s electoral system.

Bill Browne and Eloise Carr recommended 3 key reforms around political donation disclosure laws, truth in political advertising and the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

“The diversity of voices elected to the Tasmanian Parliament gives hope that these, and other reforms we recommended in the Democracy Agenda for the 51st Tasmanian Parliament, will be taken up.”

Read >

New report: You’re already paying the price for gas & coal

Climate change is making insurance unaffordable for many Australians.

Our new research found that extreme weather events drive an enormous increase in the cost of insurance with premiums massively outpacing price rises for nearly all other goods and services.

Since 2022, home insurance premiums have risen by at least 14% on average, the biggest rise in a decade.

We are calling for a levy on big polluters, to help pay for the costs of climate change through a National Climate Disaster Fund.

Read >

Taxing carbon and ending fossil fuel subsidies

Welcome news this week that independent MPs David Pocock and Kate Chaney are looking to reform the expensive fuel tax credit scheme, and former Treasury secretary Ken Henry condemned the government’s failure to tax fossil fuels.

“I wonder how many Australians understand how our celebration of mercantilist plunder has contributed to an erosion of the nation’s manufacturing capability, undermined labour productivity growth, and depressed the living standards of workers.” – Ken Henry

Bernie Fraser, former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, called for political courage on the carbon tax at our Climate Integrity Summit 2024.

Watch this space in the leadup to the Federal election next year…

Read >

The Win

Middle Arm gas hub business case rejected

The Middle Arm gas hub in Darwin would produce over one billion tonnes of emissions, cost $1.5 billion in Federal Government subsidies, and raise cancer and heart disease risks for Darwin residents.

We are thankful to hear it has failed its business case, with ABC reporting it could delay the project by up to two years.

It’s long past time to dump the Middle Arm gas hub altogether.

Read >

The Bin

The Western Australian Labor government appears all but certain to give one of Australia’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters the green light to operate until 2070 after it announced it would abolish state emissions-reduction requirements.

Read >

The Quote

Trump’s victory represents a grave threat to the institutions of American democracy, and the safety and security of many Americans.

Dr Emma Shortis, Director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program.

How Australia responds to a Trump presidency matters.

This is about so much more than AUKUS. It goes to the core of our interests and our values.

Last chance to preorder and save on our new book

To mark The Australia Institute’s 30 years of big ideas, we have asked some of our good friends and leading thinkers from Australia and around the world to share a big idea for a better Australia.

This week is your last chance to preorder your copy and save $5 off the sticker price!

Podcasts

The AUKward truth about the US relationship | Follow the Money

Allan Behm joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the “unachievable” AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, Australia’s ‘fear of abandonment’, and how the outcome of the presidential election might change US foreign policy.

Listen now:

Four more years | After America

Dr Emma Shortis and Alice Grundy discuss what the Trump victory means for American society and democratic institutions, the soul-searching facing the Democrats after a comprehensive defeat, and the implications of the election for Australia.

Listen now:

Less for more: Australia’s dud private health insurance system | Dollars & Sense

Private health insurance is getting more expensive and covering less – it’s time for a major rethink, says Greg Jericho.

Listen now:

What’s On

A Brave New World of Work | 12.30pm AEDT, Wednesday 13 November

What does the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence mean for workers? Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director (Industrial and Social) at the Centre for Future Work, will speak with union leaders about how to ensure innovation is worker-centred.

Free, RSVP >

Politics in the Pub: How Corporations are Destroying Free Speech | 6.30pm AEDT, Wednesday 20 November

Join Josh Bornstein, lawyer and author of Working for the Brand: how corporations are destroying free speech, in conversation with Bill Browne about corporations’ repressive control over the lives of their employees.

Free, RSVP >

The post Truth in the Time of Trump | Between the Lines appeared first on The Australia Institute.

But such thinking ignores that the official CPI does not count mortgage costs. As a result, one of the most significant costs that households experience is excluded from talk of inflation.

This means that the CPI is not really the best measure of the cost of living. To remedy this failure, the ABS also measures cost of living indexes for different household . Because people have different spending habits dependent upon whether they have a job, are retired on the age pension, are a “self-funded” retire or on a government support like Jobseeker, the ABS constructs different cost of living indexes for each household type.

Because interest rates rose over the past year, the cost of living measures for “employee households” rose 4.7% on the past year. That is significantly more than the 3.5% average wage rise and well above the 2.8% CPI increase.

This means that the Reserve Bank’s efforts to reduce inflation through higher interest rates are actually causing increases in the cost of living – and also big falls in workers’ ability to buy things with their wage.

The impact of the increased interest rates is made clear when we compare the real wage of someone on  around the average full-time wage of $90,000 in September 2021.

Since then, the increase in prices has meant that the $90,000 wage, even with the average wage rises over the past 3 years now is only worth $86,009 – a nearly $4,000 drop in the ability to buy things.

But when we include mortgage repayments and use the employee cost of living measure, the fall is much more severe. That person on $90,000 now has a wage that is the equivalent of just $82,080.

That loss of almost $8,000 in purchasing power is the biggest fall in the post-WWII era, and unless we see strong wage growth, will take more than a decade to recover.

The first step however is for the RBA to stop causing more needless pain. It should cut rates at its next meeting.

Wages are not growing out of control, indeed growth is slowing dramatically.

Workers were hurt by the rise in prices due to the company profit’s and have been made to carry the burden of the so-called cure of higher interest rates.

The post Wages are growing faster than inflation – but workers are $8,000 worse off than 3 years ago appeared first on The Australia Institute.

But what if the government offered early childhood education in the same way it offered school education? Reforming Australia’s approach to early childhood education would increase the size of the economy by $168 billion and allow the government to collect an additional $48 billion in revenue.

Both sides of politics know the benefits of early childhood education: high-quality childcare improves educational outcomes for children, and low-cost or free high-quality childcare also increases labour force participation by providing parents the opportunity to return to work. Access to affordable and quality care is also integral to family violence prevention and response.

Despite the clear value for children, families and the broader community, early childhood education in Australia is often run by private, for-profit providers that drive up fees and have contributed to the creation of childcare deserts across the country. Early childhood education centres are also difficult to staff sustainably, with many workers underpaid and undervalued.

But the solutions being offered mainly focus on increasing childcare subsidies in the hope of reducing the cost for families even though this doesn’t work.

The most recent inflation numbers show that increased subsidies are eroded by higher fees. When the childcare subsidy was increased a year ago, parents saw a significant benefit by way of cheaper fees. But in the year since then, the cost of childcare for Australian families increased 12.1% – a rate that far outstrips the 2.8% increase of general inflation. For families with a child in full-time centre based care this is an extra $1,270 per year.

We shouldn’t be surprised that profit maximizing businesses would see more government subsidies as a great opportunity to hike fees: early childhood education and care is big business, and the industry is dominated by for-profit providers. The sector’s largest for-profit provider made $56 million in profit and paid its CEO $3 million last year, and is expected to earn over a billion dollars in revenue over the next 12 months.

And higher prices don’t translate to better care: The Australian Government’s National Quality Framework shows that for-profit providers on average do worse than not-for-profit and state-owned providers when it comes to metrics like educational practice, children’s health and safety and staffing arrangements.

Government subsidies for childcare don’t address the serious need for reform of the sector either. Despite massive profits, the childcare sector is facing serious challenges – particularly staff recruitment and retention – which reduce the number of places offered by providers. Much of this is because early childhood educators earn so little – less than retail workers or data entry workers. Anglicare’s recent Rental Affordability Snapshot showed that early childhood educators could afford less than 1% of available rental properties across Australia in March 2024.

The Federal Government has just announced a 15% pay rise to childcare workers over the next two years and flagged more pay rises to come. This will help in an industry that is underpaid. But workers are also concerned about the lack of career progression as a barrier to staying in the sector.

In many places, there are simply no childcare centers available. One third of Australia’s population live in neighborhoods dubbed “childcare deserts”, in which regional, rural and low-income areas are overrepresented. With the industry dominated by for-profit providers, it is sadly not surprising that high socioeconomic areas are better serviced by childcare operators.

But these problems can be solved. We already have a ready-made solution: the larger challenges that early childhood education faces could be solved by treating the industry in the same way we treat public schools.

First, where practical, the Federal Government could fund the building of state government-run early childhood education centers in, or near, every primary school. If parents choose to, they could send their kids to the local center in the same way they can send their kids to the local primary school. The outpouring of new supply would help flood the childcare deserts.

Secondly, employing early childhood educators as public servants would mean governments have a greater stake in ensuring that these essential workers are valued and properly compensated.

Finally, the sector needs to undergo a radical shift from for-profit providers to a not-for-profit or state-run model. When it comes to school education, we understand that subsidising for-profit providers is not consistent with the best outcomes for children. For profit schools don’t qualify for government subsidies. Private schools are mostly not-for-profit. They use school fees and government subsidies to properly pay the workforce and provide education to students.

Reforming the sector would be expensive but have enormous economic benefits. Australia Institute research shows high quality, affordable, and available early childhood education and care would increase the size of the Australian economy by $168 billion and allow the Government to collect an additional $48 billion in revenue. These benefits largely come from parents being able to return to or remain in the workforce.

To solve the challenges the early childhood education and care industry faces, we shouldn’t just throw bigger subsidies at profit maximizing businesses. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to look at how we already educate school children, and adapt what we know already works.

The post How to fix Australia’s broken childcare system so everybody wins appeared first on The Australia Institute.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 8 November 2024 US time and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: Malcolm Turnbull, the 29th Prime Minister of Australia // @TurnbullMalcolm

Host: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

‘The Bad Guys: How to Deal with our Illiberal Friends’, Australian Foreign Affairs (October 2022)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Subscribe for regular updates from the Australia Institute.

We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.

The post Standing up to Trump with Malcolm Turnbull appeared first on The Australia Institute.

My favourite was The Wolf and the Lamb.

I would listen as she would tell me of the wolf looking to justify his actions by finding some blame in the lamb he wished to eat.

But the lamb did not feed from the wolf’s pasture, did not drink from his spring.  The lamb had not lived long enough to insult the wolf.  But still the wolf ate the lamb, citing his right to dinner.

The lesson; the tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless to appeal for justice from an unjust oppressor.

And so, how then, does one beat the wolf? After all, Aesop also told us of the shepherd who learnt once a wolf, always a wolf, after the one he trusted ate half his flock.

The answer, my oma would say, was to be brave.

Like the mice who lived in fear of the barn cat but could not find the bravery to hang a bell from its neck. Without bravery, things continue much as they always have.

The wolf will find the justification to eat the lamb no matter how unfair.

It wasn’t the tale itself that made it a favourite.  It was that the answer in beating the wolf was so obvious.

There is nothing to be gained in appealing to a wolf’s better judgment or their sense of fairness.  To the wolves, the world is fair – they win, no matter the game.

Power tends to be quite happy with the status quo. It won’t shift because it’s what’s fair. The only way to beat a wolf is to be brave enough to challenge it. Power doesn’t change because it wants to. It only shifts when people force it.

And, for that to happen, someone needs to be brave. When it comes to the political sense, to be brave, you need something to fight for. Something to believe in. Some hope that things can be better, backed by the action and the direction on how to achieve that.

We saw what happened with the United States election.  We know what happens when media and institutions try and treat threats to our democracy, our very way of life as business as usual.

None of this is business as usual.  Normalising tyrants and increasingly unhinged policy which only seeks to further divide us and increase inequality – while only benefiting a select few – is not objectivity.

Treating the dead cats being thrown on the climate policy table as serious alternatives, and not as attempts to delay and distract from the necessary urgent energy transition, is not being fair and balanced.

The election of Donald Trump makes everything we are facing even more serious. And in many cases, mainstream media once again showed it was not fit for purpose in addressing this moment.

Now is the time for bravery.  For calling a spade a spade and a wolf a wolf.

For breaking free of the shackles of Australia’s “exceptional friendship” with the United States and moving forward boldly, doing what needs to be done.

For that, we need a government brave enough to do what needs to be done – not because it’s popular (although much of it would be) – but because it is right.

A government brave enough to face down those invested in keeping things exactly as they are because it’s easier than having the fight.

A media brave enough to call a lie a lie and continually challenge power, access be damned. A political and media class brave enough to take on Murdoch’s influence and push through the culture wars, which only seek to target the vulnerable and maintain power among a select few.

It shouldn’t be considered brave to say tax is good and billionaires shouldn’t exist. That the fossil fuel industry not only needs to be wound back, it needs to happen immediately.  It shouldn’t be brave to state facts. To advocate for policies which ensure people are housed, fed and educated with access to healthcare no matter their income. That Australia is big enough to make a difference on global issues and doesn’t have to be a passive deputy waiting for instructions.

It shouldn’t be brave to say the solutions are there, we just need to reach for them.

That just because this is the way things are, it doesn’t mean this is the way things should be.

Bravery shouldn’t need to be a Big Idea. That it is, is the result of decades of doing things the wolf’s way.  Of fighting on the wolf’s territory.  Of giving the wolf the power to dictate the terms of engagement. Of pretending that working with the wolf is the only way to change how the wolf works.

Aristotle believed that bravery came from, well, being brave. That we became brave from performing brave acts.

Over the last 30 years, The Australia Institute has made bravery a habit, simply by allowing facts to speak for themselves. To allow research and evidence to guide the way.

In a world where facts are weaponised by those who who’d rather you ignored them, to not only stand by the facts, but fight for them, no matter who gets upset, is not just brave, it’s crucial.

There isn’t time to keep playing the wolf’s game.

But also … aren’t you sick of it?

Even in Aesop’s world, the wolf didn’t always win. A clever goat saved itself by distracting the wolf with its own vanity, encouraging it to play its flute until it became so caught up in its music, it didn’t notice the goat calling the hounds.

Aesop’s ass was even more direct.  It escaped by pretending to be weak and then kicking the wolf in the face.

If an ass can defeat the wolf, imagine what can happen when you put your whole arse into it.

That’s what I’m hoping to do.  I hope you join me.

Amy’s chapter in What’s the Big Idea? – a new book by Australia Institute Press – is titled “If Australia Could Be Brave”.

Pre order now

The post A Time for Bravery appeared first on The Australia Institute.

You can’t say public policy is always worse in America, but aside from how they conduct elections, the one policy the US does worse than anywhere else is healthcare.

Among OECD nations, the US spends the most on health and as a reward they have one of the worst life expectancies:

There are several reasons why they have this outcome – from structural racism to the serious lack of economic safety nets such as decent minimum wages – but the chief reason is their healthcare overly relies on private insurance in a manner unlike most other nations.

Although the introduction of the Affordable Care Act has shifted some private health insurance from voluntary to compulsory, the nation still massively relies on a system designed to profit from people’s ill heath:

This brings us to the recent reports of private health insurance companies lobbying the Albanese government for premium increases of between 5% and 6% next year.

This increase would be around the long-term average, and as a result would see premiums again rise well ahead of wage growth:

The Australian Financial Review reported that NIB’s CEO has said that the insurer needs an increase of around that mark because “ultimately, we have to cover claims inflation like any insurer because if you don’t eventually you go out of business.”

While this might seem obvious, it ignores the reality that the main reason private health insurers might go out of business is because people hate the product they offer, and even with all the carrots and sticks designed to force people to take out health insurance, a majority of Australians do not want it.

Over six years ago I pondered if private health insurance was a con. In the time since, during which we have experienced the greatest health crisis in a century, nothing has really changed the answer.

Not only does it remain untrue that private health insurance takes stress off the public system, it also remains a fib to call it private – it’s a public system merely carried out in an inefficient manner to deliver a product most people don’t want and haven’t ever wanted.

In the late 1990s, after 15 or so years of Medicare, fewer than a third of Australians held private health insurance. Then John Howard decided that the private sector needed help from the public sector.

He introduced a surcharge to penalise higher income earners who did not have private health insurance.

The stick was not enough. Howard then tried the carrot: providing a rebate on your private health insurance. These rebates are quite pricey – the government this year will spend about $7.5bn on them.

It did bugger all – you literally could not pay people to buy it.

Howard returned to the stick and in 2000 effectively forced people to join by 31 years of age with “lifetime health cover” – a program that was accompanied by TV ads showing everyone standing under umbrellas because apparently more people taking out private health insurance made us all better off.

In reality it was just the health insurers who were better off when people decided they should join because they might one day want it when they were older:

Since then, we have had more sticks and carrots – changes to the surcharges and rebates, and then in 2019 even a discount for people aged 18-29.

The result is still fewer than half the population covered by private health.

Even more damning on the worth of private health insurance as a product is that the percentage of Australians in their early 30s that have it is now as low as it has been since the introduction of the lifetime health cover:

Perhaps more importantly, those who are “covered” are covered in the sense that a Band-Aid covers a gaping wound.

Most people quickly realised that to get within the lifetime health cover frame it was best to take out the minimum possible cover. This resulted in a surge in insurances with excess and co-payments up from about 30% to now 88%:

Similarly, whereas once private health covered everything, now the conditions that are insured are more honoured in the exception than the coverage:

This is the main change since I last wrote of the con of private health insurance. In 2018 the Morrison government introduced changes that increased the “maximum voluntary excess levels for products providing individuals an exemption from the Medicare levy surcharge”.

Whereas in 1999, 95% of people had private health insurance with no exclusions, now 65% of policies have exclusions in which various items will not be covered.

So, we have had 25 years of carrots and sticks, all designed to make private health insurance more attractive, and we’ve ended up with fewer people having such insurance and more people not being covered for everything and likely having to pay when they access it.

And all the while the premiums have risen roughly 60% more than wages have.

At some point a health minister might ponder that if people prefer the public health system, then maybe government should just fund it better and stop pretending subsidised private health delivers much other than a dud product that most people don’t want and hate even when they have it.

The post Private health insurance is a dud. That’s why a majority of Australians don’t have it appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Research from the Australia Institute identified major problems with the proposed laws. Any changes to South Australian democracy should still be subject to a Parliamentary review.

Key points:

• In June, the South Australian Government proposed legislation that would ban most political donations and dramatically increase public funding for parties and incumbent MPs.
• Unlike most changes to electoral laws, the proposed changes have not gone to a public inquiry. They have only been subject to a secret consultation, and the South Australian government refuses to publish the submissions to that consultation.
• There are some improvements in the revised bill, including a higher donation cap for new entrants and addressing the “funding trap” for existing small parties and recontesting independents.
• However, the revised bill also ignores expert advice by increasing spending on the major parties instead of reducing it and rejecting administrative funding for new entrants.
• The Australia Institute estimates that the proposed new public funding would cost South Australians $15 to $20 million per four-year electoral cycle, about three-quarters of which would go to the Liberal and Labor parties, and only about 1% to new entrants.
• The revised bill introduces two loopholes to the donation ban:
  • MPs and political staffers can still pay a “levy” to their party. Historically, these levies have been worth more than the large political donations coming from vested interests and wealthy donors.
  • Nominated entities that can continue to donate to the major parties. The equivalent of those in Victoria are the subject of a potential constitutional challenge.

“Politicians voting together to give political parties more money will reduce trust in government unless the public is included in the process,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“Far from getting money out of South Australian politics, these new laws usher in record-breaking spending – including an additional $15 million or more of public money.

“Premier Peter Malinauskas says that this legislation has ‘broad support in the community’ – so why won’t the South Australian Government publish submissions the community made to the secret consultation?

“The government’s original legislation was undemocratic, unfair and potentially unconstitutional, and needed major revisions.

“Australia Institute research highlighted many issues with the original bill, and we appreciate that some – like the “funding trap” for minor parties and the low donation cap for new entrants – have been improved. However, more and graver shortcomings have since been introduced – including unjustified sums of public money being spent on political parties and MPs.

“The only way to give South Australians confidence that the revised bill fixes these problems is by holding a public inquiry with public hearings.

“Trust is earned, and South Australia’s parliamentarians can earn public trust by subjecting new money for politicians to the same scrutiny as they would any other law.”

The post New SA political donation laws: An undemocratic process which will not increase trust in politicians appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Key points:

• The Albanese government said $21 million will go towards improving and scaling up oxygenation in Macquarie Harbour to “help offset the effects of human activities”.
• An additional $7 million will go towards the breeding program for the Maugean skate.

“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it was ‘essential we have a sustainable [aquaculture] industry’ but this simply isn’t possible in Macquarie Harbour,” said Eloise Carr, Director, Australia Institute Tasmania.

“The Albanese Government is choosing to prop up a harmful industry with more than $21 million, rather than requiring this industry to modernise and get out of Macquarie Harbour.

“The salmon industry doesn’t pay tax and employs fewer than 1% of Tasmanians. Our governments should make corporations pay their fair share and be sustainable.

“The salmon industry should go onshore, like other sustainable aquaculture in Australia.

“Minister Plibersek is required to listen to the science in her overdue EPBC Act decision.”

The post Albanese government rewards foreign company for driving endangered species towards extinction appeared first on The Australia Institute.

From December 2019 to June 2023, inflation in Australia rose faster than it has in 30 years. Over this time, the share of national income going to corporate profits also increased substantially.

At the same time, the share going to wages and small businesses declined.

The profits made by large corporations during this time are huge: some $100 billion over and above their pre-pandemic profit margins.

According to Australia Institute research, these rising profits made up more than half of the inflation above the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)’s target range of 2% to 3%.

The link between profits and inflation in Australia was replicated in research by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), headed by former Liberal Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

Why have big companies been able to increase profits?

The impacts of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increased costs globally. Businesses all over the world increased their prices to cover these increases in costs.

However, many businesses used this opportunity to raise their prices by more than their increased costs.

This allowed them to increase their profits.

Even after the impacts of the pandemic and Russian invasion have receded, some businesses have kept prices—and profits—high. The profit margins of Coles and Woolworths, for example, are much higher now than before the pandemic.

Australia is particularly vulnerable to profit-influenced inflation because many Australian industries are dominated by a few large companies—two supermarkets, two airlines, four banks, and so on.

In such industries, companies try not to compete on price.

Instead, they prefer to compete on advertising and loyalty programs, or with other tactics like trying to dominate store locations and airport space, etc.

A recent in-depth study by Prof Allan Fels, the former chief of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, found that a lack of competition across the economy enables “businesses to engage in exploitative pricing practices.”

Among Fels’ recommendations was a Prices Commission to review high prices caused by a lack of competition.

Does this increase interest rates?

Yes.

The RBA aims to keep annual price rises between 2% to 3%. When inflation goes above 3% the RBA usually raises interest rates. It has increased interest rates 13 times since 2022—the most for over 30 years.

The theory behind the RBA’s interest rate increases is that higher interest rates will increase the cost of mortgages and rents for most households. With less money to spend, the RBA hopes that households will buy fewer things, decreasing demand and bringing prices and wages down.

However, higher interest rates only work to reduce inflation if high household spending is causing the price rises in the first place. If the inflation has other causes—corporate profits, a pandemic, and overseas wars—increasing interest rates simply increases housing costs, reduces investment and risks sending the Australian economy into recession.

What can be done?

The RBA’s current approach to inflation serves only to punish those people who are already suffering most from the effects of corporate profiteering.

First and foremost, therefore, the RBA should reduce interest rates, and stop trying to use interest rate increases to reduce profit-driven inflation.

Policies that would address this form of inflation include:

• Implementing reforms to increase competition in industries dominated by a few large companies. These could include the reforms suggested in the Fels report, such as ‘divestiture powers’, which allow uncompetitive companies and industries to be broken up. Such powers are common internationally; famously, the United States has broken up uncompetitive oil companies.
• Implementing price controls for important parts of the economy—such as rents, energy, and essential goods and services—in times of emergency.
• Assisting in the electrification of homes to reduce dependency on gas, which is both costly and emissions-intensive.
• Imposing super profit taxes, especially in uncompetitive industries such as banking, energy, wholesale and retail sectors. The extra revenue could be used to provide cheaper services or compensate those on low-middle incomes hurt the most by rising prices.

The post Corporate profits increase inflation | Fact Sheet appeared first on The Australia Institute.

New data, released today by the Australian Automobile Association, reveals sales of fully electric vehicles fell by 25% in the three months to September.

Vehicle emissions account for almost 20% of the state’s overall emissions.

While the biggest obstacle for choosing an electric vehicle is the upfront cost, the government’s EV policies are almost entirely focused on expanding and improving charging infrastructure.

The Australia Institute surveyed 800 NSW residents between 6 September and 10 September 2024. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%.

Key findings:

• A majority of NSW residents (51%) are considering an EV for their next vehicle purchase.
• NSW residents’ primary motivations for EV adoption include:
  • Helping tackle climate change/reduce carbon emissions (58%)
  • Avoiding paying for petrol (57%)
• NSW resident’s major obstacles to EV purchases include:
  • The upfront cost of an EV (60%)
  • The availability of charging infrastructure (47%)
• A majority of NSW residents support EV policies, including:
  • A government-built network of charging stations (70%)
  • Requiring new apartment developments to include EV charging stations (67%)
  • Rebates for installation of charging stations (65%)
  • Direct subsidies to reduce upfront cost of EVs (64%)

“The NSW state government is missing the mark when it comes to helping people get behind the wheel of an electric car,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Motorists want to do the right thing by the environment, while also avoiding the financial burden of filling up at the petrol station. The problem is that the cost of switching to an EV is seen as a serious barrier.

“While the NSW government has made a good start in encouraging the uptake of EVs, scrapping the $3,000 upfront subsidy and the exemption from stamp duty is a step backwards.

“Our research shows the need for a recalibration of NSW’s EV policies to better align with public sentiment and address the primary barriers to EV adoption.”

The post Unplugged: NSW government EV Strategy failing, as sales fall appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Woodside estimates the extension will add over 90 million tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere every year and 4.3 billion tonnes over its lifetime, making a mockery of the state – and nation’s – net zero ambitions.

WA Labor’s decision to stop regulation of emissions for large projects will help clear the way for Woodside’s extension.

The facility also produces acid gas emissions that are corroding the World Heritage nominated Murujuga rock art, one of the world’s most important cultural heritage sites.

Woodside doesn’t have sufficient offshore gas to feed the North West Shelf export capacity, and is increasingly exporting WA’s domestic gas reserves to feed it, depleting WA’s finite domestic reserves and exposing Western Australians to high global prices.

The decision to approve the extension will:

• Add up to 90 million tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere annually, 4.3 billion tonnes over its lifetime.
• Continue degrading the World Heritage nominated Murujuga rock art from acid gas emissions.
• Deplete WA’s finite onshore domestic gas reserves.
• Expose the WA domestic gas market to high global gas prices for decades, increasing gas prices for households and industry.
• Drive the cost of producing electricity in WA’s highly gas dependent grid.
• Provide little economic benefit to Western Australians.

“Woodside’s North West Shelf extension is one of the largest proposed gas projects in the world. Approving it will make WA and the rest of the world hotter and drier, and make floods and other disasters more frequent and extreme,’ said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“The spectacular Murujuga rock is one of the world’s most important cultural heritage sites. It is five times as old as the pyramids and eight times older than Stonehenge. It is an outrage that Woodside are being allowed destroy it with acid gas emissions from NWS.

“Woodside is running out of offshore gas and now it’s coming for WA’s domestic gas reserves. This will expose Western Australian households, businesses and taxpayers to high global gas prices and drive up electricity prices.

“The WA Government is meant to represent the interests of Western Australians, not multinational oil and gas corporations trying to export as much of our gas as they can price gouge us for the gas they do supply.”

The post Approving Woodside’s 50-year gas export extension will wreck the climate, destroy priceless Indigenous art and drive up WA energy bills appeared first on The Australia Institute.