tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/coalition-246/articlesCoalition – The Conversation2024-02-01T02:57:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2219762024-02-01T02:57:48Z2024-02-01T02:57:48ZLabor is in power - but the Coalition still attracts the most money<p>Who funds Australia’s political parties? Besides the occasional scandal – think <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-announces-inquiry-by-former-attorney-general-lavarch-into-scandal-ridden-nsw-head-office-125209">Aldi bags full of cash</a> – most Australians would not hear much about it. </p>
<p>But money matters: political donations can <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">buy access to politicians</a> and create opportunities to sway public decisions in the donor’s favour. </p>
<p><a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/Download">New data</a>, released today by the Australian Electoral Commission, provide the best information available on political party funding and Australia’s major donors. So let’s follow the money.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/big-money-was-spent-on-the-2022-election-but-the-party-with-the-deepest-pockets-didnt-win-198780">Big money was spent on the 2022 election – but the party with the deepest pockets didn't win</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Even in a non-election year, fundraising continued apace</h2>
<p>In the 2022-23 financial year, Australia’s political parties collectively raised $259 million, with most of the money (81%) flowing to the major parties.</p>
<p>It initially appeared that Labor had raised a whopping $220 million, but this has since been revised down to just $84 million after correcting for a typo in Labor’s ACT branch return.</p>
<p>This leaves the Coalition well ahead at $125 million – continuing their long history as the frontrunner in fundraising.</p>
<h2>Who are the major donors?</h2>
<p>A few big donors dominate the $16.6 million in donations to political parties that are on the public record.</p>
<p>The single largest donor to Labor was Anthony Pratt, the paper and packaging businessman, who gave $1 million. This continues Pratt’s long history of big donations to both major parties, totalling more than $11 million over the past ten years.</p>
<p>Other major donors to Labor were Labor Services & Holdings ($598,000) – an investment vehicle for the party – and Labor Business Roundtable ($100,000), which runs fundraising events for the party.</p>
<p>The Coalition’s biggest donors were the Cormack Foundation ($3.46 million) – an investment vehicle for the party – and fundraising body the Kooyong 200 Club ($193,000). The Coalition also received $100,000 from Meriton Property Services, $90,000 from Laneway Assets, and $80,000 from John McEwen House.</p>
<p>But some of the largest single donations were to minor parties. Former MP Clive Palmer’s mining company Mineralogy gave $7 million to the party he founded, the United Australia Party. And Heston Russell, a former member of the defence force, gave $650,000 to the now-disbanded Australian Values Party that he founded.</p>
<h2>Federal politics is awash in dark money</h2>
<p>These are the big donors on the record, but declared donations make up only 6% of political parties’ total income. There are other sources of income on the public record, including public funding, but about a quarter of the money remains hidden.</p>
<p>Labor’s funding is a little more murky: 27% of Labor party income in 2022-23 was hidden, compared with 22% for the Coalition.</p>
<p>In the main, this isn’t because pollies are walking away with briefcases full of cash from shadowy carpark rendezvous. Giant holes in disclosure laws create plenty of perfectly legal dark corners. </p>
<p>At the federal level, parties were not obliged to disclose donations below $15,200 in 2022-23. This means, hypothetically, a donor could have donated $15,000 every week, adding up to $780,000 over the year, and political parties would not be required to declare it. The donor themselves has an obligation to tally their own donations and declare themselves when they reach the threshold, but there is no effective way to police this.</p>
<p>Even among the declared funds, it can be difficult to distinguish investment income from political fundraising, because income from fundraising events is not classified as a “donation” – it is instead grouped in with everything else in an ambiguous category of “other receipts”. </p>
<h2>Are donations swaying decisions?</h2>
<p>Some groups only donate – or donate much more – when particular policy issues are “live”. </p>
<p>Gambling was one of the top issues in the 2023 NSW state election, with the Liberal Party proposing tighter regulation of pokies. Gambling groups <a href="https://theconversation.com/tasmanias-gambling-election-shows-australia-needs-tougher-rules-on-money-in-politics-110977">have a history</a> of making big political donations when gambling restrictions are on the table. </p>
<p>Donations from gambling groups to NSW election campaigns are banned, but industry players still made their presence felt nationally. The ALP received $197,000 in income from pokies supporters (including Clubs NSW, Clubs Australia, and the federal and NSW branches of the Australian Hotels Association), while the Coalition received $123,000.</p>
<p>And accounting firm PwC – whose <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-pwc-scandal-should-be-ripe-for-the-national-anti-corruption-commissions-attention-206867">unethical behaviour</a> in managing conflicts of interest in work for the public service came to the fore last year – continued its regular pattern of political donations and other party support, giving $422,000.</p>
<p>Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare, but there is still substantial risk in more subtle influences – that donors get more access to policymakers and their views are given more weight. These risks are exacerbated by a <a href="https://theconversation.com/influence-in-australian-politics-needs-an-urgent-overhaul-heres-how-to-do-it-103535">lack of transparency</a> in dealings between policymakers and special interests.</p>
<h2>The states show us a better way</h2>
<p>Many of the states have <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/Quick_Guides/ElectionFundingStates">stronger rules</a> on money in politics than the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>For example, NSW and Victoria require election donations to be reported within 21 days, and cap total donations. They have lower thresholds for when donations must be made public, and have banned donation-splitting, so it’s harder to flout the threshold. And NSW sets limits on election spending, taking away the drive for politicians to fundraise quite so frenetically.</p>
<p>The effect of these rules is clear. Donations in the lead-up to the last federal election were dominated by a handful of people and organisations: 5% of donors contributed 73% of declared donations. In contrast, in the most recent NSW and Victorian elections, the top 5% of donors contributed just a third of donations. Better rules help to reduce the potential influence of individual donors.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-parliament-just-weakened-political-donations-laws-while-you-werent-watching-149171">Federal parliament just weakened political donations laws while you weren't watching</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Federal donations reform is on the horizon</h2>
<p>The federal donations disclosure regime has long lagged the states. But there are finally signs of change afoot.</p>
<p>A federal parliamentary committee inquiry into the 2022 election has recommended several changes to better regulate money in Australian politics, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>lowering the donations disclosure threshold to $1,000 to reduce the amount of dark money in the system</p></li>
<li><p>introducing “real time” disclosure requirements so that Australians know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”</p></li>
<li><p>introducing expenditure caps for federal elections to reduce the fundraising arms race.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It is still to be seen if the government will implement these recommendations. It should, because better rules around donations would ensure Australians know who funds our political parties and enable us to keep our politicians in check.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended in several places after the AEC corrected a mistake in Labor’s ACT branch return. The original article stated that Labor raised substantially more ($220 million) than the Coalition ($125 million). This has since been revealed to be incorrect.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Baldwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor may now be in office, but it’s the Coalition that still attracts the big bucks. And there remains much murkiness about who donates to whom - and why.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteElizabeth Baldwin, Associate researcher, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2155322023-10-12T09:40:59Z2023-10-12T09:40:59ZGrattan on Friday: Did Anthony Albanese realise what a rough journey this referendum would be?<p>Anthony Albanese has invested heart, soul and political authority in his battle to change the Constitution to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. His tears this week at Uluru, when surrounded and celebrated by Aboriginal women, showed a deep well of emotion. </p>
<p>If, as the polls indicate, the Voice is defeated on Saturday, it will be a devastating rebuff for the prime minister. He’ll have raised Indigenous hopes only to see them dashed. He’ll have led Australians on an arduous journey only to have them desert him before the destination. Did Albanese realise how risky this bold constitutional gamble would be? Some colleagues will shake their heads at his judgement. </p>
<p>Whatever a defeat would do immediately to Labor’s rating, it wouldn’t necessarily have much effect in the longer term. The reason partly goes to why Albanese couldn’t persuade more people to vote “yes”. </p>
<p>For a large swathe of voters, the Voice is a second or third order issue. At the 2025 election, most voters will have first order issues on their minds – their own economic circumstance, assessments of the government’s general competence, what they think of the Dutton alternative. The Voice will have receded into history. </p>
<p>Immediately, however, a loss would trigger bitterness and anger among many Indigenous people, feeling they’ve been spurned by other Australians. Albanese will need – as a fallback – a plan to try to tackle Indigenous disadvantage by another route. </p>
<p>This bruising referendum campaign has given insights about the various players and our society more generally. </p>
<p>If it’s shown that Albanese, mostly cautious as leader, has been willing to back himself to the point of overreach, it’s also reinforced Peter Dutton’s image as a hardball, Tony Abbott-style opposition leader. </p>
<p>Just as Abbott was brutally relentless in fighting Labor on climate change, so Dutton has been in prosecuting the “no” case. Negative politics fits Dutton like a glove, and he’s made the most of this opportunity, while losing some prominent Liberals to the “yes” campaign. He’ll receive a dose of immediate blame, and pay a price on the Liberals’ left flank, in teal seats the party needs to regain. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-no-win-will-make-it-harder-for-government-to-tackle-indigenous-disadvantage-albanese-215232">A 'no' win will make it harder for government to tackle Indigenous disadvantage: Albanese</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The referendum has highlighted what many have previously overlooked or denied: that Indigenous Australians (like other Australians) aren’t of one political mind. </p>
<p>During the campaign, Albanese repeatedly said the Voice enjoys more than 80% support among Indigenous people. This was based on polling early in the year; a Resolve poll of 420 people reported in Nine newspapers this week put support at 59%.</p>
<p>It’s unsurprising there are differing views. Indigenous politics is robust. Also, Australia’s “First Nations"include a multitude of nations, with some smaller nations concerned larger ones will dominate a Voice. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://research.csu.edu.au/engage-with-us/yindyamarra-nguluway">Yindyamarra Nguluway research program</a> at Charles Sturt University has involved yarns with 24 elders. The findings show elders divided on voting "yes”. The key issues include a lack of trust in the process of change. There is also some dismay the change process has been couched in the context of giving a Voice to Parliament to nations that have never ceded sovereignty.</p>
<p>Although the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart is viewed as an important step forward many of these elders view it to be an elite invention. Nevertheless the general view is that the Voice is a necessary gateway into a more detailed conversation about the future of Australian democracy.</p>
<p>Indigenous leaders have been on the front lines of the “yes” and “no” campaigns: Noel Pearson, Megan Davis (“yes”), Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Warren Mundine (“no”), Senator Lidia Thorpe (progressive “no”). They’re articulating different philosophies. </p>
<p>Labor senator Pat Dodson, dubbed the “father of reconciliation” for his work over decades, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-11/labor-senator-pat-dodson-addresses-press-club/102962634">told the National Press Club this week</a>: “This is the first time that we’ve had in the public space a clear division between Aboriginal leaders. […] That division is quite substantial. It’s not just a matter of opinion. </p>
<p>"It’s a division based on whether you understand our history, that this nation was colonised, Aboriginal people were forcibly subjugated, that they were denied the opportunity to have a say on how they were going to be impacted. Or whether you say it was all cosy and that we were picked up in a truck and taken into the Winter Wonderland and we lived there forever in some sort of rose garden. </p>
<p>"Now, the sad part about the debate is […] if the No camp campaign gets up, it’ll be a debate about assimilation and co-option. That’ll be where the debate in the future goes. And I don’t think we should be having that debate, because assimilation is a very toxic word to many Aboriginal people.” </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-langton-and-price-fight-with-passion-and-gloves-off-for-beliefs-213541">Grattan on Friday: Langton and Price fight with passion and gloves off for beliefs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Price denies her position is assimilationist but that’s certainly its flavour. She and some other “no” leaders argue the emphasis should be on need, not Indigeneity; “yes” leaders emphasise Indigeneity as well as need.</p>
<p>The referendum has been a case study in how, on such a polarising issue, racism and nastiness will quickly and inevitably break the surface of the “respectful debate” both sides have claimed they want. </p>
<p>Social media and the nature of contemporary politics have undoubtedly debased this particular referendum. But it’s also an old story. Robert Menzies’ 1951 (unsuccessful) referendum to ban the Communist Party was vitriolic. Anne Henderson’s <a href="https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/MENZIES-vs-EVATT-The-Great-Rivalry-of-Australian-Politics--Anne-Henderson_p_548.html">recent book Menzies versus Evatt</a> recounts how, when Menzies opened the “yes” campaign in Melbourne, then senator (later PM) John Gorton “wrestled with one interjector, allegedly snatching at the man’s collar and shouting. ‘Come outside, you yellow rat.’ Police were reported as dragging the senator away rather than the interjector.” At another meeting, when Menzies stood to speak, “an interjector shouted, ‘Heil Hitler’”. Menzies had a quick retort, “You call me Hitler and [opposition leader] Dr Evatt calls me Goebbels – make up your mind”. Propaganda came in pamphlet form rather than via the internet but it was just as gross.</p>
<p>In a democracy, sometimes giving people their say can mean enduring or dealing with a lot of bad behaviour. </p>
<p>After many weeks of people calling out some appalling examples of racism in the referendum, suddenly we see disturbing signs of ethnic hate flare in a totally different context – Hamas’s weekend atrocities and Israel’s retaliation.</p>
<p>The activities of neo-Nazis in Australia might be limited but they appear to have increased. ASIO has repeatedly warned about the growth of right-wing extremism. Even so, to hear chants of “Gas the Jews” at Monday’s Sydney pro-Palestinian rally was extraordinarily shocking. </p>
<p>ASIO head Mike Burgess warned in a Thursday statement, “It is important that all parties consider the implications for social cohesion when making public statements. […] Words matter. ASIO has seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions.”</p>
<p>We should not stop people expressing their views through demonstrations. We should, however, crack down on hate speech, whether it’s directed at those of the Jewish faith, Indigenous people, or anyone else. </p>
<p>CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to say Price and some other “no” leaders argue the emphasis should be on need, not Indigeneity; “yes” leaders emphasise Indigeneity as well as need. The original had “no” and “yes” the wrong way round.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The referendum has highlighted what many have previously overlooked or denied: that Indigenous Australians (like other Australians) aren’t of one political mindMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2138662023-10-10T19:06:17Z2023-10-10T19:06:17ZWhy Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it<p>Australia has <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australia-legislates-emissions-reduction-targets">a legislated target</a> to reduce greenhouse emissions, a federal government with commitments <a href="https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/the-82-per-cent-national-renewable-energy-target-where-did-it-come-from-and-how-can-we-get-there/#:%7E:text=A%20national%20renewable%20electricity%20target,Interconnected%20System%2C%20and%20the%20North">to increase the share of renewable electricity</a> and reduce power prices, and a globally important economic opportunity at its feet. </p>
<p>In the second half of the government’s current term, delivery looks hard across the board. All is not lost, but we must transform our economy to a timetable. The unprecedented scale and pace of the economic transformation, and the consequences of failure, demand an unprecedented response. </p>
<p>To get things on track requires the government to develop a plan with the right mix of political commitment, credible policies, coordination with industry, and support from communities. And, critically, the plan must be implemented. Too often targets have been set without being linked to policies to achieve them, or linked so poorly that the extra cost and delay sets back the climate transition.</p>
<p>By the middle of this year, Australia’s emissions were <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters/dashboard/emissions-reduction">25% below the 2005 level</a>. But the trend of steady reductions has stalled, and sectors such as <a href="https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021Fact%20sheet%20-%20Transport.pdf">transport</a> and agriculture have moved in the wrong direction. </p>
<p>Such ups and downs will continue in response to external events, as we have seen with COVID, droughts, and war on the other side of the world. Policies must be flexible if they are to remain broadly on course in the face of such events. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Trouble in the power department</h2>
<p>The detail matters: national emissions reductions <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-march-2023.pdf">have slowed</a>, as has <a href="https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/cec-australian-wind-and-solar-investment-slows-in-q2-energy-storage-booms/#:%7E:text=The%20slowdown%20in%20investment%20in,support%20from%20the%20federal%20government.">the growth in renewable generation</a> towards the government’s 2030 target of 82%. </p>
<p>At the same time, the government’s <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/powering-australia">target of lower power bills</a> by 2025 looks out of reach, and electricity reliability is threatened as coal-fired generation closes without adequate replacement.</p>
<p>The production and use of natural gas <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Flame-out-Grattan-report.pdf">contributes around 20%</a> of Australia’s emissions. The use of gas in industry will be covered by the <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-Safeguard-Mechanism#:%7E:text=The%20Safeguard%20Mechanism%20has%20been%20in%20place%20since%201%20July,must%20manage%20their%20excess%20emissions.">Safeguard Mechanism</a>, a policy designed by the Coalition and now revised by Labor, to drive down emissions from the country’s 200 biggest emitters. </p>
<p>Emissions from gas-fired power generation will fall with the growth of renewables. But there are no constraints on fossil gas use in other sectors, such as our homes. </p>
<p>Industrial emissions are <a href="https://theconversation.com/nearly-30-of-australias-emissions-come-from-industry-tougher-rules-for-big-polluters-is-a-no-brainer-190264">slowly growing</a>. The huge amount of hype about green hydrogen has so far proven to be little more than that: Australia continues to have lots of potential green hydrogen projects, but <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-leads-world-in-green-hydrogen-hype-and-hope-but-not-in-actual-projects/">virtually none are delivered</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, we remain without <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/fuel-efficiency-standard-cleaner-cheaper-run-cars-australia-consultation-paper-april2023.pdf">constraints on vehicle emissions</a>, and with a large herd of <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/cp/CP22299#:%7E:text=In%20Australia%2C%2071%25%20of%20agricultural,by%20grazing%20sheep%20and%20cattle.">grazing cattle and sheep</a> whose emissions are determined more by the weather than the actions of our best-meaning farmers.</p>
<h2>The risk of swinging from naive to negative</h2>
<p>So, we are in a hard place. Naïve optimism about an easy, cheap transition to net zero is at risk of giving way to brutal negativity that it’s all just too hard. The warnings of early spring fires and floods in Australia and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/17/extreme-temperatures-recorded-across-northern-hemisphere">extreme heat</a> during the most recent northern hemisphere summer will feed this tension.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The federal government’s latest <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2023-intergenerational-report">Intergenerational</a> Report provides a deeply disturbing snapshot of the potential economic impacts if we fail to get climate change under control. Yet in a world 3 to 4 degrees hotter than pre-industrial levels, economic impacts could be the least of our worries.</p>
<p>The task is unparalleled outside wartime. Within 30 years we must manage the decline of fossil fuel extractive sectors, transform every aspect of our energy and transport sectors, reindustrialise much of manufacturing, and find solutions to difficult problems in agriculture.</p>
<p>What’s to be done?</p>
<h2>The need for a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee</h2>
<p>We should begin with leadership across the federal government, coordinated with the states and territories. The best structure might be a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee with two clear objectives – to develop and begin implementing a national net zero transformation plan by the end of 2024. </p>
<p>Modern governments are more than happy to set targets and announce plans to meet them. They seem to have lost the capacity or will to implement such plans. The <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/news/net-zero-economy-agency#:%7E:text=The%20Net%20Zero%20Economy%20Agency,of%20the%20net%20zero%20economy.">Net Zero Economy Agency</a>, created in July and chaired by former Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, could be charged with that task.</p>
<p>The first step is being taken – the <a href="https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/">Climate Change Authority</a> is now advising on emissions reduction targets for 2035 and perhaps beyond. The government’s work to create pathways to reducing emissions in every economic sector must be used to build a comprehensive set of policies that are directly linked to meeting the targets.</p>
<h2>How to get electricity moving in the right direction</h2>
<p>The electricity sector can be put on track with three actions. One, drive emissions reduction towards net zero using a sector-focused policy such as the <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target">Renewable Energy Target</a> or the Safeguard Mechanism. </p>
<p>Two, implement the <a href="https://www.energy.gov.au/government-priorities/energy-supply/capacity-investment-scheme">Capacity Investment Scheme</a>, a policy intended to deliver dispatchable electricity capacity to balance a system built on intermittent wind and solar supply. </p>
<p>Three, set up a National Transmission Agency to work with the <a href="https://aemo.com.au/en">Australian Energy Market Operator</a> (AEMO) to plan the national transmission grid and with authority to direct, fund, and possibly own that grid.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/made-in-america-how-bidens-climate-package-is-fuelling-the-global-drive-to-net-zero-214709">Made in America: how Biden's climate package is fuelling the global drive to net zero</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For heavy industry, the scale and pace of change demands a 21st-century industry policy, in three parts. Activities such as coal mining will be essentially incompatible with a net-zero economy. Activities such as steel-making may be able to transform through economic, low-emissions technologies. </p>
<p>Finally, activities such as low-emissions extraction and processing of critical energy minerals, which are insignificant today but which in time could help Australia to capitalise on globally significant comparative advantages. </p>
<h2>Create a plan – and stick to it</h2>
<p>The government has made a good start by revising the Safeguard Mechanism and the <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/publications/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy">Hydrogen Strategy</a> and developing a <a href="https://www.globalaustralia.gov.au/industries/net-zero/critical-minerals#:%7E:text=Australia's%20Critical%20Mineral%20Strategy%202023,raw%20and%20processed%20critical%20minerals.">Critical Minerals Strategy</a>. These should be brought together in an overarching policy framework with consistent, targeted policies linked to clear goals, developed and executed in sustained collaboration with industry. </p>
<p>The Safeguard Mechanism will need to be extended beyond 2030 and its emissions threshold for the companies it covers lowered to 25,000 tonnes of emissions per year.</p>
<p>Industry funding will probably need to expand, and give priority to export-oriented industries that will grow in a net-zero global economy. And the federal and state governments should phase out all programs that encourage expansion of fossil fuel extraction or consumption.</p>
<p>In transport, long-delayed emissions standards should be set and implemented. Finally, government-funded research, some of it already underway, should focus on difficult areas such as early-stage emissions reduction technologies in specific heavy industries, transport subsectors, and emissions from grazing cattle and sheep.</p>
<p>There is little new or radical in the elements of this plan. What would be new is a commitment to its design and implementation. This is what government needs to do now. The consequences of failure are beyond our worst fears, the benefits of success beyond our best dreams.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Wood may have a financial interest in companies relevant to the article through his superannuation fund. </span></em></p>Australia’s move towards net zero emissoions by 2020 is in danger of stalling. If it is not to fail, the nation urgently needs a government plan, aligned with industry and with public support.Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2152632023-10-09T07:13:51Z2023-10-09T07:13:51ZSenate committee says government should ‘immediately review’ its rejection of Qatar flights<p>A Senate inquiry into the Albanese government’s refusal to agree to the extra flights sought by Qatar Airways has recommended the decision be immediately reviewed. </p>
<p>The inquiry’s report, tabled Monday, is also sharply critical of Qantas, whose executives came under hostile questioning over its treatment of customers, when they appeared before the committee. </p>
<p>In its majority report the committee, chaired by the Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie, asks the Senate to re-appoint it so it can bring before it former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who declined to appear saying he was overseas. This will require a Senate vote.</p>
<p>Qantas opposed the Qatar application, on the ground it would distort the market. </p>
<p>The report criticises Transport Minister Catherine King for not clearly articulating the factors in her decision not to approve the Qatar application. She has maintained she acted in the “national interest”, and given various reasons at different times. </p>
<p>“A wide range of witnesses, including key stakeholders in Australian aviation, submitted that they did not fully understand the basis for the decision,” the report says. </p>
<p>“The weight of evidence before the committee indicates the national interest would have been well served by agreeing to Qatar’s request.” The report also criticises the government’s refusal to provide the committee with information it sought. </p>
<p>Evidence suggested the decision cost the economy a loss of up to $1 billion; it was also a missed opportunity for tourism and trade, particularly agricultural exports that use passenger planes, the report says. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/qantas-chief-alan-joyce-quits-early-amid-customer-fury-at-the-airline-212845">Qantas chief Alan Joyce quits early, amid customer fury at the airline</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The inquiry recommends that in deciding on bilateral air agreements, the government should look at a cost-benefit analysis, consult widely with stakeholders including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and publish its reasons for decisions. </p>
<p>In the wake of the government’s rejection, Qatar has asked for consultations.</p>
<p>King responded to the report by denouncing the inquiry as a “political stunt” by the Coalition. The committee has repeated its request to King to appear before it, which she has declined to do.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-transport-minister-catherine-king-struggles-to-find-a-landing-strip-amid-qatar-turbulence-213076">Grattan on Friday: Transport Minister Catherine King struggles to find a landing strip amid Qatar turbulence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The committee comprised three Coalition senators, one from the United Australia Party, two from Labor and one from the Greens. </p>
<p>In their dissenting report Labor senators Tony Sheldon and Linda White said many of the majority recommendations “appear blissfully ignorant of the current policy framework underpinning Australia’s aviation sector”. Green senator Penny Allman-Payne also dissented on some issues.</p>
<p>The report recommends reinstatement of the monitoring of the airline industry by the ACCC. </p>
<p>It says that in addition to this broad monitoring of competition in aviation, “the committee would support a specific investigation by the ACCC into Qantas’ actions in the aviation market. </p>
<p>"The committee is concerned by evidence suggesting Qantas may be especially aggressive when seeking to maintain its market share. This muscular approach towards competitors and new entrants can compound the problems that are already caused by a lack of competition.”</p>
<p>The Qantas group has “significant steps to take to repair trust” with consumers, the report says. “The committee expects tangible improvements regarding their behaviour toward their customers.”</p>
<p>The committee recommends the government develop consumer protection reforms in the aviation industry as soon as practicable to address delays, cancellations, lost baggage and devaluation of loyalty programs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The inquiry’s report is sharply critical of Qantas, and has recommended the decision to block extra flights sought by Qatar Airways be immediately reviewedMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2145692023-09-28T10:36:54Z2023-09-28T10:36:54ZGrattan on Friday: In the second half of this term Albanese will need to concentrate on delivery<p>Labor’s national landscape is changing. Daniel Andrews’ abrupt exit from the Victorian premiership this week is the latest development in a wider picture. </p>
<p>Just a few months ago, two of the strongest state Labor leaders in recent history were solidly ensconced in Western Australia and Victoria, and Labor had just taken power in New South Wales. Federally, Anthony Albanese retained most of his glow. The Voice referendum was in positive territory (although declining support presaged what was to come). </p>
<p>Now both WA’s Mark McGowan and Andrews have walked away. Federally, Labor is looking like an ordinary government. “Ordinary”, not as in “bad”, but “ordinary” in the sense of a government facing a host of problems in what are difficult times, most notably a cost-of-living crisis and what seems a cold climate for trying to achieve a significant change to the constitution. </p>
<p>Looking a year ahead, Labor will be struggling against the electoral tide in Queensland, where (on present polling) the Palaszczuk government could lose office.</p>
<p>Palaszczuk has said she is determined to stay at the helm for the election, but her leadership has been under pressure from her colleagues.</p>
<p>COVID enabled Andrews and McGowan to transcend their state stages to become national figures. Of the COVID premiers, only Palaszczuk remains (ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr is also still there). </p>
<p>The COVID era is behind us – except that Bureau of Statistics figures out this week put COVID as third among leading causes of death in 2022, behind heart disease and dementia. (In 2020, it ranked 38th; in 2021, 33rd.) That makes it all the more unfortunate Albanese has excluded, in the formal terms of reference for his COVID inquiry, the unilateral actions of state governments. </p>
<p>The changing of the guard in Victorian and WA Labor, the Queensland government’s troubles and the challenges for the Albanese government are morale boosters for the Liberals. </p>
<p>But the Liberals are a shambles in Victoria and a tiny rump in WA, so there are no early recoveries in those states. Queensland provides their bright spot at state level. Federally, the best the Dutton opposition probably could hope for at the next election would be to push Labor into minority government. </p>
<p>Albanese could never aspire to Bob Hawke’s “messiah” status. But after the 2022 election he soared high, elevated in part by people’s relief the Morrison government was gone; in political terms, the country seemed to have emerged from a black hole into the sunlight. </p>
<p>The Labor government launched into intense activity, including a plethora of reviews, and promised a better style of politics. The pace of activity continues, but inevitably political reality has set in. </p>
<p>Criticisms of the government range from overreach to underreach, achievement failing to reach ambition, corner-cutting. It comes from the right and the left and, on issues like the pursuit of emissions reduction, from both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. </p>
<p>Let’s not bypass the positives. The budget is in better shape than thought possible – partly through fortuitous circumstances, although the government stresses its finding and banking savings. Whatever the mix, there’s a surplus of $22 billion for last financial year and (despite Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ caution) surely a good prospect of a surplus this financial year. But while the budget is currently looking good, the economy is headed to slower growth. </p>
<p>Chalmers is a workhorse and has brought some changes (including the reforms of the Reserve Bank) and foreshadowed others (such as a revamp of the Productivity Commission). This week he released his employment white paper. </p>
<p>The paper is a reminder that it’s one thing to set out aspirations and directions, another to land delivery. A measure of the long-term worth of this paper will be the extent to which it does deliver jobs and extra hours to the up to 3 million people it says are seeking them. That will require effort on multiple fronts to reduce the disadvantages many of these people have.</p>
<p>The housing crisis provides an even sharper test of delivery. The government has various initiatives on the go, but the rate of construction is slow. Meanwhile an immigration rate running above an already large forecast adds to the housing pressures. </p>
<p>Labor boasts it’s implementing its election commitments. More generally, the (nearly completed) first half of the government’s first term has seen many policy announcements – the second half will need to emphasise delivery.</p>
<p>As the cost-of-living crisis grips the country, Chalmers has to fend off the popular calls for extra spending. This week brought unwelcome news on inflation, which has risen from an annual rate of 4.9% in July to 5.2% in August. That puts more attention on the Reserve Bank’s meeting next Tuesday – the first under new governor Michele Bullock – but Chalmers has played down the prospect of a rate rise. </p>
<p>Enough time has elapsed to show which ministers are good performers and who’s struggling. Transport Minister Catherine King is in the latter category. The government has still not been able to put behind it, or adequately explain, its decision to deny Qatar Airways the extra flights it sought. </p>
<p>A Senate inquiry (which the government had unsuccessfully tried to head off) this week probed the entrails of that decision, with senators giving the bosses of Qantas (favoured by the outcome) a hard time, and the government resisting providing documents. King, meanwhile, was on leave, for the school holidays. She has now been invited to appear before the committee but can’t be forced to do so. </p>
<p>The inquiry is emblematic: the Senate is becoming increasingly willing to take on the government. This is both despite and because of its progressive majority (the Greens have been poking the government bear on occasion, notably over housing). </p>
<p>Although the government is anxious to show it is concentrating on more than the Voice, the referendum will dominate the fortnight before the October 14 vote. On present indications, the government expects to lose. Albanese is preparing for defeat (while not conceding it), telling the Guardian’s Katharine Murphy the referendum will have been worthwhile regardless because it has brought the issue of Indigenous disadvantage to the fore.</p>
<p>Later in the month, Albanese will be in Washington on a state visit, feted at the White House. In politics, much is comparative. The Australian prime minister might privately muse that whatever problems he faces, they are way, way easier than those confronting his host.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Looking a year ahead, Labor will be struggling against the electoral tide in Queensland, where (on present polling) the Palaszczuk government could lose officeMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2144882023-09-27T08:38:15Z2023-09-27T08:38:15ZWord from The Hill: Assessing Daniel Andrews, the extraordinary Pezzullo story, senators give Qantas chiefs a hard time<p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation’s politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and politics editor Amanda Dunn discuss Victorian premier Daniel Andrews’ exit, as well as the revelation of extraordinary texts from leading public servant Mike Pezzullo promoting his views to the Coalition government through a Liberal insider. </p>
<p>They also canvass the Senate inquiry into the Qatar Airways saga, with Qantas chairman Richard Goyder and its new CEO Vanessa Hudson given a very hard time by committee members at a hearing on Wednesday.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214488/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Victorian premier Daniel Andrews' exit, the extraordinary story of Mike Pezzullo's text messages, and the Senate inquiry into QANTAS and the Qatar Airways saga. Catch up this week's politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2140682023-09-21T06:47:52Z2023-09-21T06:47:52ZView from The Hill: Josh Frydenberg puts political ambition aside to remain in business<p>Former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s decision to put a business future before an attempted political revival is a blow for the Liberal Party, but a relief for the teal member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan. </p>
<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton might regard his former colleague’s decision with mixed feelings. Frydenberg would probably have increased the chance of the Liberals regaining Kooyong in 2025. </p>
<p>But if elected, Frydenberg would have become an obvious choice for party leader (on the very reasonable assumption the Coalition was still in opposition). More immediately, speculation about that prospect would have dogged Dutton in the run-up to the next election.</p>
<p>For Frydenberg, this must be a bittersweet moment. As he said in a note to Kooyong branch members, telling them he wouldn’t be seeking preselection, “It is a difficult decision and one I have been weighing up for some time”.</p>
<p>His aspiration to be prime minister has been long-standing, strong and obvious. He was indefatigable as treasurer, a quality shared by his successor Jim Chalmers, who also aspires to the top job. But business gives him a bright, lucrative, family-friendly future, without the pressures and uncertainties that politics bring. </p>
<p>Anyway, winning back Kooyong (which Frydenberg held from 2010-22) would have been no shoo-in. Ryan is regarded as more vulnerable than some of the other teals, but the demographics of the seat have been changing and there is a boundary redistribution to come. </p>
<p>After joining Goldman Sachs following his defeat, Frydenberg will now become chairman of the investment bank in Australia and New Zealand. </p>
<p>The firm said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In this role, Josh will focus on further deepening and strengthening client coverage across the A/NZ region. He will continue to offer advice on economic and geopolitical issues as the firm’s senior regional advisor for Asia Pacific.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While it’s possible Frydenberg, 52, might consider running in the election after next – and he hasn’t closed off that option – it would seem unlikely. </p>
<p>The 2025 election was the logical time to try for a comeback. A term on and much water will have gone under the bridge – in his own life and in politics. The Liberal line-up would be different, the road to leadership potentially harder. Perhaps the fight in Kooyong (or some other seat, if that were back in Liberal hands) would be more difficult.</p>
<p>Frydenberg became of a victim of the teal wave. He had stuck very close to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison: loyalty is an admirable character trait but not always a political advantage. </p>
<p>If he, rather than Morrison, had led into the last election, the Coalition might have done better; on the other hand, a leadership change carries its own costs. In any case, it was never on the cards. </p>
<p>Frydenberg, a conservative who became more centrist as time went on, was treasurer in extraordinary circumstances, confronting the economic challenges and demands imposed by the pandemic. He oversaw the wage subsidy JobKeeper program that, while it had its flaws which have seemed more significant in retrospect, was critical to keeping many businesses and workers afloat. </p>
<p>Independent economist Chris Richardson says JobKeeper “wasn’t perfect but it was bloody beautiful”. He praises Frydenberg’s COVID performance, saying, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key thing was to make the wheels of government move faster than they had ever moved before. I give him high marks for that. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another independent economist, Saul Eslake, agrees Frydenberg did a good job during COVID, with the only serious mistake being in some of the detail of JobKeeper.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He was right to throw overboard all the Coalition rhetoric about debt and deficit. He was honest, thoughtful and consultative. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Morrison, Eslake says, was a “huge handicap” because he was not an effective communicator of economic ideas, “in contrast to the prime ministers who backed Paul Keating and Peter Costello, the two most successful treasurers of recent history”. </p>
<p>But for the pandemic, Frydenberg would have seen the budget back in black. That achievement now belongs to Chalmers, who is savouring the moment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While it’s possible Frydenberg, 52, might consider running in the election after next, it would seem unlikely. The 2025 election was the logical time to try for a comeback bidMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2137352023-09-17T12:33:22Z2023-09-17T12:33:22ZClimate minister Chris Bowen says replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear would cost $387 billion<p>The government says replacing Australia’s retiring fleet of coal-fired power stations with nuclear energy would cost some $387 billion. </p>
<p>The costing, put out by the Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, is a pre-emptive strike against the opposition, which is moving to include nuclear power in the energy policy it takes to the next election. </p>
<p>Bowen said the nuclear option would represent a $25,000 cost impost on each of more than 15 million Australian taxpayers. The costings were done by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. </p>
<p>To replace Australia’s retiring coal fleet of 21.3GW, a minimum of 71 300MW small modular reactors would be needed, Bowen says. This could cost $387 billion, with the estimated capital cost of $18,167/kW for SMRs in 2030, compared to large scale solar at just $1,058/kW, and onshore wind at $1,989/kW.</p>
<p>Those in the opposition promoting the nuclear option argue that including it is the only way Australia will get to net zero emissions by 2050. But there are no details of the speed or extent of the use of nuclear energy that would be in the policy, which has yet to be drafted and approved by the Coalition. The role of nuclear would also be constrained by the pace at which the technology for small reactors is being developed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-coalitions-likely-embrace-of-nuclear-energy-is-high-risk-politics-211346">Grattan on Friday: The Coalition's likely embrace of nuclear energy is high-risk politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Opposition leader Peter Dutton said in a speech in July: “If the government wants to stop coal-fired power and phase out gas-fired power, the only feasible and proven technology which can firm-up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean, cost-effective and consistent power is next generation nuclear technologies which are safe and emit zero emissions.”</p>
<p>Dutton said nuclear technologies and renewables should be seen as companions not competitors. </p>
<p>“New nuclear technologies are factory-built, portable, scalable and can even be relocated,” he said. “New nuclear technologies can be plugged into existing grids and work immediately.”</p>
<p>“We could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites,” Dutton said in the July speech.</p>
<p>Bowen said the $387 billion was 20 times the cost of the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund. The government says this fund will support unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.
Bowen describes the opposition’s pursuit of nuclear energy as a pipe dream, saying nuclear is around three times more expensive than firmed renewables.</p>
<p>He said the opposition wanted “to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it.</p>
<p>"Peter Dutton and the opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason.” </p>
<p>Bowen’s attack comes as the government is facing a backlash from farmers against the new power lines needed to transmit renewable energy.</p>
<p>Writing on The Conversation website recently, the Grattan Institute’s energy expert Tony Wood said solar and wind farm investment had markedly slowed because there was not as yet the right grid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The costing, put out by the Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, is a pre-emptive strike against the opposition, which is moving to include nuclear power in the energy policy it takes to the next electionMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2127732023-09-12T03:04:10Z2023-09-12T03:04:10ZWhat does history tell us about the Coalition’s proposal for a second referendum?<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/peter-dutton-pledges-second-referendum-if-voice-fails/102808598">committed</a> to holding another referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition (without a Voice to Parliament), if the upcoming Voice referendum fails. </p>
<p>What does history tell us about the repeat of referendums on the same or similar subjects?</p>
<h2>Hope springs eternal for a government that wants more power</h2>
<p>In the first half of the 20th century, Commonwealth governments tended to bring referendums that sought to expand Commonwealth legislative power over commercial and industrial matters. </p>
<p>This included holding referendums on:</p>
<ul>
<li>trade and commerce in 1911, 1913 and 1919</li>
<li>corporations in 1911, 1913, 1919, 1926 and 1944</li>
<li>monopolies in 1911, 1913, 1919 and 1944</li>
<li>trusts in 1913, 1919, 1926 and 1944</li>
<li>marketing in 1937, 1944 and 1946</li>
<li>industrial relations in 1911, 1913, 1919 and 1946.</li>
</ul>
<p>In some cases, the referendums were intended to be temporary measures for postwar reconstruction. But regardless of the context, all these referendums failed. They even failed when they had bipartisan support. This was usually because they were opposed by state premiers or affected groups, such as unions, primary producers and business organisations. </p>
<h2>Amendments about political arrangements rarely win</h2>
<p>In the second half of the 20th century, referendums tended to focus more on political and voting arrangements. </p>
<p>For example, there were referendums to require simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives in 1974, 1977, 1984 and 1988. Improving the fairness of elections was also put to referendums in 1974 and 1988. </p>
<p>The constitutional recognition of local government was considered in referendums in 1974 and 1988, and almost went to a third referendum in 2013, before it was pulled by then prime minister Kevin Rudd. </p>
<p>All of these referendums also failed. It seems Australian voters are not only suspicious about giving the Commonwealth parliament greater powers, but are also wary about altering the political and electoral rules set out in the Constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-will-vote-in-a-referendum-on-october-14-what-do-you-need-to-know-195352">Australians will vote in a referendum on October 14. What do you need to know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The rare cases where a second go succeeds</h2>
<p>The one case that bucked the trend was the amendment of the referendum process itself. </p>
<p>In 1901, there were no Commonwealth territories. So when the Constitution was passed, it provided that a referendum had to be put to voters in each state and would succeed when it was approved by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. </p>
<p>This meant that when the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory were established, their electors could not vote in federal referendums at all. </p>
<p>In 1974, a referendum proposed to change this, so residents in the territories would be counted in the overall national vote in a referendum. But this referendum question also proposed to alter the majority requirement, so that success was only needed in half of the states (three out of six), rather than a majority of states (four out of six). </p>
<p>The referendum failed. It was most strongly opposed in the least populous states.</p>
<p>In 1977, there was a second attempt, but this time it only proposed giving territorians the right to vote in a referendum and be counted in the overall majority. It succeeded in every state and overall. </p>
<p>So, it is possible to alter the terms of a failed referendum and achieve success – but it is very rare.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1263292175816761345"}"></div></p>
<p>Another example goes back to federation itself. In 1898, referendums were held in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to approve federation. But while the NSW referendum achieved a majority, it did not meet the threshold requirement of 80,000 “yes” votes that was set out in the legislation for the referendum to succeed. </p>
<p>As there was no compulsory voting in those days, a minimum threshold had been put in place to ensure federation did not occur as a result of the votes of a small minority of those enfranchised.</p>
<p>But the vote was enough to tell the politicians that the voters actually wanted federation. This caused them to meet in a premiers’ conference in January 1899 to make some tweaks to the draft Constitution, including a compromise requiring Australia’s capital to be in NSW, but at least 100 miles from Sydney – which is how we got Canberra. </p>
<p>When a fresh <a href="https://education.aec.gov.au/teacher-resources/federation/the-referendums.html">referendum</a> was held in June 1899, it succeeded, with a “yes” vote of 107,420 against a “no” vote of 82,741. The other states then also approved federation, and the Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-referendums-in-australia-is-riddled-with-failure-albanese-has-much-at-risk-and-much-to-gain-198799">The history of referendums in Australia is riddled with failure. Albanese has much at risk – and much to gain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The factors needed for success</h2>
<p>While most “second runs” of referendums fail, it is possible to succeed if the referendum proposal is altered or untethered from an unpopular element. The key factor in success, however, is having no organised group that opposes it. Bipartisan support at the Commonwealth level is therefore extremely important, as is support at the state level. </p>
<p>For example, the 1928 referendum on financial agreements between the Commonwealth and states succeeded, despite containing a radical clause that allowed these agreements to override state and federal laws and the Constitution itself. </p>
<p>It succeeded because the terms of the amendment had already been agreed to by every state parliament, as well as both sides in the Commonwealth parliament, before being put to the people. There had been an awful lot of advance groundwork done, so voters could be reassured by all sides and all levels of government that the amendment was safe and sensible.</p>
<p>But it is also important to capture the support of those who are particularly affected by the referendum, as any concerted campaign of opposition is likely to sow enough doubt to cause defeat. In the past, campaigns by religious organisations, unions, employers and primary producers have sunk referendum proposals. </p>
<p>If a second referendum were to be held on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, substantial support by Indigenous Australians would be essential for its success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments, Parliaments and inter-governmental bodies. She was a member of the Constitutional Expert Group, which advised the Commonwealth Government's Referendum Working Group on the wording of the proposed referendum. She is also a part-time consultant for Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers.</span></em></p>While most repeat referendums fail, it is possible to succeed if the referendum proposal is altered or untethered from an unpopular element.Anne Twomey, Professor emerita, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2123682023-09-04T00:36:25Z2023-09-04T00:36:25ZAlbanese records first net negative Newspoll approval as Voice support slumps further<p>The first federal Newspoll since <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-gains-in-newspoll-2pp-despite-primary-slide-lnp-wins-fadden-byelection-easily-209686">mid-July</a>, conducted August 28 to September 1 from a sample of 1,200, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a two-point gain for the Coalition. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up three), 35% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (up one), 7% One Nation (steady) and 8% for all Others (down three).</p>
<p>On Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, 46% (up six) were dissatisfied and 45% (down six) were satisfied, for a net approval of -1, down 12 points. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s net approval improved two points to -11. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 50–31, down from a 54–29 lead in mid-July.</p>
<p>In a particularly bleak result for the “yes” case in the October 14 referendum on an Indigenous Voice to parliament, “no” led by 53–38, out from a 48–41 “no” lead in mid-July. Newspoll figures are from <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/09/03/newspoll-53-47-to-labor-16/">The Poll Bludger</a>.</p>
<p>Here is the chart of all 2023 Voice polls by Newspoll, Resolve, Essential and Morgan that I <a href="https://theconversation.com/voice-support-slumps-in-essential-poll-lnp-leads-in-queensland-208578">first published</a> in July. As we approach the referendum, it continues to worsen for “yes”.</p>
<p>Just one of 25 Labor-initiated referendums have succeeded in winning the required four of the six states as well as a national majority. While not succeeding, referendums held at general elections have performed far better than those held midterm.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/while-the-voice-has-a-large-poll-lead-now-history-of-past-referendums-indicates-it-may-struggle-204365">While the Voice has a large poll lead now, history of past referendums indicates it may struggle</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Voice would have had a far better chance at a general election. Choosing to hold it midterm was a blunder.</p>
<p>Albanese’s Newspoll net approval of -1 is easily his worst this term. His previous worst net approval was -10 in late June. The graph below is an update of the graph I published with the mid-July Newspoll article.</p>
<p>Labor’s 53% two party vote in this Newspoll is its lowest for this term, a drop from 54% in March and late June. I believe both the Voice and the cost of living are affecting Albanese and Labor’s ratings.</p>
<p>YouGov used to administer Newspoll, but Pyxis Polling has now taken over. Pyxis was formed when two senior staff quit Newspoll. While YouGov’s Newspolls used fieldwork periods from Wednesday to Saturday, this Newspoll used a Monday to Friday fieldwork.</p>
<p>The sample size of 1,200 for this Newspoll is lower than the 1,500–1,600 used for most Newspolls conducted by YouGov. However, The Poll Bludger’s report said that the “effective” sample size (sample after weighting adjustments) for this Newspoll was near the actual sample size, while for the YouGov polls it was well under the actual sample.</p>
<h2>Tasmanian EMRS poll: Liberals recover after slump</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63435f017f0007502ab52a5d/t/64e6b8e2485aea1c90404892/1692842213563/EMRS+State+Voting+Intentions+Report+-+August+2023.pdf">Tasmanian EMRS poll</a>, conducted August 15–21 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 38% of the primary vote (up two since May), Labor 32% (up one), the Greens 14% (down one) and all Others 16% (down two). In May, the Liberals were down six points.</p>
<p>Incumbent Liberal Jeremy Rockliff led Labor’s Rebecca White by 42–39 as preferred premier, reversing a White lead of 40–38 in May. Tasmania uses a proportional system for its lower house elections, so a two party estimate is not applicable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212368/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest Newspoll shows more bad news for the “yes” campaign.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2113462023-08-10T10:37:42Z2023-08-10T10:37:42ZGrattan on Friday: The Coalition’s likely embrace of nuclear energy is high-risk politics<p>Crazy brave, or just crazy? If, as seems likely, the opposition embraces nuclear power in its 2025 election policy, it will be taking a huge political gamble. </p>
<p>The Coalition might argue this would be the best (or only) way to ensure we achieve net zero by 2050. But “nuclear” is a trigger word in the political debate, and the reactions it triggers are mostly negative. </p>
<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been open since the election about nuclear energy being on the Coalition’s agenda. It’s a “no surprises” tactic – but one that has allowed the government, especially Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, to regularly attack and ridicule the idea. </p>
<p>This week opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O'Brien was spruiking nuclear power, writing in The Australian about the US state of Wyoming’s plans for a coal-to-nuclear transition. </p>
<p>O'Brien visited some months ago. “What struck me was the extent to which residents were embracing their nuclear future,” he wrote. “Four coal communities had gone head-to-head in a competitive bid to host the state’s first nuclear plant.”</p>
<p>O'Brien, a Queensland Liberal, has been a vociferous nuclear advocate; he chaired a parliamentary inquiry under the former government that recommended work to deepen understanding of nuclear technology and a partial lifting of the present moratorium, dating from 1998, on nuclear energy. </p>
<p>Nationals leader David Littleproud has also been central to the push for the Coalition to back nuclear energy.</p>
<p>The Nationals, by their climate scepticism and their deep attachment to coal, held back the Coalition on climate policy for more than a decade. Ahead of the 2022 election they were dragged by Scott Morrison to agree to the 2050 target with a massive financial bribe (some of which they didn’t receive because of the change of government). </p>
<p>Now, in opposition, some of the Nationals’ rump would like the party to ditch the 2050 commitment. The nuclear option would be one means of keeping them in the tent. </p>
<p>The “nuclear” the Coalition is talking about doesn’t involve old-style plants, but “new and emerging technologies” including small modular reactors. </p>
<p>That’s one of the problems for the policy – this is an emerging technology, not a quick fix to Australia’s challenges in transiting from fossil fuels. </p>
<p>That is, however, nothing compared with the challenge of public opinion. Notably, the 2019 parliamentary report was titled Nuclear Energy - Not without your approval. </p>
<p><a href="https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2022/">A 2022 Lowy poll</a> found Australians divided on the issue of nuclear power, although opinion appeared to be softening. Some 52% supported removing the ban, which was a five-point rise from 2021; 45% opposed this – six points down on the year before.</p>
<p>The government would have a ready-made “not in my backyard” campaign to launch against the Coalition’s policy. Whether the Wyoming experience suggests feeling could be different in coal communities – which might see future jobs on offer – is, however, an interesting question. </p>
<p>Another extremely hard issue is that of waste. We only have to think of the massive difficulty in finding a disposal site for the waste from the Lucas Heights facility, which is from nuclear medicine. </p>
<p>The point was highlighted on Thursday when the Albanese government abandoned its plan for a waste dump near Kimba in South Australia. This followed an adverse federal court judgement, which upheld a challenge by local Indigenous people. </p>
<p>The government has decided not to appeal, presumably influenced by the delicate stage of the Voice referendum. </p>
<p>Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “The judgement was clear, and the government is listening”. She had visited Kimba in January and saw “a town divided” on the issue. The search will continue for another site. </p>
<p>The opposition called the failure to appeal “gutless”. Shadow foreign minister Simon Birmingham said a “strong majority” of the Kimba community had expressed a willingness to host the dump.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1689417118289473536"}"></div></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The failure to deliver this site creates huge uncertainties for nuclear medicines, leaves waste at temporary city sites all over Australia and undermines confidence that Labor is capable of the difficult decisions required to deliver nuclear powered submarines under AUKUS.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The opposition argues the planned nuclear submarine program provides a foot in the door to advance its case for nuclear energy. It will require limited onshore nuclear capability, and eventually Australia will have to deal with the waste from its boats. </p>
<p>But more persuasive, one would think – if people can be persuaded – would be high power prices and the difficulties of the energy transition, which we are already seeing as baseload power goes out of the system. </p>
<p>For that argument to work, however, the economics of nuclear power would have to stack up, and at present they don’t (although O'Brien disputes that).</p>
<p>Tony Wood, Director of the Energy Program at the Grattan Institute, lists some of the arguments against nuclear that the Coalition will have to deal with. </p>
<p>“There are doubts whether a small modular reactor could provide dispatchable power similar to a gas peaking plant,” Wood says. </p>
<p>There is also little real-world evidence these reactors would deliver cheaper prices, he says. “The SMRs are still in the early stages of development and already costing more than the proponents had expected.”</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nuclear in Australia is many years away, given the status of the technology and the fact we would have to train an entirely new workforce from scratch. </p>
<p>Lift the ban by all means. Nothing would change today. But the evidence that a social licence could be gained is minimal. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Coalition might believe it is ahead of the curve on the potential for small nuclear reactors for Australia. Whether or not that’s so, only technology and history will tell. </p>
<p>But even if it is right, sometimes you can be too far ahead of the political curve. Bill Shorten’s climate policy in 2019 was only a very little ahead, but it turned into one of the obstacles for his campaign when he couldn’t convincingly answer all the questions about it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peter Dutton has been open since the election about nuclear energy being on the Coalition’s agenda - but that has allowed the government, especially Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, to attack the ideaMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2111292023-08-08T15:09:37Z2023-08-08T15:09:37ZKenya’s political dialogue is a welcome sign of democracy at work – if both sides understand their roles<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541515/original/file-20230807-26-bhua21.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Raila Odinga, the leader of the Azimio la Umoja coalition in Kenya.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Simon Maina/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since Kenya’s presidential <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/15/william-ruto-declared-winner-of-kenya-presidential-election-amid-dispute">election in August 2022</a>, the new government has been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-62631193#:%7E:text=Argues%20that%20he%20did%20not,questions%20about%20the%20tallying%20process">in conflict</a> with the opposition. </p>
<p>In democratic systems, such conflict is healthy; it can enhance governance. But it <a href="https://www.africanews.com/2023/07/20/kenyas-violent-protests-sabotaging-economy-president-ruto-says/">must not interfere with</a> the government’s ability to perform its constitutional functions.</p>
<p>In Kenya, the friction between the government and opposition led to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jul/21/death-toll-rises-as-kenyas-cost-of-living-protests-continue">mass protests</a> in March 2023. The <a href="https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20230320-kenyan-opposition-leader-raila-odinga-calls-for-weekly-rallies-over-cost-of-living-crisis">opposition</a> organised them <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/20/africa/kenya-cost-of-living-protests-explainer-intl/index.html#:%7E:text=A%20wave%20of%20deadly%20protests,businesses%20attacked%20and%20schools%20closed.">around</a> rising taxes and the high cost of living. </p>
<p>If carried out peacefully, political protests can <a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/06/10/are-peaceful-protests-more-effective-than-violent-ones/">deepen democracy</a>. Kenya’s have often <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/7/13/deadly-anti-government-protests-roil-kenya">deteriorated into violence</a>, however. <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/police-have-killed-30-protesters-since-march-2023-amnesty-international-4309868">Heavy-handed government interventions</a> have then created even more violence. This threatens the sustainability of the country’s democratic institutions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mass-protests-in-kenya-have-a-long-and-rich-history-but-have-been-hijacked-by-the-elites-202979">Mass protests in Kenya have a long and rich history – but have been hijacked by the elites</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The opposition recently <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/29/kenya-government-and-opposition-agree-to-talks-after-protests">called off street protests</a> to engage the government in dialogue. I have <a href="https://www.weber.edu/goddard/John_Mbaku.html">studied democratisation and political economy in Africa</a> for more than two decades, and in my view, these talks are an opportunity to strengthen Kenya’s democratic systems.</p>
<p>Both the government and the opposition have a duty to work towards creating a Kenya in which all citizens can live peacefully, by the values that are important to them, and elect who they want.</p>
<p>But for this to happen, each party to the talks must understand its constitutional role. It must play its part constructively and within the law. The opposition should be a check on the exercise of government power, but it must not obstruct governance. The opposition should evaluate public policy and offer alternatives, but allow the government to formulate the national agenda. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the government must recognise the important role the opposition plays in a democratic system. An effective opposition provides the government with feedback that advances national objectives. It contributes positively to peaceful coexistence, the protection of human rights and national development.</p>
<h2>The importance of the talks</h2>
<p>The opposition suspended its call for mass protests in July 2023 to engage in <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/politics/kalonzo-lead-azimio-team-in-talks-with-kenya-kwanza-4322554">dialogue</a> with the government. The talks will be facilitated by former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo. Opposition leader Raila Odinga wants the talks concluded in <a href="https://www.pd.co.ke/inside-politics/raila-issues-demands-to-ruto-194622/">just over seven weeks</a>.</p>
<p>Odinga’s team of five has tabled <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2023-08-03-azimio-invites-ruto-team-for-first-meeting-lists-5-issues-to-be-discussed/">five issues</a>. It wants the government to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>address the cost of living</p></li>
<li><p>reconstitute the elections agency</p></li>
<li><p>audit the 2022 poll</p></li>
<li><p>prevent state interference with political parties</p></li>
<li><p>resolve outstanding constitutional issues. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The government also brings a <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/realtime/2023-08-07-ruto-sets-tone-for-kenya-kwanza-azimio-dialogue-at-bomas/">five-member team</a>. Its list includes establishing the offices of the leader of opposition and prime cabinet secretary, as well as implementing <a href="https://www.klrc.go.ke/index.php/constitution-of-kenya/112-chapter-four-the-bill-of-rights/part-2-rights-and-fundamental-freedoms/193-27-equality-and-freedom-from-discrimination#:%7E:text=(8)%20In%20addition%20to%20the,be%20of%20the%20same%20gender.">gender diversity laws</a>. President William Ruto has said he has <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/realtime/2023-08-07-ruto-sets-tone-for-kenya-kwanza-azimio-dialogue-at-bomas/">no interest</a> in reopening debate on the results of the 2022 election. </p>
<p>These talks are a welcome sign of Kenya’s democracy maturing. But as the ruling party, Kenya Kwanza, <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/politics/kalonzo-lead-azimio-team-in-talks-with-kenya-kwanza-4322554">has reminded</a> the opposition coalition, Azimio la Umoja, that the opposition’s job is to analyse government policies and offer alternatives. It is not to force its economic and political agenda on the government.</p>
<p>Regardless of what is <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/politics/kalonzo-lead-azimio-team-in-talks-with-kenya-kwanza-4322554">on the table for discussion</a>, the dialogue should enhance governance and promote national development. </p>
<p>Parties to the talks should:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>consider ways to enhance government efficiency, accountability and productivity </p></li>
<li><p>concentrate on creating jobs, fighting inflation and helping Kenyans deal with climate change and other development challenges </p></li>
<li><p>help Kenya strengthen its democratic institutions, and promote their growth and maturity </p></li>
<li><p>provide an institutional environment within which all Kenyans, regardless of their ethnic affiliation, can live together peacefully. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Understanding the roles</h2>
<p>In emerging democracies, such as Kenya’s, a key source of conflict is the failure or inability of the government, the opposition and their supporters to understand and appreciate the roles that the constitution gives them. </p>
<p>In a functioning democratic system, the opposition is part of the governance architecture. It makes sure that the government is open, transparent and accountable to both the people and the constitution. However, it must not <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/18/kenya-braces-for-3-days-of-anti-govt-protest-all-the-details">frustrate</a> or interfere with government. </p>
<p>The government must consult and interact peacefully with all stakeholders, not just its supporters. This is critical in a country like Kenya which has a <a href="https://theconversation.com/kenyas-politicians-continue-to-use-ethnicity-to-divide-and-rule-60-years-after-independence-207930">significant diversity</a> of people, cultures, values, languages and economic and social aspirations.</p>
<p>A misunderstanding of roles could paralyse the government and make it non-functional. </p>
<h2>Way forward</h2>
<p>The present dialogue’s function must be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>to strengthen the government, not cripple it</p></li>
<li><p>to advance the interests of all Kenyans, not just of specific politicians or ethnic groups</p></li>
<li><p>to improve the rule of law, not to open up political spaces for the benefit of opposition leaders</p></li>
<li><p>to build the country’s democracy, not to tear it down </p></li>
<li><p>to unite Kenyans, not to divide them</p></li>
<li><p>to ensure the advancement of a peaceful and productive Kenya.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Kenya’s national leaders – both in government and opposition – must build a political system in the country that advances inclusive development.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Mukum Mbaku does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government and opposition have a duty to work towards creating a Kenya in which all citizens can live peacefully.John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2110392023-08-04T13:12:16Z2023-08-04T13:12:16ZAlbanese tells Garma ‘we have to hold to the courage of our convictions’ in Voice fight<p>Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will pay an emotional tribute to the late Yunupingu while declaring the importance of Voice advocates sticking to the courage of their convictions, when he addresses the Garma festival on Saturday. </p>
<p>Indigenous people from around the country are attending the annual cultural festival in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, where much attention will be on the Voice. Originally it was expected Albanese would announce the date for the referendum vote while there but he said recently that announcement is still some time away, because he wants a relatively short campaign. </p>
<p>In his speech, released ahead of delivery, the Prime Minister says it is hard to imagine Garma without Yunupingu, who was a strong advocate for the Voice. </p>
<p>“Even as I look out on this crowd, I somehow expect to see him looking back.</p>
<p>"Yunupingu walked in two worlds: with authority, power and grace.
And he sought – always - to make those two worlds whole.”</p>
<p>Albanese again stresses the role of the Voice in tackling Aboriginal disadvantage – “a once-in-a-generation opportunity for real, overdue and much-needed change”.</p>
<p>Despite fears, on the basis of public polls that the referendum could lose, he reiterated there would be no delaying it, as some (both supporters and opponents of the Voice) have advocated. </p>
<p>“We will not deny the urgency of this moment.</p>
<p>"We will not kick the can down the road. We will not abandon substance for symbolism, or retreat to platitudes at the expense of progress.”</p>
<p>While in a democracy there is “no such thing as a foregone conclusion,” and “there are no guarantees of success […] that’s not a reason to delay – it’s why we have to hold to the courage of our convictions”. </p>
<p>“We can convince our fellow Australians to vote yes” Albanese says, through respectful discussions and engagement with neighbours, colleagues, friends, sporting team mates, fellow worshippers. </p>
<p>“And, at the heart of it all, is a conversation between generations. Young Australians talking to their parents and their grandparents about what this moment represents.</p>
<p>"Explaining just what voting Yes can mean for our country and our future. Making it clear that there is nothing to fear - and so much to gain. And making it plain that there is indeed no time to waste.”</p>
<p>Albanese targets Peter Dutton and some other “no” supporters who favour a legislated Voice but oppose putting it in the Constitution.
Apart from rejecting what Indigenous people have asked for, their commitment to a legislated Voice undermines all the other arguments they make against the Voice, Albanese says. </p>
<p>“Clearly they acknowledge it is needed - otherwise why legislate it?
Clearly they recognise it will make a positive difference - otherwise why legislate it?</p>
<p>"Clearly they don’t see it as divisive or radical or any of the other noise and confusion they are seeking to inject into the referendum – otherwise why legislate it?”</p>
<p>Albanese says the reason Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders want the Voice in the Constitution is so it “can’t simply be abolished with the stroke of a pen. So it will have the stability to plan for the long term, for the generational challenges we are facing but also the generational progress we can make, for lasting national unity.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The PM pays tribute to Indigenous leaders and elders past and present, while calling out the Opposition at the Garma Festival this weekend.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2102772023-07-24T05:27:11Z2023-07-24T05:27:11ZChris Barrett becomes new head of the Productivity Commission, as Jim Chalmers flags fresh focus<p>Treasurer Jim Chalmers has appointed Chris Barrett, an economist with extensive public service and governmental experience, as the new chair of the Productivity Commission. </p>
<p>Barrett was former Treasurer Wayne Swan’s chief of staff when Chalmers was the deputy chief of staff. Later he was appointed by the Labor government as Australia’s ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).</p>
<p>Barrett is presently deputy secretary of the economic division in the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance. </p>
<p>The outgoing head of the Productivity Commission, Michael Brennan, was appointed by the Coalition and had worked for senior Liberals. He attracted criticism from the then-Labor opposition for having political connections. </p>
<p>Chalmers, announcing Barrett’s appointment, was at pains to stress he had been been through a rigorous recruitment process. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1683309324117098496"}"></div></p>
<p>The treasurer made it clear the commission will soon have a new focus. A review, spearheaded by Treasury, is underway. </p>
<p>Chalmers said he wanted to “revitalise and renew and refocus” the commission, recognising that “productivity has evolved”. </p>
<p>“We’ve made it clear we think the productivity opportunity for Australia is not to make people work longer for less but to invest in human capital, it’s to invest in the energy transformation, to get much better at adapting and adopting tech as it evolves. </p>
<p>"I want to make sure the Productivity Commission is providing the kind of insights and perspectives about a more modern economy that a government can pick up and run with.” </p>
<p>Chalmers said the commission “will remain fiercely independent as it should be”. He would not put a date on the finalisation of the review, which will now involve the new chair, other than to say “months rather than years”. </p>
<p>Labour productivity as measured by GDP per hour worked has been falling since March 2022. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, labour productivity was increasing 2.2% a year; in the decades leading up to COVID it was growing at only half that rate. </p>
<p>Chalmers said: “The decade to 2020 was the worst for productivity growth in Australia in the last 60 years. And it will take time to turn that around. </p>
<p>"Nobody pretends that there’s a switch that you can flick to turn around what has been disappointing performance on the productivity front.”</p>
<p>Chalmers said Brennan had made a significant contribution to the commission, saying it had “featured prominently in the nation’s conversation about Australia’s productivity”.</p>
<p>Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor said the test of Barrett’s performance “will be in whether he pursues genuine productivity reform or rubber stamps Labor’s union-led agenda that business is warning will take productivity further backwards”.</p>
<p>“The Productivity Commission has given a roadmap in its five-year review yet the government has buried it,” Taylor said. </p>
<p>Brennan described the choice of Barrett as “an outstanding appointment. Chris will bring great intellect, strategic insight and a breadth of experience to the role. I also think he is a great fit for the organisation. We should all be very positive about the future of the PC under Chris’s leadership.”</p>
<p>Andrew McKellar, CEO of Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also praised the appointment. “Chris Barrett is well-credentialed to become the leader of one of Australia’s most important sources of expert advice to government. With experience as a chief of staff, as Australia’s ambassador to the OECD and as a senior public servant, Chris Barrett is a strong choice to lead the Productivity Commission at this crucial time.”</p>
<p>At his news conference, Chalmers also gave the latest update for last financial year’s surplus, indicating it is likely to be above $20 billion.</p>
<p>He said the government was focused on delivering the cost of living relief it has announced but it was not working on a new package.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he wanted to ‘revitalise and renew and refocus’ the commission with Barrett’s appointment, recognising that ‘productivity has evolved’.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2085852023-06-27T12:39:17Z2023-06-27T12:39:17ZThis year’s surplus will be bigger than the $4.2 billion projected at budget time: Chalmers<p>The surplus for the financial year that ends Friday will be larger than the $4.2 billion forecast in the budget, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will say on Wednesday. </p>
<p>In a speech to be delivered in Darwin, Chalmers says the government had been “deliberately cautious” in its estimate in the budget, “given the history”. This was a reference to former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s “back in black” prediction in 2019. </p>
<p>Now, “We’re in a significantly better position than we forecast,” Chalmers says. “We’re expecting the surplus will be bigger than forecast in May.” </p>
<p>The surplus upgrade has enabled the government to recently announce $2 billion for housing, distributed to the states and territories before the end of the financial year. </p>
<p>The good news on the surplus comes as Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on Wednesday will reveal how the fight against inflation is progressing. Next week the Reserve Bank will consider whether to raise interest rates yet again.</p>
<p>The cash rate is currently 4.1%, after the Reserve Bank has hiked rates a dozen times, most recently early this month. </p>
<p>Rating agency S&P Global said this week: “We expect the Reserve Bank of Australia to raise its policy rate further this year.” </p>
<h2>Fadden byelection</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, the government and opposition are gearing up for another byelection test, this time in the Liberal Gold Coast seat of Fadden, vacated by Stuart Robert, one of the ministers who oversaw Robodebt. </p>
<p>Opening Labor’s campaign on Tuesday night, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese homed in on Robert.</p>
<p>“Stuart Robert is resigning from parliament having presided over one of the most shocking and cruel failures in the history of Australian politics – Robodebt,” Albanese said.</p>
<p>“Ripping the humanity out of human services. Stripping the social justice from social security. Targeting vulnerable people – and bragging about it. </p>
<p>"That’s the sort of person Peter Dutton thought was good enough for his shadow ministry. And that’s the sort of candidate the LNP thought was good enough for your community. Those are the policies and values they put forward to represent you, time and time again.”</p>
<p>Fadden is on a margin of 10.6%. Although both sides expect the Coalition to hold it on July 15, a swing against the Liberal National Party would be another blow for Dutton, after the disastrous loss of the Liberal seat of Aston in Victoria. </p>
<p>The LNP is putting considerable resources into its Fadden campaign. There were mixed views in Labor about whether to contest the seat, but the local party was anxious to do so, because it overlaps areas important in the state election in 2024.</p>
<p>A swing against Labor would be interpreted, in part, as having implications for the Voice referendum. </p>
<p>Dutton said on Tuesday the byelection was “an opportunity to send the government a message in relation to cost of living, that you’re not happy with the policies that they’ve presided over – and also on the Voice.</p>
<p>"I think there will be a lot of people in Fadden who want to send the Prime Minister a very clear message that they’re not happy with his Canberra Voice proposal, and they’re not happy that he’s continuing to keep details from Australians in relation to how the Voice will operate.”</p>
<p>Labor’s candidate in Fadden, Letitia Del Fabbro, who ran at the 2022 election, is a nurse educator. The LNP candidate is Cameron Caldwell, a Gold Coast councillor.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a speech to be delivered in Darwin, Chalmers says the government had been deliberate in its estimate in the budget. Now, “We’re in a significantly better position than we forecast.”Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2082852023-06-22T10:22:46Z2023-06-22T10:22:46ZGrattan on Friday: Labor’s ‘Godfather’ seeks deal on electoral reform – but some fear changes could disadvantage community candidates<p>Special Minister of State Don Farrell, who’s also minister for trade and tourism and the government’s deputy leader in the Senate, is a numbers man from way back. </p>
<p>A powerbroker of the right, in 2012 Farrell (only a parliamentary secretary at the time) had the numbers to be placed top of the South Australian Senate ticket, relegating the left’s Penny Wong, who was a senior minister, to the second spot for the 2013 election.</p>
<p>Sometimes, however, the numbers don’t prevail. Amid the ensuing controversy, Farrell stepped down to second place. </p>
<p>As a result he lost his seat at the 2013 election. He turned his hand to establishing a vineyard, before being returned at the 2016 election and becoming deputy opposition leader in the Senate. Then he had to cede that position to Kristina Keneally after the 2019 election. </p>
<p>Farrell and Anthony Albanese were long-time factional opponents. But under Albanese’s government, Farrell is prospering. With the thaw in China-Australia relations, it’s a very good time to be trade minister. </p>
<p>Now Farrell is set to wrangle sweeping changes to the donation and spending rules for federal elections. Those changes have the potential to affect parliamentary numbers in future elections. </p>
<p>This week the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) recommended broad reforms: a drastic lowering of the threshold for disclosing donations, and “real time” disclosure; caps on donations and spending, including for “third parties” (such as Climate 200, founded by Simon Holmes à Court) and associated entities (primarily bodies raising money for parties); and increased public funding for elections. The committee also said there should be legislation for truth in advertising. </p>
<p>The recommendations were made in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2022federalelection/Interim_Report">committee’s majority report</a>, with the Coalition members dissenting on key issues. JSCEM didn’t spell out fine detail, and its final report won’t come until late in the year. </p>
<p>Farrell is not waiting for JSCEM’s last word. Unsurprisingly, the recommendations from the Labor-dominated committee are in line with Labor’s policy, and Farrell is already off and running. He’ll have negotiations with the players over the next few months, although legislation would wait until after the final report. He says he wants to get consensus if possible – a challenge, given the opposition’s position, but not necessarily out of the question. </p>
<p>A central aim of the proposals is to reduce the power of “big money” to influence elections. </p>
<p>“Big money” donations from business and unions have long been a concern. Clive Palmer elevated this to a new level with his spending in the 2019 and 2022 elections. Palmer spent $83.6 million in the 2019 campaign. In 2022, he spent an extraordinary $117 million (albeit to minimal effect – only one senator from his United Australia Party was elected, and he had little influence on the overall result). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sweeping-election-donation-and-spending-reforms-recommended-by-parliamentary-committee-208030">Sweeping election donation and spending reforms recommended by parliamentary committee</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Few would defend the Palmer cash splash as being appropriate in a good electoral system. </p>
<p>But dig deeper and the spending argument becomes a lot more complicated, with the pros and cons of caps nuanced, and decisions requiring fine judgments. </p>
<p>Teals elected in 2022 had expensive campaigns. Allegra Spender (Wentworth) spent more than $2 million, as did Monique Ryan in Kooyong. Without large amounts of money, some of the teal candidates could have struggled to get the name recognition that helped them win. Without Climate 200, a number of candidates would have had substantially less resources.</p>
<p>The teals might be dubbed the high end of the wider “community candidate” movement, which has gained increasing public support and given voters more choice and thus, arguably, more agency in our democracy. </p>
<p>Electoral reform is all about having a “level playing field”. But many factors influence that playing field, including whether the person is already on the field as a sitting member (or has advantaged access, as a candidate backed by an established political party). </p>
<p>Kate Chaney, a teal who holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, was a member of JSCEM. In her “additional comments” in the report she says, while agreeing with the principle of curbing “big money”, it’s important the system is open to new entrants.</p>
<p>“Caps” need to be “structured to recognise the additional barriers to entry faced by independents or new entrants”, Chaney argues. “Donation caps must not be set too low […] new entrants are dependent on ‘seed capital’ to reach critical mass in campaign viability.” </p>
<p>Chaney is also hesitant about extra public funding, saying it’s “unhelpful” to replace private “big money” with “state dependency/taxpayer funding”. “State dependency is the opposite of community funding and engagement which should be promoted by changes to our system.” </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-feelings-towards-china-are-thawing-but-suspicion-remains-high-lowy-2023-poll-208103">Australians' feelings towards China are thawing but suspicion remains high: Lowy 2023 poll</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Holmes à Court claims “poorly implemented” caps would actually weaken democracy rather than enhance it. He says the changes that have been made in Victoria and NSW “give the majors a free ride and effectively handicap outside competition”.</p>
<p>While superficially the odds might seem against an agreement between government and opposition, they both stand to gain from pushing towards it (there would be less chance on truth-in-advertising legislation). The two main parties share the serious problem of a falling primary vote, which they want to protect from further erosion. </p>
<p>Certainly, Holmes à Court has fears. “We wholeheartedly support reform if it’s fair, but we should all be suspicious because major parties have a track record of changing election laws to rig the game for their own benefit,” he tells The Conversation.</p>
<p>“Let’s be frank, Labor would like to see the back of Palmer, and the Coalition would like to kill the independents movement.</p>
<p>"While the Libs are saying they oppose Labor’s changes, ultimately they have only two ways to get back into government: change their culture, or change the rules, the latter being much easier.</p>
<p>"The devil is very much in the details. If we’re not careful it’ll be a big step backwards for Australia’s recently reinvigorated democracy.”</p>
<p>One person’s “consensus” can be another’s dirty deal, it seems. Different players have distinct interests. </p>
<p>Before the last election Graham Richardson, himself a former Labor right-wing powerbroker, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/labors-godfather-a-guardian-of-common-sense/news-story/70ae72981abfe30d99f6528a721658c3">wrote</a> of Farrell, “the Godfather brings traditional common sense to Labor’s decision-making processes”. </p>
<p>Principle, pragmatism and common sense will all be needed to find the combination of reforms most attuned to reflecting the country’s democratic will and giving voters maximum agency. <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-special-minister-of-state-don-farrell-wants-donation-and-spending-caps-for-next-election-208107">Farrell says</a> it’s a matter of finding the right balance, between restricting the ability to “buy” elections and finding ways to improve access to democracy. “My job in the next six months […] will be to try and find that balance.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Farrell and Albanese were long-time factional opponents. But under Albanese’s government, Farrell is prospering. With the thaw in China-Australia relations, it’s a very good time to be trade minister.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2082992023-06-22T08:45:54Z2023-06-22T08:45:54ZWord from The Hill: A wild and badly behaved parliamentary fortnight<p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation’s politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the free-for-all between Coalition, government and Greens in the final sitting fortnight before the winter break. </p>
<p>The Coalition’s offensive on Katy Gallagher over the Higgins saga backfired when Liberal Senator David Van was accused of inappropriate behaviour and kicked out of the Liberal party room (he later quit the party). </p>
<p>The government announced an extra $2 billion for social and affordable housing, hoping to win Greens’ support for its $10 billion signature Housing Australia Future Fund. To the government’s fury, the Greens held out, leading to angry accusations between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens spokesman Max Chandler-Mather. </p>
<p>The politicians are now returning to their electorates, where they are likely to face plenty of talk from constituents about those rising power prices and other bills.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the wild final sitting fortnight before the winter breakMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2080302023-06-19T08:36:35Z2023-06-19T08:36:35ZSweeping election donation and spending reforms recommended by parliamentary committee<p>≤</p>
<p>Caps on spending and donations for federal elections and “real time” disclosure of donations to parties and candidates <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2022federalelection/Interim_Report">are among the sweeping recommendations for reform made by a powerful parliamentary committee</a>. </p>
<p>The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in its interim report tabled on Monday, also recommends donation and spending caps apply to third parties and associated entities. </p>
<p>The majority report also urges a new system of increased public funding for parties and candidates, in light of the impact its proposed changes would have on private funding in elections. </p>
<p>Under the reforms proposed, the donation disclosure level would be reduced to $1000. The present threshold (from July 1 last year) is $15,200.</p>
<p>The committee has also said the government should develop legislation “to provide for the introduction of measures to govern truth in political advertising”. </p>
<p>The committee does a review after each election. </p>
<p>In her foreword to the report, the committee chair, Labor’s Kate Thwaites says the evidence it heard allowed the committee “to develop clear goals for reform to increase transparency in election donations and curb the potentially corrupting influence of big money, to build the public’s trust in electoral and political processes, and to encourage participation in our elections”. </p>
<p>The Albanese government is committed to substantial reform on electoral spending and donations. The committee will undertake further evidence and work before its final report to be delivered late in the year.</p>
<p>Electoral reform is likely to become a battlefield between the government and Coalition. In addition the community candidate movement will be concerned that some reforms would disadvantage aspiring new players. </p>
<p>Coalition members of the committee put in a dissenting report, disagreeing with the “caps” on donations and spending as they are proposed, and with other aspects of the majority report. </p>
<p>Opposing spending caps the Coalition dissenting report says: “A spending cap that fails to take into account Labor’s union-funded campaign machine is nothing short of a financial gerrymander”. It also says if any caps on donations or spending are introduced, they should apply to third parties and associated entities, and any spending caps should be lower for third parties and related entities. </p>
<p>The report points out that while there have been reforms in many states and territories to improve transparency and accountability, there has not been substantial reform at the Commonwealth level. </p>
<p>“It is time for the government to reform the Commonwealth system,” the report says. It says the issues are not new and urges reform before the next federal election. Changes should be implemented together. </p>
<p>The report says the aims of the reforms are to improve transparency, reduce “the potentially corrosive influence of big money”, level the playing field for new entrants, ensure integrity and compliance, and allow continued participation in elections from the public, civil society, business, parties and others. </p>
<p>Crossbencher Kate Chaney, a member of the committee, said “imposing caps is complicated. People don’t want big money influencing election outcomes, but they also want to know they have a choice of candidates. </p>
<p>"The major parties have developed an election funding system that embeds them. Only about 0.4% of Australians are members of a major political party and voters want to know about other candidates too. We need to level the election playing field” by addressing party and incumbent advantages, she said. </p>
<p>The report notes the 2022 election saw “the rise of independents who were the recipients of donations from a significant third party - Climate 200, a crowdfunding initiative with over 11,000 Australians who provided donations’ Climate 200 raised about $13 million which was donated to selected independent candidates, Wealthy individuals also donated substantial amounts to Climate 200.” </p>
<p>Special Minister of State Don Farrell said, “The Albanese Government is committed to improving transparency and accountability across our democracy”. It looked forward to the final report. “Electoral reform should always be consultative and bipartisan,” he said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in its interim report tabled on Monday, recommends donation and spending caps apply to third parties and associated entities.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2080162023-06-19T07:14:22Z2023-06-19T07:14:22ZGovernment’s housing fund legislation delayed by Greens-Coalition alliance<p>The Greens and the Coalition have teamed up again to present a vote being taken on the government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. </p>
<p>Consideration of the legislation has been delayed until October 16. </p>
<p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping that would persuade the Greens to support the fund. </p>
<p>But the Greens are holding out for controls on rents, which are actually within the jurisdiction of the states. </p>
<p>Anthony Albanese, answering a Greens question in parliament, said the Greens had made themselves “irrelevant to the debate”. </p>
<p>“I understand that renters are doing it tough,” he said. “Yes, I want to do things about that”, and the government was working with the states on various measures. But “what we are not doing is destroying supply while we do it. Because the key to fixing housing is supply.” </p>
<p>If the government did what the Greens wanted there would be less supply of housing, Albanese said.. The Greens should have had “the guts” to vote against the legislation rather than deferring it. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1670615848640479237"}"></div></p>
<p>The Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, said “there is a cost to these delays.</p>
<p>"Every day of delay is more than $1.3 million that does not go to housing for people that need it. If this bill gets delayed until October, the Greens political party and the Liberals would have succeeded in delaying it for more than six months. Every six months is $250 million that could have gone to building more homes.”</p>
<p>This is the second time the Greens and Coalition have prevented a vote on the legislation. The proposed $10 billion fund would produce $500 million a year for social and affordable rental housing.</p>
<p>Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said the fund was “an important piece of national infrastructure”. </p>
<p>Opposition leader in the Senate Simon Birmingham told Sky the Coalition had “always thought that adding these billions of dollars extra to government debt for no immediate impact on the housing market was a bad idea, especially so for a policy that has no benefit in terms of addressing rates of home ownership in Australia”. </p>
<p>The Senate’s action prompted speculation that the deferral could form the initial step to having the bill qualify as double dissolution legislation. Special Minister of State Don Farrell said: “If the Senate defers bills to October, the government will regard this as the Senate failing to pass the bill, and I’m sure you understand the consequences of that”.</p>
<p>Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “it says a lot about the government that they’d rather tout this as a double dissolution trigger rather than negotiating to pass their own bill”. </p>
<p>The Constitution’s Section 57 provides that if the House of Representatives passes a bill and the Senate “rejects or fails to pass it” and after three months the lower house again passes the bill and the Senate again rejects or fails to pass it, it can become the basis for a dissolution of both houses. </p>
<p>Sydney University constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the High Court has previously held that the Senate needs a reasonable amount of time to debate and deliberate upon a bill. </p>
<p>“This may include sending it to a parliamentary committee. But in this case, the delay is not due to a need to deliberate. It is for the purpose of waiting to see if the Albanese Government will change its policy and negotiate an agreement in National Cabinet which suits the policy aim of the Greens,” Twomey said. </p>
<p>“While there is no certainty, the government would have a good case to argue that a delay of this kind amounts to a failure to pass. Even taking into account the winter recess, there is still plenty of time to properly debate the bill before 16 October”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping this would get the Greens to support the fundMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074222023-06-18T09:03:34Z2023-06-18T09:03:34ZSouth Africa’s ruling party is performing dismally, but a flawed opposition keeps it in power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531661/original/file-20230613-15-2s16ef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The African National Congress has lost electoral support but remains dominant. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phill Magakoe / AFP via Getty Images.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2023-05-18-likelihood-of-stage-8-load-shedding-extremely-high-says-eskom/">power cuts continue</a>, the <a href="https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=16162#:%7E:text=After%20rallying%20in%20the%20third,quarter%20(October%E2%80%92December).&text=Growth%20was%20dragged%20lower%20mainly,manufacturing%20and%20general%20government%20services.">economy falters</a>, <a href="https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=16312#:%7E:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20underemployment%20increased,2022%20at%205%2C6%25.">unemployment rises</a> and the <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/markets/2023-05-18-rand-weaker-as-investors-watch-us-debt-ceiling-talks/">currency tumbles</a>, South Africa’s political commentators tend to agree that support for the governing African National Congress (ANC) will <a href="https://www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org/publications/survey-of-voter-opinion/">fall under 50%</a> in the <a href="https://www.eisa.org/election-calendar/">2024 national and provincial elections</a>. If the party avoids a defeat, it could lead to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-votes-in-2024-could-a-coalition-between-major-parties-anc-and-eff-run-the-country-204141">coalition government</a>. </p>
<p>It’s only logical to expect that governance failures of this magnitude would send large numbers of dissatisfied voters into the arms of opposition parties.</p>
<p>But as scholars who have <a href="https://scholar.google.co.za/citations?user=mIg6syEAAAAJ&hl=en">studied</a> South African voter behaviour <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HFiwmhYAAAAJ&hl=en">for decades</a>, we warn opposition parties that they cannot count on disillusionment to drive voters towards them. Unless they convince dissatisfied voters that they provide a credible alternative, the ANC may still win a majority of votes come 2024.</p>
<p>How is this possible? Our argument is based on the confluence of two trends that have characterised South African elections for at least the past two decades. One is a decline in support for the ANC. The other is a steady decline in voter turnout.</p>
<h2>Decline in ANC support and voter turnout</h2>
<p>In 2006, 65% of all respondents in a nationally representative public opinion survey told <a href="https://www.afrobarometer.org/">Afrobarometer</a>, the independent African survey network, that the country was “headed in the right direction”, and <a href="https://www.afrobarometer.org/survey-resource/south-africa-round-3-data-2006/">52% “felt close” to the ANC</a>. By 2018, however, those numbers had plunged to just 27% for those feeling the ANC was on the right path, and <a href="https://www.afrobarometer.org/survey-resource/south-africa-round-7-questionnaire/">29% who felt close to the party</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-2019-poll-showed-dangerous-signs-of-insiders-and-outsiders-121758">South Africa's 2019 poll showed dangerous signs of 'insiders' and 'outsiders'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The decline in ANC election-day support over the same period has been far more modest. Though it receded from its <a href="https://results.elections.org.za/dashboards/npe/app/dashboard.html">historical high of 70%</a> in April 2004, it still won 58% of the vote <a href="https://results.elections.org.za/dashboards/npe/app/dashboard.html">in 2019</a> and retained its dominance of the policy-making process. That was despite massive and widely publicised corruption over years of <a href="https://www.statecapture.org.za/site/information/reports">“state capture”</a> – the deliberate diversion of state resources for private gain under former president Jacob Zuma (<a href="https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/profiles/president-jacob-zuma-0">May 2009- February 2018</a>).</p>
<p>The second trend relates to voter turnout. When measured as a proportion of eligible voters – the international standard – election day participation has declined much more sharply. It’s down by almost 40 percentage points, from a high of 86% in 1994 to just 49% in the last general election <a href="https://jacana.co.za/product/election-2019/">in 2019</a>. We believe that this drop in voter turnout helps the ANC stay in power despite its dismal governance record. The 2019 turnout rate of 49% compares poorly to other countries. Unlike other established democracies, the gap between eligible and registered voters has <a href="https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf">steadily increased in South Africa</a>. </p>
<p>The sharp downward trend in turnout is intimately related to the much more modest downward trend in ANC support. </p>
<p>In a new study (based on the 2019 South African Comparative National Election Study <a href="https://u.osu.edu/cnep/">post-election survey</a>, whose dataset is available to researchers) we found that 44% of respondents who said they had voted for the ANC in 2014 were dissatisfied with its performance in government by the time of the <a href="https://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Election-Report--2019-National-and-Provincial-Elections/">2019 election</a>. </p>
<p>But dissatisfied ANC voters switched their vote only if they held positive views of an opposition party. They were much more likely to switch if they believed that any opposition party was sufficiently competent to manage government affairs, or if they held a favourable view of the party leader, or saw it as broadly inclusive.</p>
<p>The problem for the opposition was that relatively few people held these views. </p>
<h2>Opposition failures</h2>
<p>Among disillusioned 2014 ANC voters, fewer than half felt in 2019 that any opposition party “would do a good job running the national government if elected”. Of these, 49% gave this credit to the main opposition <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Alliance-political-party-South-Africa">Democratic Alliance (DA)</a>, and 46% gave it to the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the third largest party. Only 41% of disillusioned former ANC voters thought the populist, <a href="https://effonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FINAL-EFF-CONSTITUTION-02.03.2020.pdf#page=8">radical leaning</a> EFF “would look after the interests of all people in South Africa” and just 34% said so about the liberal DA. Just 26% rated any opposition leader more favourably than ANC leader Cyril Ramaphosa. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-african-president-cyril-ramaphosas-credibility-has-been-dented-putting-his-reform-agenda-in-jeopardy-189802">South African president Cyril Ramaphosa’s credibility has been dented, putting his reform agenda in jeopardy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For some, the ANC was the “devil they knew” and they remained loyal to it. But an equally large proportion decided not to vote on election day. Their negative views of opposition parties, which they felt were ill-equipped to lead, govern or represent them, made them abstain, rather than switch votes.</p>
<p>Falling turnout is also related to declining interest in politics and increasing disillusionment with democracy – clearly things to be concerned about. But this analysis shows that voter abstention is also a result of dissatisfied ANC voters who feel they have no alternative. Unless opposition parties do something drastically different, dissatisfied voters are likely to boycott elections rather than switch to another party.</p>
<h2>No viable alternative</h2>
<p>For many years, scholars of democracies dominated by one party have tended to explain the ANC’s hegemony as due to, among others, its <a href="https://openuctpress.uct.ac.za/uctpress/catalog/view/9/10/49">control of state resources</a>, which enables it to shape the rules of party funding and provide patronage, or <a href="https://www-tandfonline-com.ez.sun.ac.za/doi/pdf/10.1080/714000181">strong group identities</a>, or <a href="https://www.proquest.com/docview/2348203380?parentSessionId=Vz3FoBcIgd10y5Ge7JqaIzPwEr7q%2BSGrXVYlXQrp1LA%3D&pq-origsite=primo&accountid=14049">voters</a> who are unwilling to hold the party to account. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-changed-its-electoral-law-but-a-much-more-serious-overhaul-is-needed-204820">South Africa has changed its electoral law, but a much more serious overhaul is needed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These arguments capture parts of the larger picture. Our analysis, however, points a finger at the opposition parties and the role they play in sustaining the ANC’s dominance. The evidence shows that erstwhile ANC supporters who are dissatisfied with its performance in government are willing to at least consider switching. </p>
<p>But, for that to happen, they must see one or more opposition parties, or their leading candidates, as an effective or legitimate alternative. Otherwise, withdrawal from the electorate becomes a rational option and the ANC may continue to win decisive election-day majorities from a shrinking electorate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Collette Schulz-Herzenberg receives funding from the National Research Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Mattes is co-founder and senior adviser to Afrobarometer, and has previously worked as a consultant to Citizen Surveys. He receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation.</span></em></p>Dissatisfied ANC voters were much more likely to switch their votes if they held positive views of an opposition party. However, the problem for the opposition is that few people held these views.Collette Schulz-Herzenberg, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Stellenbosch UniversityRobert Mattes, Professor in Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, and Adjunct Professor in the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape Town, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2068562023-06-01T04:13:48Z2023-06-01T04:13:48ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Liberal MP Bridget Archer urges other moderates to speak up as she presses for party change<p>The Coalition’s decision to oppose the Voice to Parliament has put its moderate members in a jam. Some moderates are active yes advocates, while others are trying to keep low profiles.</p>
<p>Bridget Archer, the outspoken Liberal MP for Bass, is a vocal yes campaigner. More generally, she is also taking a lead in urging the Liberal party to undertake root-and-branch reform. </p>
<p>Archer is pushing for extensive change in a party that is electorally on the ropes, out of office everywhere except her home state of Tasmania. </p>
<p>Since entering parliament in 2019, Archer has crossed the floor on 27 occasion to vote against her party. She admits there are those colleagues who avoid her, but says her decisions are always based on what is in the best interest of her community, and argues the strength of the Liberal Party historically has been for members to be able to sometimes disagree and to do so respectfully. </p>
<p>Her independent stance on a range of issues has brought varied feedback from her local community. “It’s mixed, but generally positive. If I get negative feedback, it is sometimes from Liberal Party members or conservative voters that say ‘I think that you should toe the line’ – there’s this idea that if you have a divergent view, that you’re not a team player.”</p>
<p>But Archer believes “it is possible to be part of a team and to have differences of opinion (sometimes), and that it’s my job to represent to the best of my ability everybody in the electorate, even the people who don’t or didn’t vote for you, I guess.”</p>
<p>In a recent Good Weekend profile Archer called for a “revolution” in the Liberal Party, claiming it is currently “unelectable”. She tells the podcast: “I think this was again borne out in the 2022 election with the rise of community independents […] where people, particularly in some of those metropolitan seats, are not feeling that the party is representing their views anymore […] In regional areas that is not necessarily the case. And we’ve seen with the Coalition, of course, the Nationals holding the seats that they had.</p>
<p>"The great challenge for us is to get back to what I think was the strength of the Liberal Party at one stage, which is the ability to speak across the country, to talk to middle Australia.</p>
<p>"And I think that we’ve lost our way in that.”</p>
<p>Archer also argues Liberal Party values need to shift with the times, particularly its ideology on “the family and home ownership”.</p>
<p>“We have historically talked a lot about home ownership, but we don’t focus so much on rental affordability. […] It’s front of mind for many people in those metropolitan areas and for younger people as well, who have also deserted us in droves.”</p>
<p>The moderates in the party were decimated at the 2022 election. It has left the moderate faction in tatters, and Archer often finds herself isolated when she speaks out against the party line. </p>
<p>“I think it’s a bit frustrating for me sometimes that I feel that I know that there are other people who share my views on some things, but they don’t speak up, which I think sometimes does leave me sort of hanging there as this rogue person when I know that that’s not necessarily the case.”</p>
<p>“I also think it really goes to the heart of some of the reasons why those colleagues did lose their seats at the last election and why we have seen a rise of the teals. In those seats, in many cases people were wanting to vote for Liberals, and they were looking around [to] have a reason to vote for Liberals and they were coming up empty handed.”</p>
<p>Asked if she thought the party was “walking off a cliff,” she doesn’t hesitate. </p>
<p>“Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206856/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Archer is pushing for extensive reform in a party that is electorally on the ropes and out of office everywhere except her home state of Tasmania.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2064132023-05-25T10:29:47Z2023-05-25T10:29:47ZGrattan on Friday: Labor’s national conference looms but the party’s rank and file has lost its bite<p>Stuart Robert, one of the ministers involved in the notorious Robodebt scheme, can anticipate some sharp criticism when the royal commission’s findings come. Robert won’t be able to avoid the flak, but he has made sure he is out of parliament before it lands. </p>
<p>The commission’s report is due early July; on July 15 voters in Robert’s Gold Coast seat of Fadden go to the polls in the byelection to choose his replacement. </p>
<p>Labor has yet to say whether it will contest the seat Robert held on a comfortable 10.6% margin, after a 3.5% swing against him on the two-party vote. </p>
<p>There are arguments both ways. After seizing the Victorian seat of Aston from the Liberals in April, there’s the smell of blood. Even in these volatile times the government doesn’t think it could “do an Aston” in Fadden, but a swing to Labor could further wound Peter Dutton.</p>
<p>But Queensland – Dutton’s home state – is hard going for Labor. A swing against the ALP would be a (minor) setback for the government and a morale boost for the Liberals. </p>
<p>It might also be seen as sending a message against the Queensland Labor government, which has lost its pandemic shine and faces an election next year. </p>
<p>A month after the byelection, the Labor Party will hold its national conference in Brisbane on August 17-19. Coincidentally, the venue is in the electorate of Griffith, which Labor lost to the Greens in 2022. </p>
<p>This will be the first face-to-face national conference in five years (a virtual conference, which didn’t amount to much, was held in 2021). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-labors-julian-hill-on-employment-ai-julian-assange-and-tiktok-206399">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Labor's Julian Hill on employment, AI, Julian Assange and TikTok</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While some state delegations are still being chosen and so the numbers remain uncertain, the conference might possibly be the first in recent times where the left has the numbers. </p>
<p>But the notions of “left” and “right” don’t mean a lot in today’s Labor, except as groupings to dole out preselections, frontbench representation and other spoils. </p>
<p>Journalist Michael Pascoe, writing in the New Daily this week and focusing on the parliamentary party, declared: “Mr Albanese, the former leader of the left, has effectively abolished it.” </p>
<p>Most notably, a prime minister from the left has delivered the former Coalition government’s AUKUS deal, with hardly a murmur from that faction. </p>
<p>In a twist on how the story might have gone in earlier times, the most vocal criticisms of AUKUS and the implications of the submarine deal have come from two major figures from the right, former PM Paul Keating and former foreign minister Bob Carr. </p>
<p>Attacking AUKUS, Keating said he expected the issue would mobilise ALP branch members. Certainly one would anticipate that AUKUS and the submarines will trigger one of the more spirited debates at the Brisbane conference, including about the storage of the nuclear waste. </p>
<p>In the end, of course, AUKUS and whatever other contentious issues arise at the conference will be squared away. The government’s boat won’t be rocked. The leadership will not be embarrassed. </p>
<p>The conference might see an undercurrent of tensions between the pragmatists and those who would like the government to move faster on a progressive agenda, but the pragmatists will carry the day. The Albanese narrative of caution in the first term to win a second and hopefully a third is baked in. </p>
<p>Once, Labor national conferences set prescriptive platforms, although the timing of implementation was a matter for the caucus, which meant a Labor cabinet. </p>
<p>Victories came after struggles. In the early days of the Hawke government, then treasurer Paul Keating had to fight at the 1984 national conference to get approval for the entry of foreign banks into Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-on-the-voice-the-quad-and-indian-pm-modis-visit-206305">Word from The Hill: On the Voice, the Quad, and Indian PM Modi's visit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Before that conference a senior journalist, David Solomon, had written: “The party conference is the only real threat facing Prime Minister Robert Hawke and his government. The government has a huge lead in public opinion polls [..] Mr Hawke has an unprecedented 70 percent personal popularity in the polls. But the Labor Party requires its politicians to be responsive to the policies of its rank and file.”</p>
<p>The Hawke government had already defied the platform, in particular on floating the dollar, but by and large acknowledged the conference’s authority and the need to win its approval.</p>
<p>For instance, that government took plans for airline privatisation to a special national conference in 1990. Such a course would be unthinkable now. </p>
<p>These days the national conference, which is a mass affair of some 400 delegates, is more or less a toothless tiger. Even tigers without teeth have to be managed, however, and there’ll be a good deal of work behind the scenes to keep things as smooth as practicable in Brisbane. </p>
<p>The government’s aim will be to control issues at the conference as meticulously as it does in the caucus (despite the recent stirring on a couple of specific matters) and in Labor’s presentations in the public arena. </p>
<p>There is one issue, however, where the government is at risk of losing control. Not at the national conference, where there will be furious agreement, but in the electorate, which is far more serious. </p>
<p>That issue is the Voice to Parliament. While it is too early for the government to panic about the decline in support for the “yes” vote in some polling, it should be worried about the turn the debate is taking. </p>
<p>For Indigenous leaders to engage in personal attacks, as Noel Pearson did against Mick Gooda (both on the “yes” side), is neither respectful nor tactically wise. </p>
<p>For assistant minister Malarndirri McCarthy to be drawn into a shouting match at Senate estimates with maverick crossbencher Lidia Thorpe was to fall into a trap. </p>
<p>The further descent into claims about racism could be harmful for the “yes” case. Peter Dutton, in his speech to this week’s House of Representatives debate on the referendum legislation, used as one of his arguments against the Voice that it would “re-racialise” the nation. Anthony Albanese, in his contribution on Thursday, denounced Dutton’s speech as “simply unworthy of the alternative prime minister of this nation”.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot of talk about Albanese trying to get the Voice passed on “the vibe”, something he has been criticised for by those who say the detail is what should matter.</p>
<p>But “the vibe” is actually important in the effort to secure the referendum’s passage. That “vibe” encompasses fairness, doing the right thing by First Australians, the prospect of progress on closing the gap, a body that’s seen as unthreatening. </p>
<p>“The vibe” leaves voters feeling comfortable with the “yes” case.</p>
<p>Once the Liberals (preceded by the Nationals) decided to fight the Voice, the vibe was delivered a major blow. Now it is being undermined further as the debate gets rougher. </p>
<p>The referendum is far from doomed, but it is in a dangerous place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Labor Party will hold its national conference in Brisbane. Coincidentally, the venue is in the electorate of Griffith, which Labor lost to the Greens in 2022Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2063992023-05-25T04:49:50Z2023-05-25T04:49:50ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Labor’s Julian Hill on employment, AI, Julian Assange and TikTok<p>The federal budget gave a much-needed, but very modest, increase to those on JobSeeker and associated payments. However, it didn’t address that other important issue of the unemployed: how to help as many JobSeekers as possible to get into work, whether full- or part-time.</p>
<p>This will be canvassed in the government’s coming white paper on employment. It’s already, however, before a parliamentary inquiry into employment services. </p>
<p>In this podcast, Julian Hill, the Labor member for Bruce, who chairs that inquiry, joins us to discuss the job market and getting people into work. Hill has also been actively working for Julian Assange’s release from London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison. </p>
<p>And he boasts a huge following on TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media platform, which is banned on official government devices.</p>
<p>In April, there were 528,000 unemployed people in Australia and 830,000 people on JobSeeker. Hill reiterates that “in simple terms, not all JobSeekers are unemployed and not all unemployed people are JobSeekers.”</p>
<p>“There’s a significant percentage of people receiving JobSeeker who may have their participation requirements paused. For example, there’s around 10% of people on JobSeeker at any point in time who are actually just sick. They’re there because they’re doing chemo, or recovering from a traumatic accident.”</p>
<p>“And there’s a very large percentage of people receiving JobSeeker, about 28% of people, who are engaged in part-time paid employment. So they’re not counted as unemployed, it’s just their income is low enough that they’re receiving a partial payment.” </p>
<p>Hill says the sentiment towards unemployed people and those on JobSeeker needs to change. “For too long this national debate about long-term unemployment has been driven by the stereotype of the ‘dole bludger’. If we’re going to actually try and resolve these questions in a better way and make an impact, we’ve got to drill down into the characteristics of people who are unemployed.”</p>
<p>The parliamentary inquiry “is a first principles review, not a Band-aid and sticky tape patch up. There is a "red hot labour market” with employers crying out for workers, but many people are having trouble getting jobs. </p>
<p>“A lot of that is due to a fundamental mismatch between people who are unemployed and the skilled jobs that employers are looking for. 53% of people who are unemployed have no post-school qualification. Around 40% haven’t even finished year 12. So there’s at least two, probably three, entry level JobSeekers applying for every job that is actually available.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-on-the-voice-the-quad-and-indian-pm-modis-visit-206305">Word from The Hill: On the Voice, the Quad, and Indian PM Modi's visit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In February, Hill delivered a speech to the chamber co-written by himself and ChatGPT. Hill spoke about both the negative and positive impacts we face with artifical intelligence, and what kind of potential it has.</p>
<p>“I did use the gag back in February to frankly draw attention to a serious policy point […] AI is set to transform developed human societies and impact swathes of developed economies and as well as government service delivery.”</p>
<p>“It’ll be non-traditional jobs [that go], in many cases knowledge jobs, graphic designers, journalists, artists and others, but it’s also an enormously positive thing and we should be expecting governments to deploy the best technology to free up resources for other things, make better decisions, better targeted services.</p>
<p>"It has the potential to unleash a wave of productivity across the economy.”</p>
<p>“There are negatives that we need to focus on. Loss of jobs in some areas, discrimination, bias. We need to be worried about the use of AI for things like hiring and lending and even renting. I’m worried for people trying to apply for a house. They’ll never get their application on the desk of the real estate agent.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-day-after-the-night-before-chalmers-and-taylor-on-the-budget-205431">The day after the night before - Chalmers and Taylor on the budget</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Earlier this week, Assange’s wife, Stella, addressed the National Press Club and called on the prime minister and the government to do more to bring him home. She stated: “This is closest we’ve ever been to securing Julian’s release”. Hill, a part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group, believes there will be more progress in the near future. </p>
<p>“There are more positive signs, as Stella’s reflected. I’ve been outspoken on this for years, and my view has always been that this was a political decision to bring this prosecution, and it needs a political resolution led by the US government.”</p>
<p>“I organised and facilitated a meeting with US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, and I thank her for that meeting. It was a good discussion, an honest, robust discussion and we got a good hearing.”</p>
<p>“There’s a lot of ongoing dialogue at the moment, and it can’t happen soon enough. Whether it’s an end to the prosecution, as I would call for by the US government, or whether it’s a negotiated resolution. There is, I think, a willingness to try and resolve the matter, and that’s incredibly welcome.”</p>
<p>“I’m actually planning to visit London near the end of June, and I’ve spoken to Jen Robinson, his legal counsel, about seeking to visit Julian in Belmarsh.”</p>
<p>“I hope that he’s not there then and then I can’t make and don’t have to make that visit.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Labor MP Julian Hill joins Michelle Grattan to discuss the job market and getting people into work, artificial intelligence, Julian Assange, and TikTok.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1991102023-05-11T12:11:38Z2023-05-11T12:11:38ZGrattan on Friday: Peter Dutton warns of threat to ‘working poor’ in budget reply lacking a big picture<p>Peter Dutton needed to sketch a big picture in his Thursday night budget reply – to look like an alternative prime minister. He failed to do so. </p>
<p>With the Liberals rating parlously among those aged under 40, Dutton should have been speaking especially to these voters. But his address was more of the same from a Coalition that’s unable to refresh and regroup. </p>
<p>The bar was always going to be too high for Dutton. This week’s budget, whatever criticisms can be made of it and however things work out in the months ahead, has been an elusive target for the Liberals. </p>
<p>Dutton pointed to the formidable issues Australia is grappling with – very high inflation, a housing and rental crisis, crippling power bills, millions of people having gone backwards. </p>
<p>But he lacked prescriptions, let alone ones that were any more convincing than the government’s are. </p>
<p>He risked the government’s accusation of “punching down”, dividing those on welfare (who have benefitted from the budget) and working people on low wages. The cost-of-living relief “is targeted at Australians on welfare but at the expense of the many including Labor’s working poor”. The budget “hurts working Australians”, he declared; “worse, it risks creating a generation of working poor Australians”. </p>
<p>Dutton ticked off on budget items the Coalition agrees with or doesn’t oppose. But he left up in the air the fate of the $40 a fortnight rise in JobSeeker, arguing it would be better to raise the amount the unemployed could earn, rather than increasing the base rate. Interviewed later, he would not confirm the Coalition would support the $40 increase, but it is hard to see it opposing it when push comes to shove. Nevertheless, he has left himself vulnerable to obvious attack. </p>
<p>Dutton homed in on concern, which is likely to grow, about the looming large net migration influx (much of it a post pandemic “catch up”). Labor’s “big Australia approach” would worsen Australia’s cost-of-living and inflation problems, he said. </p>
<p>“Over five years, net overseas migration will see our population increase by 1.5 million people,” he said. “It’s the biggest migration surge in our country’s history and it’s occurring amidst a housing and rental crisis.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-day-after-the-night-before-chalmers-and-taylor-on-the-budget-205431">The day after the night before - Chalmers and Taylor on the budget</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet Dutton did not say what his alternative would be – his statement a Coalition government would “sensibly manage migration” is a declaration of intent, not a policy. </p>
<p>He had plenty of familiar Coalition lines and sentiments. “Under a Coalition government I lead, your taxes will always be lower.” “Taxation is the killer of aspiration.” “Labor recklessly spends, carelessly cuts and inadequately saves.” </p>
<p>But his policy offerings were small beer: a ban on sports betting ads during the broadcasting of games; commitments on health; imposing a greater onus on big digital companies to stop scams and financial fraud; the restoration of the cashless debit card. A personal priority was a promise to double the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation.</p>
<p>What was missing was any ambitious initiative on a central issue. While it’s still relatively early in the term, and Anthony Albanese showed the benefit of holding policy back, Dutton is in a different situation. </p>
<p>He is confronting a popular government, not one on the slide. And voters won’t be attracted to an opposition that can’t project what it stands for, or whose values are seeming out of sync with the times. </p>
<p>Notably, Dutton as yet is giving no commitment on one significant tax measure in the budget – the changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, due to yield $2.4 billion over the forward estimates. The government hopes for opposition support, rather than a haggle with the Greens, whose leader Adam Bandt on Thursday said his party would, if it had the opportunity, fight to make the companies “pay their fair share of tax”. </p>
<p>The Greens’ aggressive response to the budget has underscored the challenge ahead for Labor from an increasingly assertive electoral competitor.</p>
<p>This came in a week when the broader hostility between Greens and Labor exploded in the Senate. </p>
<p>The Greens sided with the Coalition to prevent the government bringing to a vote on Thursday legislation for its $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the interest on which would finance social and affordable houses. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-budget-does-not-make-further-interest-rate-rises-more-likely-205391">No, the budget does not make further interest rate rises more likely</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Senate leader Penny Wong lashed out at Greens housing spokesman Max Chandler-Mather (who last year won the Queensland seat of Griffith from Labor), accusing him of “prioritising media attention from stunts and obstruction over housing for women and kids fleeing domestic violence”.</p>
<p>“This man’s ego matters more than housing for women fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. What sort of party are you?” she said.</p>
<p>The Greens and Coalition also teamed up to ensure a longer Senate inquiry on family law legislation. </p>
<p>In response to the budget, predictably the Greens have delivered biting assessments, declaring it hasn’t gone far enough to help the needy. </p>
<p>Ahead of next year’s budget, this pressure from the left will just intensify. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-2023-at-a-glance-major-measures-cuts-and-spends-205211">Budget 2023 at a glance: major measures, cuts and spends</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government’s economic inclusion advisory group, which was a major player in forcing the budget’s across-the-board (modest) rise in JobSeeker will produce another pre-budget report. That will inevitably urge further rises in welfare payments. </p>
<p>Assuming the government fell short of meeting the full recommendations, this would be manna for the Greens. And there’ll be a fresh round in the argument over the Stage 3 tax cuts. If these are not recalibrated, the Greens will have more ammunition. </p>
<p>Framing the 2024 budget, the government could be pulled between delivering more on welfare, keeping its promises on the tax cuts and, with an eye to the election due by May 2025, doing something substantial for middle Australia. </p>
<p>The last election, which added three more seats to the Greens’ lower house representation, bringing them to four, and boosted their Senate numbers from nine to 12 (now 11 with Lidia Thorpe’s defection), was a sharp reminder to Labor that the threat to it from the left is on the march. </p>
<p>It’s perhaps telling that budget week has seen the government rather complacent in the face of a weak opposition, but agitated by the minor party.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The bar was always too hard for Dutton. This week’s budget, whatever criticisms can be made of it, has been an elusive target for the LiberalsMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2050222023-05-04T11:51:24Z2023-05-04T11:51:24ZGrattan on Friday: Albanese enjoys London limelight while Chalmers sweats in budget spotlight<p>The timing of history. How Anglophile and monarchist Tony Abbott would love to have been the prime minister attending the coronation. To say nothing of John Howard, a key figure in fending off an Australian republic in 1999. </p>
<p>Instead it is Anthony Albanese in London, explaining on British television how he, a leader dedicated to trying to make our country a republic, is happy to be affirming allegiance to its new head of state. </p>
<p>Albanese has not been doing a bad job of smoothing any perceived contradiction, once again showing he can be a man for all occasions, some of them challenging. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1653359095011856385"}"></div></p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/prime-minister-anthony-albanese-pressed-by-piers-morgan-on-australian-republic-dream-ahead-of-king-charles-iiis-coronation/news-story/9faae90e9ea58667488fd830ca7dd3fe">hour-long interview with conservative Sky broadcaster Piers Morgan</a> (a surprising appearance in itself) Albanese navigated some awkward questions, retold his familiar childhood story (with detail about finding his father), which Morgan appeared to find fascinating, and juggled his republicanism with upholding Australia’s present loyalty to King Charles. </p>
<p>While vague about timing (we know he wants a republic referendum in a second term) Albanese said that when there was a public demand for another vote, “I’m sure a vote will be held”, but it wasn’t imminent.</p>
<p>Albanese notably reaffirmed his preference for “an appointed head of state”, referring to “some process whereby democratically elected institutions, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, have a say in that”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759">Nine things you should know about a potential Australian republic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Division among republicans over the model (having the president appointed by the parliament versus being popularly elected) helped sink the 1999 vote. In future, the pressure would be for a popularly elected model. The challenge for Labor, if and when it gets to a referendum, would be to deal with this demand, but avoid a model of potentially competing power centres. </p>
<p>While Albanese (who lands back in Australia on budget eve) basks in the international limelight, at home Treasurer Jim Chalmers this week has been feeling the heat of the spotlight. </p>
<p>In current politics, the days before a budget are as orchestrated by the government as budget day itself. What you read and hear about the measures are not “leaks” but so-called “drops” to the media, designed for a flow of good news ahead of time (or sometimes getting bad news out of the way). </p>
<p>More rarely there are genuine leaks – a journalist gets a real scoop, something the government didn’t intend to be out that day. Such was the <a href="https://7news.com.au/business/centrelink/major-change-coming-to-jobseeker-payments-for-227000-recipients-as-federal-budget-includes-boost-for-older-australians-c-10514696">Seven Network’s story of an anticipated rise in JobSeeker for people 55 and over</a> (those 60-plus who’ve been out of work for nine months already get a higher rate). </p>
<p>Chalmers would not confirm the accuracy of the leak, but he put up a spirited defence of the case for such a measure, which was taken as a tick. One of his arguments is that it would particularly help women, with many older unemployed women especially vulnerable. Assisting them also fits well with Labor’s gendered lens. </p>
<p>Inevitably, however, there was an immediate backlash from those speaking up for the young. The debate became a microcosm of the government’s wider problem with this budget, as Chalmers has sought to balance the need for restraint (reinforced by the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise this week) with the strong calls for the government to meet its oft-repeated election commitment to “not leave people behind”. Albanese told Morgan: “The philosophy I took to the election was two parts, no one held back and no one left behind.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-spend-11-3-billion-over-four-years-to-fund-15-pay-rise-for-aged-care-workers-204919">Government to spend $11.3 billion over four years to fund 15% pay rise for aged care workers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We’ve seen in this intense tug of war both the influence of the crossbench and of the usually compliant caucus. </p>
<p>It was ACT independent senator David Pocock who secured (as part of a deal to pass legislation) the economic inclusion advisory committee that <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/release-economic-inclusion-advisory-committee-report">recommended a big increase in JobSeeker for everyone</a>. A large number of Labor backbenchers publicly joined the call, adding to the squeeze on the government. </p>
<p>The budget will contain not just some welfare initiatives, including for single mothers, but other measures to address the cost-of-living crisis. The reaction to it can be expected to come from various directions. </p>
<p>The assault from the left will say that the government hasn’t done enough. Leaving “nobody behind” is a very subjective proposition. When it comes to attack, this budget is made for the Greens. The minor party has emerged as arguably more effective as an “opposition” voice than the official opposition (this is separate from a judgment on the content of what the Greens say). And Labor knows this is dangerous in the longer term, given the Greens are eating away at a few seats in the lower house. </p>
<p>For the Coalition, finding a length and line in responding to the budget could be trickier. Demanding more be done on welfare is not the Coalition’s bag. It will no doubt say not enough attention is being paid to the cost of living. But any suggestion that the budget should have spent more than whatever it does spend will undermine the Coalition argument about restraint. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-another-rate-rise-higher-tax-on-cigarettes-and-likely-jobseeker-boost-for-over-55s-204814">Word from The Hill: Another rate rise, higher tax on cigarettes, and likely JobSeeker boost for over-55s</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If, as speculated, the budget predicts a 2022-23 surplus, that further complicates the opposition’s reaction. The Coalition is stymied, whether it attacks from the right or (less likely) the left.</p>
<p>Depending on its precise crafting, the budget could be a slippery beast for the opposition to handle. Meanwhile Peter Dutton faces his own personal test next week. </p>
<p>In theory, an opposition leader’s budget reply this early in the term shouldn’t be of great moment. But Dutton is under the pump, with bad polling numbers and divided ranks, and so the occasion will matter. </p>
<p>When he rises in the House of Representatives on Thursday night, Dutton will require both negative and positive messages. </p>
<p>The difficulty of his task will depend partly on how the budget has been received. Beyond that, Dutton needs to unveil something substantial in policy terms, filling at least a corner of the Coalition’s current policy vacuum. </p>
<p>Not that this is easy. The Coalition can’t afford to make itself the story in a bad way. It’s already done this on the Voice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While Albanese (who lands back in Australia on budget eve) basks in the international limelight, at home Treasurer Jim Chalmers this week has been feeling the heat of the spotlight.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.