tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/national-press-club-28592/articlesNational Press Club – The Conversation2023-05-01T12:30:37Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2047602023-05-01T12:30:37Z2023-05-01T12:30:37ZAlbanese government launches war on vaping, declaring it the ‘number-one behavioural issue in high schools’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523595/original/file-20230501-28-j5x0c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C236%2C2948%2C1785&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The federal government is declaring war on vaping, announcing measures to stamp out its recreational use – especially among the young – including by stronger legislation and enforcement action. </p>
<p>In a tough message to be delivered on Tuesday, Health Minister Mark Butler declares: “Vaping has become the number one behavioural issue in high schools. And it’s becoming widespread in primary schools.”</p>
<p>The government will work with the states and territories to clamp down on the increasing black market in vaping, including to stop the illegal import of non-prescription vapes. </p>
<p>The minimum quality standards for prescription vapes will be increased, with restrictions on flavours and colours. </p>
<p>Prescription vapes will have to come in “pharmacy-like packaging” (following the example of plain packaging for cigarettes). The permissible nicotine concentrations and volumes will be reduced, and single-use, disposable vapes will be banned. </p>
<p>The governments will work with other jurisdictions to shut down the sale of vapes, ending sales at convenience stores and other retailers. But it will also make it easier for people to get a prescription for legitimate therapeutic use. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-bad-is-vaping-and-should-it-be-banned-197913">How bad is vaping and should it be banned?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Next week’s budget will provide $234 million to address smoking and vaping. </p>
<p>In an extract released ahead of delivery of his National Press Club speech, Butler warns the gains made in the fight against smoking “could be undone by a new threat to public health”. </p>
<p>“Vaping was sold to governments and communities around the world as a therapeutic product to help long-term smokers quit,” Butler says.</p>
<p>“It was not sold as a recreational product - especially not one for our kids. But that is what it has become: the biggest loophole in Australian history.</p>
<p>"One in six teenagers aged 14-17 has vaped. One in four people aged 18-24 has vaped.</p>
<p>"By contrast, only one in 70 people my age has vaped.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-october-it-will-be-all-but-impossible-for-most-australians-to-vape-largely-because-of-canberras-little-known-homework-police-167376">From October, it will be all but impossible for most Australians to vape — largely because of Canberra's little-known 'homework police'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“And when more than a thousand teenagers aged 15 to 17 were asked where they could get vapes, four out of five of them said they found it easy or somewhat easy to buy them in retail stores.</p>
<p>"This is a product targeted at our kids, sold alongside lollies and chocolate bars,” Butler says.</p>
<p>“Over the past 12 months, Victoria’s poisons hotline has taken 50 calls about children under four becoming sick from ingesting or using a vape.”</p>
<p>Butler says that just as with smoking, “Big Tobacco has taken another addictive product, wrapped it in shiny packaging and added flavours to create a new generation of nicotine addicts.</p>
<p>"Vapers are three times as likely to take up smoking, which explains why under 25s are the only cohort in the community currently recording an increase in smoking rates. "This must end,” Butler says.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/everyones-not-doing-it-how-schools-parents-should-talk-about-vaping-196139">Everyone's NOT doing it: how schools, parents should talk about vaping</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The budget money includes $63 million for a public health campaign to discourage people taking up smoking and vaping and encourage quitting. Some $30 million will be put into support programs to help people quit, and into education and training for health professionals. </p>
<p>Another $140 million will go to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program, including widening it to tackle vaping.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204760/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>Vapes will have to come in ‘pharmacy-like packaging’. The permissible nicotine concentrations and volumes will be reduced, and single-use, disposable vapes will be banned.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2041962023-04-27T02:01:46Z2023-04-27T02:01:46ZHell hath no fury like a former PM – but it wasn’t always so<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523109/original/file-20230427-28-2212o2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iCzCtPkxQ&t=269s">television interview</a> with Phillip Adams in 1999, Paul Keating remarked that he retained much influence on the international stage.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I still have most of the access […] throughout the world, in Asia in particular, that I had as prime minister.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was a calm and contented Keating, barely three years out of office but comfortable in the knowledge his voice continued to be heard in the right quarters.</p>
<p>His <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lQvFTmMxU">recent appearance</a> at the National Press Club to talk about the AUKUS pact between Australia, Britain and the United States (under the auspices of which Australia is purchasing up to five nuclear-powered submarines for the princely sum of $368 billion) was mostly devoid of that quality. </p>
<p>Keating called it the “worst deal in all history” and lampooned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as the only “payer” of the pact. He was especially critical of Foreign Minister Penny Wong: “Running around the Pacific with a lei around your neck, handing out money, which is what Penny does, is not foreign policy”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z2lQvFTmMxU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There were important and sage policy points on offer, but there was something a little unseemly about the polemic, and even more so about his complaint the prime minister’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/paul-keating-lashes-albanese-government-over-aukus-calling-it-labors-biggest-failure-since-ww1-201866">hadn’t heeded his advice</a>. Those cognisant of Labor’s history might have been reminded of former NSW Premier Jack Lang, at whose feet Keating learned much of his politics in the 1960s and 1970s, and whose trenchant criticism of the party earned him many enemies over the decades.</p>
<p>It is easy to assume this kind of intervention is the natural corollary of losing power, egotism and what former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans called “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/barnes-relevance-deprivation-syndrome-has-struck-politics/7250046">relevance deprivation syndrome</a>”. In fact, the spectre of a disgruntled former prime minister speaking out against their own party is a relatively recent one, a product of Australia’s modern, personalised political culture.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/paul-keating-lashes-albanese-government-over-aukus-calling-it-labors-biggest-failure-since-ww1-201866">Paul Keating lashes Albanese government over AUKUS, calling it Labor's biggest failure since WW1</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Death and duty</h2>
<p>In the 20th century, several of Australia’s leaders died before they could enjoy any kind of retirement in which to disrupt their successors. Alfred Deakin’s health declined rapidly in the years after he left office, preventing him from making significant contributions to public life in the years afterwards. Joe Lyons and John Curtin both died in office, as did Ben Chifley, while serving as opposition leader. Harold Holt disappeared at Cheviot Beach in December 1967.</p>
<p>The survivors, it has to be said, were put to <a href="https://theconversation.com/even-in-the-political-afterlife-morrison-departs-from-the-norm-187346">good public use</a> after leaving office. Edmund Barton served the remainder of his days on the High Court, while George Reid and Andrew Fisher both went to London to serve as Australian High Commissioner. The former even took a seat in the British House of Commons in the final years of his life.</p>
<p>Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who lost government and his own seat at the 1929 federal election, was returned to parliament in 1931 and served as a minister in Joe Lyons’ government, before emulating Reid and Fisher by serving as High Commissioner in London and going to the House of Lords. Depression-era prime minister James Scullin remained an MP for a further 18 years after losing power in 1931, reputedly offering much wise counsel to Curtin and Chifley throughout the 1940s.</p>
<p>Former prime ministers were once a little more reticent about sparring with their successors in public, especially when it came to sensitive policy matters. Fisher despaired when his successor, Billy Hughes, campaigned for military conscription in 1916. But the former prime minister used his office as High Commissioner to abstain from commenting on the referendum, which failed.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gsecEddMnis?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Robert Menzies was so disappointed with his Liberal successors, according to <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/8040279">biographer Troy Bramston</a>, that he may not have even voted for the Liberal Party in 1972, preferring the Democratic Labor Party. </p>
<p>But he would never have admitted this publicly. Instead, he used his post-prime ministerial public appearances to wax lyrical about the British Commonwealth and bemoan its declining relevance. </p>
<p>Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser consulted Menzies periodically during the party elder’s final years.</p>
<h2>Statesmen on the loose?</h2>
<p>There is a longer history, though, of former prime ministerial interventions in debates about Australia’s strategic and defence policy. These were, after all, vital questions in the 20th century. </p>
<p>When Bruce proposed in 1924 to build two new Commonwealth naval cruisers in Britain rather than Australia, his Nationalist predecessor Hughes was irate, and said so from the backbench. “Are we such spineless anaemic creatures”, he asked, “as to be incapable of bearing the great responsibilities which free government imposes upon us?”</p>
<p>Hughes would play the role of provocateur again. In 1934, he published a short book called <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1825072">The Price of Peace</a>, in which he called for a more urgent approach to preparation for conflict in the Pacific. An updated version was reissued the following year under the title Australia and the War Today, but it was highly controversial. Hughes was now a minister in a government whose foreign policy toward aggressors depended on economic sanctions, which he had described in the book as “<a href="https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/william-hughes/after-office">either an empty gesture or war</a>”. His resignation promptly followed.</p>
<p>More recent interventions have taken defence policy and strategic complacency as their concern, too. A year before his death, Malcolm Fraser published a polemical book called Dangerous Allies (2014), in which he argued against Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-dangerous-allies-by-malcolm-fraser-25995">bipartisan “strategic dependence”</a> on the United States.</p>
<p>Speaking on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGk68dzsPU&t=15s">daytime television</a>, he warned that Australia’s partnership with the US could see it implicated in “major conflict” in the Pacific. He was, in this respect, equally critical of both major parties for what he perceived as subservience to American strategic interests.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-dangerous-allies-by-malcolm-fraser-25995">Book review: Dangerous Allies by Malcolm Fraser</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The AUKUS pact, in its short life, has served as the launching pad for ex-leaders other than Keating to launch powerful attacks on successors. When Scott Morrison announced the initial agreement in 2021, his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull used a <a href="https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/address-to-the-national-press-club-september-2021">press club broadcast</a> to argue Morrison had “not acted in good faith” in reneging on the existing submarine deal with France that he, Turnbull, had signed in 2016.</p>
<p>Morrison, Turnbull fulminated, had “deceived” France. Australian voters saw the French president and their own prime minister’s immediate predecessor calling the incumbent a liar.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1612192170349592577"}"></div></p>
<h2>Fights, feuds and frustrated men</h2>
<p>In recent decades, Australians have become inured to bitter and emotional feuds between their former leaders. There are several reasons for this trend, including the increasingly personalised nature of politics since the 1970s, high rates of leadership attrition, and the thirst of media providers for easy news stories that hinge on personal animosity and Shakespearean intrigue. </p>
<p>A former leader criticising their own party is deemed the height of newsworthiness. John Howard and Julia Gillard have uniquely resisted the temptation. Howard had some <a href="https://theconversation.com/john-howard-calls-for-a-sense-of-balance-but-can-he-help-the-liberal-party-find-it-189059">stern words for his Liberal successors</a> last year in a book called A Sense of Balance, but the book appeared after the Morrison government had been defeated. Gillard, for her part, has been almost unfailingly measured and dignified in her public pronouncements since 2013. </p>
<p>For those who did return to the fray of policy combat, the personal and the political were inseparable. For much of the 1980s, Gough Whitlam was anguished by the way Hawke government ministers treated his legacy. As Jenny Hocking has shown in her <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Gough_Whitlam.html?id=QhuSmQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">biography of Whitlam</a>, Hawke and Whitlam clashed repeatedly as the Labor Party walked away from big 1970s initiatives such as free tertiary education, an ambitious Aboriginal land rights agenda and much else. When treasurer Keating joked about the “chasm” between Whitlam’s policy aspirations and his actual achievements, Whitlam returned serve by calling him a “<a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122414425?searchTerm=Whitlam%20Hawke%20Keating">smart-arse</a>”.</p>
<p>Where race relations and national identity have been concerned, the fall-outs between Australian ex-PMs have been that much more embittered. A great defender of refugees and asylum seekers, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/fraser-lambasts-howard-government-20040508-gdxt5o.html">Fraser spoke publicly</a> about his abhorrence of the Howard government’s approach to border protection and mandatory offshore detention. When Tony Abbott took the leadership of the Liberal Party in December 2009 promising to “stop the boats”, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-26/fraser-quits-liberal-party/841616">Fraser resigned his life membership</a> in protest.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523120/original/file-20230427-20-62qetl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was a trenchant critic of the Howard and Abbott governments’ immigration policies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Keating’s attack on the Labor Party is not unprecedented for a former prime minister, but it isn’t historically commonplace either. There is no doubt his criticisms have been heard, but their influence remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Black 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>Paul Keating’s recent savage criticism of the Albanese government over the AUKUS deal is a reminder that former leaders have not always publicly disparaged their own parties.Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2031572023-04-03T07:18:38Z2023-04-03T07:18:38ZLiberals to meet on Voice, with Julian Leeser favouring campaign freedom for senior figures<p>Opposition spokesman for Indigenous Australians Julian Leeser has delivered a detailed critique of the government’s Voice proposal, ahead of Wednesday’s special Liberal Party meeting to determine its stand. </p>
<p>Leeser, a long-time supporter of the Voice, also flagged he would like to see shadow ministers given the right to support either side at the referendum.</p>
<p>Asked about the republic referendum where senior Liberals were free to support the yes or no case, Leeser praised that approach. “I think the proposal during the republic referendum was good.” But he said he did not want to pre-empt the party room discussion. </p>
<p>Opposition leader Peter Dutton has hardened his rhetoric on the Voice proposal in recent weeks, and Liberal sources say there is a majority against it in the party room. The Nationals have already come out in opposition.</p>
<p>Leeser, addressing the National Press Club, argued that if there was a danger of the referendum failing, it should be withdrawn – something Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has emphatically ruled out.</p>
<p>“I wish the referendum was in a better place than it is,” Leeser said. But the government was “mucking it up” by not trying to find common ground and not trusting Australians with all the facts. </p>
<p>Leeser attacked the government’s approach for being “top down”, urged a “ground up” model, and called for an extensive change to the wording of the proposed insertion into the constitution. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-in-declares-an-emotional-albanese-as-he-launches-the-wording-for-the-voice-referendum-202435">'We're all in', declares an emotional Albanese as he launches the wording for the Voice referendum</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He said the opposition supported “local and regional voices”, saying that funding for these should be in the May budget. </p>
<p>“Any national voice must be deeply connected to the local and regional voices across Australia and it would have been better if the national voice was settled by reaching a bipartisan legislated consensus before we went to a referendum,” he said.</p>
<p>But the local and regional had “been forgotten by the government, ignored even in the Voice design principles released last week”. </p>
<p>Leeser also said one clause of the proposed constitutional change should be deleted. </p>
<p>The government’s proposed new section reads: </p>
<p><em>In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia</em></p>
<p><em>There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</em></p>
<p><em>The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples</em></p>
<p><em>The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.</em></p>
<p>Leeser said the second clause, covering representations, raised three questions: Who could the Voice talk to? What could it talk about? What did it mean to make representations? The answers to these questions were currently unclear, Leeser said. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-a-no-vote-in-the-voice-referendum-would-put-a-serious-dent-in-australias-image-abroad-201157">Grattan on Friday: A 'No' vote in the Voice referendum would put a serious dent in Australia's image abroad</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It wasn’t enough to say these questions would be dealt with later by legislation. “You can’t out-legislate the constitution,” he said. </p>
<p>“I raise these issues not only at a technical level, but a political one as well. Because this clause will be the rallying point for the no campaign. </p>
<p>"For those that want the referendum to succeed, it puts the broader constitutional question at risk.”</p>
<p>He also warned about the proposed reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples “as the First Peoples of Australia”. </p>
<p>This was “a symbolic statement that sets out an incontrovertible fact”. But it raised the question of what the term implied at law. “The Constitution is not a good place for historic or symbolic statements, however well-meaning, as those statements have a legal effect and will be subject to judicial interpretation in ways that we cannot imagine”. </p>
<p>Anthony Albanese accused the opposition of “an attempt to undermine the prospect of a successful referendum”. </p>
<p>Albanese, in his tribute following the death of highly-respected Indigenous leader Yunupingu, a former Australian of the Year, said that at the Garma festival last year, after he announced the details of the referendum, Yunupingu had asked him, “‘Are you serious this time?’ I replied: ‘Yes, we’re going to go for it.’</p>
<p>"When I spoke with him just over a week ago, I told him I was confident we would get there. This brought him some comfort, as did his totems of fire and baru, the saltwater crocodile, which watched over him in his final days,” Albanese said.</p>
<p>“We mourn with his people today. And we pay tribute to a lifetime of advocating for the rights of Aboriginal people in this country. </p>
<p>"He was a key focal point of the development of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. […] And when that happened in 2017, he spoke about lighting a fire. I think that today is a day that I certainly recommit myself to do everything we can to make sure that that referendum is carried at the end of this year.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203157/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>Opposition leader Peter Dutton has hardened his rhetoric criticising the Voice proposal in recent weeksMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1762522022-02-09T07:05:30Z2022-02-09T07:05:30ZMaking change, making history, making noise: Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame at the National Press Club<p>As an historian of the Australian women’s movement, the past two years have been extraordinary to witness. Not only are we living through a once-in-a-century pandemic, which has had profoundly gendered effects, we have also experienced a feminist insurgency that has placed the issue of women’s safety, and men’s abuses of power, at the centre of our national conversation. </p>
<p>While many activists, journalists and advocates contributed to this insurgency, it exploded largely thanks to two young women: 2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame and former parliamentary staffer Brittany Higgins. </p>
<p>Both just 26, both survivors of sexual assault, both abused by men – and institutions – they ought to have been able to trust. Both rejected the expectation they should be shamed into silence about their experiences. In doing so, they have helped to rewrite enduring cultural scripts about sexual abuse and sexual assault. </p>
<p>Their joint address at the National Press Club today was a valedictory speech, a way to mark their extraordinary year in the public eye. But it was also a call to action, a warning against complacency in an election year. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1491230448907079680"}"></div></p>
<p>Both made it very clear that, while hearing the voices of survivors of abuse and assault is important, it is not enough. As Higgins noted, the ways we discuss abuse are far too passive, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>as if sexual violence falls out of the sky. As if it is perpetrated by no-one. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of yesterday’s formal parliamentary apology to victims of alleged sexual harassment, assault and bullying, Higgins was grateful, but sceptical: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>They are still only words. Actions are what matter.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tame and Higgins both made passionate pleas for structural change, for measurable action to prevent sexual abuse and assault. Tame called for government to take abuse seriously: to advance consistent national legislative change on sexual offences, and to spend more on preventive education to curb Australia’s alarmingly high rates of abuse and assault. She calculated the government spends 11 cents per student per year on prevention education, because</p>
<blockquote>
<p>we currently have a government that is primarily concerned with short-sighted, votes-based funding, not with long-term, needs-based funding.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To those of us used to government by spin, obfuscation and photo ops in high-vis vests, Tame and Higgins’ moral clarity and bluntness are exhilarating. Both vehemently ruled out the possibility of political careers and, indeed, the journalists asking them about their political aspirations seem to misread their social and political role. </p>
<p>They are advocates and activists, who use their public platform to articulate complex issues in clear, direct ways. Tame, in particular, clearly has no intention of playing by anyone else’s rules, as her memorable side-eye to the prime minister at The Lodge demonstrated.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445336/original/file-20220209-15-1ktuty3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grace Tame has made it clear she does not intend to play by anyone else’s rules.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Their speeches also confirmed that their actions had rattled the Morrison government, whose response to them has been ham-fisted at every turn. Tame <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/feb/09/australia-politics-news-live-brittany-jenkins-grace-tame-scott-morrison-parliament-coronavirus-covid-omicron-weather">revealed</a> that in August 2021 a representative of a government-funded organisation (which she declined to name) had asked for her “word” that she would not say anything about the prime minister on the evening before the 2022 Australian of the Year awards. “You are an influential person. He will have a fear,” she was told. She speculated he had “a fear he might lose his position, or, more to the point, his power”. The prime minister’s office later said it had no knowledge of such a call to Tame and the person who made it should apologise.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrison-finds-strong-women-can-be-tough-players-158648">Grattan on Friday: Morrison finds strong women can be tough players</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Tame also reminded us the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet conducted a review of the selection process for Australian of the Year not long after she won the award. This was an attempt at intimidation, as Tame notes, but it also spoke to the government’s dislike of her fearless critique.</p>
<p>Higgins was consistently treated by many in the Morrison government as a political problem to be managed. In the wake of her allegations, the prime minister commissioned not one, not two, but four reviews, all the while dragging his heels on a formal response to Kate Jenkins’s landmark <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/respectwork-sexual-harassment-national-inquiry-report-2020">Respect@Work</a> report. </p>
<p>Higgins reminded us that implementing Respect@Work, especially the proposed “positive duty” on employers to provide a safe workplace, would have </p>
<blockquote>
<p>impacted every single working woman in the country. And we just kind of let that moment slide by without thinking. </p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445337/original/file-20220209-32038-ezlcw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The government has long dealt with Brittany Higgins as a problem to be managed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Tame and Higgins dissected the government’s performance on gender over the past year. Tame called out Christian Porter’s reliance on a blind trust to fund his unsuccessful defamation case against the ABC. Higgins eviscerated the government’s <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/draft-national-plan-to-end-violence-against-women-and-children-2022-2032/">National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children</a> for its “vague and lofty” aims, its lack of targets and clear plans. She noted the shocking statistics on domestic violence that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>you’ve heard […] rattled off at white-ribbon breakfasts […] They should spur us to do whatever it takes. But instead they’ve become a sort of throat-clearing exercise that we all just kind of tolerate.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Policy action on abuse and assault has been a litmus test for the Morrison government’s views on women. According to Higgins and Tame, it is a test the government has failed at every turn. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1491235542755086336"}"></div></p>
<p>In the 1970s, feminist activists told personal stories in public because of their belief that “the personal is political”. Yet victims of sexual assault or abuse typically remained anonymous, because of the shame that was attached to these crimes. </p>
<p>More recently, advocates like Rosie Batty, and now young women including Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, have personalised these difficult issues, making them harder for politicians to ignore. The #MeToo and #LetHerSpeak movements have centred on survivors and focused on hearing their stories. As Tame said in her NPC address: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>How beautiful is freedom of speech? I haven’t always had it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the problems with a movement based on storytelling in public spaces is the brutal toll it exacts on survivors. Tame noted she had spent the past year being “revictimised, commodified, objectified, sensationalised, legitimised [and] gaslit”. As Tarana Burke has <a href="https://healinghonestly.com/pop-culture/me-too-movement-not-moment">pointed out</a>, survivors “shouldn’t have to perform our pain over and over again for the sake of your awareness”. </p>
<p>There are other problems with placing too much emphasis on individuals like Tame or Higgins: two young white women can hardly represent all assault survivors, as <a href="https://peril.com.au/back-editions/edition-35/metoo-uneven-distribution-of-trauma/">Shakira Hussein</a> and others have pointed out. And we must be careful not to confuse justice for individuals with broader structural changes to protect all people from abuse and harassment.</p>
<p>But by speaking truth to power, Higgins and Tame have reinvigorated feminism for a new generation of young women. Back in the 1990s, older feminists worried young women were not taking up the feminist mantle. No-one is saying that now. Teenage girls know Grace Tame’s name, and they admire her courage and her strength. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-brittany-higgins-will-the-foster-review-prevent-another-serious-incident-at-parliament-162182">After Brittany Higgins: will the Foster review prevent another 'serious incident' at parliament?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2021/11/the-reckoning">Jess Hill</a> and others have noted, the public face of Australian feminism in the 2010s was dominated by “corporate feminism”: seemingly preoccupied with getting more women on boards rather than raising the wages of low-paid female workers in aged care or childcare, for example. </p>
<p>Sexual harassment is still, shockingly, endemic across Australia, and too many people have experienced sexual abuse and assault. By highlighting this problem – which at its core is about the gendered abuse of power – Tame and Higgins have mobilised a broad constituency of Australian women. They inspired thousands to march for justice and others to run for political office. Maybe they will play a decisive role in this year’s federal election. </p>
<p>As Tame reminded us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[our leaders] may either be constructive or destructive. But every single one of them is arguably replaceable.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><em>If you or anyone you know needs help, please call 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732)</em>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She was a campaign volunteer for the ALP at the 2019 election. </span></em></p>In two powerful addresses, Tame and Higgins have insisted on action instead of just words on sexual abuse, and reinvigorated feminism for a new generation of young women.Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1762592022-02-02T10:44:33Z2022-02-02T10:44:33ZView from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that?<p>A flurry of categorical denials by senior ministers has followed the report that a current Liberal cabinet minister described Scott Morrison as a “psycho” in a text exchange with then NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian during the summer bushfires of 2019-20. </p>
<p>Two prominent NSW Liberal moderates, Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher (through a spokesman) were among those who said on Wednesday they weren’t the minister. Others included Sussan Ley, Simon Birmingham, Anne Ruston, Linda Reynolds, and Greg Hunt.</p>
<p>Payne said in her statement she had never had such an exchange with Berejiklian, “nor have I ever used such language”, She also rejected the descriptions of the PM “in the purported messages”. She wasn’t the only one raising a question about the authenticity of the messages.</p>
<p>Meanwhile Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce – quick to point out the culprit wasn’t from the Nationals – inadvertently injected confusion when his comments were wrongly reported as suggesting the minister was a woman. He quickly had to clarify he wasn’t saying that at all.</p>
<p>Joyce said he didn’t know the identity of the minister but they should out themselves and give an explanation before they were named.</p>
<p>It was just a “good rump steak with horseradish sauce, vegetables and chips, two bottles of red wine” away from some journalist saying “blah, blah, blah”. </p>
<p>The great guessing game followed Ten’s Peter van Onselen asking Morrison at the National Press Club on Tuesday about the exchange.
Van Onselen quoted the text comments in his Press Club question and on the Ten news. </p>
<p>He said Berejiklian’s comments included describing Morrison as “a horrible, horrible person” who was “just obsessed with petty political point scoring” when lives were at stake.</p>
<p>According to van Onselen, the other person condemned Morrison as a “complete psycho”, “desperate and jealous”, and said: “The mob have worked him out and think he’s a fraud”. </p>
<p>At the Press Club, a startled Morrison replied: “I don’t know who you’re referring to or the basis of what you’ve put to me, but I obviously don’t agree with it, and I don’t think that’s my record.”</p>
<p>Berejiklian immediately issued a statement that she had “no recollection of such messages”, thus falling short of a denial. She reiterated her “very strong support” for Morrison, even though the two are known to have had differences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/newspoll-has-labors-biggest-lead-since-turnbulls-ousting-as-coalition-damaged-by-covid-175835">Newspoll has Labor's biggest lead since Turnbull's ousting as Coalition damaged by COVID</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>NSW treasurer Matt Kean quickly found himself in the frame, as speculation about the leaker gathered momentum. Kean has just had a row with the federal government over Morrison’s refusal to provide money for the state government’s small business package.</p>
<p>He is also close to Berejiklian, and it has been assumed she would only be so frank with someone she trusted. </p>
<p>But Kean, who said he had checked his records, denied being the source. And van Onselen made it clear the minister involved was a federal Liberal (and a current minister, so his friend, former minister Christian Porter, wouldn’t be fingered). </p>
<p>Hunt challenged van Onselen to name his source. </p>
<p>The van Onselen question, together with the PM’s failure to know the price of bread and milk in response to another question, had turned Tuesday’s appearance into something of a train wreck for Morrison. </p>
<p>The mystery of the minister ensured the story dragged on to distract another day. </p>
<p>Morrison tried to play the whole thing down, saying on Wednesday, “I’m not fussed”, though that wasn’t credible. Asked whether he was confident the minister involved wasn’t sitting in his cabinet right now, he said “yes”. No one had come forward to confess.</p>
<p>Morrison might not know who his alleged forthright cabinet critic is but by Wednesday he was able to prattle on about all sorts of breads and milks. As for him, “I’m just normal white bread, white bread toast. That’s me.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176259/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>A flurry of categorical denials has followed the report that a current Liberal cabinet minister described Scott Morrison as a “psycho” in a text exchange with then NSW premier Gladys BerejiklianMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1761582022-02-01T07:36:56Z2022-02-01T07:36:56ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: On Scott Morrison admitting some regrets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443666/original/file-20220201-17-1149wty.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=47%2C29%2C3946%2C1964&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>This week Michelle and Amanda Dunn discuss Scott Morrison’s Press Club performance, when he spoke about “resilience” and faced some difficult questioning. </p>
<p>Knowing how hostile many voters have become towards him, Morrison admitted that in retrospect he would have done some things differently. But the list was limited and, unsurprisingly, there was no “apology”. </p>
<p>He conceded that talking up too optimistically the prospect of a great summer had heightened people’s disappointment when it turned out to be anything but. He also regretted not putting the vaccine rollout under the military from the start – an admission the health bureaucracy hadn’t been up to the job. </p>
<p>Michelle and Amanda also canvass Morrison’s economic pitch, in which he held out the prospect of the unemployment rate having a “3” in front of it in the second half of this year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176158/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>Michelle Grattan discusses politics with politics + society editor, Amanda DunnMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1394082020-05-26T12:04:57Z2020-05-26T12:04:57ZView from The Hill: Can Scott Morrison achieve industrial relations disarmament?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337586/original/file-20200526-106832-cx56oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5568%2C3684&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos.aap.com.au/">Lukas Coch/AAP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scott Morrison has indeed taken to heart that adage about not wasting a crisis. He insists he is going to put to advantage the opportunity brought by these most unfortunate circumstances.</p>
<p>His plan for a government-employer-union-community effort to reform this country’s industrial relations will, if it comes off, be a substantial achievement (although the actual magnitude would depend on just how much was done).</p>
<p>Politically, success would give Morrison something positive for the next election, which will be fought in the testing circumstances of likely high unemployment and sectors of the economy still struggling.</p>
<p>Labor would be outflanked.</p>
<p>If Morrison’s effort ends as a busted flush, he’ll say he tried and move on to something else.</p>
<p>Despite his pragmatism, Morrison aspires to be remembered as a leader who delivered reform. Remember when as treasurer under Malcolm Turnbull, he pushed strongly to change the GST and talked up his mission?</p>
<p>In Tuesday’s address to the National Press Club, he was the ambitious consensus prime minister, declaring “we’ve booked the room, we’ve hired the hall”, to get everybody to the table in pursuit of better industrial relations arrangements.</p>
<p>The present system had “retreated to tribalism, conflict and ideological posturing,” he said. It had “settled into a complacency of unions seeking marginal benefits and employers closing down risks, often by simply not employing anyone”.</p>
<p>As a “good faith” gesture, the government won’t pursue another Senate vote on its controversial Ensuring Integrity bill which would give the Federal Court the power to cancel the registration of a union or an employer organisation and introduce a public interest test for the amalgamation of such organisations. The Senate rejected the legislation last year.</p>
<p>In his speech Morrison announced a structure for talking, and broad topics to talk about. Industrial relations minister Christian Porter will chair five groups - they will consider award simplification; enterprise agreements; casuals and fixed term employment; compliance and enforcement, and greenfield agreements for new enterprises.</p>
<p>“Membership of each group will include employer and union representatives, as well as individuals chosen based on their demonstrated experience and expertise and that will include especially small businesses, rural and regional backgrounds, multicultural communities, women and families,” Morrison said.</p>
<p>The process will run until September. “It will become apparent very quickly if progress is to be made,” he said.</p>
<p>Indeed, it is not as if Porter is starting from scratch. After being appointed industrial relations minister following the 2019 election, Porter set up a process of IR reform which has produced several discussion papers and consultations on a range of issues.</p>
<p>A frustrating feature of the Coalition government, if you take it as a whole from its election in 2013, is its failure to finish what it starts.
Key reform processes have previously begun but run up dry gullies or been overtaken.</p>
<p>For instance Tony Abbott commissioned white papers on taxation and federalism. After overthrowing Abbott, Turnbull aborted the white papers. Turnbull in turn flirted with tax change, not just possible GST reform but even the states raising their own income tax. Tax reform as well as federalism are among the issues Morrison has in his sights.</p>
<p>As for Morrison’s declared determination to get a better system for training and skilling workers for the jobs of the present and the future – we have heard this from governments of both stripes for a very long time.</p>
<p>Of course, the past isn’t necessarily a guide to the future, and Morrison’s handling of the pandemic points to his adaptability as a leader.</p>
<p>His agenda appears broad and ambitious (although we can’t be definitive ahead of the detail). He has talked skills and industrial relations this week, but there’s also deregulation (another recurring Coalition theme) and energy as well as tax and the federation. </p>
<p>Admittedly it is not a matter of all-or-nothing. Worthwhile but limited changes would be better than not making the effort.</p>
<p>The extent to which Morrison succeeds will depend on a number of factors.</p>
<p>On industrial relations, it is whether employers and unions put the interests they share above those that divide them – whether each side will be willing to give ground for a larger common cause. The chance of agreement will differ according to the issue.</p>
<p>ACTU secretary Sally McManus responded on Tuesday: “The ACTU will measure any changes to industrial relations law on the benchmarks of: will it give working people better job security, and will it lead to working people receiving their fair share of the country’s wealth?” </p>
<p>They could be challenging benchmarks.</p>
<p>A co-operative discussion will go against the instincts of some of the Coalition’s anti-union hardliners, and be resisted by some in McManus’s constituency.</p>
<p>Asked his message to people in his own party who might see this as an opportunity to finally neuter the union movement, Morrison said: “I think everybody’s got to put their weapons down on this”. </p>
<p>On making progress with reforms involving federal-state relations, including the training system, the attitude of the states will be crucial.</p>
<p>Morrison lauds the national cabinet, and the government contrasts it with the more bureaucratic Council of Australian Governments processes.</p>
<p>But national cabinet and COAG are the same people. The difference is national cabinet is operating in a crisis and totally focussed on that, and on the moment.</p>
<p>COAG deals with everything, and is mostly putting in place measures for the longer term. Inevitably, interests will diverge and corners are harder to cut (which doesn’t mean COAG’s working can’t be usefully shaken up).</p>
<p>Even if national cabinet continued, on some of these reform measures the states would probably behave more like they were in COAG - that is, there’d be more “process”.</p>
<p>Finally, there’s whether a crisis really does produce a climate conducive to reform.</p>
<p>It certainly concentrates attention, turns the page, sweeps away most else. (Asked on Tuesday about the timetable for the religious freedom legislation and the proposed anti-corruption body, Morrison had no answers. It was almost as though they were from another era.)</p>
<p>The road out of this crisis will be very tough for many people. Extensive reform is often painful. Whether the Australian public will be in the mood for it as they cope with the aftermath of such a trauma is an open question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139408/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>Scott Morrison, not one to waste a crisis, is calling the coronavirus a chance to reform the country’s industrial relations.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1183292019-06-05T03:30:11Z2019-06-05T03:30:11ZThe gene therapy revolution is here. Medicine is scrambling to keep pace<p><em>This article is an edited extract from Elizabeth Finkel’s address <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speakers/dr-elizabeth-finkel/">Gene therapy: cure but at what cost?</a> to the National Press Club June 5 2019.</em></p>
<p><em>We’re publishing it as part of our occasional series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/zoom-out-51632">Zoom Out</a>, where authors explore key ideas in science and technology in the broader context of society and humanity.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Gene therapy – for so long something that belonged to the future – has just hit the streets. </p>
<p>A couple of weeks back, you might have picked up a headline alerting us to the most expensive drug in history – a one off gene therapy cure for spinal muscular atrophy. Novartis have priced the drug <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-25/worlds-most-expensive-drug-spinal-muscular-dystrophy/11149788">Zolgensma</a> at A$3 million (US$2.1 million).</p>
<p>Traditionally a parent of a baby with spinal muscular atrophy was told: take your baby home and love her or him. Have no false hope, the baby will die paralysed and unable to eat or talk by the age of two. </p>
<p>What’s the narrative going to be now? There is a cure but it costs A$3 million. </p>
<p>I think we are in for some poignant dilemmas. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/boyer-lectures-gene-therapy-is-still-in-its-infancy-but-the-future-looks-promising-104558">Boyer Lectures: gene therapy is still in its infancy but the future looks promising</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Heads up’ from a mother</h2>
<p>The person who gave me a recent “heads up” on the gene therapy revolution was not a scientist. She is the mother of two sick children.</p>
<p>I met Megan Donnell last August 29th at a Melbourne startup conference called “<a href="https://www.bluechilli.com/blog/be-above-all-human/">Above All Human</a>”. </p>
<p>Megan Donnell is a person who strikes you with her vibrancy and charisma.
What you can’t immediately see is her life’s greatest tragedy and her life’s greatest mission.</p>
<p>Both of her children suffer from the rare genetic illness <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664539/">Sanfilippo syndrome</a>. They lack a gene for breaking down heparin sulphate, a sugar that holds proteins in place in the matrix between cells. The high levels of the sugar poison the organs, particularly the brain. In the normal course of the disease, the children die in their teens, paralysed, unable to talk or eat. </p>
<p>When Megan Donnell’s kids were diagnosed at the ages of four and two, she was told “do not have false hope”. <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/march/1551445200/elizabeth-finkel/chasing-miracle-gene-therapy">She didn’t listen</a>. </p>
<p>The one time IT business manager started the <a href="https://www.sanfilippo.org.au/">Sanfilippo Childrens’ Foundation</a>, raised a million dollars and invested in a start-up based in Ohio that was trialling gene therapy to treat the disease. Part of the deal was that the company would conduct trials in Australia as well as in the US and Spain. So far 14 children have been treated worldwide. </p>
<h2>I’d missed a revolution</h2>
<p>Megan Donnell’s story stunned me.</p>
<p>I’d written two books about coming medical revolutions: one on stem cells, the other on genomics. But when a medical revolution actually arrived, I’d missed it.
It was all the more remarkable because for six years I’d been the editor of a popular science magazine – <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/">Cosmos</a>. </p>
<p>We scanned the media releases for hot papers each week but gene therapy never came up on our radar.</p>
<p>Probably because we’d been dazzled by <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR</a> – the powerful technique that can edit the DNA of everything from mosquitoes to man. But CRISPR has barely entered clinical trials. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">What is CRISPR gene editing, and how does it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile there are already five gene therapy products on the market. And with 750 working their way through the pipeline, the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) predicts that <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613576/gene-therapy-may-have-its-first-blockbuster/">by 2025 between 10-20 gene therapy treatments</a> will be added to the market each year. </p>
<p>Some of the gene therapies are having incredible effects. </p>
<p>The star example is the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-25/worlds-most-expensive-drug-spinal-muscular-dystrophy/11149788">Novartis treatment</a> for spinal muscular atrophy. Untreated babies die paralysed by the age of two. But those treated with Zolgensma have now reached the age of four and some are walking and dancing. </p>
<p>In 2017, the FDA approved <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-novel-gene-therapy-treat-patients-rare-form-inherited-vision-loss">Luxturna</a>, now marketed by Roche. This gene therapy can restore sight to children suffering from a form of retinal blindness that begins months after birth. </p>
<p>For the first time I can recall, medical researchers are using a four letter word for some diseases: cure.</p>
<p>These treatments appear to have fixed the underlying conditions. Especially when they are given early. Indeed spinal muscular atrophy treatment is being offered to babies a few month old – before their motor neurons have started to wither.</p>
<h2>30 years in the making</h2>
<p>These gene therapy treatments have been over thirty years in the making.
And the saga of their journey to the clinic, I suspect, reveals some common plot lines.</p>
<p>The potential of gene therapy, was obvious as soon Marshall Nirenberg cracked the genetic code back in the 1960s. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/JJ/p-nid/24">New York Times opined</a>: “The science of biology has reached a new frontier”, leading to “a revolution far greater in its potential significance than the atomic or hydrogen bomb.”</p>
<p>In a 1967 editorial for Science, <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/157/3789/633.full.pdf">Nirenberg wrote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This knowledge will greatly influence man’s future, for man then will have the power to shape his own biological destiny.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But if the end goal was obvious, the pitfalls were not. </p>
<p>What made the dream of gene therapy possible was viruses. They’ve evolved to invade our cells and sneak their DNA in next to our own, so they can be propagated by our cellular machinery.</p>
<p>Throughout the 1980s, genetic engineers learned to splice human DNA into the viruses. </p>
<p>Like tiny space ships, they carried the human DNA as part of their payload. </p>
<p>By 1990, researchers attempted the first gene therapy trial in a human. It was to treat two children with a dysfunctional immune system, a disease known as severe combined immunodeficiency (<a href="https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=severe-combined-immunodeficiency-scid-90-P01706">SCID</a>). </p>
<p>The results were hardly miraculous but they were promising. Researchers raced to bring more potent viruses to the clinic. </p>
<h2>Children have died</h2>
<p>In 1999, 18 year old <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81135/">Jesse Gelsinger paid the price</a>.</p>
<p>He had volunteered to try gene therapy for his inherited condition: ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. It meant he couldn’t break down ammonia, a waste product of dietary protein. But his condition was largely under control through medication and watching his diet.</p>
<p>Four days after his treatment at the University of Pennsylvania, Jesse was dead – a result of a massive immune reaction to the trillions of adenovirus particles introduced into his body. These are the same viruses that cause the common cold. </p>
<p>Tragedy struck again in 2003. This one involved so-called “bubble boys”. </p>
<p>They too carried an immune deficiency, X-SCID, which saw them confined to sterile bubble; a common cold can be fatal. This time round the gene therapy appeared far more effective. But within a few years of treatment, five of 20 boys <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807175438.htm">developed leukaemia</a>. The virus (gamma retrovirus) had activated a cancer-causing gene. </p>
<p>The two tragedies set the field back. Many researchers found it very hard to get funding. </p>
<p>But the huge clinical potential kept others going. </p>
<p>The key was to keep re-engineering the viral vectors. </p>
<p>It was a project that reminds me of the evolution of powered flight. From the biplanes that the Wright brothers flew in 1903 to the epic Apollo 11 flight in 1963, took 60 years.</p>
<p>The virus engineers have been a lot faster.</p>
<h2>Use engineered viruses</h2>
<p>Ten years after the disaster of the leukaemia-causing viruses, researchers had re-engineered so-called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/lentiviruses">lenti viruses</a> not to activate cancer genes. They had also found other viruses that did not provoke catastrophic immune responses. </p>
<p>Instead of the adenovirus, they discovered its mild-mannered partner – known as adeno associated virus (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5548848/">AAV</a>). There’s a whole zoo of these AAVs and some species are particularly good at targeting specific organs.</p>
<p>It is this new generation of vectors that are responsible for the results we are witnessing now. The AAV 9 vector for instance can <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5802612/">cross into the brain</a>, and that’s the one used to treat spinal muscular atrophy.</p>
<p>Turning the table on viruses, and hacking into their code: this is the bit that particularly fascinates me in telling the story of gene therapy. </p>
<p>But another intriguing aspect is that, contrary to long held wisdom, we are seeing big pharma galloping in to treat rare diseases.</p>
<p>In the US, the spinal muscular atrophy market is probably around 400 babies per year. Luxturna might treat 2,000 cases of blindness a year. </p>
<p>It’s not the sort of market size that would bring joy to investors. But clearly the companies think it’s worth their while. </p>
<p>For one thing, the FDA has provided incentives for rare, so-called “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/orphan-products-hope-people-rare-diseases">orphan diseases</a>” – fast-tracking their passage thought the tangled regulatory maze.</p>
<p>And there is a convincing business case. If gene therapy is a one shot cure then it really may end up saving health systems money. </p>
<p>That justifies, they say, some of the most extraordinary prices for a drug you’ve ever heard of. </p>
<p>Of course, all this relies on the treatments being one time cures.</p>
<p>And though the patients seem to be cured, whether or not the treatments last a lifetime remains to be seen. </p>
<h2>The situation in Australia</h2>
<p>Historically, this country has been a world leader when it comes to bargaining down exorbitantly priced cures. </p>
<p>In 2013 when the drugs for curing Hepatitis C first came out, the price was around <a href="https://theconversation.com/weekly-dose-sofosbuvir-whats-the-price-of-a-hepatitis-c-cure-63208">A$100,000 for a 12 week course</a>. But in Australia, <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-leads-the-world-in-hepatitis-c-treatment-whats-behind-its-success-81760">all 230,000 of those living with Hepatitis C will be treated</a> for the lowest price in the world. Prices are <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/treatment-costs#1">much higher</a> in the US. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-leads-the-world-in-hepatitis-c-treatment-whats-behind-its-success-81760">Australia leads the world in hepatitis C treatment – what's behind its success?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-dore-190651">Greg Dore</a> at the Kirby Institute of NSW participated in Australia’s Hepatitis C pricing discussions, and believes our model will work for the new gene therapy drugs – notwithstanding their eye-popping price tags – and the fact that the patient populations for these rare genetic diseases will be tiny. </p>
<p>However, the real reason companies are getting into gene therapy is not just to treat rare disease. It’s because they realise this technology will be a game changer for medicine.</p>
<p>They have already entered the field of cancer with a gene therapy approved for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia – CAR-T cells. Health Minister Greg Hunt <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-25/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-treatment-funding/10935308">announced this year</a> the government will pay the cost (around A$500,000 per treatment). </p>
<p>But after cancer, what then? </p>
<p>If you have a vector than can take a gene to the brain and cure spinal muscular atrophy, what else could you cure. Alzheimer’s disease, strokes?</p>
<p>Australian researchers are jostling to be part of the gene therapy revolution.</p>
<p>Paediatrician Ian Alexander <a href="https://www.cmri.org.au/Research/Research-Units/Translational-Vectorology/Our-People">together with virologist Leszek Lisowksi</a> are engineering the next generation of vectors in their labs at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney. They are designing them to home efficiently to specific organs and produce therapeutic levels of proteins. </p>
<p>Curiously it turns out that a major bottleneck is scaling up the production of these exquisitely engineered viruses. Who’d have thought there’d be a problem churning out the most abundant organism on the planet? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-drugs-get-from-the-point-of-discovery-to-the-pharmacy-shelf-78915">Explainer: how do drugs get from the point of discovery to the pharmacy shelf?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Researcher <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180802102344.htm">David Parsons in Adelaide</a> is refining methods to deliver vectors across the viscous mucus of children with cystic fibrosis. </p>
<p>Scientist John Rasko in Sydney is a pioneer when it comes to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/doctors-find-cure-for-thalassaemia/9674634">treating patients with gene therapy</a>, having been a part of international trials treating patients with beta thalassemia.</p>
<p>Medical researcher Elizabeth Rakoczy in Perth is developing a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-06/florey-medal-winner-professor-rakoczy-speaks/9232318">treatment for macular degeneration</a>.</p>
<p>And Alan Trounson, who spent six years at the helm of the world biggest stem cell institute, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, is <a href="https://cartherics.com/">advancing a technology</a> to develop off the shelf, universally compatible, CAR-T cells, to attack ovarian cancer. </p>
<p>One thing is for sure: medicine is set for a major disruption from the arrival of gene therapy.</p>
<p>As we enter an era, where once incurable diseases become curable; be prepared for some challenging debates about how to pay for gene therapy and the value of a human life. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended to correct the spelling of John Rasko’s name.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Finkel 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>As we enter an era where once incurable diseases become curable, be prepared for some challenging debates about how to pay for gene therapy and the value of a human life.Elizabeth Finkel, Vice-Chancellor's Fellow, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1015172018-08-14T04:18:36Z2018-08-14T04:18:36ZNational Press Club address: Ian Jacobs on universities, Australia’s ‘hidden’ asset<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231839/original/file-20180814-2912-1h9l5l9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In 2016, it cost A$12.4 billion to operate the Group of Eight universities, of which public funds from the government provided A$6.7 billion. The London Economics report reveals that the work of the Group of 8, delivered a return of over A$66 billion to the nation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">UNSW</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>President and Vice-Chancellor of UNSW and Chair of the Group of Eight Universities, Professor Ian Jacobs, addressed the National Press Club in Canberra today.</em></p>
<p><em>Here is an edited transcript of his speech.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.</p>
<p>I want to start by acknowledging that we stand on the land of the Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to them as the traditional custodians of the land and to their elders past and present.</p>
<p>My thanks to the National Press Club for this invitation. It is a privilege to be here to deliver my address titled: “Australia’s hidden asset: Universities are the New Wealth of Nations.”</p>
<p>I do so in my capacity as Chair of the <a href="https://go8.edu.au/">Group of Eight</a> universities, but I want to emphasise that we see our eight universities as just one part of the spectrum of post-secondary education - including vocational, TAFE and other outstanding universities - all equally crucial to the future of Australia. We support an integrated approach across the full spectrum of educational offerings, noting that university is just one of many routes to a successful and worthwhile life and career.</p>
<p>But today, I am here to deliver a number of important messages about the impact of the Go8 universities.</p>
<p>My first message is about our economic impact, billions of dollars, as set out in a report commissioned from London Economics, which I launch today.</p>
<p>The second message is about the need for our universities to more effectively communicate the way that we contribute to and serve Australian society.</p>
<p>The third is a call to action to increase business-university collaboration, and drive the research pipeline from discovery to commercialisation to maximise Australia’s future prosperity. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-do-a-better-job-of-commercialising-research-heres-how-95526">Australia can do a better job of commercialising research – here's how</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But before I make those points, I want to talk about the role of higher education as a pillar of the economic wellbeing and social progress of nations. </p>
<p>Australia is a higher education exemplar. Just 0.3% of the world population but home to 25, that is 5%, of the top 500 ranked universities globally - 16 fold above our size. On a per capita basis, our Group of 8 universities are better represented in the <a href="https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings">QS Top 100</a> ranking of universities across the world than the higher-education giants of the US and the UK.</p>
<p>The history of Australia’s universities began in 1850 when William Charles Wentworth sought to establish the University of Sydney to give “the opportunity for the child of every class” to become “great and useful in the destinies of this country”. I share Wentworth’s vision and feel passionately about this objective being achieved in Australia, and on a global scale. </p>
<p>Like many of my generation in western democracies, I was the first in my family to go to university. My father left school at 15 to work in a factory, but my parents recognised the value of education and encouraged me throughout my studies at the University of Cambridge. This has provided me a fulfilling career as a doctor, surgeon medical researcher, charity worker, and now as a university leader.</p>
<p>Working and travelling in many countries, I have witnessed the joy and satisfaction that educational opportunities - both academic and vocational - can bring to people of all backgrounds.</p>
<p>We have come a long way since Wentworth’s time. Outstanding universities have been critical to the social and economic success of Australia. And globally, there is a direct link between periods of university expansion and periods of economic growth like the industrial and commercial revolutions. That trend continues today.</p>
<p>We are witnessing the massive expansion of universities in China and now India - alongside an extraordinary pace of economic development. It is indisputable that education is a key to breaking entrenched disadvantage, and a major contributor to reducing inequality worldwide.</p>
<p>Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations” - published in the 1700s - maintained that if individuals act in their own interests, the whole nation will benefit.
In his recent book “The New Wealth of Nations” Indian economist, Surjit Bhalla, argues that the true key to prosperity today is providing individuals with an education. </p>
<p>Education is the new wealth of nations.</p>
<p>As Bhalla notes: “The industrial revolution transformed lives - primarily in the western world. But the education revolution has transformed lives all over the world.” </p>
<p>When the University of Sydney was established, just 10% of the world was literate and wages had been stagnant for centuries. </p>
<p>Today, 86% of the global population is literate, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty and human capital, achieved through education, is even more valuable, globally, than any financial asset. </p>
<p>Like financial assets, it yields an income and myriad other benefits.
Unlike financial assets, it cannot be hoarded or lost and is a powerful force for equality.</p>
<p>As our prime minister acknowledges “the most valuable resource we have in our nation is not under the ground… it is walking around on top of it”. </p>
<p>Knowledge - the original renewable resource - is our most precious commodity in this high-tech world. And Australia, courtesy of our post-secondary education sector, generates it in abundance. </p>
<p>So, against that backdrop, I come to my first message, about the economic impact of the Group of Eight universities.</p>
<p>I am grateful for the contribution of our Chief Executive Vicki Thomson and my colleague Group of 8 Vice Chancellors - Glyn Davis, Deputy Chair Dawn Freshwater, Margaret Gardner, Peter Hoj, Peter Rathjen, Brian Schmidt, and Michael Spence - in commissioning and guiding the work I now present. For clarity, colleagues, that was in alphabetical order not order of importance.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/national-press-club-address-glyn-davis-on-a-smarter-australia-12503">National Press Club address: Glyn Davis on a smarter Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Life-changing, society-advancing endeavours are the fundamental contributions of our universities. But, as a sector, we are also rightly asked to justify ourselves in financial terms. Our economic impact tells a compelling story. A story which may surprise some and, I hope, excite many.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, we commissioned an independent <a href="https://www.go8.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/article/go8_london-economics-report.pdf">report</a> by London Economics - a world-leading specialist policy and economics consultancy - on the impact of the Group of Eight. The take-home message is simple - there are few more worthwhile investments in Australia today than higher education. </p>
<p>In 2016, it cost A$12.4 billion to operate the Group of Eight universities, of which public funds from the government provided A$6.7 billion. The London Economics report reveals that the work of the Group of 8, delivered a return of over A$66 billion to the nation.</p>
<p>That is a 10 fold return on the government’s investment.</p>
<p>That A$66 billion return came from four areas: research, teaching and learning, educational exports, and direct university expenditure. I will share some highlights and the full report is available today.</p>
<p>Astonishingly, every one dollar of public funding spent on Go8 university research generated A$9.76 across the rest of the Australian economy.</p>
<p>Every one dollar of public money invested in our research generates a roughly 10 fold return for the Australian economy. And I should note that London Economics adopted a conservative methodology. </p>
<p>Clearly, funding research is an astute investment in the future of the nation.</p>
<p>But that is not where the impact ends. Every 1,000 jobs created within a Group of Eight university supports more than 2,400 jobs throughout Australia. </p>
<p>And while the Go8’s more than 100,000 overseas students bring a depth and breadth to campus life that is impossible to quantify, it is their economic contribution we focus on in this report. </p>
<p>For every three overseas students studying at Group of Eight universities, A$1 million of economic activity is generated in other parts of the Australian economy.
That is because as well as working hard our international students experience our lifestyle. </p>
<p>Beyond tuition fees, our students go out to cafes, restaurants and to see movies. They pay rent and bills, buy food and use public transport.
And their friends and family come to visit as tourists. </p>
<p>According to the London Economics report, the average non-fee expenditure per student during the course of their studies is A$51,000 - totalling A$8.5 billion for our 2016 student cohort, supporting more than 29,000 Australian jobs. These are not jobs for academics or university administrators. They are jobs out in the community - chefs, waiters, taxi drivers, shop assistants, workers in construction, private enterprises and tourism.</p>
<p>And the economic return is not just confined to the period that international students study in Australia. </p>
<p>The prime minister, speaking about international education last week, said that Australia’s ability to capitalise on the opportunities of the Indo-Pacific depends on strong links to the region. </p>
<p>In his words, “The education sector has the capacity to influence this like few other industries.”
The connections forged - the money spent, the jobs created - are impacts of a dynamic university sector.</p>
<p>But they often go unrecognised or are hidden from view.
And the fault for that lies with us.</p>
<p>And so, the second message I want to convey today begins with a mea culpa. There are some exceptions, but on the whole, universities have not excelled at communicating their worth - and I believe it contributes to the current climate of criticism.</p>
<p>There is a perception, not just in Australia, that universities have failed to adapt to meet contemporary needs. And there appears to be a lack of understanding, of what universities offer our nation socially and economically.</p>
<p>We have not taken the community - the taxpayers who fund so much of what we do - along on our journey. </p>
<p>We need to improve communication with the community we serve and make the A$66 billion annual return from Go8 activity real to the Australian public.</p>
<p>One powerful way to explain this is to show what that amount of money would allow the government to provide for the Australian people on a yearly basis.</p>
<p>It is sufficient to entirely cover welfare payments for the aged.
It is twice the cost of Medicare.
It is more than enough to pay for the government’s entire education budget or its entire defence budget.
Such is the economic power of the education and research at just eight Australian universities.</p>
<p>But beyond the dollars we must communicate the real-world social impact of Australian universities. </p>
<p>Our photovoltaics researchers, for example, have constructed solar cells for more than 40 years, even when nobody understood the potential of their research.
Now this work has a key role in addressing climate change, providing progressively cheaper renewable energy generation across the world.</p>
<p>Another example, close to my heart having spent most of my career caring for women with cancer and researching in this area, is the Gardasil vaccine. </p>
<p>This is an extraordinary tale of scientific brilliance, healthcare advances and partnership between academia, industry and government - none of which, I should emphasise, had anything to do with me. </p>
<p>It is a great Australian story based on the brilliant research of Ian Frazer and the late Jian Zhou whose work at the University of Queensland made it possible to develop a vaccine to prevent this devastating disease. It has been a resounding financial success with returns to Australia exceeding A$1 billion to date. But, its benefits are much greater than that.</p>
<p>Preventing cervical cancer means less stress on health care, less productivity loss through illness and less reliance on welfare payments.
But transcending all of this is the human element of the Gardasil discovery.
I have witnessed, firsthand, how devastating cervical cancer can be.
I saw too many women in the UK die of this cancer, despite the latest therapy.
And over more than a decade of partnership in Uganda - where treatment and screening remain largely unavailable - I have seen women experience dreadful, unnecessary suffering and death from an entirely preventable disease. </p>
<p>Tragically, there are still over 500,000 cases of cervical cancer per year worldwide and over half of those women will die. Gardasil has the potential to save the lives of women in Australia, Uganda and every other country. </p>
<p>It offers prevention for women in countries with and without proper healthcare.
For the mother I diagnosed - whose own mother had died of cervical cancer and who feared desperately for the health of her daughter - the Gardasil vaccine means peace of mind.
How do you put a dollar figure on that?</p>
<p>You simply cannot put a price tag on the prevention of pain and suffering - for the person diagnosed or their loved ones.
And, yet, surely that is of the greatest value.
That is the real impact of our research. </p>
<p>That is how it benefits the Australian people and how it can become a gift to people around the world.</p>
<p>Is there anyone who would claim the time, energy and funding that went into Gardasil or solar energy research for that matter was wasted?</p>
<p>A recent Science and Technology Australia survey showed that 94% of respondents believe science and technology is important to their wellbeing and 78% think we should be investing more in research.</p>
<p>So why is there a disconnect between that public support and real-world investment?
It is up to the university sector to communicate clearly to Australians:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the research that is being done</p></li>
<li><p>why it is important</p></li>
<li><p>and why they should champion the cause of research in Australia. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>For our part, Go8 universities, can better communicate our work and our pride in our research achievements. </p>
<p>There are many:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>University of Melbourne’s life changing cochlear implant</p></li>
<li><p>The University of Sydney’s non-invasive positive pressure treatment for sufferers of sleep apnoea</p></li>
<li><p>Monash University’s work to improve access to mental health services</p></li>
<li><p>ANU researchers’ quest to preserve Indigenous Australian languages at risk of extinction</p></li>
<li><p>University of Adelaide’s world leading winemaking and viticulture research.
UNSW work in zero-waste recycling and producing green steel</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Right now, Group of 8 researchers are also working in diverse areas from:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>reversing early tooth decay </p></li>
<li><p>and eco-friendly alternatives to chemical insecticides</p></li>
<li><p>to mitigating extreme heat in Australian cities</p></li>
<li><p>through extraordinary work to produce 3D replacement skin</p></li>
<li><p>and automation crucial to Australia’s mining industry </p></li>
<li><p>to cost effective, sustainable ways to repair sewage pipes, and</p></li>
<li><p>very much in our minds right now helping farmers with water usage.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>We are equally proud of the high-calibre alumni that Go8 universities produce.
Of 15 Australian Nobel Prize winners - one of whom is Vice Chancellor of the ANU, Brian Schmidt - 10 were Go8 educated.</p>
<p>Eight of the last 10 Australian Prime Ministers were Go8 alumni and our former students continue to achieve across the board, amongst them:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the start-up, Tritium, building super-fast charging stations for electric vehicles</p></li>
<li><p>the first female CEO of the Macquarie Group</p></li>
<li><p>Akshay Venkatesh born in Delhi, educated in Australia and a graduate of the University of Western Australia who recently won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for mathematics, the Fields Medal…congratulations Dawn and UWA colleagues.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This is a mere fraction of what Go8 universities have produced - and given we graduate more than 96,000 students each year, our footprint will continue to grow.
It is a good news story and one we want to share.</p>
<p>As Chair of the Go8, and with the support of Chief Executive Vicki Thomson, Deputy Chair Dawn Freshwater and my colleague VCs we have developed an engagement initiative to better communicate the role of universities in the public sphere and place the Go8 at the centre of the big picture “national conversations” the sector and the nation needs to have. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/margaret-gardner-freezing-university-funding-is-out-of-step-with-the-views-of-most-australians-92570">Margaret Gardner: freezing university funding is out of step with the views of most Australians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That will involve a concerted and ongoing effort to enhance our communication with the Australian people and increased links with industry and business, the media, politicians and our alumni. It will also, of course, involve our students who have so much to contribute to this discussion.</p>
<p>Last month, along with senior staff from other Group of 8 universities and as part of our engagement initiative, I spent two days at a brainstorming event with Go8 student leaders. I was excited by the energy, ideas, emotional intelligence and the enthusiasm of this group and by their commitment to the importance of communicating the public service role of universities. I am delighted that some of those students - future leaders of Australia - are here today. They have a key role to play in explaining the public good of our universities.</p>
<p>So, to my third and final point. That is to call for a significant escalation in business-university collaboration - in cooperation with government, to drive the discovery-to-commercialisation pipeline, so as to maximise our country’s future wellbeing and prosperity.</p>
<p>Australia has successfully built a university research base which is the envy of much of the world. But, there is enormous potential in Australia’s research sector that remains untapped. Australian universities have great strength at the discovery end of the research pipeline. </p>
<p>In industry research, the focus is at the commercialisation end. There is a gap in between. We need to support the entire research pipeline - from discovery, to translation, to application, to commercialisation. </p>
<p>This pipeline is crucial to advances which change lives, create jobs, and support a modern 21st century economy and it is key to our ability to compete with emerging Asian nations and existing strength in Europe and North America. </p>
<p>While Go8 universities have enjoyed important successes with our research being commercialised here in Australia and creating jobs here in Australia, there are many stories of lost commercial opportunity because we have not had the money or the willing partner to complete the discovery-commercialisation pipeline. The solar research I mentioned is a case in point. </p>
<p>Developed in Australia but eventually finding commercialisation success overseas.
Do we want the economic return on the ‘next big thing’ discovered by Australian researchers to land here and create jobs here or in another country? If the answer is “here” - and of course it is - then we, as a nation, need to take action.</p>
<p>We thank successive governments for their vision in investing in research capacity in Australia and ask them to continue to invest in this area where Australia has a globally competitive edge.</p>
<p>Today, we face the reality that not only has Australia’s investment in R&D declined for the first time in two decades, but we lag internationally. We spend just 1.9 % of GDP on R&D while the OECD average is 2.3%, with Israel’s spend way up at 4.25%. Fear of failure may be one obstacle to investment in research.</p>
<p>When I shared this speech with UNSW Chancellor, David Gonski, he expressed the view “if in business you act ethically, legally, properly and without misrepresentation, then regardless of the business outcome there is value. We need to avoid an undue fear of failure in Australia”. Wise words.</p>
<p>I was heartened to hear of a growing consensus at the recent AFR Innovation Summit that it is time for action on our diminishing investment in R&D. I was equally pleased to see that business-university collaboration was identified as having a key role to play.</p>
<p>Innovation Science Australia Chair, Bill Ferris, has advocated a co-investment fund model, along the lines of the Biomedical Translation Fund, involving 50/50 sharing of equity by government and the private sector. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-bill-ferris-on-australias-innovation-mission-91070">Politics podcast: Bill Ferris on Australia's innovation mission</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Universities Australia Chair, Margaret Gardner, supported by Bill Ferris and our Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, suggests a “behavioural nudge” may encourage business to direct more of its R&D spending to the university sector. The vehicle for this would be a 20% R&D tax incentive collaboration premium. A component of the A$2 billion stripped from the R&D Tax Incentive scheme in the last Budget, could be channelled into this collaboration premium to incentivise industry and universities to work together.</p>
<p>Both of these suggestions are important and Innovation Minister Michaelia Cash has indicated that the Government will consider them in a future budget.</p>
<p>Another option I have proposed, is for the government to fill the translational gap for non-medical research - as the Medical Research Future Fund fills for medical research. An Australian Translational Research Fund of this type would encourage business-university collaboration to translate and apply the discovery research funded by the Australian Research Council.</p>
<p>And that means translating research in key ARC areas including food, soil and water, transport, energy, the environment, defence, cyber security, manufacturing, history, culture, languages and social structures. These are areas which are crucial to the wellbeing of our economy and our society, and they should command attention.</p>
<p>The opportunity is clear provided Australia can mobilise the investment required to generate the available return. </p>
<p>We have to stop seeing the funding of research as tantamount to a charitable donation. It is not. It is a sound business investment and, more importantly, an investment in the future of the nation. The A$24.5 billion per annum return on research investment in Australia’s Go8 universities could be many times higher. </p>
<p>In fact, the London Economic Report estimates that an extra A$500 million invested in research in our universities - of the order of the scale of the MRFF - would generate a return of approximately A$5.3 billion. If we increased R&D spend by 0.5% of GDP, just up to the OECD average, the return would be much greater.</p>
<p>There is enormous potential to maximise the impact of research through:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>investing more in the discovery to commercialisation pipeline</p></li>
<li><p>clearly communicating the role university research plays as a key economic driver</p></li>
<li><p>and incentivising academia and industry to work together.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Go8 will lead by example to move forward the conversation on business-university engagement. </p>
<p>In October this year - in partnership with the Business Higher Education Roundtable - we will host a summit of industry and university leaders, together with Australian Government officials. We will explore ways to maximise the return for our nation on Australia’s discovery to commercialisation pipeline.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the Group of Eight universities believe it is time to forge a new relationship with government, business and the Australian people. In making this commitment we offer the London Economics Report as evidence of our confidence in the economic value of education and research.</p>
<p>Our commitment is made as hubs of knowledge and independent thought, as champions of freedom, openness, human rights and justice, and as a force for increasing prosperity and equality. We believe that universities can serve Australian society in navigating the challenges and opportunities of our age.</p>
<p>The Group of 8 universities is committed to ensuring that Australia maintains its place as one of the most prosperous, advanced and socially responsible countries in the world and that Australians understand, value - and take pride in - the leading role of the higher education sector, in fulfilling that aspiration. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Jacobs is the Vice-Chancellor of UNSW, the Chair of the Group of Eight universities, and sits on the board of The Conversation. </span></em></p>A new report found that every one dollar of public funding spent on Go8 university research generated A$9.76 across the Australian economy, a roughly 10 fold return on the government’s investment.Ian Jacobs, Vice Chancellor, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754552017-04-10T04:47:36Z2017-04-10T04:47:36ZFactCheck: do 679 of Australia’s biggest corporations pay ‘not one cent’ of tax?<blockquote>
<p>… 679 of our biggest corporations pay not one cent of tax. <strong>– Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary Sally McManus, <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/actu-media/speeches-and-opinion/speech-by-actu-secretary-sally-mcmanus-at-the-national-press-club">address</a> to the National Press Club, Canberra, March 29, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary Sally McManus called for an increase to Australia’s minimum wage and criticised the Fair Work Commission’s recommendation to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates. </p>
<p>McManus said that “679 of our biggest corporations pay not one cent of tax”.</p>
<p>Was that claim correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support McManus’ statement, a spokesman for the ACTU pointed The Conversation to a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/tax-data-transparency-ato/8106178">media report</a> and to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/corporate-transparency/resource/1e8c8ae0-81d1-4780-a669-9e4a2a6ba1a4">Report of Entity Tax Information</a> for 2014-15, and provided this response from McManus:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to the most recent ATO Tax Transparency Report, 679 companies with more than $100 million in income paid no tax in Australia in 2014-15.</p>
<p>The list includes such household names as Walt Disney, Sydney Airport, Qantas, Origin Energy and News Australia.</p>
<p>These companies can collectively be considered to be amongst the biggest operating in Australia – both in terms of income, and the prominent position they enjoy in the public eye.</p>
<p>Some of them are not Australian owned, and they may pay tax in other jurisdictions. However, they all operate in Australia, generate revenue from the spending of Australians and utilise existing infrastructure – like roads and ports – that were paid for by Australians.</p>
<p>So there’s something deeply unfair about a system which allows them to not pay any tax in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ACTU also provided The Conversation with a <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/27/75455-2017-04-10-tax-paid-by-companies-tax-paid-by-companies-ato-data.xlsx?1518654879">spreadsheet</a> listing the corporations it said had paid no tax. </p>
<h2>Is that figure right?</h2>
<p>The best source for information on how much tax Australia’s biggest corporations pay every financial year is the ATO. The ATO’s <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/corporate-transparency">Report of Entity Tax Information</a> – the same report the ACTU referred to in their response – is produced annually and shares information taken from the tax returns of:</p>
<ul>
<li>Australian public and foreign-owned corporate entities with total income of A$100 million or more</li>
<li>Australian-owned resident private companies with total income of A$200 million or more</li>
<li>entities with tax payable under the petroleum resource rent tax, and</li>
<li>entities with tax payable under the minerals resource rent tax. </li>
</ul>
<p>The report includes each company’s name, total income, taxable income, and tax payable.</p>
<p>For the purpose of this FactCheck, the relevant information is the <em>tax payable</em> by each of these companies. By looking at this data, we can see which companies didn’t pay tax in 2014-15, the most recent financial year for which this information is available.</p>
<h2>How many companies don’t pay tax?</h2>
<p>There are 1,904 companies included in the ATO’s 2014-15 report. Of those, 678 – or 36% of the companies listed – had no tax payable.</p>
<p>My count – 678 – is slightly different to McManus’s count of 679, and to the figure the ATO quoted on its pie chart <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Large-business/In-detail/Tax-transparency/Corporate-tax-transparency-report-for-the-2014-15-income-year/?anchor=Netlossesandniltaxpayable#Netlossesandniltaxpayable">here</a> (the ATO has since corrected its report to reduce the number of nil tax payable taxpayers by one to 678).</p>
<p>The ACTU provided The Conversation with a spreadsheet listing the 679 companies that, in their view, paid no taxes. When I compared my count with the ACTU’s, I noted the ACTU included a company that I did not, a company named Tal Dai-Ichi Life Australia. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/corporate-transparency">report</a> I downloaded from the ATO website, Tal Dai-Ichi Life Australia is recorded as having total tax payable of A$56,171,148 for the 2014-15 financial year, so it shouldn’t be included in the count of companies that paid no tax. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the difference is obviously minor. McManus was essentially correct.</p>
<h2>Why do some companies pay no tax?</h2>
<p>In general, there are two reasons why corporate companies pay no tax in Australia.</p>
<p>The first is that some companies are not making any profit. The concept of “total income”, which is used to identify the companies included in the ATO report, relates to revenue – not profit.</p>
<p>So, a company can have income (or revenue) of more than A$200 million, but that doesn’t automatically mean it has made a profit. Its losses or outgoings may outweigh its income. Only companies making a profit have to pay taxes.</p>
<p>Many of the companies that didn’t pay tax in 2014-15 were those in the energy/natural resources and manufacturing sectors – two sectors that were <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8155.0">experiencing a downturn</a> in that year and where profit margins were shrinking.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164634/original/image-20170410-29403-1pbfxrs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Proportion of entities with nil tax payable, by industry segment, 2013–14 and 2014–15.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Large-business/In-detail/Tax-transparency/Corporate-tax-transparency-report-for-the-2014-15-income-year/?anchor=Netlossesandniltaxpayable#Netlossesandniltaxpayable">ATO corporate tax transparency report for 2014-15</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second reason could be tax avoidance or profit shifting. These situations arise when companies take advantage of the international tax system to reduce the amount of tax to be paid. For instance, companies may set up complex ownership arrangements that allow them to redirect profit to countries with lower tax rates.</p>
<p>While not necessarily illegal, these situations are <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Large-business/In-detail/Tax-transparency/Tax-transparency--reporting-of-entity-tax-information/?anchor=Ensuringcorporatetaxpayerspaythecorrecta#Ensuringcorporatetaxpayerspaythecorrecta">closely monitored by the ATO</a> to ensure that Australia receives its correct share of tax under international tax rules. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Sally McManus’ claim that “679 of our biggest corporations pay not one cent of tax” was essentially correct. According to ATO records, 678 of Australia’s biggest corporations didn’t pay tax in Australia in 2014-15.</p>
<p>McManus’s figure of 679 included one company that did have tax payable in that financial year. But in percentage terms, the difference between 678 and 679 is negligible.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that when a company doesn’t pay tax, it doesn’t necessarily imply tax avoidance or profit shifting. A company might not be paying tax because it isn’t making a profit, even if its total income (that is, revenue) amounts to more than A$100 million or A$200 million. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<hr>
<h1>Review</h1>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck.</p>
<p>The ATO’s annual corporate tax transparency <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Large-business/In-detail/Tax-transparency/Corporate-tax-transparency-report-for-the-2014-15-income-year/?anchor=Netlossesandniltaxpayable#Netlossesandniltaxpayable">reports</a> can provide useful insights to inform public debate regarding how effectively our tax system is working. </p>
<p>As the author rightly points out, the information must be used with caution. There are legitimate reasons why a company with substantial income does not have to pay income tax. For instance, it may make a loss in that particular year, or has substantial carried forward losses from previous years.</p>
<p>Or, as the author has also rightly noted, tax avoidance may be the reason why a large company is not paying any income tax. <strong>– Antony Ting</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75455/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise linear continuous model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Antony Ting 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 the National Press Club in Canberra, ACTU Secretary Sally McManus said 679 of Australia’s biggest corporations pay “not one cent of tax”. Is that right?Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/722782017-02-09T19:11:54Z2017-02-09T19:11:54ZFactCheck: are bulk-billing rates falling, or at record levels?<blockquote>
<p>Falling bulk-billing rates … – <strong>Labor leader Bill Shorten, <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/address_to_the_national_press_club_canberra_tuesday_31_january_2017">address</a> to the National Press Club, Canberra, January 31, 2017.</strong></p>
<p>Bulk-billing is at record levels … – <strong>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, <a href="http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/address-at-the-national-press-club-and-qa-canberra">address</a> to the National Press Club, Canberra, February 1, 2017.</strong> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In speeches delivered 24 hours apart, Labor leader Bill Shorten and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made conflicting claims about the state of bulk-billing rates in Australia. </p>
<p>A bulk-billed consultation occurs when the fee charged by the doctor or medical provider is equal to the benefit paid by Medicare - leaving zero out-of-pocket cost to the patient. The percentage of Medicare-funded consultations that are bulk-billed is referred to as the <em>bulk-billing rates</em>. These rates are widely seen as a proxy indicator of the accessibility of Medicare-funded health care. </p>
<p>Shorten said that bulk-billing rates are falling. The next day, Turnbull stood at the same lectern and said bulk-billing rates are at record levels.</p>
<p>Who was right? </p>
<h2>Checking the sources</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesperson for Bill Shorten said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The government’s figures <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/1A9DB6D72BD5879ACA257BF0001AFE28/$File/MBS%20Statistics%2020163%20SepQtr%2020161006.pdf">show</a> that from June to September 2016 the bulk-billing rate for non-referred attendances fell from 84.6% to 84.1%.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The spokesperson added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Through an information request through the Parliamentary Budget Office, we know that for item 23 – a standard GP consultation – we also know the bulk-billing rate is falling: from 82.81% in April 2016 to 82.38% in May 2016 to 81.97% in June 2016. This trend continues as is reflected in the rate falling for all non-referred attendances from June to September.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Conversation has independently verified those figures, which are not publicly available.</p>
<p>A spokesperson for Malcolm Turnbull told The Conversation that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The headline <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Medicare+Statistics-1">bulk-billing rate</a> of 85.1% for GP services is the official bulk-billing figure for 2015-16. This is the highest bulk-billing rate for GP services since 1984-85 (when Medicare started) – ie: record levels.</p>
<p>The headline bulk-billing rate of 78.2% for all Medicare services is the official bulk-billing figure for 2015-16. This is the highest bulk-billing rate for Total Medicare services since 1984-85 (when Medicare started) ie: again, record levels … the bulk-billing rate has been reported on a consistent basis under all governments since 1984-85.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the full responses from Shorten and Turnbull <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-responses-from-malcolm-turnbull-and-bill-shorten-72407">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Same source, different statistics</h2>
<p>Both Shorten and Turnbull’s statements are supported by the Department of Health’s Medicare Statistics – but Shorten has quoted <a href="http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Quarterly-Medicare-Statistics">quarterly statistics</a> while Turnbull has quoted <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Annual-Medicare-Statistics">annual figures</a>. </p>
<p>They are also both looking at slightly different categories within the Medicare bulk-billing data collected by the Department of Health. </p>
<p>Overall, however, neither politicians’ sound bite provide a complete picture on what’s happening with bulk-billing in Australia. </p>
<h2>Yearly data on bulk-billing rates show record highs</h2>
<p>The chart below shows the annual bulk-billing statistics for the financial years from 1984-85 to 2015-16. It shows the bulk-billing rate for all Medicare claims combined and selected services – not just GP visits. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UbmwH/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<p>For overall Medicare claims (the red line), the bulk-billing rate in 2015-16 reached 78.2%. As correctly stated by Turnbull, this is an all-time high within the annual statistics. </p>
<p>Annual bulk-billing levels were also at record highs last financial year for non-referred GP attendances (which, by and large, means going to see your GP), pathology services and diagnostic imaging. </p>
<p>However, the bulk-billing rate for specialist services (the black line) in 2015-16 was at 30.2%, still below the record level set in 1995-96 of 32.5%. </p>
<p>So, technically, Turnbull is right to say bulk-billing rates are at record highs – as long as you use annual statistics and ignore the most recent data for the July to September 2016 quarter. </p>
<h2>But quarterly data show bulk-billing rates fell in the third quarter of 2016</h2>
<p><a href="http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Quarterly-Medicare-Statistics">Quarterly statistics</a> on bulk-billing rates are shown in the chart below. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3I9Lr/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<p>As you can see, drilling down to the quarterly data reveals that bulk-billing rates fell in the third quarter of 2016.</p>
<p>For total Medicare claims (the red line), bulk-billing rates fell by 1.1% in between the June and September 2016 quarters. But it is worth noting that it fell from the highest bulk-billing rates on record (78.7%). </p>
<p>The fall between June and September 2016 is the 11th biggest quarterly decrease (in percentage terms) since Medicare’s inception. But while it was a relatively large drop in bulk-billing, it is still within the range of quarterly variability that we’ve seen historically. </p>
<p>For non-referred GP attendances (the blue line), the September quarter data shows a 0.6% fall in bulk-billing rates compared to June 2016. For pathology services (the orange line), the bulk-billing rate fell by 1.7% in the September quarter which is in addition to a 0.23% fall in the June quarter. </p>
<p>So, technically, Shorten is correct to say that the latest data show a fall in the bulk-billing rate – but he has zeroed in on a very recent fall that is within the range of normal variability. This recent drop doesn’t tell us much about the overall trend. </p>
<p>There is considerable variation in the quarterly bulk-billing rate. This makes it difficult, at this stage, to say anything certain about whether bulk-billing rates will continue to fall as part of a downward trend, or whether the latest quarterly decline is just an anomaly.</p>
<h2>Longer-term trends trump quarterly data</h2>
<p>The Department of Health is set to release the December quarter data later this month. This much anticipated release will give further insights into whether a downward trend in bulk-billing rates is emerging or whether the last quarter was a blip. </p>
<p>The figures for the last quarter of 2016 are likely to attract considerable attention as policymakers will be eager to learn whether the Medicare indexation freeze is having an effect on bulk-billing rates. </p>
<p>The freeze has been in place since 2014 and is set to continue until 2020. In effect, that means that the Medicare contribution to each health care service has not changed for the last three years. </p>
<p>Others have <a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-the-medicare-rebate-freeze-heres-what-you-need-to-know-59661">argued</a> that this will put pressure on doctor’s ability to bulk-bill. </p>
<p>Note that there was substantial negative bulk-billing growth in the period after the last Medicare indexation freeze and this did impact the annual level of bulk-billing.</p>
<h2>What bulk-billing rates don’t tell us</h2>
<p>One of the fundamental aims of Medicare is to improve access to care. Bulk-billing rates serve as an important proxy on how Medicare is performing with respect to allowing people of all income groups to access health care.</p>
<p>However, there are significant limitations. Bulk-billing rates cannot tell you, for example, whether bulk-billing services are fairly distributed across income groups or people in high health care need.</p>
<p>And headline bulk-billing rates do not reveal out-of-pocket costs for those patients who are not bulk-billed. </p>
<p>For example, for people who were not bulk-billed (almost 70% of specialist consultations) the average patient co-payment for a specialist consultation was $72 (<a href="http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Quarterly-Medicare-Statistics">as shown in Table 1.5a in the quarterly Department of Health statistics</a>). </p>
<p>So any discussion of health care access needs to go beyond one simple headline measure.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Technically, Shorten and Turnbull were both right – but their quotes don’t tell the whole story.</p>
<p>Shorten’s statement that we are seeing “falling bulk-billing rates” is correct if you look at the most recent quarterly statistics for total Medicare bulk-billing claims. But that fall was within the range of variation that we observe every quarter. Furthermore, one quarter of data is not enough to be making such generalised statements on total Medicare bulk-billing rates. </p>
<p>As Shorten’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-responses-from-malcolm-turnbull-and-bill-shorten-72407">full response</a> notes, there has also been a fall for three consecutive quarters in bulk-billing for GP visits lasting less than 20 minutes. However, this data is not publicly available so we can’t say for sure that there’s a trend in this particular item.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s statement that “bulk-billing is at record levels” is correct if you look at the yearly statistics, though it doesn’t factor in the decrease in bulk-billing in the third quarter of last year.</p>
<p>It is too early to say whether the recent quarterly fall in total Medicare bulk-billing rates was an anomaly or perhaps signals a broader trend. Data due for release within the next week will tell us more about the true state of bulk-billing in Australia. <strong>– Thomas Longden and Kees Van Gool</strong></p>
<hr>
<h1>Review</h1>
<p>This FactCheck is accurate and fair. It presents the statistical information most relevant to the problem and clearly contrasts the data that each politician drew from in making their statements. A couple of further points:</p>
<p>First, the <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-responses-from-malcolm-turnbull-and-bill-shorten-72407">full response</a> provided by Bill Shorten’s office mentions that bulk-billing rates specifically for item 23 (a standard level B GP consultation lasting less than 20 minutes) decreased in the three consecutive quarters to June 2016. Compared to the bulk-billing rates for the broader Medicare Benefit Schedule categories, this may suggest a slightly more convincing pattern of decline – but only for this particular item.</p>
<p>Second, bulk-billing rates vary considerably across states. Some states experienced a larger drop in bulk-billing rates in the September 2016 quarter than others. For example, Tasmania’s bulk-billing rate for non-referred GP services declined by more than 2% whilst the Northern Territory’s rate showed no decline. Likewise, the annual statistics show that Tasmania’s bulk-billing rate for non-referred GP services fell between 2014-15 and 2015-16 even as the country’s bulk-billing rate rose to record levels. </p>
<p>These variations in state trends can be obscured when we focus solely on data for Australia as a whole. <strong>– Rosemary Elkins and Stefanie Schurer</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Longden receives funding from the Department of Health.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kees Van Gool receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Health.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefanie Schurer receives funding from the ARC and the NHMRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosemary Elkins 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 twin speeches to the National Press Club, Labor leader Bill Shorten said bulk-billing rates are falling, while Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said bulk-billing is at record levels. Who was right?Thomas Longden, Senior Research Fellow, University of Technology SydneyKees Van Gool, Health economist, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/722802017-02-01T06:06:19Z2017-02-01T06:06:19ZTurnbull believes in timely disclosure of donations – just not his<p>During his Wednesday appearance at the National Press Club Malcolm Turnbull observed he was not a “political animal” like some of his opponents.</p>
<p>He meant it as a virtue – he was extolling his pragmatism on energy policy. But he failed, to his detriment, to show a political nose on something closer to home.</p>
<p>Having agreed that it would be desirable to have political donations disclosed in a more timely and transparent way (and flagging he opposed foreign donations), he then refused to say how much he had given in the last campaign.</p>
<p>The latest donations list had come out only hours earlier but Turnbull’s contribution – speculated to be A$1 million or $2 million – was missing, apparently because of a timing loophole.</p>
<p>So it was obvious Turnbull would be asked the question, equally clear that he would be called a hypocrite if he supported a general change but took advantage of the secrecy to which he is legally entitled.</p>
<p>What was the point? The story, in the broad, is out there (unless the amount is much higher than suggested). The figure will presumably emerge officially in the next disclosure round – that much closer to the election. And his coyness just diverted attention from his main messages about jobs, energy, education and other parts of his 2017 agenda.</p>
<p>How much he kicked in for his own re-election wasn’t the only delicate point on which Turnbull would not be drawn at the Press Club.</p>
<p>He was notably reluctant to buy into the issue of preferences for One Nation, which is topical in the context of the March election in
Western Australia. This week the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wa-liberals-pauline-hanson-plan-deal-on-one-nation-ballot-position/news-story/2de12f2ce30bb35b801c5ecb4804969a">Herald Sun reported</a> there had been talks between the WA Liberals and Pauline Hanson about preference swapping.</p>
<p>Asked whether he would encourage WA Premier Colin Barnett to follow the precedent of Liberal predecessor Richard Court who did not preference One Nation, Turnbull said this was a matter for the WA division and for Barnett.</p>
<p>Later, he was asked how Hanson’s views might have evolved in the last 15 years that made her “in any way less offensive” than when John Howard put her last. And where would Hanson be on his how-to-vote cards next election?
“I am not a commentator on the political evolution of One Nation,” Turnbull replied.</p>
<p>“We deal with all of the parties in the parliament including One Nation. … We respect every single member and senator … All of them have been democratically elected and we seek their support on legislation.”</p>
<p>In her first iteration, Hanson caused intense debate on the conservative side of politics about how her party should be handled. Many prominent Liberals argued passionately in terms of principle. It’s not like that any more.</p>
<p>Second time round, Hanson has changed a little – but only a little. The Liberals seem to have changed a good deal more. We’ll see what happens at the federal election on preferences but in the meantime, power is power and Hanson, with her Senate position, has quite a lot of it.</p>
<p>For Turnbull, despite abhorring many of her views, the relationship with Hanson and her party is all about transactions.</p>
<p>Just as it is with Donald Trump and his immigration crackdown – on which Turnbull keeps his thoughts to himself – and that deal to take Australia’s offshore refugees.</p>
<p>Turnbull had the refugee agreement, done with the Obama administration, reconfirmed in his weekend phone conversation with Trump. But on Wednesday it become mired in fresh confusion and uncertainty.</p>
<p>White House press secretary Sean Spicer reiterated that the deal, which he said involved some 1,250 people, had the green light, while stressing there would be “extreme vetting” of proposed settlers. But then in a clarification to the ABC the White House cast doubt on how firmly it was locked in.</p>
<p>The ABC <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/white-house-backtracks-on-australia-refugee-deal/8228336">quoted a White House source</a> saying that if Trump did go ahead with the deal, it would only be because of the US’ “longstanding relationship with Australia”.</p>
<p>Turnbull remains publicly confident in Trump’s private assurance. The test of this confidence, and of Trump’s word, will be how many refugees from Nauru and Manus Island eventually do land on US soil after the “extreme vetting” process. We might be waiting a while before we know the answer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72280/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
During his Wednesday appearance at the National Press Club Malcolm Turnbull observed he was not a “political animal” like some of his opponents. He meant it as a virtue – he was extolling his pragmatism…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612742016-06-21T02:10:02Z2016-06-21T02:10:02ZPyne versus Carr on innovation – who came out top?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127446/original/image-20160621-8889-155jg7k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kim Carr (left) and Christopher Pyne (right) debating on innovation at the National Press Club.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Not everyone <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-20/christopher-pyne-and-kim-carr-debate-at-the/7526890">would watch</a> Liberal minister for innovation, science and industry, Christopher Pyne, debating Labor’s innovation, science, industry, research and higher education minister Kim Carr at the National Press Club in preference to going to see Batman versus Superman - but I did.</p>
<p>I recognise that neither is really a superhero, but over the years I’ve warmed to Carr’s passion for science and innovation and I enjoy Pyne’s quick wit and cheerful stubbornness.</p>
<p>From the outset it was clear that this wasn’t going to be a conventional head to head battle. </p>
<h2>In Australia most millionaires were not made by innovation</h2>
<p>The ministers’ titles overlap in the words “innovation” and “industry”, and those two words framed the debate.</p>
<p>Carr quickly pointed out that the word innovation had made a comeback. It had been banned under Abbott’s government but in Turnbull’s it was enthusiastically embraced. </p>
<p>There is some truth in this; the word is now spread around so much that it is rapidly losing meaning. </p>
<p>Pyne used the word as a synonym for “improvement” and his policies seem directed at driving innovative industry from the grass roots.</p>
<p>Importantly, though, a question from the floor suggested that in Australia most wealth has been created not by innovation and start ups, but by property, mining or retail. </p>
<p>Indeed, it is fairly clear we have a long way to go before a truly innovative culture is established. But Pyne correctly pointed out that there have been wins: he cited Atlassian and Wifi, but could have also wheeled out Cochlear, ResMed and the Victa Lawn Mower.</p>
<p>Pyne’s main message was that last year’s <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda">National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA)</a>, a A$1.1 billion investment including 24 key initiatives, remained central to the Turnbull government’s platform. </p>
<p>It provides specific funding for strengths such as Quantum computing, as well as more general schemes intended to link researchers with industry. This was a significant departure from the former Abbott government’s approach, in which science had been neglected or cut.</p>
<p>Carr’s main message was that Labor would restore funding to the CSIRO and university research in order to drive high-tech manufacturing. As minister he would establish a department of innovation. </p>
<p>Carr has announced his own billion dollar plus package that includes funding the Cooperative Research Centres, regional institutions, the Great Barrier Reef, and industry linkages. </p>
<p>One key difference was that Carr actively talked about universities, which are in his portfolio. This contrasts with the Coalition, which seems to place them with Simon Birmingham. </p>
<p>Nevertheless the knowledge creation and wealth generation by universities is clearly relevant to industry and innovation, so the split of portfolios may have merit.</p>
<h2>Failure to fund university research</h2>
<p>A turning point was when Julie Hare from The Australian pointed out that it was the failure to fund university research that was the problem in the higher education sector, <a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-use-students-tuition-fees-to-boost-research-rather-than-teaching-data-shows-49813">not the funding of teaching</a>. She was implying, quite rightly, that getting this foundation right could be a first step in growing an innovative culture. </p>
<p>In other words, if the full costs of research were funded, as suggested by the <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/innovation/InnovationPolicy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx">Cutler</a> Review back in 2008, and planned by the Rudd government but later curtailed by the Gillard government, then we would get back on track with driving innovation.</p>
<p>Carr pledged to reignite the scheme he initiated all those years ago - the Sustainable Research Excellence program. This scheme was designed to cover the indirect costs of research to ensure that top performers were not dragged down by the weight of their successes.</p>
<p>You’ll note that the debate over science in Australia has become quite confusing as policy setbacks have occurred. This is not so much when one party replaces another, but when the government stays but the prime minister changes. In some ways, science policy appears to be coming down to the personality of our leaders.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the planets have aligned and we are now in quite a remarkable situation – all three parties, the Coalition, Labor and the Greens vocally support science and innovation as critical to their agendas. </p>
<p>The major parties differ in style – Pyne talked more about changing taxes and incentives to stimulate growth and industry; Carr had clear plans for stimulus and government investment. Both were supportive.</p>
<p>But there was one thing that impressed me more than all that. It occurred to me when Donald Trump’s name was mentioned in passing. We don’t seem to have any real extremes in this campaign: sure, we are struggling to find clear strategic leadership and sustained investment but the debate was civil and constructive. </p>
<p>There were some big names in universities, technology and business mentioned today – Ian Chubb, Alan Finkel, and Catherine Livingston to name a few. If we can tighten our resolve to stop talking and actually commit to real and unwavering investments in real priorities, then perhaps Sustainable Research Excellence will not elude us.</p>
<p>The Coalition is resting on its laurels and relying on the National Innovation and Science Agenda and the Medical Research Fund to establish its credentials. Labor is hoping to renew the promise of the early Carr/Rudd vision. </p>
<p>Nothing in the debate really shifted the momentum for me, but I hope we can step up a gear and mature into a nation that sticks to its plans in creating a culture of knowledge and wealth generation.</p>
<p>If we get it right then at last we will be able to build a proper foundation for innovation and industry that will deliver for us and for our children as we sail into the Asian Century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61274/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merlin Crossley receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and is on the Trust of the Australian Museum, the Boards of the Sydney Institute of Marine Science, UNSW Press, UNSW Global, and the Editorial Board of The Conversation.</span></em></p>Pyne talked more about changing taxes and incentives to stimulate growth and industry, whereas Carr had clear plans for government investment.Merlin Crossley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.