tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/australia-elections-2013-6914/articlesAustralia elections 2013 – The Conversation2013-09-08T08:33:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/179762013-09-08T08:33:28Z2013-09-08T08:33:28ZState of the states post-election: experts respond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30938/original/rwk8yc4h-1378624565.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Every state and territory is different: how did they vote in Election 2013?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Conversation asked Australia’s leading experts to profile the eight states and territories <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/state-of-the-states">in the lead up to the election</a>. With the result decided (albeit some details still to be ironed out), we look at how the predictions matched the results.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Queensland</h2>
<p><strong>Clive Bean, Professor of Political Science at the Queensland University of Technology:</strong></p>
<p>As predicted, Queensland has played a pivotal role in the 2013 federal election, but in a rather different way than anticipated. Queensland’s role has been to help restrict the scale of the Coalition’s victory which, while decisive and comfortable by any standards, has fallen short of the crushing magnitude that appeared likely.</p>
<p>Rather than losing upwards of four or five seats, the ALP appears to have retained all but two of the eight seats it held in Queensland before the election. Even the two it may have lost – <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/capr/">Capricornia</a>, in central Queensland, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/petr/">Petrie</a> in the northern suburbs of Brisbane – remain in the balance at this stage, in particular Capricornia. </p>
<p>Incredibly, Labor has retained its most marginal Queensland seat, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/more/">Moreton</a>, with a small swing in its favour.</p>
<p>One factor that probably helped reduce the movement away from the ALP in Queensland was that the Liberal-National Party (LNP) already had a 55-45% two-party preferred margin in the state, following the strong swing away from the Labor government at the 2010 federal election.</p>
<p>What the ALP was unable to do, however, was to make inroads into any LNP-held seats, including the marginal seat of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/ford/">Forde</a> – contested by former state premier Peter Beattie – which recorded a small swing away from Labor.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most interesting result in Queensland is the strong prospect that Clive Palmer will take the northern Sunshine Coast seat of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/fair/">Fairfax</a> from the LNP. Former rugby league player Glenn Lazarus also appears to have won Queensland’s sixth Senate seat for the Palmer United Party.</p>
<p><em>Read Clive Bean’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clive-bean-6666/profile_bio">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Victoria</h2>
<p><strong>Nick Economou, School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University:</strong></p>
<p>Victoria has made its contribution to the change of national government but, as has been the case in a series of elections since 1993, the number of seats changing hands was not great and the party that won a majority of the two party vote did not win a majority of seats.</p>
<p>At 49.4%, the state-wide two-party vote swung to the Coalition by a substantial 5.8%. Only three seats - <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/ltro/">La Trobe</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/cora/">Corangamite</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/deak/">Deakin</a> – changed from Labor to Coalition, with a fourth, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/mcew/">McEwen</a>, too close to call. Labor has won 19 seats, the Coalition 16 and the Greens one. Labor’s primary vote of 35.3 was 7.5% less than 2010, and the Greens’ statewide primary fell by 2.1%.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/melb/">Melbourne</a>, however, the Greens’ Adam Bandt polled nearly 44% and held his seat. In <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/mall/">Mallee</a>, the Nationals’ Andrew Broad withstood a challenge from the Liberals, while in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/indi/">Indi</a>, Liberal Sophie Mirabella and independent Cath McGowan await the arrival of postal votes.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/vic/">Senate</a>, Labor has won two seats, and the Coalition has secured two seats and is likely to win a third. The Greens will receive Labor surplus and should secure the sixth seat.</p>
<p><em>Read Nick Economou’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-victoria-17346">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>New South Wales</h2>
<p><strong>Mark Rolf, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales:</strong></p>
<p>Labor got the thumping we expected but the projected Coalition blitzkrieg in New South Wales did not eventuate – though it is in a strong position with 47% of first preferences. </p>
<p>Labor’s primary vote was at an historic low, with a national swing of 4.1%. In NSW the swing was below average, at 2.3%. So a swathe of traditional Labor seats across western, inner west and southwest Sydney were saved. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/reid/">Reid</a> went Liberal but among these other seats there was a variation from large swings to Labor (such as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/fowl/">Fowler</a> 9.5%) to large swings against it (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/bart/">Barton</a> 7.54%). </p>
<p>In Abbott’s home state, the swing in first preferences did not immediately travel to the Liberals, which only got 0.2%. The infamous Jaymes Diaz failed in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gree/">Greenway</a>, much to Abbott’s chagrin. But comments by Fiona Scott (50,000 boat people cause traffic jams in western Sydney) and about her (“sex appeal”) obviously didn’t hurt her in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/lind/">Lindsay</a>, which has become more of a national bellwether seat for commentators, along with the Central Coast.</p>
<p>The National Party successfully raised its primary vote by 2.44% to over 10%. The Nats have taken one seat from Labor so far (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/page/">Page</a>); the other two wins were merely returning to the fold from the independents (held by Windsor and Oakeshott). They didn’t get <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/rich/">Richmond</a> on the north coast where many ex-Sydney people reside. In other words, the Nats did well but reached the regional and demographic limits which are their perpetual problems.</p>
<p>As elsewhere in the country, the Green primary vote went backwards in the house, although not as badly as some states, especially Tasmania. They were not the beneficiaries of the dissatisfaction that some felt with the majors, such as the Palmer United Party with 4.26%.</p>
<p>Overall, then, neither major party can take things for granted as the result somewhat reflects the dissatisfaction of many voters with the choice presented to them.</p>
<p><em>Read Mark Rolfe’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-new-south-wales-17348">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Northern Territory</h2>
<p><strong>Rolf Gerritsen, Professorial Research Fellow, Northern Institute at Charles Darwin University:</strong></p>
<p>The Northern Territory has only two seats, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/solo/">Solomon</a> (covering Darwin and Palmerston) and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/ling/">Lingiari</a>.</p>
<p>Labor had an excellent candidate in Solomon and campaigned on price hikes for electricity and the cost of living, both essentially Territory government issues. Nonetheless the Country Liberal Party’s Natasha Griggs looks set to narrowly retain the seat against a swing of less than 1%.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-northern-territory-17345">wrote last week</a> that Lingiari would be close. As predicted, a swing to Abbott occurred in the conservative heartlands of Alice, Katherine and the Darwin rural area. Yet Labor’s Warren Snowden survived by resuscitating Labor’s Aboriginal vote in the bush. </p>
<p>The CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, was a neophyte and damagingly dodged debating the old warhorse, Snowden, on the ABC. But it was Snowden’s campaign against the CLP Territory government in the bush that proved decisive. He will survive despite a swing of about 2.1% to the Country Liberals.</p>
<p>The Senate vote saw the usual voting pattern: one CLP and one Labor. Nova Peris (Gillard’s “captains pick”) polled just short of the usual Labor vote, so there was little backlash to her pre-selection.</p>
<p>Two features of the election in the NT deserve mention. The first is the collapse (by nearly half) of the Green vote. These voters may have previously been disillusioned with Labor and switched back to stop Abbott. </p>
<p>The Australian First Nations Politcal Party vote was also very low (less than 4%, which illustrated the difficulties new parties have as against the (publicly) funded incumbents. It may also reveal strategic voting by Aboriginal voters, who for the third time since the 2010 federal election have revealed that their loyalties are instrumental and have to be won.</p>
<p><em>Read Rolf Gerritsen’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-northern-territory-17345">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Western Australia</h2>
<p><strong>Narelle Miragliotta, Visiting Research Associate in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at University of Western Australia and Senior Politics Lecturer, Monash University:</strong></p>
<p>There was only minimal alteration to the political ownership of Western Australia’s 15 lower house seats.</p>
<p>Labor retained <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-235.htm">Brand</a>, <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-240.htm">Fremantle</a> and <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-245.htm">Perth</a>, thereby avoiding complete electoral ruin in the west. The three returning ALP candidates even managed to buck the statewide trend to post a marginal increase in their respective primary (but not their two-party preferred) vote.</p>
<p>The Liberals comfortably held all 11 of their existing seats, and appear to have wrestled the seat of <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-243.htm">O’Connor</a> from the Nationals. In doing so, the Liberals have increased their contingent of WA lower house MPs to 12. They are also on track to claim <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-17496-WA.htm">three of the six Senate positions</a> on offer.</p>
<p>From among WA’s ranks of returning federal parliamentarians will be one minister (<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=83P">Julie Bishop</a>) and potentially two or three others (Christian Porter, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=E0J">Michael Keenan</a> and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=HDA">senator Mathias Cormann</a>).</p>
<p>While the seat outcomes paint a picture of seeming continuity in WA, the <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-17496-WA.htm">aggregate statewide result</a> reveals that support for the Liberals continues to grow and that disenchantment with federal Labor continues to harden. While the WA Liberals recorded the highest first preference vote of any state Liberal party at this election (just under 48%), Labor’s primary vote (29.12%) hit its lowest level in recorded history.</p>
<p>WA is the Liberals’ most emphatic heartland state, and Labor’s most recalcitrant.</p>
<p><em>Read Narelle Miragliotta’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-western-australia-17425">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>South Australia</h2>
<p><strong>Haydon Manning, Associate Professor of Politics and Public Policy, Flinders University:</strong></p>
<p>Water politics occupies a large part of political life in South Australia and was mostly absent from election 2013. But late in the campaign, the Coalition announced a cost-saving measure to slow the rate of Commonwealth <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/coalition-defends-planned-spending-cuts-for-murray-water-buyback/4939838">water license buybacks</a>. Unsurprisingly, this hit the headlines, with Labor premier Jay Weatherill <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/09/05/19/01/abbott-s-walked-away-from-sa-weatherill">warning</a> of the neglect an Abbott government would bestow upon SA.</p>
<p>While the Liberals’ win in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/hind/">Hindmarsh</a> was built on a solid local campaign with a quality candidate, Labor’s Kate Ellis survived in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/adel/">Adelaide</a> due largely to the Liberal’s poor candidate choice.</p>
<p>The collapse of the Labor Senate vote was unprecedented and overshadows any solace that the lower house vote (a 4.56% swing against) was not as bad as many expected. With a paltry 22% support, Labor looks set to elect <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/adel/">only one senator</a>, Penny Wong. The tenure of one of Labor’s factional warlords, senator Don Farrell, appears terminated due to the remarkable vote independent senator Nick Xenophon managed to secure.</p>
<p>With 25%, Xenophon would be pleased but one cannot help ponder what may have transpired had he struck a more favourable preference deal with the Greens. With few beneficial preferences flowing to Xenophon’s running mate, it’s likely that a wildcard win by Family First will transpire, despite Family First’s primary vote declining.</p>
<p><em>Read Haydon Manning’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-south-australia-17489">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Australian Capital Territory</h2>
<p><strong>Robin Tennant-Wood, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business and Government at the University of Canberra:</strong></p>
<p>The two ACT electorates of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/canb/">Canberra</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/fras/">Fraser</a>, as expected, returned their ALP members, Gai Brodtmann and Andrew Leigh respectively, with almost unchanged margins. With a margin of 14.2%, Leigh now has one of the safest Labor seats in the country.</p>
<p>It was in the Senate that the real action occurred. The fallout from the Liberals’ preselection - which saw Zed Seselja oust former Senator Gary Humphries - did not reflect well on Seselja. Many Canberrans saw Humphries as a good representative of the Territory rather than a representative of his party. </p>
<p>Seselja, on the other hand, is seen to be a party man who will toe Abbott’s line rather than necessarily advocate for the ACT. This factor may well have been a large contributor to the vote for parties such as Palmer United, Katter’s Australian and the Sex Party.</p>
<p>The election result will be met with some caution in the ACT. With public service jobs and university funding on the line there will be a degree of nervousness until the dust settles and the new government’s priorities are made clear. The prime minister-elect has already made it known he intends to cut funding for research in some areas. He has also vowed to prune the public service, although there is no indication of which departments will be affected or how many jobs are likely to be lost.</p>
<p>The flow-on from public service cuts will affect the private sector in the ACT and surrounding regions. It was partly this potential loss of Canberra business that resulted in a stronger ALP vote in neighbouring Eden-Monaro that could have been expected. While the result in Eden-Monaro is still uncertain, it remains that a lot of businesses in Queanbeyan and along the coastal strip south from Batemans Bay rely on jobs and income from the ACT.</p>
<p><em>Read Robin Tennant-Wood’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-australian-capital-territory-17633">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Tasmania</h2>
<p><strong>Tony McCall, Senior Lecturer, Politics and International Relations Program, School of Social Sciences, at the University of Tasmania:</strong></p>
<p>Tasmanian voters, deeply dissatisfied with minority government in Canberra and Hobart, grabbed their baseball bats and savaged Labor and the Greens at the federal election.</p>
<p>Labor’s vote fell across Tasmania by 8.8%, compared to the national swing against Labor of 4.1%. The Greens vote fell by 8.7% compared to the national swing against the party of 3.3%.</p>
<p>Labor will lose three seats: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/bass/">Bass</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/brad/">Braddon</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/lyon/">Lyons</a>. The result in Lyons is symptomatic of Labor’s voting collapse. Dick Adams, a 20-year incumbent (1993) held a massive 12.3% margin but was beaten by Eric Hutchinson, the Liberal candidate who had unsuccessfully challenged Adams in 2010.</p>
<p>Only Labor’s Julie Collins (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/fran/">Franklin</a>) might comprehend the significance for the Labor faithful of Kevin Rudd’s “concession speech” where he claimed “victory” from the jaws of an historic defeat. Collins held Franklin by limiting the negative swing to 2.6%.</p>
<p>Andrew Wilkie increased his margin in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/deni/">Denison</a>, where the Green vote collapsed to 7.9%.</p>
<p>The Palmer United Party (PUP) attracted a significant first-up vote in Tasmania: 6.3% in the House of Representatives. The PUP is in a contest to win the sixth Senate seat at the expense of a Liberal hopeful, or a Labor or Green incumbent senator.</p>
<p><em>Read Tony McCall’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-tasmania-17318">pre-election state analysis</a>.</em> </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Bean has received funding from the Australian Research Council to conduct the 2013 Australian Election Study.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Narelle Miragliiotta is currently a Visiting Research Associate in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Western Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Haydon Manning, Mark Rolfe, Nick Economou, Robin Tennant-Wood, Rolf Gerritsen, and Tony McCall do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Conversation asked Australia’s leading experts to profile the eight states and territories in the lead up to the election. With the result decided (albeit some details still to be ironed out), we look…Clive Bean, Professor, Political Science, Queensland University of TechnologyHaydon Manning, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders UniversityMark Rolfe, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, UNSW SydneyNarelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash UniversityNick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityRobin Tennant-Wood, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business and Government, University of CanberraRolf Gerritsen, Professorial Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin UniversityTony McCall, Senior Lecturer, Politics and International Relations Program, School of Social Sciences, , University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/179482013-09-06T06:37:36Z2013-09-06T06:37:36ZForeign aid, like roads, is an investment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30867/original/q5m4d9xs-1378448822.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Well-targeted aid to countries in need is not just an act of generosity but an essential investment in our future.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Australians head to the ballot box we are consumed with issues that are necessarily defined by national borders. However, as Australia takes up the presidency of the Security Council and attends the G20 in St Petersburg, it’s a good time to remember that we also have profound responsibilities as global citizens.</p>
<p>The Coalition’s pledge to reduce the growth of foreign aid by A$4.5 billion and divert this into infrastructure spending trades one investment - that of road infrastructure - for another, foreign aid. </p>
<p>No cost-benefit analysis was given. Just a short statement that suggests the core drivers and benefits for the rich giving to the poor have not been fully considered.</p>
<p>Sadly, both sides of politics appear to have a similar attitude. Labor has already twice delayed a promised increase to foreign aid and, worse still, recently redirected $750 million of the aid budget to fund asylum seeker programs.</p>
<h2>The rich supporting the poor - a model that works</h2>
<p>In families - and the global one is no different to those in our own constituencies - the primary responsibility of the fortunate is to support those with nothing. This model of the rich supporting the poor – at its highest level known as foreign aid – has worked brilliantly.</p>
<p>Through innovative foreign aid (vaccines, better agriculture for peasant farmers, improved access to education) the percentage of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has more than halved since 1990. While this amounts to approximately one billion people still living in a totally desperate circumstance, the improvement is profound. It has changed the world.</p>
<p>There have been many other extraordinary gains in the human condition. For example, the number of infants dying each year of preventable causes has plummeted from around 12 million in 1990 to fewer than seven million now. This success is all the more astonishing once the extraordinary population growth that has occurred over that time period is factored in (the World Bank is just one of many references to the numbers above).</p>
<p>Australia has contributed tremendously to the global aid effort. Through this support we have successfully helped our neighbours and fostered our own interests (see the <a href="http://www.ausaid.gov.au/HotTopics/Pages/Display.aspx?QID=518">2012 Independent Review of Aid effectiveness</a>, carried out by Sandy Hollway). </p>
<p>We now contribute approximately 0.35% of our gross national income to this effort, this year totalling A$5.7 billion (or around 1.4% of our annual budget). Australia has made a bipartisan commitment to increasing this to 0.5% GNI. This places us in the middle of the pack of donor countries. Australia gives, but is nowhere near the most generous. The UK for example, with all its economic difficulty, is on track to commit 0.7% of its GNI to foreign aid.</p>
<h2>Millennium Development Goals</h2>
<p>Most importantly, aid efforts have become better coordinated across the globe. The best example of this is a partnership by 189 sovereign nations to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Here, nations committed to achieving hugely ambitious targets around improvement conditions for the worlds poorest people. Remarkably, with two years to run, and with some notable exceptions (maternal mortality especially), most of the goals have been achieved or near achieved. The world, through aid, has succeeded!</p>
<p>Once aid kicks in people shift from extreme vulnerability, and the market place takes over. Wealth is then created endogenously. Look at South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and many others – including Africa, now undergoing extraordinary growth for examples of how aid delivers at national and regional levels.</p>
<h2>Good for them, good for us</h2>
<p>Aid not only helps the receiver, it is hugely beneficial to the giver. Aid (particularly to our Asia-Pacific neighbours) is an investment for Australia and can be purely seen in that light if that is one’s inclination. As receivers of Australian aid grow their economies they become significant trading partners of Australia providing enormous and critical benefit to our economy.</p>
<p>In terms of long-term investment, addressing the profound inequity and vulnerability of populations in our region and throughout the world outranks any other issue that is relevant to Australia.</p>
<p>If we want to do our bit to tackle the world’s largest problems such as uncontrolled population growth, food security and catastrophic climate change - or more immediately improve regional security and create economic wealth through new markets or investment opportunities - the situation of the world’s poor must be improved first. For example, fertility rates plummet to more sustainable levels with even modest increases in wealth.</p>
<p>Self-interest is a key reason why rich nations give foreign aid. It isn’t simply from the goodness of their hearts. They see it as a secure investment with huge returns.</p>
<p>Distributing our wealth through well-targeted aid to our desperately in need fellow humans is not just an act of generosity – although this is reason enough for many. It is an essential investment in our future. </p>
<p>And in that context it deserves to be weighed up in a sophisticated manner against other long-term investments, like Australian roads. Foreign aid is a crucial part of creating a better planet, is not just suitable for the “good times” when we are flush with cash.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17948/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Crabb works for the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health (Burnet Institute), an Australian not-for-profit organisation. The Burnet Institute receives funding from the Australian government through a number of sources including the NHMRC and AusAID.</span></em></p>As Australians head to the ballot box we are consumed with issues that are necessarily defined by national borders. However, as Australia takes up the presidency of the Security Council and attends the…Brendan Crabb, President of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes and Director and CEO, Burnet InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/177622013-09-04T04:35:14Z2013-09-04T04:35:14ZShould offsets fund the Coalition’s reef plan?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30599/original/2fj9rhnc-1378187556.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Crown of Thorns is one threat on the reef, but it's not the only threat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Nemo's great uncle</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Monday, the Coalition announced its <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/great-barrier-reef-trust-promised-by-coalition-20130902-2szqc.html">plan</a> for the Great Barrier Reef, including a A$40m trust-fund to target threats to the Reef such as <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/crown-of-thorns-starfish">Crown of Thorns</a> starfish and runoff from agriculture. </p>
<p>The promises will be funded partially from offset money, generated through the environmental approval process for projects that could adversely affect the reef in various ways. While we don’t know exactly how much offsets will contribute to the fund, current approval decisions by the Federal environment department already require A$185m in marine offsets from development projects. If the Coalition plan will rely on a fund of similar magnitude, they need to take offset design very seriously. </p>
<p>Offsets are a way to channel private funds into reef conservation. Shadow environment minister Greg Hunt is certainly right in saying that, to effectively manage the reef, we need a more strategic approach to investing private money. The reef might have world-leading <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/zoning/zoning-maps">zoning</a> – demarcated areas, showing which activities can take place in each location – but current offset investment schemes are far behind world’s best practice.</p>
<p>So, let’s have a look at how offsets might work for the Great Barrier Reef, and how we can learn from mistakes elsewhere. </p>
<p>Offsets are activities that compensate for damage approved by the environmental assessment process, supposedly ensuring no net (environmental) loss. They are a promising mechanism for halting and reversing the <a href="http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/report-card-2011.aspx">downward trend</a> in reef health. Offsets are required under the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/">EPBC Act</a> and associated <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets-policy.html">Biodiversity Offsets Policy</a>. </p>
<p>But there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-we-offset-biodiversity-losses-13805">many risks</a> associated with offsets. They should carry the label: open with caution.</p>
<p>One risk is financial capture. Government agencies might allow developments that would otherwise be unacceptable because of the cash flow. <a href="http://bimblebox.org/?page_id=742">Bimblebox Nature Refuge</a> in Queensland is an example, where critics argue coal-mining has been allowed in exchange for A$3 billion from offsets.</p>
<p>The Coalition is proposing that the trust is managed by Queensland with consultation from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Queensland has a <a href="https://theconversation.com/queenslands-big-step-back-from-environmental-assessment-9238">troubling track record</a> for environmental management of nationally (and internationally) important matters. </p>
<p>Even if this record improves, the risk remains that government decisions to approve developments will be influenced by the cash flow. Most other countries use third parties, rather than government, to both avoid this risk and to tap into expert capacity. Third parties can be important even to avoid the perception of capture, and consequent undermining of credibility.</p>
<p>Australia should choose to learn from decades of hard-earned offset lessons overseas. At least <a href="http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3209.pdf">29 countries have offset policies</a> and an international collaborative group called the <a href="http://bbop.forest-trends.org/">Business and Biodiversity Offset Program</a> has developed best-practice guidelines. In brief, the best approach to designing effective offsets is to pool the money, and invest it strategically through a third party (not the developer or the government).</p>
<p>Another risk related to offsets is that companies can be asked to pay arbitrary amounts of money, pooled into a trust, that is later invested into activities not connected to the damage caused by their development. This becomes a pay-to-damage scheme, where the impact is not mitigated by the investment.</p>
<p>Under the EPBC Act, offsets must compensate for specific damage. For example, offset funds from a port development that reduces turtles’ food sources (seagrass beds) must be used to improve the survival of turtles through promoting the growth of seagrasses. It cannot be used to eradicate Crown of Thorns Starfish, as proposed in the Coalition’s plan. </p>
<p>Importantly, we know that the threat to the reef from Crown of Thorns starfish is a symptom. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/crown-of-thorns-is-a-symptom-of-reef-decline-lets-address-the-cause-9932">cause is declining water quality</a> from catchment runoff. If a medical doctor treated only the symptoms of illness, not the cause, most patients would not heal. If we treat the symptoms of reef decline only superficially, the reef will certainly maintain its downward trajectory.</p>
<p>While the current A$185 million for marine offsets is a lot of money, this total could and arguably should be much more. This is not just because it costs money to offset damages properly, but because many of those negatively impacted by environmental damages may not benefit much from the <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/down-under/australia-mining-boom-myth-fact-fiction-economy">development</a>.</p>
<p>Currently, the Federal environment department does not use a consistent or transparent method to calculate how much money a proponent must pay for offsets. It appears that a loose precedent is used instead of a more explicit, defensible method. </p>
<p>The Australian Government expects that offsets will produce a net positive benefit to the environment; given the large damages allowed, this is costly to achieve. To give us a fighting chance at producing net positive outcomes for the reef, and to move away from the perception that offsets are just pay-to-pollute, the amount of money required from developers should be transparently calculated based on the actual costs to achieve offset benefits.</p>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef is at a <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report">critical juncture</a> and the underfunding of management and protection could contribute to irreversible declines. Offsets cannot replace government investment, as is suggested by the Coalition plan. </p>
<p>Offsets are one mechanism for the development industry to contribute, but they must be used in combination with government investment, in the right places in the right ways, and with government restraint on developments that adversely affect the reef. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bob Pressey receives funding from the Australian Research Council for research on the conservation of coral reefs.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa Walsh and Natalie Stoeckl do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Monday, the Coalition announced its plan for the Great Barrier Reef, including a A$40m trust-fund to target threats to the Reef such as Crown of Thorns starfish and runoff from agriculture. The promises…Melissa Walsh, PhD Researcher, Marine Conservation Finance, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/176842013-09-02T04:32:01Z2013-09-02T04:32:01ZMental health is largely missing from the election campaign<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30464/original/9drtk5n4-1378088249.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (centre) speaks to the media as Professor Patrick McGorry (right) and Senator Connie Fierravanti Wells look on during a press conference to launch the Liberal-National Party coalition plan for mental health.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">LISA MAREE WILLIAMS/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Launching the Coalition’s policy for <a href="http://www.nationals.org.au/Portals/0/2013/policy/Mental%20Health%20-%20policy%20document.pdf">Efficient Mental Health Research and Services</a> late last week, Tony Abbott said he wished all his policy statements attracted such media attention. </p>
<p>Given the Australian community’s demonstrated engagement with mental health, it’s more surprising that we’ve heard so little about it in this election campaign.</p>
<p>Abbott’s commitment is modest; it matches the Rudd government’s announcement late on Thursday to expand the number of new <a href="http://www.headspace.org.au/">headspace</a> services from 90 to 100 sites nationally. Headspace is targeted at engaging people aged between 12 and 25 years, with emerging mental health problems. </p>
<p>But Abbott went further, promising A$18m for a new national centre for excellence in youth health and A$5m for a comprehensive e-mental health platform in partnership with the <a href="http://www.yawcrc.org.au/">Young & Well Cooperative Research Centre</a>. Australia has been a world leader in developing tools to help self-manage mental health problems with the internet. </p>
<p>Abbott also explicitly said there would be no subsequent cuts to mental health funding.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/cm15_300813">Rudd government announced</a> funds of A$34m for more headspace centres; A$9m to expand <a href="http://www.lifeline.org.au/">LifeLine’s</a> services and A$40m for workplace mental health initiatives.</p>
<p>The Greens have the only <a href="http://penny-wright.greensmps.org.au/portfolios/mental-health">mental health policy</a> with substantial financial investment, with a total of A$1.1 billion in new commitments. The money is split between rural mental health initiatives (A$552.6m) and broader investments (A$547.4m) in mental health nurses, research, psychological care, and suicide prevention.</p>
<p>But why have the two major parties missed the opportunity to impress the Australian electorate with decent investment in mental health? An <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mental-health-a-top-aussie-worry/story-fn59niix-1225946937074">international survey</a> by King’s College in 2010 showed Australians were most concerned by four big issues – the economy, climate change, mental health and ageing.</p>
<h2>What happened before</h2>
<p>In contrast with the last few weeks, the 2010 election campaign saw considerable emphasis on mental health. Back then, Tony Abbott led the charge, promising to spend A$1.5 billion on a comprehensive program of early intervention specialist services for young Australians.</p>
<p>Former prime minister Julia Gillard nominated mental health as a second-term priority for her government and appointed Mark Butler to represent both mental health and ageing (later upgrading the position to cabinet).</p>
<p>The Gillard government also established the <a href="http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/">National Mental Health Commission</a> and had <a href="http://www.coag.gov.au/">COAG</a> consider developing national targets and a ten-year road map for reform. Most importantly, it committed A$2.2 billion over five years to a new suite of service initiatives, focusing both on people with established illness and enhancing early intervention services for young people.</p>
<p>But after protracted Commonwealth-state negotiations, no new early psychosis intervention centre has yet opened. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30468/original/xx5jrrb7-1378088752.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The challenge for the next government is to get beyond the simplistic belief that goodwill alone can deliver mental health reform or effective suicide prevention.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sunghwan Yoon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ongoing divided responsibilities and arguments about who should foot the bill for reform lie at the heart of our current difficulties.</p>
<p>The capacity of headspace youth services to build sustainable service platforms that are effectively linked with state-based emergency and specialist services is yet to be demonstrated. </p>
<p>Indeed, headspace services remain desperately short of professional, peer- and family-based workforces. And of the suite of funding mechanisms needed to deliver appropriate medical, psychological, specialist and vocational services.</p>
<p>E-mental health remains a cottage industry, despite its capacity to reach many people who choose to not engage with traditional services. Specialist mental health services delivered in the community by state governments are likely to suffer further as new activity-based funding mechanisms push most new cash back into hospitals from 2014/15. </p>
<h2>What needs to happen</h2>
<p>While mental health enjoys bipartisan support at the highest political levels, it is running the risk of once again being seriously neglected. </p>
<p>By contrast, other areas of health are attracting new funding commitments. During this election campaign, think Labor’s promise of a <a href="http://www.kevinrudd.org.au/latest1_180813">hospital rebuild in Western Sydney</a> and <a href="http://www.kevinrudd.org.au/_15_million_for_cancer_care">new cancer care initiatives</a>, and the Liberal Party’s investment of A$200m for <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/25/coalitions-policy-dementia-research">dementia research</a> and <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/health">enhanced support</a> for access to medicines. </p>
<p>It appears that both parties have now ticked off mental health for this election without feeling any great need to invest new funds.</p>
<p>At least, the Coalition’s announcement contains the hint that it may be interested in a more radical overhaul of existing arrangements. This is an area where the first Rudd government really dropped the ball. Specifically, during the 2010 health reform negotiations, it failed to take the opportunity to fund community mental health. </p>
<p>Tony Abbott has suggested the <a href="http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/">National Mental Health Commission</a> be asked to review the effectiveness of existing programs. This follows calls from across the sector for a productivity commission-style investigation of the divided funding and service provision arrangements between the commonwealth, states, and the community sector, which result in many people receiving either duplicated services or no services at all!</p>
<p>The challenge for the next government is to get beyond the simplistic belief that goodwill alone can deliver mental health reform or effective suicide prevention. </p>
<p>There are solutions but they will require redirection of existing funds and new monies; early intervention can be transformative and e-health has great possibilities. But change will require commonwealth-state cooperation and coordination, and annual independent reporting of outcomes.</p>
<p>Most importantly, a commitment to expand community-based, rather than hospital-based, services is fundamental.</p>
<p>Over the next three years, the performance of our next government should be judged not on the basis of the lean promises of this election campaign but on its capacity to implement genuine reform in this key area of health, economic and social policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hickie is a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellow. His work has been funded by a variety of research councils, philanthropic support and investigator-led research studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies. He is Executive Director of the Brain & Mind Research Institute (BMRI), University of Sydney. The BMRI operates two Headspace Centres in Central Sydney and Campbelltown, NSW and is a member of the Young and Well CRC. He is also a Commissioner in the Australian National Mental Health Commission. </span></em></p>Launching the Coalition’s policy for Efficient Mental Health Research and Services late last week, Tony Abbott said he wished all his policy statements attracted such media attention. Given the Australian…Ian Hickie, Professor of Psychiatry, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/173452013-08-31T22:54:00Z2013-08-31T22:54:00ZState of the states: Northern Territory<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30326/original/sprqbhry-1377844232.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australians see the NT as a place of red sand, Uluru and Aborigines but this is an incomplete picture.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>STATE OF THE STATES: a snapshot of the key issues affecting each state and territory in the lead up to Saturday’s election.</em> </p>
<hr>
<p>The Northern Territory is, in effect, a self-governing territory of the Commonwealth. It can have its legislation overruled by the Commonwealth parliament or regulations dictated by a Commonwealth minister. Around 80% to 85% of the NT government’s revenue derives from the Commonwealth, mostly as a general purpose grant (the GST disbursement) but also from federal specific purpose grants. </p>
<p>So the NT’s dependence on Canberra is at the core of its political economy and its medium-term future. This is the sleeper issue of the current election campaign which neither of the major parties wants to address publicly.</p>
<h2>Introducing the Northern Territory</h2>
<p>Australians see the NT as a place of rednecks, red sand, Uluru and Aborigines. This is an incomplete picture. The NT is a modern – if curious – economy. The major city, Darwin, even looks like a Parramatta transported to the northern coast of Australia. But urban similarities aside, the NT has a deep dependence upon the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>The NT has a singular demography. Aborigines constitute about 30% of its population. It also has a huge population churn of about 15% annually (among the whitefellas), as young people arrive for work or career reasons and older people leave for work or retirement. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30399/original/fhrvrc7w-1377912807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Darwin looks like a Parramatta transported to the northern coast.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The NT has a greater proportion of its workforce in the public sector than in any other jurisdiction – even more than in the ACT. This indicates the extreme dependence of the NT on the public sector and its expenditure. Government is the central economic entity and the Commonwealth the ultimate funder.</p>
<h2>The economy – a boom and bust state</h2>
<p>The Northern Territory economy would grow relatively slowly – hampered by perpetual skilled labour shortages, high costs and long supply chains – except that it periodically booms. </p>
<p>In the past, when it “busts”, unwise government subsidisation of uneconomic projects has followed – like when the previous Labor NT government built a high-cost convention centre. Because of such persistent profligacy in the past, the NT has a serious public debt issue. This weakens governmental capacity because the NT raises such a small proportion of its own revenue. It is beholden to the counter-cyclical GST revenues and Commonwealth policy program expenditures and directions.</p>
<p>With the government broke, activity from the resources sector will have to provide any future booms. Currently Darwin is booming, as a giant <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/broome-against-boom/story-fn59niix-1226108570248">A$35 billion LNG plant</a> is being built. The rest of the Territory is in recession. Yet Darwin’s citizens are not happy; the cost of living is high and rents are comparable to Sydney.</p>
<p>So Territorians cannot decide whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about the state of the Territory. They don’t appreciate their current boom and they will hate the next recession in 18 months.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Snapshot of the Northern Territory</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30409/original/d7tsdfd4-1377925137.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30347/original/hmxkvc4n-1377852412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Political issues</h2>
<p>The driving forces of NT politics – developmentalism and dependence – have been amply displayed via the issue of gas supplies for the <a href="http://www.pacificaluminium.com.au/57/Gove-Operations">Gove</a> alumina operation. </p>
<p>The owners of Gove have previously thrice rejected the option to pipe gas directly to the facility. Yet six months ago the operation (now owned by Rio Tinto following its hubristic takeover of ALCAN) demanded the NT supply natural gas or the refinery would have to close down. </p>
<p>The then-Chief Minister Terry Mills capitulated and foolishly offered ten years of gas from the Power and Water Corporation supply contract, provided the Commonwealth built a (A$500 million) pipeline from existing facilities to Nhulunbuy. This offer was despite the fact that Rio was then trying to sell its aluminium division and so the NT was merely subsidising the sale price. </p>
<p>Negotiations with the Commonwealth commenced. Then <a href="https://theconversation.com/darwinian-politics-its-survival-of-the-fittest-for-the-top-job-in-the-territory-12810">Adam Giles supplanted Mills</a> and subsequently offered Pacific Aluminium half the gas of the original deal. This half-better developmentalist policy still depended on a Commonwealth-funded or indemnified pipeline. </p>
<p>The election intervened and both major parties have been opaque on the future for any pipeline.</p>
<h2>‘Urban bias’ as a hidden political issue</h2>
<p>In the past, I have criticised successive governments for directing expenditure from general purpose funding from the Commonwealth – which was “earned” to ameliorate Aboriginal disadvantage – towards expenditure exclusively in the Greater Darwin area. </p>
<p>After becoming concerned about this inequity, from 2009 the Commonwealth increasingly tied its specific purpose funding. Tied grants meant the Commonwealth was forcing the NT government to make a contribution from its general purpose monies. But the problem of addressing inequity within the NT remains serious.</p>
<p>As the federal election campaign began, the Chief Minister wrote a letter to me (and presumably lots of other electors) explaining why the NT government had not signed up to the Commonwealth’s Gonski school funding proposals. At the heart of his government’s objections to the Gonski model was a (justified) fear of a loss of NT control over its education system. </p>
<p>But he also gave another curious reason and I quote from the letter:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Gonski formula diverts money away from urban students in Darwin, the rural area, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Katherine and redistributes it to remote schools. I have already instructed the Education Department to begin an Indigenous education review but we don’t think the Gonski Formula is fair to all Territory students.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30394/original/m9sp6wn4-1377911224.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The problem of addressing inequity within the NT remains serious.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rusty Stewart</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, he tacitly acknowledged that NT schools funding currently favoured urban schools over remote (Aboriginal) schools.</p>
<p>The NT public education system funds about 155 schools. There are 85 schools with an over-90% Aboriginal enrolment and a further ten with an over-80% Aboriginal enrolment. Of this 95-strong cohort, only three Aboriginal schools were over-funded under the Gonski equalisation model. That is, less than 3% of Aboriginal schools are over-funded.</p>
<p>Yet of the 65 non-Aboriginal schools in the NT, some of which may have minority Aboriginal enrolments, 41 (or 63%) are over-funded by margins at least a factor of three greater than the over-funded Aboriginal schools. This is patently unconscionable and will attract national attention.</p>
<p>So, the Northern Territory must await with trepidation the new federal government. Whichever party secures office, NT developmentalism must falter and dependence wreak its price.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>This is the second article in our State of the states series. Stay tuned for the other instalments in the lead-up to Saturday’s election.</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Part one:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-tasmania-17318">Tasmania</a></p>
<p><strong>Part three:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-western-australia-17425">Western Australia</a></p>
<p><strong>Part four:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-victoria-17346">Victoria</a></p>
<p><strong>Part five:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-south-australia-17489">South Australia</a></p>
<p><strong>Part six:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-australian-capital-territory-17633">Australian Capital Territory</a></p>
<p><strong>Part seven:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-queensland-17319">Queensland</a></p>
<p><strong>Part eight:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-new-south-wales-17348">New South Wales</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17345/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rolf Gerritsen 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>STATE OF THE STATES: a snapshot of the key issues affecting each state and territory in the lead up to Saturday’s election. The Northern Territory is, in effect, a self-governing territory of the Commonwealth…Rolf Gerritsen, Professorial Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/176392013-08-30T04:34:24Z2013-08-30T04:34:24ZElectoral promises of both parties hang on precarious PEFO forecasts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30221/original/qkscnxsw-1377760630.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C47%2C983%2C700&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The economic costings from both parties rely on wildly optimistic PEFO figures.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The economic promises of both the Coalition and the ALP rely on two “big taxes”: the mining tax and the carbon tax. </p>
<p>This week, the Coalition revealed what it believes it will save from abolishing them both; $4.7 billion from the mining tax and $7.5 billion from the carbon tax over the next four years. </p>
<p>In contrast, the Labor party would rely on revenue raised from the sale of CO<sub>2</sub> permits once it moves to an emmissions trading scheme as an important source of revenue to fund its promises, as well as the 22% mineral resource rent tax (MRRT) on iron ore and coal. </p>
<p>Just how realistic are either of these outcomes for both parties? To answer this, it is necessary to revisit the four year revenue forecasts for both taxes outlined in the <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/budget/budget-process/pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-outlook.html">Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a> (PEFO), released by Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson and Finance and Regulation Secretary David Tune in early August. </p>
<p>In fairness, the PEFO document explicitly states there is much uncertainty about these revenue forecasts, and they report some sensitivity evaluations. </p>
<p>But I would argue that the PEFO revenue forecasts and projections for the next four years are very much on the optimistic side. Lower revenue outcomes will have wildly different impacts for each party: it would add to the budget deficit bottom line for Labor and improve it for the Coalition policy package.</p>
<h2>Carbon Pricing</h2>
<p>In one of his first acts upon resuming the prime ministership in July, Kevin Rudd announced Labor would replace the current fixed price emissions tax on CO<sub>2</sub> with a variable price emissions trading scheme. Australian polluters would also have the right to purchase European tradable permits leading to a similar price for Europe. One consequence of the policy shift forecast by PEFO is a large drop in the carbon price from $24.20 to about $6 a tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> from July 2014. </p>
<p>PEFO then forecast a doubling of the carbon price to $12.50 in 2015-16 and further increases to $38 by 2019-20 (page 55). The carbon prices and expected revenue reported in PEFO are below:</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30172/original/jz7zxbbr-1377744201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sources: PEFO (2013), Table 5 for revenue and page 55 for prices.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But such rapid increases in the price of carbon, and the associated increases in government tax revenue are simply not credible.</p>
<p>The sharp fall in carbon price recognises a shift to an emissions trading scheme with an integrated European and Australian market. The larger European market largely sets the price, and Australia becomes a net purchaser of cheaper European permits to pollute.</p>
<p>Highly arguable is PEFO’s assumption that the joined European-Australian permits market will result in very sharp price increases over the next few years. </p>
<p>The high price increases are predicated on modelling reported by Treasury in its 2011 “<a href="http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/facts/white_paper/appendix/frameworks/growth/Pages/index.aspx">Strong Growth, Low Pollution</a>” report. While the model and derived prices for carbon are logical for the assumptions, the assumptions do not accord with reality. </p>
<p>The modelling assumes a target of holding the global stock of CO<sub>2</sub> to under 550 parts per million and that there is a global agreement to meet this target. Realistically, the probability of a binding global agreement in the next few years is almost zero. The assumption of a comprehensive base for pricing carbon also is unrealistic. For example, Europe places a price on less than a half of its emissions and Australia only 60%.</p>
<p>An important result of the modelling by Treasury, and as argued in the Garnaut reports of 2008 and 2011, is if one allows banking of permits to pollute over time, the price of permits will rise by about the long-term interest rate. </p>
<p>In short, the PEFO forecasts for a doubling of price from 2014-15 to 2015-16, and then a further 50% increase in the next year has to be a finance arbitrager’s easiest opportunity to become an over-night millionaire.</p>
<h2>Mining Resource Rent Tax</h2>
<p>As a tax on economic rent, revenue from the MRRT will vary widely over time and large forecast errors are inevitable. Higher revenue will be associated primarily with high prices for iron and coal. </p>
<p>Increased production also adds to revenue, but since less well-endowed mines with higher unit costs and lower economic rent come on line the MRRT revenue gains are constrained. Further, the states have first call on royalty revenues, and they have shown a willingness to increase royalty rates, with resulting less MRRT revenue in good times.</p>
<p>The table below shows the estimates provided in PEFO of MRRT revenue and the terms of trade, with prices of mining products being an important (but far from the only) driver.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30175/original/jkw88hfc-1377744318.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Source: PEFO (2013), terms of trade from Box 1, page 3, and revenue Table 5, page 13</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Current prices of coal and iron ore are still well above historical levels, at least double those of the early 2000s, but also below the peak prices around 2011, according to figures from the <a href="http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/req/req-2013-06.pdf">Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics</a>. </p>
<p>Extra production from the mining investment boom across all producers, and not just Australia, is only beginning to add to supply and push prices down to lower levels. A cyclical downturn of China and other large Asian importers, or the usual cob-web over-supply experienced with previous commodity cycles, which would push prices much lower for a period, cannot be ruled out.</p>
<p>As shown in <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013/Report/Appendix-D">Appendix D of PEFO</a>, a further fall in the terms of trade of just another four percentage points would reduce resource rent taxes revenue in the forecast years by about a half of the revenue shown in Table 2.</p>
<p>Concluding: future returns from the carbon price and MRRT will be variable, and difficult to estimate; the PEFO estimates for the next four years are optimistic, and lower returns than the PEFO projections detract from the Labor policy budget bottom line and improve for the Coalition policy package.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Freebairn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The economic promises of both the Coalition and the ALP rely on two “big taxes”: the mining tax and the carbon tax. This week, the Coalition revealed what it believes it will save from abolishing them…John Freebairn, Professor, Department of Economics , The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/175932013-08-30T04:23:07Z2013-08-30T04:23:07ZMarine parks won’t work unless fishers are on side<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30166/original/gzzwc2hy-1377743055.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By consulting more with fishers, governments can build support for conservation science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Ben Christian Photos</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last year the current government unveiled plans for the world’s largest <a href="https://theconversation.com/marine-parks-a-buffer-for-marine-species-and-the-fishing-industry-7708">network of marine parks</a> around Australia’s coast. Now the Coalition has pledged to put a pause on the plan should it form government. The Coalition will halt all plans for new protected areas, and consult further with the fishing industry.</p>
<p>After many years and many dollars spent planning Australia’s network of marine protected areas, how has it come to this? </p>
<p>Some may say that politics has reared its ugly head in the debate, and argue that we need to base our decisions firmly on ecological evidence rather than social and political concerns. But this “political interference” may be a result of a failure to adequately engage fishers and their values, aspirations and concerns in the planning process. Strengthening the process will require giving affected fishing communities more say in decision-making, not less.</p>
<p>So, what are the benefits of consulting with fishers, and how could we do it better?</p>
<p>Marine parks can have substantial <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.017">ecological benefits</a>, providing refuge for species and habitats from from destructive or extractive uses. While recreational and commercial fisheries in Australia are generally <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/no-go-scaremongers-fishing-for-funds/story-e6frg8y6-1226285537285">well managed</a>, as an activity it does carry <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054%5B0857%3ATRORFI%5D2.0.CO%3B2">some risk</a> to some species or habitats.</p>
<p>Also, while marine parks are often set up for biodiversity protection, parks can also have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.017">flow-on benefits</a> for nearby fisheries. These positive outcomes are well recognised within the scientific community and generally by fishers.</p>
<p>But commercial and recreational fishers often <a href="http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/1/6.abstract">feel strong attachment</a> to fishing, and to the familiar places they go fishing. So when they are told they can no longer fish in certain areas, fishers want to be actively included in decisions. They want to know why they need to be excluded, and what the benefits will be for them and the fish they care about.</p>
<p>There is <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/08920759809362353">ample evidence</a> (see also <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=7271804&amp;fulltextType=RA&amp;fileId=S0376892909990270">here</a>, <a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art6/">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCD-4XJ13VW-1/2/78869b7cddb23c4796e2ef99b1b6f424">here</a>) that better engagement with fishers can lead to increased support for decisions, reduced compensation claims, and better compliance with no-take areas.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when fishers feel slighted, support for marine parks can be lost. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920750490276236#.Uh6uDWTk87Q">Public opposition</a> can result in significant delays for new policies as people protest about the changes. Opposition can result in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569199000629">changes</a> to plans that may reduce their initial effectiveness, <a href="http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/brown_bag_sessions/2005/documents/Anglers_attitudes_Salz_2005.pdf">decrease compliance</a>, and reduce public support for management agencies.</p>
<p>In New South Wales, shortly after winning government, the Coalition reversed the former Labor government’s expansion of marine park protections in response to lobbying by the fishing industry. This included revising the protection of some shark species. </p>
<p>Now we face the real possibility that something similar might happen on the national scale. The fact that fishers keep bringing their concerns to the political arena suggests something is missing.</p>
<p>Engaging fishers is about more than consulting people through public meetings and written submissions. It means collecting and providing scientific information about the social, economic, and ecological costs and benefits of planned marine parks. It would ideally involve fishers in collecting that information so that it is trusted and accepted. </p>
<p>Planning would then allow people to have input into final decisions on marine parks; their placement and the rules surrounding them. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18325043">Such a process</a> would encourage ownership, trust, and collaboration, compliance and stewardship, and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VG5-445G7JB-4/2/5a5bb12d299ad39861571cd41c77989a">reduce the impacts</a> of marine parks on affected fishers.</p>
<p>In a democratic society, people have a right to have a say about decisions that affect them, including decisions about access to the natural environment. Fishers will always have the option of taking their concerns to the political arena if they feel the planning process has not addressed their needs or concerns. </p>
<p>When that happens, decisions are made for political reasons, and scientific information is often ignored. Meaningful engagement is needed to reduce the likelihood that fishers take their concerns into the political arena.</p>
<p>There is no one-size-fits-all approach to engaging fishers in marine conservation and marine protected area planning. Proponents of marine parks must be prepared to design engagement programs that fit the situation at hand and give fishers genuine input into decisions that affect them. </p>
<p>Will this mean that we might have to compromise on our ecological objectives at times? Maybe. But that would be better than having decisions made at the political level, where conservation objectives take a back seat to political lobbying and vote grabbing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renae Tobin receives funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the National Environmental Research Program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Sutton has received funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. </span></em></p>Last year the current government unveiled plans for the world’s largest network of marine parks around Australia’s coast. Now the Coalition has pledged to put a pause on the plan should it form government…Renae Tobin, Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook UniversityStephen Sutton, Principal Research Fellow in the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries , James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/174982013-08-27T20:28:31Z2013-08-27T20:28:31ZCoalition’s carbon policy based on failed Labor scheme<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29992/original/2s2x44xb-1377581294.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government and the Coalition both want to manage land to reduce greenhouse emissions. But it's not working.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Indigo Skies Photography</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia’s two major parties have promised to reduce the country’s emissions by 5% by 2020, with two different approaches. Labor has used carbon farming as part of its approach; the Coalition is making it a centrepiece. But analysis of Labor’s approach shows it is likely to fail, whoever pursues it.</p>
<p>The Coalition has promised to tackle carbon emissions through Direct Action, and without a price on carbon or an emissions trading scheme. The plan hinges on reducing emissions at the <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/abf7f66f/521_public_seminar_hunt_speech_outline_130716.pdf">lowest cost</a>, which may include managing soils, forests and farming, energy efficiency, carbon sequestration or cleaning up power stations. </p>
<p>Direct Action <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_CoalitionClimatePolicyandtheNationalClimateInterest_15August2013.pdf">will use and expand</a> the current government’s Carbon Farming Initiative to achieve these emissions cuts, using the initiative as a platform to deliver an Emissions Reductions Fund. </p>
<p>But the initiative hasn’t come under scrutiny in its current role, let alone as a centrepiece for delivering Australia’s climate commitments. So, what is the Carbon Farming Initiative, and is it ready to take a starring role? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative">The Carbon Farming Initiative</a> is the first national offset scheme in the world to include carbon credits derived broadly from natural resource management. It includes avoiding greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and nitrous oxides from managing livestock, crops and savanna burning, and sequestering carbon from reforestation and avoided deforestation.</p>
<p>It also includes planting trees to encourage carbon sequestration. At a landscape scale the scheme could transform regional Australia and provide major <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-farming-could-restore-australias-southern-coastal-wetlands-13521">biodiversity</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/biodiversity-and-farming-finding-ways-to-co-exist-6331">conservation</a> benefits. </p>
<p>Farmers and foresters generate carbon credits for emissions reductions. Polluters can then buy these credits, known as <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ANREU/Concise-description-of-units/Australian-carbon-credit-units/Pages/default.aspx">Australian Carbon Credit Units</a>. Presumably, the Coalition would purchase these credits under Direct Action. </p>
<p>That’s how it’s meant to work. Let’s have a look at whether it’s actually working. </p>
<p>The success of carbon farming depends on uptake. <a href="http://carbonpricemodelling.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/report.asp">Treasury</a> provides two scenarios for uptake of carbon farming based on two global action scenarios. The first is based on medium global action for stabilising greenhouse gases at 550 parts per million by 2100. The second is an ambitious global action scenario aiming to stabilise at 450 parts per million. The ambitious scenario is what Australia, and the world, agreed at Copenhagen in 2009 would avoid dangerous climate change.</p>
<p>Under the medium ambition scenario Treasury projected the carbon price to start at around A$23 per tonne in 2012-2013, with carbon farming delivering 6 Mt CO2-e (carbon dioxide equivalent, which allows us to account for other greenhouse gases). </p>
<p>The ambitious scenario fetches a carbon price starting at A$47 per tonne with 9 Mt CO2-e delivered by the land. Avoiding deforestation and reforestation makes up about two thirds of land sector abatement in both cases.</p>
<p>Carbon farming has now been running for nearly two years. What has it delivered? The answer is astonishing: virtually nothing. </p>
<p>Around <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Farming-Initiative/Register-of-Offsets-Projects/Pages/default.aspx">46,000 carbon units</a> (each equivalent to a tonne of CO2-e) have been issued. This covers a little less than 1% of reductions needed for the year 2012-2013 under a medium ambition scenario, and about 0.5% of the ambitious scenario. </p>
<p>Why has carbon farming failed to achieve anything? One of the main reasons for this situation is that it’s not cheap to create offsets. In fact the idea that the land sector can provide low cost abatement is a bit of a furphy. </p>
<p>Under carbon farming, offsets are generated by developing a baseline level of emissions and crediting reductions from the baseline. The process is complex. Steps include:</p>
<ul>
<li>becoming a recognised offset entity</li>
<li>opening a registry account</li>
<li>undertaking a project according to approved methodologies</li>
<li>submitting regular audit reports</li>
<li>applying for carbon credits and having them issued.</li>
</ul>
<p>Rigorous “integrity standards” are required including permanence obligations, which guarantee sequestration of greenhouse gases for 100 years. Australia is one of the few in the world to have such a stringent rule and it is one of the major obstacles to investment. Others use tried and true risk-based approaches such as insurance, which allow for shorter contracts. </p>
<p>Also, carbon credits are considered financial instruments. This triggers policy frameworks established Australia’s Corporations Act and other legislation. </p>
<p>Even before you step on the carbon farming treadmill there are costs associated with registering legal rights to carbon. In Queensland, for instance, you need to contract a surveyor to map and register one stand of forest. This might cost in the order of A$500-$10,000 or more depending on the complexity of the forest stand and whether you are registering the whole property or not. </p>
<p>At year three after planting (based on the wet tropics forests which have high sequestration rates) you might have sequestered 10 tonnes of CO2-e per hectare. Your cumulative return might be in the order of A$230 (or about A$76 per year) per hectare. This return would not cover the costs of registering legal rights to the carbon, let alone the cost of survey and plan preparation or the costs of establishing the forest. </p>
<p>If it is high-environmental-value forest, surveying and planning might be in the order of <a href="http://www.academia.edu/1450004/Comparing_above-ground_biomass_among_forest_types_in_the_Wet_Tropics_Small_stems_and_plantation_types_matter_in_carbon_accounting">A$25,000 to A$67,000</a> per hectare.</p>
<p>With the government bringing forward a floating carbon price that links the European Union’s carbon price, currently at around A$6, you can expect enough from carbon farming for lunch (one good lunch, or three sandwiches).</p>
<p>Ultimately to invest in carbon farming requires two things: an ambitious global action agenda, and certainty of the investment environment for decades. Both the government and Coalition have committed to a 5% reduction of greenhouse emissions below 2000 levels by 2020. This correlates more or less to the medium ambition scenario (and an acceptance of dangerous climate change). </p>
<p>Certainty might be guaranteed under an emissions trading scheme that has global links in a world of high ambition. Under the Direct Action policy, however, the first round of money to purchase lowest cost abatement would be July 2014. And this would be a year before the policy would <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/10/policy-politics/direct-action-under-review-it-gets-started">up for review</a>. </p>
<p>Given this, the chances of carbon farming delivering effective abatement from the land might be about zero.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17498/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penny van Oosterzee is a director of a company that receives funding from the Biodiversity Fund for a rainforest restoration project.</span></em></p>Australia’s two major parties have promised to reduce the country’s emissions by 5% by 2020, with two different approaches. Labor has used carbon farming as part of its approach; the Coalition is making…Penny van Oosterzee, Senior Research Adjunct , James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/174442013-08-26T20:21:21Z2013-08-26T20:21:21ZCoalition, Labor, Greens … seeking a workable research policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29929/original/p7wvqwnt-1377496070.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research and development election policies are a bit thin on the ground at the moment.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Science in Public, Paul Phillipson</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Building the knowledge economy and a national innovation system should be a priority in the upcoming election but, as of today, only the Greens have released a dedicated <a href="http://greens.org.au/cutting-edge-economy">research and development policy</a>.</p>
<p>The policy covers a range of important issues - and, interestingly, it builds upon fragile earlier initiatives from both sides of politics and adds a few new ideas as well.</p>
<p>You may have forgotten the earlier reviews and initiatives that both the Coalition and Labor provided - but think back a few years. </p>
<p>In 1999 - John Howard’s time - the <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/node/1711">Wills’ Review into Medical Research</a> recommended considerable investment. Then-health minister Tony Abbott was active: Australia’s medical research institutes and universities stepped up and the research sector blossomed. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backing_Australia's_Ability">Backing Australia’s Ability</a> reports, the Major National Research Facilities scheme and later the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (<a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/ResearchInfrastructure/Pages/NCRIS.aspx">NCRIS</a>) covered research infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Higher Education Endowment Fund (<a href="http://www.futurefund.gov.au/about_the_future_fund/outline">HEEF</a>) allowed the building of new facilities at universities.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29898/original/47f6ypd7-1377483509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A blast from the past: in 2007, then-prime minister John Howard and health minister Tony Abbott visited St George Private Hospital in Sydney to announce a new nurse training policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2007, when Labor won the election, the new minister for innovation Kim Carr made a major contribution to research support in Australia. He emphasised the importance of the Australian Research Council (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">ARC</a>), maintained funding for NCRIS and introduced the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/ssf/ssf_default.htm">Super Science</a> money. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovation/policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx">Cutler Review of Innovation</a> in 2008 concluded that cross-subsidising research via teaching was unsustainable and the <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/RESEARCH/RESEARCHBLOCKGRANTS/Pages/SustainableResearchExcellence.aspx">Sustainable Research Excellence scheme</a> was born. </p>
<p>Howard’s Federation Fellowships became the Laureate Fellowships, new Future Fellowships and PhD scholarships were introduced, and the HEEF scheme became the <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/Funding/EducationInvestmentFund/Pages/default.aspx">Education Infrastructure Fund</a>. </p>
<p>New buildings popped up and we continued to sail into the Asian Century – with our education system contributing to the economy and to soft diplomacy as international students and researchers came our way.</p>
<p>Then suddenly all momentum was lost. Beginning with the the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (<a href="http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2012/099.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0">MYEFO</a>) cuts and then the new tertiary education minister Craig Emerson’s odd <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-cuts-help-pay-for-gonski-school-reforms-13471">decision</a> to fund high schools by cutting universities, the knowledge economy that had started was now suddenly stopping.</p>
<h2>Consistency is key</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29891/original/zrmgdp5x-1377482645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greens leader Christine Milne addresses the campaign launch in Canberra on Saturday.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Andrew Taylor</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first part of the Greens’ policy is designed to put an end to this type of start-stop funding. It argues that we simply have to agree that the knowledge economy requires stable investment. The Greens aim for 3% of gross domestic product, up from the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2013/05/australia-india-task-force-report-launch/">current level of 2.2%</a>.</p>
<p>But the amount is less important than the recognition that a stable foundation is indispensable. </p>
<p>If we can move from sporadic election Christmas lists that depend on the personality and vision of individual ministers to an agreed proportion of reinvestment in innovation then Australia will be well placed for the future.</p>
<p>Other parts of the Greens’ document also speak to stability. The Future Fellowships scheme will be sustained by A$33m per year, the Sustainable Research Excellence scheme will be restored by an injection of A$342m, and NCRIS will continue under a A$230m National Infrastructure Facilities Council. </p>
<p>In addition to this there would be an extra A$250m or 10% for both the ARC and the National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">NHMRC</a>).</p>
<p>The restoration doesn’t stop there. There is also talk of international collaborative grants. Australia has had a number of formal schemes to support international collaborations, but one key scheme ended in 2011 and currently there are only grants available for work with China and India. </p>
<p>The Greens have noted <a href="http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/public-submissions/australian-academy-of-science.pdf">Australian Academy of Science advice</a> and recommend investment of A$49m to maintain the links to Asia but also to introduce broader international grants for mid-career researchers, and for research with companies overseas.</p>
<h2>Efficiencies</h2>
<p>The major parties have <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/07/08/coalitions-policy-boost-productivity-and-reduce-regulation">talked</a> about <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/policy_announcements">cutting red tape</a> and the Greens also intend to reduce the administrative burden. They have several proposals such as moving towards five-year rather than three-year grants and supporting investigators with proven capacity with easily renewable funding. </p>
<p>The details of how this is done are important but it could work. If it did, it would not necessarily cost a great deal, and the pay back in terms of efficiency at the coal face could be remarkable.</p>
<p>The Greens also have another idea for cutting red tape. While the Coalition has focused on <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/protect-and-streamline-health-and-medical-research-funding">medical research</a> and Kim Carr emphasised the ARC, the Greens’ policy considers both – and there could be efficiencies here. </p>
<p>In particular, there is a plan to put A$141m towards the indirect costs of medical research. The idea seems to be to move towards a system where the indirect costs of research are supported uniformly whether the work is done at a university, medical research institute or hospital. Sorting this out and generally aligning the NHMRC and ARC where possible is something worth thinking about.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29901/original/qgpt4mq2-1377484329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Minister for innovation Kim Carr and prime minister Kevin Rudd visit an anechoic chamber at Macquarie University earlier this month.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Translation of research</h2>
<p>Recently Labor announced the McKeon Research Package that would include A$125m of public funding to <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/mckeon_research_package">support the translation of research</a> and the Coalition has also made a commitment to <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/HealthAndMedicalResearchFunding.pdf">streamline clinical trials</a>.</p>
<p>The Greens have incorporated two translational research proposals to support translation to the clinic - a Matching Development Grant Scheme of A$30m and a translational biotech fund of A$10m as recommended by the <a href="http://www.mckeonreview.org.au/">McKeon Review</a>.</p>
<h2>Broad support</h2>
<p>The Greens also have two distinctly new proposals. One is a fund to support women in research. New efforts in this area could be very beneficial. </p>
<p>The other initiative is to support <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-open-access-and-why-should-we-care-11608">open access publishing</a>. The open access movement is gathering momentum but the money for disseminating research has to come from somewhere. </p>
<p>The Greens idea of supporting open access publishing is reminiscent of the UK foundation <a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/about-us/policy/spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guides/wtx036803.htm">Wellcome Trust’s support</a> and may represent a new policy that may also have significant effects in the future.</p>
<p>The Greens have obviously been reading the major reviews of the innovation and education systems, and listening to academics, and they plan to bolster the foundations and restore the momentum that was established before the global financial crisis and the obsession with Australia’s modest deficit slowed things down. </p>
<p>Their vision is clear but how will they pay for it? Apparently by removing the concession on fossil fuels enjoyed by the mining sector.</p>
<p>The intended and unintended consequences of this are beyond my expertise so I will have to leave it to others to tell me whether this plan is feasible.</p>
<p>Although the Greens are unlikely to win the election it looks like they could contribute in another important way - by lifting research and innovation up the agenda and possibly influencing the policies of the major parties.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merlin Crossley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>Building the knowledge economy and a national innovation system should be a priority in the upcoming election but, as of today, only the Greens have released a dedicated research and development policy…Merlin Crossley, Dean of Science and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.