Can Citizen Assemblies save democracy? Peter G. Martin Global wealth inequality is accelerating at alarming rates, driving a political ferment that many consider underlies the…
Recommended paper: Funding of the energy transition by monetary sovereign countries: Energies Mark Diesendorf and Steven Hail Abstract of paper: If global energy consumption returns…
“So why is it receiving so little attention? Perhaps it is because everyone has decided this is the ‘cost of living election’,” said Stephen Long, Senior Fellow and Contributing Editor at The Australia Institute.
“Fair call – but the reporting, commentary, and much of the campaign rhetoric largely ignores the significant role climate change plays in driving up prices.”
Rival claims of misleading advertising from both sides of politics are the inevitable consequence of the absence of Truth in Political Advertising laws.
Almost 9 out of 10 Australians (89%) support Truth in Political Advertising laws, according to research from the Australia Institute.
It’s far from an outlandish idea. In fact South Australia has had truth in political advertising laws for almost forty years. The ACT has had similar laws since 2020. They work.
If the Government and Parliament are serious about addressing misinformation and improving debate, they could pass truth in political ad laws in time for the next election.
2. Reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount
The combination of these tax concessions for housing investors has inflated house prices well beyond incomes and made it harder for people to buy a home to live in.
Reforming these two would rebalance the housing market by reducing demand from investors and make it easier for first time buyers.
These two tax concessions are also enormously skewed towards the wealthiest Australians: the richest 10% reap more than half of the benefits.
I’ve decided that it no longer makes sense to call myself “pro-life.”
This isn’t because I changed my mind about abortion. Becoming a father only intensified my belief that parents’ obligation to protect and provide for their children begins morally, and should begin legally, at conception.
But that’s no longer what the label “pro-life” means.
Spend long enough defending your “pro-life” beliefs, and you’ll eventually hear that you’re not really pro-life unless you support bike lanes, corn subsidies, and a return to the gold standard.
I exaggerate, but only slightly. Here’s a partial list of things you can’t support if you want to hold onto your “pro-life” card (according to people I’ve encountered on the internet):
Richard Barnard, Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley and Richard Medhurst. These are some of the canaries in the coal mine for what is to come in the West as the region’s elite quickly becomes Israel’s international police. Medhurst joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report to talk about his own experiences in the United Kingdom and Austria, where federal agents and police arrested him and searched his home under draconian counterterrorism laws.
“I was just trying to tell the truth as best as I could with the facts that we had at that time and that's it. And I think they're trying to make an example out of me, definitely,” Medhurst tells Hedges.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton constantly talk about governing ‘for all Australians’, trotting out slogans like ‘no-one left behind’.
The truth is, hundreds of thousands of Australians are falling further behind every day and neither leader seems to care.
Growing inequality is having a huge impact on children and older people.
The Australian Council of Social Service notes that one in eight (13.4%) live in poverty. This includes 761,000 children. We know that being in poverty as a child has lifelong impacts, even if the child is later lifted out of poverty.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Australia is a rich country.
Australia Institute research showed that the COVID supplement, a $550 per fortnight payment to welfare recipients, lifted 650,000 people out of poverty, including 120,000 children.
This shows that poverty is a policy choice. If governments choose to, they could end child poverty and ensure that all older people have a dignified retirement.
Rather than tackle inequality, tax concessions and other tax loopholes are making it worse. Tax concessions worth tens of billions of dollars per year go overwhelmingly to the rich, while those who need government support the most are told that increases to welfare payments are unaffordable.
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
The drilling is part of gas exploration program by US oil and gas corporation ConocoPhillips in a sensitive marine environment off the west coast of Victoria and north west coast of Tasmania.
An oil spill could have devastating consequences for the marine environment and coastal communities in Victoria and Tasmania.
The drilling is unnecessary.
Key points:
More than two-thirds of Australia’s east coast gas is exported.
Around 100 PJ (which is more gas than Victoria, NSW, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland use for electricity) is uncontracted gas, being exported to the lucrative global spot market ahead of supplying Australians.
Gas exporters use more gas just running their export terminals than Australians use for electricity, manufacturing or in households.
Any additional gas supplied to eastern Australia from this project will simply allow an equivalent amount of gas from other gas fields to be exported.
Potential peak demand shortfalls in Victoria can be solved by electrification and pipeline upgrades.
Australia gets little out of gas exports. None of the giant, predominantly foreign-owned, projects exporting gas from eastern Australia have ever paid corporate tax and do not pay resources tax.
“This dangerous oil and gas project is completely unnecessary. Australia doesn’t have a gas shortage. We have a gas export problem,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.
Toward sustainable economies Anastasia Pseiridis Creating economies that do not devastate the natural world on which they depend is the economic challenge of the 21st…
The careful deliberation would pay off: despite the slow start, the Gillard minority government would go on to pass legislation at a higher daily rate than any other Australian government.
17 days is far from the longest wait: after the 1922 election, it took 53 days of negotiations for the Nationalist and Country parties to agree to form coalition government.
In fact, a wait of a couple of weeks or more is typical even in modern times.
The Australia Institute has compiled details of the 25 power sharing parliaments elected since 1989 at the federal, state and territory levels.
Most negotiations took 15 days or more. Last year, the Tasmanian Liberal Government took 32 days to strike an agreement with independents.
Australia’s post-election negotiations are short compared to many other countries. While Gillard and Abbott were negotiating back in 2010, Belgium was on its third month of a record 541 days of government negotiations. This is unusually long, but months-long government formations are the norm in many developed countries.
The last Spanish government negotiations took almost four months.
In this new Australia Institute podcast, Walkley Awar-winning broadcaster and host Paul Barclay asks contributors to the book What’s the Big Idea? about their big picture thinking on how we can change Australia for the better.
Featuring interviews with Dr Richard Denniss, Louise Adler, Bob Brown and more.
As election day approaches, former Fairfax Chief Political Correspondent Professor Mark Kenny joins Glenn Connley to discuss the performances of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton on the campaign trail, plus Australians’ response to Trump’s return, on this episode of Follow the Money.
This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 29 April 2025 and things may have changed.
Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.
Guest: Mark Kenny, Professor of Australian Studies and host of Democracy Sausage, the Australian National University // @markgkenny
Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley
A new Discussion Paper by The Australia Institute concludes it’s time for a major shake-up in the way they are run.
Australian universities are overseen by Vice-Chancellors who are paid vast sums of money, yet they are presiding over a sector which is failing staff, students and the broader community.
For example, degrees in areas like Law, Society and Culture are 700% more expensive than they were in 1990 (the year after the HECS/HELP scheme was introduced), while staff-to-student ratios have gone from 1-to13 in 1990 to more than 1-to-22 today.
Professor John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland, suggests seven key reforms:
During this election campaign, both major parties have tried to make it very clear that concerned about our spending on defence.
Over the past term, the Labor Government increased funding by $50 billion, increasing total spending to 2% of GDP. It is forecast to continue to grow to 2.3% of GDP by the mid-2030s. The Coalition thinks that is not enough, and has promised to increase it to 2.5% of GDP in 5 years and 3% in 10 years.
With all this concern about defence spending, you would think Australia was either at risk of imminent invasion or was spending far less than our peers. But the evidence shows that neither of these is true.
Australia has an outsized spending on defence. In dollar terms, Australia is the 12th biggest spender on defence. We spend more dollars on defence than Canada, Israel, Spain, or the Netherlands.
If we look at the top 20 biggest spenders on defence as a percentage of GDP, Australia still ranks 12th. This puts us ahead of China, Italy, Germany, and Japan.
Were Australia to increase its defence spending to 2.3% of GDP, we would be the ninth biggest spender on defence and the military. Australia would be devoting more of its economy to defence than France and Taiwan, and on a par with the United Kingdom. If Australia went to 3% of GDP, as the Coalition has promised, we would pass India, South Korea, and be closing in on the United States.
Do we really believe as a nation that our security needs are more urgent than South Korea, a country that is still at war with North Korea?
Australia is a rich country that can afford anything that is a priority. Dispelling myths about our economy helps Australians make choices about what kind of country we want to be.
On this episode, Dr Richard Denniss joins Paul Barclay to discuss the importance of truth in democracy, the myths that mining is Australia’s economic ‘backbone’ and that Australia can’t ‘afford’ nice things, and how making you feel powerless is part of the strategy of the powerful.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 30 January 2025 and things may have changed since the recording.
Getting a university education in Australia has gone from being a modest expense to something that is now much more costly than was envisioned when HECS was introduced in 1989. Fees for degrees such as Law and Society and Culture are over 700% higher than they were in 1990 – far more expensive than if fees had risen with inflation.
While you might expect to get a better education for more money, that isn’t the case. Across the sector, staff-student ratios – a key measure of quality – have gone from under 1:13 in 1990 to over 1:22 today – a 42% decrease in the number of academic staff per student.
The changes that started the upwards trajectory of university fees were justified in part by the idea that teaching costs were increasing. Since then, the actual number of staff that universities employ to teach students has shrunk.
Under the original 1989 HECS system, student contributions were modest: only $1,800 per year, no matter what the student was studying. These contributions increased annually in line with rising costs for the university. The system was partially deregulated in 1996 by the Howard Government and different courses were priced differently, a decision justified on the basis of:
What is this thing called “merit”? And what role did it play during the recent but hopefully bygone age of elite college dominance, runaway financialization, and the rise of competitive blame-shifting? This is the puzzle proffered by Nicholas Lemann in his 1999 book The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy: Why should competition for slots at a tiny number of selective colleges play a substantial role in how young people come to fill lucrative private sector jobs?
The American meritocracy was created in the mid-20th century by academic administrators such as war gas chemist and sometime Harvard President James Conant not to staff Wall Street but to find the best and the brightest to fill vital government and scientific positions.
We can think about how merit selection can and should work for these few and demanding positions by riffing on the 1943 Warner Brothers propaganda short The Rear Gunner. The small and folksy Burgess Meredith was the star, while the tall, slim, and handsome Ronald Reagan was in a supporting role.
With the federal election just days away, Everybody’s Home is calling on the next government to make a huge investment in public and community housing, as a new report underscores the stark reality of the housing crisis.
No rentals (0%) affordable for a person on Youth Allowance
Three rentals (0%) affordable for a person on Jobseeker
28 rentals (0.1%) affordable for a person on the Disability Support Pension
165 rentals (0.3%) affordable for a person on the Age Pension.
Everybody’s Home spokesperson Maiy Azize said the housing crisis won’t end without a huge investment in social housing.
“The housing crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing Australians today and will be front of mind for many as they cast their votes this week,” Ms Azize said.
“People want an end to soaring rents, poor rental standards, and insecure housing. They want relief from housing stress and the constant threat of homelessness.
In March 2020, the world shut down, and many workers were afforded a privilege they’d never had before. Like the CEOs who’ve since ginned up panic over “productivity” concerns, they began working from home. And wouldn’t you know it? An analysis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “remote work substantially contributed to productivity growth during the pandemic.”
Forbes reported in 2022 that a survey of over 12,000 workers found that those who worked from home were “20% happier on average than those who didn’t have the ability to work from home.”
If the current election campaign feels long and sluggish, that may be because there have been few meaningful announcements.
The 2025 election campaign is scheduled to run for 37 days. This makes it roughly average for campaigns over the past thirty years.
However, public holidays and long weekends can shape campaign behaviour and impact voter engagement. The 2019, 2022 and 2025 elections all coincided with the Easter long weekend as well as ANZAC Day. (No federal elections from 1996 to 2016 coincided with a nationwide long weekend or public holiday.)
Public holiday dates over the Easter long weekend vary from one state to another, but as political scientists have shown, the four-day interruption to the campaign sees lower public interest, reduced media coverage and the voluntary suspension of some campaign activity.
With public holidays and long weekends excluded, 2025 is the shortest campaign of the past thirty years at just 32 days of proper campaigning. That includes polling day. It also includes the 22 April 2025, a day on which the major parties suspended their campaigns as a sign of respect for the late Pope Francis.
On Sunday in Hobart over 6,000 people protested against the harmful practices of foreign owned salmon industry in Tasmania. The Australia Institute’s Tasmanian director, Eloise Carr, spoke to rally participants about recent changes to national nature laws and how the Institute has raised this issue with the UN.
Seventeen civil society organisations have written to UNESCO and the IUCN asking for World Heritage Centre officials to visit Tasmania to assess the damage the salmon industry is doing to Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area. This would be a huge international embarrassment, but it needs to happen. Macquarie Harbour and the endangered Maugean Skate are running out of time and options.
The Australian government has weakened the nation’s environmental laws for its own cheap, domestic political purposes. It was rushed, mismanaged, completely devoid of scrutiny, and rammed through parliament in the dead of night, with the support of the opposition, while Members of Parliament were focused on the federal budget.
The world is watching in horror as the Australian government puts World Heritage wilderness and a globally renowned native species – also recognised for its World Heritage value – at risk of extinction. It is shameful, and the world must hold the Australian government to account.
It is yet to hold a public hearing. Its decision regarding the Robodebt referrals was subject to adverse findings. And its findings so far have been limited.
Reform is needed if the NACC is to win the confidence of the Australian people.
It comes as new polling research from The Australia Institute, undertaken in collaboration with the Human Rights Law Centre and Whistleblower Justice Fund, finds Australians overwhelmingly support a Whistleblower Protection Authority.
However, it is likely that those voters’ stories are being told by journalists who cannot relate to the struggles of Australians living in the commuter belt.
New analysis by The Australia Institute reveals that more than half of Australia’s eight and a half thousand journalists live in electorates classified by the Australian Electoral Commission as “inner metropolitan”.
The report, Where Do Journalists Live?, concludes that Australia’s news media – which has already seen a sharp decline in local outlets – is not well placed to cover an election that is likely to be decided in key battleground seats where so few of its journalists reside.
During my time at Southern Methodist University, I had the privilege of studying under Herbert Simon, the polymath whose work on decision theory shaped Cold War strategic thinking. Simon critiqued idealized rational actor models and emphasized prudence over ideology. That education remains urgently relevant today as voices in Washington and Jerusalem renew calls to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
From a realist perspective—one grounded in Cold War logic and decision-theoretic caution—a military strike would be not just unnecessary but destabilizing. A restrained acceptance of a limited Iranian nuclear capability could, paradoxically, enhance long-term regional stability and better serve the security interests of both the United States and Israel.
Realism begins with the sober recognition that the international system is anarchic, and states act to ensure their survival. Power matters, but so does restraint. As John Mearsheimer argues, states pursue advantage not from moral aspiration but from cold cost-benefit analysis. Unlike liberal internationalists or neoconservatives who cloak intervention in moralism, realists ask: Will this war enhance stability? Can this adversary be deterred?
With the 2025 federal election fast approaching, there have been many discussions around campaign promises and how either party plans to invest in Australia’s future.
Much of the focus has been on housing and the cost of living. And while these are undoubtably important talking points, this election presents an opportunity to highlight a sector in the Australian economy that is often overlooked.
With an aging and expanding population, our Care Economy requires meaningful and consistent attention on a national level.
Like with the Future Made in Australia initiatives, where greater investments in manufacturing, renewable energy, and education will future-proof the careers of thousands of Australians and the economy, so too would investments in aged-care and early childhood care and education.
On this episode of After America, Dr Prudence Flowers joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the Trump administration’s attempts to ‘re-masculinise’ the American economy through tariffs, its efforts to undermine trans and reproductive rights, and how culture wars are playing out in Australian politics.
1800RESPECT is the national domestic, family and sexual violence counselling, information and support service. Call 1800 737 732, text 0458 737 732, chat online or video call via their website.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 17 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.
Guest: Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, Flinders University // @FlowersPGF
Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis
The environment doesn’t care who’s in government — but Australians should. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate and biodiversity collapse, the next parliament has a clear path forward.
Here are five urgent, evidence-based actions ready to go.
No new fossil fuel projects
Australia’s fossil fuel projects are already contributing to climate change. New projects will add to the impact.
Every new fossil fuel project locks in emissions for decades. Every year we delay deeper cuts, we shrink our chances of a liveable future.
Australian governments continue to approve coal and gas developments, and there are around 100 more ‘under development’ according to government sources.
Equality is a holistic goal. Inequality affects, and is affected by, so many overlapping areas of life that understanding it requires knowledge from every part of life. That’s why we’re launching a series of videocasts with guest experts, thinkers, and activists from across the equality movement to explore their perspective on inequality in greater detail. […]
The research, supported by the Human Rights Law Centre and Whistleblower Justice Fund, shows support is consistently high across all voting intentions, including Labor, Coalition, Greens, and One Nation.
Public support for protecting whistleblowers has surged by 12% in under two years.
The spike in support has been recorded just one year after the imprisonment of military whistleblower David McBride and amid the ongoing prosecution of tax office whistleblower Richard Boyle. The polling research also reveals that the majority of Australians believe these prosecutions should be dropped.
Despite strong, widespread and increasing public support for stronger whistleblower protections from voters, both major parties have failed to make commitments for reform ahead of the May 3 Federal Election.
In February 2025, the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill was introduced to Parliament by Senator David Pocock, Senator Jacqui Lambie, Dr Helen Haines MP, and Andrew Wilkie MP.
This anti-corruption legislation would provide protections to whistleblowers and aid government agencies in combating corruption. The polling research reveals that 84% of Australians support the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority.
“In Australia, whistleblowers exposing alleged war crimes or unfair treatment of small businesses face years of jail time,” said Bill Browne, Democracy & Accountability Director at The Australia Institute.
Australia exported more thermal coal in the last quarter of 2024 than it ever has before. (See chart below)
Just last week, Santos’ Barossa gas project was approved, despite it being the most emissions-intensive gas export project in Australia and possibly the world.
Meanwhile, the Minister is yet to make a decision on Woodside’s proposed North West Shelf gas expansion, which would have devastating consequences for the environment and the Murujuga Rock Art.
“This record expansion of fossil fuels has been facilitated by an ALP government that was elected to take action on climate change – not accelerate it,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.
“Australia needs fewer coal and gas mines, not more.
“Today’s proposal from the Greens to prevent new fossil fuel projects demonstrates how the next Parliament could act immediately.
“No new laws are needed. The Minister has the power to stop new fossil fuel projects right now.”
Australia Institute research shows coal and gas emissions are still rising, wiping out progress from renewables. Any further approvals will lock in climate damage for decades.
This was the lowest for a winning candidate in 2022, closely followed by the winning candidate in Nicholls, National MP Sam Birrell, who won with 26% of the primary vote.
In Groom, independent Suzie Holt received 8% of the vote on first preferences, putting her in fourth. She finished in second place with 43% after leapfrogging One Nation and Labor on preferences.
The only candidate to win from third place in 2022 was the Greens’ Stephen Bates in Brisbane.
It is relatively recent that Independents and minor parties benefited most from Australia’s voting system.
Until the 1980s, it was the Coalition who mainly benefited from preferential voting. From 1949 to 1987 Coalition candidates won 106 races where they were behind on first preferences, with Labor taking only seven.
The lowest ever primary vote for a winning candidate in a federal election was received by the National (then Country) party’s Arthur Hewson in 1972, who won McMillan from third place with just 17%. Preferences from independent, Democratic Labour Party, and Liberal voters allowed him to beat Labor on the final count with 52%.
FPM Media Report 26.04.2025 IN POLL SHADOW, RYAN’S FIRMLY A ZIONIST https://todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au/html5/reader/production/default.aspx Mohammad Alfares – Alexi Demetriadi Kooyong MP Monique Ryan has declared she’s a supporter of Zionism and conceded that she made “mistakes” after October 7, having previously backed an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and voiced support for the United […]
Anti-Semitism isn’t a party matter, Mark Dreyfus https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/antisemitism-isnt-a-party-matter-mark-dreyfus/news-story/ff3646bc82631c9dbeae8f70fee39ad8 Until recently I was convinced that Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus had no sense of humour. Zero, zip, zilch. How wrong I was. In my defence, the priggish Dreyfus had given every impression he is devoid of humour. It was, I had thought, a perception reinforced beyond doubt in […]
