Incoming Feed Items

The Opposition Leader can’t tell you yet what the Liberals would do on housing or cost of living, or energy or climate, or how they would tackle the disruption tsunami from AI, or how they would position Australia in the shifting geopolitical space – that’s all “under review”.

But she can tell you that whenever the Coalition next wins government – at best a prospect for 2031, assuming the Coalition as we know it still exists then – it will “un-recognise Palestine”.

So the first policy priority for a future Coalition government would be going through the process of un-recognising a nation’s statehood in at least six years’ time, and this is something everyone is supposed to treat very seriously.

Yet it made headlines across Australia. Why? What does it possibly matter what the Coalition claims it would do in the 2030s? What is the rationality for thinking this is remotely serious, or even remotely possible?

Sure, it signals the Coalition has not shifted one iota on recognising a genocide, but we knew that. And a serious opposition would not pretend it has any role here other than to say what it supports or doesn’t support.

Pretending that there is any reality in which a government in the 2030s sticks to a commitment made in 2025 based entirely on emotion and political expediency is the epitome of delusion.

We are pleased to announce that nominations are now open for the 2025 Australian International Political Economy Network (AIPEN) Richard Higgott Journal Article Prize. The prize is awarded annually for the best article published in the broad field of International Political Economy (IPE) by an Australia-based academic.

The prize will be awarded to the best article published in IPE as deemed by a selection committee of IPE scholars. The award will be given to any article in IPE, understood in a pluralist sense to include the political economy of security, geography, literature, sociology, anthropology, post-coloniality, gender, finance, trade, regional studies, development and economic theory, in ways that can span concerns for in/security, poverty, inequality, sustainability, exploitation, deprivation and discrimination.

The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail is one of the most interesting and controversial novels of the 20th century. Which is why it’s good news that Vauban Books, a small publishing house, is coming out with a new edition, complete with a fresh translation by scholar Ethan Rundell. English-language copies of the book, first published in the U.S. in 1975, have been passed around like samizdat. The Camp of the Saints became popular again in the 2010s, but the rightsholders refused to reprint it until Vauban managed to secure the rights.

The Camp of the Saints depicts mass immigration destroying European civilization. In the novel a gigantic flotilla of boats filled with destitute Indians sets course for France to seek refugee status. After much handwringing, the government allows them to land rather than take the only other option available, which is to massacre them. France—and very quickly all of Europe—turns into a dystopian Third-World slum.

Raspail’s novel was written in the 1970s when the “boat people” fled Vietnam for Europe. The book caused an enormous sensation—it was a bestseller in France and the U.S., and eventually globally. Many have hailed it as a great and important work of prophecy. But, predictably, it was then and is now denounced as a horribly racist screed that only white supremacists would be interested in reading.

The analysis finds that climate change and productivity are inextricably linked, concluding that any genuine economic plan for the future would be incomplete without taking into account the impact of climate change.

The National Climate Risk Assessment, yet to be released to the public, includes important forecasts, modelling and information for consumers and investors about the severity and cost of weather extremes and natural disasters.

The Australia Institute analysis outlines the impact of climate change on the cost of insurance and food, which are among the main contributors to the high inflation that has dominated the global economy for the past three years.

“Australians should see the truth of the climate risks we face before the government locks in a 2035 emissions reduction target,” said David Pocock, Independent Senator for the ACT.

“Setting an emissions reduction target without knowing the extent of climate risk would be like planning a road trip without having access to a map.

“This kind of assessment isn’t an optional extra; it’s at the core of helping us protect the people and places we love.”

“Climate change is going to drive down productivity in all sorts of Australian industries. Extreme weather events will drive up costs and reduce output in industries ranging from agriculture and construction to tourism and the health sector,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director at The Australia Institute.

Nicholas Bloom, Jonathan Hartley, Raffaella Sadun, Rachel Schuh, and John Van Reenen

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 Crooks in DC | The Roundtable Ep. 280

On this episode of Follow the Money, Richard Denniss joins Ebony Bennett to discuss why the constant search for the centre ground doing Australians harm, why bipartisanship can actually be bad, and his new essay, Dead Centre.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available now via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Richard Denniss, Executive Director, the Australia Institute // @richarddenniss

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

Show notes:

A chance to be brave: understanding Australia’s election result, Follow the Money, the Australia Institute (May 2025)

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

Where do capabilities end and dynamic capabilities begin? Unpacking the “dynamic” nature of capabilities

By Ruth Puttick and Fernando Monge

As we develop the Public Sector Capabilities Index, a question we have been asked is, What are ‘dynamic’ capabilities? And how are they different from ‘ordinary’ capabilities?

In this post, we explain how dynamic capabilities differ from operational ones and why the distinction matters.

Why dynamic capabilities matter

Stating that governments are facing complex problems is a well-rehearsed argument. City governments are having to balance large-scale shocks, such as those caused by geopolitical conflicts or health crises, with managing the demands of day-to-day delivery, often with fiscal constraints.

Does this make up for its bad call at the last meeting in July, when it left rates on hold?

No, because the data since the July meeting shows it should have cut again in August. So Australian borrowers are still at least one 0.25 per cent cut behind.

Unemployment is up, economic growth has almost completely stalled, and inflation is well and truly under control.

Cutting the official cash rate by 0.25 per cent to 3.6 per cent will be welcome relief for mortgage-holders, but interest rates are still restrictive. That means that rates are acting as a brake on the economy at a time when it needs a boost.

How far do rates need to fall before they are no longer weighing down the economy? This is known as the neutral rate. A rate that is neither slowing nor stimulating the economy.

It’s a bit fuzzy as to exactly what that rate is, but it is generally considered to start at around 3 per cent. So, we still need another two or three 0.25 per cent cuts on top of Tuesday’s, before rates aren’t dragging the economy down.

With headline inflation at 2.1 per cent, which is at the very bottom of the target band, all the talk has shifted to the underlying rate of inflation.

The underlying rate, also known as the trimmed mean, is the headline rate minus the volatile bits. It gives us an indication about where inflation is heading.

So, what is it telling us about where the rate of inflation is heading?

As if to confirm the problem Andrew Beck identified in “Assimilation and Its Discontents,” U.S. Representative Delia Ramirez just days after publication of his piece declared (in Spanish) at a leftist gathering in Mexico City, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.” The Chicago-born Democratic congresswoman—more than the Hindu idol in Texas Beck decries—defines the problem we face in creating an unum out of the plures of people, states, and regions that make up our sprawling continental nation.

Representative Ramirez deserves all the obloquy heaped on her for being America Second (at best). But the core assimilation problem we face is not that some immigrants and their children are insufficiently committed to America—it’s that America is insufficiently committed to assimilation.

Immigrants are going to take their cues from Americans about what we expect of them regarding assimilation. As an old boss of mine used to say, you teach people how to treat you—and we’ve been teaching newcomers that it’s okay to, as Beck puts it, “come to America, live in America—but…not become an American.”

Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff said while the cut in the official cash rate from 3.85% to 3.60% will provide long-overdue relief for mortgage holders, it should have happened five weeks ago.

“Borrowers should have been celebrating back-to-back cuts today,” he said.

Mr Grudnoff says the drawn-out period of high interest rates achieved its goal months ago – and is now doing more harm than good.

“Interest rates are still restrictive. They’re still weighing the economy down and causing unnecessary pain for borrowers,” he said.

“Headline inflation is at 2.1%. The underlying rate, which moves more slowly than the headline rate, has fallen every quarter for the last year. Unemployment is up and economic growth has almost completely stalled.

“How far do rates need to fall before they are no longer weighing the economy down? That figure is generally considered to be around 3%. So, we still need another two or three 0.25% cuts on top of today’s cut, before rates aren’t dragging the economy down.”

The post Rate cut welcome – but borrowers are still behind appeared first on The Australia Institute.

For some Gen Zers, it’s already time to retire. A new trend known as “micro-retirement” has spread like wildfire on social media. It involves young adults working for a few years, quitting their jobs to pursue life experiences, and then repeating the cycle. While it is tempting to dismiss this trend, micro-retirement’s appeal to Zoomers reveals much about their unique perspective on life.

One popular influencer, Adama Lorna, made the case for micro-retirement in a TikTok video: “Instead of waiting until you’re 60 or 70 to travel the world and indulge in hobbies, you do them while you have your youth, your energy, and health.” As she sees it, micro-retirement is a way for young people to have their cake and eat it too. By “retiring” every few years, they’re able to reap the freedom that comes with retiree life while enjoying their youth.

Lifestyle guru Timothy Ferriss coined the term “micro-retirement” in his book titled The 4-Hour Workweek. Although it was written in 2007, it didn’t catch on among Millennials. The fact that Zoomers popularized a term coined while they were learning their ABCs suggests that something about their generational experience primed them for it.

It remains true. And that’s how we know business is very worried about the productivity roundtable Jim Chalmers has called for later this month.

Back in 2020, when the pandemic had all elements of Australia’s industrial relations sector in a panic, the emphasis was on the ACTU and business working together.

Countless op-eds were written about how union boss Sally McManus and the Coalition’s then-IR minister Christian Porter worked to find elements of consensus in how to address the looming crisis.

“No time for a workplace brawl”, advised the Australian Financial Review. That push for consensus continued into 2022 when Labor held its Jobs Summit, with the Business Council of Australia and the ACTU jointly releasing “shared principles and policy suggestions” ahead of the talkfest, as if laying the groundwork for the shared interest would make disagreeing later easier.

It didn’t. And getting along doesn’t mean good policy. Usually it just dulls any progressive push for structural change.

Which is why the immediate pushback against the ACTU’s call for a 25 per cent tax on revenue from gas exports in place of the flawed Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), a minimum 25 per cent tax rate on family trusts and individuals earning more than $1 million a year, changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions and caps to the diesel fuel rebate very telling.

The first full program of courses in political economy at an Australian university began in 1975. It was in the product of a long struggle by a dissident student-staff movement at the University of Sydney, campaigning for a PE course that students could take as an alternative to mainstream economics.

The struggle took place at a time when social activism in Australia was developing on many fronts – feminist, environmentalist, anti-apartheid and anti-imperialist, for peace and Indigenous peoples’ rights. It was a context in which the local activists’ success in getting a PE course up and running contributed to the view that ‘another world is possible’ because it showed that formally powerless groups can make a difference in driving change.

The early PE activists hoped that similar course programs would be established at other universities, and many struggled to try to make it happen. The Australian Political Economy Movement (APEM) was formed in 1976 to provide nationwide support and set up the Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE). as its flagship publication. In practice, however, the development of PE courses beyond Sydney Uni turned out to be more sporadic, usually depending on the personal interests and comings and goings of academic staff at those other universities. Moreover, the changing social, political and economic context has become less conducive to initiatives of this kind than it was in the 1970s.

Donghoon Lee and Joseph Tracy

The frog, who has seen scorpions sting and kill its brethren, is cautious and tells the scorpion no, because he is afraid of being stung.

The scorpion reassures the frog by telling it he too would die if he stung the frog while riding it across the river, and the frog sees the truth in this and offers the scorpion his back. As they approach the middle of the river, the frog feels the scorpion’s tail pierce his skin, and the poison immediately begin to flow through and paralyse his body.

“Why?” he gasps as he and the scorpion sink beneath the water.

“I’m sorry,” the scorpion says as the two see the face of death. “It is but my nature.”

The moral of the story, at least as it was relayed to me as a child, is that you cannot expect rationality from those unwilling to fight their worst nature.

This week, watching Tim Wilson and the Liberals attempt to reignite the work-from-home debate, just months after the Coalition was forced to dump its policy to force the public service back into the office mid-election because of how unpopular it was, brought the frog and the scorpion front of mind.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced plans last week to enshrine employees’ rights to work from home for at least two days a week in law, setting off the predictable culture war over whether workers deserve any gains.

Andrew Beck has made a cogent case for why the U.S., like other countries, requires cultural and moral cohesion to protect its nationhood and act with a unified will on behalf of the common good. Beck correctly notes that the U.S. started out as a country with a well-defined collective identity. If we look back at America’s beginnings, we discover John Jay in Federalist 2 defining this original American identity in a memorable observation:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

At the time this was written, the newly formed American nation-state was composed overwhelmingly of Northern European Protestants; its legal institutions were largely British. Its shared culture was shaped by, among other things, reading and revering the King James Bible. Among the professional class, the Bible’s authority was supplemented by that of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Shakespeare’s tragedies, and (to some extent) classical texts like Plutarch’s Lives.

On this special crossover episode of Follow the Money and After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Glenn Connley to discuss the Australian protests calling for more action to protect Palestinians, the momentum against the troubled AUKUS submarine pact, and Trump’s decision to fire his chief of labour statistics after job growth slowed.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 2025.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Introduction  This response to the government’s call for evidence draws upon the Equality Trust’s research, collaboration with partners, stakeholder insights from place-based and participatory projects, and practitioner insights from the field. We have chosen to address the specific questions where we have the most relevant data and experience to make a contribution. This includes proposals […]

The post Equality Law Call for Evidence appeared first on Equality Trust.

10 September, 5:00-7:30 pm (drinks and canapés from 5pm, lecture starts 6 pm)
Lecture Theatre 200, Social Sciences Building (A02), The University of Sydney

**** Please register to attend

18th Annual E.L. ‘Ted’ Wheelwright Memorial Lecture

Speaker: Raewyn Connell

In the last generation there has been heavy criticism of what universities have become, in an era of commercialism and managerial control. This lecture will discuss the main points of criticism, whether they amount to a case for abolition, and what practical processes of abolition are under way. It looks at the prosperity of higher education as a global industry, and tries to probe a little into the contradictory situation we are now in: the corrosion of the labour process, the sustainability of the workforce, the appropriation of benefits, and current pressures on critique and truth. Finally it touches on the history of the sector and some memorable examples of struggle and change.

Which brings us to Labor’s revamped ‘Safeguard Mechanism’.

First, let’s set one thing straight. This is basically all about the coal and gas industries. More than 54% of emissions covered by the Safeguard Mechanism come from gas or coal:

This chart shows how big the emissions from the gas and coal industries are compared to other industries covered by the Safeguard Mechanism. Often industries like cement production, agriculture or manufacturing are presented as being a big part of Australia’s climate debate. This chart shows that they’re not, at least in terms of the Safeguard Mechanism.

So, here’s how the Safeguard Mechanism manages to look effective while actually facilitating gas and coal projects.

A few years ago, I was invited to observe some student presentations on the topic of Leisure: The Basis of Culture. It is one of the perks of my job as a professor at a Catholic liberal arts university that I get invited to such events. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentations, but I could sense from the Q&A that one part of the audience remained unpersuaded: the students’ parents. Moms and dads who had worked hard to pay for their children to attend college were not enthusiastic about the main point their sons and daughters were making: work is not what life is all about.

Leisure is the goal of work, after all. Leisure activity (rather than do-nothing inactivity) awakens the greatest part of our souls, the part that is capable of wonder and contemplation. Beginning with Aristotle, excellent philosophical authorities over the years have made that very argument. Classicist Sarah Broadie once observed that Aristotle’s idea that “we are not-at-leisure in order to be at leisure” remains understudied—except by the mid-20th century Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper, the foremost recent thinker who has argued for leisure’s importance. In 1948, he wrote that “the power to be at leisure is the power to step beyond the working world and win contact with those superhuman, life-giving forces that can send us, renewed and alive again, into the busy world of work.”

What City Observatory Did This Week