Incoming Feed Items

The Online Safety Act commenced in January 2022. It provides broad powers to the online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner.

In November 2023, the Minister for Communications the Hon Michelle Rowland MP announced a statutory review into the operation of the Act.

Digital Rights Watch has actively participated throughout the development of the Online Safety Act and its related parts, such as the Basic Online Safety Expectations and the online safety industry standards.

As always, we emphasise that privacy and digital security are essential to uphold safety.

Our recent submissions relevant to online safety in Australia include:

Climate & Energy Director Polly Hemming and Research Director Rod Campbell are here to unpack the spin, and give you the facts.

The post The Minerals Council REALLY wants you to feel good about coal: Spin Bin | Video appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The Wrap with Ebony Bennett

This week, Peter Dutton finally released the Coalition’s nuclear power strategy.

Well, sort of…

The Opposition Leader’s uncosted ‘plan’ offers very little detail, while committing Australia to the most expensive form of new energy to build and eschewing cheap and abundant renewables.

“This is the most expensive form of new energy to build, that’ll push up electricity prices. In the meantime we going to see much more polluting fossil fuels staying in the national electricity market for longer.”@ebony_bennett joins @abcnews Breakfast. #nuclear #auspol pic.twitter.com/GfEgzxNGgD

— Australia Institute (@TheAusInstitute) June 19, 2024

When they were last in office, the Coalition had trouble building all the car parks that they promised, so the idea that seven nuclear plants are going to be built from scratch – in a country with next-to-no existing nuclear workforce – is very hard to believe.

Workers’ compensation and rehabilitation are amongst the most important legal issues facing the ‘gig’ economy. This reflects the potential vulnerability of these workers and their families, co-workers, and community to harsh and long term consequences from injuries. For a while, it looked like federal industrial policy might ‘solve’ the workers compensation problem by redefining ‘gig’/platform workers as employees.

However, the policy decision to enshrine minimum rights for a separate ‘employee-like’ category of workers leaves gig workers outside the scope of workers compensation protections.

In this discussion we will hear from those researching and advising on the reforms necessary to better protect injured gig workers, a worker who has been seriously injured, and those who are organising and advocating for policy and law reform.

Free Event – Register Now

Speakers:

• Michael Kaine – National Secretary Transport Workers’ Union
• Professor Emeritus David Peetz – Carmichael Centre’s Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow.

When:
Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 12:30 pm AEST

Where:
Zoom

The Seamless Scheme

On June 18, 2024, the Federal Government announced that Seamless, a clothing product stewardship scheme to make Australian clothing circular by 2030, will be operational on July 1, 2024. The scheme is tasked with addressing the critical problems facing the clothing industry, with over 200,000 tonnes of waste ending up in Australian landfill annually. 62 brands will be signed up as members of the scheme by the time it officially launches. It’s commendable that the Government has taken the initiative to back a scheme addressing Australia’s enormous textiles waste problem.

From July 1, members of Seamless will contribute $0.04 for each new garment placed on the Australian market. $0.04 is not nearly enough of what is needed for the reuse, collection, sorting, decommissioning, recycling, transportation, labour and other costs involved in creating a circular clothing industry in Australia by 2030.

Instead, a contribution of $0.50 for each new garment (a more than 12-fold increase on the current proposal) is a more realistic figure that could support the above-mentioned circular operations. And indeed, there is speculation that the $0.04 levy of Seamless will be raised to a higher fee in the future. In its first 12 months, however, it is likely the initial goals Seamless may instead focus on developing better circular design practices.

The research finds only one in 20 voters (4%) are prepared to pay more than $500 extra per year for nuclear power, highlighting a lack of support for the technology.

Key Findings

• A majority of Australians (65%) are not prepared to pay anything extra to have nuclear power in the mix, regardless of voting intention.
• A majority of residents in NSW (61%), QLD (64%), VIC (68%) and WA (69%) are not prepared to pay anything extra for nuclear power, although each is set to host a nuclear reactor under the Coalition’s plan.
• Only one in five Australians (19%) are prepared to pay up to $250 (13%) or up to $500 per year (6%) to have nuclear power in the mix.

“Our research shows that most Australians have absolutely no appetite when it comes to paying more money to put nuclear power into the energy mix,” said Dr Richard Denniss, Executive Director of the Australia Institute.

“CSIRO research shows that electricity from nuclear power is significantly more expensive than from renewables. The Coalition’s plan is completely uncosted, meaning we have no idea how much this will cost taxpayers when it comes to construction or to their power bills.

“The numbers are clear: Residents across the country, regardless of who they vote for, don’t support a nuclear future that requires them pay more for electricity than they already do.”

Rising demand as the world emerged from COVID-19 lockdowns, coupled with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has led to massive windfall profits for the gas industry. But according to new Australia Institute research, the gas companies aren’t paying royalties on most of the gas they export.

So what exactly is happening to Australia’s gas? How do we compare with other major fossil fuel exporters when it comes to collecting royalties? And what would it take to ensure Australians get a better deal for our gas? On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Mark Ogge joins Ebony Bennett to discuss Australia’s great gas giveaway.

You can sign our petition calling on the government to collect royalties on Australia’s gas exports on our website.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 18 June 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor, the Australia Institute // @MarkOgge

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

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

What is driving the current uncertainty about the country’s economic trajectory? Why did the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decide to keep interest rates on hold? And what does the latest data reveal about workplace gender inequality? On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg Jericho reflects on the latest interest rate announcement and the barriers to closing the gender pay gap.

Greg Jericho is Chief Economist at the Australia Institute and the Centre for Future Work and popular columnist of Grogonomics with Guardian Australia. Each week on Dollars & Sense, Greg dives into the latest economic figures to explain what they can tell us about what’s happening in the economy, how it will impact you and where things are headed.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @GrogsGamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

The results show that most Australians are not prepared to pay anything extra to have nuclear power in the mix.

Key Findings

• Two in three Australians (65%) are not prepared to pay anything extra to have nuclear power in the mix.
• Only one in 20 Australians (4%) are prepared to pay more than $500 per year to have nuclear power in the mix.
• One in five Australians (19%) are prepared to pay up to $250 (13%) or up to $500 per year (6%) to have nuclear power in the mix.
• Across the four large states, between 61% and 69% of residents are not prepared to pay anything extra to have nuclear power in the mix.
• Most Australians are not prepared to pay anything extra to have nuclear power in the mix, regardless of voting intention.

The post Polling – Willingness to pay for nuclear appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The groups say the 2024 State of the Environment Report must be made public before the Government settles its Budget in September and before parliament debates changes that could see the logging of 39,000 additional hectares of native forest, and the over-development of some of the state’s most beautiful coastal beauty spots.

On Wednesday, Tasmanian Planning Minister Felix Ellis allowed a further delay for the Tasmanian Planning Commission to deliver the report, pushing the due date out to August 31.

Consequently, the groups are now concerned the Minister may not table the SOE Report before the parliament rises for the year on November 15, which would mean the report may not be made public until the first sitting week of 2025, which isn’t until next March.

“This delay is yet another example of environmental neglect by the state government, which is threatening the Tasmanian way of life,” said Eloise Carr, the Australia Institute’s Tasmanian Director.

“Chronic underfunding has delayed the report for a decade, and it continues to be delayed for this reason. The funding the Tasmanian Planning Commission received for this report was about one-third of the money it cost to produce the report in 2009.

“The government now needs to commit appropriate funding to implement the report’s recommended actions in this year’s Budget and the Minister should also commit to releasing the report as soon as it is received.

The tour will see Professor Stiglitz speak at events across the country; one of several major speaking tours hosted by the Australia Institute to mark its 30th anniversary.

“Professor Joseph Stiglitz is not only one of the world’s leading economists; he has a unique ability to communicate complex economic ideas in an engaging and informative way. Professor Stiglitz’s imagination and clarity are just what Australia’s public debate needs as we face a cost-of-living crisis, a climate crisis, and declining faith in democracy,” said Dr Richard Denniss, Executive Director at the Australia Institute.

“During his last visit, Professor Stiglitz spoke forcefully about the need for Australia to reconsider the Stage 3 tax cuts and made a strong case for a windfall profits tax on the fossil fuel industry. While the government has delivered much-needed reforms to Stage 3, there is clearly still a lot of room for improvement in the way Australia taxes its gas and coal exports.

“We look forward to welcoming one of the world’s most respected economists and policy advisers back to Australia to help Australians better understand the challenges and the opportunities that face us.

“The Australia Institute is delighted to host Professor Stiglitz at such an important time in Australia’s policy debate, and we are thrilled he can join us to celebrate our 30 years of big ideas,” said Dr Denniss.

There are two main ways of participating in cooperative housing: as an owner-occupier (which includes selling rights) or as a ‘non-equity’ renter. In Sweden, owner-occupiers have unlimited occupancy rights (so long as members fulfil their obligations) while renters get more secure tenancy than they would have in the private market.

Although subject to market prices, cooperative dwellings in Sweden, Norway and Denmark are some of the most cost-efficient, good quality, well-maintained and secure forms of housing.

The latest taxation statistics released today by the ATO reveal that while the overall gender pay gap might be closing, when we examine the gap across occupations, women continue to earn less than men in almost all occupations.

The taxation statistics reveal the earnings each person makes in a financial year. The figure therefore gives an honest account of how much people actually earn for their labour. Because it is the total amount earned over a year, the amounts take into account those who may earn the same hourly rate but who work fewer hours.

The results are damning for gender pay.

Men had a higher average salary in 368 of the 383 occupation groups. This 96% result is the same as was the case in 2020-21.

The good news (such as it is) is that the gender pay gap improved in 59% of occupations, but it worsened in 41%.

The figures also show that higher-paid occupations are more likely to be male-dominated. Among the 77 highest-paid occupations, where the average salary was above $100,000, only 2 were jobs where women make up more than 60% of the workforce. By contrast 40 of the 70 lowest-paid occupations, where the average salary was less than $45,000, were jobs where women make up more than 60% of the workforce.

In every occupation that had an average salary above $100,000 men had a higher average salary than women, and in only 2 of the top 225 paying occupations did women have a higher average salary.

Australians buy an average of 56 new clothing items a year, more than the US (53), UK (33) and China (30).

Circular Economy & Waste Program Director NinaGbor on The Today Show

The post Australians buy more clothes than any other country | Video appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Isn’t a surplus in the current economic climate a good thing? What causes productivity growth? And how do other nations measure unemployment? On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg Jericho answers your questions and explains why some commentators are getting giddy for Canadian rate cuts.

Greg Jericho is Chief Economist at the Australia Institute and the Centre for Future Work and popular columnist of Grogonomics with Guardian Australia. Each week on Dollars & Sense, Greg dives into the latest economic figures to explain what they can tell us about what’s happening in the economy, how it will impact you and where things are headed.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @GrogsGamut

Producer: Jennifer Macey // @jennifermacey

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Key Points:

• Expenditure caps should account for the taxpayer-funded incumbency benefits MPs enjoy that their challengers do not:
  • Parties that run candidates in most or all seats and in both houses of Parliament can “pile in” funding to target areas, effectively allowing them to exceed the spending cap.
  • New entrants have fixed costs that established parties can spread across many seats, meaning new entrants must spend more to catch up to a major party rival.
• If parties are to receive administrative funding from the taxpayer, it should be based on the actual costs of running a political party – not how many MPs a party has.
• In South Australia, major parties are less dependent on political donations than new entrants because the parties receive significant public funding:
  • Premier Malinauskas has flagged changes to public funding to make allowances for new entrants, who under current laws cannot access public funding until the election is over.

“It is heartening that Premier Malinauskas has identified a level playing field for new entrants as the number one concern of political finance reform, even ahead of a possible High Court challenge,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“South Australia has a proud history of electoral reform, including universal suffrage and preferential voting. The Malinauskas Government’s new bill could follow that legacy, but only if it safeguards diverse voices.

This American presidential election will be unique for many reasons, not the least of which is Donald Trump becoming the first American president to be found guilty of a crime. So what impact – if any – will that have on the outcome? Is Biden going to be able to mobilise enough support in key states to win a second term? And what might another Trump presidency mean for Australia? On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Emma Shortis joins Ebony Bennett to discuss US politics after her recent trip to Washington DC.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 11 June 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Senior Researcher in International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

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

Producer: Jennifer Macey // @jennifermacey

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

To hear Machiavelli tell it, 16th century Italy was plagued by expensive, flashy contractors who bled the public, failed to deliver what they promised and then turned around and robbed the ones who paid them.

Those faults will ring a bell for those who have followed the consulting firm scandals exposed over the past year, including misusing government secrets and taking money for buried reports. With the inquiry into the NSW Government’s use and management of consulting services releasing its damning findings earlier this week, and the Senate inquiry into consulting service integrity due any day now, fresh light has been cast on the behaviour of these large, well-paid government contractors – and the picture is no prettier than it was in Machiavelli’s day.

Of course, by contractors Machiavelli meant the mercenary captains whose private armies did most of the city-states’ fighting, but the word, condottieri, literally means contractors, and the parallels are remarkable.

Like the mercenaries, today’s consultants favour style over substance. Academics Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington call this “the Big Con”: the undeserved confidence of consultants tricks clients, journalists, politicians and the public into placing more trust in their words than they deserve. The Renaissance equivalent was for mercenary companies to fight flashy but ineffectual battles. A colourful, if apocryphal, tale has it that at the 1440 Battle of Anghiari mercenary companies fought round the clock with only one death: when a soldier fell off his horse.

• The final report of the Robodebt Royal Commission was delayed in order to allow the Royal Commissioner to refer individuals to the NACC.
• The NACC’s decision to not investigate these public officials means further details about how Robodebt happened and who was responsible may not come to light and preventative measures may not be implemented.
• Gaps in government accountability in Australia include that:
  • The NACC can only hold public hearings under “exceptional circumstances”.
  • Whistleblowers in Australia are vulnerable to retaliation and prosecution, hampering anti-corruption investigations.
  • According to the APS Employee Census, 3,800 public servants witnessed potential corruption last year, and two-thirds of them did not report it.

“The NACC’s decision to not investigate Robodebt makes the Public Service Commission responsible for investigating these alleged wrongdoers and addressing the broader cultural problems exposed by the Royal Commission,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

“Australians will wonder why there is a disconnect between the Royal Commissioner, who delayed her report so she could refer potentially corrupt conduct, and the NACC, which decided that it was not in the public interest to investigate that conduct.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said “any growth is welcome” at his recent press conference on Australia’s March quarter economic performance.

But the Treasurer was surely hoping to welcome a little more than the 0.1 per cent gross domestic product (GDP) growth we got.

“It’s really hard to sugar coat this,” said Australia Institute Chief Economist Greg Jericho.

“It’s a rounding error away from nothing.”

The story gets worse when you exclude population growth, with GDP per capita falling 0.4 per cent in the March quarter.

“That was the fifth quarter in a row that our economy has contracted on a per capita basis,” Jericho said.

“The last time that happened? Ah, it’s never happened before…”

Treasurer Chalmers described the weak growth as “the inevitable consequence of these rate rises which are in the system.”

Apparently the RBA thinks there is too much demand in the economy. Have they seen the latest GDP figures????

My column. https://t.co/qKdhTKzKXr

— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) June 5, 2024

The Wrap with Ebony Bennett

Senator David Pocock made headlines last week when, in a press conference at Parliament House, he called gas companies “leeches” that are getting away with “state-sanctioned daylight robbery”.

As Dr Monique Ryan said, “We are allowing multinationals to take our oil and gas and sell it off overseas at massive, massive profits and not pay tax.”

New Australia Institute research shows that governments charge no royalties on 56 per cent of the gas that’s exported from Australia.

Gas companies are getting away with state-sanctioned daylight robbery.

The value in Australian gas should be used to build a better future for Australians, not to inflate the profits of multinationals. pic.twitter.com/wD5XU5WG0N

— David Pocock (@DavidPocock) May 30, 2024

This means that Australians have missed out on at least $13 billion in royalties over the last four years.

Remember that figure next time governments tell you that they can’t afford to spend more on social housing, increasing Jobseeker or supporting victims of domestic violence.

Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their First Assessment Report in 1990, the Australian Government has subsidised fossil fuel consumption through the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme to the tune of over $200 billion. This year, the OECD called for an end to this long-standing fossil fuel subsidy.

Australia charges a fuel tax (also called a fuel excise) of around $0.49 per litre for common fuels like diesel and petrol. The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme (FTCS) offers a refund of this tax to certain fuel users.

The FTCS meets the World Trade Organisation’s criteria for a subsidy, as it involves government revenue that would otherwise be due, but is foregone or not collected.

The WTO is not alone in viewing the fuels tax credits as a subsidy. As our recent report highlighted, the OECD, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Overseas Development International (ODI) and Oil Change International all recognise the FTCS as a fossil fuel subsidy.

But more importantly, not only is it recognised as a subsidy, it is also recognised as a subsidy that should end.

In the latest Labour Accounts released today by the Bureau of Statistics a record, 1.106m jobs held in Australia are being worked by someone who has another job.

The more than 5% fall in real wages over the past 3 years as inflation has soared above wage growth has meant that a record 7.1% of all the jobs in Australia are someone’s second or third (or more) jobs. In the March quarter some 974,000 Australians were working in more than one job. This disparity between the number of employees working multiple jobs and the total number of “secondary jobs” implies that there is now a record number of people as well working more than 2 jobs.

This is not a sign of a healthy labour force.

While it is good that Australians are able to find work, that nearly 1 million are clearly needing to seek more hours form a secondary job suggests that there has been growing problem of working poor.

In the past year, 13% of the new jobs created have gone to someone who already has a job. Until wages consistently grow fast the prices, this trend of ever-increasing proportion of workers taking on another job to make ends meet will continue.

Particularly concerning is the increase in multiple job holders is occurring among older workers. Historically younger workers are more likely to work more than one job, but over the past year, the percentage of workers aged 35-44 holding more than one job has risen from 6.7% to 7.2%.

The report shows superannuation tax concessions help high income earners avoid tax, exacerbate income and gender inequality and come at a huge cost in foregone revenue, and recommends ending or at least limiting superannuation tax concessions for the top 10% of earners and those whose high super balances do not meet the asset criteria for the part pension.

Key findings:

• Super tax concessions cost $54.56 billion in foregone revenue during 2022-23, and disproportionately benefit the wealthy:
  • The top 20% of income earners receive more than 50% of superannuation tax concessions.
  • The share of Australian workers with a super fund above $1 million is just 2.5%, but those people made 20.1% of all personal super contributions in 2020-21.
• Removing the tax concession for both super contributions and earnings from the top 10% of earners would save more than $12 billion every year.
• Women retire with a super savings gap of nearly 25% compared with their male counterparts.
• Australia still experiences above average rates of poverty in retirement (6th highest rate of retiree poverty in the OECD)
• Superannuation tax concessions are forecast to overtake the cost of the age pension in 2045-46.

“While super tax concessions are designed to help all Australian workers saving for retirement, the distribution of these benefits is incredibly unequal,” said Dr Minh Ngoc Le, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Australia Institute.

While it is true that the super scheme helps many people save for their retirement, the scheme disproportionately benefits wealthier Australians. Superannuation tax concessions come at a huge cost in foregone revenue that is growing so quickly they will soon become more expensive than the age pension. In coming years, the solution will become worse than the problem.

Reform is needed to ensure these concessions are limited to those who really need them. The income level or super balance at which tax concessions cut out should be lowered. This would lead to significant savings in forgone revenue, reduce inequality, and significantly increase the ability of the Commonwealth Government to properly fund the age pension system.

The post Who benefits? appeared first on The Australia Institute.

After multiple interest rate increases in recent years, it’s the economy – not inflation – that’s slowing, with the latest figures showing that the Australian economy grew just 0.1 per cent in the last quarter. So why is gross domestic product (GDP) growth so hard to come by at the moment? On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg Jericho discusses Australia’s fragile economy and how governments – and the Reserve Bank – can respond.

Greg Jericho is Chief Economist at the Australia Institute and the Centre for Future Work and popular columnist of Grogonomics with Guardian Australia. Each week on Dollars & Sense, Greg dives into the latest economic figures to explain what they can tell us about what’s happening in the economy, how it will impact you and where things are headed.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @GrogsGamut

Producer: Jennifer Macey // @jennifermacey

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Across the country, house prices have skyrocketed, putting the prospect of buying a home well out of reach for too many people. Rents have also soared, placing huge financial pressure on people and pushing many into homelessness. On this episode of Follow the Money, housing advocate and creator of shitrentals.org Jordan van den Berg, Maiy Azize from national housing campaign Everybody’s Home, and Australia Institute Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff examine how Australia got itself into this situation – and how it can get out of it.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 4 June 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: Jordan van den Berg, Lawyer and Founder of shitrentals.org // @purplepingers

Guest: Maiy Azize, National Spokesperson, Everybody’s Home // @MaiyAzize

Guest: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @MattGrudnoff

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

Producer: Jennifer Macey // @jennifermacey

Additional editing: Emily Perkins

On paper, the Australian Government’s Future Made in Australia plan is a great idea, making Australia a renewable energy superpower, with more capacity to make clean energy at home and for export.

But simultaneously, the Government is planning for “gas to 2050 and beyond“.

It’s a contradiction that has the potential to undermine our aspirations to become a renewable energy superpower.

Polly Hemming, Director of the Climate & Energy Program at the Australia Institute, unpacks the words and actions of the Government to paint a full picture of the plan for Australia’s energy future.

“Gas Industry Leeches”

We recently held a press conference with independent MPs David Pocock and Dr Monique Ryan, launching a new report showing that 56% of gas exported from Australia attracts zero royalty payments, effectively giving a public resource to multinational gas corporations for free.