Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors



File 20170901 26012 3x4leq
If marriage is to be redefined, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.
shutterstock

Greg Walsh, University of Notre Dame Australia

Many politicians have confidently claimed that the introduction of same-sex marriage does not have the potential to violate religious liberty or the rights of conscientious objectors.

This is clearly false considering the situation overseas and in Australia. If Australia is to redefine marriage, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.

Why do we need protections?

In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, people who have opposed it have been fired or forced to resign from their jobs.

Business owners such as florists, bakers and photographers have been forced to compromise their beliefs and provide their services or face legal sanctions. In one US case, this resulted in a $135,000 fine.

Religious organisations that have refused to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages have been denied government benefits such as tax exemptions. Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation. Advocacy groups promoting the view that marriage is only between a man and a woman have lost their charitable status.

In rare situations, those who have refused to facilitate same-sex marriages have been imprisoned.

In Australia, where same-sex marriage has not been introduced, there are already many examples of individuals suffering from discrimination, intimidation, boycotts and legal action.

Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous was required to appear before Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissioner after distributing a letter defending traditional marriage. This followed a complaint that it violated anti-vilification laws. The complaint was withdrawn, but only after a substantial amount of time and money had been expended on the proceedings.

Opponents of the redefinition of marriage have also been forced to cancel hotel bookings for conferences and been refused printing services for books promoting traditional marriage.

People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups.

Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change. This is despite 40% of the population supporting traditional marriage.

Importantly, supporters of change do not want to introduce same-sex marriage, but two-person marriage. This new definition will raise additional challenges for conscientious objectors.

Some of the issues relating to gender identity that have already arisen overseas include parents prevented from removing their children from programs encouraging students to consider their gender identity, religious schools threatened with closure if they do not address issues of sexuality and gender identity in a government-approved manner, and the possibility of parents losing custody of their children if they refuse to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity.

These are just a few examples that could be used to demonstrate the problems that may arise when marriage is redefined – especially when it has been redefined without providing substantial protections for conscientious objectors.

How to provide substantial protections

The importance of providing conscience protections is affirmed not just by opponents of change but also by advocates for same-sex marriage such as US law professor Douglas Laycock and Liberal MP Tim Wilson.

Their support indicates that conscience protections should not be seen as excusing bigotry. Rather, they are a legitimate means of best promoting everyone’s welfare.

These protections are particularly appropriate considering that a failure to adequately protect conscientious objectors violates the right to equality. This is the very right that advocates of change assert to be of such importance to the issue of marriage equality (despite international human rights law declaring that the right is not violated by a country deciding against introducing same-sex marriage).

The right to equality under international human rights law clearly protects attributes such as religion and political opinion. Examples include Articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A failure to protect conscientious objectors can be regarded as a violation of their right to equality. This is because it subjects them to discrimination based on their religion or political opinion.

The merits of providing such protections can also be supported on many other grounds. These include conscience rights, religious liberty, parental rights, privacy, freedom of association, the rights of children, and freedom of speech.

To provide effective protection to conscientious objectors, legislation redefining marriage should:

  • permit individuals, companies and religious bodies to decline to facilitate a same-sex marriage or related celebration;

  • protect the freedom of individuals to express their views about marriage;

  • ensure government action does not inappropriately undermine parental duties; and

  • prohibit discrimination by government bodies, companies and individuals against conscientious objectors.

Despite the importance of providing such protections, the failure of so many politicians to recognise that redefining marriage will cause Australians to suffer discrimination does not inspire confidence that these protections will be provided. If politicians won’t even recognise the potential for harm despite overwhelming evidence it is very unlikely that they will strongly advocate for comprehensive protections for conscientious objectors.

The probability of this outcome is indicated by the bills proposed this year and previously. These provided very limited protections for religious ministers, civil celebrants and religious organisations.

The ConversationThe failure of federal politicians to take seriously the legitimate concerns that people have about the consequences of changing our marriage laws may be one of the reasons why so many will be voting “no” at the upcoming postal ballot.

Greg Walsh, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Notre Dame Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

The postal survey is both bizarre and typical in the history of Western marriage


File 20170907 9189 i2g80o
Marriage reform of any kind has been historically slow to take hold.
Shutterstock

Timothy W. Jones, La Trobe University

The High Court’s decision to allow exceptional government spending on the marriage postal survey makes way for the latest bizarre, but typical, episode in the history of political responses to changing social attitudes to marriage.

The voluntary postal survey is unique and bizarre, in that no government has yet conducted such a statistically unreliable exercise in gauging public opinion on a contentious social issue. Yet it is typical, in that political responses to social change in areas of sex and morality are usually slow, fiercely contested, ideologically confused, but nonetheless important.

Political change in response to changes in social values is slow

The slow and strange political processes in Australia over the political recognition of same-sex marriages are actually typical of those around the world. The legislative histories of many previous changes to marriage law have been far longer and more drawn out than the recognition of same-sex marriage in Australia is likely to be.

One of the most contested changes in British marriage law was the now-obscure reform to allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister.

In an era of high maternal death and limited social welfare, it was common for deceased women’s sisters to marry their brothers-in-law and assume their sister’s role as wife and mother. The churches regarded such marriages as incestuous, and fiercely opposed law reform to legalise them. It took almost 70 years for this now forgotten reform to pass.

Reforms to permit divorce, interracial marriage and to administer traditional polygamous marriages were similarly contested and slow to be formed and reformed.

It should, therefore, not be a surprise that legislative reform in Australia to allow same-sex couples to marry is taking longer than a decade.

The complex relationship between religion, law and marriage

In some jurisdictions, in some times, religious institutions have legislated and adjudicated for marriage. This has never been the case in Australia. Between 1753 and 1836, the Church of England did enjoy sole political jurisdiction and administration of marriage in the British world.

However, from federation, Australian marriage law has always been secular. Religious organisations have made their own rulings about what marriage practices their own members should engage in. But while “churches, mosques or synagogues might bless nuptials, marriage itself is not a religious institution”.

Nor is it the law’s role in Australia to impose moral standards on society. Since at least 1971, when censorship law was reformed, lawmakers have sought to use legislation to enforce current community standards, rather than impose ideologically based absolutes.

The government’s ostensible rationale for the optional postal survey is actually in line with this norm: to assess community standards. Both proponents and – especially – opponents of change have been careful to frame their arguments in relation to shared community values.

Marriage equality is about more than marriage

The case for marriage law reform to allow same-sex couples to marry has been relatively simple and consistent around the world: a claim that to include same-sex couples in marriage will increase equality and social inclusion.

As this case has gained traction in the West, opponents of change have had to innovate in order to combat rapidly changing community standards.

As I have argued elsewhere, opponents of marriage law reform are primarily motivated by religious conviction. However, in a largely secular context, where moral values cannot easily be imposed on a population, “they are attempting to hide religious and moral arguments in the Trojan horse of health and human rights discourse”.

The “No” campaign has so far largely sidestepped the social justice argument of the “Yes” campaign. Instead, they have raised fears about children in rainbow families.

Conservatives have argued that children have a “right” to a mother and a father, and that same-sex parenting necessarily involves the “removal” of a child from one of its natural parents. These are innovative arguments.

Same-sex parenting is clearly not in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The right to a mother and a father is a completely novel human right for children, and one that is impossible to guarantee. And research clearly shows that children raised by same-sex parents show no different health or wellbeing outcomes to children raised by opposite-sex parents.

Similarly, when donor assisted reproduction became popular and was debated 70 years ago, governments and churches considered it at length. However, the major objection raised in these historical debates was that donor assistance in reproduction was equivalent to adultery.

Today, individuals and couples of all sexualities access assisted reproduction technology and have done so for many decades. Equating the donation of sperm or eggs to child removal is a completely novel argument.

The ConversationAs the postal survey goes ahead, we can expect to see more of these novel arguments from the “no” campaign. But it’s important to remember that legal change around marriage is historically slow, and that this debate is not about religious values, but community values. Specifically, it is about how we value LGBTI people, their relationships, and their families.

Timothy W. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Revealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t



File 20170828 17108 ydnkkz
Increasing numbers of Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.
AAP/James Ross

Francisco Perales, The University of Queensland and Alice Campbell, The University of Queensland

Ahead of the postal plebiscite on marriage equality, much is being written about the relative chances of a “Yes” or “No” outcome, and the strategies both sides need to influence public opinion.

However, the bulk of the public debate seems to be based on intuitive or speculative perceptions of the traits of people who are likely to oppose or support marriage equality, or on anecdotal evidence.

We used data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA) to assess trends in the degree of support for marriage equality, and to ascertain the characteristics of those Australians who do, or don’t, support it.


Further reading: Finding balance on marriage equality debate a particular challenge for the media


The data

In 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2015, the HILDA Survey asked its national panel to rate their degree of agreement with the statement “Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do” on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

The HILDA data have strengths and weaknesses compared to recent poll data. The drawbacks are that they are relatively old (July 2015-February 2016), and do not collect information about views on same-sex marriage specifically.

However, they are collected with much more statistical rigour (probability sampling, population representativeness), feature sample sizes that dwarf those of opinion polls (>15,000 respondents), and encompass rich demographic information.

Degree of support

We find a pronounced trend between 2005 and 2015 in the degree to which Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.

As seen below, the percentage of people who “strongly agree” (the highest point in the scale) rose from 19.2% in 2005 to 46.3% in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of people who “strongly disagree” (the lowest point) fell markedly from 26.7% in 2005 to 12.9% in 2015.

The percentage of people who chose any of the five intermediate responses either remained stable, or decreased slightly.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kVXI5/2/

Defining agreement as response points five to seven on the “agree side” of the aforementioned question, the 2015 HILDA Survey reveals agreement rates of 66%, up from 39.8% in 2005.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W2grP/1/

When agreement is defined as response options four to seven, the 2015 agreement rate grows to 78%.

Who supports equal rights?

Examination of the 2015 HILDA Survey data revealed marked differences in the degree of support for equal rights for same-sex couples across population subgroups.

Such support was significantly greater among:

  • women;

  • non-heterosexual (gay/lesbian, bisexual) people;

  • younger people;

  • people with degree-level or year 12 as their highest educational qualifications (compared to lower than year 12, or a professional qualification);

  • non-religious people;

  • people born in Australia or an English-speaking country (compared to people born in a non-English-speaking country);

  • people with higher incomes; and

  • people living in major cities (compared to those living in regional/remote areas).

Once these factors were accounted for, there were few and small differences across Australia’s states and territories.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EmG5E/1/

Who sits on the fence?

About 12.4% of the 2015 HILDA Survey respondents selected the mid-point of the seven-category response scale when reporting on their agreement with the rights of same-sex couples.

This is an important portion of the Australian population. They represent those who may be swayed in either direction.

Examining their traits reveals these respondents were more likely to be men, heterosexual, older than 40, religious, to have below-year-12 education or professional qualifications, from a non-English-speaking background, in the bottom quartile of the income distribution, and from regional/remote areas of Australia.

Social change

The longitudinal nature of the HILDA Survey data enabled us to compare trends over time in support for the rights of same-sex couples between population segments.

Between 2005 and 2015, support rates increased across all of the population subgroups under scrutiny. This was even the case among groups that expressed the lowest levels of support.

For the most part, the group differences in support rates reported before remain reasonably constant over time. Interesting exceptions included a reduced “support premium” associated with holding university-level qualifications, and increasing religious disparities.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mJNOl/3/


Further reading: To Christians arguing ‘no’ on marriage equality: the Bible is not decisive


What does all this mean?

The figures reveal an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.

However, certain population groups are clearly lagging behind in their support. This includes male, older, and religious Australians, and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. These same traits are also predictive of being undecided on the issue. This implies campaigners for a Yes vote should redouble efforts in putting forward arguments that appeal to these groups.

The ConversationEven with a favourable outcome, the moral scrutiny to which the LGBT community is being subjected will likely have long-term negative consequences. Social friction and debates about the rights of same-sex couples are unlikely to disappear after the plebiscite. Our results point toward population groups that will need further convincing.

Francisco Perales, Senior Research Fellow (Institute for Social Science Research & Life Course Centre) and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of Queensland and Alice Campbell, PhD Student, Life Course Centre and Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The true cost of keeping the Liddell power plant open


Frank Jotzo, Australian National University and Zeba Anjum, Australian National University

For a long time, Australian governments have believed that the private sector should run the electricity sector. And successive governments have used market instruments to incentivise reducing emissions, by supporting renewables, discouraging coal use, or both.

Now things seem inside out: uncertainty about energy policy mechanisms is pervasive, and the federal government is attempting to broker a deal for the ageing Liddell coal plant to stay open past its planned decommissioning date. It’s possible the plan will require government payments – amounting to a carbon subsidy.


Read more: AGL rejects Turnbull call to keep operating Liddell coal-fired power station


Fear of supply shortages and an appetite for coal have combined with an inability to resolve the political side of energy and climate policy.

Power companies see coal as a technology of the past, but the government seems unready to accept that wind and solar technologies (already the cheapest option for new capacity in Australia) are the future of Australia’s power.


Read more: The day Australia was put on blackout alert


The latest suggestion amounts to deferring serious investment in renewables for a while, fixing up some of the old coal plants up so they can run a few more years, and buying time in the hope of keeping power prices down. Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has backed the idea, at least in principle.

The cost of delaying the inevitable

Commissioned in 1972, the Liddell power plant is the oldest of Australia’s large coal-fired stations (after the closure of the Hazelwood station). The New South Wales government sold it to AGL in 2014, at an effective price of zero dollars.

AGL announced some time ago that it will close the plant in 2022 and has considerable financial incentive to do so. This week AGL reiterated this. The latest suggestion is that Delta Electricity might buy and continue to operate Liddell.

What might be the benefits and costs of keeping Liddell running for, say, another decade? We do not know the plant-level technical and economic parameters, but let’s look at the principles and rough magnitudes.

Keeping the plant running longer will require refurbishments, defer the investment costs in renewables, and result in additional emissions, both in carbon dioxide and local air pollutants.

Refurbishment is costly. Finkel put refurbishment costs at A$500-600 million for a 10-year extension. Such refurbishment might achieve an increase in efficiency – as GE, a maker of power station equipment, recently argued – but perhaps not by much for a very old plant like Liddell.


Read more: Coal and the Coalition: the policy knot that still won’t untie


And refurbishment might not work so well, as the experience with the Muja plant in Western Australia shows: A$300 million was spent on refurbishment that ultimately failed. Spending big money on outdated equipment is not a particularly attractive option for energy companies, as AGL’s CEO recently pointed out.

Liddell’s power output during 2015-16 was around 8 terawatt hours – about 10% of present NSW power supply (it was more in 2016-17, and less in previous years). It might well be lower as the plant ages.

Ironically, the reduction in the Renewable Energy Target, from 41 to 33 terawatt hours per year, almost exactly matches Liddell’s present power output. With the original RET target, new renewables would have covered Liddell’s output by 2020.

Liddell emitted around 7.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in 2015-2016. With the assumed reduction in output and some improvement in CO₂ emissions intensity, the carbon dioxide output might be in the order of 5-6 million tonnes per year, or 50-60 million tonnes over ten years.

If the government were to pay for the refurbishment, as has been suggested, this would equate to subsidising CO₂ emissions at a rate of perhaps $10 per tonne, compared to the alternative of replacing Liddell with renewable power.


Read more: FactCheck Q&A: is coal still cheaper than renewables as an energy source?


At the same time, the government is paying for projects to reduce emissions, at average prices of around $12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, under the Emissions Reduction Fund. The contradiction is self-evident. Furthermore, keeping more coal plants operational deters commercial investment in any kind of new plants.

Of course this needs to be seen in the context of supply security, any subsidies that might be paid in future to renewable energy generators, and the possibility that a Clean Energy Target will determine overall emissions from electricity production irrespective of whether Liddell operates or not. It’s complicated. But the fundamental point is clear: paying for an old coal plant to operate for longer means spending money to lock things in, and delay the needed transition to clean power.

A possible compromise might be to mothball the Liddell plant, to use if supply shortages loom, for example, on hot summer days. But such a “reserve” model could mean very high costs per unit of electricity produced.

It is not clear that it would be cheaper than a combination of energy storage and flexible demand-side responses. And it may be unreliable, especially as the plant ages further. During the NSW heatwave last summer Liddell was not able to run full tilt because of technical problems.

A market model to pay for reserve capacity would surely do better than government direction.

Australia’s energy companies have been calling for a mechanism to support new clean investment, such as the Clean Energy Target. And many would no doubt be content to simply see a broad-based, long-term carbon price, which remains the best economic option. If the policy framework was stable, private companies would go ahead with required investment in new capacity.


Read more: Finkel’s Clean Energy Target plan ‘better than nothing’: economists poll


The ConversationMeanwhile, federal and state governments are intervening ad-hoc in the market – making a deal to keep an old plant open here, building and owning new equipment there. It is the worst of all worlds: a market-based system but with extensive and unpredictable intervention by governments that tend to undermine investor confidence.

Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University and Zeba Anjum, PhD student, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Grattan on Friday: Turnbull’s rush for an energy ‘announceable’ sows confusion


File 20170907 9549 1w60zja
Malcolm Turnbull has tried to focus on energy policy while the opposition has been preoccupied with the eligibility of Barnaby Joyce.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Barnaby Joyce looks like he’s doing it tough. Day after day, he sits behind Malcolm Turnbull in Question Time, facing Labor’s unrelenting attack on his right to be on the frontbench.

There’s the occasional laugh, to keep up appearances, but mostly he has the face of a man who’s whipping himself.

What’s most personally painful for Joyce, who as leader has been very focused on maintaining the Nationals’ sense of loyalty to the team, is that he has let the team down.

A check would have revealed he needed to address his dual New Zealand citizenship. He regularly warns the Coalition partyroom against distractions and he is embarrassed that he’s caused a big one.

But what’s done – or wasn’t done – is now in the past. Turnbull might be confident the High Court will uphold his position but Joyce is already preparing for a byelection if things go badly.

The government can accuse the opposition of neglecting mainstream issues in its preoccupation with Joyce.

Its tactic, however, does serve to further unsettle him. Also, if the court were to find against him Labor, with its argument that he should have stood aside from the front bench at the start, would have laid the groundwork for some of its byelection campaigning. But if Joyce is vindicated Labor will have misplayed.

The court outcome on Joyce – to be considered among the swathe of MPs’ citizenship cases – is harder to predict than was the result in the challenges to the same-sex marriage postal ballot. On Thursday the court declared that ballot constitutional, as always seemed more likely than not.

There are still hurdles ahead for Turnbull on same-sex marriage – notably, he needs the “Yes” case to win. But at least he’s over a major one. Having the ballot struck down would have brought a crisis for him.

If the court does uphold the eligibility of Joyce and those with similar circumstances, it will surely mean it is effectively rewriting the constitutional provision that makes dual citizens ineligible for parliament. It would be saying that many dual citizens, born in Australia of foreign-born parentage, can be properly elected.

Amid the various distractions and the continuing bad polls, Turnbull’s strategy has become to focus, laser-like, on what is currently the biggest bread-and-butter issue in the community – the state of energy prices and the future of energy policy.

Turnbull faces multiple separate but related pressures: to get people some early relief with their bills; to deal with the circumstances of coming summers; and to craft a long-term clean energy policy that can survive a partyroom where the forces of the right have loud voices and a deep commitment to coal.

This week, against the background of a report from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) highlighting the risks to the reliability of the electricity supply in the next few years, Turnbull was looking in particular to the medium term.

While at times he has encouraged the idea of supporting the building of new clean coal power stations, the AEMO report pointed to keeping some existing generators operating longer as a more practical course.

Thus on Tuesday Turnbull told parliament he and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg were in discussions to extend the life of AGL’s Liddell coal-fired power station, in the Hunter region of New South Wales, for at least five years beyond its scheduled 2022 closure.

But then Andy Vesey, chief executive of AGL, which has made much of its long-term intention to move out of coal, reaffirmed via Twitter the Liddell closure schedule.

Later Turnbull told reporters AGL was willing to sell Liddell to “a responsible party”. In a statement to the ASX the following morning, however, AGL seemed less than keen on a sale, although it was unclear whether this was a substantive or holding position.

The government has since said Vesey made the comment that he would consider selling to a responsible party a month back, when Turnbull and several ministers met electricity retailers.

It has all looked pretty messy. Turnbull should have been more precise in his remarks to parliament, or waited to make them until the position was clearer.

AGL copped a vitriolic spray from Matt Canavan, the former resources minister who will be back in the job if the High Court clears his citizenship issue. Canavan called AGL “the biggest hypocrite walking around Australia at the moment” for making money from producing coal-fired power while advertising its exit from coal – but not until 2050.

It makes a somewhat fractious backdrop to the meeting Turnbull and Frydenberg will have with Vesey on Monday to discuss a possible sale.

After all that’s been said, the stakes seem high for both the government and Vesey. On the other hand, the government believes that in the public mind the power companies are about as unpopular as the banks, so going after them wins rather than loses points.

The government is confident a buyer will be available for Liddell, although it doesn’t want to be the purchaser. Any buyer almost certainly would demand some sort of government financial support.

The AGL affair is another example of the extraordinary amount of intervention in the market and the manhandling of business that the Coalition is willing to resort to as it grapples with the energy conundrum.

Retailers have been summoned twice to be told to ensure customers can get the best deals available. The government not only plans to expand the Snowy but wants to buy out the whole enterprise. Then there is its willingness to use export controls to get more gas available for the local market.

As one government man puts it, “extraordinary problems create extraordinary interventions”. And ironies too, now that ministers have taken to labelling Bill Shorten a socialist leading New “Red” Labor. It would make as much sense – which is not much – for Labor to throw similar rhetoric back at the Coalition.

Whether from all this, and the still-to-be-joined battle over a clean energy target, will emerge a policy framework sufficient to convince voters that the government is getting on top of the challenges remains to be seen.

The ConversationIn trying to grapple with energy Turnbull is playing on the right field, but being able to kick the goals is another matter.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

What would it take to raise Australian productivity growth?


Roy Green, University of Technology Sydney

While productivity is once again growing in Australia, we face a big challenge in getting it to a level that would restore the rate of improvement in our living standards of the last few decades.

Yet the measures required to meet this challenge may not be the ones usually promoted by economists and editorial writers. We need innovation not just in the technologies we use but in our business models and management practices as well.

The problem, according to new Treasury research, is that national income growth can no longer be propped up by the favourable terms of trade associated with our once-in-a-generation mining boom.

Does this mean we are back to the hard grind of productivity-enhancing reform? There are (at least) two opposing schools of thought on this. Some believe reform is needed, but mainly corporate tax cuts and labour market deregulation. Others deny any such reform is even necessary.

What has happened to productivity?

Productivity is a complex issue, but may be simply defined as output produced per worker, measured by the number of hours worked. On this basis we have seen a modest spike in productivity growth over the last five years to 1.8% per year.

This is primarily due to “capital deepening”, an increase in the ratio of capital to labour. Contemporary examples include driverless trucks in iron ore mines, advanced robotics in manufacturing and ATMs in banking.

Before this five-year period, productivity growth was much lower, even negative. This was especially the case during the mining boom itself when capital investment was taking place but had not yet translated into increased output.

The Treasury paper argues that to achieve our long-run trend rate of growth in living standards of 2% a year, measured as per capita income, we now need to increase average annual productivity growth to around 2.5%.

This will require not just capital deepening, but also improvements in the efficiency with which labour and capital inputs are used, otherwise known as “multifactor productivity”.

The hype cycle

Australia is not alone in facing this productivity challenge. Globally, amidst what would appear to be an unprecedented wave of technological change and innovation, developed economies are experiencing a productivity slowdown.

Again, explanations for this vary. Some economists question whether the current wave of innovation is really as transformative as earlier ones involving urban sanitation, telecommunications and commercial flight.

Others have wondered whether it is still feasible to measure productivity at all when innovation comprises such intangible factors as cloud computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning, let alone widespread application of the “internet of things”.

However, there is an emerging consensus that we are merely in the “installation” phase of these innovations, and the “deployment” phase will be played out over coming decades.

This has also been called the “hype cycle”. New technologies move from a “peak of inflated expectations” to a “trough of disillusionment” and then only after much prototyping and experimentation to the “plateau of productivity”. Think blockchain in financial transactions and augmented reality for consumer products.


Read more: A guide to deconstructing the battery hype cycle


The world is bifurcating between “frontier firms”, whose ready adoption of digital technologies and skills is reflected in superior productivity, and the “laggards”, which are seemingly unable to benefit from technology diffusion.

These latter firms drag down average productivity growth and, lacking competitiveness, they inevitably find it more difficult to access global markets and value chains.

The increasing gap between high- and low-productivity firms is less a matter of technology as such than the capacity for non-technology innovation. In particular, this encompasses the development of new business models, systems integration and high-performance work and management practices.

Many of the world’s most successful companies, such as Apple, gained market leadership not by inventing new technologies but by embedding them in new products, whose value is driven by service design and customer experience.

Engaging our creativity

Recent international studies have shown that a major explanatory variable for productivity differences between firms, and between countries, is management capability.

It is noteworthy that Australian managers lag most behind world-best practice in a survey category titled “instilling a talent mindset”. In other words, how well they engage talent and creativity in the workplace.

Most organisations today would claim that “people are our greatest asset”, but much fewer provide genuine opportunities for participation in the decisions that affect them and the future of the business. Those that do are generally better positioned to outperform competitors and demonstrate greater capacity for change.

More survey work on this issue is under way.

A more inclusive approach

Wages are also related to productivity but not always in the way that is commonly assumed. It is said that productivity performance determines the wages a company can afford to pay, with gains shared among stakeholders, including the workforce.

But evidence is emerging that causation might equally run in the reverse direction, with wage increases driving capital investment and efficiency.

This casts the current debate on productivity-enhancing reform in a very different light. It may now be a stretch to argue that corporate tax cuts will be much of a game-changer in the absence of any incentive to invest in new technologies and skills. The same may be said about the ideological insistence on labour market deregulation, if all that results is a low-wage, low-productivity economy.

The populist revolt against technological change and globalisation has its roots not just in the failure to distribute fairly the gains from productivity growth, but in a longstanding effort in some countries to fragment the structures of wage bargaining and to exclude workers from any strategic role in business transformation. This has assigned the costs of change to those least able to resist, let alone benefit from it.

The next wave of productivity improvement, if it is to succeed, must be based on a more “inclusive” approach to innovation policy and management.

The ConversationAs jobs change or disappear altogether, Australia’s workforce can make a positive contribution. But workers will only be able to do so if they have the skills and confidence to take advantage of new jobs and new opportunities in a high-wage, high-productivity economy.

Roy Green, Dean of UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Health Check: which vaccinations should I get as an adult?



File 20170810 4244 1cw5cph
Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in history.
from shutterstock.com

C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW and Rob Menzies, UNSW

Before vaccines were developed, infectious diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus and meningitis were the leading cause of death and illness in the world. Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in history, having drastically reduced deaths and illness from infectious causes.

There is a large gap between vaccination rates for funded vaccines for adults in Australia and those for infants. More than 93% of infants are vaccinated in Australia, while in adults the rates are between 53-75%. Much more needs to be done to prevent infections in adults, particularly those at risk.

If you are an adult in Australia, the kinds of vaccines you need to get will depend on several factors, including whether you missed out on childhood vaccines, if you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, your occupation, how old you are and whether you intend to go travelling.

For those born in Australia

Children up to four years and aged 10-15 receive vaccines under the National Immunisation Schedule. These are for hepatitis B, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, haemophilus influenzae B, rotavirus, pneumococcal and meningococcal disease, chickenpox and the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Immunity following vaccination varies depending on the vaccine. For example, the measles vaccine protects for a long duration, possibly a lifetime, whereas immunity wanes for pertussis (whooping cough). Boosters are given for many vaccines to improve immunity.

Measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, diphtheria and tetanus

People born in Australia before 1966 likely have natural immunity to measles as the viruses were circulating widely prior to the vaccination program. People born after 1965 should have received two doses of a measles vaccine. Those who haven’t, or aren’t sure, can safely receive a vaccine to avoid infection and prevent transmission to babies too young to be vaccinated.

Measles vaccine can be given as MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) or MMRV, which includes varicella (chickenpox). The varicella vaccine on its own (not combined in MMRV) is advised for people aged 14 and over who have not had chickenpox, especially women of childbearing age.

Booster doses of diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccines, are available free at age 10-15, and recommended at 50 years old and also at 65 years and over if not received in the previous ten years. Anyone unsure of their tetanus vaccination status who sustains a tetanus-prone wound (generally a deep puncture or wound) should get vaccinated. While tetanus is rare in Australia, most cases we see are in older adults.


In July 2017, the government announced free catch-up vaccinations for all newly arrived refugees. This covers any childhood vaccine on the National Immunisation Schedule which has been missed.
Information sourced from betterhealth.vic.gov.au and healthdirect.gov.au/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Whooping cough

Pregnant women are recommended to get the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine in the third trimester to protect the vulnerable infant after it is born, and influenza vaccine at any stage of the pregnancy (see below under influenza).

Pertussis (whooping cough) is a contagious respiratory infection dangerous for babies. One in every 200 babies who contract whooping cough will die.

It is particularly important for women from 28 weeks gestation to ensure they are vaccinated, as well as the partners of these women and anyone else who is taking care of a child younger than six months old. Deaths from pertussis are also documented in elderly Australians.


Read more: ‘No Vax, No Visit’? If mum was vaccinated baby is already protected against whooping cough


Pneumococcal disease and influenza

The pneumococcal vaccine is funded for everyone aged 65 and over, and recommended for anyone under 65 with risk factors such as chronic lung disease.

Anyone from the age of six months can get the flu (influenza) vaccine. The vaccine can be given to any adult who requests it, but is only funded if they fall into defined risk groups such as pregnant women, Indigenous Australians, peopled aged 65 and over, or those with a medical condition such as chronic lung, cardiac or kidney disease.

Flu vaccine is matched every year to the anticipated circulating flu viruses and is quite effective. The vaccine covers four strains of influenza. Pregnant women are at increased risk of the flu and recommended for influenza vaccine any time during pregnancy.


Read more: Millions of Australian adults are unvaccinated and it’s increasing disease risk for all of us


Health workers, childcare workers and aged-care workers are a priority for vaccination because they care for sick or vulnerable people in institutions at risk of outbreaks. Influenza is the most important vaccine for these occupational groups, and some organisations provide free staff vaccinations. Otherwise, you can ask your doctor for a vaccination.

Any person whose immune system is weakened through medication or illness (such as HIV) is at increased risk of infections. However, live viral or bacterial vaccines must not be given to immunosuppressed people. They must seek medical advice on which vaccines can be safely given.


In July 2017, the government announced free catch-up vaccinations for all newly arrived refugees. This covers any childhood vaccine on the National Immunisation Schedule which has been missed.
Information sourced from betterhealth.vic.gov.au and healthdirect.gov.au/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Hepatitis

Australian-born children receive four shots of the hepatitis B vaccine, but some adults are advised to get vaccinations for hepatitis A or B. Those recommended to receive the hepatitis A vaccine are: travellers to hepatitis A endemic areas; people whose jobs put them at risk of acquiring hepatitis A including childcare workers and plumbers; men who have sex with men; injecting drug users; people with developmental disabilities; those with chronic liver disease, liver organ transplant recipients or those chronically infected with hepatitis B or hepatitis C.

Those recommended to get the hepatitis B vaccine are: people who live in a household with someone infected with hepatitis B; those having sexual contact with someone infected with hepatitis B; sex workers; men who have sex with men; injecting drug users; migrants from hepatitis B endemic countries; healthcare workers; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; and some others at high risk at their workplace or due to a medical condition.


Read more – Explainer: the A, B, C, D and E of hepatitis


Human papillomavirus

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine protects against cervical, anal, head and neck cancers, as well as some others. It is available for boys and girls and delivered in high school, usually in year seven. There is benefit for older girls and women to be vaccinated, at least up to their mid-to-late 20s.

The elderly

With ageing comes a progressive decline in the immune system and a corresponding increase in risk of infections. Vaccination is the low-hanging fruit for healthy ageing. The elderly are advised to receive the influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccines.

Influenza and pneumonia are major preventable causes of illness and death in older people. The flu causes deaths in children and the elderly during severe seasons.

The most common cause of pneumonia is streptococcus pneumonia, which can be prevented with the pneumococcal vaccine. There are two types of pneumococcal vaccines: pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV). Both protect against invasive pneumococcal disease (such as meningitis and the blood infection referred to as septicemia), and the conjugate vaccine is proven to reduce the risk of pneumonia.

The government funds influenza (annually) and pneumococcal vaccines for people aged 65 and over.

Vaccination is the low-hanging fruit for healthy ageing.
from shutterstock.com

Shingles is a reactivation of the chickenpox virus. It causes a high burden of disease in older people (who have had chickenpox before) and can lead to debilitating and chronic pain. The shingles vaccine is recommended for people aged 60 and over. The government funds it for people aged 70 to 79.


Read more – Explainer: how do you get shingles and who should be vaccinated against it?


Australian travellers

Travel is a major vector for transmission of infections around the world, and travellers are at high risk of preventable infections. Most epidemics of measles, for example, are imported through travel. People may be under-vaccinated for measles if they missed a dose in childhood.

Anyone travelling should discuss vaccines with their doctor. If unsure of measles vaccination status, vaccination is recommended. This will depend on where people are travelling, and may include vaccination for yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, cholera, typhoid, hepatitis A or influenza.

Travellers who are visiting friends and relatives overseas often fail to take precautions such as vaccination and do not perceive themselves as being at risk. In fact, they are at higher risk of preventable infections because they may be staying in traditional communities rather than hotels, and can be exposed to risks such as contaminated water, food or mosquitoes.

Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders

Indigenous Australians are at increased risk of infections and have access to funded vaccines against influenza (anyone over six months old) and pneumococcal disease (for infants, everyone over 50 years and those aged 15-49 with chronic diseases).

They are also advised to get hepatitis B vaccine if they haven’t already received it. Unfortunately, overall vaccine coverage for these groups is low – between 13% and 50%, representing a real lost opportunity.


Read more – Dr G. Yunupingu’s legacy: it’s time to get rid of chronic hepatitis B in Indigenous Australia


Migrants and refugees

Migrants and refugees are at risk of vaccine-preventable infections because they may be under-vaccinated and come from countries with a high incidence of infection. There is no systematic means for GPs to identify people at risk of under-vaccination, but the new Australian Immunisation Register will help if GPs can check the immunisation status of their patients.

The funding of catch-up vaccination has also been a major obstacle until now. In July 2017 the government announced free catch-up vaccinations for children aged 10-19 and for all newly arrived refugees. This covers any childhood vaccine on the National Immunisation Schedule that has been missed.

The ConversationWhile this does not cover all under-vaccinated refugees, it is a welcome development. If you are not newly arrived but a migrant or refugee, check with your doctor about catch-up vaccination.

C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Head of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW and Rob Menzies, Senior Lecturer, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Tony Abbott: consider burqa ban in places ‘dedicated to Australian values’



File 20170906 9202 idmvxl
Tony Abbott said he was a reluctant banner but says the burqa is an affront to the Australian way of life.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The issue of the burqa has erupted in the Coalition, with Tony Abbott suggesting a ban should be considered in places “dedicated to Australian values”, and the Nationals set to debate a prohibition on “full-facial coverings”.

Abbott said he was “a reluctant banner”, but “on the other hand, this thing frankly is an affront to our way of life”, a “confronting” and “imprisoning” garment.

“I think it is worth considering whether there are some places that are dedicated to Australian values such as our courts, our parliaments, our schools – maybe we do need to think about whether this garment is appropriate to be worn in places that are dedicated to upholding Australian values,” he told 2GB.

Abbott was commenting on a motion for a ban that Nationals MP George Christensen will move when the party’s federal conference meets this weekend.

The Christensen motion, supported by his Dawson federal divisional council, calls on the government “to implement a ban on full-facial coverings in all government buildings and public spaces, excluding places of worship, where it assists with security and public safety”.

Christensen said the qualification about security was to make exceptions for face coverings that for example were part of an entertainment.

The motion puts Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce on the spot.

“One of the great things about our party is that any person and any branch can bring forward any motion,” Joyce said.

“That doesn’t necessarily mean it becomes policy. That’s a matter for the federal conference, and I’ll be watching and listening to the debate like any other delegate.” Pressed on his own opinion he told reporters: “You can turn up the conference and find out exactly what I believe”.

In the Senate on Wednesday Pauline Hanson launched a vitriolic attack on Attorney-General George Brandis over his criticism of her stunt last month when she wore a burqa into the chamber. In his emotional speech that drew a standing ovation from Labor and the Greens, Brandis said it was appalling for her to mock the religious garments of Muslims and told her “we will not be banning the burqa”.

Brandis’ speech has since had a mixed reception in Coalition circles. On the day, there was limited and hesitant applause from his own ranks.

In her attack on Brandis, Hanson invoked the Anzacs when she accused him of defending “the most recognised symbol of radical Islam”.

“Whether or not you agree with my decision to wear a burqa in parliament is not the real issue,” she said. “The real issue is that Australians want a debate on full-face coverings and they want a debate on the issues that the burqa raises.

“It is, after all, a sign of radical Islam, which threatens the true Australian way of life. What would our Anzacs say? They fought for our freedom and way of life. There is room for only one flag, one language, one loyalty and one law.

“Recently, the lives of precious Australians have been lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to stop radical Islam. But, senator Brandis, you forgot those lives when you defended the most recognised symbol of radical Islam, the burqa,” she said.

“You have a right to a view on my decision to wear the burqa into the Senate, but it is arrogant, incorrect and ill-informed when you presume to speak for most Australians,” Hanson said.

She said that all Brandis’ colleagues had “remained seated and stunned while you strutted the Senate stage with your quivering lip”.

Christensen said he thought Brandis had “over-egged” his reaction to Hanson. He said there had been criticism of Brandis’s speech among Coalition MPs, and the standing ovation had been “from people with values that are antipathetic to ours”.

He said the burqa was not a religious requirement but a “a cultural practice that is based in the oppression of women”.

Christensen said his motion talked “not about the burqa and the niqab specifically but full-facial coverings, so this would even apply to violent people that we have seen in the past violent protesters on the far left and the far right … who put the balaclavas over their nose and mouths to disguise themselves”.

The ConversationA ReachTEL poll taken after Hanson’s stunt found majority support for banning the burqa.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/qi46m-71c69c?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Things to consider when making the switch to the NBN and what to expect



File 20170829 10414 1wdwxxw
NBN HFC setup.
Author

David Glance, University of Western Australia

With all of the negative press about Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN), consumers who have the option to switch to the NBN from a working broadband connection might be forgiven for being cautious. After the NBN is made available in an area, residents have up to 18 months to switch from their current plans to one provided on the NBN. Once it is available in an area however, residents are usually deluged with offers from various internet service providers (ISPs) about switching, making it hard to ignore.

Moving to NBN on HFC

In my area in Western Australia, I have had HFC from Telstra for many years and so changing to the NBN does not involve a change in the underlying technology. Although some researchers have classified HFC as being an inferior technology to Fibre to the Node, it is actually capable of delivering speeds of 100 Mbps down and 40 Mbps up. Within the next one to two years HFC will be capable of 1 Gbps speeds with the roll out of DOCSIS 3.1.

HFC connections may still suffer if ISPs do not adequately provision adequate CVC capacity on the NBN but HFC does not have the same limitations as Fibre to the Node with regard to the distance from the node. There is also a possibility that the NBN will see more homes connected to a node than was the case when Telstra ran the network. This may also impact performance.

In my case, I was consistently getting speeds of 100 Mbps for downloads but only 2 Mbps for uploads. Prior to the NBN, these speeds have been a luxury for those Australian’s who lived in areas that were services by Telstra and Optus with HFC.

Making the switch to the NBN was relatively simple but uncovered some decisions that it is worth spending time considering. If doing a conversion, some of the options aren’t made obvious by the sales team and so need to be explicitly requested.

The question of speed

Once you have decided on an ISP, there is the question of what speed of connection is available at any given residence. HFC doesn’t suffer from a slowdown based on the distance from the “node” and so speeds up to 100 Mbps are available. ISPs like Telstra however, sell plans based on download limits and at the default of 25 Mpbs. Choosing up to 100 Mbps costs another AUD 30 a month.

It seems that for most Australians who have connected to the NBN, the default of 25 Mbps has been the most popular choice, with 53% of fixed connections being at 25 Mbps and a further 29% at the lowest tier of 12 Mbps. For the average family just watching streaming video and using social media and browsing, this is likely to be fine. It has resulted however in the overall average speed of internet connections in Australia remaining low at 10.1 Mbps.

Choice of wireless router

Another choice that doesn’t seem important at the time is the choice of wireless router that ISPs offer. Here again, the default for Telstra is a basic Sagemcom F@ST 5535. And it is basic. It doesn’t support the fastest wireless protocols used by recent smartphones and laptops, 802.11ac. The fixed cable connections from the router are also not the fastest kind. Not having the fastest wireless can make a significant difference to the overall speed of the internet connection of devices and so it is always worth upgrading.

Some of the routers also have the ability to fail over to using 4G if the NBN connection is not available for any reason. This may be important because on the NBN, the landline phone is switched over to using the main internet connection using Voice over IP (VoIP) and not the physical connection over the old copper network. However, if the power goes out, the phone will also be unavailable even by this route.

Other than for the phone connection, any wireless router can be connected to the NBN modem. The Telstra router can then be simply used for the phone connection and its WiFi switched off.

Making the switch

For me, and I stress the personal nature of this, the switch was fast, efficient and painless. From contacting Telstra, the wireless router was shipped within 4 days and the appointment with the NBN technician booked for a week after the order was placed. Any interaction with the Telstra NBN connection staff involved little wait times and the only negatives were some confusing emails and an order status that said the order was delayed when it wasn’t.

The NBN technician arrived and didn’t need to switch the physical box attached to the wall outside the house. It was just a question of plugging in the modem, making sure it worked, and telling NBN and Telstra to switch it all on. The technician gave me advice of avoiding being disconnected when making the switch over from the old system to the new and then left, although I had been barraging him with questions about how the rollout was going.

Getting connected was just a question of connecting the wireless router to the NBN modem, switching it on and connecting to the wireless network. As I mentioned above, I use Apple wireless routers and so altered the configuration after things were connected.

And the results?

The download speed dropped from the Telstra non-NBN connection. During the morning, I got about 94 Mbps download. The massive difference was in the upload speed which is now about 38 Mbps. This is a huge bonus over the existing connection which gave 2 Mbps. Upload speeds are never really thought about as a problem until you realise that synchronising with services like iCloud, Google Drive and DropBox all become significantly faster with the NBN connection.

However, in the evening, the speed dropped to between 50 – 70 Mbps download and 23 – 35 Mbps upload. This was something that didn’t happen on the Telstra non-NBN connection which was consistent even in the evenings.

It is still early days and as more people connect in my immediate area, bandwidth may be further affected. Telstra may also ramp up the capacity so that there are not these changes in speed based on the time of day.

Update from NBN Co

In response to the article, a spokesperson from NBN Co clarified the following points:

[1] With regard to the number of HFC connections per node:

“At present Telstra runs around 1000 premises on an HFC node sharing 1Gbps of capacity. On the nbn we will have only 650 premises per Node and once we reach full DOCSIS 3.1 we will have 10Gbps of capacity available”

[2] Regarding the speed drop I had experienced in the evenings:

The Conversation“Your speed drop in the evening is almost certainly CVC related”

David Glance, Director of UWA Centre for Software Practice, University of Western Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coal and the Coalition: the policy knot that still won’t untie


Marc Hudson, University of Manchester

As the Turnbull government ties itself in yet more knots over the future of coal-fired power, it’s worth reflecting that climate and energy policy have been a bloody business for almost a decade now.

There was a brief period of consensus ushered in by John Howard’s belated realisation in 2006 that a price had to be put on carbon dioxide emissions. But by December 2009 the Nationals, and enough Liberals, had decided that this was a mistake, and have opposed explicit carbon pricing ever since.


Read more: Ten years of backflips over emissions trading leave climate policy in the lurch.


The resulting policy uncertainty has caused an investment drought which has contributed to higher energy prices. Now, with prices a hot potato, there are thought bubbles about extending the life of coal-fired power stations and a new effort to set up a Conservatives for Conservation group.

But the Liberal Party’s tussles over climate and energy policy (as distinct from denying the science itself) go back even further – some 30 years.

Early days and ‘early’ action

It’s hard to believe it now, but the Liberal Party took a stronger emissions target than Labor to the 1990 Federal election. Yet green-minded voters were not persuaded, and Labor squeaked home with their support. After that episode the Liberals largely gave on courting green voters, and under new leader John Hewson the party tacked right. Ironically, considering Hewson’s climate advocacy today, back then his Fightback! policy was as silent on climate change as it was on the price of birthday cakes.

In his excellent 2007 book High and Dry, former Liberal speech writer Guy Pearse recounts how in the mid-1990s he contacted the Australian Conservation Foundation, offering to to canvass Coalition MPs to “find the most promising areas of common ground” on which to work when the party returned to government. The ACF was “enthusiastic, if a little bemused at the novelty of a Liberal wanting to work with them”. Most Liberal MPs – including future environment minister Robert Hill and future prime minister Tony Abbott – were “strongly supportive” of the idea. But others (Pearse names Eric Abetz and Peter McGauran) were “paranoid that some kind of trap was being laid”. Nothing came of it.

Elected in 1996, Howard continued the staunch hostility to the United Nations climate negotiations that his Labor predecessor Paul Keating had begun. Not all businessmen were happy. Leading up to the crucial Kyoto summit in 1997, the Sydney Morning Herald reported how a “delegation of scientists and financiers” led by Howard’s local party branch manager Robert Vincin and Liberal Party grandee Sir John Carrick lobbied the prime minister to take a more progressive approach. Howard did not bend.

Howard stayed unmoved until 2006 when, facing a perfect storm of rising public climate awareness and spiralling poll numbers, he finally relented. Earlier that year a group of businesses convened by the Australian Conservation Foundation produced a report titled The Early Case for Business Action. “Early” is debatable, given that climate change had already been a political issue since 1988, but more saliently the report tentatively suggested introducing a carbon price. And Howard finally relented.

The carbon wars

The ensuing ten years after Kevin Rudd’s defeat of Howard don’t need much recapping here (go here for all the details). But one interesting phenomenon that has emerged from the policy wreckage is the emergence of some very unusual coalitions to beg for certainty.

In 2015, in the leadup to the crucial Paris climate talks, an “unprecedented alliance” of business, union, environmental, investor and welfare groups called the Australian Climate Roundtable sprang briefly into life to make the case for action.

Then, after the seminal South Australia blackout last September, a surprisingly diverse group of industry and consumer bodies – the Australian Energy Council, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, Clean Energy Council, Energy Users Association, Energy Consumers Australia, Energy Networks Association and Energy Efficiency Council – called on federal and state energy ministers to “work together to craft a cooperative and strategic response to the transformation underway in Australia’s energy system”.


Read more: Who tilts at windmills? Explaining hostility to renewables.


It’s in this light that the new Conseratives for Conservation lobbying effort should be seen. Its spearhead Kristina Photios surely knows she has no chance of converting the committed denialists, but she can chip away at the waverers currently giving them comfort and power.

Questions on notice

Of course, there are always cultural (or even psychological) issues, but you’d think that conservation would be a no-brainer for conservatives (the clue should be in the name).

There are a few questions, of course (with my answers in brackets).

  • Where were all the people who are now calling for policy certainty back in 2011 when Tony Abbott was declaring his oath to kill off the carbon tax? (They were AWOL.)

  • Will any business show any interest in building a new coal-fired power station? (No.)

  • Is renewable energy technology now advanced enough for them to make serious money? (We shall see.)

  • Can we make up for lost time in our emissions reductions? (No, and we have already ensured more climate misery than there would have been with genuinely early climate action.)

  • Will the Liberals further water down the Clean Energy Target proposal? (Probably.)

  • What will Tony Abbott say to UK climate sceptic think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation when he gives a speech on October 6? (Who knows –
    grab your popcorn!).

  • What will happen to the Liberals in the medium term? (Who knows, but Michelle Grattan of this parish has some intriguing ideas.)

  • Are there reasons to be cheerful? (Renewable energy journalist Ketan Joshi thinks so.)

Perhaps the last word on this issue should go to John Hewson, who noted last year:

The ConversationThe “right” love to speak of the debt and deficit problem as a form of “intergenerational theft”, yet they fail to see the climate challenge in the same terms, even though the consequences of failing to address it substantively, and as a matter of urgency, would dwarf that of the debt problem. The “right” is simply “wrong”. It’s political opportunism of the worst sort, and their children and grandchildren will pay the price.

Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of Manchester

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.