Post-coronavirus, we’ll need a working tax system, not more taxes and not higher rates



Shutterstock

Neil Warren, UNSW and Richard Highfield, UNSW

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr famously observed in 1927 that “taxes are what we pay for civilised society, including the chance to insure”.

Whilst tax as a price for civilised society is well understood, less appreciated is the second part of his observation – that tax provides a chance to insure against a crisis.

As nations emerge from the COVID-19 crisis with policies unthinkable just six months ago, and associated debts previously unimaginable, it is becoming clear that while some were well insured and able to respond rapidly, most were underinsured, exposing their civilisations to previously unthinkable risks.

In many ways Australia is an exemplar in its use of taxation to provide the “chance to insure”. It funds Medicare; the Pharmaceuticals Benefit Scheme; the Higher Education Loan Program; the Superannuation Guarantee Charge and contingency-based welfare payments.

COVID has exposed the weakness in our system

COVID-19 has exposed how underinsured Australia is in other ways. It will have to borrow heavily to protect the economy, but for many years won’t be able to impose the extra taxes that will be needed to pay down the debt.

Introducing new taxes or increasing existing tax rates would threaten what will be a fragile recovery.

The only realistic option is to review what Australia gives away, such as tax concessions, and what it fails to collect, as measured by the so-called tax gap.




Read more:
Did you cheat on your taxes? Here’s why your days may be numbered


The tax gap is the difference between the amount the Tax Office collects and what we would have collected if every taxpayer was fully compliant with tax law.

In 2016-17, the Commonwealth raised A$389 billion in taxes, intentionally gave away an estimated $166 billion and unintentionally failed to collect a further $30-35 billion that the Tax Office knows of.

Mapping out a pathway to winding back government debt and funding programs to better insure our civilised society has to begin with ensuring those who are not currently carrying their fair share of the legislated tax burden do so through reforms to reduce non-compliance.

Many of us aren’t paying the tax we should

The Tax Office conservatively estimates that non-compliance for the taxes it has so far examined is equivalent to more than 8% of the tax revenue it collected in 2015-16.

The Treasury also estimates that tax concessions in 2017-18 were equivalent to 41% of Commonwealth government revenue, or more than 9% of GDP (although it cautions against adding estimates together as reducing one concession can affect the use of others).

Given the scale of the Commonwealth response to COVID-19, the government will need additional tax revenues of around 2.5% of GDP (about $50 billion) for some years.

This should not prove insurmountable. In comparison with other advanced economies, Australia is a relative low taxer with a total tax burden of 28.6% of GDP in 2017-18, well below the OECD average of about 34.5%.

There’s revenue going begging

The tax gap estimates show billions can be raised from integrity measures such as addressing overclaimed work-related expenses ($3 billion), unreported cash wages ($1 billion) unreported rental property net income ($2 billion) and unreported business income ($2-3 billion).

There’s much more available from reducing tax concessions, removing the personal tax-free threshold, winding back retirement savings concessions, and broadening the goods and service tax (especially from fully taxing the food that is already partially taxed).

Lower income groups affected by the changes should be compensated by improved targeting of expenditure programs.




Read more:
Cabinet papers 1998-99: how the GST became unstoppable


Right now we’ve a near-universal welfare system and a targeted tax system.

The way out of our present problems is to make the tax system more universal and the welfare system more targeted.

New taxes and higher rates should be resisted, especially if made more palatable by more concessions.

What we are proposing would not only result in a tax system that was simpler and harder to escape – but one that was capable of funding the insurance we will need to preserve our society into the future

There’s no reason to think there won’t be another pandemic exposing the weaknesses in our tax system that remain.The Conversation

Neil Warren, Emeritus Professor of Taxation, UNSW and Richard Highfield, , UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If coronavirus cases don’t grow any faster, our health system will probably cope


Stephen Duckett, Grattan Institute; Anika Stobart, Grattan Institute, and Will Mackey, Grattan Institute

The growth in COVID-19 cases in Australia appears to have slowed across all states, through a combination of tighter border control and spatial distancing.

With the number of new cases each day growing at a slower rate, there is a chance the pandemic can be brought under control and dealt with in our existing public hospital system – even without help from the private system.




Read more:
Federal government gets private hospital resources for COVID-19 fight in exchange for funding support


However, it’s still too early to say for sure. Although Australia is testing more people than many other countries, it is only just starting to relax its criteria and testing more people with COVID-19-like symptoms.

As testing expands, we’ll have a better idea of how the health system will cope. But here’s what we know so far.

Australia’s infection rate appears to be slowing

The number of new COVID-19 cases in Australia has flattened over the past five days.

This is not just because new arrivals have slowed with much tighter border controls, and the slump in international air travel. The number of new local infections each day is also not growing.

For most of March, the total number of cases doubled in Australia every three to four days. That rate has now slowed to doubling every six to seven days.

The chart below shows this slowing occurred in each state that has a significant number of COVID-19 cases, and consistently from March 20.

On March 16, gatherings of more than 500 people were banned and all international arrivals were required to self-isolate for 14 days.

The health system will probably cope

Slowing the growth of new cases will ease pressure on the hospital system.

If we continued to double the number of cases every three to four days, we would have hit the then-capacity of intensive care units (ICUs) of about 2,200 beds in about mid-April when the number of new cases hit 12,000 per day. Doubling or even tripling the number of ICU beds would have delayed the crunch by a week.




Read more:
What steps hospitals can take if coronavirus leads to a shortage of beds


At the current doubling rate, of six to seven days, that crunch would hit in early May.

But the doubling rate is falling and so that crunch time will probably be pushed out even further.

The slower COVID-19 spreads, the more time we get to prepare health systems and increase the capacity of ICUs, where necessary.

Over the past week the growth pattern has slowed and shifted from the exponential doubling to a linear trend with the number of new cases in Australia increasing by about 350 per day. If this rate continues, Australia’s current ICU capacity will be able to cope.

But it is still early days. And our current testing regime may not be shedding as much light on community transmission as we need. With limited community testing, and a disease which is asymptomatic or mild for many, we don’t know how far infections have spread into the community and so we don’t know the actual number of new cases each day.

But we need to test more broadly to understand the spread

With more than 250,000 COVID-19 tests so far, Australia has a high testing rate compared to other countries.

But the number of testing kits has been limited, so Australia has done “targeted” rather than “widespread” testing.

The Commonwealth government previously advised doctors to limit testing to people who develop a respiratory illness and have either returned from overseas or been in close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the past fortnight.

As the restrictions on international arrivals kick in, community transmission will become the main source of COVID-19 risk.

The Commonwealth government last week expanded the testing criteria to people who have fever or acute respiratory infection and are in an at-risk group (for example, a health worker) or setting (such as a geographic area with confirmed clusters of cases).

Some states have gone further. New South Wales now allows GPs to refer for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.

Victoria has introduced randomised testing at its screening centres to get a better understanding of how the virus is spreading. This involves testing every fifth person who presents at the clinic, in addition to those who meet the testing criteria.

As overseas cases fall and our testing capability rises, all states should implement some form of randomised testing in the community.




Read more:
To get on top of the coronavirus, we also need to test people without symptoms


As the testing criteria is further relaxed and picks up more cases of community transmission, we will get a better understanding of how the virus is spreading in the community. Only then can we be confident about the adequacy of our health system in the coming months.The Conversation

Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute; Anika Stobart, Associate, Grattan Institute, and Will Mackey, Associate, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

No food, no fuel, no phones: bushfires showed we’re only ever one step from system collapse



Australian Navy

Anthony Richardson, RMIT University

This summer’s bushfires were not just devastating events in themselves. More broadly, they highlighted the immense vulnerability of the systems which make our contemporary lives possible.

The fires cut road access, which meant towns ran out of fuel and fell low on food. Power to towns was cut and mobile phone services stopped working. So too did the ATMs and EFTPOS services the economy needs to keep running.

In a modern, wealthy nation such as Australia, how could this happen?

In answering this question, it’s helpful to adopt “systems thinking”. This approach views problems as part of an overall system, where each part relates to each other.

In other words, we need to look at the big picture.

Through a systems lens

Systems are everywhere, from the coral ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef to the vast technology networks of global financial markets. In a human sense, social systems range from the small, such as a family, to large organisations or the national or global population.

The systems I mentioned just now are “complex” systems. This means they are connected to other systems in many ways. It also means a change in one part of the system, such as a bushfire in a landscape, can set off unpredicted changes in connected systems – be they political, technological, economic or social.




Read more:
Australia needs a national fire inquiry – these are the 3 key areas it should deliver in


All complex systems have three things in common:

  1. they need a constant supply of energy to maintain their functioning

  2. they are interconnected across a range of scales, from the personal and local to the global and beyond

  3. they are fragile when they have no “redundancy”, or Plan B.

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange – part of the complex system of global financial markets.
Justin Lane/EPA

The case of East Gippsland

To better understand a complex system collapse, let’s examine what happened in Victoria’s East Gippsland region, particularly the coastal town of Mallacoota, during the recent fires.

This case demonstrates how one trigger (in this case, a bushfire) may start a cascade of events, but the intrinsic fragility of the system enables total collapse.

Transport-wise, neither East Gippsland nor Mallacoota itself are physically well connected. Fires cut both the only transport connection to East Gippsland, the Princes Highway, and the lone road out of Mallacoota.




Read more:
Australia can expect far more fire catastrophes. A proper disaster plan is worth paying for


Smoke haze prevented air transport. This meant the only way out was by sea, in the form of intervention by the Australian Navy.

Second, there were no reserves of food, fuel, water, medical supplies or communications at hand when the fires had passed. Supplies ran so low there were reports of a looming “humanitarian crisis”.

These shortages are no surprise. In Australia, as in most developed countries, food and fuel distribution systems run on a “just in time” model. This approach, originally developed by Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, involves organising supply networks so materials are ordered and received when they are needed.

Such systems remove the need to store excess goods in warehouses, and are undoubtedly efficient. But they are also extremely fragile because there is no redundancy in the system – no Plan B.

Implications for Australia

Australia as a whole is, in many ways, just as fragile as Mallacoota.

We import 90% of our oil – a figure expected to rise to 100% by 2030. Much of that fuel passes through the Straits of Hormuz and then through the Indonesian archipelago. We have few alternative routes.




Read more:
Australia’s fuel stockpile is perilously low, and it may be too late for a refill


Nor do we maintain sufficient back-up reserves of fuel. Australia is the only International Energy Agency (IEA) member that does not meet the obligation to keep 90 days of fuel supplies in reserve.

As East Gippsland and Mallacoota have shown, many other connected systems, such as food distribution networks, are critically dependent on this fragile fuel supply.

A close shave

On January 3 this year – the very day HMAS Choules evacuated people from Mallacoota – the US killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani by drone strike.

If Iran had responded by disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, throwing global oil supply into turmoil, Australia may have faced nationwide fuel shortages at the height of the bushfire crisis.

Late last year Australia reportedly had 18 days of petrol, 22 days of diesel and 23 days of jet fuel in reserve.

A global fuel crisis was avoided only due to restraint by both the US and Iran. Australia might not be so lucky next time.

Activists calling for de-escalation in the conflict between the US and Iran in January.
MARK R. CRISTINO/EPA

The need for reserves

Our communities, especially in bushfire-prone areas, need more redundancy to make them resilient to disasters. This might mean towns storing water, non-perishable food, blankets, medical supplies, a generator, a satellite phone and possibly fuel, in protected locations.

More broadly, Australia needs a national fuel reserve. This should be in line with the IEA’s 90-day obligations. In December last year, Australia reportedly had just 54 days’ worth of reserves.

The federal government has recently looked to bolster reserves through possible deals with the US and Holland. But overseas supplies will not be very helpful in an immediate crisis.

The implications of the bushfire crisis are clear. At a national and individual level, we must improve the resilience of the systems that make our daily life possible.The Conversation

Anthony Richardson, Tutor and Researcher, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Premiums up, rebates down, and a new tiered system – what the private health insurance changes mean



File 20190327 139377 12fjpz7.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
This year’s premium increase is small in comparison to previous years – but it still outweighs wage inflation.
From shutterstock.com

Peter Sivey, RMIT University and Terence Cheng, University of Adelaide

If you have private health insurance, or are considering getting it, a series of changes coming into effect on April 1 are worth knowing about.

These include the annual premium increase, a small decrease in rebates, the introduction of a new tiered system designed to simplify things for consumers, and some premium discounts for young people.

This year’s premium increase is quite small compared to recent years, and the reforms are generally sensible. But cost pressures and confusion in private health insurance cannot be fixed overnight.




Read more:
Is it time to ditch the private health insurance rebate? It’s a question Labor can’t ignore


A modest increase in premiums

Private health insurance premiums will increase by an average of 3.25% in 2019. These increases are relatively modest, as premiums have been rising at between 4% and 6% per annum for more than 10 years.

However, compared to consumer price index inflation of 1.8% and wage inflation of 2.3%, premiums are still rising substantially in real terms for Australians.

But in the current environment, above-inflation premium rises are not unexpected.

For comparison, consider the public health system, where spending increased at nearly 7% per year in the decade to 2017.

Out-of-pocket spending by patients also had an above-inflation trend of 5.1% per year over the past decade.

So both public and private expenditure on health are increasing substantially. Driving this is the increased usage and price of health care. Hospital visits are growing at 4% a year, and health price inflation is a further 2% per year.

Many hospital procedures such as cardiothoracic surgery, colonoscopies, hip and knee replacements, are increasing in volume by over 5% a year. So as patients use their health insurance more, it’s reasonable for the price to rise.




Read more:
Here’s what’s actually driving up health insurance premiums (hint: it’s not young people dropping off)


Rebates continue to decrease slowly

Most Australians with private health insurance receive a rebate from the Australian government to help cover the cost of premiums.

Means testing of rebates along income tiers was introduced in 2012. This sees individuals and households with higher incomes receive lower subsidies.

From 2014, the government began indexing rebates every year, using a formula that is calculated as a difference between the consumer price index, and the industry weighted average increase in premiums.

As a result of indexation, rebate entitlements have been gradually falling.

Government rebates for private health insurance go down a small amount each year.
From shutterstock.com

For example, this means in 2013/14, a person aged 65 or below earning less than $88,000 (base tier) would have received a 30% rebate. Today, a person of the same age in the base tier would receive a rebate of just over 25%.

From April 1, rebates will decrease between 0.1% to 0.5% from their levels in 2018/19, depending on the income tiers that people fall into.

For a typical family policy that covers both hospital and extras (with premiums approximately A$140 a fortnight), the decrease in the rebate translates to a very small rise in premiums of A$1 a fortnight.

Basic, bronze, silver or gold?

One key initiative starting on April 1 is the introduction of four tiers of private health insurance coverage: basic, bronze, silver, and gold. This is distinct to the income tiers we talked about above.

In this case, each tier mandates the minimum set of treatments (defined by clinical categories) that insurers must cover.




Read more:
If you’ve got private health insurance, the choice to use it in a public hospital is your own


For instance, policies in the “basic” tier are required to cover rehabilitation services, hospital psychiatric services, and palliative care.

Insurers can include other types of treatments which are not mandatory under the basic tier, if they choose to do so. Each additional tier covers a wider range of treatments, in addition to services mandated in lower tiers.



The Conversation/Australian Government, CC BY-ND

This simplified categorisation of policies is designed to help consumers understand how comprehensive their cover is, and enable them to more easily compare products offered by different health funds.

While this initiative provides consumers with greater clarity on the types of services covered by each type of health insurance product, it still does not standardise care completely.




Read more:
Private health insurance premium increases explained in 14 charts


Health funds can offer to cover, in lower tier products, treatments that are mandated only in higher tiered policies (such as providing coverage for pregnancy in a basic policy).

This may confuse patients if they assume their policy covering pregnancy will also cover other costly private procedures such as joint reconstructions (bronze), or back, neck and spinal surgery (silver).

Young people

From April 1, health funds will be able to offer discounts on premiums of 2% for each year a person is under the age of 30 when he or she takes up private health insurance. Premium discounts are capped at a maximum of 10%. The discount is retained until the person reaches the age of 41, after which it will be gradually phased out.

This initiative is being introduced to encourage young Australians to purchase private health cover and to stem the decline in private health insurance ownership among younger people. From September to December 2018, the largest net decrease in insured persons was recorded in people aged 25 to 29.

These discounts on premiums for young people complement the Lifetime Health Cover policy introduced in 2000, which was designed to encourage Australians to take up private hospital insurance earlier, and also to maintain cover.

Under the Lifetime Health Cover policy, which is still in force, people above the age of 30 without private cover are required to pay a 2% loading on premiums for each year they are over 30, if they choose to take up private cover later on.

Other changes

Another key change is that health funds are permitted to offer private hospital policies with a higher excess, in return for lower premiums. The maximum permitted excess is increasing from A$500 to A$750 for singles, and A$1,000 to A$1,500 for families.

Travel and accommodation benefits will be allowed to be included in hospital insurance plans for customers living in regional and rural parts of Australia. This will assist patients and their carers to meet the additional costs of having to travel to urban centres or capital cities to receive specialised treatment.

Natural therapies such as yoga, naturopathy, pilates and reflexology will no longer be covered under a general treatment policy. A total of 16 natural therapies are excluded. A review undertaken by the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded there is no clear evidence of the efficacy of these therapies.

Finally, to strengthen consumer protection, the role of the private health insurance ombudsman will be expanded, giving the agency new powers and greater capabilities to address issues and complaints.The Conversation

Peter Sivey, Associate Professor, School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University and Terence Cheng, Senior Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fairness isn’t optional. How to design a tax system that works



File 20190227 150708 1iizk7e.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
No-one would ask low earners to pay the same as high earners.
Shutterstock

Fabrizio Carmignani, Griffith University

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.


Any discussion of the tax system requires a common understanding that its purpose goes beyond revenue.

To see this, ask whether we would be willing to raise as much revenue as we do now by simply requiring each resident and business to pay A$16,400 a year, with no further complications.

We could do this. It would generate the A$450 billion the Commonwealth raises now.

And it would be appealing in some ways. It would minimise tax evasion. There would be no exemptions, no tax returns, no loopholes. And payment would be easy to monitor. It would also save the taxpayer the cost of submitting tax returns and the government the cost of checking them.

We all want some fairness

People who earn more than A$76,000 would be delighted, because they would pay less tax than they do now.

Households with people who earn much less would be less happy. Each child, no matter how young, would have to pay A$16,400. A household with two parents (one working) and one child would have to pay twice as much as it does now.

Unemployed Australians would pay the same as mining tycoons. Mum-and-dad businesses would pay the same as large corporations.

But we wouldn’t accept such a system, because it wouldn’t be fair. And that’s not just because fairness is one of our core values.

Inequality has an economic cost. Modelling by staff of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that a 1% increase in a nation’s inequality lowers its gross domestic product by between 0.6% and 1.1%.

The researchers find that beyond a certain point growing inequality can undermine the foundations of market economies and lead to inequalities of opportunity. They report:

This smothers social mobility, and weakens incentives to invest in knowledge. The result is a misallocation of skills, and even waste through more unemployment, ultimately undermining efficiency and growth potential.

Progressivity helps

Almost all developed countries use the tax system to fight inequality, by increasing the rate of personal income tax as taxable income grows. In a typical “progressive” personal income tax system the first $5000 earned might be taxed at ten cents in the dollar, while subsequent earnings might be taxed at 20 cents in the dollar. The result is that higher earners pay a greater proportion of their earnings in tax.

Australia has such a system. Our personal income tax system is more progressive than most of the 36 OECD members.

But it has been getting less progressive over time.

A standard measure is the difference in proportion of earnings devoted to tax (the “tax wedge”) for high earners on 167% of a nation’s average income and low earners on 67% of the average. The greater the difference, the more progressive the system.



The graph shows Australia’s system became less progressive throughout the first mining boom in the 2000s. It then became more progressive during the global financial crisis and probably as a result of the government’s response to it. Progressivity has been drifting down since.

Unless we take action to make our personal income tax system more progressive, it is likely to become less progressive still.

Tax cuts legislated in 2018 will accentuate the trend by dramatically flattening Australia’s personal income tax scales by 2024-25, unless reversed as Labor has promised should it win the election.

Our company tax rate is high …

Company taxes are almost always proportional, set at a flat rate. Debate is about how high that rate should be.

Lower rates are said to encourage business investment, stimulating employment, wages and economic growth. But if company taxes are cut, government needs to find more revenue from somewhere else, or wind back spending.




Read more:
New figures put it beyond doubt. When it comes to company tax, we are a high-tax country, in part because it works well for us


Australia’s standard rate is 30%, reduced to 26.5% (and soon enough 25%) for companies with turnovers of less than A$50 million. It is the second-highest rate in the OECD, behind only France. A broader measure of Australia’s “effective” company tax rate, taking into account tax breaks, still shows it is high compared to other countries.

The high rate is little noticed at home. Most Australian shareholders are able to get a tax credit for the company tax paid on the profit that funds their dividend (a practice Labor has promised to wind back). This means the credit can cut the the income tax collected from a dividend recipient to zero, but not below it resulting in a payment from the Tax Office.

… which may not be a problem

There is no clear association between corporate tax cuts and economic growth.

Rough calculations using OECD and International Monetary Fund data suggest that, if anything, higher economic growth is associated with smaller tax cuts.

In part this is because foreign companies consider things other than the tax rate in deciding where to invest. In part it is because the revenue lost from corporate tax cuts has to be made up from somewhere else (most likely from extra income tax as incomes rise and push people into higher tax brackets).

Since 2001, when Australia’s rate of company tax was cut to 30%, Australia’s annual economic growth rate has averaged 2.9%. In the 17 years before then, when the company tax rate averaged about 39%, annual economic growth averaged 3.5%.

None of this implies causality. But it does show that lower company tax rates and better economic performance do not necessarily go together.

International surveys show that Australia, despite its relatively high company tax rate, is regarded as one of the 20 countries in which doing business is easiest. What most works against Australia is the high costs of electricity.

New taxes are waiting in the wings

In summary, there appears to be scope for reducing personal income tax rates at the lower end of income distribution while increasing them at the top end.

Our company tax rates are high, but this need not be a problem.

If company taxes were to be cut, other taxes would have to increase. One option is to increase the goods and services tax. But this is not ideal as the GST is a regressive tax; that is, it tends to make income distribution more unequal.

There are other options.

We could impose an extra, much higher tax rate on very high incomes, as Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has proposed for the US.

It wouldn’t be a first. Australia’s top marginal rate was 75% in the early 1950s. Or we could reimpose an inheritance tax. A well-designed one would not only fund government spending but also work against intergenerational inequality.




Read more:
The workplace challenge facing Australia (spoiler alert – it’s not technology)


The Conversation


Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why Canada’s immigration system has been a success, and what Australia can learn from it



File 20181122 161618 3zux9o.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called for a rethink of the ‘top-down’ approach to immigration in Australia, allowing states and territories more input.
Shutterstock

Jock Collins, University of Technology Sydney

Immigration policy will be a critical issue in forthcoming state (Victoria, NSW) and federal elections. The disproportionate impact of immigration on population growth and public infrastructure in Sydney and Melbourne is the key issue.

If we look to the example of another immigrant-friendly country, Canada, however, we can see how giving states and territories a greater role in immigration target setting and selection can help take the pressure off major cities without drastically reducing immigration rates.

Immigration certainly impacts on Australia’s population to a greater degree than most Western nations. Among OECD countries, only Switzerland and Luxembourg have a higher percentage of foreign-born people than Australia.

Today, 28% of the Australian population was born overseas. The key issue for Australia is that immigrants are more likely to live in large cities than smaller cities or regional areas. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 85% of immigrants live in major urban areas, compared to just 64% of Australian-born people.




Read more:
Refugees are integrating just fine in regional Australia


Indeed, according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Sydney is now equal-fourth in the world (with Auckland and Los Angeles) with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents (39%), while Melbourne is not far behind (35%). Nearly two-thirds of residents in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth have at least one parent who was born overseas.

A new state-based approach?

The stress that rapid population growth has placed on Melbourne and Sydney has recently become a topic of much debate. This week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison pledged to reduce the annual permanent immigration cap of 190,000. Australia accepted just 162,417 immigrants last year, the lowest level in a decade.

Morrison has also called for a major rethink of the “top-down” approach to immigration in Australia, allowing states and territories to request the number of skilled migrants they’d like to admit each year.

The states and territories currently have a limited ability to nominate applicants for certain skilled visas. But state-nominated and regional visa approvals have fallen in recent years to just over 36,000 last fiscal year following tighter restrictions.

Morrison wants to see a bigger role for states and territories:

This is a blinding piece of common sense, which is: how about states who plan for population growth and the Commonwealth government who sets the migration levels, actually bring this together?

What we can learn from Canada

The Canadian government gave provinces a say in setting targets and selecting economic immigrants – similar to Australia’s skilled migration intake – in the early 1990s. Quebec was first to receive a high degree of autonomy in the process – it was given the right to set its own level and selection criteria for all economic immigrants. (The ability to speak French was a must.)




Read more:
How Canada is inspiring Scandinavian countries on immigration


Quebec was also granted the right to set all of its integration programs, funded by Ottawa every year. The payments reached C$540 million this fiscal year, or C$13,500 for each newcomer.

After Quebec was given this authority, the other Canadian provinces demanded the same. But they received far more limited rights than Quebec. They can nominate the number of economic migrants they need as part of the national immigration target set by the federal government, but they can’t independently set their intake target and selection criteria like Quebec.

While provinces nominate – or in Quebec’s case, decide – annual intakes, all cases are still routed through Ottawa for application integrity testing and vetting for criminality, health and security. Ultimately, final approval rests with Ottawa.

Last year, the Canadian government set an ambitious target of admitting 1 million total immigrants from 2018-2020. The target for next year is 330,000 immigrants, of which about 190,000 will be economic migrants. The remainder will enter under the family reunification category and the refugee, humanitarian and protected category.

About one-third of the economic migrants (61,000) will be admitted through the Provincial Nominee Program. This figure excludes Quebec, which will set its numbers separately.

How the Canadian system encourages rural immigration

Giving the provinces a greater immigration policy role has helped to dramatically shift the settlement of immigrants beyond Canada’s biggest cities.

According to immigration statistics, 34% of economic migrants in 2017 landed in destinations outside Canada’s three most populous provinces, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia – compared to just 10% in 1997.

After immigrants arrive, the key issue for the provinces is retention, since immigrants can leave at any time. The provinces put a strong emphasis on ensuring that economic migrants receive a strong welcome on arrival and are provided with support programs, including education, access to local migrant community networks and assistance finding a job for those who are not sponsored by employers.




Read more:
Newcomers find jobs, prosperity in Atlantic Canada — if they stay


One of the biggest success stories of the Provincial Nominee Program is thinly populated Manitoba, which has added 130,000 migrants since 1998. Ninety percent have gotten a job within a year of arriving and nearly the same number has ended up staying in Manitoba permanently. New arrivals also express some of the greatest feelings of belonging of all immigrants in western Canada.

Most immigrants to Australia end up in Sydney or Melbourne, but other states and territories need them more.
Joel Carrett/AAP

Why this could work in Australia

South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory – as well as other regional and rural areas across Australia – want more immigrants and refugees.

Attracting immigrants to less-populated states is the easy part: those willing to settle outside Sydney and Melbourne can receive more points if they are skilled migrants, possibly making the difference as to whether they come to Australia or not. The key issue is retention.




Read more:
Where are Chinese migrants choosing to settle in Australia? Look to the suburbs


My fieldwork with refugees in Australia has shown that the majority of these migrants love living in regional communities and have received a warm welcome from locals. Our research also found they are willing to stay in regional areas if they can get jobs there. Another way of encouraging more immigrants to settle in regional areas could be to offer them priority in the family reunion process.

Importantly, Canada also doesn’t politicise immigration policy. Australia should follow Canada’s lead by giving the states a bigger seat at the immigration policy table and resisting the temptation to blame immigration for complex growth problems in our overcrowded cities.

Reducing the immigration intake cap will have no significant impact on reducing congestion or strain on public infrastructure in Sydney and Melbourne, but it could severely constrain economic growth.The Conversation

Jock Collins, Professor of Social Economics, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Would a better tsunami warning system have saved lives in Sulawesi?


Jane Cunneen, Curtin University

The death toll from the magnitude 7.5 earthquake and resulting tsunami that struck near Palu, Indonesia, on Friday evening continues to rise, with several regions yet to be reached by rescue teams.

But the size and location of the earthquake should not have come as a surprise. Palu is situated at the end of a long, narrow bay which is the surface expression of a very active fault, the Palu-Koro fault.

The area is at high risk of tsunami, with several large earthquakes and tsunamis occurring along the fault within the past 100 years.




Read more:
Explainer: after an earthquake, how does a tsunami happen?


Details of Friday’s incident are limited, but already there are questions being asked about the effectiveness of Indonesia’s tsunami warning system.

It was developed after the devastating 2004 Boxing Day tsunami that occurred after an earthquake near Sumatra, but in this recent event the warning did not reach many of the people who were affected.

The tsunami occurred in an area where there are no tide gauges that could give information about the height of the wave. There are reports that a more high-tech system could have saved lives if it had been fully implemented.

Most of Indonesia’s deep ocean tsunameter buoys, specially designed to detect tsunamis in the open ocean, have not been working since 2012.

The Indonesian Tsunami Warning System issued a warning only minutes after the earthquake, but officials were unable to contact officers in the Palu area. The warning was cancelled 34 minutes later, just after the third tsunami wave hit Palu.

Tsunami history of Palu

Large earthquakes are not uncommon in Palu, with 15 events over magnitude 6.5 occurring in the past 100 years. The largest was a magnitude-7.9 event in January 1996, about 100km north of Friday’s earthquake.

Several these large earthquakes have also generated tsunamis. In 1927, an earthquake and tsunami caused about 50 deaths and damaged buildings in Palu. In 1968 an earthquake with magnitude 7.8 near Donggala generated a tsunami wave that killed more than 200 people.

Despite this history, many people in Palu were not aware of the risk of a tsunami following the earthquake. Ten years on from the 2004 Boxing Day tragedy that killed at least 226,000 people, there were concerns about tsunami warning systems across the region.

An advanced warning system currently only in the prototype stage may not have helped the people of Palu, as the tsunami struck the shore within 20 minutes of the earthquake.

Such early warning systems are most useful for areas several hundred kilometres from the tsunami source. In regions like Palu where the earthquake and tsunami source are very close, education is the most effective warning system.

It is not yet clear whether Friday’s tsunami was caused by movement on the fault rupture from the earthquake, or from submarine landslides within Palu bay caused by the shaking from the earthquake.

The sides of the bay are steep and unstable, and maps of the sea floor suggest that submarine landslides have occurred there in the past.

If the tsunami was generated by a submarine landslide within the bay, tsunami sensors or tide gauges at the mouth of the bay would not have sensed the tsunami wave before it struck the shore in Palu.

Communication networks

High tech tsunami warning systems are able to send out warnings through phone networks and other communications channels, and reach the community through text messages and tsunami sirens on the beaches.

But in areas where a devastating earthquake has occurred, this infrastructure is often too damaged to operate and the warning messages simply can’t get through. In Palu, the earthquake destroyed the local mobile phone network and no information was able to get in or out of the area.

Timing is also crucial. Official tsunami warnings require analysis of data and take time – even if it is only minutes – to prepare and disseminate.

This time is crucial for people near the earthquake epicentre, where the tsunami may strike within minutes of the earthquake. Those living in such areas need to be aware of the need to evacuate without waiting for official warnings, relying on the earthquake itself as a natural warning of a potential tsunami.




Read more:
Be prepared, always: the tsunami message from New Zealand’s latest earthquake


The need to raise awareness of the risk becomes even more challenging when large tsunamis occur infrequently, as in Palu. Many residents would not have been born when the last tsunami impacted the town in 1968.

So high tech warning systems may not be effective in areas close to the earthquake epicentre. Ongoing awareness and education programmes are the most important part of a tsunami warning system in coastal areas at risk of tsunami, no matter how infrequently they occur.The Conversation

Jane Cunneen, Research Fellow, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reforming our political system is not a quick fix. Here’s a step-by-step guide to how to do it


File 20180910 123134 1gyn518.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Regaining public trust in government starts with steps like capping political donations and establishing a federal anti-corruption body.
Lukas Coch/AAP

Mark Triffitt, University of Melbourne

With public trust in government already in serious decline over the last ten years, the downfall of yet another prime minister between elections underlines both the importance and urgency of making serious changes to our political system.

The key to renewing Australia’s democratic system is to view it as our next major reform challenge, just as economic renewal was prioritised in the 1980s and ’90s.

So far, however, the changes proposed by political commentators, academics and think tanks are largely single reforms, such as citizens’ juries to seek more public input into policy, or fixed four-year terms for federal parliament to allow more time to tackle big problems and implement complex policy.

These fall short of matching the scope of the challenge: democratic renewal requires multi-level and multi-step change addressing interconnected issues. In short, we need a comprehensive roadmap for political reform.


https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zqYaz/4/


Charting a roadmap for renewal

We first need to recognise that two distinct crises are contributing to declining public trust in government.

The first is a “crisis of representation”. This results from a fragmented, highly diverse electorate that increasingly fails to connect with major parties. The major parties are left with shrinking, less diverse memberships.

The second is a “crisis of functionality”. Our democratic system is increasingly unable to deliver good public policy in a consistent or coherent way, and to convince the public to support it.




Read more:
Australians think our politicians are corrupt, but where is the evidence?


This “crisis of functionality” is partly due to the decline of the public service and its ability to deliver independent, quality policy advice to ministers. Also to blame is an increasingly myopic approach to policymaking by parties obsessed with short-term polling and point-scoring.

But it is also linked to the “crisis of representation”. As an increasingly disconnected public turns its back on politicians, it also loses trust in their ability to deliver sound policy programs and decisions.

A two-stage approach

The dual nature of these problems underlines a critical issue. The roadmap not only needs to link up separate reforms, it also needs to be rolled out in stages to persuade a highly distrustful public that democratic renewal is in the interests of everyone – not just those in power.

The first stage is what I would call “creative governance”. The aim here is to start restoring public trust in government by making immediate and tangible improvements to the political system.

These reforms would have clear precedents or strong levels of public support. For example, national uniform caps on campaign spending, like those recently introduced in New Zealand, would reduce money in politics. This in turn would put the onus on politicians to explain their policies with more fact-based detail instead of expensive, slogan-based advertising campaigns.




Read more:
Australia trails way behind other nations in regulating political donations


Other possible reforms include real-time disclosure of all political donations, which is already in effect in Queensland, and the establishment of a federal anti-corruption commission, also already in existence at the state level.

Recent surveys show that a majority of Australians support both moves and believe these would improve transparency in the political system.

Setting the scene for deeper reform

The more difficult second stage of political reform is what I call “systemic renewal”. The goal here is to realign our democracy with the fundamentally changed dynamics and expectations of how it should work in the 21st century.

For instance, a major overhaul of our federal-state constitution is needed to update a framework originally written in the 1890s. It’s replete with outdated rules, processes and responsibilities.

However, this has largely failed to capture the public’s imagination because of the arcane way experts talk about the problem and potential solutions. Reframing it as part of a broader democratic renewal to usher in a more nimble and representative political system is much more likely to gain public traction.




Read more:
Ideas for Australia: Voters have a good choice of politicians, but need to overcome their mistrust of them


Major reforms are also needed to make federal parliament more effective and less dysfunctional. These might include eliminating Question Time and mandating a strict code of ethics for MPs aimed at addressing toxic behaviours like the bullying crisis rocking the Coalition government.

Reforms like these would raise the level of decorum in parliament and set a new standard for parliamentary behaviour. This would increase public confidence that politicians both reflect and are accountable to modern values.

Lastly, a “Citizens’ Assembly” could be formed of randomly selected citizens to act as a non-partisan check and balance on parliament. Such an assembly could be modelled after the citizens’ juries that have been trialled successfully around the world, including Ireland, Canada and South Australia. The assembly would be given the responsibility to chart out long-term, national policy blueprints in areas like health, tax and education.

With this kind of direct voice on a national level, the public would be much more involved in policymaking and thus more vested in the success of their government.

Thinking like reformers

What’s clear is we must do the hard strategic thinking of reformers if we are serious about fixing our political system.

Like every credible plan to reform a major institution showing multiple dysfunctions, we need more than one reform idea. We also need to test these ideas against the root causes of the institution’s malaise. And we need to organise them into a strategic and practical sequence.

The alternative is to believe Australian democracy will magically right itself. Which is no alternative at all.The Conversation

Mark Triffitt, Lecturer, Public Policy and Political Communications, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Zimbabwe’s financial system is living on borrowed time – and borrowed money



File 20171031 18730 lzg8n8.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
An illegal money changer holds bond notes outside a bank in Zimbabwe’s capital Harare.
Reuters/Philimon Bulawayo

Roger Southall, University of the Witwatersrand

Zimbabwe’s financial system increasingly resembles a house of cards. Were one card to give way – for instance, if South Africa’s power utility, Eskom, were to have the temerity to suggest that Zimbabwe actually pay for the electricity that it’s supplying the country – the entire edifice would collapse.

To put it another way, the government is bust. It is again printing money to cover its spiralling costs, and inflation is rising. And given that there’s an election looming in 2018, Zimbabwe’s ruling party, ZANU-PF doesn’t want to cut-back. Far from it, it wants to carry on spending, as fast as it can.

The rot goes back to the early 2000’s. ZANU-PF profligacy had been fuelled by acontinuous cycle of simply printing more money, and resultant runaway inflation. Mega-inflation meant that ordinary people lost their pensions and whatever savings they had, as the Zimbabwe dollar lost its value and people resorted to barter or the use of other currencies.

Ultimately, the government faced no choice but to accept reality. In 2008 it scrapped the Zimbabwe dollar in favour of a basket of other currencies, although within a short time, this meant in effect the reign of the US dollar.

“Dollarisation” allowed for the pursuit of more rational policies by the coalition Government of National Unity which followed the disputed 2008 election. However, its control of the electoral machinery ensured that ZANU-PF won a resounding victory in the 2013 election. Within a short space of time it returned to its familiar policy mix of profligacy, corruption and populist economics.

Yet ZANU-PF faced major problems. Above all, “dollarisation” meant that the cost of Zimbabwe’s exports on international markets was high. Worse, the dramatic collapse in agricultural production since the early 2000s (following the appropriation of white farms) alongside the decimation of the country’s manufacturing industries meant that there was relatively little to export anyway. Tobacco production has recovered a little, but the quality is less than it used to be, so returns are relatively less.

Meanwhile government insistence that mines should be 51% Zimbabwean owned has done nothing to entice inward investment or boost exports.

In short, the capacity of the economy to earn US dollars by selling goods externally has fallen dramatically, and the supply of money circulating within the country has dried up. Unemployment stands at around 90%.

President Robert Mugabe’s latest response has been to replace finance minister Patrick Chinamasa, who had been warning of the structure’s fragility in ever more urgent tones. The new finance minister is Ignatius Chombo, a party loyalist, who will brook no talk of any need for structural reform.

The bond notes

Faced by a looming crisis, the ZANU-PF government has resorted to three key strategies.

One has been the issue of “bond notes” (of different denominations) by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Officially, they’re designed to swell the amount of money in circulation within the country. The problem is that apart from having no value outside the country, nobody trusts them as they have been issued by a ZANU-PF government, and it was this government that presided over the hyperinflation.

ZANU-PF’s announcement that it was issuing bond notes was met with a run on the banks as depositors sought to withdraw dollars as fast as they could. Their assumption was that this was a government ploy to reintroduce the Zimbabwean dollar. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe responded by limiting the amount of dollars individuals could withdraw.

People are reluctant to use the bond notes. But they’re still sometimes forced to accept them because of the sheer shortage of “real” money. As a result when they can, they rush off to the local bus station where they can sell them for dollars to currency traders – albeit illegally.

The second strategy has been the rapid expansion of country’s ability to manage electronic transactions. Its aim has been to expand the amount of money in circulation without using up “real” dollars.

Accordingly, government employees are now largely paid electronically Similarly, government employees (and everyone else) now pay nearly all their bills within the country electronically.

And Zimbabweans are rarely able to convert the notional sums of dollars they hold in the bank into real cash – unless they make use of the currency traders in illegal transactions.

Meanwhile, with the rate of inflation continuing to rise combined with the widespread lack of faith in the banks, many Zimbabweans spend their bank balances on consumer goods as quickly as possible rather than attempting to “save”. After all, if times get hard, you won’t be able to get rid of your bond notes, but you may be able to sell your fridge.

Fanciful financial system

But it’s the third strategy which the government has pursued which is really fuelling a fanciful financial system.

Since 2013, government expenditure has steadily increased year by year, despite the country earning very little internationally. The ZANU-PF government may have hoped to fund this by its old trick of literally printing money, that is, by expanding the supply of bond notes.

But such was the negative popular sentiment that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe seems to have restricted their issue. Supposedly the issue of bond notes is backed by a USD$200 loan by the Afreximbank, but no-one really knows how many have been issued because the central bank provides no information.

What the government has done instead is to fund its rising costs by issuing treasury bills (whereby the government touts for loans on the capital market against promises of later redemption). No-one in their right mind would want to buy them, but Zimbabwe’s banks today have little option. As inward investment into the country has dried up to a trickle, there is little else for them to spend their money on, and the interest rates that the government promises to pay are, at face value, attractively high.

The coalition government of national unity recorded budget surpluses for three of the four full years in which the opposition controlled the Treasury. For its part, the ZANU-PF government recorded deficits of USD$186 million and USD$125 million in 2014 and 2015. Recently, the then finance minister Chinamasa projected a deficit of USD$1.41 billion for 2017. As of June 30, 2017, there were USD$2.5 billion worth of Treasury bills on issue.

The ConversationIn other words, the spending will continue. Zimbabwe’s financial system is living on borrowed time and borrowed money. It will again end in financial ruin, as it did in 2008. But all ZANU-PF cares about is ensuring that it wins the next election and allowing its political elite to “eat”.

Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

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

Turnbull and Shorten haggle over detail of citizenship disclosure system


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are inching toward an agreement on the form of a citizenship declaration that each MP would have to make within weeks.

The two met in Melbourne on Wednesday, with Turnbull hoping they would finalise the declaration. But Shorten, who was accompanied by Labor Senate leader Penny Wong, had two objections to the proposal outlined by Turnbull earlier this week.

Shorten told a news conference later that Labor believed the declaration should outline what steps a person whose parents or grandparents had been born overseas had taken to investigate whether they were a dual citizen. Also, Labor wanted a shorter timeframe for MPs submitting the declaration.

Under Turnbull’s plan, an MP would state the details of where they were born and where their parents were born, and their belief that they were not a dual citizen. The declarations would have to be submitted 21 days after the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively passed a motion approving the new decoration system.

The government plans to move motions for the declaration in the Senate next week and when the House of Representatives meets on November 27.

It emerged on Wednesday that the government was proposing to bring the parliament back in late December to consider the declarations, which would open the way for any MPs who were thought to be dual citizens to be referred to the High Court. But Shorten seized on the point that a special sitting of parliament would be very costly for the taxpayer.

Shorten said the statements should be in by December 1, five days after the lower house resumes, and a week before parliament rises for Christmas.

“This would allow the disclosures to be checked out and then if there are any problems requiring referral to the High Court, that could be done in the last week of parliament,” Shorten said.

On Labor’s proposed tougher test, Shorten said: “Mr Turnbull’s resolution only goes to what the actual individual MP might believe, but I think that we require, and the High Court set, a higher test of us. Labor is not going to support watering down the High Court decisions to help a few MPs scrape back into parliament.”

Late on Wednesday the government and opposition were exchanging proposals for changes to the wording of the motion.

Both Turnbull and Shorten described the talks as “constructive”.

“We are certainly agreed on the need for disclosure of the kind that I’ve set out in the resolution,” Turnbull told a separate news conference.

“We’ve also agreed that the matter must be dealt with before the end of the year.

“By that, I mean that the disclosures should be made before the end of the year and the House and the Senate should have the opportunity, having considered those disclosures, whether any members or senators should be referred to the High Court … of course it may be that nobody needs to be referred to the High Court.”

Meanwhile, Liberal backbencher John Alexander, the member for Bennelong, is waiting for British Home Office advice on whether he is a dual British citizen. The issue revolves around whether Alexander’s father, who was born in Britain, renounced his citizenship – as Alexander believed.

If Alexander turns out to be ineligible to sit in parliament the government would face a byelection in a seat it would be vulnerable to losing.

The government is homing in on Labor MP Justine Keay, from Tasmania, who moved to renounce her UK citizenship before she nominated but did not receive confirmation until after the election. Labor insists that Keay met the requirement to make every reasonable effort to renounce a foreign citizenship.

Issues are being raised about several other MPs. The crisis has already claimed half-a-dozen victims.

Postscript

Four Liberal senators including a minister have nominated for Senate president – but the Nationals New South Wales senator John “Wacka” Williams has said he will not contest. Special Minister of State Scott Ryan has nominated to be the government’s candidate, as have David Fawcett, Dean Smith and Ian Macdonald. If Ryan were successful that would open up a vacancy in the outer ministry.

The government’s candidate will be chosen before the Senate meets on Monday.

Tasmanian Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson will contest the position against the government candidate but has no hope of success.

The ConversationThe Nationals have never held the position. Williams’ bid was seen as part of the tensions between the Coalition partners in the wake of the citizenship crisis which has claimed two Nationals ministers, forcing Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce to a byelection and ending – at least for the foreseeable future – the political career of Fiona Nash.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?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.