Search

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

New guidelines for school canteens in South Australia have sparked outrage for "taking all the enjoyment away from children". Sprinkles of any kind, including 100s and 1000s - which are an essential ingredient for the iconic fairy bread - have been categorised as “red 2", meaning that they “should not be promoted or encouraged in schools on any occasion”. The ban comes after processed meats including ham would be limited at canteens in Western Australia, with similar restrictions now in place for South Australian canteens. Processed meats fall into the “red 1” or “amber” categories in South Australia, which means that products featuring them would be limited depending on nutritional criteria. These restrictions mean that children will no longer be able to regularly enjoy Australian staples like ham and cheese toasties and fairy bread at school. “Why are they taking all the enjoyment away from children?” one person told 7News. Dieticians have also questioned the decision, saying that it might only cause further problems in the future. “All your brain wants to do is eat that food, and eventually, you can restrict it for a little bit, until you get to that point where you just give in, you want to eat it, and then you binge,” dietitian Mattea Palombo said. Another expert suggested changing the foods we associate with good times. “Celebration foods aren’t so much about the foods that we have at the time of the celebration, but the friends and family we have around at the time of celebrating,” dietitian Dr Evangeline Mantzioris said. “So I think we probably need to balance it out a bit, so healthy foods are available at those celebrations.” Although the changes impact canteens, parents are still free to pack whatever they want in their kids' lunchboxes. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

Funding for refugees has long been politicized − punitive action against UNRWA and Palestinians fits that pattern

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-r-micinski-207353">Nicholas R. Micinski</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maine-2120">University of Maine</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kelsey-norman-862895">Kelsey Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rice-university-931">Rice University</a> At least a dozen countries, including the U.S., have <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145987">suspended funding to the UNRWA</a>, the United Nations agency responsible for delivering aid to Palestinian refugees. This follows allegations made by Israel that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/at-least-12-u-n-agency-employees-involved-in-oct-7-attacks-intelligence-reports-say-a7de8f36">12 UNRWA employees participated</a> in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack. The UNRWA responded by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-palestinian-refugee-agency-investigates-staff-suspected-role-israel-attacks-2024-01-26/">dismissing all accused employees</a> and opening an investigation. While the seriousness of the accusations is clear to all, and the U.S. has been keen to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/politics/aid-gaza-israel.html">downplay the significance</a> of its pause in funding, the action is not in keeping with precedent. Western donors did not, for example, defund other U.N. agencies or peacekeeping operations amid accusations of <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/11/un-peacekeeping-has-sexual-abuse-problem">sexual assault</a>, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-un-general-assembly-president-and-five-others-charged-13-million-bribery-scheme">corruption</a> or <a href="https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html">complicity in war crimes</a>. In real terms, the funding cuts to the UNRWA will affect <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip">1.7 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza</a> along with an additional 400,000 Palestinians without refugee status, many of whom benefit from the UNRWA’s infrastructure. Some critics have gone further and said depriving the agency of funds <a href="https://jacobin.com/2024/01/unrwa-defunding-gaza-israel">amounts to collective punishment</a> against Palestinians. Refugee aid, and humanitarian aid more generally, is theoretically meant to be neutral and impartial. But as experts in <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/reluctant-reception/558E2A93FF99B8F295347A8FA2053698">migration</a> <a href="https://www.routledge.com/UN-Global-Compacts-Governing-Migrants-and-Refugees/Micinski/p/book/9780367218836">and</a> <a href="https://press.umich.edu/Books/D/Delegating-Responsibility">international relations</a>, we know funding is often used as a foreign policy tool, whereby allies are rewarded and enemies punished. In this context, we believe the cuts in funding for the UNRWA fit a wider pattern of the politicization of aid to refugees, particularly Palestinian refugees. <h2>What is the UNRWA?</h2> The UNRWA, short for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established two years after about <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nakba-at-75-palestinians-struggle-to-get-recognition-for-their-catastrophe-204782">750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes</a> during the months leading up to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war. Prior to the UNRWA’s creation, international and local organizations, many of them religious, provided services to displaced Palestinians. But after <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">surveying the extreme poverty</a> and dire situation pervasive across refugee camps, the U.N. General Assembly, including all Arab states and Israel, voted to create the UNRWA in 1949. Since that time, <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do">the UNRWA has been the primary aid organization</a> providing food, medical care, schooling and, in some cases, housing for the 6 million Palestinians living across its five fields: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, as well as the areas that make up the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The mass displacement of Palestinians – known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nakba-at-75-palestinians-struggle-to-get-recognition-for-their-catastrophe-204782">Nakba, or “catastrophe</a>” – occurred prior to the <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention">1951 Refugee Convention</a>, which defined refugees as anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution owing to “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951.” Despite a <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ec262df9.pdf">1967 protocol extending the definition</a> worldwide, Palestinians are still excluded from the primary international system protecting refugees. While the UNRWA is responsible for providing services to Palestinian refugees, the United Nations also created the U.N. Conciliation Commission for Palestine in 1948 to seek a <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/4fe2e5672.html">long-term political solution</a> and “to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.” As a result, the UNRWA does not have a mandate to push for the traditional durable solutions available in other refugee situations. As it happened, the conciliation commission was active only for a few years and has since been sidelined in favor of the U.S.-brokered peace processes. <h2>Is the UNRWA political?</h2> The UNRWA has been <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/palestinian-refugees-dispossession">subject</a> to political headwinds since its inception and especially during periods of heightened tension between Palestinians and Israelis. While it is a U.N. organization and thus ostensibly apolitical, it has <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">frequently been criticized</a> by Palestinians, Israelis as well as donor countries, including the United States, for acting politically. The UNRWA performs statelike functions across its five fields – including education, health and infrastructure – but it is restricted in its mandate from performing political or security activities. Initial Palestinian objections to the UNRWA stemmed from the organization’s early focus on economic integration of refugees into host states. Although the UNRWA officially adhered to the U.N. General Assembly’s <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/content/resolution-194">Resolution 194</a> that called for the return of Palestine refugees to their homes, U.N., U.K. and U.S. <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">officials searched</a> for means by which to resettle and integrate Palestinians into host states, viewing this as the favorable political solution to the Palestinian refugee situation and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this sense, Palestinians perceived the UNRWA to be both highly political and actively working against their interests. In later decades, the UNRWA <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">switched its primary focus</a> from jobs to education at the urging of Palestinian refugees. But the UNRWA’s education materials were <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">viewed</a> by Israel as further feeding Palestinian militancy, and the Israeli government insisted on checking and approving all materials in Gaza and the West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967. While Israel has <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">long been suspicious</a> of the UNRWA’s role in refugee camps and in providing education, the organization’s operation, which is internationally funded, <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/242-unrwas-reckoning-preserving-un-agency-serving-palestinian-refugees">also saves</a> Israel millions of dollars each year in services it would be obliged to deliver as the occupying power. Since the 1960s, the U.S. – UNRWA’s primary donor – and other Western countries have <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">repeatedly expressed their desire</a> to use aid to prevent radicalization among refugees. In response to the increased presence of armed opposition groups, the <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">U.S. attached a provision</a> to its UNRWA aid in 1970, requiring that the “UNRWA take all possible measures to assure that no part of the United States contribution shall be used to furnish assistance to any refugee who is receiving military training as a member of the so-called Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) or any other guerrilla-type organization.” The UNRWA adheres to this requirement, even publishing an annual list of its employees so that host governments can vet them, but it also <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/242-unrwas-reckoning-preserving-un-agency-serving-palestinian-refugees">employs 30,000 individuals</a>, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian. Questions over the links of the UNRWA to any militancy has led to the rise of Israeli and international <a href="https://cufi.org/issue/unrwa-teachers-continue-to-support-antisemitism-terrorism-on-social-media-un-watch/">watch groups</a> that document the social media activity of the organization’s large Palestinian staff. <h2>Repeated cuts in funding</h2> The United States has used its money and power within the U.N. to block criticism of Israel, vetoing at least <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_table_en.htm">45 U.N. resolutions</a> critical of Israel. And the latest freeze is not the first time the U.S. has cut funding to the UNRWA or other U.N. agencies in response to issues pertaining to the status of Palestinians. In 2011, the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE79U5ED/#:%7E:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20United,grant%20the%20Palestinians%20full%20membership.">U.S. cut all funding to UNESCO</a>, the U.N. agency that provides educational and cultural programs around the world, after the agency voted to admit the state of Palestine as a full member. The Obama administration defended the move, claiming it was required by a 1990s law to defund any U.N. body that admitted Palestine as a full member. But the impact of the action was nonetheless severe. Within just four years, UNESCO was <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12459">forced to cut its staff in half</a> and roll back its operations. President Donald Trump later <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-israel-officially-withdraw-from-unesco">withdrew the U.S. completely from UNESCO</a>. In 2018, the Trump administration paused its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/trump-unrwa-palestinians.html">US$60 million contribution to the UNRWA</a>. Trump claimed the pause would create political pressure for Palestinians to negotiate. President Joe Biden restarted U.S. contributions to the UNRWA in 2021. <h2>Politicization of refugee aid</h2> Palestinian are not the only group to suffer from the politicization of refugee funding. After World War II, states established different international organizations to help refugees but strategically excluded some groups from the refugee definition. For example, the U.S. funded the <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/last-million-eastern-european-displaced-persons-postwar-germany">U.N. Relief and Rehabilitation Administration to help resettle displaced persons after World War II</a> but resisted Soviet pressure to forcibly repatriate Soviet citizens. The U.S. also created a separate organization, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article-abstract/1/4/501/1598187">the precursor to the International Organization for Migration</a>, to circumvent Soviet influence. In many ways, the UNRWA’s existence and the exclusion of Palestinian refugees from the wider refugee regime parallels this dynamic. Funding for refugees has also been politicized through the earmarking of voluntary contributions to U.N. agencies. Some agencies receive funding from U.N. dues; but the UNRWA, alongside the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, receive the majority of their funding from voluntary contributions from member states. These contributions can be earmarked for specific activities or locations, leading to donors such as the <a href="https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PEIO12_paper_107.pdf">U.S. or European Union dictating which refugees get aid and which do not</a>. Earmarked contributions amounted to nearly <a href="https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-agency">96% of the UNHCR’s budget, 96% of the IOM’s budget and 74% of UNRWA funding in 2022</a>. As a result, any cuts to UNRWA funding will affect its ability to service Palestinian refugees in Gaza – especially at a time when so many are <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/famine-looms-in-gaza-israel-war-intl/index.html">facing hunger, disease and displacement</a> as a result of war.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222263/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-r-micinski-207353">Nicholas R. Micinski</a>, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maine-2120">University of Maine</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kelsey-norman-862895">Kelsey Norman</a>, Fellow for the Middle East, Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rice-university-931">Rice University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-for-refugees-has-long-been-politicized-punitive-action-against-unrwa-and-palestinians-fits-that-pattern-222263">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> The winners and losers from the Albanese government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/tax-cuts-government-fact-sheet.pdf">rejig</a> of this year’s Stage 3 tax cuts have already been well documented. From July 1 every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Most, the 11 million taxpayers earning up to A$146,486, will also pay less tax than they would have under the earlier version of Stage 3, some getting a tax cut <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-tax-plan-will-give-average-earner-1500-tax-cut-more-than-double-morrisons-stage-3-221875">twice as big</a>. A much smaller number, 1.8 million, will get a smaller tax cut than they would have under the original scheme, although their cuts will still be big. The highest earners will get cuts of $4,529 instead of $9,075. But many of us live in households where income is shared and many households don’t pay tax because the people in them don’t earn enough or are on benefits. The Australian National University’s <a href="https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/policymod">PolicyMod</a> model is able to work out the impacts at the household level, including the impact on households in which members are on benefits or don’t earn enough to pay tax. <h2>More winners than losers in every broad income group</h2> We’ve divided Australian households into five equal-size groups ranked by income, from lowest to lower-middle to middle to upper-middle to high. Our modelling finds that, just as is the case for individuals, many more households will be better off with the changes to Stage 3 than would have been better off with Stage 3 as it was, although the difference isn’t as extreme. Overall, 58% of households will be better off with the reworked Stage 3 than they would have under the original and 11% will be worse off. Importantly, there remain 31% who will be neither better off nor worse off, because they don’t pay personal income tax. <hr /> <iframe id="0CWXE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0CWXE/4/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> But it is different for different types of households. In the lowest-earning fifth of households, far more are better off (13.5%) than worse off (0.2%) with the overwhelming bulk neither better nor worse off (86.3%). <hr /> <iframe id="KC5zy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KC5zy/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> In the highest-earning fifth of households, while more than half are better off (54.4%), a very substantial proportion are worse off (42.3%). Very few (only 3.1%) are neither better nor worse off. <hr /> <iframe id="WSkSL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WSkSL/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>But high-earning households go backwards on average</h2> In dollar terms, the top-earning fifth of households loses money while every group gains. That’s because although there are more winners than losers among the highest-earning fifth of households, the losers lose more money. The biggest dollar gains go to middle and upper-middle income households with middle-income households ahead, on average, by $988 per year and upper-middle income households by $1,102. The highest-income households are worse off by an average of $837 per year. As a percentage of income, middle-income households gain the most with a 1% increase in disposable income. Lowest income households gain very little, while the highest-income households go backwards by 0.3%. <hr /> <iframe id="kAPmC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kAPmC/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>The rejig does a better job of fighting bracket creep</h2> And we’ve found something else. The original version of the Stage 3 tax cuts was advertised as a measure to overcome <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2-main-arguments-against-redesigning-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-wrong-heres-why-221975">bracket creep</a>, which is what happens when a greater proportion of taxpayers’ income gets pushed into higher tax brackets as incomes climb. We have found it wouldn’t have done it for most of the income groups, leaving all but the highest-earning group paying more tax after the change in mid-2024 than it used to in 2018. The rejigged version of Stage 3 should compensate for bracket creep better, leaving the top two groups paying less than they did in 2018 and compensating the bottom three better than the original Stage 3. <hr /> <iframe id="YG0cT" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YG0cT/1/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Not too much should be made of the increase in tax rates in the lowest income group between 2018 ad 2024 because some of it reflects stronger income growth. We find that overall, the redesigned Stage 3 does a better job of offsetting bracket creep than the original. It is also better targeted to middle and upper-middle income households. Having said that, the average benefit in dollar terms isn’t big. At about $1,000 per year for middle and upper-middle income households and costing the budget about what the original Stage 3 tax cuts would have cost, its inflationary impact compared to the original looks modest.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221851/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stage-3-stacks-up-the-rejigged-tax-cuts-help-fight-bracket-creep-and-boost-middle-and-upper-middle-households-221851">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Couple who found love in chemotherapy raise funds for final trip

Ainslie Plumb, 22, and Joe Fan, 29, found love in an unexpected place, at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. The couple met in 2022 while they were both undergoing leukaemia treatment. “We met at an event for young people with cancer and became friends following that,” Plumb told 7News. “(We) would hang out during our hospital stays, I asked him out in October 2022 and (we) have been together ever since.” While Plumb successfully entered remission, last October, Fan was told that he was now terminal, as doctors had run out of options to treat his Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. With only months left to live, Fan, who has actively given back to the hospital and cancer community by playing his violin for patients and staff and worked with the Queensland Youth Cancer Service, has one final wish - to travel. The couple have set a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-joe-live-his-dreams" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GoFundMe</a>, to help raise funds which cover flights, accommodation and specialised travel insurance, for Fan's final trip. “I go through my cancer treatments and observe the toll that takes on my physical and mental wellbeing,” Fan said. “The end of a trip can hopefully mark the start of another — and I have held onto hope, looked forward and dreamed for one more trip, more time, one more experience with that someone I love.” Their first destination will be Taiwan and Hong Kong, where Fan's parents are from and where he spent a majority of his childhood. They also intend to travel to New Zealand and Western Australia to swim with whale sharks at Ningaloo in the state’s north. “We’re aiming at going at the end of February to give us time to co-ordinate with his doctors around his appointments and infusions, which are all booked in advance,” Plumb said. “We recently reached 75 per cent on the fundraiser and are hoping to hit 100 per cent perhaps by the end of January.” As of today, the couple have successfully raised over $21,000 from their $20,000 goal, and have thanked everyone in their community and strangers for their support. “Truly, words do not suffice,” the couple said. Images: 7News

Relationships

Gina Rinehart's bid to save the Commonwealth Games

Gina Rinehart has thrown her support behind a bid to save the 2026 Commonwealth Games, after Victoria abandoned hosting the event. Australia's richest person has vowed to work with sporting officials and Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate to help salvage the Games and move them to Queensland, after Victorian premier Dan Andrews pulled the pin on the event over major budget issues. Gina's support comes amid fears the Commonwealth Games are in free fall after Canada pulled out of a bid to host the 2030 Games, meaning the Games currently have no future events planned and no host city. Following Victoria's abandonment of the 2026 Games, London, New Zealand and several cities in Scotland have launched campaigns to host the event, with each of them garnering some public support. According to reports from the <a title="www.couriermail.com.au" href="https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/gina-rinehart-backs-gold-coast-bid-for-2026-commonwealth-games/news-story/3a6d0b2b4acb5ff522dde7ea4bd3e6b7" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-tgev="event119" data-tgev-container="bodylink" data-tgev-order="3a6d0b2b4acb5ff522dde7ea4bd3e6b7" data-tgev-label="sport" data-tgev-metric="ev">Courier Mail,</a> Rinehart is not prepared to fund the Games herself, but is prepared to do whatever is needed to help the Gold Coast secure the Commonwealth Games. A spokesman for Rinehart said “direct athlete support” would remain the focus of Hancock Prospecting’s sports funding program, but she would back a Gold Coast bid. “Having seen the joy that athletes and their families experienced when competing in front of a home crowd for the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games, Mrs Rinehart would certainly welcome the 2026 event to again be held in Australia, especially at the Gold Coast, where it was run so successfully before,” her spokesman said. Mayor Tate said Rinehart’s commitment was a significant endorsement in the Gold Coast, which he said could host the Games again at a cost of just over $1 billion. The city hosted the 2018 Commonwealth Games and would have the facilities to hold the event just eight years later. “Her statement sends a clear message: We must show what we are capable of as a country,” Tate said. “The Aussie athletes deserve it, as does every young kid who dreams of representing their country." “The momentum behind a 2026 Gold Coast Games is growing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> The <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> (MRFF) is a A$20 billion fund to support Australian health and medical research. It was set up in 2015 to deliver practical benefits from medical research and innovation to as many Australians as possible. Unlike the other research funding agencies, such the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), most of the MRFF funding is priority-driven. It seeks to fund research in particular areas or topics rather than using open calls when researchers propose their own ideas for funding. As the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-how-you-run-a-1b-scheme-science-fund-backers-lead-chorus-for-reform-20230619-p5dhni.html">Nine newspapers</a> outlined this week, researchers have criticised the previous Coalition government’s allocation of MRFF funds. There is widespread consensus the former health minister had <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-centre-never-built-and-a-hospital-that-missed-out-the-coalition-s-unusual-20b-research-fund-20230619-p5dhng.html">too much influence</a> in the allocation of funds, and there was limited and sometimes no competition when funding was directly allocated to one research group. The current Health Minister, Mark Butler, has instituted a <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/billion-dollar-medical-research-grants-process-under-review/">review</a>. So how should the big decisions about how to spend the MRFF be made in the future to maximise its value and achieve its aims? <h2>Assess gaps in evidence</h2> Research priorities for the MRFF are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-medical-research-advisory-board-amrab?language=und">Australian Medical Research Advisory Board</a>, which widely consults with the research sector. However, most researchers and institutions will simply argue more funding is needed for their own research. If the board seeks to satisfy such lobbying, it will produce fragmented funding that aligns poorly with the health needs of Australians. A better approach would be to systematically assemble evidence about what is known and the key evidence gaps. Here, the board would benefit from what is known as a “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484602/">value of information</a>” framework for decision-making. This framework systematically attempts to quantify the most valuable information that will reduce the uncertainty for health and medical decision-making. In other words, it would pinpoint which information we need to allow us to better make health and medical decisions. There have been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288400/">attempts</a> to use this method in Australia to help inform how we prioritise hospital-based research. However, we now need to apply such an approach more broadly. <h2>Seek public input</h2> A structured framework for engaging with the public is also missing in Australia. The public’s perspective on research prioritisation has often been overlooked, but as the ultimate consumers of research, they need to be heard. Research is a highly complex and specialised endeavour, so we can’t expect the public to create sensible priorities alone. One approach used overseas has been developed by the <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/">James Lind Alliance</a>, a group in the United Kingdom that combines the public’s views with researchers to create agreed-on priorities for research. This is done using an intensive process of question setting and discussion. Priorities are checked for feasibility and novelty, so there is no funding for research that’s impossible or already done. The priorities from the James Lind Alliance process can be surprising. The top priority in the area of <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/irritable-bowel-syndrome/top-10-priorities.htm">irritable bowel syndrome</a>, for example, is to discover if it’s one condition or many, while the second priority is to work on bowel urgency (a sudden urgent need to go to the toilet). While such everyday questions can struggle to get funding in traditional systems that often focus on novelty, funding research in these two priority areas could lead to the most benefits for people with irritable bowel syndrome. <h2>Consider our comparative advantages</h2> Australia is a relatively small player globally. To date, the MRFF has allocated around <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-grant-recipients?language=und">$2.6 billion</a>, just over 5% of what the United States allocates through the National Institute of Health funding in a <a href="https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-health-research-and-development/monitoring/investments-on-grants-for-biomedical-research-by-funder-type-of-grant-health-category-and-recipient">single year</a>. A single research grant, even if it involves a few million dollars of funding, is unlikely to lead to a medical breakthrough. Instead, the MRFF should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage. This could involve building on past success (such as the research that led to the HPV, or human papillomavirus, vaccine to prevent cervical cancer), or where Australian researchers can play a critical role globally. However, there is an area where Australian researchers have an absolute advantage: using research to improve our own health system. A prime example would be finding ways to improve dental care access in Australia. For example, a randomised trial of different ways of providing insurance and dental services, similar to the <a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/projects/hie.html">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a> conducted in the United States in the 1970s. This could provide the evidence needed to design a sustainable dental scheme to complement Medicare. Now that is something the MRFF should consider as a funding priority.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209977/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, Professor of Statistics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/medical-research-future-fund-has-20-billion-to-spend-heres-how-we-prioritise-who-gets-what-209977">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

How a secret plan 50 years ago changed Australia’s economy forever, in just one night

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-millmow-4462">Alex Millmow</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/federation-university-australia-780">Federation University Australia</a> At a time when governments are timid, keener to announce <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/productivity/report">reviews</a> than decisions, it’s refreshing to remember what happened 50 years ago today – on July 18 1973. Inflation had surged to <a href="https://www.datawrapper.de/_/vu9by/">14%</a>. Australia’s biggest customer, the United Kingdom, had joined the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm">European Economic Community</a>, agreeing to buy products from it rather than Australia. And the newly formed Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries had <a href="https://advisor.visualcapitalist.com/historical-oil-prices/">doubled</a> the price of oil. The tariffs imposed on imported goods to protect Australian manufacturers from competition were extraordinarily high. For clothing, they reached <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/textile-clothing-footwear-1997/59tcf2.pdf">55%</a>; for motor vehicles, <a href="https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=commwkpapers">45%</a>. Then, with absolutely <a href="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/Trade%20liberalisation%20and%20the%20ALP.pdf">no</a> public indication he had been considering anything as drastic, at 7pm on Wednesday July 18, the recently elected prime minister Gough Whitlam made an <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002971_0.pdf">announcement</a>. <h2>Every tariff cut by one quarter overnight</h2> From midnight, all tariffs would be cut by 25%. As Whitlam put it: “each tariff will be reduced by one quarter of what it is now”. <figure class="align-right "><figcaption></figcaption></figure> If Australian businesses (and the Australian public) were caught by surprise, it was because Whitlam had planned the whole thing in secret. He had given a six-person committee just three weeks to work out the details. Although the committee was chaired by the head of the Tariff Board, Alf Rattigan, and included an official from Whitlam’s own department, the department of industry and the department of trade, it met in an obscure location in Canberra’s civic centre rather than in public service offices, where the project might be discovered. Not included in the committee was a representative of the treasury, which its then deputy head John Stone said “<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2744/Stone__The_Inside_Story_of_Gough%E2%80%99s_Tariff_Cut__in_The_Australian__18_July_2003..pdf">knew nothing</a>” about what was unfolding. But driving the work of the committee were two academic outsiders – Fred Gruen, an economics professor at the Australian National University and adviser to Whitlam, and Brian Brogan, an economics lecturer at Monash University who was advising the trade minister, Jim Cairns. <h2>Outsiders, not treasury insiders</h2> As economists rather than bureaucrats, Gruen and Brogan were able to see benefits where others saw entrenched interests. Going to the tariff board and asking for extra tariffs, whenever it looked as if your prices might be undercut by imports, had become a reflex action for Australian businesses. In the words of <a href="https://esavic.org.au/385/images/2013_GaryBanks.pdf">Gary Banks</a> – later to become head of the successor to the tariff board, the Productivity Commission: “it was not a shameful thing for a conga line of industrialists to be seen wending its way to Canberra”. Tariffs were good for business owners, although bad for their customers, who had to pay much higher prices and often got <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/bill-scales-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-australian-car-manufacturing-industry-20171018-gz3ky4">worse goods</a>. They were also good for government – bringing in tax revenue. Whitlam was more interested in bringing down inflation. His announcement said increased competition would "have a salutary effect upon those who have taken advantage of shortages by unjustified price increases which have exploited the public". Any firm seriously hurt by the extra imports could apply to a newly established tribunal for assistance, but the tribunal "should not provide relief as a matter of course – that is, simply because the question of relief had been referred to it". So Whitlam offered “rationalisation assistance” to encourage firms to refocus their operations, and “compensation for closure” where that couldn’t be done and production had to cease. For displaced workers, the 7pm announcement offered anyone who lost their job retraining, as well as "a weekly amount equal to his [sic] average wage in the previous six months until he obtains or is found suitable alternative employment." Over the next seven years, manufacturing employment fell by <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/report_136_CHAPTER_6_WEB_FA.pdf">80,000</a>, but few of those job losses were immediate. Fifteen months after the 25% tariff cut, fewer than <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20634782?seq=10">6,000</a> people had claimed the wage replacement offered on the night of the announcement. When Whitlam went to the polls a year after the cut in the double dissolution election of May 1974, 122 university economists signed an <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-3267">open letter</a> of support. The letter said the general thrust of the government’s policy responses had been in the best interests of the nation as a whole, and added, "more importantly, we seriously doubt that the previous government would have had the wisdom or the courage to undertake it. It had certainly given no indication of moving in that direction while it was in power, even though the need for such policies had become obvious". In its later days in office, the Whitlam government was roundly criticised for its irresponsible public spending. Ironically, in its approach to tariffs in the 1970s, it had taken the first steps in a neoliberal direction that characterised western governments of the 1980s. By acting boldly after decades of inaction, Whitlam showed what a government could do. It was a lesson his Labor successor Bob Hawke took to heart a decade later, when he floated the dollar, revamped Australia’s tax system and put in place a series of further cuts that reduced tariffs to near zero. It’s something we see less of today.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209378/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-millmow-4462">Alex Millmow</a>, Senior Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/federation-university-australia-780">Federation University Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-secret-plan-50-years-ago-changed-australias-economy-forever-in-just-one-night-209378">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Queensland proposes ban on certain dog breeds

Queensland is proposing stricter laws in a bid to bring down the number of dog attacks in the state. The laws would include increased jail time for owners after dog attacks, the potential banning of select breeds and for all dogs to be “effectively controlled” in public. The Palaszczuk government released a discussion paper on June 23 outlining the options as well as a survey asking Queenslanders to speak out about the issue before the legislation is put together. A significant number of dog attacks occurred in the state in April, with three children suffering severe injuries in separate incidents that involved several dogs. The major factor to consider for the paper is whether Queensland should ban animals from the Commonwealth’s restricted breed list, which would make owning them in any capacity illegal. The restricted dog breeds include the pit bull terrier, dogo argentino, fila brasilerio, japanese tosa and the presa canario. Currently, those who seek to own these breeds are required to apply for a permit, but that would be withdrawn if the proposed laws are put into place. The discussion paper says that any changes would include a “grandfather clause” that would allow individuals with a current permit to keep their pet. The government has also proposed to include imprisonment as a maximum penalty for more serious attacks. If an attack causes death or grievous bodily harm to a patron, according to present laws, the owner could be fined up to $43,125 but would not face jail time. “It is proposed to introduce a new criminal offence in the Act that captures conduct of an owner, or responsible person for a dog, who fails to take reasonable steps to effectively control their dog if the dog causes bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death to a person,” the report states. “Including a proposed new offence for the most serious dog attacks would send a clear message to owners and people responsible for dogs that fail to take reasonable steps to protect people in the community from harm from serious dog attacks will not be tolerated.” The move would bring the state into line with the laws in the ACT, NSW, Victoria, NSW and Western Australia. In NSW, an owner who encourages a dangerous dog to attack another person faces up to five years in prison. Another proposal is to set up a new requirement for dogs to be “effectively controlled” in public, which would ban off-leash dog walking. “Effective control could be defined to include a person who is physically able to control the animal, it is on an appropriate leash and supervised or in a temporary enclosure adequate to contain the animal,” the paper reads. Instant fines would be issued to owners who failed to control their dogs in public and exceptions would be made for designated off-leash areas. Councils are urging for certain breeds to be banned and for tougher restrictions, according to Local Government Association of Queensland chief executive Alison Smith. “Ratepayers would be alarmed to know that Queensland councils are being forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees because irresponsible owners are using the courts to drag out the fate of these dangerous animals after their dog has been impounded and a destruction order made,” she said. “For too long, irresponsible dog owners have been able to hold the community and councils to ransom. That needs to change.” Agricultural Industry Development Minister Mark Furner is calling on all Queenslanders to participate in the survey to “have their say” on the proposed reforms. “Community feedback on this discussion paper will be vital in drafting new legislation,” he said. “It is so important that we get this right to make sure any new laws meet community expectations. Image credit: Getty / Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Cost of living relief on the way for struggling Aussies

As the ongoing cost of living crisis continues to affect hard-working Aussies, a series of changes set to be introduced by the government will ease the financial burden for a few select groups. As the new financial year begins on July 1st, a 15 per cent pay rise for aged care workers, cheaper childcare and changes to paid parental leave will come into effect. The policies promised in the last federal budget will come into effect, including electricity bill relief for some households and a small business incentive to help eligible companies become more energy efficient. Five million households will be eligible for up to $500 in power price relief while one million small businesses will be able to access up to $650. As well as this, eligibility for the first home guarantee and regional first home guarantee will now include any two borrowers beyond married and de facto couples. It will also apply to non-first home buyers who have not owned a property in Australia in the previous 10 years. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the new measures are designed the help Aussies who are doing it tough. "The suite of policies which will start to roll out from Saturday, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of hardworking Australians while delivering an economic dividend and laying the foundations for future growth," he said. "Key policies like energy price relief will directly reduce inflation, while others like cheaper childcare and enhanced paid parental leave will boost the capacity of our economy." Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esther-suckling-1220357">Esther Suckling</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> If every Australian household that uses gas went all-electric today, we would “save” more than 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the next ten years. That’s because there are more than <a href="https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/fact-sheets/reliable-and-clean-gas-for-australian-homes-2/">5 million households</a> on the gas network, and the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas">avoided emissions per home</a> ranges from 5-25 tonnes over the coming decade, depending on the location. Most people would spend less money on energy too. Electric appliances use less energy than gas appliances to do the same job, making them cheaper to run. Our <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas">new report</a> shows how much most households can save by switching from gas to electricity for heating, hot water and cooking. The extra cash couldn’t come at a better time: about <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/may/hidden-energy-poverty">a quarter of Australian households</a> say they found it difficult to pay their energy bills this year. But many households face hurdles that stop them, or make it hard for them, to go all-electric. Governments could make it easier for people and bring emissions-reduction targets closer to reality. <h2>Most households save by upgrading to electric</h2> <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="A chart showing estimated savings for each household switching from gas to electricity, over 10 years, in each capital city" /></a><figcaption>Over 10 years, the estimated savings for each household switching from gas to electricity range up to $13,900 in Melbourne. It’s a flat $3,890 figure for Brisbane, rather than a range, because there’s no gas heating. Grattan Institute, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Households in Melbourne tend to use more gas than those in other mainland capitals, mainly because the winter is so cold. Our report found Melburnians who replace broken gas appliances with electric ones, or move into an all-electric home, could save up to A$13,900 over ten years. Households with rooftop solar will save even more. It’s a similar story in most parts of Australia except the west, where gas is relatively cheap. This mainly reflects differences in the historical development of the gas markets between the west and east coasts. Getting off gas could also be <a href="https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2022/december/health-risks-from-indoor-gas-appliances">good for your health</a>. Several studies link cooking with gas to <a href="https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/living-with-asthma/resources/patients-carers/factsheets/gas-stoves-and-asthma-in-children">childhood asthma</a>. <h2>Households face a series of hurdles</h2> Renters make up nearly a third of all households, and they have little or no control over the appliances that are installed. As most electric appliances cost more to buy than gas ones – and the subsequent bill savings flow to tenants – landlords have little incentive to upgrade their properties from gas to all-electric. Apartment living can increase the level of complexity. Multi-unit dwellings often bundle gas bills into body-corporate fees, limiting the occupants’ incentive to go all-electric. There can also be space constraints in these buildings. Centralised electric heat pumps, for example, take up more space than centralised gas water heaters. Then there are households that simply can’t afford the upgrade. Induction stoves and heat pumps are more expensive than their gas equivalents, by up to a combined $2,000. This initial outlay will soon be recovered by cheaper energy bills, but that doesn’t help households that don’t have the cash up front. The <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/data/taking-the-pulse-of-the-nation-2022/2023/energy-poverty">12% of households that skipped meals</a> to pay their energy bills in the past year are the most likely to remain locked into high gas bills. Some people also simply prefer cooking with gas. Some think induction cooktops will be no better than the poor-performing electric cooktops they may have used in the distant past. Others haven’t ever heard of a heat pump for hot water. <h2>Here’s how governments can help</h2> Governments, both state and federal, should lower the hurdles on the path to all-electric homes -– to reduce people’s cost of living and to cut carbon emissions. As a first step, state governments should ban new gas connections to homes. In 2021, more than 70,000 households joined the gas network. Trying to shift households off gas while allowing new connections is like pouring water into a bucket with a hole. Then, governments should provide landlords with tax write-offs on new induction stoves and heat pumps for hot water, for a limited time. After that, they should require every rental property to be all-electric. Governments should pay to upgrade public housing to all-electric, where they are the landlords. And they should pay not-for-profits managing community housing to do the same. The federal government should help all households to spread the cost of electric appliances over time. It should subsidise banks to offer low-interest loans for home electrification, via the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. And governments should set out to change people’s preferences, from gas to electric. They should embark on a multi-decade communication campaign, not unlike the campaign to upgrade from analogue to digital television in the early 2000s. A key challenge will be shifting people’s ideas about the best way to cook. There are precedents. In Gininderry, a new all-electric suburb of Canberra, one developer recruited chefs to run demonstrations on induction cooktops at the display village. The proportion of potential homebuyers <a href="https://ginninderry.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ginninderry-2017-Householder-Attitudes-to-Residential-Renewable-Energy-Futures.pdf">willing to consider buying an all-electric home</a> rose from 67% to 88%. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K9ytSh5TM9M?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Induction cooking with Chef David Wei at Ginninderry.</figcaption></figure> <h2>‘Green gas’ is no panacea: electricity is cheaper</h2> <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Chart comparing the cost of hydrogen to electricity over time, showing hydrogen is more expensive and will remain so for decades" /></a><figcaption>Hydrogen is more expensive than electricity and will remain so for decades. Grattan Institute, Author provided</figcaption></figure> The gas industry has another solution in mind: instead of switching from gas to electricity, it suggests using “green gas” -– biomethane or “green” hydrogen. Biomethane is chemically identical to natural gas, but is derived from biological materials such as food waste, sewage or agricultural waste. Green hydrogen is made by using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. But both options are <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydrogen-where-is-low-carbon-fuel-most-useful-for-decarbonisation-147696">too expensive and too far away</a>. Under the most generous of assumptions, green hydrogen will only become cost-competitive with electricity after 2045. And there is not enough biomethane commercially available to replace gas in households. Meanwhile, more than three million Australian homes already run on electricity alone. Getting the five million homes that use gas to the same point won’t be easy. But with good policy, it is doable. For households, and the climate, there is much to be gained.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207409/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esther-suckling-1220357">Esther Suckling</a>, Research Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-electric-homes-are-better-for-your-hip-pocket-and-the-planet-heres-how-governments-can-help-us-get-off-gas-207409">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Real Estate

MP proposes schools remain open until night-time

A NSW Liberal MP has proposed that Australian schools should remain open until 6pm to better accommodate “modern employment”. During his maiden speech to parliament, Member for Ryde Jordan Lane said that "local schools should become hubs for after-school activity”, where the government guarantees that a child can remain on school campuses after 3pm. "It affords parents flexibility, while at the same time making school a place for extracurricular excellence," he said. "By engaging providers and community organisations, we avoid overworking our tirelessly hardworking teachers but expose more children to rounded experiences, such as coding classes, culture and language, art, dance, music and sport. "I care deeply about the academic results that our students are able to achieve, and about ensuring they can compete on a global stage, but I care even more that our education system helps us to create a new generation of Australians with the content of character we need to be successful as a country.” The move could lead to an extra year of education as a result of the extended hours of teaching, Lane added. "Greater flexibility for parents, a productivity and employment boost to the state, financial relief from the high cost of child care and an injection of hope for potential but reluctant parents who, like me, struggle to rationalise how to afford, in terms of both time and money, children, a home and equal employability between partners," he said. Image credit: Getty / Instagram

Legal

Energy bill relief to benefit just one Aussie demographic

Nearly half a million older Australians will receive hundreds of dollars in energy bill relief as the federal government looks to battle rising power prices. Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth revealed that all Commonwealth seniors health card holders will be given up to $500 per household. The 490,000-plus recipients will include an extra 16,320 people granted access to the card after the federal government introduced higher income thresholds for eligibility in November 2022. The new income limits are $90,000 for singles and $144,000 (combined) for couples. The government claimed this would benefit 52,000 older people by 2026-27. Rishworth explained the energy relief would be available from July 2023. The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) released its final determination on May 25, with a revised price increase higher than the March draft that saw a 20 to 22 per cent rise. AER chair Clare Savage said it had been a “difficult decision” but high wholesale energy costs continued to hike up retail prices. “No one wants to see rising prices, and we recognise this is a difficult time, that’s why it’s important for consumers to shop around for a better deal,” she said. Following the AER’s announcement, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on Today and said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had “lied” to Australians about energy prices. “Let’s be very clear about it, he promised on 97 occasions your bill would go down by $275,” he told Today host Karl Stefanovic. “I think the government’s completely underestimating how much families and small businesses are hurting at the moment.” The bill comes shortly after the Australian Energy Regulator revealed electric prices were set to increase by 25 per cent for about 600,000 customers across three states from July 1. The federal government’s latest budget committed to $3 billion in financial support for those struggling to pay their power bill. Image credit: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Are bigger super funds better? Actually no, despite what the industry is doing

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-warren-3657">Geoff Warren</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Australia’s superannuation funds are getting bigger – and fewer. There were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/29/australian-superannuation-mergers-cut-number-of-funds-by-half-in-a-decade">close to 400</a> funds in 2010. With mergers, it’s now <a href="https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/53144-are-mega-funds-poised-to-dominate-the-super-industry">closer to 120</a>. By 2025, according to industry executives surveyed last year, there will be <a href="https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/50971-rise-of-mega-funds-set-to-intensify-erasing-100-funds-by-2025">fewer than 50</a>. The portfolios of the two biggest super funds, AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust, are bigger than even the federal government’s Future Fund Management Agency, which oversees the A$194 billion <a href="https://yearinreviewfy22.futurefund.gov.au/performance-results.html">Future Fund</a> and several other funds worth a total $242 billion. <hr /> <iframe id="0wOBb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0wOBb/5/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Underpinning this consolidation is the idea that larger scale is beneficial for superannuation fund members. But that’s not necessarily true. A bigger fund is no guarantee of better returns. I’ve examined the issue of fund scale with Scott Lawrence, an investment manager with 35 year’s industry experience. Together we’ve written <a href="https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Does-Size-Benefit-Super-Fund-Members-24-March-2023.pdf">a report</a> for the Conexus Institute, an independent research centre focused on superannuation issues. Our conclusion: funds, large and small alike, succeed or fail depending on how well they formulate and execute their strategies. <h2>Managing assets in-house</h2> The first potential benefit of bigger size is that funds can manage assets using their own dedicated investment professionals, rather than outsourcing everything to external investment managers to invest on their behalf. For example, UniSuper (the higher education industry fund) manages <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/how-we-invest/investment-managers">70% of assets in-house</a>. AustralianSuper, with more than double UniSuper’s assets, manages <a href="https://www.australiansuper.com/-/media/australian-super/files/about-us/annual-reports/2022-annual-report.pdf">53% of assets</a> in-house. This can be cheaper than paying fees as a percentage of assets to these external providers. It offers more control as the super fund can decide the assets in which they invest, rather than leaving the decision to someone else. But fund members will only benefit if the internal team makes investment decisions that are as good as the service they are replacing. For this reason, there is no reliable correlation between performance and degree of in-house management. <h2>Investing in big-ticket items</h2> The second potential benefit is it becomes more possible to become successful direct investors in “big ticket” assets such as infrastructure and property, instead of just focusing on shares and other assets traded on stock exchanges. For example, AustralianSuper owns <a href="https://www.australiansuper.com/-/media/australian-super/files/about-us/media-releases/australiansuper-increases-investment-in-westconnex.pdf">20.5% of WestConnex</a>, Australia’s biggest infracture project, having contributed $4.2 billion to the consortium that is building the mostly underground toll-road system linking western Sydney motorways. Opportunities like this are easier to access by large funds, and can help to diversify their portfolios. But such direct investment is costlier than buying shares and bonds. This limits the potential for fee reductions. For members to benefit, these investments must deliver attractive returns. This requires a fund developing capability in what are specialised markets. Size alone won’t deliver on its own. <h2>Economies of scale and scope</h2> The third potential benefit is that size brings economies of scale and scope. Scale can reduce fees, by spreading the fund’s fixed costs over a larger member base. Our review of the research literature confirms there are solid reasons to expect administration costs to reduce with size, as well as in-house management reducing investment costs. <hr /> <iframe id="26cxr" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/26cxr/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Economies of scope involve an organisation being able to improve or increase services, say by investing in better systems and more staff. But investing in better systems also brings potential pitfalls. Big visionary projects tend to run over time and over budget, and sometimes fail. An example is the disastrous attempts of five industry funds (AustralianSuper, Cbus Super, HESTA, Hostplus and MTAA Super) to develop a shared administration platform, called Superpartners. It was meant to cost $70 million, but development costs blew out to $250 million before <a href="https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2016/12/link-group-completes-superpartners-integration/">they gave up</a>. <h2>Size brings its own challenges</h2> Large funds also face some unique challenges. Because they have more money to invest, they have more work to do in finding sufficient attractive assets to buy. The risk is they need to accept some assets offering low returns to do so. They can also outgrow some market segments, such as owning shares in smaller companies. Large organisations are typically more complex, more bureaucratic and less flexible. They can find it difficult to coordinate staff to work towards a common purpose. These elements may create dysfunction if not managed. This may explain why, despite the potential increased scope of their offerings, surveys suggest large funds tend to deliver <a href="https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2022/08/members-willing-to-pay-for-better-service-post-retirement/">less personalised service</a>. So the idea “bigger is better” is not necessarily true. Large size is not an automatic win. Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and challenges ultimately depends on fund trustees and management doing their jobs well so that members benefit.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203417/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-warren-3657">Geoff Warren</a>, Associate Professor, College of Business and Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-bigger-super-funds-better-actually-no-despite-what-the-industry-is-doing-203417">original article</a>.

Retirement Income

Government will require bosses to pay workers their super on payday

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316">Michelle Grattan</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865">University of Canberra</a> A government change requiring superannuation to be paid on payday could mean a young employee will be several thousand dollars better off by retirement. The reform – which will not come in until July 1 2026 – will benefit the retirement incomes of millions of Australians, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones. They give the example of a 25-year-old median income earner presently receiving their super quarterly and their wages each fortnight, who could be about $6000 (or 1.5%) better off when they retire. The ministers argue there will be benefits to bosses, as well as to the workers, in the change. “More frequent super payments will make employers’ payroll management smoother with fewer liabilities building up on their books.” They say payday super will mean employees can keep track of the payments more easily and it will be more difficult for disreputable employers to exploit them. “While most employers do the right thing, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) estimates $3.4 billion worth of super went unpaid in 2019-20.” The ATO will get extra resourcing to help it detect unpaid super payments earlier. Treasury and the ATO will consult stakeholders on the changes later this year. The ministers say the July 1 2026 start will give employers, superannuation funds, payroll providers and other parts of the superannuation system enough time to get ready for the change.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204759/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316">Michelle Grattan</a>, Professorial Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865">University of Canberra</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-will-require-bosses-to-pay-workers-their-super-on-payday-204759">original article</a>.

Retirement Income

“What am I going to do now?”: 77-year-old widow forced from her home

When Rosemarie Earley lost her husband, Eric Earley, she’d already suffered enough heartbreak to last a lifetime. But her devastating situation wasn’t to end there, with the New South Wales government landing one more blow to the 77-year-old: she had to leave the home she and Eric had shared for almost 50 years. Rosemarie and Eric had moved in to their Pendlebury Parade property in the ‘70s, establishing themselves as well-known and well-loved fixtures of the street. However, it was their experience back then that seems to have caused Rosemarie’s present day trouble, with different rules and regulations surrounding whose name could be on the lease. As Rosemarie explained to A Current Affair’s Hannah Sinclair, the paperwork was “in my husband's name. Eric Earley. The females had no say in the matter back in those days. Everything was in the husband's name because he was classed as the breadwinner. We were just housewives.” Rosemarie and Eric had left England for a new and “better life for the family” in 1971, and were allocated their home by the government. "When we moved in it was an empty shell,” she said. “There were no carpets, no window fittings, not even lightbulbs. No soil. So we had to buy soil. “We bought a garage, we paid to have the gas connected, put the carpet [down] and everything else that was needed. "We were under the impression we were buying because the paperwork said we had been approved to purchase.” But this was not the case, as Rosemarie went on to explain. When their rent collector had dropped by, Eric had asked when the pair might be able to pay their deposit on the home, but was told they never would. “We were actually told by the man that came and did the inspection a couple of weeks after we moved in that, 'this is your house, you can stay here till you die'. That was his words," she recalled. It was a cruel reminder that Rosemarie was served in late 2022, when Eric passed away from heart failure at just 83 years old. In the wake of her devastating loss, Rosemarie contacted the government and applied to be recognised as a tenant. They had other ideas, and just a few months later, Rosemarie was informed the one level house with ramp access did not meet her needs anymore. “I was so happy when I finally signed the paperwork to say that I could live here and it was now in my name,” she said, “and then six weeks later or so, I got the letter saying that this house no longer meets my needs. "I don't understand why. Why couldn't they wait till my husband had been gone even 12 months, so that I would have acclimatised to being on my own? Why did it have to be four months?" Rosemarie went on to admit that she thinks Eric would be “devastated” to know what she was going through without him, admitting that “that was his one worry, that I wouldn't get treated properly when he died and that's what's happened. I'm not getting treated properly." "Can you believe that in 2023 as a woman you still don't have the same rights as your husband? "I don't know. Why are they still going by those rules? Why haven't they adapted to the fact that life now is in two names? Husband and wife, or man and woman. A partner.” Images: A Current Affair / Nine

Real Estate

Millions of Aussies to be eligible for half-price medicines

Massive changes are underway for millions of Aussies as the federal government is moving to cut the cost of prescription medicine. Health minister Mark Butler announced that patients will be able to double the number of scripts they can receive, from one month’s supply to two months. From September 1, general patients will be able to save up to $180 a year if their medicine can be prescribed for 2 months, concession card holders will save up to $43.80 per year on medicine. Under the reform, which is to be included in May’s budget, 320 different medicines treating chronic conditions such as cholesterol, heart disease and hypertension will be dispensed in 60-day doses rather than the current 30. They will still be subject to the current price caps, so instead of paying a maximum of $30 for a 30-day medicine supply, those affected will pay $40 at most for a 60-day supply. One of the ideas behind it is that Aussies won’t have to visit a doctor or pharmacist as often. The federal government said the change will bring Australia into line with other countries, including New Zealand and the UK, where patients already have access to multiple month medicines on a single prescription. "Every year, nearly a million Australians are forced to delay or go without a medicine that their doctor has told them is necessary for their health. "This cheaper medicines policy is safe, good for Australians' hip pockets and most importantly good for their health.” The overhaul of prescriptions has long been supported by the Australian Medical Association and was recommended by the indecent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in 2018. However, pharmacists have opposed the reform, with Pharmacy Guild saying the change would cost community chemists $3.5billion. Pharmacy Guild of Australia president Trent Twomey said the change does little to acknowledge a massive shortage in medications. “I'm all for cost-of-living relief and a cost-of-living measure but this, unfortunately, is just smoke and mirrors,' he told ABC TV. “If you don't have the medicine in stock, how do you give double nothing? Double nothing is still nothing.” Instead, the federal government needed to boost local manufacturing of pharmaceuticals to fix the medicine shortage, Twomey said. Dr Nick Coatsworth also agreed that the new policy could lead to major medication shortages for patients across Australia. “The medication shortage issue is not made up. “This policy could lead to Australians turning up to pharmacies and being turned away for medications they've been on for five-to-10 years,” he told Today. “I'm actually worried about this, it looks good at face value but I knew a lot about supply chains in Covid and Australians probably aren't quite aware of how ropey those supply chains are. “If we start giving people 60 days of medications instead of 30, people will miss out.” Opposition leader Peter Dutton has supported the Pharmacy Guild’s stance in an online video. "Many, particularly older Australians, but families as well, really rely on the relationship with their local pharmacist," he said. "The government's proposal at the moment is going to make it harder for pharmacists to do that work and have that relationship with their patients.” Nationals leader David Littleproud said regional, remote and rural Australians risked being impacted by the changes. "Thousands of Australians who need medications could suffer as a consequence, because doubling scripts for some might mean others miss out," he said. However, the reform has been supported by the Australian Medical Association, a doctor’s body, with vice president Danielle McMullen welcoming the change. “At the time we're talking about so many cost-of-living pressures, this will really ease the burden on patients across Australia,” she told Sunrise. “There are some situations of shortages in medicines at the moment but there will be a staged approach to this announcement to ease the burden on the shortages.” Health Minister Mark Butler said the changes will be launched in three states, each introducing around 100 medications. The first stage will commence on September 1 2023, with the second on March 1 2024, and the final on September 1 2024. Butler said the new prescriptions will reduce how often those living in rural areas need to travel for treatment and shed light on the issue of Aussies delaying or going without medicines they need due to high costs. “Every year, nearly a million Australians are forced to delay or go without a medicine that their doctor has told them is necessary for their health,” he said. “This cheaper medicines policy is safe, good for Australians' hip pockets and most importantly good for their health.” Butler rejected the idea that the scheme will cause widespread shortages, noting only seven medications on the list are currently scarce. From September 1, 60-day scripts will be available for the six million people prescribed the eligible medications. Image credit: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions

Australia’s A$3.3 trillion superannuation system is supposed to boost people’s retirement incomes. The government says as much in its <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/c2023-361383.pdf">proposed leglislated objective</a> for superannuation. The system is supported by billions of dollars of tax breaks each year, ostensibly to that end. But there’s just one problem – increasingly, much of what is saved is never spent. Our new report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/super-savings-practical-policies-for-fairer-superannuation-and-a-stronger-budget">Super savings: Practical policies for fairer superannuation and a stronger budget</a>, points out that without an overhaul, super tax breaks are set to do little more than boost the inheritances of Australians with well-off parents. Super contributions and super earnings are both taxed more lightly than other income. These tax breaks cost the budget about $45 billion (2% of Australia’s gross domestic product, or GDP) each year. Treasury predicts that figure will hit 3% of GDP by 2060, and that the cost of super tax breaks will overtake the cost of the age pension by as soon as 2036. Super tax breaks are also unfair: about two-thirds go to the top 20% of earners. This means the tax breaks provide the biggest boost to the super accounts of high earners, who will almost all have a comfortable retirement regardless, and who tend to save the same regardless of the tax rate imposed. The wealthiest 10% of Australians get a bigger boost to their retirement savings from super tax breaks than poorer Australians get from the age pension. But much of what is saved for retirement never actually gets spent in retirement. Earlier research by <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/balancing-act/">Grattan Institute</a> and the <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/p2020-100554-udcomplete-report.pdf">2020 Retirement Income Review</a> found that, for a variety of reasons, spending falls substantially during retirement. Retirees often end up leaving much of their nest egg untouched, bequeathing it to their children. This means billions of dollars in super tax breaks simply end up boosting the inheritances received by the children of well-off parents. It makes super a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. This problem is set to get worse. With the rate of compulsory superannuation legislated to rise from 10.5% of wages to 12% by 2025, future generations of retirees are set to retire with even larger nest eggs that they will never spend. Treasury projects that by 2059, one in every three dollars paid out of the super system will be a bequest, up from one in every five today. Big inheritances boost the jackpot from the birth lottery. They help richer children get richer. Among the Australians who received an inheritance over the past decade, the wealthiest fifth received on average <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-great-australian-nightmare/">three times</a> as much as the poorest fifth. To help reverse this, the government needs to rein in the super tax breaks. <h2>How to make super fairer</h2> The government’s policy, <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/superannuation-tax-breaks">announced in February</a>, of taxing the earnings on balances bigger than $3 million at 30%, instead of 15%, will help. But the threshold ought to be lowered to $2 million. Balances between $2 million and $3 million are very unlikely to be spent in retirement, so winding back tax breaks on earnings on balances bigger than $2 million would further wind back taxpayer-funded bequests. And there’s more. Currently, many wealthier Australians receive a larger tax break per dollar contributed to super than many low income earners. Yet low earners have more to be compensated for. Putting money into their super cuts their age pension in retirement, and they live shorter lives, meaning less time to enjoy their super in retirement. The pre-tax contributions of people earning more than $220,000 a year should be taxed at 35%, instead of the 30% charged to those earning more than $250,000 currently. That would still offer a 10% tax break on super contributions for high earners (given the top marginal rate of 45%) and at least a 15% break on the contributions of low and middle earners. And the annual pre-tax contributions cap should be lowered from $27,500 to $20,000. Contributions above this level tend to be made by people close to retirement with already-high balances. <h2>Tax earnings in retirement the same as while working</h2> On the earnings side, the tax-free earnings enjoyed by retirees on their first $1.7 million ($1.9 million from 1 July this year) of their super should go. Superannuation earnings in retirement should be taxed at 15%, the same as superannuation earnings before retirement. This would save the budget at least $5.3 billion a year, and much more in future, and make taxing super more simple. More than 70% of this revenue would come from the top 20% of retirees. The top 10% would pay an extra $7,000 to $7,500 a year on average, whereas the poorest half would no more than $200 more each. Both sides of politics say they agree that super shouldn’t be a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. But there’s a long way to go before that vision is reality. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-has-become-a-taxpayer-funded-inheritance-scheme-for-the-rich-heres-how-to-fix-it-and-save-billions-202948" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

The Whitlam government gave us no-fault divorce, women’s refuges and childcare. Australia needs another feminist revolution

Australia’s history of women and political rights is, to put it mildly, chequered. It enfranchised (white) women very early, in 1902. And it was the first country to give them the vote combined with the right to stand for parliament. But it took 41 years for women to enter federal parliament. The first two <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-taking-so-long-to-achieve-gender-equality-in-parliament-117313">women federal MPs</a>, Dorothy Tangney and Enid Lyons, were just memorialised with a joint statue in the parliamentary triangle. It was unveiled this month – finally redressing the glaring absence of women in our statues. Australia’s record of women’s rights is still uneven. We pioneered aspects of women’s welfare, such as the <a href="https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/government-and-democracy/prime-ministers-and-politicians/maternity-allowance-act-1912">1912 maternity allowance</a>that included unmarried mothers. But now, Australian women’s economic status is shameful. As Minister for the Environment <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-policy-aesthete-a-new-biography-of-tanya-plibersek-shows-how-governments-work-and-affect-peoples-lives-197427">Tanya Plibersek</a> notes in her foreword, Australia has plunged from the modest high point of 15th on the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index to 43rd in 2022. <h2>What Whitlam did for women</h2> Federation was an exciting time for women. But the next peak didn’t arrive until the 1970s, when the Whitlam Government proved a beachhead for women’s rights. Feminism helped to swell the tide of change carrying <a href="https://theconversation.com/gough-whitlams-life-and-legacy-experts-respond-33228">Gough Whitlam</a> to power in 1972. But just how did Whitlam conceive his agenda for women? What were his short-lived government’s many achievements in this area? Until now, these questions haven’t been fully studied. <a href="https://unsw.press/books/womenandwhitlam/">Women and Whitlam</a> is important not just for taking on this task, but for its stellar cast of essayists. Many of them were feminist activists in the 1970s, and their memories add rich narrative detail. The book is edited by Michelle Arrow, a <a href="https://www.whitlam.org/">Whitlam Institute</a>Research Fellow and an authority on women, gender and sexuality in the 1970s: not least through her prize-winning monograph, <a href="https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/seventies/">The Seventies</a>. This excellent collection’s origins lie in <a href="https://www.whitlam.org/publications/womensrevolution">a conference</a> held at Old Parliament House in November 2019, organised by the Whitlam Institute. The book has been several years in the making, but its timing is perfect. Its month of publication, April 2023, is the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s appointment of Elizabeth Reid as his adviser on women’s affairs. This role, as an adviser to a head of government, was a world first. In her introduction, Arrow points out <a href="https://electionspeeches.moadoph.gov.au/speeches/1972-gough-whitlam">Whitlam’s 1972 election speech</a> only outlined three “women’s issues” as part of his program. But she also notes the late (former Senator) <a href="https://theconversation.com/vale-susan-ryan-pioneer-labor-feminist-who-showed-big-difficult-policy-changes-can-and-should-be-made-146996">Susan Ryan</a>’s excited response when she heard him begin it with the inclusive words, “Men and women of Australia” – a symbolic break from tradition. Iola Mathews, journalist and Women’s Electoral Lobby activist, captures the speed with which Whitlam acted on women’s issues, "In his first week of office he reopened the federal Equal Pay case, removed the tax on contraceptives and announced funding for birth control programs." Arrow summarises what else the Whitlam government did for women. It extended the minimum wage for women and funded women’s refuges, women’s health centres and community childcare. It introduced no-fault divorce and the Family Court. It introduced paid maternity leave in the public service. And it addressed discrimination against girls in schools. Women also benefited from other reforms, like making tertiary education affordable. <h2>A world-first role</h2> Elizabeth Reid’s chapter is especially powerful, because of the importance of her work as Whitlam’s women’s adviser and because she worked closely with him. She suggests Whitlam’s consciousness of feminism grew during his term in office. By September 1974, he understood his own policies and reforms could only go so far. Fundamental cultural shift was required, "We have to attack the social inequalities, the hidden and usually unarticulated assumptions which affect women not only in employment but in the whole range of their opportunities in life […] this requires a re-education of the community." Reid encapsulates how she forged her own novel role: travelling around Australia to listen to women of all backgrounds, holding meetings in venues ranging from factories, farms and universities to jails. Soon, she received more letters than anyone in the government, other than Whitlam himself. After listening and gathering women’s views, she learned how to approach parliamentarians and public servants in order to make and implement policies. Part of the power of Reid’s chapter lies in the insights she gives readers into the revolutionary nature of <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-human-being-not-just-mum-the-womens-liberationists-who-fought-for-the-rights-of-mothers-and-children-182057">women’s liberation</a>. Feminists who hit their stride in the 1970s had bold ambitions: ending patriarchal oppression, uprooting sexism as a system of male domination, taking back control of women’s bodies and sexuality, and using consciousness-raising to find alternatives to the confinement of women <a href="https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-did-turn-women-into-robots-why-feminist-horror-novel-the-stepford-wives-is-still-relevant-50-years-on-186633">as housewives</a>. Some in women’s liberation questioned the possibility of creating revolution from within government. But Reid’s chapter showcases her remarkable ability to take the fundamental insights of the movement and use them. She listened to Australian women and applied her insights and feminist principles to the key areas of employment and financial discrimination, education, childcare, social welfare and urban planning. <h2>A dynamic movement</h2> One vibrant thread connecting several chapters is the dynamism of the women’s liberation movement: not least, the Canberra group where Reid developed her feminism. Biff Ward recalls the night in early 1973 that she and other Canberra women from the women’s liberation movement attended the party held for the 18 shortlisted applicants for the women’s adviser job. It was a seemingly ordinary Saturday-night event in a suburban home: the prime minister was among the prominent Labor men present. Ward recalls the extraordinary atmosphere at the party, with the government luminaries aware of their own newfound power, yet “sidelined” by the women. These women knew each other from the movement and constituted “a tribe” that had the men on edge, because of the women’s shared confidence and agenda. The chapter on the late Pat Eatock, the Aboriginal feminist who had travelled from Sydney to Canberra in early 1972 for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-aboriginal-tent-embassy-at-50-the-history-of-an-ongoing-protest-for-indigenous-sovereignty-in-australia-podcast-180216">Tent Embassy</a>, then stayed to move into the Women’s House (run by the Women’s Liberation group) is co-written by her daughter Cathy Eatock. In 1972 Pat Eatock became the first Indigenous woman to stand for federal parliament. Later she became a public servant, an academic and a pioneer in Aboriginal television. She was part of the Canberra women’s liberation movement, despite not feeling accepted by some members. On balance, Eatock believed the movement changed her life for the better. She participated in the celebrated <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/canberra/programs/sundaybrunch/the-1975-women-in-politics-conference/12708060">1975 Women and Politics Conference</a>, and was in the Australian delegation to the International Women’s Year Conference in Mexico City, where she found Australian feminist theory was “leading the world”. <h2>Greater expectations</h2> The book is organised into five sections, each introduced by a relevant expert. In the section on law, Elizabeth Evatt succinctly describes her path-breaking roles. She was deputy president of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (predecessor to the Fair Work Commission), chair of the <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00003358.pdf">Royal Commission on Human Relationships 1974-77</a> (which brought abortion, homosexuality and domestic violence into the spotlight); and first chief judge of the Family Court of Australia. The latter was created by the Family Law Act of 1975, which introduced no-fault divorce. In her conclusion, Evatt laments <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-extract-broken-requiem-for-the-family-court-166406">the recent merger</a> of the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court, and hails the Family Law Act as one of Whitlam’s great legacies. In the health and social policy section, former Labor Senator Margaret Reynolds recalls observing the Whitlam government’s achievements from conservative Townsville, where she was a founding member of the local Women’s Electoral Lobby. As a teacher, she saw how the reforms in education benefited regional schools and children. And the Townsville CAE introduced a training program for teaching monitors from remote communities, which particularly helped Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. In the section on legacies, author and former “femocrat” Sara Dowse catalogues the disastrous social consequences of <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-neoliberalism-became-an-insult-in-australian-politics-188291">neoliberalism</a>, which have been braided with the many real and important gains for women since the 1970s. Hope lies, she suggests, in women’s greater expectations for their own lives. I have focused on essays by senior feminists, but the 16 wide-ranging chapters include contributions from younger authors, too. From our current standpoint, the fervour of the 1970s is enviable. It’s very promising that the 2022 election brought an influx of new women MPs. But if we’re going to conquer <a href="https://theconversation.com/family-violence-is-literally-making-us-sicker-new-study-finds-abuse-increases-risk-of-chronic-illness-199669">intimate violence</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/weve-all-done-the-right-things-in-under-cover-older-women-tell-their-stories-of-becoming-homeless-188356">women’s homelessness</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-ranked-last-in-an-international-gender-pay-gap-study-here-are-3-ways-to-do-better-168848">gender pay gap</a>, we need another feminist revolution. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-whitlam-government-gave-us-no-fault-divorce-womens-refuges-and-childcare-australia-needs-another-feminist-revolution-202238" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Books

What does your health fund know about living costs? Because health cover premiums are on the rise this year too!

Have you noticed more scary headlines about ballooning inflation and climbing interest rates out there lately? While the media love their dramatic headlines, there’s more truth than usual in their scary stats. It’s no secret that a lot of us are feeling squeezed financially at the moment. The cost of living has shot up in recent months - from interest rates, to groceries, and new energy and fuel price hikes, it’s getting harder to make ends meet. Health cover is no exception. In fact, in 2023, health insurance premiums are set to rise by an average of 2.9%... …but did you know that your fund can put your premium up by a lot more than that? It’s true. Don't be fooled by any ‘average’ messaging. An ‘average increase’ is just that - an average. Your premium may be going up by a lot more. OverSixty has partnered with Compare Club, Australia’s most trusted team of health insurance experts,* who spend every day talking to Aussie families – and they’ve recently shared with us two examples: 1. Kevin's policy has gone up by 20% in 2 years - that’s a LOT more than the current rate of inflation it’s being blamed on. 2. Cassie's family combined cover policy is going up by 13.67% or $33.60 a month - that’s over $400 a year on top of her current premium. We know how much households are hurting right now, so Compare Club talked to us about three smart ways to keep your health insurance premiums in check - without compromising your cover: 1. Downsize your policy - only pay for what you need: Are you on a top tier policy you’re not fully using? You might find you can get a Silver Plus or Bronze Plus tier policy with a lower premium, and stay covered for what you need. 2. Split policies - health funds’ best kept secret: If you and your partner have different health needs, splitting your cover across two different policies - or even two different funds - could save your family several hundred dollars in annual premiums. 3. Pay in advance - before your premium rises: You may have noticed that a lot of health funds have delayed their premium increase this year. If yours is one of these, and you can afford to pay your full annual premium before the date of increase, you’ll lock in a full year’s worth of savings for yourself. Know your options: “Health funds are a competitive bunch, so you don’t have to take what your fund dishes out. If you've not reviewed your health cover recently, you could be paying an average of $785^ more than you need.” – Compare Club CEO, Andrew Davis. OverSixty has partnered with Compare Club’s experts who have saved over 136,500 customers an average of $300 on health cover premiums over the last five years^. We’re quite sure you have better things to do with your money than overpaying for health cover. Compare Club have been helping Aussies switch and save on health cover since 2010#, so get in touch and see how much their experts could save you. <h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; line-height: 1.2; color: #212529; font-size: 1.5rem; background-color: #ffffff;">Call 1300 863 204 now, or visit <a style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #258440; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out 0s;" href="https://lp.compareclub.com.au/over60/?utm_medium=partner&utm_source=over60&utm_campaign=raterise&utm_content=nativearticle&category=health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">compare.oversixty.com.au</a> to save today!</h4> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">*Based on Trustpilot reviews, correct as of 04/01/23 ^Savings based on 136,746 customers between 1 Jan 2018 - 23 December 2022. #Compare Club compares selected products from a panel of trusted insurers. We do not compare all products in the market.

Caring

Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

As the economist Herman Daly pithily said, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment – not the reverse. Nature makes our lives possible through what scientists call <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-humans-really-need-other-species-185171">ecosystem services</a>. Think healthy food, clean water, feed for livestock, building materials, medicine, flood and storm control, recreation, and attractions for tourists. Despite this, Australian businesses and financial institutions have so far failed to track how their activities both rely on and affect nature. This means our investments and superannuation could be exposed to <a href="https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0667/">hidden financial risks</a>because of nature loss – and may also contribute to the destruction of nature. That’s set to change. The private sector is <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-care-of-business-the-private-sector-is-waking-up-to-natures-value-153786">waking up</a> to nature’s value (and the risks of losing it). The world’s biodiversity rescue plan <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-historic-cop15-outcome-is-an-imperfect-game-changer-for-saving-nature-heres-why-australia-did-us-proud-196731">agreed to last year</a> could help motivate governments and businesses to clean up their investments by directing more money to protect nature and less towards <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/28/banks-lent-1-9tn-linked-to-ecosystem-and-wildlife-destruction-in-2019-report-aoe">bankrolling extinction</a>. There’s one crucial plank we’re missing though – mandatory reporting of how businesses both depend on and impact nature. <h2>Nature and financial health are inextricably linked</h2> Fully half of the world’s total economic activity – <a href="https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/half-of-world-s-gdp-moderately-or-highly-dependent-on-nature-says-new-report/">around A$61 trillion</a> – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services. In Australia, that figure is very similar: <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/the-nature-based-economy-how-australias-prosperity-depends-on-nature">around half</a> of our GDP – $896 billion – has a moderate to very high direct dependence on ecosystem services provided by nature. What happens when we breach nature’s limits? Ecosystem services seize up or collapse, eventually disrupting these sectors. The tireless pollination work of honeybees, for instance, is <a href="https://www.wheenbeefoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Karasinski-JM-2018_The-Economic-Valuation-of-Australian-Managed-and-Wild-Honey-Bee-Pollinators-in-2014-2015.pd">valued at</a> $14 billion a year. Or take Australia’s wheatbelt, where poor soil health is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.3130">now costing</a> farmers almost $2 billion a year in lost income. Ecosystem services are not hypothetical. They have real value – and we will absolutely notice if they are gone. <h2>What does this have to do with my super?</h2> Australia’s super sector is responsible for the retirement savings of around <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/super-statistics/super-accounts-data/multiple-super-accounts-data/">12 million Australians</a>. Super funds are directly exposed to <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/sustainability-blog/nature-risk-is-the-next-challenge-that-demands-a-global-solution">financial risk</a> from nature loss through their investment portfolios. Just as farmers can’t grow crops without healthy soils or pollinators, developers can’t build apartments without timber or environmental permits. In turn, that has implications for their value as investments. And because so many sectors are exposed, classic investment strategies such as <a href="https://moneysmart.gov.au/how-to-invest/diversification">diversification</a> may no longer protect your super from losses. So what are our super funds and banks doing about it? To find out, we <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/risky-business-report">surveyed</a> ten super funds and ten retail banks about their responses to nature-related risks. The survey – commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation – is the first time this has been done in Australia. The findings? Not ideal. Every participating super fund and bank agreed the loss of nature now presented a serious risk to investment returns. They all agreed it was part of their responsibility to members and customers to measure and manage these risks. But only 20% of super funds and 10% of banks had attempted to assess how exposed they were. Again, this is not abstract. Super funds often have large holdings in the big four banks. Together, these banks have $170 billion in exposure to agriculture, mining, fisheries, and forestry – sectors directly reliant on a functioning natural world. So why isn’t it a higher priority? One issue may be that many financial institutions are currently focused on climate change, given how rapidly impacts are mounting. But climate change and the breakdown of natural systems are twin crises. Nature offers far and away the largest method of taking carbon back out of the atmosphere, for instance. But that only works if salt marshes and wetlands and forests are intact. Net zero targets for our banks and super funds are not fully credible unless there is a commitment to end the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/high-level-expert-group">financing of deforestation</a>. Only one organisation, Australian Ethical, had made such a commitment. You would think Australia’s super funds and banks would be interested to find out how exposed their investments were to this growing risk. Tools to do this such as <a href="https://www.ibat-alliance.org/">IBAT</a> and <a href="https://encore.naturalcapital.finance/en">ENCORE</a> are readily available. But to date, our survey findings don’t indicate banks and funds will do this <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-more-firms-think-mandatory-biodiversity-risk-reporting-needed">voluntarily</a>. <h2>Banks and super funds may soon have to report these risks</h2> The biodiversity rescue plan agreed to last year – known as the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf">Kunming-Montreal agreement</a> – is intended to set expectations for responsible finance and business globally, as the Paris Agreement did for climate change. That means Australia will be expected to introduce disclosure requirements. If this comes to pass, banks, super funds, and the businesses they invest our savings in will have to measure and publicly report their impact on nature – as well as how much they rely on nature to make a profit. First, though, the Australian government must introduce mandatory nature risk reporting. It’s already moving ahead with plans to make climate risk disclosures <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2022-314397">mandatory</a>. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has indicated nature is <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/speeches/address-australian-sustainable-finance-institute-sydney">also on his radar</a>. The question then will be whether making this information public will actually do what we hope it will and use money to help natural systems rather than extract from them. <h2>What happens next?</h2> Since taking office, the Labor government has pledged to take action on the perilous decline of the natural world with plans such as bringing the value of nature into our <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/16/cop15-australia-us-commit-to-measuring-value-of-nature-and-reflecting-it-in-national-accounts">national accounts</a>. While positive, the real action won’t happen until nature risk reporting is mandatory, <a href="https://theconversation.com/complete-elation-greeted-pliberseks-big-plans-to-protect-nature-but-hurdles-litter-the-path-196287">environment laws with teeth</a> are introduced, and until both governments and private industry direct <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12682">serious money</a> into helping nature, not harming it. Risky <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-hopes-private-investors-will-help-save-nature-heres-how-its-scheme-could-fail-193010">nature credit markets</a> aren’t going to cut the mustard. You don’t have to sit back and wait. Why not ask your super fund and bank what nature-related risks they are exposing your money to? Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/losing-the-natural-world-comes-with-major-risks-for-your-super-fund-and-bank-198669" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

Funding for refugees has long been politicized − punitive action against UNRWA and Palestinians fits that pattern

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

Couple who found love in chemotherapy raise funds for final trip

Gina Rinehart's bid to save the Commonwealth Games

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

How a secret plan 50 years ago changed Australia’s economy forever, in just one night

Queensland proposes ban on certain dog breeds

Cost of living relief on the way for struggling Aussies

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

MP proposes schools remain open until night-time

Energy bill relief to benefit just one Aussie demographic

Are bigger super funds better? Actually no, despite what the industry is doing

Government will require bosses to pay workers their super on payday

“What am I going to do now?”: 77-year-old widow forced from her home

Millions of Aussies to be eligible for half-price medicines

Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions

The Whitlam government gave us no-fault divorce, women’s refuges and childcare. Australia needs another feminist revolution

What does your health fund know about living costs? Because health cover premiums are on the rise this year too!

Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

Funding for refugees has long been politicized − punitive action against UNRWA and Palestinians fits that pattern

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

Couple who found love in chemotherapy raise funds for final trip

Gina Rinehart's bid to save the Commonwealth Games

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

How a secret plan 50 years ago changed Australia’s economy forever, in just one night

Queensland proposes ban on certain dog breeds

Cost of living relief on the way for struggling Aussies

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

MP proposes schools remain open until night-time

Energy bill relief to benefit just one Aussie demographic

Are bigger super funds better? Actually no, despite what the industry is doing

Government will require bosses to pay workers their super on payday

“What am I going to do now?”: 77-year-old widow forced from her home

Millions of Aussies to be eligible for half-price medicines

Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions

The Whitlam government gave us no-fault divorce, women’s refuges and childcare. Australia needs another feminist revolution

What does your health fund know about living costs? Because health cover premiums are on the rise this year too!

Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

Our Partners

Join Over60