Search

What to expect from the federal budget

There's just three weeks left until Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveils the federal budget. With the cost of living crisis still a major issue across the country, we can expect to see some policies aimed at alleviating the pressure. Some policies, have already been announced and here are a few others that we can expect to hear from Chalmers on May 14. Stage 3 cuts announced in January, will form a key part of this year's budget, which will direct more benefit towards low- and middle-income earners – although Australians on high salaries will still receive a tax cut. The decision was made to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures and partly address the bracket creep. The cuts lower the threshold for the lowest two brackets (so they pay less tax on that income), and raise the threshold for the highest two brackets (so they need to earn more to be taxed at a higher rate). This means that someone with average income of around $73,000 will get $1504, but how much you actually receive will depend on your income. The new version of the stage 3 cuts will come into effect on July 1. Superannuation will be paid on government-funded parental leave, with the change due to kick in for parents with babies born after July 1, 2025. They will receive a 12 per cent superannuation on top of their government-funded parental leave, with around 180,000 families expected to benefit from it. The figures will be included in the May 14 budget. Although nothing has been officially announced, there will likely be HECS-HELP debt relief for current and former students. "I think there's a range of areas where we need to do much better with the younger generation, and HECS is one of them," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on radio on April 18. "We've received a review of that... and what that has said is that the system can be made simpler and be made fairer. "We're examining the recommendations and we'll be making announcements pretty soon on that. We, of course, have a budget coming up." There have also been some hints from the government that energy bill relief will continue in this year's budget. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," Albanese said, citing the existing policy that gives eligible families up to $500 off their power bills and eligible small businesses up to $650. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," he said. "That's why the energy bill relief package I negotiated with the states and territories delivered up to $650 in savings for around 1 million small businesses, along with 5 million families. "And as we put together next month's budget, small businesses and families will again be front and centre in our thinking." Energy bills are also set to go down, or remain stable for the most part from July 1. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ingrid-burfurd-1295906">Ingrid Burfurd</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Each year, vaccines prevent thousands of deaths and hospitalisations in Australia. But millions of high-risk older Australians <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-fair-shot-ensuring-all-australians-can-get-the-vaccines-they-need/">aren’t getting</a> recommended vaccinations against COVID, the flu, pneumococcal disease and shingles. Some people are more likely to miss out, such as migrant communities and those in rural areas and poorer suburbs. As our new <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-fair-shot-ensuring-all-australians-can-get-the-vaccines-they-need/">Grattan report shows</a>, a policy reset to encourage more Australians to get vaccinated could save lives and help ease the pressure on our struggling hospitals. <h2>Adult vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness</h2> Vaccines slash the risk of <a href="https://www.ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/Influenza-fact-sheet_31%20March%202021_Final.pdf">hospitalisation</a> and serious illness, <a href="https://ncirs.org.au/recent-covid-19-vaccination-highly-effective-against-death-caused-sars-cov-2-infection-older">often by more than half</a>. COVID has already caused more than <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release">3,000 deaths in Australia this year</a>. On average, the flu kills about <a href="https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/statement-on-the-doherty-institute-modelling">600 people a year</a>, although a bad flu season, like 2017, can mean <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0%7E2017%7EMain%20Features%7EAustralia's%20leading%20causes%20of%20death,%202017%7E2">several thousand deaths</a>. And pneumococcal disease may also kill <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/49809836-8ead-4da5-81c4-352fa64df75b/aihw-phe-263.pdf?inline=true">hundreds</a> of people a year. Shingles is rarely fatal, but can be extremely painful and cause <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/shingles#complications">long-term nerve damage</a>. Even before COVID, vaccine-preventable diseases caused tens of thousands of potentially preventable hospitalisations each year – more than <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/primary-health-care/disparities-in-potentially-preventable-hospitalisa/data">80,000 in 2018</a>. Vaccines offered in Australia have been tested for safety and efficacy and have been found to be <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/about-immunisation/vaccine-safety#:%7E:text=serious%20side%20effects.-,Vaccine%20safety%20monitoring,approved%20for%20use%20in%20Australia.">very safe</a> for people who are <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/when-to-get-vaccinated/national-immunisation-program-schedule">recommended to get them</a>. <h2>Too many high-risk people are missing out</h2> Our <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/roundabouts-overpasses-carparks-hauling-the-federal-government-back-to-its-proper-role-in-transport-projects">report</a> shows that before winter this year, only 60% of high-risk Australians were vaccinated against the flu. Only 38% had a COVID vaccination in the last six months. Compared to a year earlier, two million more high-risk people went into winter without a recent COVID vaccination. Vaccination rates have fallen further since. Just over one-quarter (<a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-10-november-2023.pdf">27%</a>) of people over 75 have been vaccinated in the last six months. That leaves more than 1.3 million without a recent COVID vaccination. Uptake is also low for other vaccines. Among Australians in their 70s, <a href="https://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Coverage%20report%202021%20SUMMARY%20FINAL.pdf">less than half</a> are vaccinated against shingles and only one in five are vaccinated against pneumococcal disease. These vaccination rates aren’t just low – they’re also unfair. The likelihood that someone is vaccinated changes depending on where they live, where they were born, what language they speak at home, and how much they earn. For example, at the start of winter this year, the COVID vaccination rate for high-risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults was only 25%. This makes them about one-third less likely to have been vaccinated against COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk Australian. For more than 750,000 high-risk adults who do not speak English at home, the COVID vaccination rate is below 20% – about half the level of the average high-risk adult. Within this group, 250,000 adults aren’t proficient in English. They were 58% less likely to be vaccinated for COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk person. High-risk adults who speak English at home have a flu vaccination rate of 62%. But for people from 29 other language groups, who aren’t proficient in English, the rate is less than 31%. These 39,000 people have half the vaccination rate of people who speak English at home. These vaccination gaps contribute to the differences in people’s health. Australians born overseas don’t just have much lower rates of COVID vaccination, they also have much higher rates of death from COVID. Where people live also affects vaccination rates. High-risk people living in remote and very remote areas are less likely to be vaccinated, and even within capital cities there are big differences between different areas. <h2>We need to set ambitious targets</h2> Australia needs a vaccination reset. A new National Vaccination Agreement between the federal and state governments should include ambitious but achievable targets for adult vaccines. This can build on the success of targets for childhood and adolescent vaccination, setting targets for overall uptake and for communities that are falling behind. The federal government should ask the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) to advise on vaccination targets for COVID, flu, pneumococcal and shingles for all high-risk older adults. <h2>Different solutions for different barriers</h2> Barriers to vaccination range from the trivial to the profound. A new national vaccination strategy needs to dismantle high and low barriers alike. First, to increase overall uptake, vaccination should be easier, and easier to understand. The federal government should introduce vaccination “surges”, especially in the lead-up to winter, as <a href="https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/09-10-2023-vulnerable--vaccinate.-protecting-the-unprotected-from-covid-19-and-influenza">countries in Europe</a> do. During surges, high-risk people should be able to get vaccinated even if they have had a recent infection or injection. This will make the rules simpler and make vaccination in aged care easier. Surges should be reinforced with advertising explaining who should get vaccinated and why. High-risk people should get SMS reminders. Second, targeted policies are needed for the many people who are happy to use mainstream primary care services, but who don’t get vaccinated – for example, due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-governments-communicate-with-multicultural-australians-about-covid-vaccines-its-not-as-simple-as-having-a-poster-in-their-language-156097">language barriers</a>, or living in <a href="https://theconversation.com/over-half-of-eligible-aged-care-residents-are-yet-to-receive-their-covid-booster-and-winter-is-coming-205403">aged care</a>. <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/phn/what-PHNs-are">Primary Health Networks</a> should get funding to coordinate initiatives such as vaccination events in aged care and disability care homes, workforce training to support culturally appropriate care, and provision of interpreters. Third, tailored programs are needed to reach <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/health-promotion">people who are not comfortable or able to access mainstream health care</a>, who have the most complex barriers to vaccination – for example, distrust of the health system or poverty. These communities are all very different, so one-size-fits-all programs don’t work. The pandemic showed that vaccination programs can succeed when they are designed and delivered with the communities they are trying to reach. Examples are “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36366401/">community champions</a>” who challenge misinformation, or health services organising vaccination events where communities work, gather or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/11/hundreds-queue-for-hours-and-some-camp-overnight-at-pop-up-vaccine-clinic-in-sydneys-lakemba">worship</a>. These programs should get ongoing funding, but also be accountable for achieving results. Adult vaccines are the missing piece in Australia’s whole-of-life vaccination strategy. For the health and safety of the most vulnerable members of our community, we need to close the vaccination gap. <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/217915/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ingrid-burfurd-1295906">Ingrid Burfurd</a>, Senior Associate, Health Program, Grattan Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</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/millions-of-high-risk-australians-arent-getting-vaccinated-a-policy-reset-could-save-lives-217915">original article</a>.

Body

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> The National Party’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/more-sanctions-for-unemployed-beneficiaries-under-national/">pledge to apply sanctions</a> to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/nationals-benefit-sanctions-plan-cruel-dehumanising-greens/">criticism</a>. Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages. In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in. One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs. The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans. People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week. With <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/132980318/auckland-mother-serves-up-cereal-for-dinner-due-to-rising-food-costs">rising costs</a>, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders <a href="https://figure.nz/chart/TtiUrpceJruy058e-ITw010dHsM6bvA2a">accessing one of the main benefits</a>. <h2>Our whittled down welfare state</h2> Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system. The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2023.html">pay a fixed weekly amount</a>. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week. Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html">accommodation supplement</a> and other allowances or tax credits. The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs. Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks. This problem has been building for decades. <h2>Benefits have been too low for too long</h2> In the 1970s, the <a href="https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/12967">Royal Commission on Social Security</a> declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”. But Ruth Richardson’s “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/124978983/1991-the-mother-of-all-budgets">mother of all budgets</a>” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/29/benefit-increases-will-still-leave-families-locked-in-poverty/">benefits are not enough to live on</a>. In 2018, the <a href="https://www.weag.govt.nz/">Welfare Expert Advisory Group</a> looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport. The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation. The Labour government has since <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders">increased benefit rates</a>, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-at-6-0-percent">sharp rise in inflation</a> since then. Advocacy group <a href="https://fairerfuture.org.nz/">Fairer Future</a> published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates. <h2>How ‘advances’ create debt traps</h2> When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment. For <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/27/very-stressful-beneficiary-says-he-cant-afford-msd-debt/">all other essential needs</a> – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back. There are several issues with these types of loans. First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future. As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0032/latest/whole.html">Social Security Act 2018</a> doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts. <h2>Contradictory policies</h2> Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit. Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored. This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40. The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt. People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need. <h2>Ways to start easing the burden</h2> So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income. Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt. Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low. When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on. The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold. However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.<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/212528/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, Associate professor - Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</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/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Private health insurance is <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">under review</a>, with proposals to overhaul everything from rebates to tax penalty rules. One <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/supporting_documents/Finity%20Consulting%20MLS%20and%20PHI%20Rebate%20Final%20Report.pdf">proposal</a> is for higher-income earners who don’t have private health insurance to pay a larger <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/">Medicare Levy Surcharge</a> – an increase from 1.25% or 1.5%, to 2%. And if they want to avoid that surcharge, they’d need to take out higher-level hospital cover than currently required. Encouraging more people to take up private health insurance like this might seem a good way to take pressure off the public hospital system. But <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a> shows these proposals may not achieve this. These may also be especially punitive for people with little to gain from buying private health insurance, such as younger people and those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals. <h2>What is the Medicare Levy Surcharge?</h2> The Medicare Levy Surcharge was <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/May/A_short_history_of_increases_to_the_Medicare_levy#:%7E:text=From%20July%201997%2C%20a%20surcharge,ancillary%20insurance%20cover%20was%20introduced">introduced in 1997</a> to encourage high-income earners to buy health insurance. People earning above the relevant thresholds need to buy “complying” health insurance, or pay the levy. This surcharge is in addition to the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy/">Medicare levy</a>, which applies to most taxpayers. The surcharge varies depending on your income bracket, and the rate is <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Medicare-levy-surcharge-income,-thresholds-and-rates/">different</a> for families. For instance, to avoid paying the surcharge currently, a single person living in Victoria earning A$108,001 can buy basic hospital cover. The lowest annual premium for someone under 65 is <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">about $1,100</a>, after rebates. That varies slightly between states and territories. Not buying private health insurance and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would cost even more, at $1,350 (1.25% of $108,001). <h2>What is being proposed?</h2> The <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">report</a>, by Finity Consulting and commissioned by the federal health department, reviews a range of health insurance incentives. It recommends increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge to 2% for those with an income above $108,001 for singles, and $216,001 for families. The definition of a “complying” private health insurance policy would also change. Rather than having basic hospital cover as is required now, someone would need to buy <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/private-health-insurance-reforms-gold-silver-bronze-basic-product-tiers-campaign-fact-sheet?language=en">silver or gold</a> cover to avoid the surcharge. Under the proposed changes, people who pay the 2% surcharge would also no longer receive any rebate, which currently reduces premiums by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Income-thresholds-and-rates-for-the-private-health-insurance-rebate/#Rebaterates1">about 8%</a> for people earning $108,001-$144,000. So, for a single person under 65, earning $108,001 and living in Victoria, the <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">annual cost of buying</a> complying hospital cover would be at least $1,904 (without the rebate). Again, that varies slightly between states and territories. But the cost of not insuring and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would go up to $2,160 (2% of $108,001). <h2>Is this a good idea?</h2> However, <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a>, out earlier this year, suggests increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge will not meaningfully increase take-up of private health insurance. We’ve shown that people do not respond as strongly to the surcharge as theory would predict. For example, when the surcharge kicks in, we found the probability of insuring only increases modestly from about 70% to 73% for singles, and about 90% to 91% for families. It is generally cheaper to buy private health insurance than to pay the surcharge. However, we found about 15% of single people with an income of $108,001 or above don’t insure despite it being cheaper than paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We don’t know precisely why. Maybe people are not sure of the financial benefit due to changes in their income, or if they are, cannot be bothered, or do not have time, to explore their options. Maybe, as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/x2909w/does_anyone_else_willingly_pay_the_medicare/">anecdotal reports suggest</a>, rather than buying private health insurance, some people would rather support the public system by paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. The point is, people who are not buying private health insurance appear to be highly resistant to financial incentives. So stronger penalties might have little effect. Instead, we propose the Medicare Levy Surcharge be better targeted to true high-income earners. We can do that by increasing income thresholds for the surcharge to kick in, which are then indexed annually to reflect changes in earnings. <h2>How about needing more expensive cover?</h2> Requiring people to choose silver level cover or above would address criticisms about people buying “<a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-junk-health-insurance-policies-is-just-tinkering-at-the-margins-of-a-much-bigger-issue-82749">junk</a>” private health insurance they never intend to use. However, people may be buying this type of product because private health insurance has little value to them. Requiring them to spend even more on a product they don’t want is a roundabout way of taking pressure off the public system. So we propose keeping the current level of hospital cover required to avoid the surcharge, rather than increasing it. <h2>Who loses?</h2> Taken together, the cost of these proposed changes would disproportionately fall on people with little to gain from private health insurance. These include younger people, those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals, or those who prefer to support the public system directly. These groups are the least likely to use private insurance so have the least to gain from upgrading their cover. <h2>Where to next?</h2> The report also recommends keeping <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">health insurance rebates</a> (a government contribution to your premiums), the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Lifetime-health-cover/">Lifetime Health Cover</a> loading (to encourage people to take out hospital cover while younger), as well as the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We also support keeping these three in the short to medium term. But we recommend gradually reducing public support for private health insurance. We believe the ultimate goal of reforming private health insurance is to optimise the overall efficiency of the health-care system (both public and private systems) and improve population health while saving taxpayers’ money. The goal should not be merely increasing the take-up of private health insurance, which is the focus of the current report. So, as well as our recommendation to better target the Medicare Levy Surcharge, we need to: <ul> <li> lower income thresholds for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-private-health-insurance-rebate-has-cost-taxpayers-100-billion-and-only-benefits-some-should-we-scrap-it-181264">insurance rebates</a>, especially targeting those on genuinely low incomes. This means lower premiums only for the people who can least afford private health care </li> <li> remove rebates <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-premiums-should-be-based-on-age-and-health-status-122545">based on age</a> as higher rebates for older people <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2017.1299094?journalCode=rael20">do not</a> encourage more to insure. Rebates should be tied to just income, which is a better indicator of financial means.<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/210981/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</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/private-health-insurance-is-set-for-a-shake-up-but-asking-people-to-pay-more-for-policies-they-dont-want-isnt-the-answer-210981">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

“You’re a flop!” Kyle Sandilands hits back at Dan Andrews’ controversial new policy

Kyle Sandilands has called out Dan Andrews and the Victorian government, as they move to ban all new homes in the state from using gas. The state government is dubbing the move as a measure to reduce cost of living pressures, claiming households will save up to $1,000 off their annual energy bills while reducing household emissions. Upon hearing the news of the proposal, the KIISFM radio host branded the Victorian Premier “a flop” and the policy “some bull***t.” “I’m sick and tired of everyone thinking we’re idiots,” he said on The Kyle & Jackie O Show. “These laws are for idiots. Losers are doing these jobs.” “They will be banning Bic lighters next, we will be rubbing two sticks together to get a cigarette lit.” “That government sucks ass. That wandering eyed flop down there can’t have the Commonwealth Games because he can’t budget, now he thinks ‘’Oh, I’ll get the woke losers to vote for me by getting rid of gas’. You’re a flop!” From January 1st 2024, planning permits for new homes and residential subdivisions will only connect to all electric networks. To encourage new homeowners to go all-electric and abandon gas, eligible new home builders, as well as existing homeowners and renters, can access $1,400 solar panel rebates and interest free loans of $8,800 for household batteries. All Victorian households and businesses are also eligible for gas to electric rebates to upgrade heating and cooling and hot water heaters. Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio said getting Victorians on more efficient electric appliances would lead to big savings on bills, while also helping to reduce emissions. “We know that with every bill that arrives, gas is only going to get more expensive,” she said. “That’s why we’re stepping in to help even more Victorians get the best deal on their energy bills.” “Reducing our reliance on gas is critical to meeting our ambitious emission reduction target of net zero by 2045 and getting more Victorians on more efficient electric appliances which will save them money on their bills.” Image credits: Getty Images / KIISFM

Legal

"What am I going to do?”: Centrelink mother points out crucial flaw in new budget policy for parents

An unemployed mother who relies on Centrelink benefits has broken down while noting a fatal flaw in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Federal Budget promises to parents. Jessica Blowers told ABC’s Q&A program that she will be forced off the Single Parent Payment when her daughter turns eight in August, leaving her unable to afford the rent increases. Currently, single parents can claim the Parenting Payment of $949.30 a fortnight until their youngest child turns eight. By September 2023, the age limit for the pay rise to when the youngest child is 14, as part of Chalmers’ budget. Ms Blowers is one of many copping the brunt of it as her daughter’s 8th birthday is four weeks before the new rules begin. She will also see a rent increase during that period from $900 a fortnight to $960. “What am I going to do? What is my choice, other than I am doing my best to get a job so that I can keep a house over my daughter's head,” she stressed to the treasurer. “When I'm applying for the jobs, I am faced with being told that more than 100 other candidates have applied for the same jobs - I'm not sure how I am supposed to compete against 100 other people for one job.” Ms Blowers added she “would like to know what measures the government has in place to bridge the gap that I and other parents in similar situations will find ourselves in”. “I don't have anywhere to go because I am paying my entire pension in rent. Everywhere else in Sydney is comparable to that.” Although sympathetic to her situation, Chalmers said those suffering like Ms Blowers were “the reason why we are lifting the age from eight to 14”. “This is something we were really keen to do in the Budget because we recognise the pressure that you are under as a single mum,” he explained. However, Chalmers was adamant that the new system could not be introduced any earlier than September 20, 2023. “We've tried to do is bring that change in as soon as possible. We think September is the soonest that we can do it,” he said. “I understand that that means a few weeks for you going from the current payment onto JobSeeker and (then) back onto the single parenting payment. “I would love to avoid that if we could, but what we're trying to do is provide this extra assistance ... that you need and deserve. If we could avoid those couple of weeks, we would, but September is the best we can do.” In total, some 57,000 single parents, 90 per cent of whom are women, will benefit from the new scheme. Previously they would have been moved onto the lower JobSeeker rate when their youngest child turned eight. “By age 14, children have typically settled into high school and need less parental supervision, and single parents are in a much stronger position to take on paid work," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when the policy was announced. Historically, the single parent payment was eligible for singles with children aged up to 16. But former prime minister John Howard, later supported by Julia Gillard, cut the age to eight in an attempt to encourage parents back into the workforce. Two advisory bodies have called for the government to extend the payment and the eligibility criteria. It is understood mutual obligation requirements will remain in order to continue encouraging parents to go back to work. Speaking to Nova radio in Perth, Mr Albanese explained he knew “firsthand what it's like to grow up with a single mum doing it tough”. “We want to look after single parents because we know that the role that they play in raising their children is such a priority for them and they’re deserving of more support,” he said. Image credit: ABC Q&A

Money & Banking

Restaurant owner praised for hiring policy that targets "oldies"

Like many in the hospitality business, Barry Iddles was struggling to find staff to fill shifts at his restaurant 360Q in Queenscliff when he was struck by inspiration. The 67-year-old decided to put the call out to “oldies”, adding an invitation to retirees to come and work at his waterfront venue on the back of his winter postcards. “We sent out 42,000,” he said. “I put, ‘We’re recruiting – juniors, come and learn the skills of hospitality. Millennials, come and show us what you can do. And seniors and retirees, come back to the workforce for one or two shifts per week.’ “I sent it out by mail and off we went. We had a great response.” He stressed that potential employees didn’t need a resume or hospitality experience and could just come in for a chat. Now, Iddles has 12 staff working for him aged over 50, including former nurses and healthcare workers, a mechanic, small business owner and florist. "We've got two 74-year-olds, a 70-year-old, and then we've got [people aged] 57, 60, 64, 66 and 67," Mr Iddles said. "There is a labour shortage and a labour crisis, [but] I don't have one. I have five too many staff at the moment. And I could actually open another venue to keep them all gainfully employed." <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CgNZSgSvoqP/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CgNZSgSvoqP/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Barry Iddles (@barryiddles)</a> </div> </blockquote> Iddles said most of his older staff at the 150-seat restaurant, which also includes outdoor dining and an upstairs function venue, work during functions and that there has been a major benefit to both older and junior workers working alongside each other. “It’s amazing, the interaction is absolutely incredible,” he said. “It’s good for their life skills – the oldest have got a great work ethic.” Since his story was shared by the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-15/defying-ageism-older-workers-fill-gaps-in-workforce/101651806" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC</a> on Tuesday, Iddles said his phone has been ringing non-stop and his hiring practice went viral. “Everyone wants to talk about hiring old people,” he said. One of Iddles’ employees, 67-year-old Kenton Savage, told the ABC he wanted to retire after selling his distribution business - but his plans went awry when it went bankrupt during the pandemic. Without super and amidst rising living costs, Savage and his wife had no choice but to find jobs. "The pension just didn't pay enough. So I looked around for a job and Barry was hiring," he said. "I think it just keeps me fit and healthy and happy. Being able to get out and about, it's really been good for me," he said. 73-year-old Susan Borton, another employee, said she applied to boost her confidence and contribute. “Covid made a lot of people depressed,” she said. “And I know amongst the older ones, we’re all saying we’re actually finding it quite difficult to get out and about again. [Working] makes me feel better. And I love putting in, I love contributing.” The Council for Older Australians chief executive Ian Yates praised Iddles for his hiring practice. “Many older people will have experienced a lot of knock backs and not being taken seriously as prospective employees,” he told the ABC. “The labour market is so tight, that employers are being forced to look at channels and groups that they wouldn’t normally look at, including older Australians.” Speaking to <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/queenscliff-restaurant-360q-sees-huge-response-after-inviting-oldies-to-come-and-work/news-story/7e08f752c17bc86dd109581ef602b4c5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>, Iddles said others should adopt his policy too, and that it applies to both young and old. “Age discrimination can be quite bad, at both ends of the spectrum,” he said. “If I’ve got a 15-year-old coming for a job I’ll give them a job immediately. Too many people go, you’ve got no experience. But they actually want to work. “It’s a great mix to have [employees ranging] from 15 to 75.” Image: Facebook

Retirement Life

What you need to know about smoking on major cruise lines

Cruising is a highly popular holiday option for travellers. Many changes have been made to the cruising industry to accommodate the influx of travellers. One of the changes that have come with the popularity of cruising is tighter smoking policies. Here is a guide to the different smoking policies of various cruise lines. P&O Cruises For P&O cruises, smoking is not permitted indoors in any of their ships. This rule includes your room and balcony. Smoking is allowed in selected areas outdoors. Electronic cigarettes can also only be used in the designated outdoor smoking areas. Carnival Cruise Line Travellers are allowed to smoke in the designated areas which include some public areas including certain areas of a casino, dance club and some jazz clubs on certain ships. Other public areas are non-smoking zones including dinning and public rooms. Rooms and balconies are non-smoking areas. Princess Cruises Princess Cruises allows smoking in the cigar lounge, the casino and some areas on the open decks. Smoking is prohibited in cabins, balconies and all food areas. On open decks cigar and pipe smoking is allowed. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line Royal Caribbean ships do not allow smoking in dining rooms, cabins and open or closed decks on the portside of the ship. Smoking is allowed on the starboard side of open decks, and designated area of a public room. Most casinos with this line allow smoking except for select cruises from China which will have a non-smoking area. Crystal Cruises Crystal Cruises once allowed smoking in cabins but now they don’t. Smoking is allowed in certain outdoor areas of the ship and a designated smoking lounge is also available. Norwegian Cruise Line Norwegian Cruise Line permits smoking on certain areas of open decks, in a casino if you are a player and in the cigar bars. Smoking is not allowed in cabins and balconies. Smoking is allowed on the starboard side of the Waterfront on the Getaway and Breakaway, except for in the dinning areas. Holland America Holland America allow smoking on balconies but not in cabins. Opens decks and designated areas in most public rooms are free to smoke in. If you are in the casino you can only smoke if you are an active player. Disney Cruise Line Smoking is prohibited in any indoor areas for Disney cruises. For the Disney Magic and Disney Wonder ships smoking is allowed on the starboard side of the deck 4 at 6pm to 6am and decks 9 and 10 in the Quiet Cove Area. On the Disney Dream and Disney Fantasy, smoking Is allowed from 6pm to 6am in designated areas on decks 4, 12 and 13. Should people be allowed to smoke on cruises? Image: Getty

Cruising

What family violence survivors want policy makers to know

For a long time, policy makers and legislators seeking to address the problem of <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/research-areas/statistics-prevalence-and-community-attitudes/">domestic and family violence</a> have sought higher penalties and <a href="https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/documents/Discussion-Paper-coercive-control.pdf">tougher laws</a>. But when it comes to finding practical solutions to this complex problem, the voices of those with lived experience of the system have not always been heard. A recent <a href="https://www.rightsnetworksa.com/_files/ugd/8cf77c_bcc168e3171a46c48efd0aac455df0b0.pdf">study</a> I coauthored with Suryawan Rian Yohanesh from <a href="https://www.unitingcommunities.org/">Uniting Communities</a> (an NGO focused on overcoming disadvantage) involved interviews with survivors of domestic and family violence about what changes they’d like to see. Our interviewees told us they want changes giving them control over legal processes like <a href="https://www.police.sa.gov.au/your-safety/intervention-orders">intervention orders</a> (sometimes called “Apprehended Violence Orders” or AVOs), which are legal orders designed to stop perpetrators of violence or abuse from being near or interacting with their partners or children. Currently, if you want to obtain one of these orders, the police and prosecutor often lead the process. They generally decide whether it goes to court, what evidence is collected or used and what parameters that order has (such as whether the perpetrator can collect kids from school or access firearms). The abuse survivor can feel shut out of these decision-making processes. <h2>Getting the first response right</h2> Survivors of violence, and those working to support survivors, want programs focused on getting the first response right every time. As one service provider said: <blockquote> Being told that your abuse is ‘not serious enough’ or there is no abuse identified is one of the most damaging things that can happen. It can impact the relationship of trust going forward. It is therefore critical first responders are adequately trained in trauma-informed care and practice, and have training in best practice responses to domestic violence, so that the victims can also be referred to suitable support services. </blockquote> If that first response (by police, for example) is dismissive or re-traumatising, it can leave survivors vulnerable to ongoing violence and harm, and distrustful of the legal system. As one survivor said: <blockquote> I didn’t feel like I was taken seriously or believed. [I was] made to feel like I was being judged as hysterical, ridiculous and time wasting. This made me feel unsafe to approach police again which was fairly scary, because they were the place I was supposed to be able to count on to help, and I wasn’t sure where else I could go. </blockquote> This type of response can be devastating for women and families already experiencing disadvantage or isolation, including <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-indigenous-women/">First Nations women</a>, culturally and linguistically diverse women, <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/women-disability-and-violence-barriers-to-accessing-justice-final-report/read/">women with disabilities</a> and <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/domestic-and-family-violence-regional-rural-and-remote-communities">women living in regional areas</a>. Many of these groups already face myriad practical barriers when it comes to reporting violence. A mishandled first response can reinforce <a href="https://theconversation.com/narcissism-and-the-various-ways-it-can-lead-to-domestically-abusive-relationships-116909">narcissistic or controlling behaviour</a> by perpetrators, who use these experiences as evidence of their own power. To say, “See, I told you nobody would believe you.” One interviewee said: <blockquote> The system that is being built to protect women from this type of abuse can be turned into a weapon in the hands of those men that are seeking to perpetuate control against their partner or their family. </blockquote> Survivors said they want greater focus on perpetrator accountability by exposing the true impact of the violence on the lives of others, not just the aspects of the behaviour leading to criminal offences or breaches of the law. This means engaging professionals to help the survivor confront the perpetrator with the broader health, financial and social impacts of their behaviour. <blockquote> With this support team, the victim survivor could be encouraged to develop a strong recorded, accumulative evidence case. And these other professionals could be empowered to confront the defendant about the harm that he is causing to his partner, and in many cases also to his children. </blockquote> These practices should be <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-indigenous-women/">informed by cultural knowledge</a> and supported by community leaders who can help improve awareness of the rights of women. The support team could also help identify pathways for safe repair of relationships, social connection and financial security. <h2>Longer term support</h2> Survivors also need longer term support packages, including opportunities to <a href="https://www.monash.edu/arts/gender-and-family-violence/study/scholarship-opportunity-graduate-certificate-of-family-violence-prevention#:%7E:text=For%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,for%20family%20violence%20victim%2Dsurvivors.&text=Timeframe%3A%20For%20successful%20scholarship%20candidates,be%20completed%20by%20October%202022.">access tertiary education or training</a> and specialist legal and financial services. As one participant told us: <blockquote> I’d really like to see some kind of focal point, resources for [domestic violence] survivors. To support people to rebuild their lives. Getting the universities and tertiary institutions to help with retraining and teaching, employment. Somewhere where people can break back in. Including social life, as well as financial security and employment. </blockquote> Those with lived experience of domestic and family violence want perpetrators to be held to account – not just in the courtroom, but in their workplaces and their social networks. They want to be put at the centre of the system, and be recognised as the powerful agents for change they are. <blockquote> No legislation is good enough until people with lived experience have been consulted […] All these people with lived experience are not being heard. They are the ones that have the knowledge. Every time you don’t go to the coal face you miss the point. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-these-people-with-lived-experience-are-not-being-heard-what-family-violence-survivors-want-policy-makers-to-know-180872" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation.</a> Image: Shutterstock </blockquote>

Legal

Nat Barr loses it at Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce live on air

Natalie Barr has lost her patience with the federal election campaign, as she slammed Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce in a fiery Sunrise segment. In the on-air debate on Monday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce asked Ms Plibersek on if Labor's policy to help first homebuyers, by buying a stake in their properties, applied to voters' taxable or gross income. Tanya was unable to answer the question directly, leading Joyce to erupt "Which one is it Tanya?!" and Barr to say she felt sorry for Australian voters. The two senior politicians were each grilled about their party's policies on helping first homebuyers, after the Coalition proposed a plan to allow Aussie families to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation to buy their first property. Labor is proposing the Federal government would contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a first home. The plan would be only be accessible to voters on a taxable income of up to $90,000 per annum for singles, or $120,000 for couples, but the figures are unclear if they are gross or net payments. "Which one is it Tanya?! It's your policy," an exasperated Mr Joyce asked. "Can you explain your policy? It's the last week of the election!" "How do you not understand your own policy?" Barr piled onto Ms Plibersek, asking, "Can you answer the question?" Ms Plibersek eventually confirmed Labor's policy was based on taxable income, to which Mr Joyce implied she was told the figure by an off-camera staffer. Natalie Barr then wrapped up the segment before it could delve further into an on-air screaming match. "Can anyone feel sorry for the people of Australia this morning, trying to work out what on earth we are voting on this Saturday," Barr said. Ms Plibersek added "I feel embarrassed the deputy Prime Minister carries on like that, I really do." Barr fired back, "I feel sorry for us, because we've got to walk into those polling booths and we have to try and work out what on earth we're voting on!" Earlier in the segment, Tanya Plibersek slammed the Coalition's housing affordability scheme, citing why such measures had not worked in the past as housing prices would skyrocket. "There is a reason why John Howard, Peter Costello… and Malcolm Turnbull rejected this policy," Ms Plibersek said. "All the Liberals in the past have rejected it because you shouldn't have to choose between housing today and poverty in old age." "Scott Morrison and his government have been around for almost a decade. It's harder to buy a home, it's harder to rent and it's more expensive and there's more homelessness than ever." Image credits: Sunrise

Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage

We often hear a job is the best way to get someone out of poverty. In many cases this is true, and anti-poverty strategies should prioritise improving people’s access to jobs. But this isn’t the complete solution. For many – particularly those with disability or substantial caring responsibilities that limit their scope to work – the income support system remains crucial to avoiding persistent poverty. It may not feel like it at a time of rising living costs, but the incomes of Australians have on average risen substantially over the last three decades and continue to trend upwards – we have never been richer. However – <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">as highlighted by the Productivity Commission</a> – some in the community continue to be left behind. Our new <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/4107629/Breaking-Down-Barriers-Report-4-May-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study of income poverty</a> shows persistent poverty remains a significant problem in Australian society. Looking back over the first two decades of this century, we found around 13% of the population are persistently poor. We defined these as people who persistently have to live on incomes that are <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:At-risk-of-poverty_rate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less than 60% of</a> the median income in Australia (a definition employed by Eurostat for European Union member countries). Poverty then isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia, and tackling persistent disadvantage needs to be a policy imperative. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?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/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Poverty isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> Why do people descend in poverty – and often stay there? Understanding what drives poverty and its persistence is an essential first step to alleviating it. Using data from the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (<a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HILDA</a>) Survey, we examined the extent and nature of persistent poverty among the same sample of Australians tracked over time. Specifically, we looked at <ul> <li>why do people descend into poverty?</li> <li>why do some people remain in poverty, while others escape it?</li> <li>why some of those who escape poverty remain out of poverty while others fall back into it.</li> </ul> We also examined the degree to which the depth of poverty (how far someone’s income is below the poverty line) impacts on the likelihood of staying in poverty. We found persistent poverty is more prevalent among: <ul> <li>women</li> <li>single-parent families</li> <li>older people</li> <li>Indigenous Australians</li> <li>people with a disability</li> <li>less-educated people, and</li> <li>people living in more disadvantaged regions.</li> </ul> This is consistent with <a href="https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty-in-australia-2020-overview-html-version/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previous studies of poverty</a> made at a single point in time. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in deep poverty – the poorest of the poor – are the most likely to be persistently poor (up to five times more likely than the average person in the community). The very poor are therefore a policy priority – not only because they are very poor now, but because they are more likely to remain poor. ‘Falling’ into poverty Similarly, among those initially not in poverty, those with incomes closest to the poverty line – the poorest of the non-poor – are at greater risk of falling into persistent poverty. Another policy priority therefore needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty. When we examined the “trigger events” for people falling into poverty or rising out of it, we found the household’s success in the labour market is critical. In other words, people need to be able to get a job. An increase in the number of employed people in the household is strongly associated with lifting people out of poverty. There is also a strong association between a lack of work and the risk of persistent poverty. Clearly, then, policy measures geared towards increasing employment, and retaining employment for those already employed, are key to reducing persistent poverty. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?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/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Another policy priority needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> It’s not just about jobs, though But employment isn’t the only factor of importance. Any change in family type, but particularly becoming a single-parent family, increases the risk of poverty. More broadly, the household context plays a crucial role in determining individuals’ poverty experiences. Who you live with, what they do, and what happens to them are important. The household perspective then is critical to understanding poverty and designing appropriate policy responses. The onset of disability or substantial caring responsibilities is also much more likely to tip you into poverty and keep you there. Put simply, those who are more likely to experience persistent poverty tend to be constrained in their ability to participate in the labour market. Having a job may not be an option at all. Focusing only on labour market-related anti-poverty policy measures therefore isn’t enough to fully address persistent poverty in the Australian community. Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as: <ul> <li>long-term health conditions</li> <li>high caring responsibilities for young children or</li> <li>significant disabilities.</li> </ul> Even among couple-parent households, we found the more dependent children in the household, the lower the probability of exiting poverty. This highlights the importance of child care assistance to facilitate employment participation and sustained income adequacy for families with young children. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?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/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as long-term health conditions. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> An unavoidable conclusion But even improvements in child care assistance aren’t enough. The simple fact is that, for a significant number of people, income support will continue to determine their living standards. The unavoidable conclusion is that boosting income support payments beyond their current austere levels remains a crucial pillar of policy for governments genuinely committed to reducing persistent disadvantage. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the agenda of either of the major parties.<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/181343/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esperanza-vera-toscano-788145" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Esperanza Vera-Toscano</a>, Senior research fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-wilkins-95906" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roger Wilkins</a>, Professorial Fellow and Deputy Director (Research), HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The University of Melbourne</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/poverty-isnt-a-temporary-experience-in-australia-we-need-urgent-policy-tackling-persistent-disadvantage-181343" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

The rate of voter participation in federal elections by people living in remote Indigenous communities has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lower than the national average</a> since First Nations people were granted the right to vote in 1962. In recent years, the rate has been in <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decline</a>. Rates are lowest in the Northern Territory. The low rate of participation among First Nations people living in remote communities could affect the lower house election results in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Warren Snowden has stepped down after 20 years holding the seat. Determining rates of voter participation Measuring the number of First Nations people (or any particular demographic group) who vote in federal elections is challenging. Electoral rolls do not include information about cultural identity. Census figures, which could be used as a basis for comparison against voter turnout rates, are imprecise. Data from the 2005 NT Assembly general election <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">show</a> voting rates were 20% lower in electorates with the highest Indigenous populations. In his study of the 2019 federal election, Australian National University researcher <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Will Sanders</a> found <blockquote> perhaps only half of eligible Aboriginal citizens […] may be utilising their right to vote. </blockquote> Reports from the Northern Territory’s most recent Assembly election also found <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-21/poor-indigenous-voter-turnout-at-nt-election/12580688" target="_blank" rel="noopener">record low</a><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-15/coronavirus-impacting-on-remote-voter-turnout-nt-election/12559066">turnout</a> across Indigenous communities. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Research</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shows</a> rates of informal votes are also higher in remote Indigenous communities. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> NLC accuses the Australian Electoral Commission of 'failing' Aboriginal voters [Matt Garrick, ABC] Northern Territory land council has accused the AEC of failing Aboriginal people by not engaging more bush voters to have their say at the federal election.<a href="https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD">https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD</a> <a href="https://t.co/J3a04DyJJB">pic.twitter.com/J3a04DyJJB</a> — First Nations Tgraph (@FNTelegraph) <a href="https://twitter.com/FNTelegraph/status/1514025685521952770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 2022</a></blockquote> Barriers to First Nations people voting Decisions made at the federal level over the last three decades appear to have provided significant obstacles to voting in some First Nations communities. First is the 1996 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Election Education and Information Service. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Two</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studies</a> point to this abolition as a potential reason for a decline in voting rates in remote Indigenous communities since the mid-nineties. Established in 1979, this service existed specifically to increase voter registration rates among First Nations people. This was done by, for example, providing voter education and election materials in Indigenous languages. The second decision was the 2005 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. First Nations people participated in five of the Commission’s elections administered by the same Australian Electoral Commission responsible for federal elections. Although voting was voluntary, <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41511/3/2003_DP252.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> shows participation was higher in northern and central Australia than in southern Australia. The third relevant policy change was the passage of the 2006 Electoral Integrity Bill. This introduced more stringent rules for the identification required to vote, making it more difficult for people in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at least one remote community</a> to register to vote. The Morrison government’s unsuccessful 2021 proposal to introduce even tougher <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7488468/govt-accused-of-trumpist-move-to-suppress-voting/?cs=14264" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voter identification laws</a> would likely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/27/proposed-voter-id-laws-real-threat-to-rights-of-indigenous-australians-and-people-without-homes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exacerbate this problem</a>. The fourth policy decision was a 2012 change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, known as the “Federal Direct Enrolment and Update”. This enabled the Australian Electoral Commission to register eligible Australians to vote based on information available through several government agencies. These include Centrelink/the Department of Human Services, the Australian Taxation Office, and the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information Service. But the Electoral Commission has <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">chosen not to use this mechanism for enrolment in parts of Australia</a> where mail is sent to a single community address (“mail exclusion areas”). This means people living in many remote communities are not automatically added to the electoral roll, unlike most of the rest of Australia. West Arnhem Regional Council mayor Matthew Ryan and Yalu Aboriginal Corporation chairman Ross Mandi launched an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner over this issue in June last year. They <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/nt-voters-racial-discrimination-human-rights-commission/100227762" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> failure to apply the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update in remote communities represents a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of residents in one remote community on South Australia’s APY lands found a lack of information contributed to low participation in elections. Obstacles included: <ul> <li> a lack of materials available in appropriate languages </li> <li> uncertainty about how to cast a formal vote </li> <li> problems related to literacy, and </li> <li> a lack of appropriate identification necessary to enrol. </li> </ul> In October last year, the Australian Electoral Commission announced new funding for its <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2021/10-28.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Indigenous Electoral Participation program</a> with the aim of increasing enrolment rates; the upcoming election will show if the program is working. Lingiari Given that voting is compulsory in Australia, non-participation is a concern in any election. But these issues are likely to be particularly relevant in the 2022 federal election, at least in the seat of Lingiari. Lingiari covers all of the Northern Territory outside the greater Darwin/Palmerston area. So it is the one House of Representatives division where Indigenous Australians (many of them living in remote communities) have clear electoral <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">power</a>. Providing more mobile polling booths could help make voting easier for people in remote Indigenous communities. Currently, these booths can be present for as little as two hours during an entire election period. There is also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence</a> Indigenous people are more likely to vote in elections for Indigenous candidates, and for candidates who have visited their community. Warren Snowden has represented the electorate since its creation in 2001, but he is not contesting this election; the seat is up for grabs. Indigenous people will determine who takes Snowden’s place. But how many of them vote may be limited by their ability to enrol, the availability of information in an appropriate language, and access a polling booth.<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/181194/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/morgan-harrington-1207111" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Morgan Harrington</a>, Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/past-policies-have-created-barriers-to-voting-in-remote-first-nations-communities-181194" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: The Australian Electoral Commision (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/auselectoralcom/48720382352/in/album-72157710806573631/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flickr</a>)

Legal

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

Australia has finally accepted New Zealand’s offer to settle some of the refugees from the <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/factsheet_offshore_processing_overview.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offshore processing</a> regime – about nine years after it was first made in 2013. The NZ deal will provide certainty for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/24/australia-agrees-450-refugees-can-be-resettled-in-new-zealand-nine-years-after-deal-first-offered" target="_blank" rel="noopener">450 people</a> who have been in limbo, many for more than a decade. But in the March 24 <a href="https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/Pages/australia-new-zealand-resettlement-arrangement.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews made clear the deal does not change Australia’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-and-new-zealand-reach-refugee-resettlement-agreement/20vyv2d8w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hard-line approach</a>. This makes the deal a bandage on a <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed policy</a> that continues to haemorrhage cash, destroy lives and erode the international system for refugee protection. Who is – and isn’t – included in the NZ deal? The original offer, made by the then NZ Prime Minister John Key in 2013, was refused by the Australian government until now. The Coalition government claimed the deal could be a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/01/decision-to-bring-children-from-nauru-an-admission-of-failure-by-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pull factor</a>” for asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Under the agreement, NZ will settle up to 150 of Australia’s “offshore processing” refugees per year for three years. These refugees arrived in Australia by sea between 2012 and 2014 and were sent to Nauru or Manus Island “offshore processing” detention centres. The deal can include the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/population-and-number-of-people-resettled.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">112 people</a> who are in Nauru or those temporarily in Australia under offshore processing arrangements. Some <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2022/3/623a66584/unhcr-news-comment-on-the-australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1,100</a> people have been returned temporarily to Australia, mostly for medical treatment. They mostly live in the community with <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/potential-return-of-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum-to-nauru-and-png-proof-of-policy-failure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no support and insecure visa status</a> but some remain in detention. Those already being considered for settlement to another country, such as the United States or Canada, aren’t eligible for the NZ program. More than 100 men who remain in Papua New Guinea aren’t included in this deal. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> The always wise, always insightful <a href="https://twitter.com/BehrouzBoochani?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BehrouzBoochani</a> on Australia, the NZ refugee resettlement offer, and why it took nine years...<a href="https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0">https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0</a> — Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDohertyCorro/status/1508944829509926915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2022</a></blockquote> Under current known arrangements, people remaining in PNG could be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal-everything-we-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred</a> by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to NZ through its regular refugee programme. Even after the NZ and US options are exhausted, it’s estimated at least <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/australians-welcome-nzs-generosity-to-refugees-in-offshore-processing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">500 refugees will be without a solution</a>. And they’re not the only ones. There are some <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Factsheet_Legacy%20Caseload_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30,000 people</a> in what’s called the “legacy caseload” who arrived by sea between 2012 and 2014 and weren’t transferred to Nauru and PNG. They remain in Australia subject to harmful measures. They’re stuck in limbo on temporary visas, unable to reunify with family members, and receive <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/urgent-call-government-protect-asylum-seekers-and-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inadequate support</a> to secure housing or health care. Australia distorts the global refugee system <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/51af82794.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australia has primary responsibility</a> for refugees who seek its protection. The Australian government has repeatedly tried and failed to find countries willing to settle refugees it refuses to protect. It reportedly offered multiple countries, from the Philippines to Kyrgyzstan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/australias-refugee-deal-a-farce-after-us-rejects-all-iranian-and-somali-asylum-seekers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">millions of dollars</a> to settle refugees from Australia’s offshore camps – without success. Resettlement to a third country is an important solution, available to less than 1% of refugees globally whose lives, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental rights are at risk <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in the country where they have sought refuge</a>. This isn’t the case for refugees seeking asylum in Australia, where there’s a well-established asylum system. It’s difficult to think of the NZ solution as “resettlement” in its true meaning. Resettlement places are important to <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">relieve pressure on developing countries</a> that host almost 90% of the world’s refugees. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, South Sudan, Afghanistan, plus now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have created a need for resettlement in a third country for almost <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.5 million</a> refugees worldwide. Resettlement has been disrupted over the last two years due to COVID, leaving even more people in urgent need. Under these extraordinary “refugee deals” with the US and NZ, the Australian government is trying to solve a political problem of its own making at the expense of people in desperate need. Like Australia, the US and NZ offer only a limited number of resettlement spots each year. When these spots go to Australia’s refugees, who are Australia’s responsibility, someone else misses out. Continuing damage This is Australia’s second go at offshore processing. Its first iteration, the “Pacific Solution”, lasted from 2001 until 2008. The second commenced in 2012 and continues. Offshore processing remains costly. Australian taxpayers have spent, on average, around <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf#page=14&zoom=auto,-135,786" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A$1 billion per year</a> to maintain offshore processing since 2014. This is despite a dramatic drop in the number of people held in Nauru and PNG. At the peak in April 2014, Australia detained a total of 2,450 people. By December 2021, there were <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">219 people remaining offshore in Nauru and PNG</a>. People transferred to Manus Island and Nauru suffered mandatory and indefinite detention in harsh conditions. Their treatment has been called out by the United Nations repeatedly as <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/united-nations-observations.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cruel and inhuman</a> and described by Amnesty International as <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018835563/amnesty-international-celebrates-deal-for-nz-to-take-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">torture</a>. The abuse of men, women and children in offshore processing centres has been thoroughly documented in a <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b743d9_e4413cb72e1646d8bd3e8a8c9a466950.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">communiqué</a> to the International Criminal Court, <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43063/documents/791#page=27&zoom=auto,-134,1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">parliamentary inquiries</a> and domestic legal challenges. Australia’s offshore processing sets a bad regional precedent for <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160913_Pathways_to_Protection.pdf#page=20&zoom=page-fit,-625,841" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refugee protection in Southeast Asia</a> and beyond. The policy objective of using cruelty as a deterrent to “stop the boats” and “save lives at sea” didn’t work. If boats didn’t arrive, this was due to Australia’s <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interception and turnback of boats at sea</a>. What needs to change? Refugee policy can be <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/principles-australian-refugee-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">principled</a> and driven by compassion while protecting borders and respecting international law. Australia should formally end offshore processing. The small number of people still held offshore in Nauru and PNG should be transferred back to Australia. Everyone who has been subject to the policy since 2012 who doesn’t have a permanent solution could be offered settlement in Australia. This <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/pacificsolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">occurred</a> in the first iteration of offshore processing and could happen again. Money and lives can be saved.<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/180241/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natasha-yacoub-1259499" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Natasha Yacoub</a>, International refugee lawyer and scholar, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/aus-nz-refugee-deal-is-a-bandage-on-a-failed-policy-its-time-to-end-offshore-processing-180241" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Damning full-page ad slams Ardern’s border policy

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/jacinda-ardern-popularity-plunges-as-kiwis-struggle-to-return-home/e350bbd6-907c-4bd9-be82-63037dc52269" target="_blank" rel="noopener">openly criticised</a> in a full-page ad regarding the country’s strict border policy, after news emerged of a pregnant New Zealand journalist fighting to return home to give birth.The advertisement, taken out by prominent businessman Michael Horton in one of New Zealand’s most widely-read magazines, claimed that New Zealand was one of the few countries not allowing its citizens to return home.Under the headline, “The following countries do not ban their own citizens from returning to their home country”, the ad listed dozens of countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This ad, sponsored by Michael Horton, appears in the January 29 <a href="https://twitter.com/nzlistener?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nzlistener</a>. Thank you Michael. <a href="https://twitter.com/nzgovt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nzgovt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/govtnz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@govtnz</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jacindaardern?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jacindaardern</a> <a href="https://t.co/ZGTW2iFHUr">pic.twitter.com/ZGTW2iFHUr</a>— Graeme Jennings (@Graeme_rj) <a href="https://twitter.com/Graeme_rj/status/1484343384357494786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2022</a></blockquote>Above it, another headline read, “The following countries effectively ban their own citizens from returning to their home country”, with New Zealand as the only country listed.The ad comes as Charlotte Bell, a 35-year-old journalist who was working in Qatar for Al Jazeera until recently, remains stranded in Afghanistan, despite being triple-vaccinated and ready to isolate upon her return to her home country.Kiwis looking to return home are required to secure a place in government-run quarantine, through a system called Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ).According to the MIQ website, travellers are advised to book their place in MIQ - with spots gradually released in the months prior to flight arrivals - before booking their flights.“In periods of high demand, some people will miss out on securing an MIQ voucher, regardless of the system that is used,” the website reads.As a result of the high demand for the 4500 available spots, thousands of New Zealanders have been unable to return home in time to be with dying family members or be present for milestone moments.The system, which used a weekly lottery system to allocate vouchers until early January, has been fully booked out for months in advance which has also meant that impromptu travel or returning for emergencies - such as in Ms Bell’s case - remains virtually impossible. Ms Bell published an open letter in <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-charlotte-bellis-an-open-letter-on-miq/U4WQGYTJHUP36AGVOBN3F6PJSE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New Zealand Herald</a> over the weekend detailing how she was forced to seek refuge in Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul, after she was no longer able to work in Qatar because it is illegal to be pregnant and unmarried there.<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF;border: 0;border-radius: 3px;margin: 1px;max-width: 540px;min-width: 326px;padding: 0;width: calc(100% - 2px)" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CZSRlVysIQF/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"><div style="padding: 16px"><div style="flex-direction: row;align-items: center"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;flex-grow: 0;height: 40px;margin-right: 14px;width: 40px"> </div><div style="flex-direction: column;flex-grow: 1;justify-content: center"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;margin-bottom: 6px;width: 100px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;width: 60px"> </div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0"> </div><div style="height: 50px;margin: 0 auto 12px;width: 50px"> </div><div style="padding-top: 8px"><div style="color: #3897f0;font-family: Arial,sans-serif;font-size: 14px;font-style: normal;font-weight: 550;line-height: 18px">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0"> </div><div style="flex-direction: row;margin-bottom: 14px;align-items: center"><div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px;flex-grow: 0;margin-right: 14px;margin-left: 2px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px"> </div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;flex-grow: 0;height: 20px;width: 20px"> </div><div style="width: 0;height: 0;border-top: 2px solid transparent;border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4;border-bottom: 2px solid transparent"> </div></div><div style="margin-left: auto"><div style="width: 0px;border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4;border-right: 8px solid transparent"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;flex-grow: 0;height: 12px;width: 16px"> </div><div style="width: 0;height: 0;border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4;border-left: 8px solid transparent"> </div></div></div><div style="flex-direction: column;flex-grow: 1;justify-content: center;margin-bottom: 24px"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;margin-bottom: 6px;width: 224px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;width: 144px"> </div></div><a style="color: #c9c8cd;font-family: Arial,sans-serif;font-size: 14px;font-style: normal;font-weight: normal;line-height: 17px;text-decoration: none" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CZSRlVysIQF/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Charlotte Bellis (@charlottebellis)</a></div></blockquote>“This is ridiculous. It is my legal right to go to New Zealand, where I have healthcare, where I have family. All my support is there,” she <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/world/from-kabul-pregnant-reporter-fights-nz-govt-to-come-home/94ed99be-8bbf-4ed0-a0f3-10a77e52ff84" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.Ms Bell first attempted to secure residency in Belgium - where her partner is from - but said the length of the process meant she would have been left in the country with an expired visa.With the option to either hop from country to country on tourist visas or attempt to secure a more long-term stay while she fought to return home, Ms Bell and her partner returned to Afghanistan because they had a visa, felt welcome, and could continue their battle there.Critics like Mr Horton have claimed the lottery system is a needlessly punishing process as more than 90 percent of the country’s population have been fully vaccinated and boosters continue to be administered.Meanwhile, Ms Ardern’s approval ratings have taken a hit, with a recent 1 News Kantor poll indicating that her current approval rate sits at just 35 percent, the lowest it’s been since she became Prime Minister in 2017.Image: @charlottebellis (Instagram)

Travel Trouble

Affordable housing lessons from Sydney, Hong Kong and Singapore: 3 keys to getting the policy mix right

Affordable housing is a critical problem for Australia’s biggest housing markets. Five Australian cities are in the top 25 with “severely unaffordable” housing in a <a href="http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf">2019 Demographia survey</a> of 91 major metropolitan markets. Sydney was <a href="https://www.mortgagebusiness.com.au/breaking-news/13059-australia-s-housing-market-remains-severely-unaffordable">ranked the third least affordable</a> of the 91. The <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/news/meet-australias-oldest-person-to-buy-their-first-home-this-spring/">average age of first-time buyers in Sydney has reached 38</a>. And, <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/how-much-of-our-wages-do-we-spend-on-rent-in-australia">on average, tenants spend more than 30% of their income on rent</a>. Those who entered the <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/housing/help/applying-assistance/expected-waiting-times">Sydney market 10-15 years ago are more likely to find their housing affordable</a>. Cities with housing affordability issues have introduced various policy packages in response. This article compares the policies of Singapore, where housing is relatively affordable, Hong Kong (the <a href="http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf">world’s least affordable private housing market</a>) and Sydney. Our review shows a need for coherent and coordinated housing policies – a synergistic approach that multiplies the impacts of individual policies. Housing has direct impacts on people’s well-being. A housing market that works well may also enhance the economic productivity of a city. If not handled properly, housing affordability issues may trigger economic and political crises. Our review covers several aspects. <h2>A balance of renters and owners</h2> First, an affordable housing system needs to be about both the rental and ownership sectors. In Singapore, <a href="https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us">public housing provided by the Housing and Development Board</a> makes up 73% of Singapore’s total housing stock, which includes public rental and subsidised ownership. HDB flats house over 80% of Singapore’s resident population, with about 90% owning their homes. The average waiting time to get public housing is three to four years. Public housing is also important, although to a lesser extent, in Hong Kong. In this city, <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/2182106/why-public-housing-shortfall-will-remain-thorn-hong-kongs#targetText=Public%20rental%20housing%20estates%20found,cent%20of%20Hong%20Kong's%20population.">44.7% of the population live in public housing</a>. The <a href="https://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/tc/about-us/publications-and-statistics/prh-applications-average-waiting-time/index.html">average waiting time is three to five years</a>, depending on household type. In both cities, subsidised rental and subsidised ownership are an integral part of the public housing system, which aims to improve housing affordability. Sydney takes a very different approach. <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hou/296/housing-assistance-in-australia-2018/contents/social-housing-dwellings">Social rental housing provides only 5.56% of housing</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/focus-on-managing-social-housing-waiting-lists-is-failing-low-income-households-120675">covers only low-income households in “priority need”</a>. The average waiting time to get into social housing is <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/housing/help/applying-assistance/expected-waiting-times.">five to ten years</a>. Although there are other policy measures to support home buying and rental (such as the National Rental Affordability Scheme), these are not integrated with the public housing system in Sydney. Rather, the goal of these policies is to support the private housing market. <h2>It’s not just about housing supply</h2> Second, housing affordability needs to be backed up by demand-side policies – i.e. policies to help tenants and owners to develop financial capacity. Despite its heavy state intervention, Singapore’s public housing stresses the responsibility of individuals. The <a href="https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Members/AboutUs/about-us-info/cpf-overview">Housing Provident Fund</a> is a <a href="https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/15/singapores-mechanism-design-approach-to-housing-policy/">form of forced savings</a> for housing, retirement, health and education, among other things. It is <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/84e6/28299b345dcba34d328112424990cf1cabc2.pdf">integrated with the pension system to enhance the efficiency of savings</a>. Forced savings are not available in Hong Kong and Sydney for housing purposes. Since 2017 <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-needs-a-sharper-policy-scalpel-to-help-first-home-buyers-76791">first home buyers in Australia have been able to draw on their voluntary superannuation contributions</a> for a deposit. <h2>Work-life balance matters</h2> Third, action on housing affordability needs to take employment and its location into account. Ultimately, the reason people find it hard to afford housing in certain locations is because they need to achieve a work-life balance. Both <a href="https://www.citymetric.com/transport/no-hong-kong-has-best-transport-system-world-mtr-trams-boats-4148">Hong Kong</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Singapore#Public_transport">Singapore</a> have developed extensive public transport systems. These offer affordable options for people to travel efficiently to and from work. In Hong Kong, the average daily commuting time by public transport is 73 minutes. Some 21% of the residents have to travel for more than two hours a day. In Singapore, average commuting time is 84 minutes, with 25% exceeding two hours. In Sydney, the average time is 82 minutes, but 31% take more than two hours. This means a significantly <a href="https://moovitapp.com/insights/en-gb/Moovit_Insights_Public_Transport_Index-1678">larger proportion of Sydney residents spend more time on public transport</a>. Among the <a href="http://theconversation.com/another-tale-of-two-cities-access-to-jobs-divides-sydney-along-the-latte-line-96907">worst-affected are white-collar workers from the city’s west and southwest</a>. <h2>Lessons from the 3 cities</h2> So, what we can learn from these cities’ experiences with housing affordability? Cities take very different approaches to these issues. Each approach has its own merits and issues. A key argument against public housing has been that it might give the tenants less incentive to save for housing. It might also not be popular with mainstream voters because of the cost to taxpayers. Singapore’s approach seems to be a midway solution. The government plays a bigger role in providing housing, but does not waive individual responsibilities. Providing public housing and at the same time demanding individuals and employers contribute can send a strong signal: people are encouraged to join the labour force. So far, Singapore faces the least housing affordability issues. Hong Kong and Sydney are much more liberal in their approaches to housing. In Sydney, only the poorest benefit from the public housing system. The younger generation is struggling to get on the housing ladder. In Hong Kong, people are forced to buy housing in the commercial market if their income is even just above the eligibility line for public housing. The severe unaffordability of private housing in Hong Kong, even for young professionals, brews social discontent. Combining these three perspectives, Sydney’s housing, savings and public transport systems are far from well synergised to offer a competitive package of affordable housing. The <a href="https://www.greater.sydney/metropolis-of-three-cities">30-minute city plan</a> prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission might improve the situation. However, similar to Hong Kong, current policies are weak in building the capacity of young people to own homes.<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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123443/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/youqing-fan-483837">Youqing Fan</a>, Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bingqin-li-425950">Bingqin Li</a>, Associate Professor and Director of Chinese Social Policy Program, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chyi-lin-lee-368009">Chyi Lin Lee</a>, Associate Professor of Property, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</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/affordable-housing-lessons-from-sydney-hong-kong-and-singapore-3-keys-to-getting-the-policy-mix-right-123443">original article</a>. Image: Bill Roque/Shutterstock

Home Hints & Tips

Shoppers left confused by Aldi refund policy

A woman has sparked a heated discussion online after sharing her experience seeking a refund at an Aldi store in the US. Writing in the Aisle of Shame Facebook group, she wrote, “I bought the big tree bag at Aldi for $29.99 on Wednesday. Got it home, and out of the box only to realise it’s much too massive for anything I could ever need so decided to return.” After heading back to the store and enquiring about a refund, she was informed that she was only entitled to half of what she paid for the item as the item had since been marked down. She wrote, “I was unaware that if you buy an... item at full price and days later it’s price gets cut in half, you should expect the half price for the return and not the full price, even though that’s what you paid. Even if it’s still marked in the aisle for full price, and I had a receipt.” This took place at an Aldi store in Ohio, but Aldi customers from all over the globe have weighed in, with one suggesting the incident was “illegal”, writing, “Wait, what?! But you had a receipt showing you paid full price!” Many group members went on to debate the store’s refund policy, with some suggesting that a policy designed to protect the store from after-Christmas returns may have been at play. One user commented, "Was it bought before Christmas and returned after? As someone who has worked retail during Halloween you'd be shocked how many people try to get their money back after the Holiday,” while another wrote, “Usually there is a policy posted about seasonal and clearance items.” Aldi employees even weighed in, with one commenting, “I’m an Assistant Store Manager at an Aldi, policy is with receipt you get back what you paid for! If you don't have a receipt you get what the system says,” and another confirming, I’m an Aldi employee. Whoever did your return did it wrong. You should have gotten what you paid for if you had your receipt.” The customer clarified that she had no hard feelings towards her local Aldi and would be heading back to have the situation rectified by a manager. Fortunately, this would never happen in Australia. An Aldi spokesperson confirmed to Yahoo News Australia that if a customer has a receipt showing they paid the original price, that price would be refunded. Aldi Australia’s money back guarantee covers change of mind, grocery items, and Special Buys. The policy states, “Shop like you’ve got nothing to lose. Because you don’t.” Image: Dinendra Haria/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Money & Banking

Healthy humans drive the economy: we’re now witnessing one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history

Australians are getting a stark reminder about how value is actually created in an economy, and how supply chains truly work. Ask chief executives where value comes from and they will credit their own smart decisions that inflate shareholder wealth. Ask logistics experts how supply chains work and they will wax eloquent about ports, terminals and trucks. Politicians, meanwhile, highlight nebulous intangibles like “investor confidence” – enhanced, presumably, by their own steady hands on the tiller. The reality of value-added production and supply is much more human than all of this. It is people who are the driving force behind production, distribution and supply. Labour – human beings getting out of bed and going to work, using their brains and brawn to produce actual goods and services – is the only thing that adds value to the “free gifts” we harvest from nature. It’s the only thing that puts food on supermarket shelves, cares for sick people and teaches our children. Even the technology used to enhance workers’ productivity – or sometimes even replace them – is ultimately the culmination of other human beings doing their jobs. The glorious complexity of the whole economy boils down to human beings, using raw materials extracted and tools built by other human beings, working to produce goods and services. <h2>A narrow, distorted economic lens</h2> The economy doesn’t work if people can’t work. So the first economic priority during a pandemic must be to keep people healthy enough to keep working, producing, delivering and buying. That some political and business leaders have, from the outset of COVID-19, consistently downplayed the economic costs of mass illness, reflects a narrow, distorted economic lens. We’re now seeing the result – one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history. The Omicron variant is tearing through Australia’s workforce, from <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nurses-are-in-despair-as-staffing-shortages-bite-in-nsw-hospitals-20220103-p59ljc.html?fbclid=IwAR3obDpqk7Muu2xpOA1H7MH2D2TuxPIzMQrL_NKk2QoKHA2LriWoRcmRO8o">health care</a> and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/hundreds-of-nsw-childcare-centres-shut-due-to-covid-20220104-p59ls4.html">child care</a>, to <a href="https://www.edenmagnet.com.au/story/7575635/knock-on-effects-through-supply-chain-despite-eased-covid-rules-for-workers/">agriculture</a> and <a href="https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9388733/omicron-has-now-put-us-in-a-desperate-situation-in-regards-to-workers-shortage-and-shipping-issues/">manufacturing</a>, to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-06/supermarket-shortage-supply-chain-truck-driver-covid/100741392">transportation and logistics</a>, to <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/surf-lifesavers-and-students-fill-paramedic-shifts-as-omicron-spreads-20220108-p59mrq.html">emergency services</a>. The result is an unprecedented, and preventable, economic catastrophe. This catastrophe was visited upon us by leaders – NSW Premier Dom Perrotet and Prime Minister Scott Morrison in particular – on the grounds they were protecting the economy. Like a Mafia kingpin extorting money, this is the kind of “protection” that can kill you. <h2>Effect as bad as lockdowns</h2> On a typical day in normal times, between <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/nov-2021/EM2b.xlsx">3% and 4% of employed Australians</a> miss work due to their own illness. Multiple reports from NSW indicate up to half of workers are now absent due to COVID: because they contracted it, were exposed to it, or must care for someone (like children barred from child care) because of it. With infections still spreading, this will get worse in the days ahead. Staffing shortages have left hospitals in chaos, supermarket shelves empty, supply chains paralysed. ANZ Bank data, for example, shows <a href="https://twitter.com/ANZ_Research/status/1479284711151345666?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet">economic activity in Sydney</a> has fallen to a level lower than the worst lockdowns. <hr /> Spending in Sydney and Melbourne now near lockdown conditions <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440169/original/file-20220111-17-1jp9jpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440169/original/file-20220111-17-1jp9jpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="ANZ Bank data shows spending in Sydney and Melbourne has fallen to levels typical of lockdown conditions." /></a> ANZ Research <hr /> If relaxing health restrictions in December (as Omicron was already spreading) was motivated by a desire to boost the economy, this is an own-goal for the history books. <h2>Relaxing isolation rules</h2> Now the response to Omicron ravaging labour supply is to relax isolation requirements for workers who have contracted, or been exposed to, COVID-19. The first step was to shift the goalposts on “test, trace, isolate and quarantine” arrangements by redefining “close contact”. On December 29 <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-kirribilli-nsw-10">the Prime Minister said</a> it was important to move to a new definition “that enables Australia to keep moving, for people to get on with their lives”. The next day National Cabinet <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-cabinet-statement-12">approved a definition</a> such that only individuals having spent at least four hours indoors with a COVID-infected person needed to isolate. Australians certainly want supply chains to keep moving. That won’t happen by simply pretending someone with three hours and 59 minutes of face-to-face indoor contact with Omicron is safe. Putting asymptomatic but exposed and potentially infected people back to work will only accelerate the spread. The second step has been to reduce the isolation period for those who do pass this tougher “close contact” test. At its December 30 meeting National Cabinet agreed to a standard isolation period of seven days (ten days in South Australia), <a href="https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/gp-opinion/so-you-have-been-asked-to-self-isolate-or-quaranti">down from 14 days</a>. For “critical workers” in essential services including food logistics, the NSW and Queensland governments <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/isolation-rules-relaxed-for-critical-workers-as-nsw-battles-supply-chain-issues/news-story/2b97ef133f6c3caff9dcd5bc548cc58b">have gone even further</a>, allowing employers to call them back to work so long as they are asymptomatic. <h2>Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory</h2> This follows a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html">US precedent</a>, despite <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2102507?articleTools=true">scientific evidence</a> indicating contagion commonly lasts longer than 5 days. Employers will use this change to pressure exposed and even sick workers to return to work, risking their own health, colleagues, customers, and inevitably spreading the virus further. Copying US COVID protocols only guarantees US-style infection rates. In fact, since 5 January, Australia’s seven-day rolling average infections per million <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-03-30..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases_per_million&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA%7EAUS">now exceed that of the US</a>. <hr /> <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440179/original/file-20220111-21-zzh3bj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440179/original/file-20220111-21-zzh3bj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia compared to United States." /></a> <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-03-30..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases_per_million&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~AUS" class="source">Our Wold in Data</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" class="license">CC BY</a> <hr /> From one of the best COVID responses in the world to one of the worst, Australia has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. <h2>It’s not too late to limit the carnage</h2> The idea that health considerations <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/07/its-an-economic-crisis-too-in-nsw-what-a-difference-a-new-premier-makes">had to be balanced with economic interests</a> was always a false dichotomy. A healthy economy requires healthy workers and healthy consumers. The Omicron surge has created an economic emergency that will be difficult to endure. But it’s not too late to limit further avoidable contagion. Infection prevention practices (including masks, capacity limits, prohibitions on group indoor activities, PPE and distancing in workplaces, and free and accessible rapid tests) must be restored and enforced. Income supports for workers who stay home must be restored. Staffing strategies need to emphasise steady, secure jobs, rather than outsourcing and gig arrangements which have facilitated contagion. Above all, our policy makers need to remember the economy is composed of human beings, and refocus their attention on keeping people healthy. Protecting people is the only thing that can protect the economy.<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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174606/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jim-stanford-521684">Jim Stanford</a>, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</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/healthy-humans-drive-the-economy-were-now-witnessing-one-of-the-worst-public-policy-failures-in-australias-history-174606">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Retirement Income

Coles forced to deny divisive vaccinate policy rumours

Coles have been forced to deny a slew of online rumours about mandatory vaccines for shoppers. The supermarket giant set the record straight after hundred of confused shoppers took to Coles social media sites to ask for clarity on jab rules. The rumours began after a recent NSW Health announcement that falsely claimed Coles would be turning away unvaccinated customers and deny work to staff that don't receive the COVID-19 jab. The announcement states that workers in NSW's Local Government Areas of concern must have had at least one dose of any available COVID-19 vaccine in order to continue to leave their LGA for essential work. Many customers contacted the retailer on they social media accounts as the announcement caused nationwide confusion among shoppers. “Is it true that Coles is turning away customers who have not had the Covid vaccination?” asked a Victorian customer on Facebook. “An elderly friend of mine was asked by the checkout lady if she had received the Covid vaccination." “The checkout lady said: ‘well if you’re not vaccinated you won’t be able to shop here’,” the customer claimed. Other social media users chimed in on the posts and voiced their opinions. “Highly doubt that this actually happened, no supermarket is asking people if they have had their vaccine,” commented one person. “I think things might have been misconstrued during conversation,” said another. Since the confusion arose, Coles have sent a detailed statement to Yahoo News Australia explaining that neither customers nor staff will be forced to have the vaccine in order to enter their stores. Image credit: Getty Images

News

"Absolutely awesome": Woolies ushers in brilliant new store policy

Next time you’re in a Woolworths on a Tuesday, you might notice things are a little quieter than usual, and there’s a good explanation. The supermarket giant has introduced Quiet Hour, which is being introduced across the country after successful initial trials. The “low sensory” shopping hour was designed for people who are sensitive to the usual supermarket environment, aiming to offer customers a calmer in-store experience. “Our customers have told us there’s a need in the community for a low-sensory shopping experience,” a Woolworths spokesperson told Yahoo News Australia. “Our team takes great pride in ensuring the store is quieter and less stressful for customers who want to shop during Quiet Hour and we look forward to welcoming them in store.” The Quiet Hour will bring temporary changes to the store to reduce the anxiety and sensory stress for people with autism, chronic fatigue syndrome and other specific needs. Running every Tuesday from 10.30am to 11.30am, stores will turn down music, reduce lighting, lower the volume on store phones and registers, turn off bakery oven and chicken cooker buzzers, clear store entryways and stop all PA announcements except in cases of emergencies. The initiative is already in place in 264 stores and was first developed with disability service providers at Life Without Barriers. “Quiet Hour is a great example of large commercial brands recognising the diversity of our community and changing their practices to embrace their community more,” Life Without Barriers Chief Executive Claire Robbs said. It comes after Coles introduced a Quiet Hour to some of its stores in partnership with Autism Spectrum Australia.

News

"Disgusting": Woolworths shopper likens store policy to the Holocaust

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> A furious Woolworths customer has been slammed online after they compared a standard store policy to the Holocaust. The customer ranted on the supermarket's Facebook page to complain after a worker had called the store manager to approve $1,300 worth of gift cards being purchased. The woman visited the supermarket in Leura with her husband to purchase the vouchers for his clients when they were questioned by the staff. “We told her it was none of her business at first then told her the reason. She told us it was due to some scam, what scam I’m paying for the cards to give as gifts as part of promoting the business!” the woman wrote. “Last time we checked we live in a democracy but it appears communists run Woolworths,” she added. “The lady said she was just doing her job just what the Germans said during the Holocaust.” The post has been slammed by hundreds, with many calling the woman "disgusting" for the "offensive" comparison. “How dare you compare this situation to the holocaust!!! “ one woman wrote, adding, “the staff were looking out FOR YOU, in case YOU were being scammed.” “Did you really just compare information sharing at the point of sale to the holocaust?! Yikes,” another customer said. A Woolworths spokesperson confirmed to <a rel="noopener" href="https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/woolworths/disgusting-woolworths-shopper-slammed-for-likening-store-policy-to-the-holocaust-c-1759974" target="_blank">7NEWS.com.au</a> that the policy was introduced after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission raised concerns about scammers targeting individuals with demands for payments via gift cards. “As a responsible retailer, we want to play our part in reducing harm to consumers from scams,” the spokeswoman said. </div> </div> </div>

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

What to expect from the federal budget

Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

“You’re a flop!” Kyle Sandilands hits back at Dan Andrews’ controversial new policy

"What am I going to do?”: Centrelink mother points out crucial flaw in new budget policy for parents

Restaurant owner praised for hiring policy that targets "oldies"

What you need to know about smoking on major cruise lines

What family violence survivors want policy makers to know

Nat Barr loses it at Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce live on air

Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

Damning full-page ad slams Ardern’s border policy

Affordable housing lessons from Sydney, Hong Kong and Singapore: 3 keys to getting the policy mix right

Shoppers left confused by Aldi refund policy

Healthy humans drive the economy: we’re now witnessing one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history

Coles forced to deny divisive vaccinate policy rumours

"Absolutely awesome": Woolies ushers in brilliant new store policy

"Disgusting": Woolworths shopper likens store policy to the Holocaust

Our Partners