This edition of the Institute's newsletter looks at the CPRS, indigenous affairs, food waste, the Disability Discrimination Act, homelessness, congestion charging, superannuation, unpaid overtime and national Go Home On Time Day, and emerging issues for Australia's youth.
Government and Accountability
Between the lines is the Institute's selective analysis of the policies and politics affecting the wellbeing of Australians.
This edition looks at the Cooper Review into superannuation; the 'quarantining' of income support; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; bank profits and food waste.
The scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent problem; the economic evidence says that the costs of tackling climate change are trivially small compared to the costs of inaction; and polling shows that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to see real action. So why has the CPRS stalled and why are the Liberals confident they can win a fight on the issue? How could the Government have failed to get its legislation through?
Emission reduction targets are so weak as to be useless, Richard Denniss argues.
Greater transparency and public engagement about the potential opportunities and risks presented by nanotechnology is required, according to a new report by The Australia Institute.
While still an emerging field, nanoscale sciences and technologies (nanoST) are already present in our daily lives, with more than 1000 consumer products identified as containing nanomaterials.
The CPRS is perhaps the most poorly understood piece of legislation to dominate Australia's public debate in modern times. While there have been acres of press about whether climate change exists or not, and acres more about how clever the Rudd Government has been in splitting the Coalition, there has been much less analysis of what the proposed emissions trading scheme actually does, and does not do.
Australian workers are 'donating' more than their annual leave entitlement back to their employers in the form of unpaid overtime, a new survey by The Australia Institute has found.
Last week many people were questioning why the Victorian Premier was so keen to secure additional compensation for the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on his state's biggest polluters. Luckily for him, however, he has not been forced to answer a more interesting question: Why isn't he demanding that the Commonwealth Government compensate Victoria's public hospitals, schools and transport system for the impact of its flawed emissions trading scheme?
The Government wants to allow meat from countries with Mad Cow disease into Australia. And our loose labelling rules mean you won't know the difference, writes Hilary Bambrick.
The CPRS is increasingly looking like the answer to a question that nobody asked, namely, what would be the best way to introduce a complex and expensive national scheme that sounds like a solution to climate change without really changing anything? But as the Senate vote gets closer the first question that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, must answer is this: if the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) doesn't increase the cost of transport fuels, doesn't apply to agriculture and, as Treasury modelling shows, doesn't lead to a reduction in our reliance on coal fired electricity until at least until 2033, what does it actually do?