logo
Australia's next government must mend structural cracks appearing in its political, economic and social foundation, report finds

Australia's next government must mend structural cracks appearing in its political, economic and social foundation, report finds

Australia boasts some of the world's most sophisticated political institutions and one of its wealthiest economies. But this veneer of success masks deeper structural issues - and a 'ticking time bomb' of overreliance on extractive industries must be addressed under Australia's next government, a new report recommends.
Cracks have begun to show in the country's façade of optimism, prosperity and progress, according to anAustralia BGI Reporton the country's governance performance, released eight days before the May 3 election.
According to the report, the country's economy continues to rely heavily on environmentally harmful extractive industries, while economic centralization in only a handful of cities has driven up housing costs. Racial tensions, including the displacement of Indigenous populations, remain unresolved.
This is resulting in 'rising political polarization, deepening inequality and heightening exposure to the deeper geopolitical tensions emerging between the U.S. and China,' said the report.
Based on theBerggruen Governance Index(BGI), the report was conducted by researchers from the Los Angeles-based Berggruen Institute think tank, the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Hertie School, a German university.
According to the report, Australia has long benefited from favourable economic, geopolitical and demographic conditions. Its cities are ranked as some of the most livable in the world and it scores highly on almost all governance measures in the BGI, which analyzes the relationship between democratic accountability, state capacity and the provision of public goods.
But the country isn't exempt from the same challenges to democracy, prosperity, and social cohesion that similar countries are facing, according to the report.
Eroding public trust in government is providing 'the backdrop for a hotly contested federal election,' during which the centre-left Labor Party under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is seeking to defend its majority against Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the centre-right Liberals.
While the Labor Party was previously projected to lose after a lacklustre post-pandemic economic recovery, it has recently risen in the polls - a reversal mirroring a similar trend in Canada, in which U.S. President Donald Trump has amplified negative associations with conservatism. Now, the Australian Labor Party is projected to win by a slim margin.
Another factor influencing the election is rental affordability, which reached its worst level on record in 2025,according to the REA Group, a company in the real estate industry. This trend is pushing younger voters toward the Australian Green Party, which has made reform on the housing market a central part of its policy agenda, the Australia BGI Report said.
However, in the 2022 election, 12 per cent of the national vote translated into just 2.5 per cent of seats for the Greens - a pattern that 'could repeat itself in 2025 due to the country's preferential voting system.'
Australia's electoral system uses a preferential voting system rather than the 'first-past-the-post' method common in many other Anglophone democracies, which conceals a 'darker history of Indigenous dispossession and racial discrimination.' It's also one of only 22 countries in the world that require citizens to vote.
However, the stresses that have plagued Albanese's government 'will persist regardless of who prevails in May,' said the BGI report.
Australia generally resembles wealthy Western European and North American countries on the 2024 Berggruen Governance Index, scoring highly on democratic accountability. It's ranked as one of only 25 'full democracies' by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
But, despite ranking 9th globally in GDP per capita, Australia ranks only 99th worldwide in the Economic Complexity Index (ECI).
'Although Australia is blessed with bountiful natural resources, its political economy is also constrained by this very endowment,' said the Australia BGI Report. 'Its reliance on extractive industries has reduced the incentive to diversify and weakened other parts of the economy.'
Iron ore, coal, petroleum, gold, and other minerals comprise the five largest products sold abroad, accounting for more than half of all exports.
Instead of moving away from this reliance, 'Australia has in many ways doubled down,' said the report. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and accounts for more than half of the world's lithium, with most of it going to China for battery manufacturing.
Therein lies another issue. While Australia is increasingly economically dependent on China, it has also long relied on the U.S. security guarantee. In the context of a growing U.S.-China rivalry, this puts Australia in a precarious position, said the report, being 'economically tethered to one superpower, while militarily aligned with another.'
To move past these problems, Australia will have to 'leverage its impressive state capacity and strong educational system to develop a more advanced services sector and more complex manufacturing,' said the Australia BGI Report.
The next government will need to focus on the 'domestic essentials of growth' such as housing market reforms, as well as building economic complexity, to ensure internal and external stability, the report's researchers conclude. Only with a more complex economy 'can Australia ensure future growth and reduce vulnerability to foreign powers like China and the U.S.'
----------------------------------------------
This text and the accompanying material (photos and graphics) are an offer from the Democracy News Alliance, a close co-operation between Agence France-Presse (AFP, France), Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA, Italy), The Canadian Press (CP, Canada), Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa, Germany) and PA Media (PA, UK). All recipients can use this material without the need for a separate subscription agreement with one or more of the participating agencies. This includes the recipient's right to publish the material in own products.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

JSW Cement lists at Rs 153.50, posts 4.4% gains over IPO price
JSW Cement lists at Rs 153.50, posts 4.4% gains over IPO price

Business Upturn

time13 minutes ago

  • Business Upturn

JSW Cement lists at Rs 153.50, posts 4.4% gains over IPO price

Shares of JSW Cement made a positive debut on Monday, listing at ₹153.50 apiece — up 4.42% from the upper end of its IPO price band of ₹147. The Mumbai-based cement maker's IPO, open from August 7 to August 11, was priced in the range of ₹139-147 per share with a lot size of 102 shares. The company raised ₹3,600 crore, comprising a fresh issue of ₹1,600 crore and an offer-for-sale of ₹2,000 crore (13.60 crore shares). The issue saw an overall subscription of 7.77 times, with QIBs subscribing 15.80 times, NIIs 10.97 times, and retail investors 1.81 times. Employee quota was also fully subscribed. Analysts note that the brand's strong recall and stable demand outlook helped deliver a good listing despite modest oversubscription. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.

COHR Earnings: Coherent Stock Crashes 16% on Disappointing Guidance
COHR Earnings: Coherent Stock Crashes 16% on Disappointing Guidance

Business Insider

time41 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

COHR Earnings: Coherent Stock Crashes 16% on Disappointing Guidance

The stock of Coherent (COHR) is down 16% after the semiconductor company reported revenue guidance that disappointed Wall Street. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. The Pennsylvania-based company announced earnings per share (EPS) of $1, which topped the $0.92 expected among analysts. Revenue for the year's second quarter totaled $1.53 billion, which was ahead of the $1.51 billion forecast on Wall Street. Sales were up 16% from a year earlier. Unfortunately, Coherent's revenue guidance overshadowed what was otherwise a strong print from the optical materials and semiconductor concern. For the current quarter, Coherent said that it expects revenue of $1.53 billion, which is basically the same as sales generated in Q2 of this year and is 0.6% below analysts' consensus estimate. Laser Business Sale Coherent's networking business unit saw its revenue rise 39% year-over-year in calendar Q2 to $945 million, above expectations for $940 million in sales. That strong showing was partially offset by the company's other two business lines, materials and lasers, which were down a combined 8% in the quarter. Just before Coherent's latest earnings were released after markets closed, the company announced the sale of its laser business for defense markets at a price of $400 million. Money generated from the sale will be used to pay down the company's $3.7 billion in debt. Is COHR Stock a Buy? The stock of Coherent has a consensus Strong Buy rating among 15 Wall Street analysts. That rating is based on 14 Buy and one Hold recommendations issued in the last three months. The average COHR price target of $105.31 implies about 8% downside risk from current levels. These ratings are likely to change after the company's financial results.

Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority
Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority

CBS News

timean hour ago

  • CBS News

Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority

The trial over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer reached its third and final day Wednesday, as lawyers for the Justice Department and the state of California argued over the validity of Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit and whether the Posse Comitatus Act — which generally bars the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement – applied to the troop deployment. Mr. Trump in June deployed 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, saying they were needed to protect federal property and law enforcement agents amid June protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Newsom did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and responded with a lawsuit requesting an injunction limiting the military's role in the city. In addition to claiming the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, argued that there is no precedent for the lawsuit, for injunctive relief or money damages under the act, and that Newsom and the state of California have not suffered the harm required to sue. "It is, in fact, the federal government who is engaged in unprecedented conduct," said Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, representing the State of California, explaining that the government has never used the military in this way before. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed perplexed by several of the government's assertions, particularly what he called the apparent "absence of any limits to a national police force." He questioned the Justice Department's claim that the 19th century law at the center of this trial is not relevant, and the assertion that his court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the president. "So then what is the remedy?" Breyer asked Hamilton, raising the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. "You're saying there's a criminal remedy? The president can be prosecuted? You say that in light of the Supreme Court decision, the Trump decision. Isn't he immune?" "So that's it. Too bad. So sad. It's over," he added emphatically. "And that's the end of the case." California has asked Breyer for an injunction that would allow the military to protect federal property — such as courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." "The constitution and the law and the facts are on Governor Newsom's side," said Josh Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. "But that doesn't mean he's going to win. Ever since World War II, the courts have embraced this military deference doctrine, which really is presidential deference in matters of military command and control." "We're going to see federal officers everywhere if the president determines that there's some threat to the safety of a federal agent," Breyer said to Hamilton. "And it's his determination. Not mine, it's his. That's what you're saying. That's what the law is." Hamilton said that wasn't "quite what I'm saying." He asserted the troops are not enforcing federal law, but providing protection, and that it is lawful for guardsmen and marines to provide protection for federal buildings – the one point he agreed with California's attorney on. But, he argued, there is no distinction between protecting federal property and protecting federal law enforcement working out in the field. Breyer pointed out that federal employees "are everywhere." The judge further questioned why any National Guard members remain in Los Angeles, and expressed concern about the justification for continued operations. Hamilton testified that 300 guardsmen remain, a 90% reduction in the force. Strong countered that it is still a significant number of soldiers, and certainly enough to violate the law. "Thank goodness for the National Guard, but why is the federalized National Guard still in place?" asked Breyer. "What's the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?" "I go back to the thing that I'm really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?" he said, "Once you have a force in place, and maybe legitimately do so, and the threat that gave rise to the force in that place subsides … how does one look at this national police force that goes out of where the threat was and starts executing other laws?" Breyer appeared to take issue with the Justice Department's argument that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, noting that a key witness, Major General Scott Sherman – who was at one point the commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles – had testified that the troops were trained to act within the bounds of that law. "Then why is it the excellent Major General sought assurance that the Posse Comitatus Act was followed?" said Breyer. "Why did I spend a day looking at slide after slide, and regulation after regulation, and reports after reports on conduct of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act if the Posse Comitatus Act is irrelevant?" Strong argued that all of the Department of Defense's leaders agreed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the Task Force 51 troops in Los Angeles. She said they substituted the word "protection" for "security" when describing the troops' activities because they knew that "security" would violate the act. She asserted that the secretary of defense had released a memorandum invoking a constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and affirmatively instructing soldiers to engage in activities that violated it — but the memo was issued after those activities had taken place. On Tuesday, Sherman testified that he was advised of a "constitutional exception" that enabled the troops to conduct certain activities that would normally violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Strong called this an attempt by the Department of Defense to justify their actions after the fact that "itself reveals a knowledge and awareness of their violations." The federal government is "disregarding the law, and so we need show nothing more than that," said Strong. She further argued that the Constitution seeks to make sure the president cannot control a standing army the way the king had in 1776. She said that it would deny the basic principles of federalism for the state to have "no legal recourse to challenge the conduct of these troops." "If you look at the plain language of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the fear of standing armies that existed at the time of the Constitution," Kastenberg said. "...One of the biggest issues in the state conventions and in the framing of the Constitution to begin with was to significantly curtail the president's authority over the standing army, and keep the standing army very small." Breyer did not give a timeline for his ruling, stating at the end of the day, "I will decide the case as soon as I can decide the case."Joe Walsh contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store