Latest news with #AfternoonUpdate:
The Guardian
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Preferences are more important than ever this election. See where Australian voters sent theirs last time
Preferences have become more important than ever in Australian elections, as the share of people supporting the major parties has dropped from more than 90% of primary votes in the 1950s to just 68.8% in the most recent federal poll. The last Australian election saw 16 seats won by candidates who were not leading after the first count – the most ever, tied with 2016. And more than half of those winners were independent candidates – also the most ever. Australia's electoral system requires voters to number candidates in their order of preference: their first choice, second choice and so on. During counting, if no candidate has yet achieved a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to voters' next preference. This is repeated until there is a clear winner. Because of this, voter preferences are a bigger deal in some seats. Who do One Nation or Trumpet of Patriots (the successor to the United Australia party) voters prefer when their candidate does not make it? In the last election, there were only 27 out of 151 seats where Labor and the Coalition were not the final two candidates. So at the macro level, most preferences are likely to end up with one of these two parties. The chart above shows that last time, 86% of Greens voter preferences ended up with a Labor candidate. And 62% of UAP voter preferences ended up with the Coalition. But diving into preferences at the seat level, we see that the way preferences actually flow during the counts can defy simple left-right characterisations – it often has a lot to do with individual candidates, or how deep they continue into the ballot count. (Preferences only come into effect when a candidate is eliminated.) Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter There were eight seats where the Coalition was not in the final two candidates, and just over half of Coalition voter preferences went to the Labor party. But Labor candidates were also finalists in all those seats. In the cases of Fowler and Melbourne, Coalition voter preferences differed greatly depending on the combination of the final two candidates. Six of the seats where the Coalition was not in the final count pitched Greens against Labor. The other two saw Labor face off against an independent candidate – Dai Le in Fowler and Andrew Wilkie in Clark. Almost half of Labor preferences ended up going to an independent candidate. But again, it depended on who the final candidates were. There were 19 seats where Labor was not in the final count. These seats included sitting MPs Rebekha Sharkie in Mayo and Bob Katter in Kennedy, both against the Coalition, as well as a few Greens v Coalition contests. In 14 of those seats, the final count came down to the Coalition against an independent, including the seats where 'teal' independents were elected. Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion It is important to note that parties do not decide where preferences go – voters do. Parties can, however, hand out how-to-vote cards with their preferred vote order, which voters can follow if they choose. A lot of minor parties do not run in every seat, making these kinds of comparisons more complex. But we can see another discrepancy by comparing 2022 preference flows for One Nation, the United Australia party, and the Greens. The following charts aren't seat-specific – they aggregate across all the seats where the parties ran but did not end up in the final count. There were nine seats in total where the Greens made it into the final count, but One Nation and UAP candidates were often eliminated earlier. In seats such as Deakin and Corangamite, more than 60% of One Nation preferences went to UAP, but the preferences ultimately went to another party in the final count. You can explore every seat in the interactive below. This final graphic is slightly different again: rather than showing where preferences ended up in the final count, it shows where votes went in the count after a candidate was eliminated. If you click through the candidates in each seat, you can see that options start to dwindle in later counts. A voter whose preference is candidate B over candidate C, won't have that option if candidate B has already been eliminated. Thanks to Ben Raue for looking at a draft of this story. Any errors remain the author's.
The Guardian
29-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Labor defends plan to save $6.4bn by cutting more consultants as experts call it a ‘lazy option'
Labor's plan to save $6.4bn by slashing the government's use of consultants and external labour over four years is a 'lazy option' that could 'risk some reduction in service levels', according to the former public service commissioner Andrew Podger. This is despite Labor's claim the savings measure – which would require a re-elected Albanese government to increase the amount of core work being conducted by public servants – would not impact government services. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and prime minister, Anthony Albanese, defended the savings target while campaigning in Brisbane on Tuesday, when the pair faced questions about how the $6.4bn target would be achieved and whether it was an example of 'cooking the books' to justify expensive policies. 'When we came to office the public service was hollowed out with too much spending on contractors and consultants,' Chalmers said. 'We have already made big savings in this area and what we announced yesterday is to continue to build on essentially Katy [Gallagher's] great work.' When the $6.4bn target was announced, Gallagher said Labor had found $5.3bn in similar savings during its first term in office. This included a rapid scaling back of consultants following a scandal involving PwC Australia. Labor has forecast savings of $2bn a year in 2027-28 and 2028-29. The savings also include 'non-wage expenses' such as travel. 'What we're cutting out is some of the waste,' Albanese said, adding some public servants had left their roles to earn more money with consultants advising the government. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Podger, who spent almost four decades in the public service and is now a professor of public policy at the Australian National University, said there was no reason to doubt the $6.4bn figure but criticised how it would be achieved. 'While I think the savings can be made, the measure is really just a repeat of the lazy option of increasing the efficiency dividend on administrative expenses,' Podger said. Helen Dickinson, a professor of public service research at UNSW Canberra, said the $6.4bn in savings was a 'worthy target' but also warned achieving this 'may not be a straightforward process. 'It is true that in 2021-22 an audit found the Australian public service spent $20.8bn on outsourcing and consulting, so theoretically it may be possible to cut this amount further,' Dickinson said. 'But this figure doesn't just include consultants, nearly 70% of this figure is outsourced services. If these are brought back in house, there may need to be some work done to build capability and deliver these functions.' When the savings were announced, the finance minister said 'we have no doubt that we will be able to deliver those savings without impacting importantly on the services and the programs that the Australian public service provides'. Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Podger said any reduction in consultants and external labour would need to 'be offset by in-house employees, perhaps at slightly lower cost, if service levels are to be maintained'. 'I would hope that, in practice, either side would look more carefully at where efficiencies can be found, such as in the top-heavy nature of too many agencies, and through careful investment in new technology,' Podger said. Albanese visited three seats in Brisbane on Tuesday – the Greens-held Griffith, Liberal-held Bonner and Labor-held Moreton – as his campaign maintains a rapid pace in the final rush to Saturday's poll. The prime minister toured a housing development under construction in Griffith, where he again blamed the local MP, the Greens' housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather, for holding up legislation to build more social and affordable homes. Albanese later pressed the flesh with locals while grabbing lunch at Market Square in Moreton, his second campaign stop at a crowded public space in as many days. The prime minister also stopped to congratulate his Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, who was on track to win his own election. Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau's tough approach to dealing with Donald Trump was considered a major factor in a stunning turnaround in support for the Liberals, who appeared headed for a thumping defeat prior to Trump's return to the White House. Asked about Carney's stance on Trump, Albanese – whose campaign has sought to tie Peter Dutton to the US president – said: 'Mark Carney has stood up for Canada's national interest, just as I stand up for Australia's national interest.'
The Guardian
27-04-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Nasal spray similar to ketamine to be added to PBS for treatment-resistant depression
A medication chemically similar to ketamine will be made cheaper to improve the lives of Australians suffering from treatment-resistant depression. The drug, which comes in the form of a nasal spray, is a chemical cousin of ketamine, used for decades as a powerful anaesthetic before it was adopted as a party drug in underground rave culture. There have been no major pharmaceutical innovations for depression since the launch of Prozac and related antidepressants in the late 1980s. Those drugs target the 'feel-good' brain chemical serotonin and can take weeks or months to kick in. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Spravato, known chemically as esketamine, works differently. It targets a neurotransmitter called glutamate that is thought to restore brain connections that help relieve depression. When it works, its effect can be felt within a matter of hours, according to Prof Ian Hickie of the University of Sydney. The co-director of Health and Policy at the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre has been working with the drug for a small number of patients under a special access scheme. But from Thursday, it will be available and affordable for up to 30,000 Australians through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It will also mark the first new type of medicine for major depression to be funded by the government in three decades. 'Most of the drug development we've had in the last three decades has mimicked what had preceded it,' Hickie said. 'This is different ... it targets a different neurochemical system – glutamate – and appears to regulate those brain circuits that regulate mood in a different way.' Australian trials using the ketamine-like drug have shown significant improvement in about 50% of people who had otherwise been resistant to conventional treatments. 'Not all depression is the same, nor does it have the same chemical explanation in all people,' Hickie said. 'For some people, particularly those who have failed to respond to the conventional serotonin-focused agents, or monoamine-focused agents, this is different and they appear to benefit.' Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Since the drug was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, it has been commonly used in emergency rooms and other urgent care settings across the US. 'Here's something that actually works quickly, not by knocking you out, not by sedating you, but by alleviating that terrible sense of hopelessness and terrible depressiveness and to some degree that sense of suicidality,' Hickie said. Spravato will be available through the scheme at a cost per dose of $31.60 or $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders. However, patients will need to incur additional healthcare and administration costs, including supervision by a healthcare professional at a certified treatment centre. The minister for health and aged care, Mark Butler, said the listing would make the novel drug more affordable and improve the quality of life for thousands of Australians. Johnson & Johnson's innovative medicine ANZ managing director, Joana De Castro, said the 'long overdue' listing came after four funding submissions and a four-year wait following Therapeutic Goods Administration registration. Crisis support services can be reached 24 hours a day: Lifeline 13 11 14; Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467; Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800; MensLine Australia 1300 78 99 78; Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636
The Guardian
27-04-2025
- Automotive
- The Guardian
Coalition targets electric vehicle drivers stating ‘everyone who drives on the road' should pay
A Coalition government would find new ways to make drivers of electric vehicles pay to use Australian roads, the opposition's transport spokesperson says, but details won't be revealed until after Saturday's election. When attempting to clear up lingering confusion about the opposition's position on the fringe benefits tax (FBT) exemption for electric vehicles, Bridget McKenzie said on Sunday that the Coalition opposed the exemption on equity grounds. 'We don't think it's fair that people that live in places like Donnybrook and McEwen are subsidising those that can afford to purchase an electric vehicle,' McKenzie told the ABC's Insiders program. 'We need to make sure we've got a system for road funding that ensures that everyone who drives on the road, from our truckies to passenger vehicles, makes a contribution.' The Nationals senator said EV users were 'not contributing to our road task' because they did not pay fuel excise. 'Everyone who uses our roads should contribute to actually making sure they're maintained to the appropriate standard,' McKenzie said. But she refused to be drawn on exactly how the Coalition envisaged EV drivers would make 'contributions' – despite being asked repeatedly if a Peter Dutton-led government would introduce road user charges. 'When we get into government, that's something we have to look at,' the transport spokesperson said on Sunday. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter McKenzie's comments came after an about-face from Dutton last week when he confirmed on Wednesday that the Coalition would scrap the popular FBT exemption for EV drivers, despite suggesting on Monday it would not. McKenzie took aim at constituencies in wealthier parts of Melbourne, saying 'low- and middle-income earners in seats like McEwen, in seats like Hawke, in Bendigo here in Victoria, they're effectively subsidising wealthier individuals in Kooyong, in Brighton, and other areas, who can afford to pay for an EV'. 'We don't think that's fair,' she said. The Coalition is facing a battle to reclaim the seats of Kooyong and Goldstein – the latter of which includes the Melbourne suburb of Brighton – from 'teal' independents Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel. The FBT exemption, a 2022 Albanese government initiative, allows people who purchase an EV worth up to $91,387 through their employer to avoid fringe benefits tax, even if the car is for personal use. The tax break applies to 100% electric cars, but until the beginning of this month it also applied to plug-in hybrid vehicles. The exemption has been so popular that revised Treasury forecasts estimate it could cost $560m a year. Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In 2023, the high court found the Victorian government's attempt to impose an electric vehicle tax to be unconstitutional because only the commonwealth had the power to impose excise taxes on consumption. The Victorian government was ordered to repay about $7m collected from drivers of electric, hydrogen and plug-in hybrid vehicles since the tax came into effect in mid-2021. The Electric Vehicle Council chief executive, Julie Delvecchio, said on Sunday it was 'a myth' that road maintenance was funded solely by the fuel excise, which electric vehicle drivers didn't pay. 'Roads are paid for out of consolidated revenue, and therefore all taxes contribute,' Delvecchio said. 'Most EV owners live outside of the inner cities, and have purchased electric vehicles to reduce their commuting costs – precisely the behaviour we should continue to encourage.' She said given transport comprised more than 20% of national emissions, incentivising EV adoption should be the priority before road use charges were considered. 'We also need to consider the whole range of costs on our health system and environment from polluting petrol and diesel vehicles which we end up paying for as taxpayers,' Delvecchio said. 'We should absolutely have a conversation about improving the tax system, but that conversation needs to be holistic and appropriately timed to be useful.' Guardian Australia contacted the Coalition's campaign headquarters for comment.
The Guardian
21-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Netherlands a ‘cautionary tale' for Coalition's mortgage deduction scheme, expert warns
At the Coalition's campaign launch, weeks out from polling day, Peter Dutton announced the centrepiece of his affordable housing plan – making mortgages tax deductible for some first home buyers. Unlike other housing measures announced during the campaign by the major parties, the deduction scheme had the potential to be an eye-catching policy that could sway voters towards the Coalition on a central election issue. But those who have seen the deduction scheme in operation in comparable economies overseas, such as the Netherlands, say that while such measures can be popular with voters, it makes housing even more unaffordable. Cody Hochstenbach, an associate professor in urban geography at the University of Amsterdam, says the scheme has driven up home prices in the Netherlands, and weighs heavily on taxpayers, given it is a subsidy representing forgone revenue to the national budget. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter 'I can't really envisage why a country, except for short-term political reasons, would want to implement this because it's such a terrible scheme and it's difficult to get rid of it once it's in place,' Hochstenbach says. 'The Netherlands should serve as a cautionary tale: it's not a good scheme.' The Coalition's mortgage deduction scheme is designed to allow first home buyers deduct a portion of the repayments from their taxable income if they buy a newly built home. It resembles the way investment properties operate, with owners allowed to deduct interest payments, but without capital gains tax. The Coalition expects it to apply to about 30,000 households annually, and has estimated it will cost about $1.25bn over the forward estimates, referring to the three-year cycle beyond the current budgeted 12 months. But industry estimates put the figure closer to 60,000 households, creating a much bigger drag on the budget. 'I recognise this tendency around the world of wanting to help first home buyers, and they typically come up with financial instruments to help,' Hochstenbach says. 'That might help a select number of first home buyers but for the market overall it will push up prices, raise barriers of entry and doesn't solve the problem given it only deepens mortgage debts.' The Coalition proposal is more targeted than some similar overseas schemes, given it is directed at first home buyers buying new homes, with deduction limits and salary restraints on who qualifies to use the scheme. Hochstenbach says that while the restrictions would help Australia avoid some of the excess fallout experienced in countries like the Netherlands, 'you would expect the same mechanisms to apply, leading to house price increases'. Once implemented, there may be a strong political temptation to expand access to the scheme at a later date. Among the nations that have some form of home mortgage interest deduction, including Denmark, there is an accompanying debate on whether it should be reduced. While many of the schemes have been pared back over the years, they are almost always too politically unpalatable to remove altogether. Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In the US, Republicans scaled back the program by capping the maximum value of new mortgage debt eligible for deduction in 2017. There has been talk the new Trump administration could get rid of the deduction altogether, saving $1tn more than 10 years, although such a measure remains politically dangerous. Michael Fotheringham, the managing director at the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, says Australians should take note of the US experience. 'The most pertinent example is the US, where this has been used. What happens is people borrow more because they factor in the tax deduction,' Fotheringham says. 'It is absolutely inflationary. It will push prices up.' In the week after the Coalition announcement took centre stage at the campaign launch, election watchers noted it had already been relegated from show stopper to peripheral policy. Dutton only made a passing reference to it at the second leaders' debate, and it is regularly swept into a broad list of cost-of-living measures on the campaign trail. While economists have blasted the housing policies of both major parties, the Coalition's has received even more attention because it has less supply measures built into it than Labor's. The University of Sydney media and politics senior lecturer Peter Chen says that as neither of the major parties have tackled the issue of housing affordability head on, they are unable to campaign effectively on their policies. 'They have consistently nibbled around the edges of a major structural problem, and the concern is, everything you're doing is simply inflationary,' Chen says. 'The Coalition has ended up having a weak policy, and because housing is such [a topic of] conversation, it's hard to kind of fake it.'
