The Government has agreed on a new scheme allowing trusted builders to sign off their own work and will set a mandatory target to tackle building inspection wait times, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk has announced. “Making it easier and more affordable to build opens the door to homeownership for more Kiwis, gives families choice about where they live, and supports growth and job creation in the construction sector,” Mr Penk says. “We can’t achieve this vision while the building consent system remains slow and overloaded. Even simple, single-storey homes must go through around 12 inspections before they’re finished, with costly delays when demand is high. “At a time when many Kiwis are locked out of the housing market, that’s simply not good enough. “The Government is committed to making the building system more efficient and Cabinet has now agreed to an opt-in self-certification scheme, which will allow approved building firms, plumbers, and drainlayers to sign off their own work. “Reputable building companies delivering large numbers of near-identical houses each year will be able to proceed without the need for Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) to approve a building consent and carry out inspections. “Giving qualified plumbers and drainlayers the ability to self-certify their work puts them on equal footing with electricians and gasfitters, who’ve had that flexibility for years. It’s a common-sense change backed by Master Plumbers and delivers on a National Party campaign promise. “Kiwis should have confidence that their homes are built to a high standard. That’s why only proven professionals who meet strict criteria will be eligible for the scheme – and only for simple residential dwellings. “Initially these changes are expected to see around 3,000 homes built each year without delays from approvals or inspections. BCAs will be freed up to focus on high-risk, complex builds instead of being bogged down by simple homes. “In addition, the Government will require BCAs complete 80 percent of building inspections within three working days. “Master Builders have welcomed this announcement as a meaningful step toward reducing inspection delays. We regularly hear from builders frustrated by the disruption to project timelines and the uncertainty it creates for homeowners. “Wait times sometimes stretch up to a week – having a knock-on effect which can add about $400 for every day a project is held up. “Updated guidance will be issued to BCAs, outlining practical strategies to boost efficiency, reduce bottlenecks, and help authorities better prioritise their workloads.” “BCAs success in meeting the target will be shown in quarterly performance data – giving the public greater transparency and encouraging improved performance.
“By backing skilled professionals and focusing council resources, we can cut building costs without sacrificing quality – delivering more affordable homes for Kiwi families.”
Inspection targets will come into force later this year and legislation to enable the self-certification scheme will be introduced by the end of 2025.
Notes to editors:
The self-certification scheme will be a voluntary, opt-in measure enabled by changes to the Building Act 2004 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006.
There will be two self-certification pathways available under the scheme:
An opt-in self-certification scheme for house builders carrying out work on an entire simple residential dwelling (including design and construction).
An opt-in self-certification scheme for plumbers and drainlayers carrying out work on a simple residential dwelling.
The definition of an eligible simple residential dwelling will be set down in regulation, following industry consultation.
BCAs will still be required to provide a nominal consent for entire simple homes where trusted building professionals are self-certifying their work.
Sometimes to uncover Auckland’s past, you need to dig deep. Just ask Chris Mallows, Team Leader Cultural Heritage Implementation in Auckland Council’s Heritage Unit. He’s part of a team of archaeologists unearthing the fascinating history of Tāmaki Makaurau.
Auckland’s rich and varied landscape – encompassing coastland, forest, wetlands, maunga and volcanic fields – mirrors the diverse heritage of the people who have settled here since around the 14th century. With Archaeology Week running from 3-11 May, it’s the perfect time to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of archaeologists who help further our knowledge of our region’s past.
Archaeology is the study of past human societies through the analysis of material culture, including artefacts or the remains of buildings.
“Archaeologists look at the physical evidence that’s left behind and interpret how people lived and worked in the past,” explains Chris.
In Tāmaki Makaurau, archaeological work could involve everything from protecting maunga and Māori pā settlement sites, preservation of the Wilson Cement Works in Warkworth or uncovering artefacts from the former Queen Street Gaol that was on the corner of Queen and Victoria Streets from 1841-1865.
“During an archaeological excavation, we’re always finding something new and expanding our understanding of how people lived in that specific area,” says Chris.
Auckland Council’s archaeologists work on a range of projects including preservation work, providing advice on heritage sites and as well as reviewing on resource consent applications around areas with scheduled heritage sites.
While fictional archaeologist Indiana Jones’ favourite tool was his whip, in reality archaeologists are more likely to be armed with a trowel. Excavating can be physically demanding and painstaking work, as archaeologists work carefully to uncover artefacts without damaging anything in the process. The sharp edge of the trowel is used to meticulously unearth fragile items, such as ceramics, from the earth.
“Buying your first trowel is a bit like a rite of passage”, says Chris, who still has his first William Hunt and Sons trowel he received as a fledgling archaeologist in the UK.
Archaeologists use trowels to carefully unearth artefacts without damaging any fragile parts. Chris Mallows still has his WHS trowel from his first excavation in the UK.
“When you’re a field archaeologist, a trowel is the first tool you’ll ever get. It helps you excavate the small features in a controlled manner. For example, if you’re on a European-era site in Auckland dating from the 1860s or 1870s, you may use a trowel to find glass, ceramics, animal bones or other remnants that people were eating.”
Other tools include sieves for sorting very small remnants, measurement tools for mapping out a site and a “good old fashioned spade and shovel”, Chris adds.
While traditional excavation tools are still part of the work of an archaeologist, there have been a number of digital advances that make this work a little easier. Auckland Council’s archaeologists have access to LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data. This technology uses laser light pulses emitted from a drone or plane to create three-dimensional maps of the environment.
“LiDAR uncovers things that were previously hidden by the landscape. For example, on farmland, LiDAR has uncovered pits hidden by long grass which were later revealed to be kūmara pits (rua),” says Chris.
Another modern tool is photogrammetry, a process of creating a 3D model of an artefact or structure using a series of overlapping photographs.
Chris uses photographic scales to measure the site.
“Photogrammetry is a great tool and allows our communities to see artefacts and heritage sites really easily,” says Chris. “Even if you can’t physically gain access to the artefacts – they may be a museum, for example, or you may not be able to travel to these sites – having photogrammetry allows anyone to look at them. It’s a really good tool for the future.”
There have been a number of notable archaeological discoveries in Auckland, but one that sticks out to Chris is the Sunde Site on Motutapu Island. In 1958, archaeologist Rudy Sunde discovered what has since been spoken of as ‘New Zealand’s Pompeii’ when he found artefacts from a pre-European kainga (village).
Later, in 1981, University of Auckland archaeologist Reg Nicol uncovered footprints of eight people and one dog beneath a layer of ash from Rangitoto Island. This is evidence that mana whenua living on or near Motutapu witnessed the eruption of Rangitoto in around 1400 CE.
“What I find fascinating about this site is you have evidence of somebody going about everyday life and then you’ve got a volcanic eruption happening, and we can only wonder what that experience was like,” says Chris. “There’s a clear timeline of the eruption and you can see the people adapting to the changing climate because of the natural disaster.”
Through archaeology, we can learn from the past and see how people adapted to change and use this to understand how we adapt to change in the future.”
“Recent damage to an Auckland park by treasure hunters highlights why our heritage needs protecting”, says Chris.
Mary Barrett Glade near Ngataringa Park in Devonport is a scheduled heritage place on Department of Conservation (DOC) land, and was unfortunately recently targeted by vandals looking to dig up vintage bottles. Auckland Council archaeologists are supporting DOC in the protection and restoration of the area.
The site is the former location of Duder’s Brickworks, which operated between 1875 and 1942. The factory used clay from Ngataringa Bay to make ordinary and decorative bricks as well as sanitary pipes and chimney heads, and employed many Devonport locals up until the 1920s. The factory supplied clay bricks for many of the Edwardian buildings in Devonport including the pumphouse (now the PumpHouse Theatre).
The PumpHouse Theatre is built with bricks from Duder’s Brickworks.
Following a fire on Victoria Road in 1888, the Devonport Borough Council made a rule that buildings in the main shopping area were to be constructed from bricks only, and the bricks are part of the suburb’s its distinctive look.
“The brickworks are part of Devonport’s industrial heritage and character. You never know what’s around the corner, so we do need to be vigilant in protecting our history. As archaeologists, we are the kaitiaki (guardians) of our heritage sites, preserving them for our future generations.”
For more information about Archaeology Week and to see what events are on, head to the New Zealand Archaeological Association website.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3
Press release
Greater protection for domestic abuse victims in North Wales
Survivors of domestic abuse across North Wales will be better protected due to the further expansion of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders.
Clamp down on domestic abuse extended to North Wales
Hundreds more victims to benefit from stronger protections from cowardly abusers
Government reiterates commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade as part of its Plan for Change
From today, victims in North Wales – as well as their friends, families or support workers – can apply for Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPO) in the family court at Caernarfon, Prestatyn or Wrexham. Police can also apply on their behalf in the magistrates’ court for protection against abusers. This comes as the Government reiterates its commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade as part of its Plan for Change.
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders build on existing police powers, providing stronger protection for victims including forcing perpetrators to stick to strict exclusion zones wearing GPS tags and attending substance misuse or mental health interventions.
Unlike current schemes, these orders cover all types of domestic abuse – including physical, controlling, or coercive behaviour, economic abuse and stalking – and can be issued by all courts. There will also be no maximum duration for these orders, compared to the 28-days current protection orders offer.
In the year to March 2024, North Wales Police granted 462 Domestic Violence Protection Notices and made over 350 applications under Clare’s Law to help protect victims of domestic abuse. These figures show why more flexible, streamlined tools like Domestic Abuse Protection Orders will further help victims.
Today marks the second expansion after the successful launch in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley and Sutton) and with the British Transport Police in November 2024 – with orders also rolled out across Cleveland in March. Between 27 November and 31 March, over 100 Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have been secured in Greater Manchester alone, with the police dealing with 45 breaches and jail time handed down to some of those who breached the order.
Since then, there have been multiple convictions for breach of an order with some perpetrators already behind bars. A maximum sentence for a breach of a Domestic Abuse Protection Orders is five years in prison.
Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls, Alex Davies-Jones, said:
The pilot of DAPOs is already helping a number of victims across England, ending the cycle of abuse trapping them in their own homes. I am now pleased to be expanding this to selected areas in my home country of Wales.
Launching initially in North Wales, the rollout will continue to protect even more victims, and this helps to contribute to our Plan for Change.
These orders work, and it’s imperative that victims – predominantly women – in pilot areas know where and how to access them. If you’re experiencing abuse, contact your local family court, police, or your support worker today to help access a DAPO for the safety you deserve.
Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, said:
Time and time again, victims of domestic abuse tell me their safety has been compromised by a system that fails to protect them properly. That’s why these new domestic abuse protection orders are not paper promises – they are real, practical tools that track abusers through electronic tagging, creating exclusion zones, and mandating attendance at behaviour change programmes.
Rolling out these orders to North Wales marks an important step in gathering more valuable insight as we work towards wider expansion across the country. This is how we’ll deliver on our mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade – through concrete actions that truly protect victims and hold perpetrators to account.
Secretary of State for Wales Jo Stevens said:
The UK Government is working to make our communities safer, and it is vital that we reduce violence against women and girls to achieve this goal.
These new orders provide stronger protection for victims of domestic abuse, simplify their access to help and ensure court powers are more stringent than ever before.
We are delivering change for people across the country and victims of appalling violence across North Wales will now have the protection they deserve.
Jenny Hopkins, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Cymru-Wales, said:
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders are another vital way for our prosecutors to protect victims of these terrible crimes.
We can ask the court for an order if someone is convicted, or if they are acquitted, and will be looking to prosecute anybody who breaches that order.
Background information
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders were launched in November 2024 across Greater Manchester, three London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley and Sutton) and with the British Transport Police.
In March 2025 they were extended to Cleveland.
The DAPO is a joint policy shared between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office and was legislated for in Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Tagging can be imposed for up to 12 months at a time.
U.S. Coast Guard 8th District Heartland Contact: 8th District Public Affairs Office: 504-671-2020 After Hours: 618-225-9008 Eighth District online newsroom
Port conditions change based on weather forecasts, and current port conditions can be viewed on the following Coast Guard homeport webpages:
For more information follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
A mural on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran depicts two men in negotiation.Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
The scheduled talks follow the two previous rounds of indirect negotiations that have taken place under the new Trump administration. Those discussions were deemed to have yielded enough progress to merit sending nuclear experts from both sides to begin outlining the specifics of a potential framework for a deal.
The development is particularly notable given that Trump, in 2018, unilaterally walked the U.S. away from a multilateral agreement with Iran. That deal, negotiated during the Obama presidency, put restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Trump instead turned to a policy that involved tightening the financial screws on Iran through enhanced sanctions while issuing implicit military threats.
But that approach failed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
Now, rather than revive the maximum pressure policy of his first term, Trump – ever keen to be seen as a dealmaker – has given his team the green light for the renewed diplomacy and even reportedly rebuffed, for now, Israel’s desire to launch military strikes against Tehran.
Jaw-jaw over war-war
The turn to diplomacy returns Iran-US relations to where they began during the Obama administration, with attempts to encourage Iran to curb or eliminate its ability to enrich uranium.
As a long-time expert on U.S. foreign policy and nuclear nonproliferation, I believe Trump has a unique opportunity to not only reinstate a similar nuclear agreement to the one he rejected, but also forge a more encompassing deal – and foster better relations with the Islamic Republic in the process.
There are real signs that a potential deal could be in the offing, and it is certainly true that Trump likes the optics of dealmaking.
But an agreement is by no means certain. Any progress toward a deal will be challenged by a number of factors, not least internal divisions and opposition within the Trump administration and skepticism among some in the Islamic Republic, along with uncertainty over a succession plan for the aging Ayatollah Khamenei.
Conservative hawks are still abundant in both countries and could yet derail any easing of diplomatic tensions.
Many Iranians would say relations have been strained since 1953, when the U.S. and the United Kingdom orchestrated the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran.
Washington and Tehran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1979, and the two countries have been locked in a decadeslong battle for influence in the Middle East. Today, tensions remain high over Iranian support for a so-called axis of resistance against the West and in particular U.S. interests in the Middle East. That axis includes Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
For its part, Tehran has long bristled at American hegemony in the region, including its resolute support for Israel and its history of military action. In recent years that U.S. action has included the direct assaults on Iranian assets and personnel. In particular, Tehran is still angry about the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Standing atop these various disputes, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have proved a constant source of contention for the United States and Israel, the latter being the only nuclear power in the region.
The prospect of warmer relations between the two sides first emerged during the Obama administration – though Iran sounded out the Bush administration in 2003 only to be rebuffed.
U.S. diplomats began making contact with Iranian counterparts in 2009 when Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns met with an Iranian negotiator in Geneva. The so-called P5+1 began direct negotiations with Iran in 2013. This paved the way for the eventual Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2015. In that agreement – concluded by the U.S., Iran, China, Russia and a slew of European nations – Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program, including limits on the level to which it could enrich uranium, which was capped well short of what would be necessary for a nuclear weapon. In return, multilateral and bilateral U.S. sanctions would be removed.
Many observers saw it as a win-win, with the restraints on a burgeoning nuclear power coupled with hopes that greater economic engagement with the international community that might temper some of Iran’s more provocative foreign policy behavior.
Yet Israel and Saudi Arabia worried the deal did not entirely eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, and right-wing critics in the U.S. complained it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile programs or support for militant groups in the region.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, draws a red line on a graphic of a bomb while discussing Iran at the United Nations on Sept. 27, 2012. Mario Tama/Getty Images
When Trump first took office in 2016, he and his foreign policy team pledged to reverse Obama’s course and close the door on any diplomatic opening. Making good on his pledge, Trump unilaterally withdrew U.S. support for the JCPOA despite Iran’s continued compliance with the terms of the agreement and reinstated sanctions.
Donald the dealmaker?
So what has changed? Well, several things.
While Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA was welcomed by Republicans, it did nothing to stop Iran from enhancing its ability to enrich uranium.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, eager to transform its image and diversify economically, now supports a deal it opposed during the Obama administration.
In this second term, Trump’s anti-Iran impulses are still there. But despite his rhetoric of a military option should a deal not be struck, Trump has on numerous occasions stated his opposition to U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East.
In addition, Iran has suffered a number of blows in recent years that has left it more isolated in the region. Iranian-aligned Hamas and Hezbollah have been seriously weakened as a result of military action by Israel. Meanwhile, strikes within Iran by Israel have shown the potential reach of Israeli missiles – and the apparent willingness of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to use them. Further, the removal of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria has deprived Iran of another regional ally.
Tehran is also contending with a more fragile domestic economy than it had during negotiations for JCPOA.
With Iran weakened regionally and Trump’s main global focus being China, a diplomatic avenue with Iran seems entirely in line with Trump’s view of himself as a dealmaker.
A deal is not a given
With two rounds of meetings completed and the move now to more technical aspects of a possible agreement negotiated by experts, there appears to be a credible window of opportunity for diplomacy.
This could mean a new agreement that retains the core aspects of the deal Trump previously abandoned. I’m not convinced a new deal will look any different from the previous in terms of the enrichment aspect.
There are still a number of potential roadblocks standing in the way of any potential deal, however.
As was the case with Trump’s meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during his first term, the president seems to be less interested in details than spectacle. While it was quite amazing for an American leader to meet with his North Korean counterpart, ultimately, no policy meaningfully changed because of it.
As has become a common theme in Trump administration foreign policy – even with its own allies on issues like trade – it’s unclear what a Trump administration policy on Iran actually is, and whether a political commitment exists to carry through any ultimate deal.
Top Trump foreign policy negotiator Steve Witkoff, who has no national security experience, has exemplified this tension. Tasked with leading negotiations with Iran, Witkoff has already been forced to walk back his contention that the U.S. was only seeking to cap the level of uranium enrichment rather than eliminate the entirety of the program.
For its part, Iran has proved that it is serious about diplomacy, previously having accepted Barack Obama’s “extended hand.”
But Tehran is unlikely to capitulate on core interests or allow itself to be humiliated by the terms of any agreement.
Ultimately, the main question to watch is whether a deal with Iran is to be concluded by pragmatists – and then to what extent, narrow or expansive – or derailed by hawks within the administration.
Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
There are few battlegrounds as ingrained in New Zealand’s history and identity as this place. The very name “Chunuk Bair”, like the name, “Gallipoli” resonates with New Zealanders at home, so very, very far away. The thousands of our men who spilled blood on this soil mean a part of our country is forever part of this land, too. At the time, this battle was the culmination of months of fighting for those men. Many would not have ventured much beyond their hometown at the ‘uttermost ends of the earth’ before arriving here at the start of the Gallipoli campaign. In the dawn light, they would have seen the ridges and gullies rise and drop along the coastline. They would have seen this place – the highest point in view – and known it would be crucial to the campaign. Some would have thought it looked a bit like home. But for them and for all who joined this battle, it was closer to hell. Some 16,000 New Zealanders came ashore over those months, 110 years ago. They fought in unspeakable conditions from trenches that still scar this peninsula. When Lieutenant Colonel William Malone led the Wellington Battalion to seize this summit before dawn on the 8th of August 1915, days of horror followed. Under a scorching sun, they clashed with waves of charging Ottoman Turks. William Malone was killed that afternoon. The Wellington Battalion was joined by men from the Auckland Mounted Rifles, before being replaced by the Otago Battalion and the Wellington Mounted Rifles. For two days, they clung to this summit before being overwhelmed early on the 10th of August. The losses on both sides were immense. An Australian war correspondent wrote, “of the 760 of the Wellington Infantry Battalion who had captured the height that morning, there came out only 70 unwounded or slightly wounded men.” “Not one had dreamed of leaving his post.” “They could only talk in whispers. Their eyes were sunken. Their knees trembled.” The other battalions faced similar losses. Only 22 of the 288 Auckland Mounted Rifles remained. They say that truth is the first casualty of war and the true horror of this battle was not reflected by the newspapers back home at the time. Stories were headlined “our boys win new glory,” and “splendid progress made” in the days following Chunuk Bair. A letter Colonel Malone wrote to a friend was published with the announcement of his death. “I love these men of mine,” he said. “Heroes all – as brave as brave can be.” “Hardy, enduring, patient, cheerful, clever soldiers.” “New Zealand has reason to be proud of her sons.” And Turkiye has reason to be proud of its sons too. They defended this hilltop and their country and gave their lives to do so. Too many sons of New Zealand, of Turkiye and of other countries breathed their last breath on this ground and in the battles that raged below it. The circumstances in which our two nations’ bonds were forged are nightmarish, but we owe it to the fallen to learn from their sacrifice. Politicians in New Zealand walk past a painting of Chunuk Bair as we enter our debating chamber. Inside, a plaque bearing Gallipoli’s name hangs above us. And a few hundred steps away from our Parliament sits a stone from this very memorial. Reminders like these speak not just of the horrors of war that took place here, but of the need for enduring peace everywhere. Many New Zealanders come to this place to honour our fallen. We show by our presence that we have made good on our promise: One hundred and 10 years on, we do remember them. And the people of Turkiye remember their own sons and the great courage with which they defended their country. Today – and on all days – we acknowledge their sacrifice. Heroes all – as brave as brave can be
This Anzac Day, Labour recognises veterans and the service they have given to our country.
“We back the people who have served our country, on deployment or supporting operations here at home,” Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said.
“On this day we recognise the sacrifices they have made and acknowledge there is still work to do.
“Our current system still treats veterans differently based on when they served. The law says that those who served after 1974 aren’t entitled to the same support as those who served before that date, creating a two-tiered system. Meanwhile, in Australia they have a much more consistent veterans’ support system.
“Anzac Day is a reminder that our armed forces serve together, regardless of the decade or deployment. Let’s make sure our support for them reflects that same spirit of unity.
“I know Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Chris Penk shares the same commitment, and I want to reiterate Labour’s willingness to work across the aisle to deliver better outcomes for those who have worn the uniform.
“I remain ready to support meaningful change that gives veterans the support and dignity they deserve,” Greg O’Connor said.
This Anzac Day, Greg O’Connor will attend the Dawn Service and the National Commemorative Service at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park. He will also attend the Atatürk Memorial Service in the afternoon.
WA leads on five of eight economic indicators as Australian state economies remain resilient in the face of higher interest rates and inflation pressures.
Western Australia has held off a fast-finishing Queensland to claim top spot as the country’s best performing economy for the second quarter in a row in the latest CommSec State of the States report.
Now in its 16th year, the State of the States report determines which state or territory economy is performing best, by tracking eight key economic indicators and comparing the latest data with decade averages (or the “normal”).
Western Australia led the national performance rankings for the second time in a decade, ranked first on five of the eight economic indicators.
In a closely fought contest, Queensland moved up from third spot, joining South Australia in second spot. Victoria remains in fourth place, with Tasmania steady in fifth place.
NSW leapfrogged the ACT into sixth from seventh place, with the nation’s capital slipping back to seventh. The Northern Territory remains in eighth spot.
“Overall, economies have slowed in response to higher interest rates and inflation, however Australian states and territories are proving resilient due to a strong job market and solid population growth. As consumers respond to higher borrowing costs and price pressures, the future path will depend on whether the job market can hold up as well as the trajectory of interest rates over the coming months,” Chief CommSec Economist Ryan Felsman said
“Western Australia’s performance across a number of indicators, namely retail spending, unemployment, population growth, housing finance and dwelling starts powered the state to the top of our economic leaderboard for the second quarter in a row. Queensland however is nipping at WA’s heels, having shot up to equal second place alongside South Australia, with solid results across the eight economic indicators and strong economic momentum. As expected, the interest-rate sensitive south-eastern states remained in a tight cluster mid-table.”
Additional state and territory highlights include:
Western Australia ranks first on retail spending, relative unemployment, relative population growth, housing finance and dwelling starts. Queensland is now equal second, up from third place, with solid results across the board. South Australia, now joint second, ranks first on economic growth. Victoria remains in fourth place – leading on construction work done – and is in fourth spot on two indicators. Tasmania is steady in fifth spot — ranking second on equipment spending — but is held back by lower rankings on other indicators. NSW moves up to sixth from seventh position and now ranks fifth on four indicators. The ACT has slipped back to seventh — in that position on four indicators. The Northern Territory remains in last place. But the “Top End” has performed better over the past 12 months, ranking first for retail spending and equipment investment when annual growth rates are considered.
Annual growth rates
The State of the States report also compares the annual growth rates of the eight major indicators, enabling comparisons in terms of more recent economic momentum. This quarter’s report showed:
Resources-focused Queensland and Western Australia both have the strongest annual economic momentum, and Queensland is now in first spot with Western Australia slipping to second. There is little to separate the states with Queensland ranked first or second on five out of the eight key economic indicators. Western Australia is top ranked on three indicators. The biggest mover is Victoria, which has jumped to third from seventh place in a sign of improvement in underlying economic activity. South Australia has ascended to fourth from sixth place. The Northern Territory has eased back to fifth from third spot. The ACT and NSW are now in joint sixth position, ahead of Tasmania in eighth spot – all held back by higher borrowing costs and slower population growth.
About the CommSec State of the States Report
The January 2025 edition of the State of the States report uses the most recent economic data available. While population growth data relates to the June quarter of 2024, other data – such as unemployment – is much timelier, covering the month of December 2024, with housing finance figures focusing on the month of September 2024.
CommSec, the digital broking arm of Australia’s largest bank, assesses the performance of each state and territory on a quarterly basis using eight key indicators. Those indicators include economic growth, retail spending, equipment investment, unemployment, construction work done, population growth, housing finance, and dwelling commencements.
Just as the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) uses long-term averages to determine the level of “normal” interest rates, CommSec compares the key indicators to decade averages; that is, against “normal” performance.
CommSec also compares annual growth rates for eight key indicators for all states and territories, in addition to Australia as a whole, enabling a comparison of economic momentum.
In the second episode of Apple TV’s The Studio (2025–) – a sharp satirical take on contemporary Hollywood – newly-appointed studio head Matt Remick (Seth Rogen) visits the set of one of his company’s film productions.
He finds the crew anxiously attempting to pull off an extremely audacious and technically demanding shot known as a “oner”, or “long take”. Chaos ensues.
But despite the difficulties associated with it, the long take has a long history and continues to be a promising creative choice in contemporary film and television.
High stakes on the set
The long take is a shot which captures a scene in a single, unbroken take.
It’s a risky endeavour. While most film and TV production is constructed through the use of coverage – different shots edited together – the long take can’t hide behind the editing process. Every minute detail needs to be perfectly planned, executed and captured.
As a result, the oner is often associated with big, ostentatious, showstopping set pieces that exemplify technical and directorial prowess. Think of the “Copacabana” sequence from Goodfellas (1990), or the opening scene of Children of Men (2006).
Yet the practice also has its detractors. Film critic A.A. Dowd’s recent article for The Ringer says that “to the unimpressed, oners often come across as an act of glorified self-glorification”.
This dichotomy is also highlighted in The Studio, when one executive complains long takes are just directors showing off. Rogen’s character counters the oner is, in fact, “the ultimate cinematic achievement”.
A theory of the long take
The long take has existed in nearly every stage of film history – from silent films to sound, from Asian films to European, and from art-house to mainstream.
The greatest advocate of the long take was arguably French film theorist André Bazin. In his piece The Evolution of Film Language, Bazin argued cinema’s greatest asset was its ability to capture reality – and the long take was central to his understanding of how film achieved that.
For Bazin, editing “did not show us the event, but alluded to it”. To illustrate his point, he examines a scene from Robert Flaherty’s controversial silent documentary Nanook of the North (1922), in which a hunter patiently waits for his prey.
The passage of time could have been suggested by editing but, as Bazin notes, Flaherty “confines himself to showing the actual waiting period”. If the act of editing creates a synthetic manipulation of space and time, then the long take does the opposite – bringing us closer to a true representation of reality. For Bazin, the length “is the very substance of the image”.
The tradition of the long take – of showing “reality” – is perhaps most upheld in the world of art-house cinema. Directors such as Chantal Akerman, Béla Tarr, Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Tsai Ming-liang have used the long take to “de-dramatise” narrative, creating a deliberately slow pace to prompt audiences to contemplate aspects of existence traditional narratives usually ignore.
Mainstream cinema also uses the long take to show “reality”, albeit in a different manner. Here, the long take has often been used as a mark of authenticity for the amazing feats of practical performers, whether this is the wild stunts or camera trickery of Buster Keaton, the balletic graces of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers or this white-knuckled fight scene from The Protector (2005), starring Thai martial artist Tony Jaa.
However, our strong association between the oner and a distinct directorial vision likely began with Citizen Kane (1941). In this film, screen reality itself is manipulated, as director Orson Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland liberated the camera to move as if it was its own player in the drama.
In the below example, the camera starts outside, before reversing backwards through a window and two different rooms. The actors are constantly repositioning themselves around the camera for dramatic impetus, rather than for reality.
Bazin would refer to this as “shooting in depth”. Subsequent auteurs also embraced this technique, including William Wyler, Max Ophüls, Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg.
Many viewed it as a chance to up the ante from Welles, something the director did himself with the remarkable opening sequence of his 1958 film Touch of Evil.
The future of the long take
There are far too many oners for me to list here, and they seem to only be increasing. It’s now common to see entire films seemingly shot in one take, such as Russian Ark (2002), Birdman (2014), 1917 (2019) and Boiling Point (2021), to name a few.
Technological advancements have made the long take more achievable. Camera stabilisers enable greater freedom of movement, while digital camera tech allows us to record for longer durations.
Furthermore, digital compositing has made it easier to fake the long take, such as in Birdman and 1917. Both of these films use multiple long takes that are strategically edited to look like a single shot. Impossible-to-see cuts may be hidden in dark moments, or through fast whip pans.
Prestige television has also lifted the oner practice, with examples from shows such as Mr. Robot (2015-19), True Detective (2014–), The Bear (2022-), Severance (2022) and, of course, The Studio.
But perhaps the most remarkable recent example comes from Netflix’s Adolescence (2025), a show in which four separate standalone episodes are all shot in a single long take.
In the age of TikTok and shortening attention spans, it should strike us as positive to see a resurgence of the long take as a creative choice in so much contemporary film and TV.
Kristian Ramsden receives funding, in the form of a research stipend, from The University of Adelaide.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher and Sustainable Future Lead, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University
At the same time, climate change is getting worse. Last year was Australia’s second‑hottest on record. Global warming is leading to more frequent and severe bushfires, floods and heatwaves.
These two crises feed each other. Energy-hungry homes strain the grid on hot days, and urban sprawl locks residents into in long car commutes. And dangerous, climate-driven disasters damage homes and push insurance bills higher.
It makes policy sense to deal with both crises in tandem. So what are Labor, the Coalition and the Greens offering on both climate action and housing, and are they fixing both problems together?
A returned Labor government would also allow first home buyers to use a 5% deposit to purchase a property. And it would invest in modern construction methods to speed up the building process and make housing more affordable.
The verdict: Labor’s plan represents progress on both climate and housing policy, but the two are moving on separate tracks.
Buildings account for almost a quarter of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. But Labor has not made any assurances that the promised new homes will have minimal climate impact.
Labor’s commitment to new construction methods is welcome. Modern solutions such as prefabricated housing can substantially reduce emissions.
However, the spending represents only a tiny proportion of Labor’s $33 billion housing plans.
A Dutton-led government would also freeze building standard improvements for a decade, because it claims some improvements make homes more expensive.
On climate change, it would review Labor’s 43% emissions-reduction target, expand gas production and build small modular nuclear reactors at seven former coal sites.
The verdict: The Coalition’s housing and climate policies are not integrated. And while freezing changes to the national building code might lower the upfront costs of buying a home, it may prevent the introduction of more stringent energy-efficiency standards. This would both contribute to the climate problem and lock in higher power bills.
The party says its housing plans slash energy bills and emissions, because more homes would be energy-efficient and powered by clean energy.
The verdict: The Greens offer the most integrated climate-housing policy vision. But its plan may not be feasible. It would require massive public expenditure, significant tax reform, and logistical capabilities beyond current government capacity.
An integrated fix matters
Neither Labor, the Coalition nor the Greens has proposed a truly integrated, feasible policy framework to tackle the issues of housing and climate together.
Resilient, net-zero homes are not a luxury. They are a necessary tool for reaching Australia’s emissions-reduction goals.
And government policy to tackle both housing and climate change should extend beyond new homes. None of the three parties offers a clear timetable to retrofit millions of draughty houses or protect low-income households from heat, flood and bushfire, or has proposed binding national policies to stop new homes being built on flood plains.
Whichever party forms the next government, it must ensure housing and climate policies truly pull in the same direction.
Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).
Around the world, more and more electric vehicles are hitting the road. Last year, more than 17 million battery-electric and hybrid vehicles were sold. Early forecasts suggest this year’s figure might reach 20 million. Nearly 20% of all cars sold today are electric.
But as more motorists go electric, it creates a new challenge – what to do with the giant batteries when they reach the end of their lives. That’s 12 to 15 years on average, though real-world data suggests it may be up to 40% longer. The average EV battery weighs about 450 kilograms.
By 2030, around 30,000 tonnes of EV batteries are expected to need disposal or recycling in Australia. By 2040, the figure is projected to be 360,000 tonnes and 1.6 million tonnes by 2050.
Is this a problem? Not necessarily. When a battery reaches the end of its life in a vehicle, it’s still got plenty of juice. Together, they could power smaller vehicles, houses or, when daisy-chained, even whole towns.
For this to work, though, we need better information. How healthy are these batteries? What are they made of? Have they ever been in an accident? At present, answers to these questions are hard to come by. That has to change.
Gauging the health and reliability of a used EV battery is harder than it should be. Fahroni/Shutterstock
Huge potential, challenging reality
Old EV batteries have huge potential. But it’s not going to be easy to realise this.
That’s because it’s hard to get accurate data on battery performance, how fast it’s degrading and the battery’s current state of health – how much capacity it has now versus how much it had when new.
Unfortunately, vehicle manufacturers often make it difficult to get access to this crucial information. And once a battery pack is removed, we can’t get access to its specific data.
This comes with real risks. If a battery has a fault or has been severely degraded, it could catch fire when opened or if used for an unsuitable role. Without data, recyclers are flying blind.
Reusing EV batteries will only be economically viable if there’s sufficient confidence in estimates of remaining capacity and performance.
Without solid data, investors and companies may hesitate to engage in the repurposing market due to the financial risks involved.
Extracting minerals from a battery
EV batteries are full of critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium and manganese. Nearly everything in an EV battery can be recycled – up to 95%.
Here, too, it’s not as easy as it should be. Manufacturers design batteries focusing on performance and safety with recyclability often an afterthought.
Battery packs are often sealed shut for safety, making it difficult to disassemble their thousands of individual cells. Dismantling these type of EV batteries is extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. Some will have to be crushed and the minerals extracted afterwards.
EV batteries have widely differing chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate and nickel manganese cobalt. But this vital information is often not included on the label.
EV batteries require significant quantities of critical minerals. Pictured: lithium salt evaporation ponds in Argentina. Freedom_wanted/Shutterstock
Better ways of assessing battery health
Used EV batteries fall into three groups based on their state of health:
High (80% or more of original capacity): These batteries can be refurbished for reuse in similar applications, such as electric cars, mopeds, bicycles and golf carts. Some can be resized to suit smaller vehicles.
Medium (60-80%): These batteries can be repurposed for entirely different applications, such as stationary power storage or uninterruptible power supplies.
Low (below 60%): These batteries undergo shredding and refining processes to recover valuable minerals which can be used to make new batteries.
Researchers have recently succeeded in estimating the health of used EV batteries even without access to the battery’s data. But access to usage and performance data would still give better estimates.
What’s at stake?
An EV battery is a remarkable thing. But they rely on long supply chains and contain critical minerals, and their manufacture can cause pollution and carbon emissions.
Ideally, an EV battery would be exhausted before we recycle it. Repurposing these batteries will help reduce how many new batteries are needed.
If old batteries are stockpiled or improperly discarded, it leads to fire risk and potential contamination of soil and water.
Right now, it’s hard for companies and individuals to access each battery’s performance data. This means it’s much harder and more expensive to assess its health and remaining useful life. As a result, more batteries are being discarded or sent for recycling too early.
Recycling EV batteries is a well-defined process. But it’s energy-intensive and requires significant chemical treatments.
What needs to change?
At present, many battery manufacturers are wary of sharing battery performance data, due to concerns over intellectual property and other legal issues. This will have to change if society is to get the fullest use out of these complex energy storage devices. But these changes are unlikely to come from industry.
In 2021, California introduced laws requiring manufacturers to give recyclers access to data and battery state of health. Likewise, the European Union will require all EV batteries to come with a digital passport from January 2027, giving access to data on the battery’s health, chemistry and records of potentially harmful events such as accidents or charging at extreme temperatures.
Australia should follow suit – before we have a mountain of EV batteries and no way to reuse them.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Barring a rogue result, this Saturday Anthony Albanese will achieve what no major party leader has done since John Howard’s prime-ministerial era – win consecutive elections. Admittedly, in those two decades he is only the second of the six prime ministers (the other is Scott Morrison), who has been permitted by his party to contest successive elections. The other four – Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull – were cut off at the knees by their colleagues before having the chance to seek re-election.
For a prime minister who has spent much of the past three years derided as a plodder, uninspiring and weak, this is no small feat. If longevity in office is the principal measure of the success of prime ministers, then Albanese will soon have claim to be the best of the post-Howard group. Before election day, he will leapfrog Turnbull’s tenure and if, as the polls suggest, he is returned to government on May 3, he will shortly thereafter exceed Gillard’s incumbency with a whole three years ahead to build on his reign.
Of course, duration of office is not the only benchmark of prime-ministerial achievement – more important is how power is exercised, the legacy that is left behind. Arguably, the productive Gillard still outranks Albanese in this respect, highlighted by her government’s establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is widely regarded as the most transformative social reform since the advent of universal health care. On the other hand, if he is granted a second term by voters, Albanese will be in a position to build on his policy edifice and produce his own signature reform, something he still lacks.
A leader for the times?
When sitting down to write this essay about Albanese, I looked back at two of the questions I raised about him shortly before and after his May 2022 election. The first was whether he was capable of switching “to a more dynamic galvanising mode of leadership or will the circumspection that has defined him in opposition shackle him in government?”
The second question was whether voters would stick by the dogged and gentler type of leadership Albanese promised. Or if, in an environment of pent-up dissatisfaction with the order of things, they would lose patience with him and instead hanker for a “strong” leader: one who conquered and divided, and offered black and white solutions to the complex challenges of the early 21st century.
As recently as early March, the answer to both of these questions seemed a definite no. For some 18 months, the opinion polls had signalled the electorate was profoundly underwhelmed by Albanese and his Labor government.
Despite a busy legislative program, the incremental methods of his prime ministership had proved incompatible with the public’s disenchantment with business-as-usual practices. Precious little Labor had done had registered with voters.
By way of contrast, the Liberal opposition leader, Peter Dutton, gave the impression of being in tune with the disgruntled milieu. Not that the public had warmed to him: a common focus group reaction was he was “nasty”.
Yet Dutton had the hallmarks of a quintessential “strong” leader. He was a political hard man, a trader in fear and division. He projected decisiveness. Where Albanese was prone to looking wishy-washy, Dutton was a man to get things done.
As Niccolò Machiavelli recognised in his notorious, and mostly misunderstood, treatise on statecraft, The Prince, the fate of political leaders is significantly determined by “fortuna”. These are the forces largely beyond a prince’s control.
Fortuna has undoubtedly intervened in Albanese’s favour over the past couple of months. This began with Cyclone Alfred giving him a steal on Dutton. Manning the deck during the cyclone’s painstakingly slow landfall on the east coast of the Australia, Albanese had the advantage of a prime ministerial bearing. His government’s response to Alfred also enabled him to exercise two of his emotional calling cards: empathy and compassion.
Additionally, the cyclone was a timely demonstration of the increased frequency of extreme weather events in a climate change affected environment. This is a phenomenon the prime minister could credibly speak to. Whereas the opposition leader, at the head of a Coalition in which climate change denialism still runs deep, has dissembled about a connection by protesting he is not a scientist.
Alfred also compelled the delay of the election to a time more propitious for Labor. The April campaign has been heavily shadowed by the spectre of US President Donald Trump’s wilful and reckless disturbance of geopolitics and the international economy. Unquestionably, Albanese would have been better placed to capitalise on Washington’s caprice and the undiscriminating damage it is visiting on purported allies like Australia had his government opted for a less orthodox America-dependent defence and security posture.
Yet Trump’s second presidency is principally a liability for Dutton. This is not because he is a Trump ventriloquist. Dutton’s right-wing populist stance on issues such as immigration and climate change and his hostility to identity politics are indigenous to Australia rather than imported from America. He is exploiting themes unleashed in the Liberal Party by Howard, which have been rendered more aggressive by Howard’s successors, first Abbott and now Dutton.
My hunch has always been the opposition leader was misreading the national psyche. Australians are more optimistic, forward-looking and generous-hearted than he was banking on. They are less scared and less paranoid. Women and young voters especially loomed as a formidable barrier to his prime-ministerial ambitions. But the parallels between his locally originated brand of reactionary populism and Trumpism are sufficient to have made his tilt for power still more difficult.
Bloodless, perhaps, but methodical and scandal-free
Albanese’s political renaissance since March, however, is not solely a product of happenstance. Nor is it only due to Dutton’s unravelling: his quest for office has also been damaged by the Coalition’s flimsy policy development and his stumbles on the hustings.
The opinion polls currently indicate Labor’s primary and two-party preferred votes are hovering around the same level as at the 2022 election. If this translates into Saturday’s result, it would represent the first time a novice government has not shed support in modern Australian political history on its initial return to the polls. Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Howard and so on all went backwards.
It is true Albanese is starting from a low base because of his slender victory in 2022. Still, should Labor hold its ground, this will surely owe something to an acceptance by the electorate, even if grudging, that Albanese deserves a second term. In other words, this could not merely be considered a victory by default, but also a degree of positive endorsement of his prime ministership.
On the cusp of his 2013 election win, Abbott pledged a return to “grown-up” government. After three years of destructive leadership conflict between Rudd and Gillard, he assured voters the “adults” would be back in charge. Over the course of the next nine years of Coalition rule, Abbott’s promise went woefully unfulfilled. It was a period blighted by further leadership civil war and policy indolence. By way of contrast, Albanese’s government has been united, orderly, industrious and scandal-free.
With the exceptions of the Gillard and Turnbull administrations, the other post-Howard governments have been notable for departing from conventional cabinet practices, an unhealthy level of leadership centralisation, a domineering Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and a tendency to run roughshod over the bureaucracy. The evidence from Albanese’s first term is he has learned from, and chiefly avoided, these follies.
An admirer of the governance practices of Hawke and Howard, the latter whom he closely observed over the despatch box between 1996 and 2007, Albanese does not “sweat the small stuff”. He avoids micromanaging his government, as Rudd was notoriously guilty of.
Detractors attribute this to a dearth of policy curiosity and a want of drive. But, whatever its explanation, the effect has been to give a competent ministerial team, many of them battle-scarred veterans of the tumultuous Rudd-Gillard years, leeway in their portfolios rather than choking their autonomy. The prime minister reaches down only when things “go awry” and, in those circumstances, he intervenes “forcefully” to “assume control”.
His PMO, headed since 2022 by Tim Gartrell, has been largely stable and has resisted the excessive command and control methods of many of its predecessors. After a decade of cutbacks under the Coalition and the degrading of its policy function through widespread outsourcing to giant consulting firms, the public service has been replenished and its policy input encouraged and respected.
Albanese has maintained a tight group of ministerial confidants around him, including the talented economics portfolio duo of Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Mark Butler, Penny Wong and Tony Burke.
The continuity in membership of this “kitchen cabinet” suggests a prime minister gifted in collaboration and relationship management.
The downside to the ‘lone wolf’
The story is not all blue skies. As originally identified by the political correspondent, Katharine Murphy, now a media director in Albanese’s office, his early life as the only child of a single mother and invalid pensioner planted in him a powerful streak of self-sufficiency. This “lone wolf” element can see him lapse into relying too much and too stubbornly on his own judgement.
After a lifetime in the game, he is convinced he possesses uncommon political instincts. Yet his radar is sometimes astray. Examples include little things such as attending the wedding of shock jock Kyle Sandilands, as well as bigger miscalculations, such as purchasing an expensive beachfront property during a housing affordability crisis.
Few, if any, prime ministers avoid the urge for captain’s calls. Indeed, on occasions, going out on a solitary limb is essential for leaders. But Albanese has left ministers high and dry with some of his unilateral interventions, including blindsiding and humiliating environment minister and one-time leadership rival, Tanya Plibersek, by vetoing legislation to establish a national environment protection authority.
Albanese routinely cites a laundry list of achievements from the past three years. Against a backdrop of significant international turbulence, Labor’s handling of the economy has been mostly deft: inflation has been reduced, employment has grown, interest rates are finally on a downward trajectory and real wages have increased.
Analysis indicates it is households from low socioeconomic areas that have benefited most from the government’s tax and welfare changes. In short, redistributive action we expect from a Labor government.
The government has thrown its weight behind pay increases for poorly renumerated and predominantly female workforces in aged care and childcare. Childcare support has been extended and cheaper medicines delivered.
Labor has also introduced free TAFE and trimmed the debts of university students. In addition, the government has presided over amendments to industrial relations laws to improve protections for vulnerable workers in the gig economy.
Notwithstanding criticisms of its approval of new fossil fuel projects, Labor has pursued a concerted strategy to curb carbon emissions, encouraging a major increase in renewable energy supply and implementing complementary measures such as the vehicle efficiency standards scheme.
On the other hand, there have been glaring gaps in the Albanese government’s record. These include:
the stalling on banning gambling advertising, despite this being widely desired by the Australian public
the failure to lift many of the most disadvantaged members of the community out of poverty through a meaningful increase in JobSeeker and related income support payments, despite this being repeatedly recommended by the Labor appointed Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee
the inadequate due diligence applied to the Morrison government’s AUKUS agreement, an oversight all the more imprudent given the inconstancy of Trump’s America
the doleful silence on the Uluru Statement of the Heart agenda since the defeat of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum. This leaves Albanese at risk of joining several of his predecessors, including Malcolm Fraser and Hawke, who later identified the lack of progress on First Nations affairs as the greatest regret of their prime ministerships.
The government’s reputation for stolidity has been exacerbated by Albanese’s deficiencies. In retrospect, he booby-trapped his own prime-ministership by crouching too low at the 2022 election. The Australian people wanted desperately to be rid of Morrison, affording Labor scope for a more expansive manifesto. The absence of audacity in the party’s program undoubtedly contributed to the public’s tepid embrace of the incoming government. Labor’s primary vote was at a century low.
In turn, because Albanese was intent on not exceeding his narrow mandate, he was hamstrung in office. He had to be needled by colleagues to finally walk away at the beginning of 2024 from the campaign promise not to amend Morrison’s stage three tax cuts despite their regressive nature – a change of stance the public welcomed.
His pedestrian communication skills, while congruent with his everyman persona, have had a dulling effect on his government. As Gillard did to her cost, he seems to operate on the premise his government will be known by its deeds rather than words or gestures of emotional freight. He is devoid of memorable or moving phrasing. Where Keating had the Redfern address, Rudd the Stolen Generation apology and Gillard, after repetitive provocation, the misogyny speech, it is hard to imagine Albanese delivering anything commensurately stirring or enduring.
The lament that governments lack an overarching narrative is commonplace in contemporary politics. But Albanese has showed little proclivity for weaving a compelling tale for his government, to joining the dots between its actions, or projecting what lies ahead on the horizon.
In that absence, each measure has been at risk of disappearing into the ether through the warp-speed media cycle. And he has been conspicuously tongue-tied on interpreting Australia’s national identity, a theme fruitfully mined by his most accomplished predecessors. At a moment when the distinctiveness of Australia’s democracy has come into sharp relief, this is a missed opportunity.
Some Labor insiders are confident that, in a second term, Albanese will pursue a more adventurous program. Change to an outmoded tax regime, which is particularly fuelling generational inequality, is widely considered the holy grail of reform.
One reason why the centre is holding better in Australia relative to other comparable democracies can be traced back to the modernising reforms executed in the final decades of the 20th century by the governments of Hawke and Keating, and the early Howard government. Crucially, under the former intrepid Labor duo, major social stabilisers were also introduced, such as Medicare and compulsory superannuation.
Though not without their own destabilising effects, these policy innovations helped insulate Australia from the deadly combination of drastic austerity, severe erosion of living standards and gross inequalities experienced in a number of other countries. These are the conditions on which aggressive right-wing populism has dined. The rub is, however, that the reforms of late last century are running out of puff, and patching the policy edifice built in those years is also exhausting its utility. We are on borrowed time.
If he is returned to the prime ministership on Saturday, there is an imperative for Albanese to spread his wings, to go beyond doggedly nudging the country along. Yet the danger is he will interpret election success as proof of his self-narrative that he has always been underestimated. As confirmation of his rare power of political intuition. As evidence he need not deviate from his first term formula of what he characterises as “considered, measured government”.
Albanese is a well-intentioned prime minister of evidently decent values. An individual of good character at the helm of nations matters, as anyone who studies leadership comes to recognise. What we can confidently say of him is that as prime minister, he has fulfilled the injunction of the Greek physician and philosopher, Hippocrates: “first, do no harm”.
In an era in which the potential of mad and bad rulers to wreak havoc is painfully on display, doing no harm is actually quite a mighty thing. To have a prime minister, who believes, as Albanese said during one of the campaign leader debates, that “kindness isn’t weakness” is, indeed, comforting as we witness shrivel-hearted strong men menance the globe.
Albanese has been a proficient as well as a lucky general. But we are right to yearn for more. A second term will test whether he can make the transition from a solid to a weather-making prime minister. We will also discover, should that step be beyond him, if he has the self-knowledge and grace of spirit, to pass the office on.
In the past, Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council
In searching for the “real” Peter Dutton, it is possible to end up frustrated because you have looked too hard.
Politically, Dutton is not complicated. There is a consistent line in his beliefs through his career. Perhaps the shortest cut to understanding the Liberal leader is to go back to his maiden speech, delivered in February 2002.
The former Queensland policeman canvassed “unacceptable crime rates”, the “silent majority”, the “aspirational voters”, how the “politically correct” had a “disproportionate say in political debate”, the “grossly inadequate sentences” dispensed by the courts, and the centrality of national security. The way the last was handled was “perhaps the most significant challenge our society faces today,” the novice MP told the House of Representatives.
“National security” would be a foundational pillar of Dutton’s career, as well as his political security blanket.
Dutton had been a member of the Liberal Party since about age 18 and hoped “to use my experience both in small business and in law enforcement to provide perhaps a more practical view on some of the issues and problems” of the day.
The 32-year-old Dutton, who’d recently been in the building business with his father, following his nine years in the police force, arrived in parliament on a high, as something of a dragon-slayer in his Brisbane seat of Dickson. He had defeated Labor’s Cheryl Kernot, former leader of the Australian Democrats who had jumped ship in a spectacular defection in October 1997.
Dutton came from Brisbane’s outer suburbia, just as the Liberals were reorienting their focus towards this constituency, the so-called “Howard battlers”.
The eager newcomer was soon noted by the prime minister who, after the 2004 election, appointed him to the junior ministry. One Liberal insider from the time says that when campaigning in Dickson, John Howard saw Dutton “was very good at establishing himself in a marginal seat”. (Years later, when a redistribution turned Dickson into a notional Labor seat for the 2010 election, Dutton tried to do a runner to the safe seat of McPherson. But he failed to win preselection; in the event he held Dickson with a hefty swing. This election Dickson is on 1.7%.)
Dutton brought to his first ministry, workforce participation, the view he had expressed in his maiden speech: “We are seeing an alarming number of households where up to three generations – in many cases by choice – have never worked in their lives, and a society where in many cases rights are demanded but no responsibility is taken.”
By 2006 he had been promoted by Howard to assistant treasurer, a job that gave the ambitious Dutton a chance to work closely with Treasurer Peter Costello. Nick Minchin was finance minister then. He paints a picture of Dutton as a sort of guard dog protecting the revenue. In the cabinet expenditure review committee, “Peter was particularly helpful and supportive of Costello and my fending off the demands of spending ministers”.
The one-time police officer was “strong and resolute in questioning ministers”. Minchin was impressed; the junior minister was “obviously going places”.
From defensive to offensive
After the Liberals went into opposition, Dutton “shadowed” health, becoming health minister in Tony Abbott’s government after the 2013 election.
His legacy from the health portfolio dogs him in this campaign. He presided over the government’s failed attempt in the 2014 budget to put a co-payment on bulk-billed services. A poll conducted by Australian Doctor magazine voted him the worst health minister in memory.
A former senior public servant who observed him at the time presents a more positive picture, saying it was a very difficult time and Dutton was well across the complexity of the portfolio. On the notorious co-payment, Abbott says it was not Dutton’s idea: “It was absolutely 150% my idea”.
When in December 2014 Abbott moved him to immigration and border protection, Dutton was both in his comfort zone and on the escalator. Looking back, Abbott says Dutton was “a better match” for that portfolio. “In health the Coalition tends to play a defensive game. In border protection it plays an offensive game.”
Partnered by empire-building bureaucrat Mike Pezzullo, Dutton agitated for the creation of a mega security department (a push that earlier originated with Scott Morrison when he was in immigration). Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull felt the need to accommodate Dutton – then one of his conservative backers – with the creation of the home affairs super department, which was controversial and divided ministers. Someone who observed him closely in that portfolio says Dutton was always clear what he wanted, but didn’t get too deeply involved in the processes of policy.
Dutton, however, had another goal, and the turmoil surrounding Turnbull’s leadership seemed to offer the opportunity to shoot for the top. It was a false hope. Tactically outsmarted by Turnbull, Dutton lost the first face-off between the two in August 2018. The second bout, later the same week, provided not victory but a pathway to the prime ministership for Scott Morrison.
It wasn’t all downside for Dutton: during the Morrison government he became defence minister. The post suited a China hawk when the bilateral relationship was in a deep trough.
Early on, he met with one-time Labor defence minister (and later Labor leader) Kim Beazley. Beazley recalls: “He wanted to talk to me about what being defence minister was like”. They spoke about submarines: Beazley suggested Australia should cancel its then-existing contract for French conventional submarines and get a new contract for their nuclear subs (this was before AUKUS).
“He knew a fair bit,” Beazley says. “So he was looking to think a way through the huge problems we confronted.” Dutton was “aware we were slipping into an era of constant danger. He had all the attitude you would want of a contemporary defence minister” (although, Beazley adds, the Morrison government had “a propensity for unfunded defence annoucements”).
Leadership and control
By the time the Liberals went into opposition, Dutton was the only leadership candidate standing. His long-term rival Josh Frydenberg had lost his seat – a bonus for Dutton, who hasn’t had to look over his shoulder in the past three years, but a big loss for a party deprived of choice. The Liberals’ moderate wing had been decimated with the rise of the “teals”.
Many immediately declared Dutton unelectable, a view that would soften over time, then return again, to an extent, close to the election.
As opposition leader, Dutton’s laser-like focus was on keeping the party together, avoiding the backbiting and schisms that often follow a serious loss. Colleagues found him approachable and willing to listen. A backbencher says: “He was always very respectful of people in the party room. He will make himself available if people want to talk.”
Yet how much was he willing to hear? The same backbencher says, “I don’t think there was a lot of consultation in the development of policy – it was a bit of a black box. The emphasis has been on unity and discipline.”
Russell Broadbent, a moderate Liberal who defected to the crossbench in 2023 when he lost preselection for his seat of Monash (which he is recontesting an an independent) says, “I’ve never had a cup of tea or a meal with [Dutton]. I wasn’t in his group – I was on the wrong side of the party somewhere.” He says their only conversation was when Dutton told him his preselection was under threat. Broadbent said he knew his opponents had the numbers: Dutton asked whether he’d go to the crossbench. “I said, ‘probably’”.
Anthony Albanese gave his opponent a big political break, when the Voice, opposed by the Coalition, crashed spectacularly in October 2023. The prime minister had invested heavily in a doomed and faulty campaign that misread the mood of Australians, just when many people were being dragged down by the cost of living.
It took Albanese well over a year to recover his stride. Indeed, he did not do so fully until early 2025, when a pre-campaign burst of announcements put the government in a strong position. Dutton’s miscalculation was to believe that when he had Albanese down, his opponent would be out for the count.
Dutton gambled by holding back key policies until the campaign and making the opposition a relatively small target. The big exception was the nuclear pitch, released fairly early and driven in part by the need to keep the Nationals, a number of whom were restive about the Coalition commitment to the 2050 net zero emissions target, in the tent. Saturday’s result will be the ultimate test of the “hold back” tactic.
As the election neared, there was increasing criticism in Coalition ranks of the handling of the campaign, which has been shambolic at times. One example was the delay in producing modelling for a signature policy – the proposal for a gas reservation scheme. That pales beside the fiasco of the (aborted) plan to force Canberra public servants back into the office.
The bold defence policy, to take spending to 3% of GDP within a decade, was not only released after pre-polling had started, but came without detail.
On strategy and tactics, Dutton is controlling, wanting to keep things tight, in his own hands or those of a small group. Perhaps it is the policeman’s mindset. Certainly it has worked to the disadvantage of his campaign, which has appeared under-cooked on large and small things. Among the latter, Dutton’s office insisted on doing his transcripts, rather than having them done by the campaign HQ. Predictably, they were overwhelmed and the transcripts ran late.
Dutton seemed to be working on the assumption he was in a similar situation to Abbott in 2013, when Labor was gone for all money. But this election people needed to be convinced the alternative was robust and, late in the day, many swinging voters remained sceptical about that. Dutton is a strong negative campaigner, who hasn’t put much work into strengthening his weaker skill set to be a “positive” voice as well.
Going into the campaign’s final days, Labor held the edge in the polls. But the Liberals maintained that in key marginals, the story was rather different.
There is a degree of mismatch between the private Dutton and the public figure. Often those who meet or know him remark that one-to-one or in small groups he is personable. Yet his public demeanour is frequently awkward and somewhat aloof. This leaves him open to caricature, and raises the question of why he has been so unsuccessful in projecting more of his private self into his public image.
The latest Newspoll, published Sunday night, had Dutton’s approval rating at minus 24, compared to Anthony Albanese’s minus 9. A just-released Morgan poll on trust in leaders found Dutton had the highest net distrust score (when people were asked in an open-ended question to nominate whom they trusted and distrusted). It’s a long-term thing: he was third in the 2022 list.
The gender problem that dogs the Liberals
One of Dutton’s problems has been the women’s vote. The Poll Bludger’s William Bowe says looking at the polls, “Dutton wasn’t doing too badly [with women] in the first half of the term, but a gap opened up in 2024 and substantially widened in 2025”. Sunday’s Newspoll found 66% of female voters had “little or no confidence” the Coalition was ready to govern, compared to 58% of male voters.
Retiring Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, who preceded Dutton in the defence portfolio, has worked on gender issues in the Liberal Party for 15 years. She believes this is “a party problem, not specifically a Peter Dutton problem”. She says the Liberals’ failure to embrace and deal with gender issues “leaves the leader of the day vulnerable”.
Kos Samaras, from Redbrige political consultancy, agrees. “It’s a brand issue, rather than him personally. He’s just the leader of [the brand].” Scott Morrison made the brand problem a lot worse. “It’s gone back to a normal [Liberal] problem, be it still bad.”
There are differences between constituencies, but there is a “very significant problem with professional women”, Samaras says, which highlights the Liberals’ challenge with the “teal” seats.
Dutton is classic right-wing on law and order, defence policy, nationalism, anti-wokeness, and much more. But he can be pragmatic when the politics demands.
He was personally opposed to marriage equality, but was behind the postal survey that enabled the Turnbull government to achieve it, so removing the issue from the agenda. And the China hawk has recently softened his line on that country, in part to facilitate a pitch for the votes of Chinese-Australians, alienated by the Morrison government.
In this campaign, Dutton has been painted by his opponents as “Trump-lite”. Confronted with this in the third leaders’ debate, he was unable to provide an answer. Initially expecting the election of Trump would be potentially helpful for the opposition, he failed to appreciate the dangers for him, which only increased as the new president became more arbitrary and unpredictable.
The opposition leader’s anti-public service attitude might be a milder version of Trump’s stand but it is also a Queenslander’s view of Canberra, as well as typical of what the Liberals roll out before elections. But his appointment of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency was blatantly and foolishly Trumpian.
Dutton is not nimble or nuanced. He is also prone to going off half-cocked, which can lead to missteps (as when he wrongly said the Indonesian president had announced a Russian request to base planes in Papua). Earlier examples are easy to find. In his autobiography A Bigger Picture, Turnbull wrote of him that he would do interviews with right-wing shock jock in which he would “echo their extreme views […] He always apologised for going too far, and I generally gave him the benefit of the doubt”.
Dutton talks little about Liberal Party history, or political philosophy. Is he ideological? Abbott says he is ideological in the way Howard was. “He has strong instincts, he has convictions but they are more instinctual than ideological.”
Dutton at every opportunity points to Howard as his lodestar. Howard also came from a small business family, didn’t have much time for the public service, and had the quality of political doggedness. Regardless of some similarities, however, it is a very long stretch to see Dutton walking in Howard’s shoes.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Major parties used to easily dismiss the rare politician who stood alone in parliament. These MPs could be written off as isolated idealists, and the press could condescend to them as noble, naïve and unlikely to succeed.
In November 1930, when independent country MP Harold Glowrey chose to sit on the crossbench of the Victorian parliament while his few peers joined the new United Country Party, the local newspapers emphasised that he could not “become a cabinet minister” or “have a say” in making policy from the sidelines. (As if he wasn’t aware.) Australia was a place where, according to the scribes at The Ouyen Mail, “very few constituencies were prepared to elect independent men”.
Things are rather different now. Lifelong loyalty to a single party has become a rarer thing among voters, with the Australian Election Study showing fewer than four in ten voters give their first preference vote to the same party at each election. It was more than seven in ten back in 1967.
Voters have gravitated towards alternatives to the two major parties. A new interactive data tool from the ABC shows just how much more competitive federal elections have become. Australians are now world leaders in sending independents to represent them in state and federal parliaments.
And who could call the independents of the recent past naïve? Independent MPs held the balance of power in New South Wales in the early 1990s, and in Victoria later that decade. Both parliaments saw substantive reforms and improved parliamentary processes.
A strong track record
At the federal level, a lineage of independents such as Ted Mack, Peter Andren, Zali Steggall, Cathy McGowan and her successor in Indi Helen Haines have all found new ways to give voice to their community in parliament. Voters, especially in rural electorates and formerly “safe” seats, have been attracted to candidates who promise to “do politics differently”, as McGowan so often puts it.
There are dozens of candidates making that promise at this election. At least 129 candidates are listed on House of Representatives ballot papers as independent or unaffiliated candidates in 88 seats. That’s almost twice as many independent candidates than in the 2013 election for the lower house. Around 35 of these are community independent candidates. A further 28 people are running as independents or ungrouped candidates in Senate races.
So who are the independent candidates, and what role might they play after May 3?
Who are the independent candidates?
For a start, around a third of all independent candidates for House of Representatives seats are women. Among the “community independent” candidates (commonly referred to as “teals”), it’s closer to four out of five.
This is entirely in keeping with the role daring women have played as the strongest custodians of non-party politics in Australia over the past 120-odd years.
Most of the women on ballot papers this year are professionals and public figures. Nicolette Boele, candidate for Bradfield, NSW, is a former consultant and clean energy financier who came close to unseating cabinet minister Paul Fletcher in 2022. In the seat of Calare, also in NSW, candidate Kate Hook describes herself as “a professional working mum” and “small farmer” with an interest in regional development and renewable energy. Caz Heise, candidate for Cowper (NSW) is a healthcare expert who carved a sizeable chunk out of the National Party vote in 2022. Independent candidate for Groom (Queensland) Suzie Holt is a social worker by training who finished second at the last election. Berowra’s Tina Brown is a local magazine publisher with deep roots in Sydney’s Hills District.
Who are the dozens on men putting themselves forward? Many are former mayors and councillors running for parliament while the opportunity presents itself. There are a small but noteworthy coterie of men running on a specifically Muslim platform, some of whom are running with the support of the Muslim Votes Matter organisation.
Of the few “teal” men, the most competitive by far is Alex Dyson, a third-time candidate in the western Victorian seat of Wannon, currently held by Dan Tehan, shadow minister for immigration and citizenship.
A former Triple-J presenter and comedian with a “side-hustle” as an Uber driver, Dyson will hope to benefit from his positioning at the top of the ballot paper for Wannon.
Crossbench contenders
Most of the women who swept into parliament in 2022 are campaigning to retain their seats. Dai Le in Fowler, Sophie Scamps in Mackellar, Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, Monique Ryan in Kooyong and Kate Chaney in Curtin all fit that category. Kylea Tink, who won the division of North Sydney in 2022, was inadvertently knocked out of the race by the Australian Electoral Commission, which abolished her seat last year.
Andrew Gee, Russell Broadbent and Ian Goodenough are all incumbent MPs running as independents in seats where they were previously elected as Coalition candidates. Tasmania’s Andrew Wilkie, a long-serving independent with first-hand experience of a federal hung parliament, is seeking his sixth successive victory.
Bob Katter and the Centre Alliance’s Rebekah Sharkie also seeking re-election to the lower house, while in the Senate, crossbenchers such as David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie are all looking to retain their places. So is Coalition defector Gerard Rennick, who quit the Liberal National Party in Queensland over a preselection loss.
Rennick’s is perhaps the tallest order of that bunch, but none of them can take anything for granted. Even Katter, with his half-century of parliamentary experience and huge local popularity, is almost 80 and is facing a large field of younger challengers, all of whom will appear above him on the ballot paper.
Campaign blues?
Plenty of people have been watching national opinion polls during this campaign. But the polls are not terribly insightful for seat-by-seat contests involving large numbers of independent contenders. Even experienced pollsters are saying it has “never been harder to get pre-election polling right”.
Months out from the election, polls conducted on behalf of Climate 200 were showing possible wins for Heise in Cowper and Boele in Bradfield. Both could win. Heise has reportedly amassed a formidable team of 3,500 volunteers in support of her grassroots campaign.
But the pressure and scrutiny of an election campaign can quickly put frontrunners under pressure. This is certainly true of Boele, whose campaign momentum stalled with a surprising scandal involving an inappropriate comment in a hair salon, as well as distancing herself from allegedly antisemitic posts on her social media posts in 2022, saying a former volunteer was responsible for them.
Multi-cornered contests between defector MPs, the major parties and community independents will also make for interesting viewing on election night. Broadbent and Goodenough both seemed quietly confident about their prospects when asked by the Australian Financial Review last week. The same cannot be said for Calare’s Andrew Gee, who began the election with a “Facebook fail” and has since endured a stressful few weeks of bitter campaigning.
When it comes to winning back the seats that independents won last time, Liberal feelings range from bullishness to bluster. Daniel faces a well-resourced campaign from her predecessor Tim Wilson in Goldstein and nothing is being spared in the contest against Chaney in Curtin.
In Kooyong, Ryan’s campaign has been hampered by the occasional error, such as her husband’s removal of an opponent’s corflutes and an awkward exchange with Sky News reporter Laura Jayes. In an election dominated by the housing affordability crisis, voters are less likely to remember these moments than the revelations that Ryan’s Liberal opponent, Amelia Hamer, a self-identified renter, happens to own two investment properties.
The biggest drama has been in the affluent Sydney seat of Wentworth, where Spender has weathered attacks about her political donations disclosures and approach to tackling antisemitism.
An anonymous person circulated 47,000 leaflets through the electorate criticising Spender’s “weakness” on antisemitism, flagrantly breaching electoral laws that require campaign material to be authorised. The Australian Electoral Commission has identified the culprit (said to have “acted alone”), but has been less forthcoming about whether it intends to litigate the issue after the election.
Making minority work
It seems premature to start talking, as some pollsters have, about a Labor majority after May 3. It remains entirely possible crossbenchers may hold the balance of power, and in doing so, exert significant influence on the next government.
In the third leaders’ debate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, normally pragmatic, refused to countenance sharing power with other parties or MPs. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton made the surprising admission he would willingly make agreements with independent MPs in order to win.
He certainly wasn’t thinking of the “teals”, whom he so often berates as “Greens in disguise”. But there are others with whom he could easily work. Katter, Spender and Le are among Dutton’s preferred negotiating partners. Sharkie has already declared that in a hung parliament scenario, she would call Dutton first.
There is no rulebook for making a hung parliament work. In the past, new political configurations and coalitions have been born from hung parliaments, including the forerunners of the Liberal-National coalition.
Agreements can be limited to assurances of support on budget bills and confidence motions, or more expansive undertakings including policy commitments and institutional reform. In the event of a parliamentary impasse, crossbenchers can withdraw their support and allow a new minority government to be formed. The Australia Institute’s Frank Yuan recently pointed out seven changes of government have been triggered by the withdrawal of crossbench support. Indeed, during the second world war, two independent MPs effectively changed the government mid-term.
Much depends on the relationships forged at the start of a hung parliament. In his memoir, former New England MP Tony Windsor recounts the seventeen days of negotiations that followed the 2010 election. One of the factors that led him, along with follow independent Rob Oakeshott, to support the Labor Party was the “professionalism” and “respect” its leaders showed them. Former Coalition leader Tony Abbott, by way of contrast, gave Windsor the impression he was unlikely to endure minority government long enough to honour any of his commitments.
An especially aspirational crossbencher may even take on the role of Speaker. Wilkie and Sharkie have been recently touted as contenders for the role in a hung parliament scenario.
Reform hangs in the balance
Independents MPs would be likely to bring particular policy priorities to any minority government negotiation. Given the heated contests in independent electorates, truth in political advertising laws would probably be high on the agenda. Steggall has previously promoted reforms to Stop the Lies, but when the Albanese government chose not to progress its own version of this reform, independents signalled it would be high on their priority list in a hung parliament.
Crossbenchers – in both houses – might also treat recent changes to Australia’s electoral laws as a bargaining chip. Those changes, agreed between Labor and the Coalition in secret, promised to get big money out of politics by imposing donation and spending caps on everyone but with special caveats for major parties. Haines has declared these are “in her sights” if a hung parliament arises.
The menu of reform options gets wider from there. Spender has called for labour market and tax reforms that may not be palatable to all of her peers.
In the Senate (where “every day is minority government”), Pocock has outlined his firm demands for greater royalties from resources rents and reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. Energy and climate policy, as well as support for rural Australia, would likely figure in a larger negotiation.
The crossbenchers would be hard-pressed to agree on everything, but there is strength and wisdom in numbers. Albanese and Dutton are both very experienced parliamentarians. Crossbenchers would likely need to put their heads together to exert maximum leverage.
If there is a hung parliament after May 3, history shows us it can be put to good use. The 43rd parliament, in which the Gillard government was in minority, was one of the most productive in recent history. It passed 561 bills including landmark measures such as the Clean Energy Future package and its centrepiece, a carbon price. It also passed needs-based funding for Australian schools, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and plenty more.
That seems a decent enough model for the next parliament to emulate. After all, as Harold Glowrey seemed to appreciate nearly a century ago, not everyone needs to be a cabinet minister to play their part in shaping the future.
Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.
The year is 1972. The Whitlam Labor government has just been swept into power and major changes to Australia’s immigration system are underway. Many people remember this time for the formal end of the racist White Australia Policy.
A lesser-known legacy of this period was the introduction of Australia’s first immigration amnesty. This amnesty, implemented later in 1974 with bilateral support, provided humane pathways to permanency or citizenship for undocumented people in Australia.
In other words, people living without lawful immigration status could “legalise” their status without risk of punishment or deportation.
More immigration amnesties were promised during later election campaigns and then implemented in 1976 and 1980.
These amnesties occurred under successive Labor and Liberal federal governments, and each enjoyed enthusiastic bipartisan support.
So, how did these amnesties work – and could they happen again?
Started by Whitlam
Australia’s first amnesty was announced in January 1974, as part of the Whitlam government’s official policy of multiculturalism.
Its purpose was to grant permanency to people who had been living in Australia “illegally” and at risk of labour exploitation.
The amnesty was open for five months, from late January until the end of June 1974.
The main eligibility criteria was that the person:
had to have been living in Australia for three years or more and
be of “good character”.
This program had only a modest uptake. However, it set the path for more successful initiatives in the future.
Continued by Fraser
During the 1975 election campaign, then caretaker Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser promised another amnesty if his government won the election.
He committed to “do everything we can” to allow undocumented people
to stay here and make Australia their permanent home.
After the election, Fraser’s Liberal government implemented a broad amnesty for “overstayed visitors” in January 1976.
Departmental figures show 8,614 people sought legal status in the amnesty period.
The vast majority (63%) lived in New South Wales. The main nationalities of these applicants were:
Greek (1,283 applicants)
UK (911 applicants)
Indonesian (748 applicants)
Chinese (643 applicants).
Australia’s third broad immigration amnesty came in 1980, again as a result of a bipartisan election promise.
Immigration Minister Ian Macphee announced a six-month Regularisation of Status Program. It aimed, he said, to deal “humanely with the problem of illegal immigration” while also seeking to curb such unauthorised migration in the future.
Not a trick
Many migrants worried these amnesties were a government “trick” to facilitate deportations.
In an attempt to reassure the public, Prime Minister Fraser insisted in 1980 that the program was
not a trap to lure people into the open so that they can be seized, jailed and deported.
By the end of the amnesty period in December 1980, it was reported that more than 11,000 applications had been received. This covered more than 14,000 people.
What made the past amnesties successful?
Our research looked at what motivated the amnesties and how they worked.
We found several key factors that drove success, including the need for:
simple and inclusive criteria for eligibility
a clear application process
a careful campaign for promotion, to build trust with migrant communities, and
durable outcomes that offer of clear pathways to citizenship.
The 1980 amnesty program involved an effective campaign to publicise successful cases.
A 21-year-old Greek waitress working in her aunt’s Goulburn restaurant was widely publicised as the first person to be granted immigration amnesty status in July 1980. A Uruguayan refugee was profiled as the 1,000th.
The Department of Immigration also translated amnesty information into 48 languages, publicised in non-English language press and radio.
Of the three amnesties, the 1974 one was the least successful, due to:
stringent eligibility criteria
limited media publicity, and
no official outreach strategy to build trust with migrant communities.
Precarious lives
Recent calls for an immigration amnesty has focused on two groups in Australia:
undocumented people, including migrant workers and international students, and
refugee applicants whose status has lapsed, or who cannot access permanent residency.
The Department of Home Affairs estimates more than 70,000 people live in Australia today without immigration status.
Undocumented workers are highly vulnerable to exploitation and deportation.
Yet, these workers often fulfil crucial labour market shortages. Many have been living in Australia for years or even decades.
Asylum seekers and refugees on temporary or no visas cannot return “home” for fear of persecution. They risk lapsing into irregular status with no rights or entitlements.
Lessons from past amnesties
Amnesties are a humane and cost-effective response to unauthorised migration.
Australia currently spends millions, if not billions of dollars, on the detention and deportation of people without visas.
In the lead up to both the 1976 and 1980 amnesties, successive governments acknowledged such a “detection and deportation” approach would be unnecessarily costly. It would require “increased resources in manpower”.
An amnesty, instead, was in the words of then Immigration Minister Macphee a chance to:
clean the slate, to acknowledge that no matter how people got here they are part of the community.
These historical precedents show Australia’s migration system and politicians could, if they wanted, accommodate initiatives and reforms that fundamentally value migrants and prioritise migrant access to permanency.
Our research also shows Australian election campaigns can be opportunities for advancing policies that embrace the reality of immigration and offer hope, not fear.
Sara Dehm receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a co-convenor of the interdisciplinary academic network, Academics for Refugees.
Anthea Vogl receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Departure of Health and Aged Care. She is a Board Member of the Forcibly Displaced People Network and co-convenor of the interdisciplinary academic network, Academics for Refugees.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jim Costa Representing 16th District of California
FRESNO, Calif. – Congressman Jim Costa (CA-21) is leading the charge to rein in presidential overreach on trade by cosponsoring and actively pushing H.R. 407 – Prevent Tariff Abuse Act, legislation to block the President of the United States from using national emergencies as a loophole to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. “Tariffs are a tax on American producers and consumers — plain and simple. In the San Joaquin Valley, where folks are already stretched thin by high costs, the last thing we need is a hidden tax making gas and groceries even more expensive. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to set trade policy. This bill is about restoring that authority and standing up for the people who are paying the price,” said Congressman Costa. BACKGROUNDCalifornia is the nation’s leading agricultural state, supplying roughly one-third of fresh fruit and vegetables, while exporting more than $23.6 billion in agricultural goods annually. The San Joaquin Valley is at the heart of this export economy, producing almonds, dairy, citrus, grapes, and dozens of other crops that are shipped around the world. The American Farm Bureau estimates that new retaliatory tariffs from Canada, Mexico, and China alone could impact nearly $30 billion in agricultural exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that California lost roughly $683 million in crop revenue due to President Trump’s 2018 tariffs. This significantly impacted processed/fresh fruits ($374 million), tree nuts ($199 million), and dairy products ($68 million), all of which are major commodities grown in Congressman Costa’s District and the San Joaquin Valley. The Yale Budget Labestimates that Trump’s tariffs will raise costs for American consumers by $3,400 to $4,200 a year. Tariffs imposed by President Trump in 2018 led to higher prices across the country for consumer goods, like washing machines and solar panels, and for intermediate goods, like aluminum and steel. The Prevent Tariff Abuse Act would stop the President from bypassing Congress to impose tariffs or quotas that raise costs on families. Current law allows the President to declare a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), originally meant to target hostile foreign threats with financial sanctions. However, it was never meant to let a President declare an “economic emergency” and impose tariffs on our allies without congressional approval.
OAKLAND —California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to deny the City of Huntington Beach’s petition for rehearing en banc in its federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain California housing laws. On October 30, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Huntington Beach’s federal lawsuit. The City subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc, so that the full Ninth Circuit could hear its federal lawsuit. Today’s order notes that “[t]he matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.” This leaves in place the Ninth Circuit’s October 30, 2024 decision.
“We are pleased that Huntington Beach’s latest attempt to exempt itself from our state’s housing laws has failed. All along, Governor Newsom and I have asserted that the City’s federal lawsuit is meritless and a waste of the public’s money,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Like every other city in California, Huntington Beach has a legal obligation to build its fair share of housing. We will be closely monitoring what the City decides to do next. Our state lawsuit against Huntington Beach is also on appeal. We remain confident we will prevail there, too.”
The fourth election debate was the most idiosyncratic of the four head-to-head contests between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
Apart from all the usual topics, the pair was charged with producing one-word responses to pictures of the prime minister’s Copacabana house, a three-eyed fish and Elon Musk.
They were asked the price of a dozen eggs. It’s an old trick from debates past, but those “prepping” the leaders had fallen down. Dutton said about A$4.20. Albanese was closer with “$7, if you can find them”. The actual price is $8.80 at Woolworths (or $8.50 at Coles). Watching at home, some viewers would have thought, “here are a couple of guys in the cost-of-living election who don’t do the shopping”.
Debate host Seven had an audience of 60 undecided voters, who scored the pair on a range of topics. They gave the overall result to Albanese over Dutton by 50%–25% with the other 25% undecided.
In general, Dutton pursued Albanese aggressively whenever he could, pressing the accusation he made in their last encounter that the prime minister does not tell the truth. “Honestly, this whole campaign, it’s hard to believe anything you say.”
Albanese, however, effectively marshalled his points and counterpoints on a number of the topics.
This showed in the scores the audience awarded on core issues. On cost of living, 65% gave the tick Albanese, and only 16% were more convinced by Dutton. On housing, Albanese also had a win, although more narrowly – 35% to 30%. With tax cuts, Albanese’s margin was 49% to 21%.
Dutton was openly critical of their extensive use. “I think a lot of Australians think it’s overdone and it cheapens the significance of what it was meant to do.”
Albanese was supportive of the ceremonies but circumspect. “Well, from my perspective, it’s a matter of respect, but it’s also, of course, up to the organisations that are hosting an event, whether they have a Welcome to Country or not. It’s up to them, and people will have different views, and people are entitled to their views.”
Dutton scored 46% to Albanese’s 27% on this topic.
One of the more bizarre moments came in a discussion about whether the leaders had US President Donald Trump’s mobile phone number. The prime minister said he was not sure whether the president even had a mobile phone (despite it being highly publicised Greg Norman had to pass the number onto former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when Trump was elected).
But Dutton coped with the question of trusting Trump better than in the last debate, when he had said he didn’t know him. Asked whether we could trust Trump to have our back, he said “We can trust whoever’s in the Oval Office”.
Pressed on which country posed the biggest threat to Australia’s security, Dutton said, “the biggest concern from our intelligence agencies and our defence agency is in relation to the Communist Party of China”.
Albanese talked around the question of whether China posed the biggest risk to Australia’s national security. “Well, China is the major power in the region which is seeking to increase its influence. But the relationship is complex as well, because China is our major trading partner.” And on and on his answer went.
On defence Dutton was well out in front in the minds of the audience, 43% to 37%.
Albanese would have gone home the happier of the two leaders. He won on the issues at the centre of the election.
As Tony Abbott once said, who needs sleep at the end of a campaign?
Dutton plans to visit up to 28 seats in the campaign’s final week, the majority of them held by Labor.
The Liberals say with the Coalition needing to gain 21 seats for a majority, the seats’ blitz underlines the election is winnable for the Coalition.
It also underlines the adrenaline rush leaders get in the dash to the finish line. In 2010 opposition leader Tony Abbott launched into a 36-hour non-stop blitz for the final three days of the election. “Why sleep at a time like this?” Abbott said. Prime Minister John Howard had finished his unsuccessful 2007 campaign blitzing shopping centres in Queensland.
Dutton started his marathon on Sunday in Labor territory with a rally in west Melbourne, in the seat of Hawke. The opposition leader’s seat list includes Solomon (NT), Aston (Victoria), Gilmore (NSW), Moreton (Queensland), Gorton (Victoria), Lyons (Tasmania), Dunkley (Victoria), Goldstein (Victoria), Kooyong (Vitoria), Paterson (NSW), Dobell (NSW), Bennelong (NSW), Bullwinkel (Western Australia) and Boothby (South Australia). Later on Sunday he was in the Sydney teal seat of Mackellar, where Howard also spoke in support of the Liberal candidate James Brown who is taking on independent Sophie Scamps.
But as each day passes, for an increasing number of voters in these and other seats the visits and messages will be irrelevant. They’ll have pre-polled. People are flocking to vote early. There are 11 days for pre-polling this election. Back in 2019 pre-polling ran for 19 days. As of Saturday, 2.4 million people had already pre-polled.
The politicians are vaguely resentful so many people are voting with their feet and avoiding, for a variety of reasons, the last days of what most commentators have thought has been an uninspiring campaign. Some of the politicians would like everyone to listen to their pitches right up to the end. But there is also a more practical reason why they regard pre-polling as a problem – they and their supporters have to spend long hours outside polling booths handing out how-to-vote cars.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have had their fourth and final leaders’ debate of the campaign. The skirmish, hosted by 7News in Sydney, was moderated by 7’s Political Editor Mark Riley.
Cost of living and housing affordability featured in the clash, with both leaders acknowledging the price pain being felt by many Australians. Immigration, US President Donald Trump, energy policy and welcome to country ceremonies were also thrashed out in a number of lively exchanges.
How did each leader perform? Have they done enough to convince undecided voters before polling day? Three experts give their analysis
Andy Marks, Western Sydney University
This is the election, Seven’s opening voiceover proclaimed, “that will decide the future of Welcome to Country ceremonies.”
Puzzled voters no doubt welcomed the promise of clarification. So Riley cut to the chase. Some people, he said, are “uncomfortable” with the ceremonies.
Dutton agreed:
I think a lot of Australians think it is overdone and cheapens the significance of what it was meant to do.“
Albanese said it was up to event organisers to decide whether to have a ceremony. On the lost Voice referendum? He “accepts the outcome”.
No fight. Just consensus from both leaders January 26 should remain as Australia Day.
Lack of spark was never going to stop Seven. A dramatic soundtrack rumbled away behind the leaders’ statements added an Oscars vibe, with each rushing their answers before being played off.
It worked. Halfway in, a fire was lit. “It’s hard to believe anything you say”, Dutton said to his opponent. “You’ve made promises you haven’t delivered. People are getting smashed.”
Albanese shot back. “Peter can attack me. But I won’t let him attack the wages of working people.”
Hostilities abated as Riley asked Albanese if he had Trump’s mobile number. “Do you have [UK Prime Minister] Keir Starmer’s?” Dutton added.
Nuclear power reheated the debate. “I am proud”, Dutton said of the Coalition’s energy plans. But he would not commit to visiting any of the proposed sites in the final days of the campaign.
Suddenly it became a science lesson. Dutton asked “how will solar work at night?” When you turn on a tap, Albanese responded, water still comes out even when it isn’t raining.
A highlight? Dutton almost quoted Taylor Swift. “The prime minister promises a band-aid on a bullet wound” he quipped on cost of living.
Blair Williams, Monash University
“This is the debate for every Australian”, the Channel 7 voiceover said at the start of the debate. However, to reference Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, I couldn’t help but wonder if this debate would truly include everyone.
We saw the usual quibbles between Albanese and Dutton over various crises, such as housing and the cost of living. Albanese argued he would help through initiatives such as cheaper medicines and childcare.
However, he put his foot down on scrapping negative gearing as it’s a measure that “will not build supply”.
Dutton’s response made it clear he was not planning to include “everyone” in this debate, as he quickly blamed immigrants for the housing crisis in Australia.
Riley posed a question to both leaders about Welcome to Country, saying booing during an ANZAC event sparked an “important discussion […] there are people in Australia who are uncomfortable being welcomed to Country”.
Riley asked both leaders if the ceremonies are “overdone”.
Dutton argued they do have a place but he wants “everyone to be equal” as “we are all equal”. Dutton said he wanted the country to be “one”. This overlooks how structural disadvantages, such as racism and sexism, result in inequality.
Albanese took a more Keating-esque perspective, citing ANZAC Day in New Zealand and the central place of Maori language in their events, emphasising the importance of First Nations people and multiculturalism in Australia.
The debate ended without any discussion of violence against women. So far this year, 24 women have been killed as a result of gendered violence, with three in just the past week. Yet both parties have barely mentioned it during the campaign or the debates.
Women’s issues were also barely raised. While Albanese mentioned cheaper childcare, Dutton failed to reference any issues that might specifically impact women. He has done little in this campaign and during this debate to win them over.
Instead, both leaders wasted time arguing over the Coalition’s plan to produce nuclear energy in 2035.
“Is this helping you decide?” Channel 7 asked viewers. For many women – and other – around the country, it merely showed two white men in suits and ties yelling over each other. This could explain why a third of Australians will preference a minor party or independent at the ballot box. Perhaps these are the voters who have felt left out.
Michelle Cull, Western Sydney University
While the debate started off friendly, it became quite heated very quickly. Dutton found it difficult to finish his talking points on time but had no problem interrupting Albanese. Cost of living was central to the debate.
There wasn’t much the leaders could agree on – no surprises there. Although both concurred there should be no change to the date for Australia Day.
When asked about Welcome to Country ceremonies, Dutton mentioned them happening at the “start of every meeting at work” and they were “divisive”. Perhaps there was some confusion here with Acknowledgement of Country.
Dutton focused on short-term cost-of-living relief and his fuel excise cuts. He blamed Albanese for high inflation, high interest rates and housing affordability issues. The prime minister was quick to remind him not everything was “hunky dory” when Labor took office.
Albanese did well to promote many of the Labor policies targeted at reducing cost of living through lower HECS-HELP, free TAFE and cheaper childcare. He was the only leader to include what his party was doing for renters and those in social housing, as well as first home buyers. Albanese also responded to Dutton’s short-term cost-of-living relief with Labor’s more permanent help through wage increases and tax cuts.
Dutton was clever enough to throw Labor’s proposed superannuation changes into the debate by referring to the plan to tax unrealised capital gains on superannuation balances greater than A$3 million. But this didn’t seem to make it much further in the debate, as it did not relate to the question being asked.
We’ll now have to wait until Saturday to see if the leaders really managed to sway any undecided voters.
Michelle Cull is an FCPA member of CPA Australia, member of the Financial Advice Association Australia and President Elect of the Academy of Financial Services in the United States. Michelle is an academic member of UniSuper’s Consultative Committee. Michelle co-founded the Western Sydney University Tax Clinic which has received funding from the Australian Taxation Office as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. Michelle has previously volunteered as Chair of the Macarthur Advisory Council for the Salvation Army Australia.
Andy Marks and Blair Williams do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Government of Alberta and Judiciary representatives with special guests at the Red Deer Justice Centre plaque unveiling event April 22, 2025.
Albertans deserve to have access to a fair, accessible and transparent justice system. Modernizing Alberta’s courthouse infrastructure will help make sure Alberta’s justice system runs efficiently and meets the needs of the province’s growing population.
Alberta’s government has invested $191 million to build the new Red Deer Justice Centre, increasing the number of courtrooms from eight to 12, allowing more cases to be heard at one time.
“Modern, accessible courthouses and streamlined services not only strengthen our justice system – they build safer, stronger communities across the province. Investing in the new Red Deer Justice Centre is vital to helping our justice system operate more efficiently, and will give people in Red Deer and across central Alberta better access to justice.”
On March 3, all court services in Red Deer began operating out of the new justice centre. The new justice centre has 12 courtrooms fully built and equipped with video-conference equipment to allow witnesses to attend remotely if they cannot travel, and vulnerable witnesses to testify from outside the courtroom.
The new justice centre also has spaces for people taking alternative approaches to the traditional courtroom trial process, with the three new suites for judicial dispute resolution services, a specific suite for other dispute resolution services, such as family mediation and civil mediation, and a new Indigenous courtroom with dedicated venting for smudging purposes.
“We are very excited about this new courthouse for central Alberta. Investing in the places where people seek justice shows respect for the rights of all Albertans. The Red Deer Justice Centre fills a significant infrastructure need for this rapidly growing part of the province. It is also an important symbol of the rule of law, meaning that none of us are above the law, and there is an independent judiciary to decide disputes. This is essential for a healthy functioning democracy.”
“Public safety and access to justice go hand in hand. With this investment in the new Red Deer Justice Centre, Alberta’s government is ensuring that communities are safer, legal matters are resolved more efficiently and all Albertans get the support they need.”
“This state-of-the-art facility will serve the people of Red Deer and surrounding communities for generations. Our team at Infrastructure is incredibly proud of the work done to plan, design and build this project. I want to thank everyone, at all levels, who helped make this project a reality.”
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts
The new Red Deer Justice Centre is 312,000 sq ft (29,000 m2). (The old courthouse is 98,780 sq ft (9,177 m2)).
The approved project funding for the Red Deer Justice Centre is about $191 million.
Related news
Red Deer’s first new courthouse in 40 years (Nov. 8, 2024)
Empowering Albertans dealing with family law matters (April 15, 2024)
Increasing access to family justice services (Dec. 1, 2023)
Le nouveau Centre judiciaire de Red Deer aidera les Albertaines et Albertains à régler leurs affaires juridiques plus rapidement.
Des représentants du système judiciaire et du gouvernement de l’Alberta accompagnés d’invités spéciaux lors du dévoilement d’une plaque au Centre judiciaire de Red Deer le 22 avril 2025.
Les Albertaines et Albertains méritent d’avoir accès à un système de justice équitable, accessible et transparent. La modernisation de l’infrastructure du palais de justice de l’Alberta aidera à faire en sorte que le système de justice de la province fonctionne efficacement et réponde aux besoins de la population croissante de la province.
Le gouvernement de l’Alberta a investi 191 millions de dollars dans la construction du nouveau Centre judiciaire de Red Deer, faisant passer le nombre de salles d’audience de 8 à 12, ce qui permet d’entendre plus de causes en même temps.
« Des palais de justice modernes et accessibles et des services simplifiés renforcent non seulement notre système de justice – ils construisent des communautés plus sûres et plus fortes dans toute la province. Il est essentiel d’investir dans le nouveau Centre judiciaire de Red Deer pour aider notre système judiciaire à fonctionner plus efficacement et donnera aux habitants de Red Deer et du centre de l’Alberta un meilleur accès à la justice. »
Le 3 mars, tous les services judiciaires de Red Deer ont commencé à fonctionner à partir du nouveau centre judiciaire. Le nouveau centre judiciaire comprend 12 salles d’audience entièrement construites et équipées d’équipement de vidéoconférence pour permettre aux témoins d’assister à distance s’ils ne peuvent pas se déplacer, et aux témoins vulnérables de témoigner depuis l’extérieur de la salle d’audience.
Le nouveau centre judiciaire offre également des espaces pour les personnes qui adoptent d’autres approches au processus traditionnel de procès en salle d’audience, avec les trois nouvelles pièces pour les services judiciaires de règlement des différends, une pièce spécifique pour d’autres services de règlement des différends, comme la médiation familiale et la médiation civile, et une nouvelle salle d’audience pour les Autochtones, où l’on se consacre exclusivement à la purification par la fumée.
« Nous nous réjouissons de ce nouveau palais de justice pour le centre de l’Alberta. Investir dans les endroits où les gens cherchent à obtenir justice, c’est respecter les droits de tous les Albertaines et Albertains. Le Centre judiciaire de Red Deer répond à un besoin important en infrastructure pour cette partie de la province qui connaît une croissance rapide. C’est aussi un symbole important de la primauté du droit, ce qui signifie qu’aucun d’entre nous n’est au-dessus de la loi et qu’il y a une magistrature indépendante pour trancher les différends. C’est essentiel pour une démocratie saine et fonctionnelle. »
« La sécurité publique et l’accès à la justice vont de pair. Grâce à cet investissement dans le nouveau Centre judiciaire de Red Deer, le gouvernement de l’Alberta veille à ce que les collectivités soient plus sûres, à ce que les questions juridiques soient réglées plus efficacement et à ce que tous les Albertaines et Albertains obtiennent le soutien dont ils ont besoin. »
« Cette installation à la fine pointe de la technologie servira les habitants de Red Deer et des collectivités environnantes pendant des générations. Notre équipe du ministère des Infrastructures est extrêmement fière du travail accompli pour planifier, concevoir et réaliser ce projet. Je tiens à remercier tous ceux qui, à tous les niveaux, ont contribué à la réalisation de ce projet. »
Le budget de 2025 répond au défi que doit relever l’Alberta en continuant d’investir dans l’éducation et la santé, en réduisant les impôts pour les familles et en mettant l’accent sur l’économie.
Faits en bref
Le nouveau Centre judiciaire de Red Deer mesure 312 000 pieds carrés (29 000 m2). (L’ancien palais de justice mesure 98 780 pieds carrés [9 177 m2]).
Le financement de projet approuvé pour le Centre judiciaire de Red Deer est d’environ 191 millions de dollars.
Nouvelles connexes
Red Deer’s first new courthouse in 40 years(en anglais seulement) (8 novembre 2024)
Empowering Albertans dealing with family law matters (en anglais seulement) (15 avril 2024)
Increasing access to family justice services (en anglais seulement) (1er décembre 2023)
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Shaxi town in Yunnan sees tourism boom after restoration
Updated: April 27, 2025 20:12Xinhua
A tourist (L) tries to make a piece of local traditional woodblock print known as Jiama at Sideng Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 18, 2025. A remote town in Jianchuan County, Shaxi was once an important trading hub for tea, herbs, silks and salt on the ancient Tea Horse Road, a trade route dating back to the Tang Dynasty (618-907). However, the trading hub in the late 19th century saw a decline because it was far away from emerging modern arterial roads, and other means of transport replaced the traveling caravans. Therefore, the local government initiated a restoration project with an aim to preserve its cultural heritage and landscape by improving infrastructure and promoting economic growth in Shaxi. Years of efforts are paying off. The town saw its old buildings renovated and sceneries beautified. Currently, Shaxi has turned into a desirable destination for tourists at home and abroad. In 2024 alone, Shaxi received over 3 million tourist trips from home and abroad, along with a total revenue of 4.298 billion yuan (about 58.98 million U.S. dollars). [Photo/Xinhua]A villager herds sheep by a river in Beilong Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 18, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]People visit a bookshop at Beilong Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 20, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]Jiang Wufa (2nd, R), an inheritor of arts for Shibaoshan Song Festival, a national intangible cultural heritage, rehearses with his apprentices in Shilong Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 19, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]An elderly woman of Bai ethnic group makes embroidered sachets in Hualong Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 20, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]An aerial drone photo taken on April 19, 2025 shows a view of the Yujin Bridge in Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province. [Photo/Xinhua]Villagers work in the field in Beilong Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 20, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]People visit an ancient stage at Sideng Village of Shaxi Town, Jianchuan County, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, April 21, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
I was hopeful that when the COVID-19 pandemic drew attention to the plight of senior citizens, the attention might result in meaningful change. Instead, seniors seem to be getting blamed for high costs and high living.
Let me set some context. The Canada Health Act is a remarkable document. It is simple and clear. Provinces must adhere to the principles of universal, reasonable access to comprehensive hospital and doctor care throughout Canada, without charge for medically necessary care and with funding from a publicly administered, non-profit health insurance plan.
Those with a health-care card can go to any hospital or doctor and do not have to worry about health-care bankruptcy or losing health-care coverage if they change jobs or travel across Canada. Because the rich use the same beds as everyone else, they have a vested interest in all beds being high quality.
A good start with good principles
The CHA and the public insurance programs that preceded it dramatically improved access to quality care, quality jobs and — not incidentally in these times — it promoted solidarity across ages, classes and genders through what became Canada’s best loved social program.
However, there are three basic problems with it. First, it was supposed to be the first step towards a system that covered home care, long-term care, eye, dental and pharmaceutical care, but it stalled there until very recently. Second, the principles depended on the federal government using its spending power for enforcement. And third, it failed to prohibit for-profit services being paid public money or doctors from operating in private practices.
There are gaping holes in access to care at home and in long-term care as well as to hospital care and primary care services. And equally important, there is less access to good jobs providing this care.
We hear a lot about how care at home is everyone’s first choice, but staying at home often requires skilled care, special facilities and support for things like food, cleaning and maintenance, as well as help with dressing and walking. Too often, what we mean by care at home is 24/7 care by female relatives, untrained and unpaid for the work, too often doing so to the detriment of their own health and economic future.
Too often it is about shifting costs and labour to families and individuals, not about choice or overall cost savings. Too often there is no choice.
There has been new federal money for health care, a significant amount of which is unconditional and thus available for home care. But we have seen little effective expansion.
If we are serious about home as the place to be, we need to provide the public support for the option, support that needs to go well beyond a few more temporary work permits for care providers.
Although remaining at home is many people’s first choice, people in long-term care say the benefits include feeling safe, there is company, there are activities, and women especially say there is someone to clean the bathroom and make the meals. (Shutterstock)
Nursing homes
Which takes me to nursing homes. At the same time as home care is talked about as the first choice, nursing homes are presented as the last and worst choice. We forget though that many people do not have homes, many homes are unsafe physically and/or in terms of abuse, many homes are isolating, and many people have 24-hour extensive care needs that cannot be accommodated in a private home.
When we ask residents about whether there is anything better about nursing homes compared to their private home, many say yes; they feel safe, there is company, there are activities, and women especially say there is someone to clean the bathroom and make the meals. Of course, we can and should make nursing homes better for people to live, work and visit in them, but we can’t forget that we need them and significantly more of them as well as more people to work in them.
And we need more community care clinics providing the full range of services. Here too the federal government has signed some targeted funding agreements but we need more and we need to severely limit private practice that contributes to fragmented care.
Of course good and fair health care costs money. But we have to remember that investments in care are an investment in the economy, in equity and in solidarity. The money does not go into a hole. It circulates in the economy. And investments in providing good conditions of work can save money at the same time as they promote care, given that the conditions of work are the conditions of care.
We need to put senior care back on the agenda in the aftermath of this election.
Pat Armstrong receives funding from SSHRC
I am a Board member of the Canadian Health Coalition and a member of the economic subgroup of the Ottawa Council on Aging
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ashika Niraula, Senior Research Associate, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration Program, Toronto Metropolitan University
Skilled migrants and international students are leaving the United States for Canada in growing numbers. A March 2025 report by Statistics Canada reveals a sharp rise in the numbers of American non-citizen residents moving to Canada. Reasons given are largely restrictive U.S. immigration policies, visa caps and long wait times for green cards.
This is a shift from earlier decades when American-born citizens dominated the trend. By 2019, nearly half of those making the move were U.S. non-citizen residents.
Since U.S. President Donald Trump’s election win and early days in office, Google searches by American residents on how to move to Canada, New Zealand and Australia have surged.
British Columbia recently announced plans to launch landmark policies to streamline the credential recognition process for internationally trained health-care professionals, particular American doctors and nurses.
Skilled talent like health-care professionals, researchers and engineers are essential to building innovative, future-ready economies. But attracting them requires staying competitive in an increasingly global bid for talent.
Global competition for talent
In this global race for talent, Canada and Australia need to offer not only efficient immigration pathways but also faster credential recognition and better integration support.
Yet both nations find themselves walking a tightrope. Once both celebrated as welcoming destinations for global talent, each country has experienced recent immigration restrictions and growing anti-immigration sentiments, undermining those reputations.
But for migrants in Canada, these goals are becoming harder to attain.
A more cautious approach
Since the pandemic, Canada’s immigration approach has shifted. During the early COVID-19 years, Canada was praised for its inclusive response, including recognizing immigrants as essential to economic recovery. Temporary workers, including essential workers, international student graduates and French-speaking immigrants, were offered new routes to permanent residency through a federal program.
However, since 2024, Canada has taken a more cautious approach.
While permanent residency is still more accessible than in the U.S., skilled migrants are increasingly questioning whether the wait for permanent residency is worth it.
Australia visa rules slow things down
Australia faces similar dilemmas. In late 2023, the government launched a new migration strategy to address critical workforce shortages in construction, tech and health care. The Skills in Demand visa promised faster processing and clearer pathways to permanent residency for workers in priority sectors.
Yet a recent report by the Grattan institute warns that tighter eligibility rules risk excluding much-needed talent, potentially weakening Australia’s competitiveness.
Growing visa delays are also noted to be an additional barrier that may deter both prospective migrants and employers.
Working in jobs far below qualifications
Migration data often tells a story of numbers, categories and eligibility thresholds. However, the human stories behind the numbers reveal deep systemic issues and missed opportunities. One recurring issue is the widespread phenomenon of deskilling.
In both Canada and Australia, many skilled migrants often find themselves working in jobs far below their qualifications.
These experiences are part of a pattern that affects not only individuals but also national economies, which lose out on the full potential of their skilled workforce.
Credential recognition systems are opaque, inconsistent and frequently biased.
Another overlooked issue is that many skilled migrants do not move alone. People arrive with spouses, children and sometimes elderly parents.
Yet immigration and settlement systems in both countries are largely structured around individual economic migrants rather than families. In Canada, for instance, federally funded settlement services are mainly geared toward supporting only permanent residents.
Many spouses, particularly women, face even greater barriers to employment. Issues also include things like high fees for visa processing for parents. Other considerations include children who may struggle with schooling and identity in unfamiliar environments.
Housing shortages and high costs in major urban centres compound these challenges, pushing newcomers into unaffordable living conditions.
All this contributes to growing disillusionment. Migrants initially drawn to Canada or Australia as alternatives to unwelcoming environments elsewhere may choose to still come, but it doesn’t mean they will stay.
The experiences of skilled migrants in Canada and Australia show that attracting talent is only half the battle. The real challenge is in retention and integration.
Many countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea and some Gulf states have begun offering more competitive pathways to immigration along with promises of a work-life balance, streamlined visa programs and competitive salaries. This means skilled migrants are increasingly mobile.
Australia has made strides in streamlining visa categories and targeting sectoral needs, while Canada has built a strong narrative around inclusion and multiculturalism.
However, there is a need to combine Australia’s responsiveness and Canada’s inclusive ethos to build resilient migration systems.
Build future-ready migration systems
In an era defined by geopolitical uncertainties, countries can no longer afford to treat skilled migrants as temporary fixes or just economic inputs. They are people with aspirations, with families and with dreams.
They must be seen and supported as future citizens. To build future-ready migration systems Canada must:
Ensure transparency and consistency in immigration pathways to reduce uncertainties caused by policy reversals and lengthy processing times.
Improve credential recognition and career support to help skilled migrants, including temporary residents, transition into roles that match their qualifications.
Develop regional settlement strategies to address where migrants settle and ensure equitable access to services, job markets and housing, especially outside major cities.
Adopt inclusive, intersectional policies that consider gender, race and class in shaping the migrant experience, including support for spouses, children and aging parents.
Foster collaborative and responsive policymaking. This involves connecting researchers, employers, community organizations and migrants to inform policy making.
For Canada, the challenge ahead is clear. It’s not just about opening the door. It’s about making sure that once here, migrants have the support, rights and opportunities to walk through that door — and thrive.
Ashika Niraula works as a Senior Research Associate at the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration Program at Toronto Metropolitan University. The Skilled Migrant Decision Making Under Uncertainty project has received financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant (435-2021-0752) and from the wider program of the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration at Toronto Metropolitan University.
Iori Hamada does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Donald Trump campaigned for the White House by unleashing a nearly endless barrage of insults against journalists and news outlets.
He repeatedly threatened to weaponise the federal government against media professionals whom he considers his enemies.
In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has already shown that he was not bluffing.
“The day-to-day chaos of the American political news cycle can make it hard to fully take stock of the seismic shifts that are happening,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America.
“But when you step back and look at the whole picture, the pattern of blows to press freedom is quite clear.
“RSF refuses to accept this massive attack on press freedom as the new normal. We will continue to call out these assaults against the press and use every means at our disposal to fight back against them.
“We urge every American who values press freedom to do the same.”
Here is the Trump administration’s war on the press by the numbers: *
427 million – Weekly worldwide audience of the USAGM news outlets silenced by Trump
In an effort to eliminate the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) by cutting grants to outlets funded by the federal agency and placing their reporters on leave, the government has left millions around the world without vital sources of reliable information.
This leaves room for authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China, to spread their propaganda unchecked.
However, RSF recently secured an interim injunction against the administration’s dismantling of the USAGM-funded broadcaster Voice of America,which also reinstates funding to the outlets Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN).
8,000+ – US government web pages taken down
Webpages from more than a dozen government sites were removed almost immediately after President Trump took office, leaving journalists and the public without critical information on health, crime, and more.
3,500+ – Journalists and media workers at risk of losing their jobs thanks to Trump’s shutdown of the USAGM
Journalists from VOA, the MBN, RFA, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are at risk of losing their jobs as the Trump administration works to shut down the USAGM. Furthermore, at least 84 USAGM journalists based in the US on work visas now face deportation to countries where they risk prosecution and severe harassment.
At least 15 journalists from RFA and eight from VOA originate from repressive states and are at serious risk of being arrested and potentially imprisoned if deported.
180 – Public radio stations at risk of closing if public media funding is eliminated
The Trump administration reportedly plans to ask Congress to cut $1.1 billion in allocated funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). These cuts will hit rural communities and stations in smaller media markets the hardest, where federal funding is most impactful.
74 –Days the Associated Press (AP) has been banned from the White House
On February 11, the White House began barring the Associated Press (AP) news agency from its events because of the news agency’s continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico,” which President Trump prefers to call the “Gulf of America” — a blatant example of retaliation against the media.
Despite a federal judge ruling the administration must reinstate the news agency’s access on April 9, the White House has continued to limit AP’s access.
64 – Disparaging comments made by Trump against the media on Truth Social since inauguration
In addition to regular, personal attacks against the media in press conferences and public speeches, Trump takes to his social media site nearly every day to insult, threaten, or intimidate journalists and media workers who report about him or his administration critically.
13 –Individuals pardoned by President Trump after being convicted or charged for attacking journalists on January 6, 2021
Trump pardoned over a dozen individuals charged with or convicted of violent crimes against journalists at the US Capitol during the January 6 insurrection.
6 –Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inquiries into media companies
Brendan Carr, co-author of the Project 2025 playbook and chair of the FCC, has wasted no time launching politically motivated investigations, explicit threats against media organisations, and implicit threats against their parent companies. These include inquiries into CBS, ABC parent company Disney, NBC parent company Comcast, public broadcasters NPR and PBS, and California television station KCBS.
4 – Trump’s personal lawsuits against media organisations
While Trump settled a lawsuit with ABC’s parent company Disney, he continues to sue CBS, The Des Moines Register, Gannett, and the Pulitzer Center over coverage he deemed biased.
$1.60 – Average annual amount each American pays for public media
Donald Trump has threatened to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, framing the move as a cost-cutting measure.
However, public media only costs each American about $1.60 each year, representing a tremendous bargain as it gives Americans access to a wealth of local, national, and lifesaving emergency programming.
* Figures as of the date of publication, 24 April 2025. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.
Latest health data reveals thousands of patients now seen quicker
Thousands of patients are securing appointments quicker every day as part of the government’s drive to build an NHS fit for the future.
Thousands of patients are seeing tangible benefits from the government’s Plan for Change, with the latest health data showing significant improvements in access to care.
Tens of thousands of patients up and down the country are already getting their appointments more quickly thanks to the government’s Plan for Change to reform the NHS and drive forward national renewal.
By slashing waiting lists and delivering improvements across the NHS in record time—including delivering three million additional appointments six months early—the government is exceeding its own targets and driving down waiting lists at a rapid pace. This has resulted in a six-month decline and a 219,000 reduction since July.
Around 4.5 million tests, checks and scans were carried out in Community Diagnostic Centres (CDCs)—many of which are conveniently located on local high streets—between July and February, a 50% increase on the previous year.
This equates to 18,000 more checks being delivered every day for patients to diagnose some of the biggest killers, including cancer and heart disease.
As well as opening more CDCs to bring care closer to people’s homes, the government is going further and faster by significantly expanding the number of CDCs open 12 hours a day, seven days a week—making it easier for people to get their tests and appointments done at a time that suits them.
Backed by almost £26 billion investment at the Budget, the Plan for Change is driving forward reform of the NHS to put an end to the misery for many people who have had to put their lives on hold while stuck on waiting lists, delivering the change people voted for.
Alongside action to rebuild the NHS, the Plan for Change is also focused on growing the economy to improve living standards across the country.
The government is already putting more pounds in people’s pockets by freezing fuel duty, boosting the minimum wage by up to £1,400 a year, and protecting working people with no rise in their national insurance, income tax, or VAT. Living standards are growing at their fastest rate in two years, and the Spring Statement showed people will be, on average, over £500 a year better off.
Earlier this month, we outlined plans for a Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, which aims to put 13,000 more officers into neighbourhood policing roles by 2029—an increase of more than 50%. This will help restore people’s trust in local policing.
To ensure that working people can benefit from clean, secure, homegrown energy, we have set up Great British Energy in Aberdeen to catalyse private investment and announced its first major project: installing solar panels on 200 schools and 200 NHS sites, which will cut energy bills.
Through the Plan for Change, we are working to give every child the best start in life and break down barriers to opportunity. This week, thousands of children started attending the first 750 free breakfast clubs, providing them with a healthy start to the day, giving parents 30 minutes of free childcare, and helping them save up to £450 a year.
Restoring economic stability and driving growth is fundamental to the Plan for Change. The OBR has confirmed that the economy will grow every year from 2026 and that our planning reforms will lead to a 0.2% increase in GDP, worth £6.8 billion.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden said:
Through our Plan for Change, we are getting on with the job of rebuilding our country and improving the public services we all rely on.
It’s already making a difference in people’s lives as we put police back on the beat, get more teachers in classrooms, and this week launched free breakfast clubs in hundreds of schools.
The latest data shows our approach is delivering real change, with tens of thousands more patients getting the right care and waiting lists falling faster in areas where there are higher numbers of people out of work. And this is just the start.
The government is also working at pace to slash NHS waiting lists in areas with the highest economic inactivity. The scheme, known as the Further Faster 20 programme, is part of plans to reduce the number of people unable to work due to long-term sickness, which is at its highest level since the 1990s.
The programme sees teams made up of clinical leads from across trusts, as well as national specialists, driving innovative practices. It has resulted in a total of almost 50,000 cases being removed from waiting lists in these areas since October. 35% of the national reduction in the overall waiting list has come from the 20 hospitals involved in the scheme, which has fallen faster than the national average.
Minister for Elective Care Karin Smyth said:
This government made a promise to the British public to reverse more than a decade of soaring waiting times and poor access to patient care—and through our Plan for Change, we are starting to turn the tide across every part of the country—with our crack teams already having a transformative impact.
This is a long road, but with tens of thousands more patients getting care that works for them and waiting lists falling faster in areas of high joblessness, we are getting the NHS back on its feet so it delivers for patients once again.
This is only the start. From bringing patient care closer to home, to ending the 8 am scramble for a GP appointment, this government is determined to transform our NHS to make it fit for the future.
One example of the Future Faster 20 programme is the Trafford Elective Hub, where the team have been running super-charged theatre lists that see almost twice the number of patients seen as standard theatre lists.
The hub also runs super clinics at weekends, providing one-stop shops to treat 100 patients at a time. The hub also has employment advisers on hand to help patients get back to work faster.
Miss Toli Onon, Joint Chief Medical Officer at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust said:
The Trafford Elective Hub exemplifies innovative approaches to reducing waiting lists, such as High Performance theatre lists which are designed to optimise surgical productivity by refining the surgical pathway and minimising inefficiencies.
By enhancing the productivity and efficiency of our elective services, we are demonstrating a sustainable and effective model for the future that benefits more patients.
Other initiatives include Super Clinics. These Super Clinics, which can serve up to 100 patients over weekends, streamline care by providing multiple services in one visit and include employment advisors to help patients return to work faster.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
While last week’s Morgan and YouGov polls had Labor continuing its surge, Newspoll is steady for the fourth successive week at 52–48 to Labor. A Redbridge poll of the marginal seats was again very strong for Labor, while YouGov and KJC seat polls were respectively good and bad for Labor.
A national Newspoll, conducted April 21–24 from a sample of 1,254, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged from the April 14–17 Newspoll.
Primary votes were 35% Coalition (steady), 34% Labor (steady), 11% Greens (down one), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady). The drop for the Greens and gain for One Nation mean this poll was probably better for the Coalition before rounding than the previous Newspoll.
Here is the graph of Labor’s two-party preferred vote in national polls. The fieldwork midpoint date of Newspoll was April 23, three days ahead of the next most recent poll (YouGov). Perhaps Labor has peaked too early.
Analyst Peter Brent wrote for Inside Story that he thought Anthony Albanese performed poorly in the April 22 debate with Peter Dutton. This may explain some shift to the Coalition. But with just five full days left until the May 3 election and early voting in progress, Labor remains the heavy favourite to win.
Albanese’s net approval was steady at -9, while Dutton’s net approval was down two points to -24, a new record low. Albanese led Dutton by 51–35 as better PM (52–36 previously). Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll, with the plus signs marking data points and a smoothed line fitted.
In this poll, 48% thought it was time to give someone else a go (down five since February), while 39% (up five) thought the government deserved to be re-elected. Meanwhile, 62% (up seven) said the Dutton-led Coalition was not ready to govern.
Labor retains 54.5–45.5 lead in Redbridge marginal seats poll
A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 15–22 from a sample of 1,000. It gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead, unchanged since the April 9–15 marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 35% Labor (steady), 34% Coalition (steady), 14% Greens (up one) and 17% for all Others (down one).
The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 3.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 55.5–44.5. Since the first wave of this marginal seats tracker in early February, Labor has gained 6.5 points. If this poll is accurate, Labor is likely to win a thumping majority.
Over the five waves of this marginal seats tracker, the Liberals have gone from +1 net favourable to -8, while Labor has moved from -9 to -3. Albanese has gone from -16 to -4 (up one since last week), while Dutton has gone from -11 to -20 (up two since last week).
By 22–14, voters preferred Labor’s housing policy to the Coalition’s, with 38% for neither and 12% for both the same.
YouGov and KJC seat polls
The Canberra Times had YouGov polls of ten regional seats, conducted April 17–24 from an overall sample of 3,000 (so 300 per seat). The primary votes suggest the Coalition would lose the Tasmanian seat of Braddon to Labor, and the NSW and Victorian seats of Calare and Wannon to independents, leaving them with only Dutton’s Dickson out of the ten surveyed.
Labor would be likely to hold all its regional seats, although in the NSW seat of Hunter One Nation would be their final opponent instead of the Coalition. Seat polls are unreliable.
The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that KJC Research had taken seat polls on April 24 from a sample of 600 per seat for an industry group. These polls went against the trend, with the Liberals ahead of Labor by 49–45 including undecided in the Western Australian Labor-held seat of Tangney and 46–41 in the Queensland Labor-held seat of Blair.
In the New South Wales Labor-held seat of Richmond, the Greens led Labor by 39–34. In the NSW Labor-hels seat of Hunter, Labor led the Liberals by 45–41.
Gap narrows, but Liberals still likely to win majority at Canadian election
The Canadian election is on Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The CBC Poll Tracker has the centre-left governing Liberals leading the Conservatives by 42.5–38.7 in national vote share and by 189–125 in seat point estimates (172 needed for a majority). I covered Canada and other upcoming and past international elections for The Poll Bludger on Saturday.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
During the rain and tropical cyclone season, Hong Kong may occasionally be affected by tropical cyclones and the weather becomes unstable, with the possibility of strong winds and heavy rainfalls.
Students and parents are therefore reminded that in the event of tropical cyclones and heavy persistent rain, the Education Bureau (EDB) will announce the class suspension arrangements for that day based on the latest weather information and the conditions of roads, slopes, and traffic. The announcements will be made through the following channels:
Weather conditions
Corresponding measures
When Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 1 is issued
All schools, including kindergartens, are to operate as usual unless advised otherwise.
When Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 3 is issued
All Classes of kindergartens, schools for children with physical disability and schools for children with intellectual disability are to be suspended.
Other schools are to operate as usual unless advised otherwise.
When Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal Pre-No. 8 / No. 8 or above is issued
Classes of all schools are to be suspended.
When Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 or above is replaced by Signal No. 3
Classes of all kindergartens, schools for children with physical disability and schools for children with intellectual disability are to remain suspended.
Unless previous announcement has been made to the effect that classes will be suspended for the entire day, other schools are to resume if Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal 3 has been issued before 5:30 a.m. (for AM and whole-day schools), 10:30 a.m. (for PM schools) or 5:00 p.m. (for evening schools).
When Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 3 is replaced by Signal No. 1 or when all tropical cyclone signals are cancelled
All schools are to resume with the next session unless previous announcement has been made to the effect that classes will be suspended for the entire day.
When “The combined effect of strong wind and prolonged rainstorm is affecting/expected to affect Hong Kong” is disseminated by the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO)
In general, if this information is disseminated during the following periods, it means that student need not attend schools:
At or after 5:30 a.m. and before 8:00 a.m.: AM and Whole-day Schools
At or after 10:30 a.m. and before 1:00 p.m.: PM Schools
At or after 5:00 p.m. and before 7:00 p.m.: Evening Schools
If the above information is disseminated during school hours, schools should continue lessons until the end of normal school hours and ought to ensure that conditions are safe before allowing students to return home. Parents do not need to pick up their children from school immediately.
As the situations in localised areas may differ from the territory as a whole, parents can exercise their discretion in deciding whether or not to send their children to school if the local weather, roads, slopes or traffic conditions are adverse. Schools will be flexible in handling the affected students who arrive late or are absent from school at parents’ discretion on the day, and such students will not be penalised.
Weather conditions can change rapidly, so it is important for students and parents to pay close attention to the latest weather conditions provided by the HKO and check if the EDB has announced class suspension before leaving for school and during their journey to ensure safety.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
LCQ16: Results documents for Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination Question:
It has been reported that some students were recently found to have allegedly submitted fake results documents for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE) when applying for and during enrolment to a university in Macao. The relevant authorities in Macao have now stepped up verification for academic qualifications and examination results, while the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) has also filed a police report on the incident. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of enquiries received by the HKEAA from institutions outside Hong Kong for establishing the authenticity of the HKDSE results in the past five years;
(2) of the number of cases involving suspected forgery of the HKDSE results documents uncovered by the HKEAA in the past five years;
(3) of the existing anti-forgery features in the HKDSE certification documents including result notice, statement of results and certification of results; whether the HKEAA has explored enhancements to anti-forgery measures for such documents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether the Government will, by drawing reference from the practice of the Ministry of Education to establish the China Higher Education Student Information website, consider providing a unified platform that collates information on students’ academic qualifications, student status and public examination files, and offers online verification services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
The Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE) is a widely recognised academic qualification in Hong Kong and abroad. It is also an important credential for further studies and employment of candidates. The Education Bureau (EDB) attaches great importance to the verification of the HKDSE results to maintain the confidence of people at home and abroad in the HKDSE qualifications. Falsification or provision of fake academic qualifications is a serious offence. If any person attempts to use false documentation of results, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) will certainly refer the case to law enforcement agencies for follow-up action. The reply to the question raised by the Hon Chu Kwok-keung is set out below:
(1) and (2) In the past five years, the HKEAA has received one enquiry from a non-local tertiary institution about the authenticity of the HKDSE results held by its students. After verification, the HKEAA found that the HKDSE results of the students involved in this case were forged.
(3) Documents such as the HKDSE results notice, certificate, statement of results and certification of results issued by the HKEAA have multiple security features, including the use of watermarked fibre paper and microprinting technology for lettering. The HKEAA has also provided candidates, tertiary institutions and employers with result verification services (Note 1) to ensure that they can obtain or verify candidates’ public examination results directly from official sources.
The HKEAA will annually review the various operational arrangements for the current HKDSE cohort for continuous improvements. It will also review and optimise the results verification services and security measures where necessary.
(4) It is understood that, as regards post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong, the Joint Universities Computer Centre, which is established by 19 post-secondary institutions and organisations (Note 2), has successfully developed and launched an inter-institutional academic certificate verification platform using blockchain technology. Post-secondary institutions and students may choose to use the platform at their own discretion. Participating institutions can digitalise and upload academic certificates of graduates to the platform, in order to allow students to share their credentials with relevant persons via the platform when seeking employment or further studies. The platform streamlines the verification of academic qualifications and helps combat forgery of credentials. As for the HKDSE, the HKEAA will closely monitor the situations and study the feasibility of developing an electronic results verification solution to enhance the efficiency of service. The EDB will closely monitor the application and development of the aforesaid qualification verification platforms and explore the feasibility of establishing a more comprehensive verification platform at a suitable juncture.
Notes: 1. The services include: (a) HKDSE results extraction service: The HKEAA currently provides direct access to the results of the HKDSE for over 20 local and non-local universities, institutions and admission authorities, including the majority of the local tertiary institutions, Joint University Programmes Admissions System Office, the EDB, the respective joint admission offices of the Mainland and Taiwan, as well as a number of self-financing institutions in Hong Kong. After obtaining the consent of the student applicants concerned, the institutions may obtain the HKDSE results of the student applicants concerned directly from the HKEAA on the release date of the HKDSE or on a specified date, and the whole process is conducted without the intervention of a third party, so as to ensure the authenticity of the information; and (b) Provision of Certification of Results: The HKEAA maintains records of candidates’ results in public examinations since its establishment in 1977. Tertiary institutions or employers who need to check the public examination results of individual applicants may request the applicants to apply to the HKEAA for the issue of a “Certification of Results”, which will be sent directly to the organisations specified by the applicants to certify the results of their public examinations.
2. Including the eight universities funded by the University Grants Committee; and the Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Saint Francis University, the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Vocational Training Council, Construction Industry Council, Hong Kong Chu Hai College, Tung Wah College, UOW College Hong Kong and University of Macau. Issued at HKT 11:05
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
The Education Bureau (EDB) will hold five parents’ talks in early December 2024 to enhance parents’ understanding on the Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) System. The talks will be conducted in Cantonese and are free of charge. Parents of students who will be admitted to Secondary 1 in September 2025 are welcome to join.
Each talk will be divided into two parts. The guest speakers will share with the audience how parents can help children grow up healthily and happily through home-school co-operation, and tips on choosing a suitable school in the first part, while the representatives from the EDB School Places Allocation Section will explain the mechanism and procedure of the SSPA 2023/2025 in the second part. The talks will be conducted in Cantonese and admission is free. The details of the talks are as follows:
Distinguished audience, faculty and students. Fostering agri-education, innovation, entrepreneurship for Viksit Bharat. The theme could not have been more appropriate, more timely and the theme is at the right place. This is need of our times, this is priority for the country because passage of Viksit Bharat is through the farmlands and the farmlands have to be nurtured by such institutes like yours.
Attainment of Viksit Bharat has to be navigated carefully by institutions like yours. It is a privilege to be at this university, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It has made seminal contributions to India’s food security. We have traversed from food scarcity to food being in plenty. You have affected agrarian development and served the broader cause of rural transformation, but I have a special reason to come to this place. One of the towering giants of agro-sector, one of the proudest sons of Bharat happens to be your alumnus.
I am referring to Bharat Ratna, Mankombu Sambasivan Swaminathan. Nationally and globally known as Dr. M. S. Swaminathan. He is having a rare distinction of being recipient of all the four civilian awards including the highest one. Dr. Swaminathan received Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan and then rightly became Bharat Ratna.
It was my good fortune when I announced this in Rajya Sabha to the thunderous applause of all the members that Dr. Swaminathan who has played pivotal, transformative, game-changing role in agro-sector has been awarded Bharat Ratna. I hope and I am sure my hope is well-founded, you will keep his legacy aframed. You will promote his legacy, you will put his legacy on a higher gradient so that we can face the challenges the farmer faces.
Agro-sector has enormous potential that still remains to be tapped and that must begin in institutions like yours. Why I say so, let me reflect on our nation for a moment. Bharat is world’s oldest civilisation, a peace-loving nation where inclusivity and freedom of expression and thought are our legacy.
Traverse history for thousands of years and you will find in our civilisation inclusivity and freedom of expression thrived and blossomed and were respected. In present times, the quotient and gradient of expression and inclusivity is comparably the highest in the world. Look around, there is no other country like Bharat which can demonstrate inclusivity and freedom of expression but we as citizens of this great nation, the largest democracy, the oldest democracy, the most vibrant democracy need to be extremely watchful, mindful and cognisant that freedom of expression and inclusivity must turn out to be our national assets and they should be.
It is duty of every citizen to bear in mind, particularly at a time when the nation is witnessing unstoppable exponential economic rise, extraordinary growth in infrastructure, technological penetration reaching to the last mile and the international repute of the nation and its leader, the Prime Minister is highest ever. We as citizens therefore have a great role to contribute to sustain this rise of the nation. This is right time for every citizen to fully become aware and also take advantage of ecosystem of hope and possibility.
Boys and girls and distinguished audience, I appeal to you to take a firm resolve that nation first will be our motto. Our unflinching commitment to nation and ever guiding star. No interest can be higher than that of the nation. India our Bharat has always been land of agriculture. Its heart pulsates in villages. It is lifeline of employment and economy. It is final strength of the nation in every sense of the term and let me remember in this sacred land, the role of the farmer was taken to a high level by great poet, saint Thiruvalluvar, commonly known as Valluvar and this great poet, this great saint praised the farmers and said, ‘farmers are the cornerstone of humanity and agriculture as foremost craft’. He was right, he should be our beacon for enlightenment that farmer is ‘Annadata’, farmer is our ‘Bhagyavidhaata’.
The nation has made huge progress, remarkable progress over the decades. There was a time of food deficiency, there was a time when we used to import wheat from United States of America. I am sure seniors would know ‘PL 480’ but we have become self-sufficient in food. 46% of our population supports this and now a word of caution for you. The sector contributes only 16% to the GDP. Institutions like yours have to carry ahead legacy of Dr. M. S. Swaminathan to ensure there is quantum leap in contribution of this sector to our GDP.
You will be happy to know, India is now exporter of agriculture produce, with agri-food products forming approximately over 11% of our total exports but you have to script a new chapter. You have to write it differently. It is time that our national agriculture agenda must move from food security, which was prime importance and national priority at one point of time, because we had food scarcity. So our concern was food security but now time has changed. We must move from food security to farmer prosperity. Farmer has to be prosperous and this script has to evolve from institutions like yours.
Therefore, I appeal to you and also compliment simultaneously for doing much in this direction. The gap between lab and land must not get bridged. It must be seamless connect. Lab and land must be together and for this, over 730 Krishi Vigyan Kendra must be vibrant centres of interaction with farmers to educate the farmers. But you have to be pipeline, you have to be supportive to those Krishi Vigyan Kendra. You must connect with Krishi Vigyan Kendra surround and also Indian Council of Agriculture Research has over 150 institutions focussing on every aspect of agronomy.
It was soothing for me and my wife to see your exhibition. Your remarkable contribution I could see but that has to be shared extensively. All stakeholders must work in unison for the same purpose being on the same page. Therefore, road ahead has to be evolved by you and that first and foremost has to be through your curriculum. I must compliment that you have evolved curriculum, different from others, which is making a difference. But now this change in curriculum must align to make farmer an entrepreneur.
You must persuade the farmer to rise above just being producer. You must have courses, formal and informal, whereby farmers, their children, get attracted to farming as marketeers, as value adders and you will be happy to know big change is taking place. But my confidence is optimal, because institutions like yours have the capacity and potential to be crucibles of change for our agro-farm sector.
Innovation and research initiatives must be evaluated as to what impact they have on the farmer. Are they having ground impact? And therefore, research has to be a priority. Research must be based on need. Research must serve a cause which you identify. I would urge that research must be supported, apart from government, at central then state, but also by industry, trade, business and commerce. Have courses for it. I am sure you will make some success.
Look at the situation we see in the country. When there is production in plenty of perishable goods, the challenge is right on the wall. What does the farmer do? The product, let’s say tomato, can’t last for long. Therefore, institutions like yours must transform perishable goods into self-stable, high-quality products. We can multiply profitability. We can also create employment and cater to both domestic and global markets. If you have courses, there can be transformative industrial mechanisms on wheels. This can be addressed for a great, positive result. Therefore, agri-entrepreneurship needs to be given a great flip.
There are 6,000 agri-startups, but for a country of 1.4 billion, a country that has 100 million farming communities farmlands, this is not the right number. The government has taken many initiatives. People have to be aware about them. Make them aware about them. Farmer Producer Organization (FPO), I studied it in great depth. There is a budgetary allocation of 1 lakh crore. This can fund various activities to enhance and strengthen infrastructure for the farmer.
The government has started innovative schemes, PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi. It is not freebie, it is distinct from freebie. It is doing justice to a sector that is our lifeline. This is a direct transfer to the farmer. United States of America helps its farmers massively, but it has only one motto. It will directly help the farmer. There will be no intervening situation. In our country also, there is a massive subsidy for fertiliser. Institutions like yours must think that if subsidy that is given by the government to fertiliser sector for the benefit of farmer, if it goes directly to the farmer, every farmer would be getting every year around 35,000 rupees. You must do a study on this.
There has to be market linkage. The government has done much by national agriculture market mission but I want, as a son of the farmer, that the farmer must step out of the farmland. Farmer must involve himself or herself for marketing of his and her produce. Farmer should not just be a producer and forget about it. That would mean he will painstakingly, tirelessly raise a produce and will sell it at a time when it is ripe for market without holding it. He doesn’t gain much financially. You have to empower the farmer by generating awareness, by telling them government cooperative system is very robust. For the first time we have a cooperative Minister. Cooperatives find a place in our constitution. Therefore, what we need is farmer traders, we need farmer entrepreneurs.
Boys and girls and distinguished faculty, you can change that mindset so that a farmer transforms himself from producer to value adder, starting some industry which is based on his produce. If you just look around, farm produce market is gigantic, when value is added to farm produce, industries thrive. Corporates can play bigger role, more and more corporates are entering into agronomy.
I would urge them to share their profits with the farmer. To connect with the farmer, to give back to the farm sector. The connect must be genuine, lasting. I urge the corporates to invest in research and development. Particularly with keeping in mind that value addition must happen at the farmland for the local populace.
We were self-sustaining units thousands of years ago. Why not now? The populace will have quality produce. In conclusion, I must say that I have no doubt and there is no other option also. Agriculture has to play a vital role, if India has to become a 30 trillion economy in 2047, the income has to go eightfold. This is possible, this is achievable.
Our last decade development has shown to the world, India is capable of negotiating developmental journey unknown to history in recent times. Therefore, institutions like this will lead agri-revolution. India’s destiny is rooted in the fertility of our fields, the resilience of our farmers, and the innovation crucibles which institutions like this will make available.
I appeal to those who are involved with this sector to dream big, plan big, have large scale, and achieve it. We have a role model in our Prime Minister, he thinks very big. Toilet for every home. He thinks much bigger, gas connection in every home, Internet connection in every home. Just imagine how things have transformed. I, being a member of Parliament in 1989, a Minister in 1990, I know the difference, the difference is beyond imagination.
I see now all around development I never conceived, never dreamt. Therefore, I carry great hope, optimism, and confidence that institutions like yours will bring about the change the farm sector needs, the country deserves, and the world must acknowledge it because if India gains, the world benefits – ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’.
