Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 103

Protection Vital to Securing Our Marine Wealth | Miriam Lyons & Laura Eadie

Australia is surrounded by a vast wealth of oceans. More than 70 per cent of our territory lies under water – the third largest and most biodiverse marine estate in the world. So far we've stepped up to the challenge of managing one important marine resource – our fish stocks – better than most countries in the world. However, given that 63 per cent of the world's stocks are overfished, that's a bit like saying our economy is in a better state than that of Greece – true, but not very reassuring. Despite adopting smart management methods like tradable quotas in several fisheries, 42 of Australia's fish stocks are still either overfished or of unknown status – not a robust position to be in when increasing ocean temperatures and acidity are threatening to push marine ecosystems over the edge worldwide.

There are also gaps in our official accounts, which record only a fraction of the real, long-term value of our oceans. We know that our oceans support 9,000 direct jobs in commercial fishing and a marine tourism industry worth $11 billion per year. Yet Australia currently accounts for only $44 billion out of a total of $69 billion in annual economic value.

A new report released by the Centre for Policy Development reveals a shortfall of $25 billion per year that nature provides for free as ecosystem services – clean water, fish nurseries, and food and recreation for the one in five Australian's who fish at least once a year. A company that neglects to account for a third of its annual production value should expect wildly unpredictable returns. The same is true of the returns we can expect from our natural resources.

The federal government has committed to put a representative system of marine protected areas in place by 2012. Without proper accounting for ecosystem services we're in danger of drawing lines on maps that fail to protect our most valuable assets. The current proposal for a South West marine park, for example, covers a lot of open ocean but very little seagrass. Seagrass areas sequester 10 to 40 times as much carbon as forests and are particularly important as nurseries for young fish. Adjusting the policy to meet scientific recommendations for areas of coastal shelf, seagrass and coral reef could protect a further $1.1 billion in ecosystem services a year.

A good understanding of the fundamental drivers of value and risk can be a useful guide for long-term investors – whether public and private. With the global population heading towards 9 billion on a finite planet, food prices will continue to rise rapidly over the medium to long term, while environmental pressures are likely to pose increasing risks to natural resource bases.

In this context Australia needs a responsible investment strategy to ensure that our portfolio of ocean wealth increases in value over time and rides out the booms and busts of the environment and economy. A common way to achieve more stable returns is to include a balanced mix of assets – our marine portfolio should follow this approach. Investment options available to Australia include:

»   A well-managed commercial fishing estate. Currently providing low financial returns, with half of Australia's fisheries struggling to cope with high fuel prices and the high Australian dollar, it is however a valuable source of employment and provides a product that is likely to rise in value in the near future.

»    Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This investment has been shown to provide very high returns, with immediate benefits to high-value tourism, medium-term benefits to recreational fishing, and longer-term benefits to commercial fishing through more stable and resilient stocks.

»   Highly Protected Areas (within MPAs), where no fishing or oil and gas exploration takes place. Just as banks keep some capital in reserve to hedge against unexpected losses, it makes sense for Australia to include highly protected areas in its marine estate. High capital reserves protect banks from GFC-like shocks to financial systems. Highly protected areas will help protect Australia's marine portfolio from ecosystem shocks.

This is a time of great risk for our marine economy, but there are also opportunities if we get our policies right. Our report finds that the value of sustainably managed Australian fisheries could increase by 42% over 20 years if global fish stocks collapse. We have the scientific knowledge to identify and protect key marine areas. We have the policy opportunity. We need to make sure that this opportunity is not missed through the failure to recognise that a strong marine economy depends on a healthy marine environment.

This article was first published in The Australian Financial Review on 13 September 2011.

 

[image error]

READ the key findings & recommendations in Stocking Up: Securing Our Marine Economy here.

DOWNLOAD the report here

The Battle of the Think Tanks

Thought Broker presents:

The Battle of the Think Tanks

Australia's most prolific and influential think tanks will duke it out over whose ideology and vision for the future should prevail.

Pitting speakers from social democrat and progressive think tanks against their conservative and libertarian counterparts, Thought Broker will once again present incendiary debate to a well-lubricated audience.

In the blue corner we have Tim Wilson of the Institute of Public Affairs and Dr Oliver Hartwich from the Centre for Independent Studies. And, in the red corner Miriam Lyons, Centre for Policy Development and Dr David Hetherington, Per Capita.

At a time when ideological purity has hit the skids and political debate and policy implementation are mired in spin and short-termism, this event will explore the importance of long term thinking in Australia's public debate.

Event Details

Saturday 12 November

6:30pm – 10:30pm

Surry Rooftop, the Sebel Hotel

28 Albion St, Surry Hills

–

Thought Broker is a communications company specialising in the dissemination of complex ideas.

www.thoughtbroker.com.au

Adelaide Now | Seagrass 'stores $79 per ha of carbon'

Online news outlet Adelaide Now covers the release of our new report; Stocking Up: Securing Our Marine Economy (available to Download here). The article draws attention to one of the key messages of the report, the economic value of the carbon that is stored in our oceans ecosystems.

"Sea grasses store 10 to 40 times as much carbon per hectare as forests, and Australia's sea-grass meadows are the largest in the world, a report by the Centre for Policy Development says.

Considering the Gillard government wants to charge $23 per tonne of carbon emitted by Australia's biggest polluters, that would make Australia's coastal seagrass beds worth $79 per hectare, the report's authors added at its official launch today." 

The report recognises some of the added value that our oceans and marine parks contribute to our economy, most of it unnoticed.

"Ocean ecosystems add an extra $25 billion to the national economy each year which is not accounted for in official figures, the report says. These includes $15.8 billion a year in carbon storage" 

Read the complete article here

 

READ the key findings & recommendations in Stocking Up: Securing Our Marine Economy here.

DOWNLOAD the report here

 

Chris Bonnor | Why Do State School Parents Want to Go Private?

As a recent poll has indicated, almost half of Australians say they would choose an independent school, if not for the fees.

CPD Fellow Chris Bonnor says that there are more teacher differences within schools than between them.

The very thing that public schools are obliged to offer – particularly access and inclusion – is the reason why those with the capacity to choose want to be somewhere else.

The reason we all need public schools is the same reason why many will want to leave them.

A strong public education system is a fundamental pillar of Australia's egalitarian ethos of a fair go.

Other countries have avoided punishing those at the bottom of the pyramid. We should too.

 

To read the full report, click here.

Ben Eltham | First A Media Inquiry, Then Regulatory Reform?

Stephen Conroy's media inquiry could be far more politically significant than first expected. While Senator Conroy maintains that "I don't need an inquiry to establish that the Murdoch press owns 70% of newspapers in this country", if the Government is already at war with News, Eltham asks, "why not finally bring a gun to the gunfight"?

Originally published at New Matilda. 

Australia is finally getting a media inquiry.

Or, depending on how you view the matter, another media inquiry. After all, the Convergence Review is already examining many of the matters detailed in the terms of reference of this inquiry, called, appropriately enough, the Independent Media Inquiry.

Just to make it all the more confusing, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has stated that the media inquiry will actually feed into the Convergence Review process, which makes sense from a policy formulation perspective, but will also keep the merry-go-round of committees and discussion papers twirling well into 2012.

Wendy Bacon wrote this week here in New Matilda that "the [inquiry's] terms of reference fall short of what the Greens wanted by not directly addressing the high levels of media concentration and how that skews political debate and the provision of a broad range of news and current affairs, especially in regions where there is a single owner and very little local journalism."

That's true. But there's also plenty of wriggle-room in those terms that should allow it go in some very interesting directions, should the inquiry's leaders — former Federal Court justice Ray Finkelstein and Canberra University journalism professor Matthew Ricketson — decide to stray from the beaten path.

The consensus about Finkelstein seems to be that he has a fine legal mind and can be expected to examine the issues at stake in a thorough and forensic manner. Ricketson is a more ambiguous choice, because as an academic and a journalist he has both a sound understanding of the news media environment, and a grasp of the thorny philosophical issues that the practice of journalism can create. Despite the relatively anodyne terms of reference, Ricketson's insider knowledge about news gathering (such as FOI requests) could be an asset should the Inquriy head off into uncharted territory.

Media bias, concentration of ownership, diversity of voices, invasions of privacy: as I read the terms of reference, all of these could be up for grabs. Or they might not. We don't really know.

Editors and publishers will be most uncomfortable about the potential for more regulation. In his various media conferences this week, Conroy flagged the creation of a so-called "super regulator" that would combine the current oversight responsibilities ofACMA and the Press Council, perhaps with a new ambit to look over internet-based media as well (we certainly know that Conroy has no compunction when it comes to filtering internet service providers). This would be a significant reform, particularly from the current environment, which is in any case fragmenting under the onslaught of digitalisation: ACMA itself openly admits means that the current system of media regulation is "broken". 

No-one in the media likes the idea of being subject to more government regulations. Complying with them is expensive and dull. The decisions of regulators can often be heavy-handed and arbitrary; in any case, the point of free speech is that it should extend to unpopular and controversial speech, exactly the sort of thing which would most likely attract the attention of a regulator.

Mind you, how much regulation really goes on right now? It can be argued that our current media regulators don't do much regulating anyway. The Press Council, which supposedly oversees the newspapers, has become such a joke that its current Chairman, Julian Disney, is pressing the government for greater powers. ACMA, which covers the broadcast media, has plenty of power, but refuses to use it, as exemplified by its apathy in the face of complaints against the Seven Network for its deplorable story on former New South Wales Labor Minister David Campbell's visits to a gay sex club. ACMAargued that the story was "in the public interest", using the astoundingly circular logic that, because Campbell resigned after the story went to air, the story was "in the public interest … as it explained the Minister's resignation."

The absurdities of the regulatory landscape were not the only confusions on display this week. Equally muddled were the government's attempts to explain why the inquiry would be leaving media bias out of the terms of reference, as a number of keen observers, such as Laura Tingle and Michelle Grattan, pointed out. Conroy has been telling both the ALP party room and the media in general that he doesn't need an inquiry to tell him that media ownership is concentrated and some sections of the media are biased.

"I don't need an inquiry to establish that the Murdoch press owns 70 per cent of newspapers in this country," he told reporters on Wednesday. "We've all known that for 20 years. I don't need an inquiry to establish that some organs of the Murdoch Press are clearly running a campaign against this government."

In that case, why not act?

Leaving aside the regulatory niceties, the power politics is perhaps even more interesting. The issue of just what the government is going to do about its implacable enemies in the Murdoch newspapers tells us much about the interplay between power and media in this country.

It's taken Labor three miserable years in government to start publicly acknowledging how unbalanced its treatment at the hands of the News Limited newspapers as been. But simply admitting there is a problem and throwing a few innocent barbs at John Hartigan and Chris Mitchell is unlikely to solve Labor's problem. What the Government really wants is some friendly treatment at the hands of the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun, or, failing that, at the very least a few months of clean air in which to operate. But why would News Limited be so kind? In fact, cold hard power politics tells us that there is no reason for News Limited to change course on its editorial direction right now, and every reason to keep beating the anti-ALP drums. News can even point to a series of polls which suggest that its campaigns against issues like the carbon tax are simply in line with popular sentiment, which remains hostile to the government and many of its policies.

The obvious conclusion is that if the Government wants to do something about the brutal treatment it's receiving from the Murdoch newspapers, which helps to shape the generally anti-Labor sentiment of much of the commercial media, it's going to have to actually exert some power against News as a corporation. And in Stephen Conroy, the government has just the man to do it. In the telecommunications sector, Conroy has already shown that he can be a clever operator with the tenacity to out-manoeuvre powerful corporations. In any case, goes this reasoning, the Government is already at war with News, so why not finally bring a gun to the gunfight?

There are any number of ways to do this, some more dangerous than others. The straightforward and brutal option would be simply to introduce legislation to Parliament to change the media ownership laws, in particular to break up News Limited.

Personally, I favour News Limited being forcibly broken up and sold. Those who worry about what might happen to The Australian and the various tabloid newspapers without Rupert Murdoch to sustain them obviously haven't been looking too closely at the actions of Fairfax's management and board recently. The entire newspaper industry is in trouble, and if a plutocratic media baron wants to continue to plough money into loss-making newspapers because of the value that gains him in power and influence, this is all the more reason to restrain that power in the interests of democracy.

Breaking up News and strengthening media ownership laws should be done anyway, for sound public policy reasons. The current nexus of vested interests and related corporate parties that co-own Australia's large media corporations are incredibly regressive and undemocratic. How can it be a good thing for Australian democracy that the eldest son of Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan, can sit on the board of News Corporation in New York, while also controlling and running — as acting CEO — the Ten Network?

But taking on News Limited directly is dangerous. It's especially dangerous right now for a government already weakened by its own numerous follies. Much of the rest of the media would likely fall in behind News Limited were it so attacked, seeing government action against the corporation as a form of payback. Taking on News Limited directly really would signal a new stage in the war between the government and Australia's largest media organisation.

A more cunning way to crimp News Limited's influence might be to build up its competitors, notably online. This is the model that Eric Beecher has been proposing, and given the tiny sums of money involved in keeping publications like Crikey and New Matilda going, there is no doubt that even a few million spent here or there on supporting online newsrooms and journalists could make a huge difference to the ability of the independent sector to compete.

The problem with this idea is how to do it at arm's length, without seeming to give succour to voices overtly of the left (that's if you assume that Labor is on the left anymore). One way might be to set up a new arms-length funding body, along the lines of the Australia Council or the Australian Research Council, that could independently administer peer-reviewed grant funding. Reading between the lines, that rather looks like what the clause in the inquiry's terms of reference that talks about how "quality journalism … can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment" might suggest.

The problem for the government is that giving money to small online publishers, Fairfax and the ABC won't have an appreciable impact on the broader political slant of the Australian media. For a start, by the time they get around to doing it, Tony Abbott will most likely be happily ensconced in the Lodge. Secondly, the resources available to the online publishers remain small and fragmented. As for the big guys, precisely because the ABC and Fairfax remain fairly balanced (albeit with the occasional faint tinge of a left-leaning slant), they can't act as a genuine counter-balance to the rabid views of the right-wing radio jocks and the tawdry tabloids. There is in fact no easy solution to this conundrum, and most likely the Inquiry won't try to provide one.

For all of this, I welcome the media inquiry. Even if it only begins to scratch the surface of the problems of supporting news gathering and "quality journalism" in the 21st century — and it has already opened up an energetic discussion about the nature of News Limited's bias — that will be a important development in Australia's public sphere.

Public Service (and CPD) in Australian Parliament 12 September

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (21:12): I rise to speak in praise of public sector workers in the ACT and throughout Australia. It was my pleasure recently to attend a roundtable discussion hosted by Slater and Gordon Canberra and the Centre for Policy Development, the topic of which to be discussed was a new report by the CPD authored by Dr James Whelan. The report which is titled The state of the Australian Public Service: an alternative report is an insightful analysis of the role that the Australian Public Service plays today. The report notes that the Australian Public Service's employment, currently 163,778 people as at the end of 30 December 2010, lies somewhere between the number of people employed in Coles and the number of people employed in Woolworths.

The report discusses, in a real broad sweep of history way, how the Australian Public Service has developed and some of the major challenges currently facing it. Its findings would make interesting reading, I imagine, for the member for North Sydney, who has repeatedly claimed that the increase in public servant numbers since Labor came to office has been 20,000. The member for North Sydney continues to sprout this figure despite having been repeatedly corrected by the minister. As the minister has pointed out, the change in Australian Public Service numbers since this government came to office has been 8,355, rather than 20,000. But it is not the inaccuracies in knowing the current number of public servants that so worry my constituents; it is the repeated promise from the member for North Sydney to slash 12,000 public service jobs out of Canberra. This lies in contrast to the views of those from the Centre for Policy Development. In addition to Dr Whelan, I would like to single out Miriam Lyons for her wisdom in commissioning this work as the executive director. The Centre for Policy Development Research has delved deeply into a range of important issues for the Public Service. For example, it tabulates the APS retrenchments since 1995. When one looks at that graph, a clear spike stands out. That is in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. APS retrenchments in no other year exceed 4,000 but in those three years the annual retrenchments were 10,070, 10,238 and 9,061 respectively. It is very clear what happens to numbers in the APS when a coalition government comes to office. They are slashed.

The report also focuses on the role that the Big Society reforms are having in the United Kingdom. The report notes:

"The Coalition's desire to reduce the size and cost of the Australian Public Service taps into 'small government' movements that have been prevalent here and in other western countries since at least the 1970s. The values, vision and policies of these movements are currently expressed by the Tea Party in the United States and 'Big Society' in the United Kingdom."

You can see a clear contrast of values in the quotes on the Public Service that are included in the report. For example, the member for Fadden has told parliament: 'I want the government to be small, I want the public service reduced.'

The member for Wannon has said: '… the government needs to put a freeze on Public Service recruitment.'

But it is not the case that all of those opposite take this simplistic view to the Public Service. The member for Wentworth says: 'Squeezing public servants probably appeals to some people. I think the critical thing is to ensure that Government delivers its services efficiently at every level but you've just have to be smart about it.'

The member for Kennedy says: 'They have done a good job and their Public Service has done a good job.'

Those are words that I would commend to this House.

It is important that we continue to recognise the great work occurring in the Public Service. Nicholas Gruen's Government 2.0 report suggests some ways in which innovation could be rewarded, including the novel notion of a policy idol competition. When I was in the United States I was privileged to be a judge on the Reinventing Government awards that are run annually which recognise innovation within the United States government.

We need to recognise that public servants are critical to the quality of service delivery. One of the reasons that Australia avoided the global financial crisis was the rapid fiscal stimulus which occurred so successfully, in large part thanks to the work of the Treasury, the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink. On this 10th anniversary of September 11, it is worth remembering that on that fateful day it was the government workers who were running up the stairs. And when the Queensland floods hit earlier this year, the Minister for Human Services noted the tragic death of Centrelink worker Gillian Harman who spent a month volunteering in flood hit Queensland in Dalby. As the minister said, Ms Harman returned home on Sunday night. She went straight back to work in her Centrelink office in Guyra in northern New South Wales on Monday and tragically was killed on Monday going home from the office. It is this sort of dedication to work of the Public Service that we on this side of the House recognise.

Public sector workers more broadly benefit from the representation of their unions. I pay tribute to the CPSU, the AEU, the ASU, the ANEF, United Voice, the UFU and the Police Federation among others for the work they do every day in representing public sector workers. There are major challenges in this sector. One of the challenges noted by James Whelan's report is the challenge of increasing the share of Indigenous workers and the share of workers with a disability in an Australian Public Service where recruitment now typically starts at the APS 3 level or above.

Finally, I would like to turn to another type of public sector workers and pay tribute to the many teachers in the electorate of Fraser who day in, day out do work that is enormously valuable which inspires the next generation of Canberrans to learn and to understand the world around them. I also want to pay tribute to the Teach for Australia program. I had the pleasure recently of having dinner in Canberra with, and speaking in Melbourne to, Teach for Australia associates, as they are known—the new teachers who teach in the classroom. I would like to thank Melodie Potts-Rosevear for giving me that opportunity. Teach for Australia is an extraordinarily selective program. In 2009, over 750 applications were received for only 50 places. Of those selected for the program, the average UAI or ENTER score was 97. This selective program means that Teach for Australia associates are placed into classrooms after an intensive pre-placement education and then teach for two years in disadvantaged schools while they continue to complete their education through a two-year postgraduate diploma of teaching at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne. This program has built on the success of similar programs in the United States and the United Kingdom and works to get as many talented people as we can into the classroom. Not all teachers will be TFA alumni, but it is another flexible pathway into teaching.

I pay tribute in particular to the Teach for Australia teachers who have been working hard in the electorate of Fraser this year: Lia van den Bosch at Hawker College, Imogen Byrne at Belconnen High, Corey McCann and Igraine Ridley-Smith at Calwell High, and Felicity Oliver at Erindale College. In the ACT, we are grateful to them for joining the teaching workforce and for working alongside the many great teachers in the ACT who enrich the lives of young Canberrans every day. I know that this is not always an easy job. I know that walking into the classroom when you are tired, when the kids are not always behaving at their best, can be a challenge, but it is essential work for the future of our nation and I pay tribute to the many teachers who do it every day.

Tim Marshall | Australia's oceans need to be promoted in economic terms

Following the release of CPD's research paper, Stocking Up: Securing our Marine Economy, Sustainable Economy Research Director Laura Eadie was interviewed by ABC Rural host Tim Marshall.

The worth of Australia's ocean resources, is grossly undervalued. Officially, they're worth $44 billion. Healthy marine ecosystem services yield an added benefit of $25 billion.

Australia's ecological infrastructure, with the highest marine biodiversity in the world, is "too often out of sight, and out of mind".

With commercial fisheries, tourism, and recreational fishing playing a critical role in Australia's economy and social life, it's critical that we maintain

63% of the world's assessed fished stocks are overfished, while in Australia that level is at 42% of Australia's Commonwealth fish stocks.

For long term prosperity in our marine economy as an asset base, for our current and future jobs economy. This is an economic issue, in addition to an economic issue.

"It just makes good business sense", Laura said.

To hear the full interview, click here.

The People's Daily | Australia Puts Price on Dying Oceans

Our research on our ocean wealth makes it all the way to China – The People's Daily reports on CPD's research paper Stocking Up: Securing our Marine Economy, emphasising its implications for Australia's carbon tax debate.

According to Laura Eadie, "It's not an easy thing to put a price on the value of life let alone an ecological treasure chest that sustains and if protected could sustain us for future lifetimes, but that's what this study aims to do."

Eadie told Xinhua that through analysis of the UN's Environment Program biodiversityassessments, and in the face of Prime Minister Gillard's recent pricing of carbon, the price tag of what is beneath Australia's oceans depends on the strength of future protective modeling.

"What this means is Australia's marine life, fish stocks and ecosystems willneed to be protected to buffer them from the risks of over- exploitation, risingtemperatures and acidity due to climate change, and pollution."

To read the full report, click here.

 

[image error]

READ the key findings & recommendations in Stocking Up: Securing Our Marine Economy here.

DOWNLOAD the report here

ABC Rural | Report Says Ocean Resources are 'Undervalued' in the Economy

Following CPD's recently released report, Stocking Up, Securing Our Marine Economy, ABC Rural reports on the undervaluing of Australia's marine resources.

While official accounts currently recognise only $44 billion in value, overlooking the extra value of 'ecosystem services' such as carbon storage, seafood, recreation and tourism.

As CPD Sustainable Economy Research Director Laura Eadie indicates, it makes good business sense to protect the ocean resources.

To read the full report, click here.

 

NineMSN | Call for more marine parks

NineMSN has covered the release of our new report on the economic value of Australia's marine estate.  The report,  Stocking Up: Securing Our Marine Economy (available for Download here). Stocking Up offers a new perspective toward marine sustainability – revealing the significant monetary revenue attached to Australia's waters.  Revenue that is projected to rise in a global climate of scarce resources, provided we institute the necessary sustainability measures.

"In a world of increased competition for resources and rapid environmental change, it makes economic sense to protect the asset base of the marine economy," Ms Eadie said in a statement. 

Read the full article here.