Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 45

New CPD discussion paper on agricultural sustainability | 12 August 2015

CPD’s latest discussion paper was launched as part of an agricultural sustainability roundtable hosted by Ernst & Young and CPD in Canberra on 12 August 2015.

Andrew Metcalfe AO, former Secretary of the Departments of Agriculture and Immigration, moderated the roundtable, which brought together stakeholders from across the sector to discuss the recommendations in the paper and consider broader trends and opportunities to improve sustainability performance. Major General Michael Jeffery AC, AO (Mil), CVO, MC (Retd), former Governor General and current National Advocate for Soil Health, provided opening remarks at the forum.

The paper argues that farmers at the leading edge of sustainable, regenerative farm businesses are opening up exciting new opportunities for better economic and ecological performance in Australian agriculture.

From vicious to virtuous cycles: a sustainable future for Australian agriculture says this requires breaking out of a vicious cycle of resources depletion that is undermining the long-term prospects of the sector.

The condition of soil, water and other natural resources that underpin our agricultural productivity remains largely invisible to markets and has been systematically depleted over time.

This has made farms less resilient to drought pests and disease, more exposed to pressure from a changing climate, and more vulnerable to financial pressures that undermine farmers’ ability to invest for the long term. The paper argues these trends are eroding the foundations for agricultural productivity and will compromise the sectors’ ability to grasp the opportunities on offer in the Asian Century.

The discussion paper envisions another way: a strategic future for Australian agriculture that embraces a virtuous cycle.

Download the report here: From Vicious to Virtuous Cycles

View the press release here: Australia can shift from vicious to virtuous cycles in agriculture

Drawing on case studies of ‘first practice’ farmers at the cutting edge of sustainable land management, the discussion paper argues that together, consumers, supply-chains and producers can support a shift towards virtuous cycles in agriculture.

Innovative Australian farmers are demonstrating that healthy, biologically diverse native ecosystems can be utilised to produce conventional agricultural commodities sustainably and profitably.

Leading brands and firms are showing a determination and capacity to promote sustainable supply chains – and sustainability-conscious are increasingly voting with their wallets.

Drawing on these trends, the paper argues that agricultural supply chains that embrace sustainable land management and prioritise value over volume can make a lasting contribution to Australia’s prosperity.

This would offer a new and sustainable competitive edge for Australia’s food and fibre products, while entrenching Australia’s farmers as effective and trusted stewards of Australia’s treasured landscapes, natural resources and ecosystems.

The paper outlines three policy priorities for seizing this momentum: building the evidence on the productivity and sustainability benefits of innovative first practice approaches; supporting projects and partnerships between sustainable producers and ecologically-discerning brands and retailers; and developing the accounting and measurement techniques needed to send the right signals about the value of protecting natural resources and landscapes.

 

The post New CPD discussion paper on agricultural sustainability | 12 August 2015 appeared first on CPD.

Why CPD Patron Fred Chaney cheers for Adam Goodes | 3 August 2015

CPD patron Fred Chaney has written in support of Adam Goodes. In the piece, which appears in The Canberra Times, Chaney writes of his admiration for the AFL player and Australian of the Year, and his disdain for racial abuse. Goodes, who often speaks out publicly on issues of race, has been consistently booed at matches this year by crowd members in what many consider to be racially-motivated actions.

‘By the time I actually met Adam Goodes, on January 25, 2014, I was already a fan. In the previous year I had sent him supportive messages when he ran into some heavy weather on race issues. I already regarded him as important in the campaign against racial discrimination and his appointment as Australian of the Year as significant and appropriate.’

‘As an old, white, Anglo-Celtic male who has led a relatively privileged life, I am the last person to know from direct personal experience what the experience of racism is like,’ writes Chaney. ‘But as I have been involved in Aboriginal and race issues over my lifetime, I have learned from others how incessant and debilitating it can be. And I loathe it.’

‘To destroy the sense of confidence and self-worth of any person is so clearly wrong.’

‘When Adam Goodes asserts his pride in his heritage, he cops racial abuse. When he steps outside the ideal of the compliant and and subservient black fellow, he cops it. We should be past that.’

‘We should admire his courage, think carefully when he reproaches us, celebrate his enormous talent, and be proud that such a big man is one of us.’

The post Why CPD Patron Fred Chaney cheers for Adam Goodes | 3 August 2015 appeared first on CPD.

The Longest Conflict included as key reading by US Center for Climate and Security | 23 July 2015

The CPD’s recent report on climate change and security, The Longest Conflict: Australia’s Climate Security Challenge, has been included in The Center for Climate and Security’s summer reading list.

The Longest Conflict, which sits on the reading list alongside the likes of UK Foreign Commonwealth Office reports and G7 commissioned reports, draws on extended interviews with senior military planners and security strategists in Australia and from around the world.

It finds that Australia is critically underprepared for a coming climate security crisis bound to have disproportionate impacts in Australia and in our immediate region.

The report can be accessed here: The Longest Conflict.

The Center for Climate and Security is a non-profit policy institute based in Washington, which draws from an advisory board of senior retired military leaders and security professionals.

It considers ‘climate change, in both scale and potential impact, … a security risk that will affect our most basic resources, from food to water to energy.’

The center observes that ‘national and international security communities understand these risks… but progress in mitigating, preventing, preparing for, and adapting to these risks will require that policy-makers, thought leaders and the public take them seriously.’

The Center advises Australian audiences to not wait for summer before reading the report.

The post The Longest Conflict included as key reading by US Center for Climate and Security | 23 July 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod on The Drum discusses cattle imports, Greece and clean energy | 21 July 2015

Travers McLeod, CEO of the Centre for Policy Development, recently appeared on The Drum, discussing Indonesia’s reduction in the importation of Australian cattle, the Greek government’s response to the country’s economic turmoil, and the solar industry and climate change.

Indonesia’s cattle imports

Speaking on Indonesia’s 80 per cent reduction in cattle imports, McLeod suggested Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce’s call for a predictable relationship with Indonesia may not be materialising.

‘Volatility is the new normal in this trading relationship, particularly around live cattle,’ McLeod noted.

McLeod suggested that the 80 per cent drop, when viewed in the context of equivalent quarterly trends over the last few years, is significant – a ‘third of the quarterly average over the last three years’.

‘The fact that we didn’t see it coming points to a blind spot in that relationship,’ McLeod noted.

Greek Economy

When discussion turned to Greece, McLeod, in conversation with Professor Nikos Papastergiadis of the University of Melbourne, pondered whether Greece’s recent ‘step change’ in favour of a reform package suggested the government was playing to the near-term benefit of staying in the EU as part of a ‘two-card play’, whereby Greece may push for a renegotiation of terms once the ‘fiscal cliff is averted’.

Clean energy and climate change

Finally, McLeod observed that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is ‘delivering double the government bond-rate back to the budget because of the quality of its investments’.

‘I think it should be left to get on with its job.’

McLeod took the opportunity to discuss the broader need for non-partisan tackling of climate change.

‘It’s not just the campaign against renewals though. Let’s look at the Pentagon, the Ministry of Defence in the UK, NATO, and now the Vatican. You’ve got a whole bunch of institutions that are not dabbling in climate change.’

‘They are setting strong targets, taking concerted action on national security, on systemic risk in the financial system.’

While in Australia it is seen as a ‘toxic issue’ for political gain. ‘I think that has to stop.’

McLeod, citing CPD’s recent launch of The Longest Conflict: Australia’s Climate Security Challenge and the involvement of Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, former UK Government Climate & Energy Security Envoy (whose last boss was Foreign Secretary William Hague), observed that climate change is not a ‘left-right issue in the UK, and they’ve gotten on with it. So should we.’

‘The prime minister said before Copenhagen, we should wait for the rest of the world. The rest of the world has outleaped us, and gone well beyond us a long time ago,’ McLeod noted.

‘The August meeting of the party room will be a defining moment for whether the government is serious about addressing climate change.’

The post McLeod on The Drum discusses cattle imports, Greece and clean energy | 21 July 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McLeod at COTA conference urges policy with ‘staying power’ on question of ageing Australia | 21 July 2015

Travers McLeod, CEO of the Centre for Policy Development, recently spoke at the Council on the Ageing’s Victoria Annual Conference, urging the adoption of resilient policy packages in response to structural challenges.

‘Our policy solutions need staying power; they need to outlast political cycles,’ McLeod noted.

McLeod observed six instances where significant change was necessary to ensure long-term goals were achieved.

framing;
retirement incomes;
health spending;
innovation;
intergenerational stewardship;
democratic renewal.

On the question of framing, McLeod suggested the ageing population must be viewed as an opportunity, not a burden. ‘What’s disappointing about the framing of the ageing debate is that it verges on treating older Australians as a commodity,’ McLeod noted.

Meanwhile, health spending needs to disengage from artificial outputs, and focus instead on outcomes. ‘Are we looking at incentives and outputs or outcomes? Incentives like moving patients who shouldn’t be moved to fit in with time constraints are poor incentives,’ McLeod observed. ‘The future of care is in the home, not the hospital and it must be directed to outcomes, not individual services or beds.’

Three changes to intergenerational stewardship were suggested. First, the way employment is measured. ‘We need to look at how we value and measure work; why do we only count paid work when voluntary hours are a growing part of the total output.’ Second, adoption of a better, more holistic index such as the European Commission’s Active Ageing Index. ‘What we measure counts – GDP overlooks many crucial aspects of our individual and collective wellbeing.’ Third, McLeod urged a longer view on education.

McLeod’s speech was reported on by Simon Garner for The Senior (p. 11) from July 2015. A clipping of the piece can be found here.

The post McLeod at COTA conference urges policy with ‘staying power’ on question of ageing Australia | 21 July 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McAuley and Lyons’ latest work Governomics considers the public sector’s beneficial output | 6 July 2015

CPD fellows Ian McAuley and Miriam Lyons explore the beneficial place of the public sector in their latest work Governomics.

The book, which dissects the conventional and prevalent discourse of ‘small government’ in Australia, shows that an emaciated state in reality delivers poor returns for business and society. Instead, a vibrant public sector that truly serves the public is essential for Australia to meet its long-term economic, social and environmental challenges such as delivering world class public health and education, and tackling inequality. Governomics argues that almost without exception, public sector involvement makes sound economics.

The book has garnered media attention from the likes of The Canberra Times, The Age and The Diplomat.

An extract from the book is available here. You can purchase Governomics via Melbourne University Press here.

–

The release of Governomics continues the trend of CPD’s staff, fellows and associates writing extensively on the panoply of long-term challenges confronting Australia, and the many innovative policy solutions available to break the current short-termist stalemate of Australian politics.

In 2013, CPD released the essay collection Pushing Our Luck: Ideas for Australian Progress. Edited by Miriam Lyons with Adrian March and Ashley Hogan, this collection presents ideas and insights from leading policy thinkers on ten big issues destined to shape Australia for the long term. Subjects tackled include health reform, climate change, wellbeing, culture, schooling, long-term national planning, and building economic resilience and productivity beyond the mining boom.

In 2010, CPD published More Than Luck: Ideas Australia Needs Now, an essay collection that pays considerable attention to building Australia’s long-term prosperity and fairness by strengthening our human and natural capital and revitalising our democracy. Edited by Mark Davis and Miriam Lyons, More than Luck drew on the insights of a coterie of leading Australian thinkers. Together they uncovered significant opportunities to break the short-term policy stasis.

The post McAuley and Lyons’ latest work Governomics considers the public sector’s beneficial output | 6 July 2015 appeared first on CPD.

McAuley finds much to commend in Atkinson’s latest work on inequality | 2 July 2015

CPD fellow Ian McAuley (pictured) reviews Anthony Atkinson’s recent work Inequality: What Can Be Done?

If, last year, you waded through the 700 pages of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-first Century you might reasonably believe that little more can be written on inequality.

But there is more, much more, in Anthony Atkinson’s recently published work Inequality: What Can Be Done?.

Like Isaiah Berlin’s hedgehog, Piketty deals with “one big thing” – the inevitability of wealth inequality developing when the return on capital exceeds the rate of a nation’s economic growth – captured in the simple “r>g” which you may see on the occasional T-shirt.

Like Berlin’s fox, Atkinson, a British economist who was an academic mentor to the younger Piketty, deals with the “many things” about inequality. His work takes us into the microeconomics of incentives, rewards, taxation, social security systems, and other mechanisms by which inequality rises. While Piketty made a general policy proposal (a global tax on capital), Atkinson goes into detail on policies that may be employed to counter inequality.

Atkinson rejects the idea that economics should avoid the normative question of distribution. He goes beyond the easy “left”/“right” consensus that equality of opportunity should be the main focus of public policy, pointing out, for example, that inequality in outcomes, through its intergenerational effects, inevitably leads to inequality of opportunity. On this point he and Piketty cover the same ground – inequality begets inequality.

—

“[Atkinson] calls on evidence … showing that among developed countries with market economies, greater equality contributes to better economic performance, a point confirmed (yet again) by the OECD’s recent report In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All.”

—

But he goes further into what many right-wing economists would see as dangerous territory, because he argues cogently that greater equality (within bounds), is a “good” in its own right. He rejects the idea that on distribution economics should confine itself to Wilfredo Pareto’s parsimonious but morally empty idea that a distribution can be said to be beneficial only if some people are made better off while no one is made worse off.

He goes back to the common-sense but unfashionable redistributive philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. That is the utilitarian argument that because the pain in taking $100 from a rich person is less than the pleasure in giving it to a poor person, such a redistribution can result in a social gain. (That’s the economic philosophy I recall from Geoff Harcourt’s economics lectures at the University of Adelaide in 1969, before economics took its neoliberal turn.)

Even if some on the “right” are unconvinced by his moral argument, he calls on evidence, including the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (The Spirit Level), showing that among developed countries with market economies, greater equality contributes to better economic performance, a point confirmed (yet again) by the OECD’s recent report In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All.

The first few chapters of his work are a “must read” for anyone seriously studying inequality. Along with Piketty and others (including our own Andrew Leigh) he describes the trend to lessening income and wealth inequality in “developed” countries up to around 1980, followed by the trend of widening inequality in the last 35 years. He takes great care to illustrate traps and difficulties in interpreting data, and in using indicators such as Gini coefficients. For example, countries that look unequal on conventional measures such as “market income” (pre-tax and social security transfers) or “household income” (after tax and transfers), may be far more equal than raw figures suggest when benefits such as public education, publicly-funded health insurance and provision of public cultural facilities are taken into account.

—

“At the outset, [Atkinson] points out that inequality is best met with policies that keep disparities in market incomes in check. “Transfers are only part of the story” he writes.”

—

Like Piketty he points out that the simple figure “r” is a simplification, because the very rich enjoy a much higher return on capital than the modest investor with a few shares or a small superannuation balance. He explains the difference: it’s the cut taken by financial intermediaries. What, he asks rhetorically, is the value-added by people shuffling around pieces of paper between one another?

At the outset, he points out that inequality is best met with policies that keep disparities in market incomes in check. “Transfers are only part of the story” he writes. Unsurprisingly he is an enthusiast for reasonably high minimum wages. In a description of power asymmetries and other departures from textbook models of the “labour market”, he dismisses the often-heard arguments that high minimum wages lead to unemployment.

Otherwise most of his book is about transfers and redistributive taxes. He acknowledges the work of Carl Frey and Michael Osborne showing how computerisation is leading to the displacement of jobs once considered “safe” (a theme picked up in CEDA’s report on Australia’s future workforce), but he doesn’t have much to say on how public policy can shape economic structures to achieve a fair distribution of employment and incomes before calling on the social security system. (For example, readers would be interested to learn how Switzerland has achieved high equality in market incomes, thereby not having to rely heavily on redistribution.)

His only significant suggestion about structural policy is his general proposal: “The direction of technological change should be an explicit concern of policy-makers, encouraging innovation in a form that increases the employability of workers and emphasises the human dimension of service provision.” While that proposal as written is uncontentious (it aligns with Amartya Sen’s capability theory and with general theories on human capital), in elaborating on this proposal he seems to be calling for policies to slow down the substitution of capital for labour. It’s as if he is unaware of the way the UK lost its industrial lead in the postwar era, when it stuck to labour-intensive manufacturing while Japan and Germany were investing in labour-saving machinery. That wasn’t just about production costs; it was also about reliability. To this day British industry suffers from its reputation for production of poor quality consumer goods.

—

“A work of this nature really has to be country specific, which is why its recommendations do not easily translate to other countries … Contrary to the Anglophilic disposition of our present prime minister, Australia has a different culture and economic tradition to the UK.”

—

He develops 14 other proposals, mostly dealing with UK issues in social security and taxation. Unfortunately it’s not always easy for the reader to disentangle his general theory from his specific UK- based recommendations. His main themes are calls for more progressive income tax (Britain, like many other countries, has cut top marginal taxes heavily in recent years), and for more universality and less means-testing in social security provisions, particularly in relation to payments for children. In short, he argues for a tax and social security system more like what is found in mainland European countries. To those conditioned to the idea, particularly strong in Australia, that assistance should be targeted and means-tested, his proposals may appear to be heretical, but his case is carefully argued on both instrumental and moral grounds.

Therein lies his intellectual strength – his capacity to match general principles with detailed economic analysis – analysis that points out the risks of unintended consequences, the importance of cultural norms (such as a “fair price”), the legacies of institutional power, and how his proposals can mesh with existing policies including those of the European Union. A work of this nature really has to be country specific, which is why its recommendations do not easily translate to other countries.

Contrary to the Anglophilic disposition of our present prime minister, Australia has a different culture and economic tradition to the UK. Our history as a convict settlement, the disruption of the gold rush, the development of a high-wage protected manufacturing sector, the Harvester Judgement, postwar immigration, minerals booms, and institutions such as compulsory superannuation all make for a unique economic structure – and a unique set of problems (taken up in the CPD’s publications More Than Luck (2010) and Pushing Our Luck (2013). We cannot simply lift Atkinson’s policy prescriptions and apply them here.

But while his detailed suggestions are necessarily linked to the UK, the principles he develops are relevant for anyone seeking ways to reverse the corrosive trend of worsening inequality.

—

Ian McAuley is a Fellow of the CPD. He and his colleague Miriam Lyons, former Executive Director of the CPD, have recently published the work Governomics: can we afford small government?, which covers many of the same themes as Atkinson’s work.

The post McAuley finds much to commend in Atkinson’s latest work on inequality | 2 July 2015 appeared first on CPD.

Fiona Armstrong explores the relationship between climate mitigation and health in The Conversation | 29 June 2015

CPD fellow, Fiona Armstrong, has discussed the critical impact that climate mitigation will have upon public health in the 21st century in The Conversation. 

According to the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate report, climate change is the greatest health opportunity of the 21st century. Armstrong has discussed how the reports claims that climate change responses can have direct impacts upon the burden of ill health, boost community reliance and lessen poverty and inequity.

Armstrong highlights that we “cannot afford to wait”. Climate change is becoming a greater threat worldwide, but particularly effects Australia through extreme weather conditions. The ongoing impacts on health are detrimental “Rising temperatures are leading to increases in deadly food borne illnesses, disruptions to food production and water security, and worsening air quality, increasing respiratory illness.”

Without change, Armstrong notes the report findings which states that “large-scale disruptions to the climate system could trigger a discontinuity in the long-term progression of humanity”. Looking to the forward it becomes clear that there needs to be movements toward low-carbon technologies, and renewable energies whilst phasing out coal. It raises important questions to how the Australia government will deal with these issues.

Pedro Ribeiro Simões/Flickr, CC BY

 

The post Fiona Armstrong explores the relationship between climate mitigation and health in The Conversation | 29 June 2015 appeared first on CPD.

CPD’s new report on Australia’s climate security challenge receives widespread coverage | 25 June 2015

CPD’s new report was successfully launched by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, former UK Government Climate & Energy Security Envoy, and Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force on Monday 22nd June 2015. 

This week CPD put its create-connect-convince mantra into action with the launch of our new report The Longest Conflict: Australia’s Climate Security Challenge. The report highlighted Australia is not taking the security implications of climate change seriously. The combination of increasing extreme weather, changing rainfall patterns, storm surges, sea level rises and natural disasters will directly impact  Australia’s cities, primary industries, food supply chain, infrastructure, health and wellbeing. Additionally, our region is the major frontline for climate change crises like increasing natural disasters and rapacious demand for shrinking resources, which are likely to exacerbate geopolitical instability.

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti and Admiral Chris Barrie were powerful advocates for the report’s recommendations, which included the need for a Climate Change Strategy at the Federal level and a serious commitment by the Federal Government in the upcoming Defence White Paper to tackle the security implications of a changing climate.

The report received extensive national coverage.

The report’s findings were the main segment on Monday’s Lateline which included a live interview with Admirals Morisetti and Barrie.
James Carleton asked Admiral Morisetti about the report live on ABC Radio National Breakfast.
ABC PM Radio aired the report’s findings and featured interviews with both Admiral Morisetti and CPD policy analyst Rob Sturrock
CPD’s Chief Executive Officer, Travers McLeod, spoke about the report on ABC News Radio,
SBS World News Radio featured the report’s findings, including quotes from Travers McLeod.
The Australian  newspaper’s defence correspondent, Brendan Nicholson, wrote an in-depth piece emphasising the importance of the report’s findings.
The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times  and The Age included an opinion piece by lead author Rob Sturrock.
AAP distributed the report’s main findings to major news outlets nationwide including Channel Nine’s news website, and also internationally to the UK’s Daily Mail.
ABC Online featured a major story on the report containing quotes from Admirals Morisetti and Barrie as well as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Anthony Bergin.
APN distributed the report’s main findings to a wide range of local and regional online newspapers.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, experts on climate security, wrote a commentary piece commending the report’s findings and analysis.

CPD also had a range of meetings in Canberra to discuss the report with parliamentarians, advisers and senior departmental representatives. These briefings will continue over the coming weeks.

 

 

 

For more information on the report, click here.

 

The post CPD’s new report on Australia’s climate security challenge receives widespread coverage | 25 June 2015 appeared first on CPD.

CPD’s new report on Australia’s climate security challenge receives widespread coverage

CPD’s new report was successfully launched by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, former UK Government Climate & Energy Security Envoy, and Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force on Monday 22nd June 2015. 

This week CPD put its create-connect-convince mantra into action with the launch of our new report The Longest Conflict: Australia’s Climate Security Challenge. The report highlighted Australia is not taking the security implications of climate change seriously. The combination of increasing extreme weather, changing rainfall patterns, storm surges, sea level rises and natural disasters will directly impact  Australia’s cities, primary industries, food supply chain, infrastructure, health and wellbeing. Additionally, our region is the major frontline for climate change crises like increasing natural disasters and rapacious demand for shrinking resources, which are likely to exacerbate geopolitical instability.

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti and Admiral Chris Barrie were powerful advocates for the report’s recommendations, which included the need for a Climate Change Strategy at the Federal level and a serious commitment by the Federal Government in the upcoming Defence White Paper to tackle the security implications of a changing climate.

The report received extensive national coverage.

The report’s findings were the main segment on Monday’s Lateline which included a live interview with Admirals Morisetti and Barrie.
James Carleton asked Admiral Morisetti about the report live on ABC Radio National Breakfast.
ABC PM Radio aired the report’s findings and featured interviews with both Admiral Morisetti and CPD policy analyst Rob Sturrock
CPD’s Chief Executive Officer, Travers McLeod, spoke about the report on ABC News Radio,
SBS World News Radio featured the report’s findings, including quotes from Travers McLeod.
The Australian  newspaper’s defence correspondent, Brendan Nicholson, wrote an in-depth piece emphasising the importance of the report’s findings.
The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times  and The Age included an opinion piece by lead author Rob Sturrock.
AAP distributed the report’s main findings to major news outlets nationwide including Channel Nine’s news website, and also internationally to the UK’s Daily Mail.
ABC Online featured a major story on the report containing quotes from Admirals Morisetti and Barrie as well as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Anthony Bergin.
APN distributed the report’s main findings to a wide range of local and regional online newspapers.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, experts on climate security, wrote a commentary piece commending the report’s findings and analysis.

CPD also had a range of meetings in Canberra to discuss the report with parliamentarians, advisers and senior departmental representatives. These briefings will continue over the coming weeks.

 

The post CPD’s new report on Australia’s climate security challenge receives widespread coverage appeared first on CPD.