This month, the Australian economic debate was hijacked by a report from the world’s most powerful consulting firm: McKinsey & Co. The consulting firm apparently found that declining living standards represent a “national emergency” – and the care economy, regulations and Australia’s corporate tax rate are to blame for low productivity growth.

The only problem? The report is secret; McKinsey has only shared it with a select group. This is a well-known tactic used by consulting firms to keep their assumptions and conclusions from being scrutinised and criticised.

Not that you would know it from the uncritical reception the report has received from some politicians and journalists, particularly the Australian Financial Review which used the report to attack the government and advocate for its own policy wish list: to cut corporate taxes, encourage industrial relations ‘flexibility’ (in other words, wind back worker and union rights), and cut public spending. The report has been similarly used by the Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, to criticise the government.

Apparently the AFR and Taylor are among the “about 70 business leaders and policymakers” McKinsey briefed on the report. The report is unavailable on the McKinsey website and when the Australia Institute requested a copy, we were told that “[McKinsey] are not distributing this report broadly”.

In short, McKinsey is influencing public policy discourse but refusing to show the work and methodology that might justify its bold statements on Australia’s economic performance. McKinsey’s findings have essentially become ‘irrebuttable’, not because of the rigour of their methodology but because they refuse to show this methodology to any potential critics. This is highly concerning and fundamentally undemocratic; democracy thrives on the proliferation of informed and accurate information, and external review is a key mechanism for vetting the accuracy of statements and identifying any flawed assumptions.

It is reminiscent of the Robodebt scandal, where consulting firm PwC did not just keep their report secret from the public after it “confirmed, in writing, that the Scheme as it existed was a failure”, they buried it.

When it comes to economic analysis, particularly economic modelling, the rule is “garbage in, garbage out”. By keeping their methodology secret, McKinsey is asking Australians to take it on faith that they haven’t shovelled garbage into an economic model. Unfortunately, consulting firms do not have a good track record. It is one reason why the Australia Institute has proposed a Code of Conduct for Economic Modelling, to make transparent aspects of such models, including who (if anyone) commissioned the work, key assumptions, and a discussion of the choice of model.

Peter Dutton has recently demonstrated the importance of transparency and external review for democracy, through release of the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan costings. Unsurprisingly the methodology for these costings is deeply flawed and full of unrealistic assumptions, including underestimating the costs of construction, fuel and operation, and the time taken for nuclear construction, and having zero discussion of the costs of nuclear waste disposal and nuclear generation decommissioning. However, the fact that so many commentators, across various different sectors and news companies, have been able to quickly identify these flaws and publicly critique the plan is testament to the importance of transparency, it is only through public critique that voters can become fully informed on the options available to them.

Unfortunately, the use of secret reports from consultancies is not new to Australia, governments have frequently used research and advice from consultancies to justify their decisions while refusing to make this advice public. In 2014 Boston Consulting Group (BCG) conducted a review of Australia Post’s operations. At this time, the Australia Institute was able to conduct an analysis of the report and identify six specific problems with it. In 2019, BCG conducted another review, costing the Australian public $1.32 million, this time the government avoided scrutiny by refusing to release the report. Those elements that were publicly released indicated the review was again flawed, however a full public assessment of the document was not permitted, undermining accountability and informed public debate.

Secret research used to justify public claims and government decision-making undermines democracy. Transparency means claims can be robustly tested, helping ensure voters are fully informed and decisions are made on the basis of legitimate evidence. Consulting firms will always try to “have their cake and eat it too” – to influence public policy without facing public scrutiny. It is up to journalists, commentators and politicians to refuse to let them get away with it. The public deserves no less.

The post Secret research undermines democracy appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The report, Greenwashing Coal in New South Wales, reveals a stark contrast in funding priorities. State government organisations which are meant to be supporting communities with the transition away from coal have an initial budget of just $5.2 million, while public subsidies for coal research and promotion far exceed this amount.

Key points:

● The NSW Government’s proposed Future Jobs and Investment Authorities for the Hunter, Illawarra, Central West and North West regions aim to assist coal-reliant communities’ transition. But they are severely underfunded with a collective budget of just $5.2 million for all four authorities.

● These Authorities are not able to access increased funding from the Future Jobs and Investment Fund until 2028-29.

● Organisations devoted to promoting and prolonging the NSW coal industry, by contrast, have significantly more resources:

○ Coal Innovation NSW spent $27 million last year and has a balance of $45 million.

○ The coal industry organisation Low Emissions Technology Australia (LETA) is promoted as a $700 million fund. This fund is publicly subsidised, but recently asked to stop receiving contributions due to a significant surplus of funding.

The report calls for the abolition of Coal Innovation NSW and associated funds. It also recommends royalty deduction subsidies to LETA be immediately abolished.

“The NSW Government is far more focused on promoting coal than helping communities move away from it,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“The current approach undermines both the state’s emissions reduction efforts and the future of regional communities.

“What governments do is more important than what they say. Regional communities need funding to transition smoothly, but instead the lion’s share of government funding is used to promote speculative technologies that assist the coal industry.

“The NSW Government has the opportunity to lead the way by redirecting funds and ensuring these communities thrive in a post-coal economy. It should impose a moratorium on new coal projects, abolish Coal Innovation NSW and end royalty deductions for coal industry promotion.

“In contrast to the meagre funding in NSW, the German Coal Commission budgeted $3.4 billion per year to allow its regions to move past coal. This is what genuine climate leadership and caring for communities looks like. Unfortunately, the NSW Government has a long way to go.

“This research shows that the NSW Government is happy to use the budget to subsidise the coal industry, just as its response to the Newcastle coal port protests showed that it was happy to sacrifice democratic rights for the coal industry.”

“Coal mining has devastated our once-beautiful agricultural valley, damaging the environment and eroding the fabric of our community,” said Beau Blenman, a 7th generation Hunter Valley local who has worked in mining for over two decades.

“The toll from coal mining in the Hunter has been severe, from polluted air to degraded aquifers. Despite the government’s claims of caring about biodiversity, mining rehabilitation efforts here have been woefully inadequate.

“We’re witnessing our weather systems change while foreign-owned companies profit at the expense of our land and people.”

The post NSW government now spending more public money on coal boosting than coal transition appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The hearings will attempt to instruct countries on how to protect the environment from the impacts of greenhouse gases, and what obligations they may have if they fail to do so.

The ICJ is hearing pleadings in response to a UN General Assembly request last year for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” Advisory opinions of the ICJ are non-binding but are legally and politically persuasive.

The Australian argument relied heavily upon existing multi-lateral agreements such as the Paris agreement and that, in effect, this and other treaties displaces all other international law.

Central to case before the ICJ is the customary obligation of prevention. On this, Australia argued that the rule of prevention does not apply to harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. According to Australia’s pleading, emissions cannot meet the conventional test that harm must involve a direct and proximate harm from an identifiable source spreading from one state to another, such as pollution flowing through a river from one state to another. Further, the harm from greenhouse gas emissions is from the cumulative build up; historic emissions from multiple state and countless individual actors. Harm is widespread and not localised.

The Australian government also argued that there was no international agreed or consistent view of how to apply the rule of prevention in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.

States have not been able to agree on how to apply the rule of prevention in multi-lateral forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chante (UNFCCC). As such, the international court should not try to extend the rule of prevention to greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, Australia argued if the rule of prevention does apply; compliance with UNFCCC and the Paris agreement already meet any prevention requirements.

“The fact the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ last year for an opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, is proof that a significant number of nation states are not satisfied with current multi-lateral agreements and are seeking a legal opinion, unconstrained by obligations to protect national interests that bind negotiators at forums such as the UNFCCC”, said Leanne Minshull, Strategic Director of the Australia Institute.

“Listening to the oral pleadings of Australia and it’s consistent referral to existing multilateral agreements, it felt as though they were saying to the court – relax we already have this under control. Whether it’s Australians facing a climate fuelled cost of living crisis, or a Pacific islander watching their country be washed away – ordinary people understand, we don’t have this under control.

“As an Australian, I would have liked to hear our government plead a case that looked for global solutions rather than rely on sophistry to limit our legal obligations to ourselves and others.”

The post Australia argues against developing international law to meet the unique existential threat of climate change appeared first on The Australia Institute.

In a recent conversation with biologist Richard Dawkins, right-wing pundit and former psychology professor Jordan Peterson says:

So I I spent a fair bit of time studying the psychophysiology of the hypothalamus, okay, so the hypothalamus is set up it's…it's got two halves, basically one half deals with fundamental motivated states [like] hunger, thirst, defensive aggression, sexuality and so forth, and when those areas are dominated the biologically relevant goal is activated and perceptions are oriented towards that goal. Okay, so now…you might ask yourself well what happens if all those biologically motivated states are satiated and the answer seems to be is that the other half of the hypothalamus kicks in and it mediates exploratory behavior and so the default structure of the mammalian nervous system is if satiated or in doubt explore and gather new information.

There's no difference between that and hero mythology. They are the same thing. They're the same thing! The dragon fight for example, which is the oldest story we have, it’s coded in the Mesopotamian mythology, the dragon fight story is explore the dangerous unknown, discover the treasure that revitalizes the community.

There's no difference between that and the science that you practice. They're the same thing.

The moderator, Alex O’Conner, sks Dawkins if he agreed that these are “the same thing.” Dawkins answers slowly, saying he “doesn’t know what to make of” what he just heard. Peterson interjects, “Well, how many dragons have you overcome in your life?”

Share

Dawkins, famously a bit impatient with literary metaphors, answers, “I’m not interested in dragons. I’m interested in reality.”

Peterson responds that he “read a book a while back” that describes “the biological reality of the dragon.”

Okay so I read a book a while back that describes…the…uh…the biological reality of the dragon. Say, well there's no such thing as a dragon. It's like, okay, is there such a thing as a predator? [Dawkins: “Of course.”] Well, that's that's a meta-category! What's the category of predator? Bear. Eagle if you're a primate. Fire? Is fire a predator? [Dawkins: “No.”] Well, it's complicated because a fire kills you! Okay so is there a worse predator than serpentine flying fire breathing-reptile? Is that not the imagistic equivalent of Predator’? So, in what way, if Predator is real, in what way isn't Dragon real? Doesn't take that much imagination to to see the identity…

Peterson posted this clip to his Logos University channel with the title, “Imagine Convincing A Biologist That Dragons Exist.” I have to say that at the end of the clip, Dawkins doesn’t seem particularly convinced.

If we can understand how Eastern Europe can exist with Doctor Doom’s homeland of Latveria existing, we should be able to understand how the general category of predators can exist without this particular imaginary predator existing. Or so I would think!

Peterson’s many admirers did what they could to present the pronouncements quoted above as expressions of deep wisdom.

For example:

It’s a “form of truth,” you see. Just a form other than “objective truth.”

All clear?

If not, try this on for size:

Since “ontology” is the branch of metaphysics that examines the question of which kinds of objects exist, I have no idea what an “ontological object” (as opposed to any other sort of object) might be. But it did occur to me, reading these defenses, that Peterson and his fans (and for that matter Richard Dawkins, who seemed unsure what to say about all this) could benefit from reading Quine.

Willard Van Orman (usually just “W.V.O.”) Quine is probably the most important philosopher in the subcategory “twentieth-century philosophers that very few non-philosophers know about.” How accessible he is heavily depends on what you’re reading. Sometimes, as in his book Word and Object, his prose can get a bit obscure. When he’s writing in a different mode, though, he can be a pleasure to read.

Take his 1948 paper on ontology, “On What There Is.” The first paragraphs let us know that, while he’s going to be delving into abstract questions, he’s going to do so in a fairly light-hearted way:

A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word— ‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries.

Suppose now that two philosophers, McX and I, differ over ontology. Suppose McX maintains there is something which I maintain there is not. McX can, quite consistently with his own point of view, describe our difference of opinion by saying that I refuse to recognize certain entities. I should protest, of course, that he is wrong in his formulation of our disagreement, for I maintain that there are no entities, of the kind which he alleges, for me to recognize…

McX, as the essay develops, is presented as a playful and probably somewhat caricatured stand-in for Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher best remembered for an odd view of ontology according to which in some sense “there are” objects that have all sorts of other properties but lack the property of existence. Much of Quine’s own perspective in “On What There Is” is taken from Bertrand Russell, who firmly rejected the notion of a “non-existent object.”

This disagreement becomes easier to understand if you channel the metaphysics through the philosophy of language. Meinong, as I understand him, thought that a sentence like “dragons don’t exist” refers to a class of non-existent entities, dragons. Russell (and Quine, following his lead) thought it referred to everything that exists, that the logical structure of the sentence, once we drill beneath the surface syntax, is something like:

Of all the things that exist, none of them match the description ‘serpentine flying fire breathing-reptile.’

Whoever was right about the philosophy of language half of the dispute, what interests me here is a move Quine imagines McX making to defend the “being” of various imaginary objects (despite such objects lacking the special property of existence) which sounds to me an awful lot like what Peterson and his fans are coming up with on the Dragon Question.1

This is the old Platonic riddle of nonbeing. Nonbeing must in some sense be, otherwise what is it that there is not?

…It is some such line of thought that leads philosophers like McX to impute being where they might otherwise be quite content to recognize that there is nothing. Thus, take Pegasus. If Pegasus were not, McX argues, we should not be talking about anything when we use the word; therefore it would be nonsense to say even that Pegasus is not. Thinking to show thus that the denial of Pegasus cannot be coherently maintained, he concludes that Pegasus is.

McX cannot, indeed, quite persuade himself that any region of space-time, near or remote, contains a flying horse of flesh and blood. Pressed for further details on Pegasus, then, he says that Pegasus is an idea in men’s minds. Here, however, a confusion begins to be apparent. We may for the sake of argument concede that there is an entity…which is the mental Pegasus-idea; but this mental entity is not what people are talking about when they deny Pegasus.

And this is really the nub of the issue. When Richard Dawkins, or any random person on the street, says “I don’t think dragons are real,” he’s obviously not conveying “I don’t think thoughts about dragons in human minds are real” or “I don’t think stories about dragons are real” or “I don’t think the psychological needs filled by such stories are interesting to think about.” They’re denying that dragons exist.

Subscribe now

In fact, if Peterson had said “of course, dragons aren’t real, but I have many fascinating thoughts about where the idea of dragons comes from,” I expect Dawkins might have said, “Fair enough.” I certainly would. But that’s not exciting. “I think evolutionary psychology sheds light on the origin of stories about dragons” is perhaps mildly interesting. “I believe in ‘the biological reality of dragons’” turns heads.

But in order to bring us along for that ride, Peterson has to pass off “the concept of ‘dragon’ comes from our fear of things that really do exist” as “dragons exist,” which just adds an ultimately evolutionary/psychological flourish to the more basic confusion of “the concept of a dragon exists” (true!) with “dragons themselves exist” (false!). And his fans are left to stumble around talking about “ontological objects” and forms of truth which differ from objective truth.

Quine:

McX never confuses the Parthenon with the Parthenon-idea. The Parthenon is physical; the Parthenon-idea is mental… The Parthenon is visible; the Parthenon-idea is invisible. We cannot easily imagine two things more unlike, and less liable to confusion, than the Parthenon and the Parthenon-idea. But when we shift from the Parthenon to Pegasus, the confusion sets in—for no other reason than that McX would sooner be deceived by the crudest and most flagrant counterfeit than grant the nonbeing of Pegasus.

Honestly, now that Peterson has left academia and found employment at the Daily Wire, an outfit that entirely exists to wage culture war and advocate for cruel and reactionary political positions, what I’ve been harping on here is probably the least objectionable aspect of his entire schtick. Hell, it’s fun. Perhaps we should just let the man have his dragons.

On the other hand, the tenth rule in his mega-bestselling 12 Rules for Life is, “Be precise in your speech.” Given that he’s sold enough copies of that book to fill a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, it really doesn’t seem like too much to ask that he should make some kind of effort to follow those rules. Or at least more of an effort than this.

The NSW Education Standards Authority has announced that teaching of the Aboriginal past prior to European arrival will be excluded from the Year 7–10 syllabus as of 2027.

Since 2012, the topic “Ancient Australia” has been taught nationally in Year 7 as part of the Australian Curriculum. In 2022, a new topic called the “deep time history of Australia” was introduced to provide a more detailed study of 65,000 years of First Nations’ occupation of the continent.

However, New South Wales has surprisingly dropped this topic from its new syllabus, which will be rolled out in 2027. Instead, students will only learn First Nations’ history following European colonisation in 1788.

This directly undermines the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration of 2020. This is a national agreement, signed by education ministers from all jurisdictions, which states:

We recognise the more than 60,000 years [sic] of continual connection by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future.

If the planned change to the syllabus goes through, the only Aboriginal history taught to NSW students would be that which reflects the destruction of traditional Aboriginal society. It also means Aboriginal students in NSW will be denied a chance to learn about their deep ancestral past.

The significance of Australia’s deep time past

Bruce Pascoe’s groundbreaking 2014 book Dark Emu (which sold more than 500,000 copies), and the associated documentary, have highlighted an enormous appetite for learning about Australia’s deep time past.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians engaged with Dark Emu. As anthropologist Paul Memmott notes, the book prompted a debate that encouraged a better understanding of Aboriginal society and its complexity.

It also generated research that investigated whether terms such as “hunter-gatherers” are appropriate for defining past Aboriginal society and economic systems.

---

Read more: Farmers or foragers? Pre-colonial Aboriginal food production was hardly that simple

---

In schools, teachers have used Pascoe’s book Young Dark Emu to introduce students to sophisticated land and aquaculture systems used by First Peoples prior to colonisation.

The book raises an important question. If you lived in a country that invented bread and the edge-ground axe – a culture that independently developed early trade and social living – and did all of this without resorting to land war – wouldn’t you want your children to know about it?

For many students, the history they learn at school is knowledge they carry into their adult lives – and knowledge is the strongest antidote to ignorance. Rather than abandoning the Aboriginal deep time story, schools should be encouraging students to engage with it.

Learning on Country

One of the strengths of the current NSW history syllabus is the requirement for students to undertake a “site study” in Years 8 and 9. Currently, NSW is the only jurisdiction that has made this mandatory.

Site studies are an excellent opportunity for students to learn on Country. Many teachers organise excursions to Aboriginal cultural sites where students can directly engage with local Traditional Owners and Elders.

New South Wales is brimming with sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people. The map below highlightssome of these, ranging from megafauna sites, to extensive fish traps, to the enigmatic rock art galleries and ceremonial engravings (petroglyphs).

---

---

How students will miss out

The Ngambaa people and archaeologists from the University of Queensland are currently investigating one of the largest midden complexes in Australia. This complex, located at Clybucca and Stuart’s Point on the north coast, spans some 14 kilometres and dates back to around 9,000 years ago.

Middens, or “living sites”, are accumulations of shell that were built over time through thousands of discarded seafood meals. Since the shells help reduce the acidic chemistry of the soil, animal bones and plant remains are more likely to be preserved in middens.

For instance, the Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex contains remains from seals and dugongs. Both of these animals were once part of the local ecosystem, but no longer are.

The middens also extend back to before the arrival of dingoes, so studying them could help us understand how biodiversity changed once dingoes replaced thylacines and Tasmanian devils on the mainland.

Local school students, especially Aboriginal students, will be actively participating in this cutting-edge research alongside the Ngambaa people, archaeologists and teachers. Among other things, the students will learn how the Ngambaa people sustainably managed land and sea Country over thousand of years during periods of dramatic environmental change.

But innovative programs like this will no longer be as relevant if Australia’s deep time history is removed from the NSW syllabus.

An opportunity for leadership

The study of First Nations archaeological sites, history and cultures tells us a broader human story of continuity and adaptability over deep time. Indigenising the curriculum – wherein Aboriginal knowledge is braided with historical and archaeological inquiry – is a powerful way to reconcile different approaches to understanding the past.

The NSW Education Standards Authority’s proposed changes risk sending young people the message that Australia’s “history” before colonisation is not an important part of the country’s historic narrative.

But there is still time to show leadership – by reversing the decisions and by connecting teachers and students to powerful stories from Australia’s deep time past.

Michael Westaway receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Humanities and Social Science at the University of Queensland .

Bruce Pascoe is the author of the texts mentioned in this article, Dark Emu and Young Dark Emu: A Truer History. He also has positions on the boards of Black Duck Foods, the Twofold Aboriginal Corporation and First Languages Australia.

Louise Zarmati receives research funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence of Australian Biodiversity and Heritage.

With Google’s introduction of ‘AI Overviews’ beginning to replace its traditional search engine, Apple launching its ‘Apple Intelligence’ system embedded in its latest variants of iOS, Adobe incorporating an AI Photo Editor in Photoshop, and so on, it’s fair to say that artificial intelligence – in the form of generative AI, at least – is infiltrating many of the digital tools and resources we are accustomed to rely upon. While many uncritically embrace such developments, others are asking whether such developments are desirable or even useful. Indeed, John Naughton (2023) suggests that we are currently in the euphoric stage of AI development and adoption which he predicts will soon be followed by a period of profit-taking before the AI bubble bursts. In many ways, we’ve been here before. Haigh (2023, 35)... Read moreIs Now the Winter of AI Discontent?