Category: State: TAS

  • Life Savers Without Life Savings

    Life Savers Without Life Savings

    Early retirement and superannuation for firefighters and paramedics
    by Jack Thrower

    Firefighters and paramedics save lives, protect us from the ravages of fire, and ensure the sick and injured receive the medical treatment they need. However, after a working life protecting others, these emergency workers face substantial risk of having inadequate retirement incomes.

    Firefighters and paramedics are regularly compelled to retire early due to particular barriers to working beyond the age of 60. Workers in these intense and challenging roles should have access to early retirement options. However, early retirement means fewer years for superannuation to grow and more years in retirement drawing on superannuation.

    The possibility of superannuation running out is significant even under relatively optimistic assumptions.

    This paper provides simulations of retirement income trajectories for firefighters and paramedics under a range of assumptions. For firefighters, these show, under relatively optimistic assumptions, an early-retiring single firefighter can expect their superannuation to run out six years before male life expectancy, nine years before female life expectancy, and 15 years earlier than for a regular retiree (retiring at 67). Under alternative scenarios, incorporating plausible risks, an early-retiring firefighter can expect their superannuation to run out 15 or more years before life expectancy.

    For paramedics, the challenges are similar and severe. Our simulations indicate that, even under optimistic assumptions, an early-retiring single paramedic can expect their superannuation to run out seven years before male life expectancy, ten years before female life expectancy, and 14 years earlier than for a regular retiree. Considering plausible risks, an early-retiring paramedic’s superannuation could run out 15 or more years before life expectancy.

    To extend superannuation longevity through to the age of their expected lifespan an early-retiring firefighter or paramedic would need to reduce their annual living expenses by 18.5%.

    Given the challenges of continuing their work in these intense roles past age 60, it is unacceptable that retired firefighters and paramedics should have either significantly reduced living standards or risk running out of superannuation in retirement.

    Among the range of potential policy responses considered in this paper, one response with promise is to increase employer superannuation contributions for emergency responders and supplement this with a one-time special superannuation contribution for workers already approaching retirement.



    Full report

    Share

  • Jailing climate protestor Violet Coco shows anti-protest laws have gone too far

    Originally published in The Canberra Times on December 11, 2022

    The anti-protest laws that have swept the country are a threat to us all, even if you’ve never attended a protest in your life. Governments are writing and passing laws which authorise companies to legally cause harm to our community and environment, while jailing individuals seeking to stop such harm through non-violent protest.

    The draconian jail sentence handed down to climate protestor Violet Coco is grossly disproportionate and should ring alarm bells for anyone concerned about living in a free and fair democracy.

    Coco was part of a protest that stopped one lane of traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for 28 minutes and she has been sentenced to jail for 15 months and refused bail. Jail is supposed to be a last resort, but this is a harsh sentence that would usually be reserved for breaching an AVO, or for serious and repeated property and theft offences. For comparison, a Canberra man was recently sentenced to 15 months jail for his role in kidnapping, beating and waterboarding another man over a dispute about missing drugs. Violet Coco was peaceful and didn’t physically harm anyone yet received a similar sentence. Are we really content to be a country that doles out prison sentences for the crime of mildly inconveniencing people?

    No matter if you support or oppose their methods, non-violent protest can be an act of community service. Like the pain signals our brain sends us when we are injured – protest is one way we know there is an injury to our community or to our natural environment that needs to be stopped or repaired.

    Draconian anti-protest laws have now been passed in several states including New South Wales, Victoria and more recently Tasmania. The laws have passed with the support of both the Labor and Liberal parties and are mainly targeted at environmental and climate protestors, though you can bet that governments won’t stop with environmental protestors.

    The purpose of these anti-protest laws is not to protect the community, but to limit the right to protest and to protect business interests above democratic interests. In its submission on Tasmania’s new anti-protest laws, the Australia Institute Tasmania, said: “[The law] continues to preference businesses’ ability to carry out work over the right of people to protest by giving broad powers to police to arrest peaceful protestors and imposing harsh penalties”.

    Tasmania’s laws could see a community member protesting the destruction of old growth forests on a forestry site face a penalty of over $13,000 or two years in prison. Obstructing a business while trespassing risks one year imprisonment. These are similar penalties to those  who trespass while holding a gun, drug another person or perpetrate aggravated assault. Under Tasmania’s new laws, holding a placard will be treated roughly the same as holding a gun.

    We know these laws aren’t passed to protect the interests of the Australian community because while Violet Coco is going to jail for causing a temporary traffic jam, companies that cause real and lasting damage to the environment and the community get away virtually scot free.

    For example, no executive from Rio Tinto went to jail for permanently destroying 46,000 years of world history and heritage in the Juukan Gorge rock shelters.. No coal company executive has ever been jailed for helping to cause climate change, which is turbo-charging the extreme weather events wreaking havoc and billions of dollars in damages upon communities across the country every year. Australia has one of the worst extinction rates for mammals, yet for decades we have chosen to exempt native forest logging from our national environmental laws that are supposed to protect threatened species, something the federal Labor government is now seeking to rectify. Companies are routinely authorised by governments to cause harm to community and to our natural environment while individuals are punished for peacefully protesting to stop such harms.

    Often it is governments that impose harms on the community. Until the Freedom Rides of the 1960s, public pools were still segregated in parts of Australia, prohibiting Aboriginal people from swimming with white people. Homosexuality was a crime in Tasmania until 1997 when years of protest resulted in gay law reforms, and let us not forget equal marriage has only been legal for five years. And former Greens Leader Bob Brown was once shot at during protests against logging at Tasmania’s Farmhouse Creek and he was arrested again this year, fighting the same fight to protect Australia’s forests.

    Whether it be the struggle for basic human rights, like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the fight for equal marriage, or to struggle to protect our natural world from destruction, like the battle to end whaling in the Southern Ocean, or to stop the destruction of the Amazon rainforest—many just causes are radical until they become inevitable.

    The Franklin River blockade saw around 1500 people arrested and 600 jailed, including Bob Brown who spent 19 days in Risdon Prison. But the day after his release in 1983, he was elected as the first Green in Tasmania’s Parliament. The Franklin River flows freely today thanks to those protestors. Australians owe a debt of gratitude to all those protestors who have been willing to risk jail to stand up for what’s right. But just because protestors are willing to risk jail, does not make harsh jail sentences for protests any less draconian or anti-democratic.

    Some people may not agreewith the methods of climate protestors, but causing a traffic jam is hardly a reason to send someone to jail for more than a year. Especially not when climate change is fuelling extreme weather events that are severely impacting Australians across the country. It is imperative that all of us fight to repeal the anti-democratic laws that have been passed by state governments around the country. Because the reality is that the right to peacefully protest is as fundamental to a healthy democracy as free and fair elections.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • The Choices We Make

    The Choices We Make

    The Economic Future of Tasmania
    by Dan Nahum

    New research by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work analyses the economic effects of COVID-19 on Tasmania, and suggests how Tasmania can ‘build back better’ out of the COVID-19 crisis, making key recommendations to help Tasmania avoid the mistakes made at the Federal level. Ahead of Tasmania’s State Budget, set to be delivered on 12 November 2020, in this new report the Centre for Future Work has explored what the shape of Tasmania’s economy could look like, and how it can recover and reconstruct after this pandemic.

    Businesses and households will not simply ‘regain confidence’ and drive a full recovery themselves. Indeed, Tasmania’s proactive and protective fiscal response indicates that the state government already understands that major support from government is necessary. As a proportion of the state’s gross state product, Tasmania has committed the largest amount of funding of any state. Meanwhile, extremely low borrowing costs mean that there is no reason for the state government not to undertake a more proactive role in the economy than it has done historically, even if that means higher deficits.

    However, a short-term, counter-cyclic approach does not adequately respond to the full scope of the challenge. The underlying working machinery of the economy is not in good order. COVID-19 has highlighted existing vulnerabilities and created new ones, and it has also limited the scope of the private sector to respond.

    The state government in Tasmania will clearly be required to play a hands-on, leading role in job creation, investment and income generation for years to come, and it will need to borrow to do so. This fact should not be feared, but celebrated: large deficits are the flipside of the public investment that will be required to undertake Tasmania’s reconstruction. It will be necessary to mobilise economic resources, to meet human needs and to get Tasmanians working again—especially if the intention is to build a more resilient and diverse economy than the one that existed before COVID-19.

    The Tasmanian economy will not have the same shape as it did before the pandemic. Tasmania can and must think differently about what is possible. Our purpose in this research paper is to add momentum to Tasmania’s conversation about its economic, and social, future. As a result of COVID-19, Tasmania could push itself forward into the next stage of its economic development, or it could, alternatively, spiral into a depression, scarring lives and communities. It cannot afford that. Tasmanians, moreover, deserve far better.

    The report recommends:

    • the Tasmanian Government make a larger investment in public housing
    • the State Government also expand public sector investment into the health, aged and disability care sectors
    • outsourced public sector functions should be returned to direct provision by Government wherever possible, to improve cost, accountability and quality
      • doing so will also provide the State Government with a lever to improve wages and conditions across the economy, especially in sectors dominated by women
    • the Tasmanian Government should also support and co-invest in several strategic industries, including manufacturing and renewable manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, arts and entertainment, food production, and higher education.



    Full report

    Share