The end of history ... in Australian universities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Undergraduate history degrees in Australia fail to teach fundamental aspects of Australia’s history and how Australian liberal democracy came to be.  Instead, they offer a range of disconnected subjects on narrow themes and issues — focusing on imperialism, popular culture, film studies, and ethnic/race history.

This report contains the results of a systematic review of the 739 history subjects offered across 34 Australian tertiary institutions in 2014, including 34 history programs and 10 separate ancient history programs.

Only 15 subjects out of 739 subjects surveyed covered British history, and of these, 6 were principally concerned with twentieth century British history — that is, the history of Britain after the colonisation of Australia.

Only 10 of the 34 universities surveyed offered subjects on the history of Britain as part of their history programs, even though Australian society is founded on British institutions.  By contrast, 13 offered film studies subjects as part of their history programs

More universities offered subjects on the history of popular culture (8) than offered subjects on intellectual history (6).

The report also ranks universities depending on how closely they adhere to the Oxbridge model of historical comprehensiveness.  Only the University of Sydney, Macquarie University and Monash University come close to the Oxbridge model.  Some very small and new institutions — such as Campion College — rank as well on this measure as large and well-established universities like the University of Melbourne.

There is also a tendency for many smaller universities to offer subjects exclusively on Australian and twentieth century history, thus promoting a narrow and short-sighted view of history.

Undergraduate history informs the next generation of historians, the next generation of history teachers, and their future students.  This report raises concerns that a new generation of Australians will have a narrow and fragmented grasp of our heritage, and lack an understanding of the institutions that have made Australia free and prosperous.

---

INTRODUCTION

It has long been recognised that history is a discipline with enormous social importance.  More than two millennia ago, Cicero warned that a lack of understanding of history can lead to ignorance:  ‘Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child’. ⁽¹⁾  More recently, Winston Churchill advised ‘Study history, study history.  In history lie all the secrets of statecraft.’ ⁽²⁾

While there has been much public debate about the state of history programs in schools, comparatively little attention has been given to the composition of history courses at Australia’s at the tertiary level.

The composition of undergraduate history courses in Australia should be a major concern — not only for those who are currently studying or are intending to study history at university, but also for the general public.  Since there is a strong link between academic trends and what is taught on campus, the composition of university history courses is a strong reflection of the state and health of the history discipline at large and the culture of Australia’s campuses.

These trends will also be passed to history teachers in secondary schools, thus ensuring that the ideas and perspectives embedded in an undergraduate history course have broader significance.  There is a deep interaction between secondary and tertiary history education.  Due to weaknesses in the secondary teaching of history, undergraduate history now has to take a larger burden of the basic introduction to historical knowledge, as one academic wrote in 2004:

We are now able to take less for granted about students’ knowledge of the past, or understanding of the nature of the discipline than we could even five years ago.  First year is far more ‘introductory’ now — and is becoming more so — than it was even fairly recently. ⁽³⁾

This report is the first comprehensive evaluation of the state of undergraduate history in Australia.  It contains the results of a systematic review of 739 subjects offered across 34 Australian tertiary institutions.  A total of 34 history programs were considered, in addition to a further 10 separate ancient history programs.

This is not the first attempt to have been made to catalogue the state of undergraduate history courses.  The Australian Historical Association conducted three ‘State of History’ surveys between 1994 and 2002.  In 2004, it commissioned and published a more comprehensive review of all undergraduate history offerings in Australia, compiled by Carly Millar and Mark Peel (hereafter referred to as ‘Millar and Peel’).  Millar and Peel surveyed every history program in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, surveying a total of 57 separate tertiary institutions.  The report concluded that very few institutions at the time offered ‘the canon’ of historical learning, a finding which we confirm in our study ten years later. ⁽⁴⁾

In order to assure the comparability of the 2004 study with our new findings, we have adopted many of the assumptions and cataloguing conventions used in the Millar and Peel survey.  Our study extends their analysis and includes for the first time a complete database of all undergraduate history subjects taught in Australia in 2014.  We have endeavoured to impose a more transparent methodology and to achieve greater consistency in the classifications adopted from Millar and Peel.

Furthermore, this paper also provides an assessment of individual history courses in Australia.  While overall trends in history teaching are important, an assessment of the breadth and interests of undergraduate history course is relevant for students at the level of universities.  Our data allows us to assess whether individual universities offer students the ability to study the origins of Australian society and the broader scope of history.

---

FINDINGS

Trends in undergraduate history

This review draws attention to a number of trends occurring in Australian history programs, particularly over the last decade since Millar and Peel’s report.  These changes reflect changes in the history profession, student demand, university and department resources, and broader social attitudes towards history.

Today, many institutions across Australia provide history programs that are very narrow in scope, sometimes in a chronological sense, sometimes in a geographical one, and occasionally in both senses.  General history subjects are giving way to more specialised, disconnected, thematically-based subjects on narrow issues such as imperialism, film studies, and ethnic and gender perspectives, making it possible for students to graduate with a history major with extremely little knowledge of history beyond a few nuanced areas.

A substantial number of Australian institutions only offer subjects on Australian history and the twentieth century.  While both of these areas should be key components of any present-day Australian undergraduate course, subjects on these areas are now drastically over-represented.  Indeed, some programs do not offering subjects on other geographic regions and do not examine developments over the longer-term, neglecting several substantial areas of history.

Just as many of the programs currently offered across Australia are fragmented and parochial, many areas of history that are particularly important to Australia’s heritage are severely under-represented.  This is particularly clear in the case of British history.

Although modern Australia has essentially evolved out of British institutions, culture, and language, and although British history was a key component of most Australian history programs as recently as the 1980s, Millar and Peel noted a significant decline in the number of institutions offering British history in 2003-4.  Already at that stage, only a small majority of institutions offered nineteenth century British history, and a minority offered early modern British history. ⁽⁵⁾  In 2014-5, we see the natural consequences of the continuation of this trend.  Of the 34 institutions surveyed, only ten offered British history in 2014, and even fewer offered subjects on early modern British history.  Only one general history subject, at Australian National University, was offered on the history of England under the Tudors and Stuarts in 2014.

There are other areas that are also given less attention than is deserved, although the lack of British history remains the most glaring deficiency.  There is a surprising lack of subjects offered on the European Middle Ages, which is no longer offered at the majority of Australia’s universities.  Also under-represented are subjects on early modern Europe in general, US history prior to the Civil War, and subjects on other significant nations and geographic regions, including Russia and the Middle East.

---

Ranking history programs

This survey includes a ranking scheme of all 34 institutions included in this survey.  This ranking scheme was concerned exclusively with the range of subjects offered as part of the programs.  The methodology used to develop this index is outlined in detail in the Appendix.  Using Millar and Peel as a guide, 16 areas were identified for the purpose of this survey as key components of the history canon.

Table 1:  The Historical 'Canon'

• Ancient Greece
• Ancient Rome
• Medieval Europe
• Renaissance/Reformation Europe
• Early Modern British (c. 1488-1688)
• Later Modern British (1688-1900 or 1914)
• Early Modern Europe (c. 1400-1789)
• Later Modern Europe (1789-1900 or 1914)
• US history
• Asian history (India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia or Asia at large)
• Australian colonial history (1788-1901)
• Twentieth Century Australia (1901-2000)
• Twentieth century world history
• Religious History
• Intellectual history
• Economic history

All institutions included in this survey were awarded a score out of sixteen, reflecting the number of the above areas offered as part of the history course.  Note that only subjects available for enrolment in 2014 were considered.  The institutions, therefore, did not obtain scores for listing subjects in these areas that were unavailable in 2014.

As a comparison, this survey also considered two leading international universities and ranked them according to the index developed here, with some minor alterations.  The international institutions chosen were the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge — two universities which have strong reputations in the area of the humanities, which offer history programs that are in extremely high demand, and which obtained the highest scores worldwide in the 2014 QS World University Rankings for History. ⁽⁶⁾

These institutions were ranked by the same criteria as the Australian universities, with some minor modifications.  The requirement to offer colonial and Federal Australian history was removed, and so these universities were marked out of a total score of 14 instead of 16.  Using this modified index, both received the highest possible scores of 14.

Table 2:  Index of History and Ancient History Programs — international comparisons, 2014 (scored out of 14) ⁽⁷⁾

University of Oxford (UK)	14
University of Cambridge (UK)	14

None of the Australian institutions included in this survey met all criteria.  The highest score (13) was achieved by the University of Sydney, followed closely by Macquarie University and Monash University (12).  Australian Catholic University, Campion College, the University of New England, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Melbourne all followed with scores of 11.  A majority of the institutions surveyed (18 out of 34) met less than half of the criteria specified in this index.

The results of the index are illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 3:  Index of Australian History and Ancient History Programs, 2014 (scored out of 16)

University of Sydney	13
Macquarie University	12
Monash University	12
Australian Catholic University	11
Campion College	11
University of New England	11
University of New South Wales	11
University of Melbourne	11
Australian National University	10
Edith Cowan University	10
University of Adelaide	10
University of Queensland	10
University of Tasmania	9
University of Western Australia	9
La Trobe University	8
University of Western Sydney	8
University of Newcastle	7
University of Notre Dame Australia	7
Flinders University	6
University of Wollongong	6
Murdoch University	5
Victoria University	5
Curtin University	5
Central Queensland University	4
Charles Sturt University	4
Deakin University	4
James Cook University	4
University of Southern Queensland	4
Avondale College of Higher Education	3
Charles Darwin University	3
University of South Australia	3
University of the Sunshine Coast	3
Griffith University	2
Southern Cross University	1

---

WHY HISTORY?

History is the storehouse of human experience.  It provides evidence for how humans and their institutions, with all their faults and strengths, perform under a wide range of circumstances.

In a more general sense, history allows us to see the larger picture of what is happening to our society.  In the words of the great philosopher Edmund Burke, ‘People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.’ It is impossible to understand the traditions and institutions — both the good and bad — that we have inherited from previous generations in our society, whether they our literal ‘ancestors’ or not, if we do not understand how and why they have developed in that way over an extended period of time.

In the twenty-first century, the study of history is no less relevant or important than it has been at any time in the past.  In some areas it continues to flourish.  A 2013 survey, for example, found that ‘History’ was the tenth most popular undergraduate degree in the United Kingdom, based on the statistics from its University Course Finder. ⁽⁸⁾ l This is supported by the entrance statistics from the most prestigious universities in the United Kingdom — namely, the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.  In 2014, Cambridge received 607 applications to study undergraduate history, while Oxford received 1029 applications — both far in excess of their actual intake of around two hundred students each year.  At Oxford, ‘History’ was one of the most popular degrees in terms of the number of applicants in 2014, and it received around the same number of applications as ‘Physics’ (1011), ‘English’ (1142), and ‘Mathematics’ (917). ⁽⁹⁾  The drive to study history remains very strong in the United Kingdom, at least at its oldest and most prestigious institutions.

In Australia the state of history as an academic discipline remains much less clear.  In many institutions, history has been merged with other disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, sociology, gender studies, and film studies.  Though it would once have been considered a major academic discipline independently, it has of late become the norm for history to be shoved under the broad and ambiguous umbrella term ‘Studies of Society and Culture’, meaning that the precise number of students currently enrolled in history subjects and courses in Australia’s universities is not always reported.

Although history is clearly a major discipline of the humanities which enjoys widespread popularity outside of academia, its status as an academic discipline within academia in Australia is not secure.

The state of undergraduate history in Australia

This section of the report evaluates the subject offerings offered across all undergraduate history courses in 2014.  The data in this report has been produced following a review all 739 subjects offered across Australia in 2014.  Each subject has been evaluated separately and classified on the basis of its chronological coverage, geographic focus, topic, and the type of subject.  For a detailed explanation of the methodology used in classifying the subjects, see the notes in Appendix A.

Table 4:  Subject offerings in significant areas of history across all year levels, 2004 and 2014.

	Institutions offering topic, 2004	Institutions offering topic, 2014
Australian history	32	33
Twentieth century world history	27	27
Imperialism/ postcolonialism	15	21
United States history	24	19
Asian history	26	21
War and Society	17	16
Medieval Europe	16	14
Indigenous Australia	14	14
Film Studies	11	13
Renaissance/ Reformation Europe	7	13
Early Modern Europe	14	13
Place, Landscape and Human Memory	7	11
Later Modern Europe	25	11
Women/Feminism/ Gender	17	10
Race/Ethnic History	10	10
Immigration	9	10
Holocaust and Genocide	8	10
Nazism and Fascism	11	9
Public History	16	8
Popular Culture	15	8
History of Christianity	10	8
Urban History	6	8
World War II	12	7
Sexuality	10	7
Later Modern Britain	14	6
Environmental History	7	6
Science/Medicine/ Technology	14	3
Early Modern Britain/ England	8	3

As we can see from this table:

• Australian history was the most commonly offered history subject at Australian universities.  In 2014, all Australian universities with history courses with the exception of one (at Southern Cross University) offered at least one subject on Australian history.
• Twentieth Century World history was the second most commonly offered subject in Australian universities, and was offered by the majority of institutions surveyed.  This was followed by subjects on imperialism/postcolonialism, post-Civil War United States history, Asian history, and the theme ‘War and Society’.
• In general, there has been an increase in the number of twentieth century and Australian history subjects on offer over the last ten years.  Subjects on these topics now form the bulk of the offerings at many smaller universities.  There has also been an increase in the number of subjects offered on imperialism/postcolonialism, film studies, and Renaissance/Reformation Europe.
• The above areas aside, most other topics appear to have experienced declines in offerings over the last decade.  The most significant declines occurred in the areas of Later Modern European history, Women/Feminism/Gender history, public history, popular culture, Later Modern Britain, Science/Medicine/Technology history, World War II, Sexuality, Early Modern Britain/England, Sport history, and Labour history.

This data and the changes over time are further illustrated in Appendix B, with comparisons drawn from the 2004 AHA study.  The following discussion will focus on two specific issues that can be drawn from these results — namely:

1. the specialisation of history courses;  and
2. trends in specific areas of history, including the twentieth century, Australian, and British history.

The Fragmentation of History

In their 2003-4 review, Millar and Peel noted a decline — mostly attributed to changing student demands and funding constraints — in subjects on the areas of history traditionally taught as part of history degrees in Australia, the so-called ‘historical canon’.  This included subjects on all periods of Western history, British history, Ancient Greece and Rome, US history, and Australian national history.  Instead, due to a perceived decline in demand in some areas — for example, British history and Early Modern history — there was an increasing tendency for departments to cancel subjects in these areas and to replace them with other, more specialised subjects on specific themes, intended to capture the interests of students. ⁽¹⁰⁾

The data from this survey indicates that this trend towards specialisation has continued over the last decade.  Table 4 shows that with the notable exceptions of the two most prominent areas (Australian history and twentieth century history) there have been substantial declines in offerings in most other areas of history.  This is particularly the case for more ‘canonical’ areas such as United States history, medieval history, and Asian history.

Some of the more specialised areas, identified as ‘new histories’ in the Millar and Peel report, have also declined over the last decade.  Subjects on women’s history and feminism have declined, as have subjects on sexuality.  Some areas of ‘new history’, such as ‘food history’, have for the most part disappeared.  Nevertheless, this has been countered by increases in the numbers of subjects on other thematic areas, including imperialism/postcolonialism, film studies, and subjects that loosely fit the ambiguous category that Millar and Peel labelled ‘Place, Landscape and Human Memory’.  In general, traditional chronology-based subjects have given way to subjects on specific historical themes or abstract concepts, such as Holocaust and Genocide studies, international relations, urban history, and immigration.

Examples of subjects on specialised themes and topics include ‘Frida Kahlo:  Performing Passion and Pain’ (University of New South Wales), ‘Myth and Fairytale’ (University of Newcastle), ‘Witchcraft & Demonology in Early Modern Europe & Its Colonies’ (University of Queensland), ‘Villains and rogues:  A history of ideas about gangsters’, ‘The Renaissance Codes:  Arts, magic, and belief’ (Monash University), ‘Pirates and their Enemies’ (University of Melbourne), ‘Tango, Samba, Salsa and Society:  Latin America through Music, Food and Drugs’ (La Trobe University), and ‘The World's Most Dangerous Places:  Politics and History through Documentary’ (Edith Cowan University).

Table 5:  Tally of subject offerings on key themes, across all year levels, 2014.

	Universities offering topic	Number of subjects
Imperialism/ Postcolonialism	21	31
International Relations	17	32
War and Society	16	20
Indigenous Australia	14	26
Revolutions	14	17
Film Studies	13	15
World History	12	14
Place, Landscape and Human Memory	11	15
Holocaust and Genocide	10	15
Literature and Culture	10	14
Women/Feminism/ Gender	10	14
World War I	10	13
Immigration	10	12
Race/Ethnic History	10	10
Mythology	9	15
Nazism and Fascism	9	10
Art History	8	11
History of Christianity	8	11
Public History	8	11
Urban History	8	11
Popular Culture	8	8
Sexuality	7	12
Crime and Punishment	7	9
World War II	7	8
Environmental History	6	6
Human Rights	6	6
Terrorism and Conflict	6	6
History of Islam	5	9

Table 6:  Offerings of significant areas of history (a ‘historical canon’) at Australian universities.

	Universities offering topic	Number of subjects
Ancient Greece	17	66
Ancient Rome	16	68
Medieval Europe	14	22
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	13	17
Early Modern Europe	11	15
Later Modern Britain	6	6
Early Modern England/Britain	3	3
Later Modern Europe	11	17
US History	19	37
Asian History	21	59
Colonial Australia	33	75
Twentieth century Australia	32	102
Twentieth century world history	27	78

The offering of such specialised options would be more acceptable if they were offered alongside more traditional introductory history subjects designed to give a grounding in broad historical periods.  Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, and many broad historical periods are no longer taught as part of history courses.  As Table 6 demonstrates, only 14 institutions offered subjects on medieval Western Europe, and only 11 offered subjects on later modern Europe.  Very few universities offered subjects on nineteenth century British history, and only three offered subjects with substantial content on early modern Britain and England.  For this reason, the fragmentation of history courses should be of great concern.

Historical periods

This survey found that the history of the twentieth century is by far the most frequently offered period of history covered in subjects at the institutions included in this survey.  In fact, there were estimated to be some 308 subjects that included substantial content on the twentieth century, across all 34 institutions.  102 subjects were offered on twentieth century Australian history specifically, and 78 were offered in twentieth century world history.

Chart 1:  Total history subject offerings by historical period, across all year levels, 2014.

While there is no cause for concern about this on its own, far more concerning is that subjects on the twentieth century form such a large portion of all the subjects offered.  It is estimated that 40 per cent of all the subjects offered in 2014 included substantial content on the twentieth century.  Many smaller universities — such as the University of South Australia, the University of the Sunshine Coast, Charles Darwin University, James Cook University, and Flinders University — offer courses that are chronologically constrained to the twentieth and nineteenth centuries.  This development should be concerning, as it promotes a very short-sighted view of history.

The focus on Australian and twentieth century history results in earlier periods being neglected.  This is particularly obvious in the case of medieval and early modern history, but is also true to an extent for ancient history.

Where it is offered, ancient history is a relatively strong area.  Ten of the universities surveyed offered a separate Ancient History programs (or equivalent), and at some of these — particularly Macquarie University and the University of Sydney — it is flourishing.  It is estimated that there were 144 subjects on ancient history offered across Australia in 2014, across 21 different institutions.  17 of these institutions offered subjects that cover ancient Greek history, and 16 offered subjects that cover Roman history.  Most universities with ancient history majors offer broad surveys on Classical Greece, on the one hand, and the Roman Republic and early Empire, on the other.  A handful — including the University of Melbourne and Macquarie University — also offer subjects that extend to the later Roman Empire and late antiquity.

Medieval history is not a thriving area of study, although it has never been so in Australia.  Only 19 of the institutions surveyed offered subjects on periods that correspond with the medieval period of Western history, and only 14 of these offered subjects specifically on medieval Western Europe/Western Christendom.  There has therefore been a very slight, though not substantial, decline in the number of universities offering Western medieval history since 2004, from 16 to 14.  39 subjects on medieval history were offered overall, and 22 of these were specifically about medieval Western Europe.

Table 7:  Selected period/region combinations for pre-twentieth century history

	Universities offering topic	Number of subjects
Ancient Near East	7	17
Ancient Egypt	4	16
Ancient Greece	17	66
Ancient Rome	16	68
Medieval Western Europe	14	22
Medieval England	1	1
Medieval Islamic World	2	2
Byzantium	3	3
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	13	17
Reformation England	1	1
Early Modern Europe	13	15
Early Modern England/Britain	3	3
Pre-Civil War United States History	7	7
Later Modern Asia	14	24
Later Modern Europe	11	17
Later Modern Britain	6	6
Later Modern Middle East	4	4
Later Modern Russia and Eastern Europe	1	1
Nineteenth century United States history	15	20
Colonial Australia	33	75

The majority of institutions offering medieval history only offered only one or two medieval history subjects, usually of the broad survey variety — like Monash University’s first-year subject ‘Medieval Europe’ and the University of Sydney’s first-year subject ‘The Middle Ages’.

Also notable is that most broad, non-thematic surveys of the medieval period — including the first-year subjects offered at Monash University and the University of Sydney — are generally more concerned with socio-cultural developments than political and institutional developments.  This is perhaps because most medieval European history subjects are concerned with the entire Western half of Christendom rather than a specific dominion.  Since the Western half of Christendom was not part of a single secular political entity after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it is nearly impossible to cover a millennium of its political and institutional history in a single subject, unless that subject is largely concerned with the history of the Papacy or geopolitics.  This could easily have been resolved if these universities had chosen to focus largely on the medieval history of England, which is most directly relevant to the Australian context.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that there are no subjects specifically about medieval England in the Middle Ages offered as part of any history majors in Australia, with the exception of a first-year subject at La Trobe University which includes substantial content on medieval English folklore.  As such, it is safe to conclude that the political and institutional history of England in the Middle Ages is neglected at the vast majority of Australian universities.

In general, the Renaissance/Reformation period and the early modern period are faring no better than medieval history, although the number of institutions offering subjects on the Renaissance and early modern exploration has actually increased since Millar and Peel.  There remain, however, very few subjects available on the Reformation, and only one has a major focus on the English Reformation specifically.  In 2014, 19 institutions offered subjects on the Renaissance/Reformation era in general, and 13 offered subjects on Renaissance/Reformation Europe.  This is an increase from 7 in 2014.  The early modern period was slightly better represented than the Renaissance and Reformation.  24 institutions offered subjects that cover the early modern period in 2014, and 13 of these offered subjects that cover the history of early modern Europe specifically.  46 subjects were offered on early modern history in general, and 15 subjects were offered on early modern Europe.

Australian history

Much concern has been raised in recent times about the lack of popularity of Australian national history, both at school level and university level.  An ARC-commissioned study by Dr. Anna Clark, the results of which were published in 2006 as History’s Children:  History Wars in the Classroom by the University of New South Wales, painted a grim picture of attitudes towards Australian history among school-age students. ⁽¹¹⁾  According to Clark, school-age students find Australian history boring, although most also acknowledged that it was important and should be taught in schools. ⁽¹²⁾  Clark reported being surprised that the only topic moderately popular among students was the World Wars. ⁽¹³⁾

The decline of interest in Australian history appears to be reflected in the number of students choosing to take history subjects at VCE level.  In the space of two decades, the number of enrolments in Unit 3 Australian history declined from 2,504 in 1995 to 1,242 in 2013, although it should be noted that — by contrast — enrolments in Unit 3 of the international history subject ‘Revolutions’ climbed from 1,779 to 5,665 in the same period. ⁽¹⁴⁾  At a tertiary level, numerous opinion pieces and reports have similarly raised alarm over declining numbers of students enrolled in undergraduate Australian history courses — particularly at the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University. ⁽¹⁵⁾

However, Australian history not only continues to be offered at almost all of the institutions, but is singularly the most common national history offered, by a considerable margin.  This survey found that there were 137 Australian history subjects offered across Australia in 2014, including 75 subjects with content on colonial Australia and 102 subjects with content on Federated Australia.  While a large number of these subjects tend to take strongly thematic approaches to Australian history — for example, viewed through the lens of international relations or indigenous-settler relationships — there is clearly a strong commitment to offering Australian national history in almost all of the institutions with history programs.

Some small institutions — such as Charles Darwin University and James Cook University — offer programs that focus almost exclusively on Australian history.  A history course that focuses mostly or exclusively on the continent of Australia risks neglecting elements of history that have been fundamental to Australian culture and have shaped the world at large.

Table 8:  Breakdown of Australian history offerings across all year levels, 2014

	Universities offering topic	Number of subjects
Australian history subjects — all inclusive	33	137
Australian colonial history	33	75
Twentieth century Australian history	32	102
Indigenous Australian history	14	26
Australia and war	8	8
Australian international relations	10	12

English and British history

English and British history should be a core part of the majority of Australia’s history degrees, for the simple reason that, until quite recently in the broad scope of history, Australia’s own institutional history could not be separated from it.  Although this would not have been questioned by the majority of academics forty years ago, nor perhaps even twenty years ago, there has been a trend in recent years that has seen a dramatic shift away from the study of Australia’s British roots.  All too frequently, Australian history is detached from the British narrative.  Instead, it has become fashionable either to view the history of the Australian continent — as a geographic entity — in isolation, or else to view it in the context of its non-Western geographic neighbours, with whom it shares very little institutional heritage.

Table 9:  1971 course list, the University of Melbourne ⁽¹⁶⁾

First year: British History 1485-1700 Modern History 1750-1850 Classical Studies Second year: Australian History 1788-1960 American History 1789-1941 European History since 1950 Modern Britain 1815-1940 Ancient History Third year: Australian History 1788-1960 (repeat) American History 1789-1941 (repeat) Earlier European History (primarily renaissance Italy and reformation Germany) Far Eastern 1600-1945 (with emphasis on Japan)

Table 9 illustrates the full history course offered at the University of Melbourne in 1971.  The course offered comprehensive treatment of various aspects of modern history, and from a predominantly ‘British’ perspective.  One of the first year subjects offered was a British history subject which covered its history from the end of the Wars of the Roses, through the Reformation period, the Civil Wars, and ending shortly after the Glorious Revolution — a sequence of events that concluded with the establishment of England’s parliamentary monarchy.  A second subject continued this narrative with a slightly broader European focus up to the mid-nineteenth century.  Australian history, American history, and British history since 1815 were only available at second and third year level.  Early modern British history was virtually a prerequisite to all of these subjects.

There was evidently no dispute at the time that British history was a particularly important part of the major.  Its historical importance at the University of Melbourne is further testified by the number of awards that were established for high-achieving students of British history towards the end of the twentieth century.  These included the Laurie R. Gardiner Prize, established in 1993 for the undergraduate student who submits the best essay on early modern British history; ⁽¹⁷⁾  the Donald Mackay Prize for British History, established in 1979 for the student who attains the highest mark in a second year British history subject; ⁽¹⁸⁾  and the Marion Boothby Exhibition, which was re-established as a monetary prize from a pre-existing award in 1996 for the student with the highest mark in undergraduate British history subjects. ⁽¹⁹⁾  Clearly, until very recently, British history was considered to be a fundamental element of the history course at the University of Melbourne.

Despite this, British history has become less fashionable in mainstream academia over the last thirty years.  This was noted by Millar and Peel in 2003-4, who noted that early modern British history in particular was already disappearing from many of Australia’s universities.  There has been an even more dramatic decline since then.

As Table 10 shows, only 15 subjects offered as part of history degrees across Australia in 2014, across only ten universities, included content on British history.  The majority of the subjects are strongly thematically-based.  Some, though offered as part of a history or ancient history major, are not history subjects at all.

Table 10:  Breakdown of British history offerings across all year levels, 2014.

	Universities offering topic	Number of subjects
British history — all inclusive	10	15
Medieval England	1	1
Tudor period	1	1
Stuart period, Civil Wars, and Georgian period up to c. 1800	3	3
Nineteenth century British history	6	6
Twentieth century British history	7	9

Table 11:  A list of all 15 British history subjects offered in Australian universities in 2014.

ENGL2074	Jane Austen History and Fiction (Australian National University)
HIST2219	Tudor-Stuart England, c. 1485-1714:  Politics, Society and Culture (Australian National University)
HST303	Literature and Society (Charles Sturt University)
HIST2002	The Rise of Britannia’s Empire and the Colonial Experience (Flinders University)
HIST3004	The Fall of Britannia’s Empire and the Postcolonial Experience (Flinders University)
HIS1MLH	Myth, Legend and History (La Trobe University)
HIS2LBR	Little Britain:  Culture, Society and the end of the Empire (La Trobe University)
ATS2590	Twentieth-century Britain:  Rule Britannia to cool Britannia (Monash University)
HIST2078	Britain 1700-1830:  Power, Sex and Money (University of Adelaide)
HIST368	The Swinging Sixties:  The 1960s in America, Britain and Australia (University of New England)
HIST2405	Churchill’s Britain:  Crisis and Conflict (1875-1945) (University of Queensland)
CLAN3008	Roman Britain (University of Western Australia)
HIST3004	Twentieth-century Britain (University of Western Australia)
HIST3007	Crime and Punishment in Britain 1600-1900 (University of Western Australia)
102079.1	Britain in the Age of Botany Bay, 1760-1815

The period of British history with the most offerings was the twentieth century, even though this would seem less directly important from an Australian perspective than the earlier periods.  Nine subjects were offered with substantial content on twentieth century Britain.  By contrast, there were six subjects on later modern British history offered across Australia in 2014, across six different universities.  Only three subjects were offered on early modern Britain.  Of these, one — at Australian National University — was a general history of the Tudor and Stuart era, one — at the University of Adelaide — focused primarily on the eighteenth century, and the other — at the University of Western Australia — was a specialised subject on the history of crime and punishment.  In other words, the only British history subject offered in 2014 that appears to detail the turbulent events of the seventeenth century in context is the Australian National University subject.  Of the remaining British history subjects, one focused on Roman Britain (at the University of Western Australia), six were about the twentieth century exclusively, and one — at La Trobe — included content on the folklore of medieval England.

According to Millar and Peel, eight universities still offered early modern British history in 2003-4, and fourteen offered later modern British history (two of which were offered at a first-year level, and thus were major parts of the degrees).  There has therefore been a substantial decline in offerings for British history over the ten-year period.

---

RANKING HISTORY PROGRAMS

As part of the present survey, an index has been developed to rank history programs offered at the institutions included in the present survey.  This assessment has been undertaken on the basis of two major assumptions on the kind of content that students of history should — at the very least — have the option to study.

The first assumption is that a history course should offer as much historical breadth as possible.  Most historians will doubtlessly have their own opinions as to which periods are the most significant and worthy of study.  However, strong arguments can be advanced that every major period of recent human history has been ‘game-changing’ in its own way, and that the scene for any given event was set in the centuries that preceded it.  For the purposes of this report, therefore, it is maintained that an ideal history program should offer its students the opportunity to study the broad sweep of human history, including all periods of Western history since at least the birth of Classical historiography and the emergence of written sources.

The second assumption is that geographic scope of the history degree should be relevant to Australia’s cultural, political and regional situation.  Of course, it can only be a good thing if the university can afford to offer subjects on the history on regions that are somewhat more peripheral to present-day Australia — such as Africa and Latin America — but priority should be given to regions that are particularly significant to Australia’s political and cultural heritage and contemporary international affairs.

Millar and Peel identified a number of key regions that were sought at a first-year level, which the compilers of the report had evidently singled out as being of particular relevance to the Australian situation at the time.  These included:  Britain;  Europe;  America;  Australia;  Asia;  Africa;  the Pacific;  New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea. ⁽²⁰⁾  We will broadly follow Millar and Peel in identifying most of these areas, with the exclusion of the Pacific, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea — which were included because the 2004 survey also included universities from these areas — and Africa — which is somewhat peripheral and is seldom covered in Australian history courses.  Millar and Peel established that history degrees in Australia should offer subjects on Britain, and we follow their lead.  Sixteen key areas of history were therefore identified — namely:

• Ancient Greece*
• Ancient Rome*
• Medieval Europe
• Renaissance/Reformation Europe
• Early Modern British (c. 1488-1688)
• Later Modern British (1688-1900 or 1914)
• Early Modern Europe (c. 1400-1789)
• Later Modern Europe (1789-1900 or 1914)
• US history
• Asian history (India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia or Asia at large)
• Australian colonial history (1788-1901)*
• Twentieth century Australian history (1901-2000)*
• Twentieth century world history
• Religious History
• Intellectual history*
• Economic history*

Most of the above key areas — including the two periods of British history — were also identified as key components of the first year in Millar and Peel. ⁽²¹⁾  The areas which have been added or altered for the purposes of the present report are indicated with an asterisk in the above list.  Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are an addition to the list since Millar and Peel — despite supposedly including ancient history subjects in their study — did not include any data for ancient history.  The broader category of Australian history has been divided into colonial and Federal Australian history.  The additional topics ‘Intellectual History’ and ‘Economic History’ have also been added to the list as they are considered to be of particular importance.  Religious history includes Jewish and Islamic history, in addition to the history of Christianity.

Using the classifications described in the above section, the data was searched to determine whether each institution offered subjects on the specific topics used in the index.  Institutions were then given a score out of sixteen, reflection of the number of key areas offered in the course.

This index does not take into account the relative size of the history departments, the quality of the teaching, the total number of subjects offered, or even the structure of the degree;  it is purely intended to be a measure of the scope of each program and the content of the subjects that are offered.  The results are tabulated in Table 12, followed by the scoring system for each individual university.

Table 12:  Index of History and Ancient History Programs, 2014

University of Sydney	13
Macquarie University	12
Monash University	12
Australian Catholic University	11
Campion College	11
University of New England	11
University of New South Wales	11
University of Melbourne	11
Australian National University	10
Edith Cowan University	10
University of Adelaide	10
University of Queensland	10
University of Tasmania	9
University of Western Australia	9
La Trobe University	8
University of Western Sydney	8
University of Newcastle	7
University of Notre Dame Australia	7
Flinders University	6
University of Wollongong	6
Murdoch University	5
Victoria University	5
Curtin University	5
Central Queensland University	4
Charles Sturt University	4
Deakin University	4
James Cook University	4
University of Southern Queensland	4
Avondale College of Higher Education	3
Charles Darwin University	3
University of South Australia	3
University of the Sunshine Coast	3
Griffith University	2
Southern Cross University	1

Australian Catholic University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 11/16

Australian National University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	Yes
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 10/16

Avondale College of Higher Education

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 3/16

Campion College

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 11/16

Central Queensland University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 4/16

Charles Darwin University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 3/16

Charles Sturt University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 4/16

Curtin University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 5/16

Deakin University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 4/16

Edith Cowan University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 10/16

Flinders University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 6/16

Griffith University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 2/16

James Cook University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 4/16

La Trobe University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 8/16

Macquarie University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 12/16

Monash University

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 12/16

Murdoch University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 5/16

Southern Cross University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	No
Twentieth century Australia	No
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 1/16

The University of Adelaide

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	Yes
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 10/16

The University of Melbourne

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 11/16

The University of Newcastle

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 7/16

The University of New England

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 11/16

The University of New South Wales

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 11/16

The University of Notre Dame Australia

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 7/16

The University of Queensland

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 10/16

The University of South Australia

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 3/16

The University of Southern Queensland

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 4/16

The University of the Sunshine Coast

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 3/16

The University of Sydney

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 13/16

The University of Tasmania

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	No
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	Yes
Intellectual history	Yes
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 9/16

The University of Western Australia

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	Yes
Medieval Europe	Yes
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	Yes
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	No
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 9/16

The University of Western Sydney

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	Yes
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	Yes
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	Yes
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	No
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 8/16

The University of Wollongong

Ancient Greece	Yes
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	Yes
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	No
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 6/16

Victoria University

Ancient Greece	No
Ancient Rome	No
Medieval Europe	No
Renaissance/Reformation Europe	No
Early Modern British (c.1450-1688)	No
Later Modern British (1688-1900)	No
Early Modern Europe (1600-1789)	No
Later Modern Europe (1789-1900)	No
US History	Yes
Asian history	Yes
Australian colonial history	Yes
Twentieth century Australia	Yes
Twentieth century world history	Yes
Religious history	No
Intellectual history	No
Economic history	No
TOTAL: 5/16

---

CONCLUSION

This survey has illuminated some of the problems with many undergraduate history degrees offered across Australia.  This survey has confirmed and extended the findings of the Millar and Peel review.  The old ‘historical canon’ has been eroded, and at many institutions across Australia has ceased to be taught.

In general, the offerings in 2014 were more fragmented and parochial than ten years previously.

They were fragmented because the canon has given way to a plethora of subjects on specific historical themes — such as imperialism/postcolonialism and international relations — which do not generally provide a connected account of broader historical developments or give a sense of wider historical context.

Although many universities have ceased to offer early modern and medieval history, twentieth century history and Australian history now dominate the offerings across the board.  Indeed, many smaller universities only offer Australian and twentieth century history, and therefore provide a very narrow and short-sighted view of the human historical record.

The consequences of this are twofold:  first, the fragmented nature of many history degrees means that hard knowledge is being undermined, and students will not have the opportunity to gain an understanding of a full, connected account of history from their university studies.  Second, the fragmented nature of many courses means that many important aspects of Australia’s heritage are no longer taught at an undergraduate level.

Modern Australia has a rich and exciting heritage that extends back well beyond the late eighteenth century, and well beyond the continent of Australia itself.  It is important that we recognise the aspects of our heritage that have allowed Australia to flourish as a prosperous and stable liberal democracy.  Unless we look back at the long tradition of Australia’s heritage — as it evolved not only in Australia itself, but also in Britain, the United States, continental Europe, and beyond — we as a society risk devaluing those aspects.  For these reasons, the plight of undergraduate history in Australian institutions should be a major concern to all who value Australia’s culture and society.

---

APPENDIX A:  NOTES ON METHODOLOGY

The Methodology of the 2004 AHA History Curriculum Review

To enable comparisons of data over time, the methodology of this survey was heavily based on our assessment of Millar and Peel’s review in 2003-4.

Unfortunately, the Final Report of the Millar and Peel Review provides very scant information on the methodology that was used, and so the exact process which the researchers took to construct their data can only be a topic of conjecture.  The resulting data is included in the appendices of the report in a series of detailed tables. ⁽²²⁾  The tables identified a number of key areas of history — including ‘Medieval’, ‘Renaissance/Reformation’, ‘Early Modern British’, and ‘Modern British’ — and indicated whether these subject areas were offered at a range of institutions at a specific year level.  From these tables, therefore, it can be seen that Curtin University offered modern British history at a first year level in 2003-2004, while La Trobe University, the University of Melbourne, and the University of Southern Queensland all offered subjects on the history of sport.

Above:  Extract from Millar and Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review, 22.

The lack of attention that the Final Report gave to the methodology, however, leads to ambiguity — particularly where the key topics identified in the tables are concerned.  For example, the Final Report it does not give an adequate explanation of what kinds of subjects were put under the somewhat ambiguous label ‘Place, Landscape and Human Memory’, and whether the geographic category ‘Asia’ includes all subjects on all Asian nations or only subjects about the Asian continent at large.  Furthermore, it appears that the researchers only made note of specific topics that were of particular interest at the time, and that some key areas were left out of the calculations.  Ancient history subjects therefore do not feature in these tables, even though the Report states that the researchers did take ancient history courses into consideration and there certainly would have been a wide range on offer at the time.

To avoid these issues, therefore, the present survey has adopted similar classifications to the 2004 review, but approached the survey on a ‘subject’ level, rather than a ‘program’ level.  In the course of this survey, all 739 subjects offered as part of history programs across Australia have been considered, independently assessed on the basis of the information available online, and categorised according to six criteria:  1) the institution at which the subject is offered;  2) the year-level of the subject;  3) the chronological period or periods covered in the subject;  4) the geographic scope or focus of the subject;  5) the topic or theme of the subject (if applicable);  and 6) the type of subject (i.e. ‘survey’, ‘specialist’, or ‘theory and skills’).  We have also published the full list of subjects with our classifications online, for public consideration.

Classifications 3 to 6 used in this survey are broken down and explained in detail below.

Chronological Scope

The chronological classifications used in this survey are based on those used in the 2003-4 review.

The 2003-4 review made a point of identifying where subjects on the medieval period, the Renaissance and Reformation, early modern Britain and Europe, modern Britain and Europe, and the twentieth century world were offered.  None of these periods were defined in detail, and so it is not apparent exactly which period was considered to encompass the ‘Renaissance/Reformation’, when the ‘early modern’ period ended, and when the ‘modern’ period began.

For the purposes of the present survey, each period has been loosely defined in the following way:

• Ancient (pre-476)
• Medieval (476-c.1400)
• Renaissance/Reformation (c.1400-c.1600)
• Early Modern (c.1600-1788)
• Later Modern (1788-c.1900)
• Twentieth Century (1900-2000)
• General history

Note that subjects which cover more than three of the above historical periods (for example, a subject that covers ancient, medieval, Renaissance/Reformation, and Early Modern history, or a subject that gives a general overview of all human history since prehistoric times) are classified as ‘General History’ subjects, as it is considered that subjects with such a broad scope are unlikely to give anything more than a surface account of these periods.

Equally, a subject that does not focus on any specific period but focuses on case studies from a number of different periods is also classified as ‘General History’.  Subjects such as the University of Melbourne’s ‘A History of Violence’ and Australian National University’s ‘Colonialism, Sex, Race and Gender:  Historical Episodes’ fall into this category.

Geographic Scope

In addition to being classified by chronological period, all subjects have also been classified by geographic focus, either by nation or by broader region.

The classifications include all modern nations, regardless of relative importance.  The extensive range of Australian history subjects excluded, regional — rather than national — histories appear to have been the norm.  For example, medieval history subjects tend to focus on the entire region of Western Europe rather than a specific political entity, such as the Papacy or the kingdoms of England and France.  Relatively few specific nations were therefore identified.  They included:

• Australia
• Brazil
• China
• Great Britain/England
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Ireland
• Israel
• Italy
• Japan
• Korea
• Russia
• Tibet
• Turkey
• Vietnam
• United States of America

Note that ‘Great Britain/England’ may refer to a number of different historical states that have been geographically located in what is now England since antiquity, including the Roman province of Britannia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and the Danelaw of the early medieval period, the medieval kingdom of England, the British Empire, and the modern United Kingdom.

In addition, this survey also took into account various broader geographic regions.  These include:

• Western Europe:  Subjects concerning the history of Western Europe in general, with ‘Western’ generally being defined as all regions of Europe to the west of (and including) the modern-day nations of Denmark, Germany, Austria, and Italy.
• Asia:  Subjects on the history of Asia at large.  Asia here incorporates all nations to the east of Iran, including China, India, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam, in addition to Pacific Island nations.  In addition, following the Millar and Peel review, we have also made note of the specific regions of Southeast Asia and Pacific Asia.
• Middle East:  Subjects on the Middle East, which — for the purposes of this survey — broadly encompasses the predominantly Islamic regions of the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, and some North African nations such as Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria.
• Latin America:  Subjects on the history of Latin America — that is, all nations in the Americas in which Spanish or Portuguese are the major languages.  This includes most of the South American continent, including large nations such as Brazil, Argentina, and Columbia, and some North American nations such as Mexico and Cuba.
• Africa:  Subjects on the history of Africa, which is here defined as the entire continent of Africa with the exception of nations bordering the Mediterranean Sea, which have been included under the ‘Middle East’ banner.

This survey also used specific geographic categorisations for states or civilisations which — unlike ancient China or the medieval kingdom of England — have no modern direct equivalent, and which encompassed a number of different modern nations, regions, and continents.

The historic states and civilisations identified in this survey were:

• Ancient Egypt — Includes subjects on the civilisation that flourished along the Nile River between the fourth and first millennia BC.
• Ancient Greece — Includes subjects on ancient Greek civilisation between the Archaic age and the Roman conquests in the second century BC.  Greek civilisation was not constrained to the modern nation of Greece;  it also extended to other areas such as Anatolia, Sicily, certain colonies in Western Europe, and — following the conquests of Alexander — across much of the Middle East.
• Ancient Rome — Includes subjects on ancient Rome.  This includes subjects on all periods of Roman history prior to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, including the Roman Kingdoms, the early Republic, the late Republic, and the Roman Empire.  At its height in the first and second centuries AD, the Roman Empire incorporated much of Western Europe, Mediterranean Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.
• Byzantium — Includes subjects on the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.  Based in Constantinople (now Istanbul), at its height in the sixth century the Byzantine Empire controlled much of the Mediterranean world.  Following the early Islamic conquests in the seventh century, the empire survived in a reduced form for centuries, and for much of the Middle Ages retained control over much of Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula, and parts of Italy.

In addition to the above, subjects which do not focus on any specific region, nation, or civilisation, encompass the history of more than three of the above, or concern the history of the world at large have been classified ‘Global/World’ history subjects.

Topic and Theme

In 2014 AHA review, the researchers identified a number of different ‘topics’ or ‘themes’ that commonly recur among the history offerings.  These included:

• Theory/Ideas/Philosophy
• Women/Feminism/Gender
• Aboriginal/TSI
• Crime & Punishment
• Pre-20th C World History
• 20th century World History
• World War Two
• Nazism/Fascism
• The Vietnam War
• War & Society/Conflict
• The Holocaust/Genocide
• Religious History
• History of Islam
• Race/Ethnic History
• Urban
• Labour
• History of the Family
• History of Sexuality
• Science/Medicine/Tech
• Environmental
• Imperialism/postcolonialism
• Nationalism
• History of Sport
• Film History
• Jewish
• Immigration 36

The present survey has used these thematic classifications as a basis to construct a more detailed list of topics and themes.  Not all subjects have themes, but many of the more specialised subjects have strong thematic elements.  A list of themes used in this survey is given below with short explanations of each topic and examples of subjects that fall into the category.

Theme/Topic	Explanation	Examples
American Civil War	Subjects on the history of the American Civil War.	Civil War Era America (FLINDERS);  The American civil war (MONASH)
Archaeology	Includes archaeology subjects offered as part of a history or ancient history major.	Pompeii in Context (ACU);  Practical Archaeology (UOM);  Archaeological Field Work (MACQ)
Art History	Includes art history subjects offered as part of a history or ancient history major.	History and Theory of Art I (AVONDALE);  Art of Byzantium (LA TROBE)
Communism	Subjects on the history of communism and communist states, particularly the Soviet Union.	Bread lines behind the Iron Curtain:  Everyday life in communist Eastern Europe (MONASH — not offered 2014)
Crime and Punishment	Subjects on the history of crime and punishment.	Crime and Punishment since 1700 (MURD);  Crime and Justice (ANU)
Drugs	Subjects on the history of drug trades, drug wars, and drugs in medicine.	On Drugs (UNSW);  Drugs and Alcohol (CSU)
Economic history	Subjects on the history of economics, money, and financial systems.	Money and Society from late antiquity to the financial revolution (Cambridge, UK);  British economic history since 1870 (Oxford, UK)
Environmental history	Subjects on the history of the environment and human interactions with the environment.	Australian Environmental History (CQU);  Environmental History (UWA)
Exploration	Subjects on the history of (predominantly European) exploration.	Exploration:  Columbus to the Moon (ANU);  Exploration and Empire (WOLLONGONG)
Family and Daily Life	‘Old Social History’ subjects, or subjects on the history of daily life and family.	Australian Social History (ACU);  Living in Modern Australia (USYD);  Life in the Ancient World (AVONDALE)
Film Studies	Subjects that examine history through film or the interactions of film with history.	Film and History (CSU);  The Ancient World through Film (UOA);  European Film and History (USYD)
History of Christianity	Subjects on the history of Christianity, Christian thought and philosophy, and the Christian church	Early Christian Literature and Thought (MACQ);  Medieval Heresy (UOQ);  The Birth of Christianity (USYD)
History of Islam	Subjects on the history of Islam and Islamic Civilisation.	The First Centuries of Islam (UOM);  Islam in Contemporary Asia (CURTIN)
Holocaust and Genocide	Subjects on the Holocaust and the history of genocide.	Genocide — Post 1945 (ANU);  The Holocaust (FLINDERS)
Human Rights	Subjects on the history of human rights, theories of rights, and human rights movements.	The Origins of Human Rights (USYD);  Human Rights in History (ACU)
Immigration	Subjects on the history of immigration, immigrant groups, and immigration experiences.	Populate or Perish:  Australia’s People (DEAKIN);  Migration Stories in a Global Context (LA TROBE)
Imperialism/ Postcolonialism	Subjects on imperialism, colonies, indigenous populations, and the dissolution of empires.	Indigenous Peoples in Settler Colonies (ACU);  Colonial Latin America (UNSW)
Indigenous Australia	Subjects on the history of Indigenous Australia and Indigenous culture.	Aboriginal Cultures (UNISA);  Indigenous Perspectives (USQ)
Intellectual History	Subjects on the history of ideas and intellectual movements.	Ancient Greek Philosophy (UTAS);  History of Western Ideas (USQ)
International Relations	Subjects on the history of relations between states and regions.	US Foreign Policy Since 1945 (ACU);  Australia in a globalising world (MONASH) 38
Jewish History	Subjects on the history of Jewish people and Judaism.	From Ur to Babylon:  A History of Israel From Abraham to the Babylonian Exile (MACQ);  The Jews in the Modern World (MONASH)
Labour History	Subjects on the history of labour movements and the working class.	Living Australia 1800-2000:  An Autobiography of Working Class Australia (WOLLONGONG)
Literature and Culture	Subjects on literature, performing, and literary culture offered as part of a history or ancient history program.	Jane Austen History and Fiction (ANU);  Greek Tragedy (NEWCASTLE)
Mythology	Subjects on ancient mythology, typically found in ancient history courses.	Classical Mythology (UOM);  Myth, Magic and Religion in the Ancient World (UOQ)
Nationalism	Subjects on nationalism and history.	Comparative Nationalism (UWS)
National History	Subjects on the political, economic, or institutional history of a specific nation.	Germany 1866-1945 (ACU);  Twentieth Century Australia (CSU);  Modern Israel:  History, politics and society (MONASH)
Nazism and Fascism	Subjects on the history of Nazism and Fascism, and particularly Nazi Germany.	Fascism and National Socialism (UOA);  Understanding Nazi Germany (UNSW)
Pirates	Subjects on the history of pirates and piracy.	Pirates and their Enemies (UOM)
Place, Landscape and Human Memory	Subjects on the interaction between memory and history and concepts of place.	Visions of Australia:  Time and Space from 1700 to 2010 (DEAKIN);  Memory and the Politics of Difference:  Sex, Race and Belonging (FLINDERS)
Popular Culture	Subjects on the history of popular culture in the later twentieth century.	Australian Popular Culture (ACU);  From the Beats to Big Brother:  Popular Culture Since the 1950s (MACQ)
Public History	Subjects on historic conservation, archives, oral history, museum curatorship, and related areas.	Introduction to Historical Cultural Heritage (JCU);  Local and Community Histories (SCU);  Cultural Heritage (USC)
Race/Ethnic History	Subjects on the history of race and ethnicity.	Race in America (UOM);  The African American Experience from Martin Luther King to Barack Obama (NEWCASTLE)
Revolutions	Subjects on the history of revolutionaries and revolutions.	Protest and Revolution in Modern Europe (UOA);  The French Revolution (UOM)
Science/ Medicine/ Technology	Subjects on the history of science, scientific method, and technology.	Tablet to iPad:  A History of Information (USYD);  The Scientific Revolution (WOLLONGONG)
Sexuality	Subjects on the history of sexuality.	Body Politics in Australian History (FLINDERS);  History of Sexuality (UNSW)
Slavery	Subjects on the history and nature of slavery.	Slavery and Human Trafficking (LA TROBE);  Human Trafficking:  Atlantic Trade to Contemporary (UOA)
Spanish Civil War	Subjects on the Spanish Civil War.	European History 1 (VICTORIA)
Terrorism	Subjects on the history of terrorism.	Terror to Terrorism:  A History (ANU);  Religion War and Terror (CURTIN)
Urban History	Subjects on the history of cities and urban life and culture.	Urban History A:  Early Modern Europe (LA TROBE);  Life and Death in the City:  From Settlement to Federation (USC)
Vietnam War	Subjects on the Vietnam War.	America’s War in Vietnam (LA TROBE);  The Vietnam War (UOQ)
War and Society	Subjects on ideas about war the impact of war on society.	War and Peace in World History (MACQ);  Australians at War (UOQ) 39
Witchcraft	Subjects on the history of witches and witchcraft.	Heresy and Witchcraft in Medieval Europe (UOA);  Witch Hunting, 1400-1700 (UNE)
Women/ Feminism/ Gender	Subjects on the history of women, gender, and feminist movements.	Women and Gender in the Ancient World (MACQ);  Global Feminisms:  Competing Visions, Varying Histories (UNSW)
World History	A specific branch of history which focuses on the movement of peoples, globalisation, the world economy, and global cultural interactions.	Global Citizens:  A History of Humanity (USC);  World History Since 1900 (JCU)
World War I	Subjects on the history of the First World War.	The Great War, 1914-1918 (ANU);  The First World War, 1914-1918:  History and Memory (UNE)
World War II	Subjects on the history of the Second World War.	World at War, 1939-1945 (ANU);  European History 2 (VICTORIA)

---

ENDNOTES

1.  Cicero, Orator Ad. M. Brutum, 120.

2.  J. C. Humes, Churchill:  The Prophetic Statesman, (Regnery History, 2012), 8.

3.  C. Millar and M. Peel, ‘Canons Old and New?nbsp; The Undergraduate History Curriculum in 2004’, History Australia, Vol 2 No 1 (2004)

4.  C Millar and M Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review Final Report to the AHA Executive

5.  See Ibid, 8.

6.  QS Top Universities, ‘QS World University Rankings by Subject 2014 — History’, accessed 5 January 2015.

7.  Australian universities have been awarded a score out of sixteen, which includes all of the criteria outlined above.  International comparisons have been awarded a score out of fourteen, which includes all of the same criteria with the exclusion of Australian colonial and Federal history

8.  “University rankings:  the 10 most popular degree courses,” The Telegraph, 15 January 2013, accessed 5 January 2015.

9.  For Cambridge statistics, see The University of Cambridge, ““Application statistics,” accessed 5 January 2015;  for Oxford statistics, see The University of Oxford, “Applications and acceptances by course, 2013 entry:  all domiciles,” accessed 5 January 2015.

10.  See Millar and Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review, passim.

11.  A. Clark, History’s Children:  History Wars in the Classroom (University of New South Wales Press, 2008), passim.

12.  Ibid, 5-6.

13.  See Ibid, 43.

14.  For these statistics, see Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, “VCE Unit Enrolments and Completions 1995-2012,” accessed 5 January 2015.

15.  For example, see Andrew Trounson, “Why our history’s losing its lustre,” The Australian, 7 March 2012, accessed 5 January 2015.

16.  Course list derived from J. Salmond, “Adapting to Change:  The History Department, 1970-2004,” in The Life of the Past:  The discipline of history at the University of Melbourne, ed. F. Anderson and S. Macintyre (Melbourne:  Department of History, the University of Melbourne, 2006), 96-97.

17.  See The University of Melbourne, “Laurie R. Gardiner Prize,” accessed 6 January 2015.

18.  See The University of Melbourne, “The Donald Mackay History Prizes (British History),” accessed 6 January 2015.

19.  See The University of Melbourne, “The Marion Boothby Exhibition,” accessed 6 January 2015.

20.  Millar and Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review, 18-21.

21.  See Millar and Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review, 19-20.

22.  See Millar and Peel, Australian Historical Association 2003-4 History Curriculum Review, 18-31.

There's no ''war on wind'', just MPs doing their job

There was a lot of heat in the debate about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation over the weekend, but not much light.

On Sunday, Fairfax papers reported the Abbott Government had directed the CEFC to stop funding new wind farm projects.

Social media was livid.  Tony Abbott was waging a "war on wind power".  How dare the Abbott Government presume to interfere with such a virtuous independent market program to tackle climate change?

That reaction was, to put it mildly, a load of nonsense.  The Government's direction to the CEFC is not unprecedented interference in an independent body.  Nor is the CEFC a "market" mechanism.  The CEFC is a government program whose funding policies are set by the executive.

Yes, the Coalition wants to abolish the CEFC outright.  But it can't.  So the Government says it would rather the CEFC focus on funding innovation rather than established technology.  There are a lot of objectionable things in Australian politics.  This doesn't rate.

The CEFC's enabling legislation — which was written and introduced by the Gillard government and passed without Coalition support — allows the sitting government to do exactly what the Coalition is doing now.  As noted in an explanatory memorandum authored by the Gillard government:

It is appropriate that the Government, as manager of the economy and owner of the Corporation, have a mechanism for articulating its broad expectations for how the Corporation's funds will be invested and managed by the Board.

So each year the government is required to provide the CEFC with an investment mandate direction.

The memorandum specifically nominated "allocation of investments between different types of clean energy technologies" as one of the areas in which ministers might issue a direction.

What independence is provided by the CEFC Act is a requirement that ministerial directions not be contrary to the CEFC's statutory obligations, and that ministers must not direct or prevent CEFC investments in specific companies.  All fair enough.

With these provisions, the Gillard government gave itself the statutory leeway to direct the CEFC's investment direction.  If it didn't want an Abbott Government to have the same leeway, it should have written the legislation differently.  It knew the Coalition was opposed to the CEFC.

Anyway, that discretion is entirely proper.  The CEFC is not an ethereal, non-political part of the Australian social fabric.  It is the result of a four-year-old political compromise, designed to funnel money into one particular sector of the economy as part of the quid pro quo for the Greens' carbon tax support.

So it's a little bit silly to hear (as we did over the weekend) that by changing the CEFC's mandate the Abbott Government is "picking winners".  That's exactly what the CEFC was designed to do.  The CEFC was designed to pick winners.  It was designed to choose investments that it felt were not being adequately funded by open capital markets.

And the CEFC legislation already favours specific technologies.  The body is not allowed to invest in carbon capture and storage or nuclear power.  Nor can it invest in non-Australian projects.  This last constraint seems a little peculiar if you think the CEFC's ultimate goal is to reduce carbon emissions — a global, not a national, problem.  But foreigners can't vote.

Because it is not driven by the profit motive in a competitive market, the CEFC has to rely on non-market criteria on which to evaluate alternative investments.  Right now that is done by these folk — the board of the CEFC.  All the Abbott Government's no-wind mandate does is constrain their criteria some more.

The idea that the CEFC is a "commercial" operation is nonsense.  If it makes a profit consistently then it is a good candidate for privatisation.  Why should the government own a profit-making financier?  Why would it need to?

The CEFC got upset earlier this year when the Abbott Government asked it to lift its investment returns, asking it to "consistently outperform the market by a large margin".  But if the CEFC can't beat the market with its government support, then the case for its continued existence is pretty weak.

Australia has a long history of government-owned banks like the CEFC — banks designed to push money into politically favoured sectors.

Who now remembers the Commonwealth Development Bank or the Australian Industry Development Corporation?  Or the Commonwealth Bank's Mortgage Bank Department and Industrial Finance Department?  Or the joint public-private ventures of the Australian Resources Development Bank, the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, or the Australian Banks' Export Refinance Corporation?

These banks were abolished or privatised because Australia came to recognise that markets allocate capital better than bureaucrats.

Right now there is a majority in the Senate preventing the abolition of the CEFC.

But it is almost inevitable that one day parliament will end the CEFC.  Just as it ended all its other special development banks.

Distance no safeguard from Greek contagion

Australia is not Greece, but as the Greek sovereign debt crisis reverberates we should ponder its general lessons.  From our distant vantage point, some 15,000 kilometres from Athens, most Australians might be bemused about recent developments in Greece, whose population of 11 million has a public debt burden of more than 170 per cent of its gross domestic product.

While it is true we are not Greece, not in economic, fiscal, social, cultural, political, legal, historical, or in any other, terms, the economic and financial "slow train wreck" in the birthplace of democracy provides valuable perspective for Australia, and indeed every other country.

Before fleshing out the consequences of the Greek crisis for Australian economic policy management, let us examine how the Hellenic troubles have unfolded.

Greece maintained respectable improvements in material living standards for much of the 20th century, with its real gross domestic product per capita averaging 2.7 per cent from 1929 to 1980.  The average per person growth rate in Greece exceeded that in Sweden (2.6 per cent), Germany (2.5 per cent), Canada (2.3 per cent), Australia and the United States (2 per cent), and Britain (1.7 per cent).

But from 1981 to 2010, according to data supplied by researchers affiliated with the late economic historian Angus Maddison, Greek real GDP per capita slumped to an average of 1.7 per cent, while in most of the other countries cited growth accelerated.

How did Greece regress from being one of the better economic managers in the developed world, even amid intense political turmoil, to an inglorious basket case?  Answer:  It fervently embraced the Age of Entitlement, on steroids.

Less than a year after being granted membership to the European Community in 1981, Greece elected the first socialist government in its modern history, under the leadership of Andreas Papandreou's PASOK party.

In a few short years, Papandreou radically extended the Greek welfare state, including a national health service, indexing pensions and raising welfare payment rates, and even subsidising tourism for lower-income families.

PASOK government regulations made it difficult to retrench public servants and other workers for poor performance, contributing to a growing reluctance by employers to hire, thus leading to a growing unemployment benefits bill.

This public sector enlargement project was erected on the quicksands of a less diversified formal private economy, based largely on agriculture and tourism, but with a very large, untaxed shadow economy ranging between 25 and 30 per cent of Greek gross production value.

The growth of the welfare state in Greece quickly fostered a culture in which transfer payments were widely conceived as a social right, rather than temporary assistance to meet genuine need.

The welfare-as-right culture could be seen through the active political resistance by current and future pensioners against even modest reform proposals winding back extravagant pensions paid to retirees under the age of 60.  Swift erection of a large, but unaffordable, welfare state also fundamentally altered the Greek political culture, with non-socialist political parties becoming all too acutely aware that any hint of fiscal consolidation, no matter how reasonable, becomes a political liability.

That meant that Greek politicians, regardless of political stripe, were complicit in years of reckless policy actions raising government spending from 29 per cent of GDP in 1980, prior to Greek EC entry, to almost 60 per cent in 2013.  Recurrent budget deficits induced by government overspending spilled over into rapidly increasing national public debt, from 28 per cent of GDP in 1980, to 175 per cent in 2013.

As Greek legal scholar Aristides Hatzis explained in a recent reflection on policy developments in his home country, "it's not easy for a single country to serve as a textbook example of so many institutional deficiencies, rigidities, and distortions, yet the Greek government has managed it".

And, so, after flouting basic economics and prudent budgetary management standards for decades, Greece has met its fork in the road, with socialist Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the European Union and international capital markets.

Greece recently became the first developed country to default on a loan from the IMF, and whether the country will renege on the scheduled repayment of a European Central Bank loan due on July 20 is uncertain.

Australia is by no means facing a foreseeable Greek-style situation in which creditors are threatening to withhold additional loans from public sector agencies because of concerns about the creditworthiness of government.  But we, and most other Western countries, do face broadly similar demographic, economic, and fiscal trends heading in the wrong direction.

These include an ageing population largely uninvolved with the labour force, an underperforming economy dragged down by anti-growth regulatory and tax settings, and political overspending ramping up debt burdens.

In terms of debt, recent analysis shows that existing Australian public debt is actually unsustainable right now, when we account for our sluggish economic growth, interest repayments, deficit budgets, and our recent heavy borrowing record.  As illustrated by the Abbott government's so-called "clearing away the barnacles" of perceived political dilemmas, there is no longer any great impetus for cutting government spending and reforming the economy.

Reform reticence appears to be the political order of the day when entrenched special interest groups, whose benefits are probably being paid for by debts imposed on future generations, successfully get between an aspiring political reformer and much better outcomes for this country.

Until the late 20th century, economists were fond of comparing Australia to another traditional agrarian outpost, Argentina.  This comparison remained somewhat valid and interesting until the Southern American country's flirtations with vigorous socialism and violent coups, which led to its descent down the international league table of prosperity.

Argentina has a reputation for debt repudiation, and is now being compared with Greece, because of the latter's new-found zeal for not paying its dues.  Surely, the last thing Australians would want is for our governments to keep sleepwalking, step by step, toward a situation in which we're bracketed once again with Argentina, and for that matter with Greece, but this time as a "terrible trio" of failure.

To avoid that unpalatable, if distant, prospect, we had best stop living beyond our means and get our economy moving again.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's unchristian to oppose coal-generated power

The choice of Naomi Klein to lead a high-level Vatican conference on the environment shows Pope Francis is not shying away from the criticism levelled at him over his climate-change encyclical.  If anything, he is becoming more extreme in his stance on the direction in which the world is heading.

Francis is very concerned with the wellbeing of the world's poor.  This should be at the forefront of the minds of all Christians, driven by a moral imperative coming directly from the mouth of Jesus:  "Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."

While all Christians will assent to such a view, practical responses are often little above the levels of a Miss Universe contestant and usually end with "the government should do something about it".

It is time for Australian Christians to take a hard moral and theological look at their responses to world poverty, focus on the truth of the world's situation, and support viable and practical outcomes, not wish lists with zero real­istic possibilities.

According to the World Health Organisation, more than three billion people still cook and heat their homes by burning wood and dung, and more than 1.2 billion people have no access to electricity.  The uncomfortable truth is that demand for electricity in the developing world will increase dramatically as movements of rural residents to cities continue apace.  The UN estimates urban populations will increase from 3.9 billion last year to 6.4 billion by 2050.  India is expected to acquire an extra 404 million, China 292 million and the African continent more than 800 million by 2050.  For India, that means an extra 1281 people moving to cities each hour.

So, here is another hard truth:  the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity comes from coal generation.  Coal has played a key role in reducing the number of people in poverty and improved other quality-of-life indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy and employment opportunities.

The International Energy Agency notes that world demand for electricity doubled in the past 25 years and the global consumption of coal from 2000 to last year increased from 2369 million tonnes of oil equivalent to 3881 million tonnes.  This was significantly greater than all forms of renewable energy.

About 830 million people throughout the world gained electricity for the first time between 1990 and 2010, almost exclusively through coal-fired generation.

There is no escaping the impact this has had on the world's poor:  the safe storage of food and medicine, clean drinking water, the ability to heat and cool homes, improved transportation and the development of business and employment opportunities.

Two hundred years after the Industrial Revolution, coal still accounts for 40 per cent of global power generation, with new coal-fired capacity added every year.

Many Christians nonetheless oppose coal-fired electricity, with some supporting radical climate-change activism under programs that pressure companies to drop so-called "immoral investments".

The Australian Greens have called for a $2 a tonne levy on coal exports, an end to all Australian coal exports by 2020 and a ban on new coalmines as well as on all fossil fuel exploration.

The immorality of such a position for the world's poor cannot be understated.  Christianity has a strong focus on challenging individuals to support the common good.  The practical reality of faith in Jesus should always be driven by humility, generosity and a wider community focus beyond ourselves.

Nevertheless, Australia must be careful of attachments to those who suggest developing nations cannot also enjoy the standards of living most Westerners experience, particularly those who advocate population control.  In the past China and India have advocated such solutions.  Thankfully, both nations have abandoned such nihilistic thinking.

In the next few years, Australia and India will develop closer economic and cultural ties.  The number of Indians studying in Australia attests to this.  The basis of such a relationship must be focused on several agreed principles.  India has the right to enjoy an electricity system that is reliable and cost-efficient.

To deny other countries the privileges we enjoy really is a moral and theological minefield.

Terror laws: we must strike balance between safety and liberty

Kings and prime ministers being upset with the lawyers in their midst is not uncommon.  Apparently at a cabinet discussion a few weeks ago senior members of the Abbott government got frustrated with those of their colleagues who had legal backgrounds.  The lawyers in cabinet had objected to a proposal to remove the citizenship of suspected terrorists.  Julie Bishop, a former lawyer, said of the meeting:  "Of course there's discussion and debate.  There are a number of lawyers in cabinet, [and] lawyers always have a view on the legal aspect of things."

In 1404, the English king Henry IV refused to allow lawyers to sit as members of Parliament.  Other kings had previously unsuccessfully attempted such a tactic.  Henry thought lawyers were too "troublesome".  Two reasons are usually given to explain his decision.

The first is that lawyers spent too much time talking about themselves and their own concerns.  Some would say that in 600 years not much has changed.  Anyone following the pointless debate about whether especially esteemed barristers should have the letters QC or SC after their name would sympathise with Henry.  Last year an inquiry by the NSW Bar Association into this weighty matter decided on a 4-3 vote it was not in the public interest for barristers to choose what to call themselves.

It's said the second reason why Henry IV wanted lawyers excluded from Parliament was that lawyers understood the law.

More than just the lawyers in Tony Abbott's cabinet were concerned about the government's citizenship proposals.  It was reported that during the meeting Barnaby Joyce asked the sort of sensible question only a non-lawyer would have the courage to ask:  "Isn't that what we have courts for?"  Joyce doesn't have a law degree.  South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi isn't a lawyer either, but he put the case against the proposal better than any QC or SC could:  "The principle that someone with only Australian citizenship can be stripped of that citizenship, without a court of law, by ministerial directive, for an offence, I think is a very dangerous precedent because who's to say the range of offences won't be expanded in the future.  This is the sort of power creep that I think is very dangerous from any government."  Bernardi emphasised that no one wanted to stop terrorism and extremism more than he did, but the plan was a "step in the wrong direction".

CICERO'S FATE

The balance between the government keeping its citizens safe and allowing them their individual liberty is delicate.  The Prime Minister recently said:  "The first duty of government is protection of the community;  or as Cicero put it 1200 years before the Magna Carta:  "Salus populi suprema lex", the safety of the people is the supreme law."  That's true — up to a point.  A slave chained to a stake in the ground is safe, but they're still a slave.  In 63 BC as a Roman consul during the so-called second Catiline conspiracy, Cicero supported a law which permitted execution without trial of alleged traitors against the Republic.  In a touch of inevitable irony, a few years later Cicero's opponents attempted to use a similar law against him.  Cicero's fate was to be murdered by Mark Antony's henchmen because Antony had declared Cicero an enemy of the state.

TURNBULL:  VIGILANT SCRUTINY

Achieving the balance between security and freedom was the subject of an important speech by Malcolm Turnbull at the Sydney Institute on Tuesday.  Turnbull clearly and deliberately outlined his belief that the Abbott government had so far got the balance right.  But the key point of his speech was that we must remain vigilant in our scrutiny of what the government does to keep the community safe.  On this Turnbull is surely right.  The very real threat of terrorism is not a blank cheque for the state.

Perhaps the most fundamental question for a liberal democracy is who decides the price to be paid to protect the community.  If Australia is to remain a liberal democracy, this is a question that must be constantly debated and argued about.  Because if ever we stop having that debate, we are no better than Cicero.

ADVERTISEMENT

Public taken for a ride by government crackdown on Uber

Nothing shows the mismatch between public sentiment and government action more clearly than Uber.  Regulators seem determined to destroy an industry with almost unanimous public support.

The latest weapon of choice by WA regulators against Uber is private investigators.  Last week, the Department of Transport released a tender calling for contractors to "undertake covert investigative operations".  Regulators are getting desperate and scrambling to clasp on to the "sharing economy", in whatever way they can.

These investigators are worrying — both in practice and in precedent.  We now have a situation where taxpayer funds are being used to restrict voluntary and mutually beneficial trade.  West Australians should be deeply concerned by this government encroachment on their right to exchange.

It is baffling why Uber users are not up in arms.  It is a telling sign of unrepresentative regulators that citizens must lobby for their right to free trade.  Government treatment of the sharing economy makes this blindingly clear.  While the sharing economy remains uncertain and unlawful it is conservatively estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

We must ask:  who is representative?  Is it the regulators and the Taxi Services Commission, or the millions of satisfied Uber users?  Governments have clearly forgotten that their most fundamental role is to represent the Australian people.

These investigators also set a dangerous precedent for the entire suite of current and future "sharing economy" platforms.  Uber is not the first or nor the last.  We're already seeing the success of Airbnb, Kickstarter and Airtasker.  While we don't know what the next "sharing" business will be, we certainly want them to be Australian.

Australian governments should be welcoming to innovators and entrepreneurs.  We must provide political certainty by displaying our flexibility and willingness to adapt.  This is not achieved by shutting down new industries, squeezing companies into outdated and ill-fitted rules, or spending taxpayer dollars on unattainable enforcement.

Aside from the benefits of innovation, Australians should be appalled at this latest government intrusion on exchange.  Acceptance of an Uber ride is a voluntary exchange.  As with any other free market transaction, both parties understand the risks and agree to the conditions.  To require permission to willingly trade private property flies in the face of a free society.

Sharing economy platforms tend to be cheaper, faster and of higher quality than their government controlled rivals.  They stimulate economic growth, generate flexible employment opportunities, and help with growing congestion and sustainability concerns in the process.

The problem is that incumbent industries are threatened by the loss of their artificially high profits.  For years, taxis have enjoyed government-granted barriers to entry.  And now we have tech entrepreneurs competing for the same customers but with a radically different and decentralised business model.

In the case of Uber, the root of the problem is that the entire structure of the taxi industry is based on government determined rules:  what does a taxicab look like, how many there are, who can drive them, and so forth.  Specific rules suppress competition because innovation occurs at the boundaries of industries.  This brings higher prices for consumers, higher profits for licence owners, and a lower quality service.  Any taxi ride in the previous few decades would make this obvious.

Unfortunately the transition from old rules to new rules will not be a frictionless.  Traditional industries will continue to put up a fight.  We are seeing this in real time with the Taxi Services Commission.  And while these industries — which will be inevitably be destroyed — have every incentive to pay to protect their artificially high prices this does not make good policy.

Some deregulation is now inevitable.  But the question is whether new legislation will be placed around Uber.  Australians should be just as cautious of this.

There will undoubtedly be more disruption in the transport industry.  Regulating ride sharing in the same way we regulated the taxis will only generate future problems similar to the ones we're having now.  We would only be creating barriers for the next Uber.

As consumers rush towards this revolutionary mode of economic organisation, the Government needs to ensure that regulators are working for consumers, not for incumbent industries.

If a consumer and a producer wish to exchange on a free market without interfering with third parties, then they should be emphatically free to do so.

ADVERTISEMENT

Government debt is a serious problem right now, not a challenge to be left for later

We have forgotten the "golden rule" of debt management:  borrow only to fund genuinely value-added investments.

Australian public sector debt is presently unsustainable, with governments flouting sound practices by accumulating debt for handouts.

One of the 2015-16 federal budget's most important features was its projection of a deteriorating government balance sheet due to rising public debt levels.  The figures speak for themselves:  gross debt (or the face value of government securities on issue) are projected to increase from about $460 billion (27.8 per cent of GDP) at the end of 2015-16 to about $565 billion (29.2 per cent) by the end of 2018-19.  After taking into account assets — such as cash, advances and investments — held by the Commonwealth, net debt will rise over the same period from about $286 billion to about $325 billion.

There are divergent perspectives within the contemporary public policy debate concerning whether our existing public debt levels are problematic from economic and financial management perspectives.  For some commentators, that levels of Australian public indebtedness are much lower than in other OECD economies — such as Greece, weighed down with debt equivalent to about 177 per cent of GDP — implies that there is definitely no debt problem, today or in the future.

Within the upper echelons of the Australian Public Service, it appears that key bureaucrats have assumed a nuanced interpretation of the matter, suggesting there is no problem now but that matters could worsen tomorrow without serious policy change.  In his first main speech as Treasury secretary, John Fraser said "government debt is not at crisis levels" but cautioned that "no action to stem the growth of government debt and/or any substantial rise in interest rates threatens to make net debt a bigger issue in future".

Similarly, Finance Department secretary Jane Halton, said that "to continue with persistent budget deficits would mean growing levels of public debt and increasing levels of debt interest payments".  In a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, she emphasised the budgetary policy imperative to restrain spending growth "to ensure fiscal sustainability over the medium term".

Yet the notion that current Australian public sector debt levels are sustainable is refuted by my new research.  At its most basic level, the sustainability of public debt is influenced by various factors, including previous borrowing patterns, levels of interest repayments, the state of the budget (less interest repayments), and the economy's growth rate.

Taking these factors into account, the actual Commonwealth budget balance in 2013-14, a deficit of about 1.4 per cent of GDP, was worse than the budget balance (a surplus of about 0.1 per cent of GDP) necessary to merely stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio in the longer term.

An analysis of financial information in the latest budget papers confirms that the Commonwealth general government sector debt profile has continued to transgress onto an unsustainable growth path since.

Separate analysis has shown that the parlous state of state and local government budgets, accompanied by insufficient growth in the broader economy, means governments lack the fiscal reserves needed to return public debt back to a stable growth trajectory.  This means the interest bill on public debts is also likely to keep growing, depriving taxpayers of more valuable public services and reducing the discretion of policymakers to change budget settings as circumstances change.

In the simplest of terms, what my analysis illustrates is that the debt burden is not unsustainable in a decade, or by mid-century, as population ageing adds to spending pressures on government budgets, but is unsustainable right now given our budget settings and economic conditions.

Another problem with the existing debt load accumulated by federal government, not to mention the state and local public sectors, is that it is used partly to finance recurrent government consumption and transfer spending.

Government finance data issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in May this year shows that new cash borrowings by the Commonwealth general government sector greatly exceeded investment spending from the period 2008-09, during the peak of the global financial crisis, to the latest available figures for 2013-14.  I estimate that if Commonwealth investment spending was fully financed by the new borrowing, there might have been an extra $129 billion in spending on the likes of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals during that period.

The federal budget papers alone spell out that, during this financial year, recurrent spending will account for about 92 per cent of Commonwealth general government spending, with capital spending accounting for the paltry 8 per cent of spending commitments remaining.

That most federal general government spending is on consumption and transfers implies that the top-quality balance sheet maintained during the Howard years has been subsequently raided by acts of profligate borrowing for some forms of spending of questionable economic value.

Corroborating this statement is that, indeed, during the height of the global financial crisis, the government issued a "smoking-gun" statement about the underlying rationale for the debt boom.  The statement, issued in February 2009, said, "the overwhelming majority of the increase in net debt is due to the collapse in tax receipts resulting from the deteriorating global economic outlook and the unwinding of the commodities boom".

Flouting the "golden rule" of debt management — that governments borrow only to fund genuinely value-added investment spending — will only cause us serious economic problems down the track, as future generations shoulder the burden of repaying debt for handouts failing to catalyse growth.

Public debt is a problem, and the best way to fix it is through resolute reform action by all governments focussed on a mix of spending restraint, privatisation, deregulation to engender inclusive growth, and more resilient fiscal rule settings.  There is simply no alternative to transition out of our severely damaging debt dynamic but to curtail the size of government in Australia.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why is the agriculture white paper gunning for supermarkets?

On Saturday Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott released the long-delayed Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper.

The Government feels that farm businesses, "especially those of a smaller scale", are vulnerable to "anti-competitive market behaviour or unfair market practices".

So they want to establish a new commissioner within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to make the ACCC more "farm savvy".

Yes, I admit this all sounds pretty dull and bureaucratic.

But official government white papers have to be coy.  We don't.  The Abbott Government is really talking about a regulatory crackdown on Coles and Woolworths — the twin spectres haunting Australian retail and agriculture.

The journalist Malcolm Knox describes the two companies as "Supermarket Monsters".  They are anti-farmer, anti-competitive, oligopolistic, bullying, overbearing, and so forth.

Indeed, no hyperbole has been undredged in the rhetorical battle against Coles and Woolworths.  Last year Bob Katter even compared the installation of traffic lights in a north Queensland town near a Woolworths outlet to the "Norman Conquest".

How did discussion over the relationship between farming and grocery retail in Australia become so unhinged?  And why is the Government indulging these fantasies — pushing the ACCC into a battle with Australia's supermarkets?

This is what happens when agrarian socialists team up with foodies.

We're in the middle of a sustained price "war" between the two major supermarket chains in Australia.  The battle is mostly waged around private labels — the supermarkets' own branded cheap products that they have more efficiently integrated into supermarket supply chains.

The opening salvo of this war was the announcement by Coles in January 2011 that it was going to cut its private label milk down to $1 a litre.  (It's tempting to write the "infamous" announcement, but the idea a basic consumer product price cut could be both famous and bad just shows how batty the supermarket debate has become.)

That was four years ago.  Since then, the retail contest has been joined by Aldi and Costco, two firms pushing the prices of groceries lower again.  Aldi's German cousin, Lidl, the fourth largest retailer in the world, is set to enter Australia as well.

Changes to grocery markets have been single-mindedly in favour of consumer interests.  Cheaper goods, more availability, more competition, and, with the increasing availability of online shopping, incoming technological change.  All good things.

Is this price and service competition hard on producers?  No doubt.  But the Agriculture White Paper gives the political game away.  The supermarket's much fretted over market power and industry dominance is in comparison to the diverse and diffuse farming sector:  "The relatively small, independent nature of farming means that farmers can be at a commercial disadvantage relative to buyers."

If a power imbalance is the problem, the solution surely is to continue the consolidation of farm operations that has been going for decades.  Yet, as Bernard Keane pointed out on Crikey yesterday, the White Paper is so enamoured by the romantic image of the family farm and the Nationals heritage that it couldn't encourage such corporatisation.

This is the true heart of the supermarket debate:  a romantic vision of small family farming clashing with consumer demand for ever cheaper and more convenient groceries.

Anyway, if you remember it wasn't so long ago anti-supermarket activists were concerned grocery prices were too high.

In 2008 Kevin Rudd launched GroceryChoice — Labor's policy to tackle the Coles and Woolworths menace.  GroceryChoice was a website that compared the prices of a basket of goods at the different outlets.  The goal was to help consumers navigate the apparently turgid waters of retail competition.

The irony was that according to GroceryChoice's calculations, sometimes Coles was cheaper than Woolworths, sometimes Woolworths was cheaper than Coles, usually Aldi was cheapest than either of them ... but if you wanted to save on your grocery bills you should almost never, ever, shop at an independent supermarket.

So, yes, GroceryChoice empowered consumers.  It empowered them to rely more on Coles and Woolworths.  This was a classic populist own goal.  The website was shut down within a year.

Now the concern has seamlessly changed from Coles and Woolworths being too expensive to a concern that Coles and Woolworths are too cheap.

In his book Supermarket Monsters, Malcolm Knox writes about supermarkets in trenchant, morally-laden terms.  He suggests the Australian population is either wary or openly hostile to Coles and Woolworths.  Those who do not shop there are "conscientious objectors".  He throws every charge he can at the two companies, hoping some will stick.

In this interview with ABC's PM program, Knox clarifies his basic economic objection:  having pushed prices down, Coles and Woolworths might one day push consumer prices up.  They might beat all those new competitors, corner the market, abandon their cutthroat competition, and decide to jointly exploit customers.  One day $1 milk will be hiked to $5 milk.

Speculating about the future is a fun parlour game.  Yet right now, Australia has what looks like an incredibly competitive and dynamic grocery sector pushing prices down, attracting new entrants, and obviously benefiting customers.

The idea that the Abbott Government wants to unleash the competition regulator onto this unambiguously competitive market is absurd.

ADVERTISEMENT

Coalition boycott of ABC's Q&A program long overdue

It took an editorial disaster for the Coalition to boycott Q&A, but it was a decision that should have been made long ago.

Following Zaky Mallah's now infamous appearance on Q&A, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has issued an order banning the Coalition frontbench from appearing on the ABC's flagship Monday night program.

Abbott's decision has provoked outrage from political opponents.  Some even suggested that it's an attack on freedom of speech.

But no one would suggest Abbott was attacking freedom of speech by declining an interview with Green-Left Weekly.  The political bias of the publication is clear for all to see.

It is perfectly legitimate for politicians — or indeed anyone — to be selective when deciding when to give media interviews or appear on panels.

Unfortunately, this is an accurate comparison.  Despite its attempts at objectivity, the institutional make-up of the ABC is clear.

In a 2013 survey of Australian journalists, 41 per cent of ABC staff declared the Greens most closely reflected their political attitudes.  This is several times larger than the Greens support in the wider community.  A further 32 per cent of ABC journalists surveyed declared they would give their first preference to the ALP.

With these demographics, it is remarkable the ABC's current affairs team has remained as objective as it has.  Unfortunately Q&A has not met this same standard.  And it's not even a good show.

It has healthy ratings in a prime-time timeslot.  But it is a terrible platform for serious policy discussion.  Presented in front of a live studio audience, it is an environment that rewards demagogues who can elicit applause.  Unlike the ABC's traditional current affairs programs, guests on Q&A are rarely asked to back up their broad statements with detail.  This low level of scrutiny would not be possible on 7.30 and Lateline.

This environment is only worsened by the frequent celebrity panelists who are asked to comment on issues of policy often beyond their understanding.  This isn't just a view held by conservatives.  It's a view that's been articulated by a modern ALP hero and at least one former boss of the ABC.

Speaking at the Brisbane Writers Festival in 2011, former prime minister Paul Keating declared that he wouldn't be caught dead on the show.

Keating would never have allowed his ministers to go on the program at all.  As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, Keating said, "If I was the Prime Minister I would not let federal ministers go on that program.  You just wash the government through mud every time you turn up."

As former ABC managing director Jonathan Shier said last week, the show is also plagued by "sensationalist stunts".

Granting Zaky Mallah a platform was merely the latest attempt at a style of "gotcha" journalism that is unbefitting of Australia's national broadcaster.  Q&A's producers have a long track record of outsourcing provocative questions to audience members in an attempt to drum up controversy.

The same stunt was pulled in 2010, when the show hosted former prime minister John Howard and solicited a question from former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.  And again in 2011, when a video question from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was shown to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

These may be legitimate questions that Australian politicians ought to answer.  But they are presented in a manner designed to elicit controversy, rather than illuminate important issues.  This may elicit applause from the live studio audience, it may create news headlines that increase ratings, but it does not create an environment of serious political discussion.

Q&A is a show that favours demagoguery and gotcha journalism.  A hostile environment for any government interested in serious policy discussion.  And Tony Abbott is right to declare a boycott.

ADVERTISEMENT

Greece should just use bitcoin. Actually, bitcoin can run the country

One of the great lessons of the 2008-09 global financial crisis was the folly of trusting a government-controlled banking system, and of permitting government interference in financial lending.  The current meltdown in Greece is teaching a closely related lesson on the private costs of using government money.  But there is another option:  the Greeks could all use bitcoin.

Governments regularly abuse the trust of their citizens by debasing the currency through printing money or accumulating public debt in order to pay for its spending.  They also abuse that trust by controlling private access to money and its movement (e.g. capital controls), as the Greeks have become painfully aware this past week.

But an economy does not actually need government money — it can, and often has, run on privately issued currencies.  Gold is one example, and up until 1911 Australia had numerous private currencies.  But the best-known newly fledged private money at the moment is bitcoin, which is a crypto-currency.

A crypto-currency is an internet-based electronic money and payments system that is backed not by trust in government, banks, or any organisation, but by trust in mathematics, or, to be precise, in the competitive distributed computation of cryptographic hash functions.  It is, in essence, electronic gold, which is better in many ways than real gold.

When a nation and its economy begins to collapse because of the long-run effects of government abuse, which usually occur to finance government projects such as wars or channeling resources to politically favoured groups, what happens is that the real parts of the economy are driven underground.  A cash economy, or worse, a localised barter economy materialises, which is highly constraining and burdensome.  The economy shrinks as the parts of it that rely on even moderately sophisticated financial intermediation or extended networks of exchange collapse.  The shattered economies of the myriad failed states throughout the 20th century are testimony to this.

But with a crypto-currency, a radically different prospect could in principle occur:  namely a state could collapse, but it would not take the economy with it.  The Greek economy might not necessarily collapse underground, shrinking as it goes, but might instead disappear behind the veil of cryptography, shedding its government parts completely.

This is an intriguing possibility that few seem to have noticed.  It certainly explains the spike in the bitcoin price this week.  But most of the attention seems to be on Greece running out of money, and of the awfulness of the choices that Greek citizens face.  But there is actually a third option:  abandon government money altogether.

The "yes" vote would have Greece stay with the euro, and the "no" vote would invariably require a return to the drachma, or similar.  But a shift to private money, such as bitcoin, completely bypasses the basic problem, which is the mess that the governments, over many years, have made of the Greek economy.

By shifting to a bitcoin economy, individual Greeks would simply cut the government out of the equation as they then got on with their economic lives.  That cuts out its debt and taxes, but also the services the government furnishes.  So it's a form of secession.

Now such an option will be painful for those who have their own economic fates tied to the government, which obviously includes a large number of Greek citizens dependent upon welfare payments, and it would be unpopular among those holding the other side of the Greek public debt.  Plainly, it would be devastating to the extant ruling political classes, both in Athens and in Brussels.

But such a "conscious uncoupling", to use a phrase popularised by Gwyneth Paltrow, would be of enormous benefit to those seeking to produce and work and consume in Greece, and those around the world who wish to trade with them.  In practice, that's a much larger set of people.

Even the credible threat of what Trent Macdonald, in a recent PhD thesis, calls "nonterritorial crypto-secession", in which a large group secedes from the nation state, but without going anywhere or forming a new state, might well be enough to inspire discipline on the political classes.  The prospect that the "blockchain" — the technology platform of bitcoin — might also be used for many other erstwhile functions of government, such as property titling, marriage registry, recording contracts, or coordinating the private production of public goods, and so on, only reinforces this position.

Political scientist J.C. Scott in The Art of Not Being Governed referred to the role of "shatter zones" as places where those who were preyed on by the state could retreat to — the highlands of Zomia in south-east Asia, or the Appalachian mountains in the US, where Confederate deserters went to escape government conscription.  The existence of such shatter zones constrains the depravations of the state.

A crypto-currency is also an escape, a digital shatter zone, but it doesn't involve hiding in the mountains.  You can stay exactly where you are and get on with your business, uncoupled from the state.  And bitcoin and the blockchain are not just about "crypto-secession" but also "crypto-statecraft".  It might be better to exit behind the veil of cryptography and start new parallel institutions than waste energy fighting old ones.  That's a prospect many Greeks might value right now, and which Greek politicians, as well as those the world over, might reasonably fear.

ADVERTISEMENT

Canberra's debt problem: Where's the money gone?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Public sector borrowing has been directed toward current consumption and transfers, harming our longer term growth prospects.

  • In real terms if federal general government infrastructure spending was fully funded by borrowing, there would have been an extra $129 billion in spending on roads, bridges, schools and hospitals from 2007-08 to 2013-14.

• The existing public debt load is not sustainable, according to an analysis of the latest budget positions, interest payments and economic growth rates.

  • Last financial year the federal government did not achieve the budget surplus necessary to stabilise its public debt trajectory in the long run.

• Interest payments on federal government debt are increasingly crowding out more efficient public spending, and already represent the seventh largest expense item in the budget.

  • Federal interest payments for the next financial year alone are equivalent to 14 times the ABC budget, four times the federal capital investment budget, three times the housing budget, or double the army capabilities budget.

---

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS ARE BORROWING TO SPEND ON CONSUMPTION AND TRANSFER PAYMENTS, WEIGHING DOWN OUR ECONOMY

The federal government has been borrowing to fund some of its recurrent spending in recent years, violating principles of sound public finance.

Table 1 profiles trends in real commonwealth general government borrowing against infrastructure spending from 2008-09, the onset of the global financial crisis, to 2013-14.  The information contained in the Table implies real infrastructure spending averaged a little over half of borrowing levels over the period.

If federal infrastructure spending over the last few years was fully financed by borrowing, Australians conceivably would have enjoyed the benefits of up to an additional $129 billion in infrastructure expenditure - including in the form of new roads, bridges, rail, schools, and hospitals.

Table 1:  Trends in commonwealth borrowing and infrastructure spending

	Borrowing	Infrastructure spending	Infrastructure spending as share of borrowings	Additional infrastructure spending if fully funded by borrowing
	$bn	$bn	%	$bn
	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
2008-09	47.7	22.1	46.3	25.6
2009-10	51.0	26.0	50.9	25.0
2010-11	42.8	23.3	54.4	19.5
2011-12	43.6	24.3	55.9	19.2
2012-13	25.2	19.2	76.3	6.0
2013-14	55.7	22.4	40.2	33.3
Average			54.0
Total	266.0	137.3		128.7

General government sector cash flow data for commonwealth government.  Figures adjusted for price inflation (base 2007-08 = 100.0).  Column (d) is the difference between columns (a) and (b), which may differ to figures presented in Table due to rounding.  Borrowing refers to gross borrowing less the repayment of past borrowing.  Infrastructure spending refers to net cash flows from investments in non-financial assets, plus imputed grants and subsidies for capital purposes (to commonwealth public corporations, other levels of government and universities, and private sector).  Capital grants and subsidies for capital purposes estimated to account for 12 per cent of all grant and subsidy payments each year.

Source:  ABS, Consumer Price Index, Australia, cat. no. 6401.0;  ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2013-14, cat. no. 5512.0.

There exist other pieces of evidence supporting the notion that most borrowings undertaken by government over the last few years have been spent for less productive purposes.

At the height of the 2008-09 global financial crisis the former Rudd government adopted an aggressive stance of discretionary fiscal policy in an attempt to avert an economic downturn.  In so doing, it reversed the stance of its predecessor in maintaining relatively low gross indebtedness and, by 2005-06, a negative net debt position.  In a telling passage in the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement, released in February 2009, the Rudd government justified a return to rapidly escalating debt as follows:

ʻThe overwhelming majority of the increase in net debt is due to the collapse in tax receipts resulting from the deteriorating global economic outlook and the unwinding of the commodities boom.ʼ ⁽¹⁾

Finally, a breakdown of commonwealth spending into recurrent and capital elements for 2015-16 reveals the composition of expenditure remains biased toward consumption and transfers (Figure 2).  This implies, in turn, the majority of revenues raised by the commonwealth general government sector are used to primarily fund consumption expenditures and transfers (the latter mainly comprising welfare payments to individuals, and grants to lower levels of government).

Figure 2:  Recurrent and capital payments, proportion of commonwealth general government sector budget

Source:  Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, Budget Strategy and Outlook 2015-16, Budget Paper No. 1.

Now, if most federal general government revenues are used to fund recurrent spending and the government has substituted borrowing for taxation revenue, it logically follows that the bulk of increasing federal government borrowings were mainly directed towards activities other than for developing value-augmenting economic infrastructures (even accounting for capital transfers to state and local governments).

It is often argued that the efficacy of public debt is contingent upon the uses to which borrowed funds by governments are put.  Specifically, if the debt is used to finance productive ventures that reliably yield a stream of economic or financial benefits over time, benefiting future generations, then a higher level of debt may be justifiable.

In contrast, a proposition that is almost universally accepted is that public sector consumption expenditures and fiscal transfers should not be financed through raising debt:

ʻTo finance public consumption by debt is equivalent to the eating up of national capital value.  By placing claims against future incomes, with no future offsetting benefit stream, we are lowering the capital value of that expected income stream.  To state that even more dramatically, we are bequeathing negative capital value to future generations in our capacities as members of the body politic.ʼ ⁽²⁾

Notwithstanding continuing borrowing efforts to refinance existing commitments, it is not implausible, given the information previously mentioned, that much of the debt proceeds raised by government have been applied to non-capital areas of spending of prospectively lower value.  Such practices harm our economic potential in the long run.

---

AUSTRALIA’S DEBT TRAJECTORY IS UNSUSTAINABLE NOT IN THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW

There have been growing expressions of concern that the trajectory of public debt is becoming unsustainable, making it difficult to manage debt repayments without significant cuts to spending or increases in revenue into the future.

As a recent paper by Tony Makin and Julian Pearce indicates, ⁽³⁾ whether or not the levels of debt owed by government are sustainable (as indicated by a stable debt-to-GDP ratio) depends on various factors:

• the existing amount of gross debt, since a larger debt amount at any given time contributes to a higher debt-to-GDP ratio which must be managed;
• the level of interest repayments on the debt, with higher servicing costs at risk of putting additional strains on the annual budget;
• the size of the budget balance (less interest repayments) itself, with deficit budgets in themselves contributing to the aggregate debt burden;  and
• the growth rate of an economy, as stronger economic growth helps to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Using an empirical framework employed by Makin and Pearce we can find out if the public sector debt burden is sustainable, or unsustainable, by comparing the actual budget balance achieved by government versus the level of budget balance needed to stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio.

If the actual value of the budget balance exceeds that value required for long run debt stabilisation, the debt-to-GDP ratio is falling and the government is on a sound path to manage its debt.  This would tend to occur when the actual budget is in very low deficit or in a surplus position.

Contrasting this, if the actual budget balance is less than the stabilising value public debt ratios are rising and debt management becomes more difficult.  All else being equal, an actual budget in a deficit position would not be one which stabilises the long run debt-to-GDP ratio.

Table 2 provides a comparison of actual and stabilising primary budget balances for the commonwealth general government sector and total public sector in 2013-14. ⁽⁴⁾ The federal government incurred a budget deficit which was too large to help return the debt-to-GDP ratio to stability.

Table 2:  Actual versus stabilising commonwealth government budget balances, 2013-14

	Actual primary balance	Stabilising primary balance	Stable / unstable debt path
	% GDP	% GDP
General government sector	-1.40	0.09	Unstable
Total public sector	-1.67	-0.10	Unstable

Basis for calculation provided in Anthony J Makin and Julian Pearce, 2014, ʻHow sustainable is sub-national public debt in Australia?ʼ, Economic Analysis and Policy 44:  364-375.

Source:  ABS, Australian System of National Accounts, 2013-14, cat. no. 5204.0;  ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2013-14, cat. no. 5512.0.

With the 2015-16 Budget recently released by the commonwealth government, it is possible to present a preliminary comparison between the actual and stabilising budget balances for the general government sector in 2014-15 and 2015-16.  This should provide us with some insight as to whether public debt has remained on a sustainable path.

Using data from various sources, including national accounting data for economic growth rates, it is calculated that during 2014-15 the actual budget balance (a deficit equivalent to 1.7 per cent of GDP) was lower than the required budget balance for stability (a surplus equivalent to 0.5 per cent of GDP).  For the following year, the actual budget balance (a deficit of 1.2 per cent of GDP) was lower than the stabilising budget balance (0.5 per cent of GDP).

In short, this analysis indicates that the commonwealth general government debt profile has transgressed onto an unstable growth path in recent years, and there is every expectation the problem will get worse without fiscal reform.

The latest Intergenerational Report (IGR) reports that if policies prior to the 2014-15 Budget were maintained (referred to in the IGR as the ʻprevious policyʼ scenario) the level of gross debt is projected to grow to about 125 per cent of GDP by 2054-55 (Figure 3).  This burden of debt is inconsistent with notions of fiscal sustainability:

ʻWithout stabilising and reducing this debt, the ‘previous policy’ scenario shows that future generations will not only have to fund their own government services, they will be funding the services used by Australians today.ʼ ⁽⁵⁾

Figure 3:  Long run commonwealth government gross debt projections

General government sector data.  Projections assume trend economic growth of 2.8 per cent per annum from 2021-22 to 2054-55.

Source:  Hon J.B. Hockey, 2015, 2015 Intergenerational Report:  Australia in 2055, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

---

INTEREST REPAYMENTS DEPRIVE TAXPAYERS OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND DISTORTS FISCAL DECISION MAKING

Increasing indebtedness also raises the costs of interest payments to domestic and foreign holders of government-issued securities, reducing the capacity of government to fund services that are more valuable to the taxpayer.

It is estimated that gross interest payments by the commonwealth general government sector will be in the order of $15.6 billion (accrual basis) this financial year. ⁽⁶⁾  This amount represents the seventh largest expense payment by the government (Table 3).

Table 3:  Top ten commonwealth government expenses, 2015-16

Program/expense	Amount ($ millions)
Revenue assistance to states and territories	57,749
Seniorsʼ income support	44,178
Medicare services	21,141
Family Tax Benefit	20,152
People with disabilities income support	17,059
Public hospitals assistance to states	16,441
Interest payments	15,561
Job seekers income support	11,515
Residential and flexible care	10,161
Non-government schools support	9,997

Source:  Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, Budget Strategy and Outlook 2015-16, Budget Paper No. 1.

The continuing payment of interest on debt represents foregone opportunities for government to finance other programs and activities that are more strongly demanded by the Australian community.  The $15.6 billion gross general government interest bill on debt is, for instance, generally equivalent to:

• Over fourteen times the annual appropriations allocated to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ($1.1 million in 2015-16).
• Over four times the annual foreign aid budget ($3.3 billion in 2015-16).
• Four times the budget allocated to net capital investments across the country ($3.9 billion in 2015-16).
• Almost three times the housing and community amenities budget ($5.3 billion in 2015-16).
• More than double the spending needed to enhance the capabilities of the Australian Army ($6.8 billion in 2015-16).

If the commonwealth government were debt free, it could return $15.6 billion back to the community in tax cuts reducing the average federal tax burden from 22.3 per cent of GDP in 2015-16 to 21.4 per cent.

---

CONCLUSION

Public sector debt is a problem for today for three key reasons:

• Borrowed funds are being used to fund subsidies and transfers, and not for building improved productive capacity in the long term;
• The growth in debt is presently on an unsustainable footing;  and
• interest payments are increasingly crowding out essential public services.

Given the deteriorating position of our national public finances, corrective policies undertaken by all levels of government are now required to help reduce the overall debt burden.  Indeed, the sooner that Australiaʼs public debt problem is addressed the sooner that Australians can enjoy a more prosperous future.

---

REFERENCES

1. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Statement by Hon Wayne Swan and Hon Lindsay Tanner, Canberra, p. 45.

2. James M Buchanan, 1987, ʻDebt - An Economic and Moral Crisisʼ, IPA Review 41 (1):  56-57, p. 56-57.  It should also be noted there is a growing tendency by political representatives to label recurrent consumption and transfer payments as ʻinvestments,ʼ evoking the potentially misleading notion that each borrowed (or taxed) dollar government spends in beneficial.

3. Anthony J Makin and Julian Pearce, 2014, ʻHow sustainable is sub-national public debt in Australia?ʼ, Economic Analysis and Policy 44:  364-375.

4. Total public sector categories include the multi-jurisdictional sector, comprising mainly higher education institutions.

5. Hon J.B. Hockey, 2015, 2015 Intergenerational Report:  Australia in 2055, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. xix.

6. Net interest payments refer to the difference between interest paid and interest receipts.

Give taxpayers a say in how ABC is funded

There has been understandable outrage over Q&A's decision to provide a media platform to an alleged terrorist sympathiser.  It even prompted Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull to initiate a government inquiry.

But this wouldn't be necessary if funding was voluntary.

In a blatant attempt at gotcha journalism, the ABC's popular talkfest allowed a convicted criminal, Zaky Mallah, to confront Coalition MP Steve Ciobo.

This week, in an episode devoted to its own decision making, show host Tony Jones issued a partial and inadequate apology.  Jones declared that had they been aware of offensive comments Mallah made on social media, they wouldn't have allowed him on the program.

The ABC may have been unaware of Mallah's comments, but he was no ordinary guest.

Q&A's producers knew he had been tried for terrorism charges and pleaded guilty to issuing death threats to Commonwealth officials.  At the very least, they ought to have conducted a background check before even considering putting him on live TV.

Any other media provider would have been punished by an audience exodus and the loss of advertising revenue.

But the ABC is not accountable to the general public.

The $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding it receives ironically protects it from public opinion.

A simple solution would be to privatise the ABC and force it to stand on its own two feet.  But that is not politically possible.

Despite the obvious existence of alternatives, and clear evidence of bias, no government will risk the public backlash that would come from selling the national broadcaster.  Just look at the outrage provoked by a meagre 4.6 per cent cut to the ABC's budget.

Every other media company has had to become leaner and more efficient, but the ABC claimed it would cost the few services that make it unique.

Regional bureaus, state-based current affairs programs and bush-focused radio programs were all placed on the chopping block, despite being the most legitimate functions of the ABC.

The only legitimate justification for a public broadcaster is to provide necessary services that wouldn't otherwise exist.  Instead of focusing on improving those services, the ABC has created a media empire that actively reduces choice for Australian consumers.

It has an entire channel devoted to children's entertainment, despite there being many others in the market entertaining kids.

It created a 24-hours news channel, despite Sky News already providing a more cost-efficient and, some would say, superior service.  And it's creation of a political fact-checking service put the existing politiFact website out of business.  Worst of all, in 2009 it entered the online opinion business with its website, The Drum.  That is despite barriers to entry for political opinion websites being almost non-existent.

There is already an extensive proliferation of online opinion sites in Australia, covering a broad range of perspectives.  And the number is growing.

In the past few years alone, local offshoots of the Guardian and the Daily Mail have entered the Australian market.  Homegrown sites like The New Daily have also been created.  This is alongside extensive offering from News Limited and other existing media providers.  All those sites have to compete with a lavishly funded ABC, which doesn't have to generate any of its own revenue.

There is a solution to these problems that is both simple and politically possible.  Give taxpayers choice.  The Abbott Government should make funding the ABC an option provided on tax returns.

That would allow Australia's 11.5 million taxpayers to choose whether the ABC provides value.  It wouldn't require the introduction of commercial advertising and, at the current funding levels, funding the ABC would cost taxpayers less than $2 per week.  If support is as strong as the ABC claims, then such a move wouldn't have any significant impact on its budget.  But it will create a level of accountability that doesn't currently exist.

Far from being a radical proposal, this would be similar to the licence fees which funded ABC TV and radio until it was abolished by the Whitlam government in 1974.  A similar, although mandatory TV licence scheme still provides the majority of funding for the world's oldest and biggest public broadcaster, the BBC.

Of the BBC's £5 billion budget, approximately £3.7 billion (74 per cent) comes directly from TV license fees.  A further £1 billion comes from the BBC's commercial businesses and only £244 million from other government grants.

If this system works for the BBC, then a much less intrusive scheme would surely work for the ABC.  It would give taxpayers choice by letting them simply tick a box on their tax forms

Voluntary taxpayer funding would make the ABC more accountable to the general public and resolve the endless controversies over the editorial decisions on shows such as Q&A.