Peter Garrett Makes Good Case For Leaving The Nuclear Option Alone For A Good While Yet!

This appeared last week:

I’ve spent my life fighting nuclear. Here’s what Dutton isn’t telling you about his reactors

Peter Garrett

Musician, activist and politician

March 30, 2025 — 5.00am

Today’s voter has it tough, especially younger Australians who get much of their information from apps. It’s daunting to sort fact from fiction in the Wild West world of online media, where hidden agendas and speculative opinion are rife. All the more so when a party’s policy only truly makes sense if viewed through a wider lens.

Peter Dutton’s promise to build seven small-scale nuclear reactors, ostensibly to help meet future energy needs while keeping carbon emissions at bay, therefore needs to be seen for what it really is: a staggeringly bad idea, a stunt and a con. It is a backdoor attempt to pander to the fossil fuel lobby – and under the electoral spotlight, more people will figure that out.

Younger voters understandably won’t know that a generation their age once packed Myer Music Bowl with Midnight Oil, INXS and other friends to “Stop the Drop”. They won’t remember our Nuclear Disarmament Party campaign, which won Senate seats in WA and NSW in the ’80s. They can’t know what it was like to grow up during the Cold War era or live through horrific meltdowns at the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants, which were also “completely safe” until the day that they weren’t. But generations Y and Z can still smell a rotten idea when they give it a good sniff.

At first blush, nuclear energy is causing less concern to younger voters, who haven’t yet taken a closer look. When they do, they will find that most experts and qualified observers view the proposal as expensive, difficult to implement, prone to significant uncertainty and full of rubbery figures.

One example is the fanciful assumption that nuclear plants could be built in 12 years. Twenty years would be more likely – if they are built at all. Cost overruns and safety issues are equally certain. And the carbon consequences of prolonging our old coal-fired power generators are dire.

This deceptive proposal has all the Trumpian hallmarks: a quasi policy announcement intended to serve sectional interests – in this case fossil fuel conglomerates – while simultaneously serving up a cartoon enemy as ideological whipping boy, namely renewable energy.

Australia has abundant sunlight, plenty of wind, plus lots of pumped hydro resources that can all be converted by increasingly efficient technologies. Stored batteries are ramping up too. The butterfly has emerged from the chrysalis and taken to the skies – the renewable energy transition is well under way. Construction costs will keep coming down. Supply will keep going up. The future is already here.

By wrenching the country off this course, Dutton’s plan would leave old, dirty coal-fired power stations staggering on at increasing risk of breakdown, putting off the day of reckoning when we finally stop polluting and heating our world and get on with using affordable, reliable energy that does not cause more climate chaos.

What possible reason is there for Australia to embark on building a completely new, expensive energy infrastructure we don’t need and which, incidentally, is already illegal in states where the reactors are meant to go?

Nuclear energy features eye-watering costs, which history repeatedly shows blow out. It features risks associated with managing radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years. It is also a massive safety risk from both accidents and attacks.

To cap the charade, this policy comes from the parties that supposedly champion free enterprise and want to reduce government spending, yet the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to fund the Coalition’s nuclear plan are to be borne by all of us, the taxpayer. Go figure!

The trend line is unarguable: renewable energy is cleaner, greener and getting cheaper every year. It will supersede fossil fuels in the blink of an evolutionary eye. Nuclear is a last-gasp delaying tactic.

Over 4 million Australian homes and businesses have solar panels on their roofs. South Australia routinely produces 75 per cent and sometimes up to 100 per cent of its power from renewables and is racing towards net zero, with the other states in hot pursuit. Most electricity added to global supply comes from clean energy.

When the Climate Change Authority, headed by former NSW Liberal government treasurer Matt Kean, released a report showing Dutton’s policy would result in a 2 billion-tonne blowout in dirty emissions, the Coalition’s response was to play the man and not the ball and threaten Kean.

When a group of eminent former defence chiefs raised the spectre of nuclear plants scattered across the country vulnerable to the risk of terrorism and accidents, the Coalition response was virtual silence.

When farmers, scientists and community groups questioned the impact on precious groundwater of thirsty nuclear reactors running 24/7, the Coalition response was a shrug.

Compare this with Peter Dutton’s proud promise that if elected, within 50 days he would approve the massive Browse Basin gas development in WA.

Due to its size, the Browse project is known as a “carbon bomb”, given it will release more than 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and blow Australia’s modest greenhouse emissions targets to smithereens.

In these circumstances, the Coalition promise of boosting fossil fuels with “boutique” nuclear reactors coming on stream at some mythical future date to satisfy energy needs and reduce costs is an utter chimera.

It is best understood as a delaying tactic, an Aussie version of Trump’s “drill baby drill”, buying more time for multinational carbon producers to keep making super profits and heating the planet at our expense.

And there is another effect of the policy: it buttresses claims that Australia should become a site for the storage of large quantities of radioactive nuclear waste generated by other countries.

Periodically there are calls for Australia’s outback, with its stable geology and low population density, to be the site for disposal of the world’s radioactive waste. It’s an idea that has been rejected before, but don’t expect it to go away soon.

Recently, a senior US official chided Australia for not being sufficiently enthusiastic about uranium mining. In the transactional Trumpworld we now inhabit, new AI facilities envisaged by Amazon, Meta, Google and the like are expected to draw vast amounts of power, often touted as coming from nuclear.

Given the US still doesn’t have a licensed, permanent nuclear waste site after 50 years of furious debate and unsuccessful political negotiation, storage and disposal of new streams of radioactive waste will be crucial.

If the US president can posit buying Greenland and incorporating Canada as the 51st state, impose tariffs on America’s trading partners at will, and promise to end the war in Ukraine in a day, who is to say earmarking Australia as an international nuclear waste dump is a fanciful scenario? Can anyone imagine “Temu Trump” saying no?

As for polls showing younger Australians are less concerned about nuclear energy … not so fast. I’m confident that equipped with relevant facts, and mindful of the scale of the climate crisis they have inherited, they’ll see Dutton’s nuclear con job in a whole new light by the time we get to polling day.

Peter Garrett is a former Labor minister for the environment and a member of Midnight Oil.

I think it is fair to say there is presently zero urgency in deciding to go with nuclear energy. My view is that we check every decade or so to see if facts have changed and nuclear power has become a live and useful option. At some time in the future it may be, but not now or for the next decade or two!

David.

Apple Is Providing A Hearing Test For The Masses. Certainly A Worthwhile Screening Test!

 This appeared last week:

How Apple’s new hearing test and AirPods ‘hearing aids’ stack up

Jared Lynch

30 March 2025

In crowded, noisy venues I often find myself smiling and nodding instead of listening to a conversation. I’m not being rude, It’s just I can’t hear exactly what’s being said.

So when Apple released a software update last week that allowed people to perform a hearing test at home with a pair of AirPods Pro 2 earbuds and an iPhone or iPad, I was keen to give it a shot.

It has been about 20 years since I had a hearing test with an audiologist. The test was in a mobile booth in a van at Timboon in regional Victoria. The good news was back then I had no hearing loss.

And I haven’t been back since.

This is a mistake. Ear and Hearing Australia recommends adults aged 18-40 have a test every three to five years. And those aged 40-60 should have one every one to three years.

More troubling is that people who start feeling some type of loss don’t seek treatment for up to 10 years afterwards.

This is what Apple is hoping to change. When I sat down with Apple’s vice president of health, Sumbul Desai, she told me that the new hearing test did not aim to replace audiologists but create more awareness and encourage people to seek professional health treatment.

How accurate is the test?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration quietly approved the test in December. Apple says it is clinically validated and was developed using more than 150,000 “real world” audiograms and “millions of simulations”.

But it’s not perfect.

The challenge is finding a quiet space, like an audiologist’s booth. I sat down at a desk in regional Victoria where I had nothing but birdsong in the background – but even the occasional tweet was enough to distract my hearing in the test.

Apple aims to overcome such difficulties by playing the range of tones at different frequencies several times in case someone mishears.

How long does it take?

Apple says it can take around 5 minutes. If you take your time reading the instructions and screen prompts before the test, It can take about eight minutes, which is reasonably quick.

It starts by ensuring that the AirPods fit in your ear correctly, to create a seal. The left ear is tested first. Tones are played through the earbuds and you tap the screen when you hear them. When that is completed the right ear is tested and then you’re given a summary of your hearing.

Apple says this summary can be displayed in the Health app so a user can discuss it with a doctor or audiologist later.

The results?

Apple's vice president of health Sumbul Desai says the hearing test feature augments the work of audiologists.

I tested myself twice. Both displayed little to no loss, which was a relief. Apple says individuals with healthy hearing can hear very low sounds close to 0 decibels. According to my test, my left ear recorded -7, which was odd In another test it recorded 2dB. I tested again and recorded 3dB for my left ear. Apple says the quieter the room, the more accurate test, and during the first test, there was a bit of birdsong in the background.

Regardless, I have readouts of all tests, so I can book time with audiologist to discuss my hearing health further.

What do audiologists say?

Australians can now peforrm a hearing test using Apple AirPods Pro 2 and an iPhone or iPad.

Devin McCaslin of the University of Michigan’s audiology program describes the test as a “helpful first step” for someone who suspects they might have hearing loss and needs treatment.

“In-person tests with an audiologist offer much more,” Dr McCaslin says.

“We have the ability to control the testing environment, use advanced diagnostic tools and assess more than just hearing sensitivity, like speech understanding and middle-ear function. Plus, we can tailor recommendations based on a person’s unique hearing profile and overall health.”

What about using AirPods as a hearing aid?

Dr McCaslin says a barrier to treatment, besides cost (hearing aids can cost thousands of dollars) is “the stigma” – people think hearing aids make them look old, unlike glasses which have become fashionable.

“But kids wear AirPods (which cost $399). My daughter and son wear them everywhere,” Dr McCaslin says.

“Therefore, the stigma isn’t really an issue, and the cost is quite reasonable, especially if you’re already purchasing them as headphones. Other hearing aid manufacturers have been working to connect their devices to different smartphone platforms, but Apple’s platform stands out for its seamless integration between its products.”

Apple also provides an explanation about the audiogram and hearing ranges.

Apple is also aiming to prevent loss as well as enhance hearing. While the tips on the AirPods Pro 2 provide up to 10dB of passive noise reduction, the H2 chip helps to actively reduce louder noises 48,000 times a second.

What this means, according to a National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) study, is AirPods Pro 2’s active noise cancellation function can reduce background sounds by up to 27dB on average. So it can reduce sounds in a noisy restaurant, which can be around 80dB, to the level of a normal conversation, which is around 60dB, for example.

NAL principal engineer Nicky Chong-White said reducing background noise has several benefits.

“It lowers the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by reducing the need to turn up the volume. Additionally, it enhances the clarity of calls and music, and it may even reduce stress related to exposure to loud noise,” she said.

Apple has also developed a conversation booster function, so people can wear their AirPods in noisy venues – like a crowded restaurant – to better hear speech. This is unlike conventional hearing aids, which amplify all sounds.

I have found myself wearing AirPods – playing no music – to access this function, which works well – even for healthy ears.

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/how-apples-new-hearing-test-and-airpods-hearing-aids-stack-up/news-story/bd28df0f0881d6601b1edfed563a3a75

It certainly sounds like Apple have a useful screening test system here which could be used to identify loss and lead on to more formal testing and diagnosis.

Interesting to see the niche roles Apple seems to be finding for itself!

David.

What Can Be Done To Keep The Cost Of Health Insurance Under Control?

This appeared last week:

The healthcare policies rising at more than double the average

Michael Smith Health editor

Mar 23, 2025 – 1.53pm

Private health insurers are slugging some top-tier policyholders with annual premium rises of up to 9 per cent, more than double Labor’s approved average, prompting Health Minister Mark Butler to seek fresh advice into whether funds are price gouging.

Major funds including Bupa, Medibank, HCF, and NIB have written to policyholders in the past fortnight advising them of premium hikes ranging from 7 per cent to 9.4 per cent on “gold” and “silver” policies from April 1, according to 14 letters sent by disgruntled policyholders to The Australian Financial Review.

This is well above the 3.7 per cent industry average approved by Butler last month and also higher than the average increases for individual insurers. Bupa’s average premium increase was 5.1 per cent, HCF’s 2.8 per cent, Medibank’s 4 per cent and NIB’s 5.8 per cent, according to government data.

While insurers are allowed to increase annual premiums more than the average because some policies rise more than others, Butler said he had asked the Health Department to advise him if insurers were price gouging customers following the latest premium round, the process that determines annual increases in policy prices.

“During the recent premium round, we scrutinised insurers on this to ensure they weren’t continuing to rip off customers in this way,” Butler said in response to questions from the Financial Review.

“I have been clear to insurers: we will continue to monitor this closely. If it continues to happen, then I will force them to stop.”

Labor has put healthcare at the centre of its federal election campaign as it seeks to lower the cost of medicines and doctor visits, although managing the rising cost of health insurance is more challenging.

In December, Butler called out the practice of funds retiring cheaper gold-tier products and replacing them with almost identical ones at a higher cost – which is called “phoenixing” – after it emerged some funds had increased the price of some top-tier products by 21 per cent in 2023 and 14 per cent in 2024.

Insurers say they are doing nothing wrong and some policies will increase more than others, reflecting the rising cost of providing healthcare services and medical devices and specialist fees. But they also admit that gold coverage is increasingly becoming unaffordable and more people are switching to lower-tier products.

“People are downgrading their health cover due to the cost-of-living crisis. Our data from health funds shows 216,000 policies were downgraded during the first half of 2024, meaning health insurers collected $52 million less in revenue last year,” said Rachel David, chief executive of industry body Private Healthcare Australia.

“When fewer people hold gold and silver cover, this increases the risk pool and costs for those tiers.”

People with top-end cover more likely to claim

She said there are bigger premium rises for more comprehensive cover such as silver and gold tiers because they cover the most expensive treatments in the system such as obstetrics, psychiatry, joint replacement surgery, and weight loss surgery.

People taking out those policies are more likely to make a claim than people with lower levels of cover. Insurers also do not want to encourage patients to shift in and out of gold policies just when they know they will use them, for example, if they are planning to have a baby.

Some policyholders say they feel insurers are trying to force them out of existing policies by jacking up the price.

“They just keep aggressively raising the cost of my policy, I assume to make me drop it. They told me I couldn’t change my existing policy such as dropping extras without moving onto a new plan,” said Julia, a healthy 54-year-old from Sydney’s inner west. Her Bupa gold policy is rising 8.8 per cent to $374 per month from April 1. When she joined in 2010, her policy cost $135.45 per month.

Mary, whose family silver policy with HCF is increasing 8.7 per cent to $433.88 per month, said her insurer singled out “significant out-of-contract payments” to private hospitals and higher fees to use public hospital beds in NSW as the reason for the increase.

Private hospitals, which are campaigning for profitable health funds to give them more funding as they struggle with soaring costs, slammed the above-average increases.

“If 8-9 per cent is the reality from the big end of town, it’s a massive gouge no one, including the minister, should be tolerating,” said Brett Heffernan, chief executive of the Australian Private Hospitals Association.

“Last year, the Commonwealth ombudsman lifted the lid on phoenix policies. This loophole-exploiting practice sees health insurers scrap existing products, replace them with near-identical services and sell them at a higher price. At the time, the minister asked the insurers to stop it. Clearly, a more strident response is necessary.”

A spokesman for the ombudsman said some policies would have a smaller percentage cost increase than others, but it would expect more complaints in coming months as members are notified of the rises.

Analysts said higher-than-average policy rises on existing policies are not unreasonable.

“For example, Bupa’s average rate increase is 5.1 per cent, but some policies within their product catalogue are actually decreasing in price under certain circumstances. This means that, conversely, some policies will see increases well beyond the 5.1 per cent average,” Chris Quinn, general manager of comparison site Health Deal, says.

“Gold-tier policies have seen substantial price increases. Many members require coverage for services like pregnancy and IVF for only a short period. Once they no longer need these benefits, they often opt for lower-tier policies. ”

For example, in Victoria, the most affordable pregnancy-inclusive policy for a single person is approximately $2895 per year. Given that specialist fees for pregnancy in Victoria average around $3600, with hospital costs adding another $6700, health funds must strike a balance between setting sustainable premiums and covering the higher likelihood of claims on comprehensive policies like gold.”

Here is the link:

https://www.afr.com/companies/healthcare-and-fitness/the-health-care-policies-rising-at-more-than-double-the-average-20250319-p5lkp5

I have to say the example at the bottom of this article really show what we are up against in getting the pricing of private health insurance right and fair for all parties!

Is seems to me this is a problem that is ripe for a total re-think to make cost and prices fair for both customer and insurer. I reckon this problem is one that occupies a good deal of Mr Butler’s time, as right now it does not seem sustainable.

What do you think?

David.

More Reasons To Be Concerned About Where Trump Goes Next!

This appeared a few days ago:

John Durie

Surprising fallout from the instability of an unchecked Trump

4:38 PM March 28, 2025

US President Donald Trump came to power to make the country great again but the initial business enthusiasm has given way to outright fear on the bourse and across business.

Some conservative Americans are working out whether and how to get their money out of the country before disaster strikes.

Business likes certainty and Trump is the antithesis, even if his supporters say his programs will translate into longer term growth.

His attack on the multilateral trade system means his impact is global.

The federal election in Australia just adds to the caution on the local bourse after an anaemic budget. In the past six weeks an overvalued equities market has dropped 600 points or circa 9 per cent and is now trading at around 18.5 times forecast earnings.

There are some positives which may be lost on some investors.

UBS strategist Richard Schellbach has noted 34 per cent of the ASX 200 is now comprised of what he calls growth stocks, up from 23 per cent in 2018, or a third of the market.

After struggling last year, income stocks are also back in vogue in these uncertain terms as outlined recently by MST’s Hasan Tevfik.

Bank deposits are no longer safe havens, so alternatives are being sought and the field is wider than high-dividend paying bank stocks.

A portfolio of the top dividend yield stocks returned just 1.3 per cent last year against an ASX 200 that returned 11.4 per cent.

In the first two months of this year the top quintile of dividend yielders have returned 2.5 per cent while the ASX 200 provided a total return of just 60 basis points before slipping into negative territory on price terms.

Tevfik explains the return of income stocks by moves in bond yields – last year bond yields in Australia increased. The Aussie five-year bond yield rose 32 basis points but fell by 12 basis points for the first two months of 2025.

Yield investing has worked best when bond yields are falling and this has certainly been the case more recently too. Tevfik figures “the combination of a weakening global growth outlook and further RBA rate cuts should mean lower Aussie bond yields in the medium term”.

MST’s ideas for good income-producing stocks include Vicinity, Origin, Challenger, JB Hi-Fi and Steadfast.

Tefvik drew a line under stocks with a dividend yield below the market’s median yield of 3.2 per cent and his advanced income strategy is headlined by Origin at 5.8 per cent and Vicinity, followed by BOQ. He avoids stocks that issue too much equity because that reduces earnings per share and by definition rely on external capital to fund growth instead of internally generated funds.

Goldman’s Matt Ross includes one flyer on his list, US-based boutique investment manager GQG Partners, along with Aurizon, Ampol, Rio and Santos.

GQG is not for the faint of heart, a classic buy-the-dip scenario, given the stock has fallen some 23 per cent in the past few months as global stock markets have wobbled.

But funds under management last year rose 45 per cent to $US148.2bn ($235.6bn) and revenues by 47 per cent

Shellbach is stressing the more growth-oriented focus of the ASX 200 as offering appeal some international investors have failed to grasp, now outpacing value stocks.

The market has changed.

Since 2004 banks’ share of the ASX 200 has slipped from 27.4 to 26.1 per cent, resources have stayed flat at just over 22 per cent, food and beverage has slipped from 4 per cent to 0.8 per cent but healthcare has exploded from 2.8 per cent to 9.8 per cent and info tech from 0.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent. In early 1980s miners accounted for 80 per cent of the ASX value, now they are 22 per cent.

……

Political process

The fact federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers slipped out the ACCC treatise on supermarkets underlines the political process.

The ACCC has of course already issued proceedings against Coles and Woolworths for alleged dodgy discounts but its report provided no smoking gun because maybe there isn’t one to be found.

Full credit to the ACCC then for not making up a yarn to satisfy Chalmers.

Election aside, the Treasurer has some work to do to increase transparency around the code to give perishable fruit and vegetable growers a better deal and better notice for consumers. These need changes to the code by Chalmers if he actually accepts the ACCC’s recommendations.

The bad news of course is Chalmers has already given the ACCC control of the supermarket code, which means small suppliers have to fight the bureaucracy to get heard.

An informal settlement process gave the small suppliers at least a chance of being heard.

Critical deals

Australia’s strength in critical minerals is underlined by the fact deals listed on the ASX in the sector are more than double that of its nearest rival, Toronto.

The relative strength of the sector is obviously part of the story, but the ASX has proved a happy stamping ground for raising capital in a field in which private capital rarely plays.

According to the International Energy Agency, Australia has 6 per cent of the world’s known critical mineral reserves, well behind China at 48 per cent, Brazil at 23 per cent and India at eight.

Demand for rare earths is tipped to increase 62 per cent by 2040 if countries meet their climate pledges and demand for nickel will be up 73 per cent, cobalt by 80 per cent and lithium by 400 per cent.

The case for more minerals processing is shown by China which has 23 per cent of global copper production and 44 per cent of refined copper.

Investor support clearly helps.

Macquarie Capital is a key player in capital raising having led on 24 per cent of the deals in the sector over the past five years.

The sector has emerged a potential bargaining chip with the US as President Trump attempts to overthrow the multilateral trading system with his campaign of unilateral tariff hikes.

But everyone has learned expected behaviour and President Trump are oxymorons.

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/surprising-fallout-from-the-instability-of-an-unchecked-trump/news-story/b92eb2a89f49c226d3e36b97b819fdfe

This is an interesting article showing just how complex the business scene has become and how we need to watch closely for unintended outcomes. Some of the recent actions by Government have seemed to me to be really unnecessary – especially around supermarkets. They know they are closely watched, don’t want any trouble, so I am sure they do their best to avoid attention – and try to just get on with business!

Lots of this has the smell of political beat-ups to me. What do others think?

It could be all the beating up on supermarkets is just a reflection of frustration with how little Government can to about Trump – or is that too wild an idea???

Is there a reason you can think of that the supermarkets want to do anything other than just serve their customers needs for a profit, and avoid unwanted attention from regulators and Governments?

David.

It Is Fair To Say We Have All Been Warned That Trump Could Bring Considerable Economic Pain Upon Us All!

This appeared a few hours ago

My SMSF is cashed up for a Trump catastrophe

The global economic chaos unleashed by the president prompted this self-managed super fund to cut exposure to the United States and raise cash.

Tony Boyd Contributor

Mar 30, 2025 – 11.22am

This probably sounds a little weird, but this self-managed super fund director would like to thank President Donald J. Trump for shaking me out of my complacency about investing in the United States.

Ever since my SMSF (formerly the Chook Super Fund) was established in fiscal 2012, US shares have provided the core growth engine for a net return of about 11 per cent a year. In calendar year 2024, the net return was 18 per cent.

Donald Trump is reviving the tariff strategy that caused a depression in the 1930s.  Bloomberg

But after more than a decade of growth in the value of US shares and actively managed funds invested in US tech stocks, this family’s SMSF had an asset allocation too skewed to the US sharemarket. It peaked at about 40 per cent.

Trump’s election and his immediate use of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose tariffs on friends, neighbours and long-standing security partners was a wake-up call.

As a student of economic history, I could see Trump repeating the mistakes of previous US leaders such as Herbert Hoover, who served in the White House from 1929 to 1933.

Hoover pushed through the Tariff Act now being used by Trump, and the US people suffered dire consequences.

As Harvard history professor Jill Lepore says in her book These Truths – A History of the United States (W.W Norton & Co 2018), Hoover used the Tariff Act to sever the US from Europe.

“World trade shrank by a quarter,” she writes. “In 1929, the US had imported $US4.4 billion in foreign products; in 1930 the imports declined to $US3.1 billion. Then US exports fell.

“Between 1929 and 1932, one in five American banks failed. The unemployment rate climbed from 9 per cent in 1930 to 16 per cent in 1931, to 23 per cent in 1932, by which time nearly 12 million Americans – a number equal to the entire population of the state of New York – were out of work.

“By 1932, national income, $US87.4 billion in 1929, had fallen to $US41.7 billion. In many homes, family income fell to zero. One in four Americans suffered from want of food.”

It is unlikely that Trump has read this book, which is a shame because understanding history is the foundation for building sound economic policy and avoiding the mistakes of others.

One-third of US holdings sold

Of course, the impact of a global trade war on the powerhouse, tech-enabled US economy of 2025 is unlikely to be as severe as what happened to the agriculture-dependent US in the 1930s, but that is not a valid reason to plunge headlong into it.

My response to the tariffs, which The Wall Street Journal editorial board described as “dumb”, was to sell about a third of the fund’s US holdings. That took the international shares allocation down to about 24 per cent, slightly less than the 25 per cent allocated to Australian shares.

Cash is now about 12.5 per cent of the fund’s total assets. With fixed interest at about 7.5 per cent, the liquid assets total about 20 per cent.

This sets up the fund to take advantage of the opportunities which are bound to arise from a continuation of the sell-off in global markets.

Trump is so unpredictable that it is difficult to know what will cause an accelerated global liquidation of stocks and, possibly simultaneously, a historic collapse in the value of the US dollar.

One possible trigger for further sharemarket weakness is the US Federal Reserve being forced to raise interest rates in response to a stagflation shock as the tariffs put upward pressure on prices while causing weaker demand for products.

Another possible trigger is the implementation of the so-called Mar-A-Largo accord, a “weaken-the-US-dollar-strategy” championed by Harvard PhD Stephen Miran, who is chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital.

The core part of the agreement is to “term-out” US sovereign debt by replacing existing foreign owned US Treasury bonds with special century bonds. Miran says this would shift interest rate risk from the US taxpayer to foreign taxpayers.

Such a move would be tantamount to a US federal government default – something that is unlikely to be well received by foreign US Treasury bondholders, particularly Europeans, Japanese and Chinese.

The Mar-A-Largo accord has echoes of the moves made in 1789 by the first US Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, who announced a partial repudiation of domestic debt to deal with a government debt crisis.

Domestic bondholders could accept part of their payment at the original 6 per cent and part in land on the western frontier, or take payment at a lower interest rate over a longer period with quarterly payments rather than annual payments, according to Hamilton’s biographer, Ron Chernow (Penguin 2004).

Hamilton was smart enough to know a country reliant on foreign capital could not alienate foreign buyers of US debt, which explains why interest rate obligations on foreign bonds were maintained.

It’s happened before

US debt repudiation and actions that are tantamount to a default have occurred before.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon removed the US from the gold standard. He said the US would no longer exchange foreign government dollar holdings for gold, a move that ushered in a new era of floating currencies.

One country that deliberately avoided the floating rate option was China, which fixed its currency in 1997 to the US dollar so it could manage the price of Chinese goods and ensure competitive export prices. The renminbi is now fixed against a basket of currencies.

Trump is barrelling towards confronting the consequences of China’s long-term currency management by imposing heavy tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods. I suspect he will go much further.

“The way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition.”

— Ronald Reagan in 1987

It would fit with his economic illiteracy to use as a bargaining chip the obligation to pay interest on the $US1 trillion of debt securities owned by China. Threats around sovereign debt could be another trigger for a collapse in market confidence in the US.

Trump probably doesn’t have the attention span to watch President Ronald Reagan’s five-minute radio address on free and fair trade on April 25, 1987, so someone in the White House should summarise it for him.

Reagan, once a Republican Party superhero, begins by talking about some specific trade protection issues with Japan before declaring that “the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition”.

“Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period, called the Smoot-Hawley tariff, greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

“You see, at first when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports’, it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time.

“What eventually occurs is first, home-grown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing, and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets.

“And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.

“The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition so, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidise inefficiency and poor management.

“People stop buying then the worst happens – markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.”

While awaiting the inevitable Trump-induced catastrophe, this SMSF director will follow the path carved out over the past 13 years: keep cash on hand to take advantage of opportunities, continue to diversify the asset allocation into private markets, and look to asset quality as the main driver of stock picking.

Here is the link:

https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/my-smsf-is-cashed-up-for-a-trump-catastrophe-20250328-p5lndk

Since retiring from active medical practice I have devoted more of my time keeping an eye on markets and my investments. Tony Boyd is a very smart financial journalist and knows of what he speaks. If he is as worried as he says then any one with investments overseas – as is true for most who hold superannuation – should be more than a little concerned.

Those who are close to or retired should seek their own advice on how to position themselves in the light of the almost inevitable Trump induced coming storm. Those with a decade or more to retirement should do nothing other than watch and learn how markets work!

We are in for an pretty exciting time I suspect so make sure you are optimally positioned if closer than 10 years to retirement or retired,

(p.s. I am NOT a financial adviser but I know who the experts who are worth listening to are. Tony is one of those! So listen and seek your own advice….)

David.

AusHealthIT Poll Number 787 – Results – 30 March 2025.

Here are the results of the recent poll.

Do You Think The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Has Been A Successful Innovation?

Yes                                                                      9 (45%)

No                                                                       9 (45%)

I Have No Idea                                                   2 (10%)

Total No. Of Votes: 20

Well the split vote to end all split votes. Obviously opinion is well and truly split!!!

Any insights on the poll are welcome, as a comment, as usual!

Very poor voter turnout. 

2 of 20 who answered the poll admitted to not being sure about the answer to the question!

Again, many, many thanks to all those who voted! 

David.

This Is Your Feel-Good Doggie Story For The Week!

This appeared last week:

The Observer Cystic fibrosis

Doctors’ best friends: dogs will help sniff out bacteria for cystic fibrosis sufferers

Imperial College project could lead to less invasive testing and combat increase in antibiotic resistance

Robin McKie, Science Editor

Sun 23 Mar 2025 02.15 AEDT

Jodie is a canine with special ­powers, scientists have discovered. The golden labrador can smell and ­identify ­particular bacteria and could soon play a key role in helping researchers develop a programme in which dogs could sniff out individuals infected with dangerous microbes.

The project, recently launched by scientists at Imperial College London, could be vital in the battle against antibiotic resistance as well as the treatment of patients with lung ­disease and other conditions, they say.

“We believe Jodie and her fellow medical detective dogs point to a new way to spot infected individuals, just by having a sniff of their socks or shirts,” said Professor Jane Davies at Imperial College.

“They could become a major help in tackling antimicrobial resistance and conditions like cystic fibrosis.”

Cystic fibrosis is one of the world’s most common inherited illnesses. A defective protein allows mucus to build up in lungs and other organs, triggering chronic infections that worsen through life.

Eighty years ago, most patients died in their teens. However drugs, called modulators, now offer patients a chance to live into old age. But this success has brought ­problems.

Modulator drugs have greatly improved patients’ overall conditions but they do not entirely kill off all the chronic lung infections that affect them. Most are still infected with bacteria whose growth could jeopardise their health.

“The problem is that ­bacteria in these patients are now much harder to detect,” said Davies. “Modulators greatly reduce the mucus in their lungs and ­without that it is difficult for them to cough up the sputum in which their bacterial status can be evaluated.” “This is where the dogs come in.”

For the first time, we may be able to train dogs to detect pseudomonas on patients’ skin, in their urine or clothing

Professor Jane Davies, Imperial College

Several years go, Davies and her team, supported by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, carried out research in which dogs demonstrated they could detect samples grown in the laboratory which contained a bacterium called pseudomonas, which can ­trigger pneumonia, ­urinary tract infections and ­septicaemia – often a serious health problem for cystic fibrosis patients.

As part of the trials, dogs, which were provided by the charity Medical Detection Dogs and which included Jodie, were brought into a testing room where samples were set on stands at dog-head height. These stands either included pseudomonas, other bacteria or no bacteria at all.

The dogs walked around the room sniffing each sample and when they had detected the pseudomonas, they sat down.

“We showed that in laboratory settings dogs can detect pseudomonas in samples,” said Davies. “Now we want to expand that work and have just been given funding from the medical charities LifeArc and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to ramp up our collaboration with Medical Detection Dogs so that, for the first time, we may be able to train dogs to detect pseudomonas on patients’ skin, in their urine or in their clothing.”

Crucially, this system could be expanded to detect bacteria in other patients, not just those with cystic fibrosis. And such an ability would have important implications.

Microbes such as pseudomonas are difficult to detect in clinics and techniques to test for it are often invasive, uncomfortable, expensive and cannot be repeated on a regular basis. Dogs could get around that problem.

“Bacteria like pseudomonas are often resistant to certain anti­biotics,” added Davies. “We need to pinpoint them with precision to ensure they are treated with the right antibiotic and so keep down the growing ­problem of antimicrobial resistance, which will be worsened if we give patients the wrong type of antibiotics.”

About a million people now die every year across the world because of the spread of microbial resistance and that figure is expected to rise over the next 25 years.

Recent data suggests problems arising from resistance are easing for the under-fives, but for the over-70s mortality rates have gone up 80% since 1990.

“In the fight against ­anti­microbial resistance, we are ​going to need all the help we can get – and dogs like Jodie could be the perfect allies that we could recruit in this battle,” said Davies.

Here is the link:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/22/dogs-will-help-sniff-out-bacteria-cystic-fibrosis-sufferers

I have nothing to add!

David.

I Think It Is Fair To Say That The World Is Becoming A Much More Dangerous Place!

This appeared last week:

Trump is not wrong to remind the world that a third world war is a risk

Conflicts imposed on Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan are intensifying rather than breaking out in peace. The assumption that they aren’t central to Australia’s interests is dead wrong.

Peter Jennings

12:00AM March 22, 2025.

The seven-front war against Israel is heating up once again and the intensity of fighting in Ukraine shows we are a long way away from a sustainable peace.

China meanwhile, in the words of Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, head of US Indo-Pacific Command, is not only exercising its military forces but also engaging in rehearsals for war. To win a war over Taiwan, China thinks about projecting power everywhere – space, cyberspace, the central Pacific and underwater.

There are people who think Australia has little or no interests in any of these conflicts. Ukraine, a democracy of 33 million brave souls, can be bargained away in a deal with Vladimir Putin.

Israel, the Middle East’s only genuine democracy, bizarrely is condemned by the green left as a “colonial settler society”, one that must fall so rough Palestinian justice can reign. In thought and deed the Albanese government has sided with the anti-Israel position.

Democratic, liberal, pluralist Taiwan is far from us and close to China. The Taiwanese are (mostly) ethnically Han Chinese. Does Australia even need to take an interest? So many of our elites are looking for the escape hatch from our own region.

Beyond token military aid for Ukraine – remember the Australian Army burying helicopters rather than handing them to Kyiv? – under Australia’s increasingly narrowed foreign policy the Albanese government has opted out of any attempt to influence the world’s three big military-strategic flashpoints.

The underlying assumption is that Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan aren’t central to our interests but somehow the rest of the world has Australia’s back in our collective defence.

I doubt it. We are the energy-rich country that’s running out of power; the AUKUS industrial giant that can’t repair its Collins-class submarines; the sub-2 per cent of GDP defence budgeter with a military much smaller than an MCG crowd, one that still faces a “workforce crisis”.

None of those measures will incline a transactional Trump administration to defend Australia to the last American. And why should Donald Trump be expected to take more interest in our security than we do ourselves?

Look at the direction of the two current wars and the third in its rehearsal stage. What’s happening is that the conflicts are spreading in inverse proportion to talk of peace.

Across the remainder of 2025 there is a strong chance that international conflicts will grow.

Peace will not break out, not before a lot more violence, and the edges of conflict will broaden to take in other regions, nations and interests.

Ukraine struck Russia's Engels strategic bomber base on Thursday with drones, triggering a major blast and fire about 435 miles (700 km) from the front lines of the war, Russian officials and media reported.

That’s the geopolitical context for the Australian federal election. If you are worried about the cost of living, remember that the cost of dying is always higher.

In the Ukraine war, Russia is intensifying its military ground offensives along the entire east and southeast front. This is a severely hard-fought conflict with high casualty rates similar to fighting that took place here during WWII.

The trend is that Russia is slowly taking ground. Ukrainian forces have achieved notable success but right now they are struggling to hold on to Russian territory taken in the Kursk Oblast. Putin wants to regain Russian ground and not leave Kyiv with a small bargaining point in negotiations.

Notwithstanding Putin’s phone call with Trump, Moscow is putting a major effort into attacking Ukrainian population centres with missiles and drones – many of the latter from Iran. Most are shot down but a few always hit their targets.

Putin will use the cover of negotiations to aggressively pursue his war effort. I cannot see Kyiv or the Europeans agreeing to Russia’s demand that Ukraine disarms, is not supplied with weapons and has no security guarantee. Why would Putin make these demands unless he wanted to attack Ukraine later?

Strategic Analysis Australia Director Michael Shoebridge has criticised the ceasefire agreement reached by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as it is “not a ceasefire”.

My hope is that the deeper the Trump administration engages in real negotiations (as opposed to Oval Office press conferences), the more it will conclude Putin can’t be trusted. A strong Ukraine is a bulwark that suits American interests – keep Kyiv strong if you don’t want doughboys fighting and dying on Europe’s central plains.

If Trump opts for a fake peace while leaving Ukraine vulnerable to Russia, then Putin will have won a Pyrrhic victory, but he will have a “forever war” insurgency on his hands that will make South Vietnam look like a minor police emergency.

Russia is arming itself in ways that convince many Europeans they will be attacked. The excellent Institute for the Study of War notes: “The Russian military is reportedly increasing the number of its information and psychological operations units … to intensify its informational war against Ukraine, Europe, the United States, the Middle East and Asia.”

Trump is not wrong to remind the world that a third world war is a risk. Like the last two, it could start with aggressive authoritarian military manoeuvres in central and northern Europe. And like the last two world wars, appeasement rather than strength is what leads to conflict.

In the Middle East, Israel is intensifying strike operations in Gaza because it is inescapable that Hamas must be destroyed as a political force to avoid further terrorist attacks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to reduce Hamas to the point that the Israel Defence Forces can reconstitute for wider, heavier and deeper strike operations against Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and proxy forces.

Watch what Israel does with its ground forces in Gaza. They have retaken part of the Netzarim Corridor that splits the strip into north and south zones. Is the aim to bring part of the strip back under Israeli control? Jerusalem made a big mistake by leaving Gaza in September 2005.

Israeli strategic thinking has changed in a way that has broad domestic support – there is no future in just “cutting the grass” in Gaza – that is, using airstrikes to hit terrorist cells and missile stockpiles. The need is to destroy Hamas once and for all.

It’s often said that one can’t kill an ideology. I’m not so sure. The Allies did that quite effectively with fascism in 1945. Israel will try its hardest to eliminate Hamas. It’s in the interests of humanity and civilisation that it succeeds.

Sky News Contributor Kristin Tate says America finally has a president who “acts” like he is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

Netanyahu must have an understanding with Trump about the next steps for Gaza, and for a military campaign after that to reduce the Iranian nuclear threat.

Netanyahu can make such a deal with Trump because Israel is strong enough to prosecute major military campaigns with its own power. Australia should take note: this is the difference between a strong ally and a free-riding security rent-seeker.

I have written in these pages that Iran with nuclear weapons threatens global security. Tehran is literally weeks away from realising the capability. The regime sees value in being ambiguous about when it might take that final step to weaponise a nuclear bomb. The second half of 2025 is the moment.

Israel has the air power and long-range strike assets to severely reduce Iran’s nuclear program. Its actions in the past few months to destroy Iranian air defence, Syrian airpower and many of Hezbollah’s missiles create a brief opening for Israel to take strikes deeper into Iranian territory.

American intelligence, weapons supplied to the IDF and a strong presence of aircraft carrier battle groups in the eastern Mediterranean will enable an Israeli strike.

How will Russia and China react? Moscow needs Tehran’s drones. Tehran wants Russian missiles, and needs Chinese funding and weapons technology from both countries.

Israel's military said it intercepted a missile launched from Yemen early on Thursday (March 20) as hostilities with Iran-backed Houthi militants intensified.

Note in the Middle East that the US is striking Houthi facilities in Yemen. Trump is not an isolationist. He wants a powerful America and will use force when he sees US interests attacked.

Beijing’s rehearsal for war in the Pacific is massive, covers numerous areas and is being done in the bright light of publicity to inspire and direct Chinese nationalism towards aggressive militaristic ends.

Just in the past few weeks we have seen the People’s Liberation Army-Navy doing live-fire operations in the Tasman Sea, in the Gulf of Tonkin off Vietnam, in the Yellow Sea near the Korean Peninsula and near Taiwan.

A fifth aircraft carrier is under construction, this one large enough to operate four catapult aircraft launchers.

There is a massive program to build amphibious landing vessels with a focus on Taiwan, along with the capacity for massed airborne assault forces to attack in a way similar to the 2022 Russian paratrooper assault north of Kyiv.

Strategic Analysis Australia Director Peter Jennings claims Beijing’s live fire drills were an act of “Chinese intimidation”.

China has just concluded manoeuvres in space to move satellites tactically in ways that could destroy US military and communication satellites.

In the Pacific China’s recently concluded strategic co-operation agreement with the Cook Islands – the content of which remains secret – shows that Beijing puts a high priority on establishing and maintaining a political, diplomatic and military presence throughout the region.

Xi Jinping’s speeches to the military identify 2027, the 100th anniversary of the PLA, as the time the military should be ready to undertake military operations against Taiwan. In practice the time is so close, and the PLA has made such significant advances, that Beijing has the option to launch an assault at will.

In a strange logic inversion some think that it is “hawkish” merely to write about Chinese military power, but the developments are happening. Ignorance is not bliss.

It is certainly true that Xi would prefer to win without fighting. Much of the PLA’s military posturing is, I suggest, a way of testing Trump’s resolve and regional responses. Weakness or uninterest or disarray will be read by Xi as a sign that he can advance China’s strategic aims at minimal cost.

The Coalition is considering increasing Australia's defence spending by $15 billion annually, raising expenditure to at least 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2029.

Speaking at the Lowy Institute on Thursday, Peter Dutton foreshadowed a need to lift defence spending. He said: “You can’t sign up to AUKUS without putting new money into defence.” That is exactly what the Morrison and Albanese governments did.

The Opposition Leader said a priority was to stop a flood of people leaving the Australian Defence Force. He also wants to expand Australian industry, making drones, missiles, uncrewed ships and underwater vessels. That takes defence money.

Interestingly, Dutton suggested that Australia could use shipbuilding and sustainment industries in South Australia and Western Australia to lift the viability of US Navy and other navies’ operations in the region.

Dutton declined to put a dollar figure on the additional investment he plans for defence. It all comes down to money – money and leadership – at the end of the day.

Xi has said to Putin in recent meetings that Russia and China working together will bring about “changes the world has not seen in a century”. Their most recent phone call discussion (that we know of) happened on February 24. The leaders affirmed their “no limits” partnership, signed just before Russia’s 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine, stressing their “long-term” alliance.

What’s at stake in the current two big wars and the war in rehearsal is an authoritarian challenge to the Western world order. All the pieces are connected, drawing in Australian interests.

After decades of underperformance, we must quickly and substantially lift our defence effort. Along with the US and allies, that effort might build a form of deterrence to keep the Asia-Pacific peaceful. We are almost out of time.

Peter Jennings is director of Strategic Analysis Australia and was executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute from 2012 to 2022. He is a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department (2009-12).

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/labors-premise-seems-to-be-that-ukraine-israel-and-taiwan-arent-in-our-interests-but-the-world-has-our-back/news-story/f073e72182a07d3954607fad81385789

We should be in no doubt we are living in very dangerous times!

David.