One of the excuses for not taking real climate action in Australia is the argument that in the scheme of things, Australia is a bit player in emissions. A new report from The Australia Institute (TAI) shows that’s not the case.
It’s not just what we generate here that counts, but what we export. The TAI says Australia is the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia, and accounts for 7% of all fossil fuel exports.
The CO2 potential of Australia’s fossil fuel exports in 2017 was a whopping 1.147 billion tonnes.
In terms of coal, Australian exports have more than doubled over the last two decades. While coal exports peaked in 2015, some believe they will again increase with government support and there are proposals for 53 new coal mines in the works.
“Australia has a unique opportunity and obligation to face up to the climate crisis through policies to manage a decline in its carbon exports, starting with a moratorium on new coal mines,” says Richie Merzian, Climate & Energy Program Director at TAI.
Domestic Emissions High And Climbing
Our domestic emissions are nothing to be proud of either. While Australia has just 0.3% of the world’s population, it generates 1.2% of global emissions states the report, giving our comparatively small country the dubious distinction of being the 14th largest emitter globally.
Currently Australian greenhouse gas emissions per capita are the highest in the OECD, are among the highest in the world and are continuing to rise. The only countries with higher per-capita emissions are small petro-states: Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain.
In addition to the emissions we produce right here, there’s also those associated with the goods we consume in Australia that are manufactured overseas.
Even with the Morrison Government cooking the books by using “carry-over” credits from the Kyoto Protocol, Australia is not on track to meet its target under the Paris Agreement says The Australia Institute.
The TAI’s report, High Carbon from a Land Down Under, can be viewed here.
Australia A “Deviant”
Commenting on the report, the Climate Council says Australia is a “deviant on a global scale”.
“This report highlights that what Australia does on climate change really matters and, currently, we are not doing our fair share,” said Climate Council Head of Research, Dr Martin Rice. “We can’t continue to burn and export fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. We need a transition plan to position Australia to become a global renewables powerhouse and advance a new economy.”
Renewable Energy Export Opportunities
Even without fossil fuel exports, Australia can still export energy – and solar power can play a role. For example, Sun Cable’s proposed Australia-Singapore Power Link (ASPL) near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory involves a 10 gigawatt solar farm with 20-30 gigawatt hours of battery storage. It’s envisioned some of its output will be exported to Singapore via a 3,800-kilometre high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cable.
There’s also the massive Asian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) project that has again upped its potential wind and solar energy capacity to 15GW and shifted in focus to hydrogen production for domestic use and export. However, SQ’s Ronald doesn’t think the potential for hydrogen exports is quite as rosy as it has been portrayed.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
It does not take account of the burn quality of the Australian coal and that the coal fired power stations now using Australian coal will buy poorer quality coal from elsewhere. Not exporting from Australia will increase the size of the international coal market as those power stations will still exist.
Also wind and solar power is intermitent and intermitent power cuts out investment in export competitive jobs – jobs that when exported go to countries that burn poorer quality coal to supply the energy those jobs require.
Biased analysis is just fake news.
The risk of continuing to burn coal will be to push the climate over the edge. You may think we have plenty of time, I suggest you do some reading and start getting ready!
“and that the coal fired power stations now using Australian coal will buy poorer quality coal from elsewhere”.
We don’t necessarily know that is true. Australia is one of the largest (if not the largest) exporters of coal. As you say, Australian coal is very high “quality” (for a given definition of quality). Removing such a large volume of high quality coal from the international markets would send a massive price shockwave through the industry. Who knows what the ramifications of that would be? It would certainly make solar and wind even more attractive both from a cost viewpoint (and both are already cheaper than fully amortized coal-fired power) and it would likely send the marginal coal fired producers out of business. It would almost certainly result in a mass cancellation of planned coal fired plants (as is already happening in Japan) and, from a risk-management viewpoint coal-fired plants would find it even more difficult to attract insurance, government approvals and investment as there would be legitimate concerns that the other producers of coal would stop exporting it. In the long-term, in a perfectly fungible market (and no such market exists in reality) it is likely that a price spike would lead other potential suppliers to enter the market. But there’s that pesky risk-management angle again… who would invest hundreds of millions in building coal mines, railways and ports if governments around the world are banning its export…?
Malcolm Wilson,
It seems to me you are regurgitating some deceptive and dangerous propaganda from fossil fuel interests. You state:
“It does not take account of the burn quality of the Australian coal and that the coal fired power stations now using Australian coal will buy poorer quality coal from elsewhere.”
Thermal coal used to generate electricity is rapidly approaching technological obsolesce. Stranded asset risks for thermal coal, the associated supporting infrastructure investments and coal-fired power plants are rising globally.
See: http://ieefa.org/ieefa-australia-queensland-government-about-to-make-poor-economic-decision-on-adani-mine/
Also: http://ieefa.org/ieefa-asia-coal-pipeline-shrinking-stranded-asset-risk-ballooning-renewables-ever-cheaper/
Per the latest Global Coal Plant Tracker data, in the first half of 2019, about 12.7 GW of coal power capacity has been newly proposed across eight countries and 12 GW of new construction has started across five countries.
Conversely, 132 GW of planned new capacity has been cancelled in the same period. The largest numbers of cancellations were in China, India, Myanmar and Turkey.
The pipeline of proposed new developments continues to shrink, putting a peak in total operating capacity on the horizon.
Existing coal plants on average are now running only about 50% of the time.
Net increase (i.e. new operating additions minus retirements) of the global coal power fleet was 17 GW in the first half of 2019.
Over 10 GW of capacity has retired in 2019 so far.
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have all reduced their proposed coal capacity, with no new large proposals since 2015.
See: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-plans-for-new-coal-are-changing-around-the-world
Australia’s thermal coal export earnings by destination in 2018 were: Japan (39%), China (24%), South Korea (15%), Taiwan (11%), India (2%), and Rest of the World (9%).
There are growing signs that Japan will pivot away from thermal coal at a faster pace than initially expected. Two coal-fired power projects have been cancelled in the last six months, with a third also likely to be shelved soon.
Since the change in government in 2017, South Korea has implemented a range of measures to reduce the country’s reliance on coal-fired power generation.
See: https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/resources-and-energy-quarterly-june-2019
Australia’s thermal coal exports have lost their momentum since 2015. Volumes peaked as prices fell. The global thermal coal export market is now entering a state of sustained decline, and investors, financiers, governments, and affected communities need to understand the full picture.
See: https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6316450/comments-prove-climate-denial-is-king/
You also state:
“Also wind and solar power is intermitent and intermitent power cuts out investment in export competitive jobs – jobs that when exported go to countries that burn poorer quality coal to supply the energy those jobs require.”
Malcolm, aren’t you aware of ‘dispatchable’ energy storage technologies? Hydro? Pumped-hydro (both on-river and off-river)? Solar thermal with molten salt energy storage? Batteries? Supercapacitors? Hydrogen storage? Ammonia storage? Compressed air?
See: https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/10/Comparison-Of-Dispatchable-Renewable-Electricity-Options-ITP-et-al-for-ARENA-2018.pdf
New renewables with ‘firming’ are now undeniably cheaper than new coal, gas, and nuclear energy technologies.
See: https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
Also: https://reneweconomy.com.au/lazard-hails-inflection-point-as-wind-solar-costs-beat-new-and-old-fossils-72497/
Malcolm, you finish with:
“Biased analysis is just fake news.”
It seems to me from your comments you either don’t understand the key facts on this subject (because you are apparently relying on “fake news”, and until now, you unwittingly don’t know any better) or you are attempting to wilfully disseminate “fake news”. Which is it, Malcolm?
I suggest that you now have a choice to become better informed on this critical issue OR remain ignorant and/or disruptive/destructive.
What we have in this article is a meandering trail of impractical phrases only suitable for use by virtue signalling environmental ideologues.
The northern parts of China are freezing cold in winter, yet people survive and thrive there, and have done for centuries. “How so?”, you may ask. Well, quite simply, in the past by burning wood, in the recent past by burning coal in their own little fireplaces and furnaces, and more recently by using electricity generated by burning coal in supercritical combustion powerplants, a process far more efficient than the earlier methods. There is a per-capita reduction in fuel used for heating energy.
Now, when you cut off the coal exports, do you think those good people are just going to quietly sit there and freeze to satisfy your need to feel virtuous? No, they’ll source their fuels elsewhere, based on the cost of those available in the market. If those energy sources happen to be solar or wind, that would be just wonderful, but that will only happen when those are the cheapest alternatives. NOT because we decided we’d better hand that coal market to someone else for a few intervening decades just to give ourselves that virtuous feeling.
Similarly, with our great desire to ‘export’ manufacturing by energy pricing it out of the country: consumer demand for the products simply means it will be made elsewhere in a far less energy efficient way, with the added environmental cost of transportation tacked on top of the environmental bill.
Estimates are that steel made in China produces 4 times the CO2 output per tonne, and polypropylene up to 80 times the CO2 output, compared to the same products produced in Australia and Saudi Arabia respectively.
hi markx
This March 2019 article from Reuters will give you what seems to be an up-to-date position regarding ‘pollution’ in Northern China.
The article is headed: “Pollution soars in Northern China in February: official”
The first two sentences read: ‘Air pollution in 39 smog-prone northern Chinese cities soared in February, making it increasingly unlikely they will meet their annual winter air quality targets, Reuters analysis of official data showed. China is heading into the sixth year of its “war on pollution” to try to reverse damage from over three decades of untrammeled economic growth and allay public disquiet about the state of the country’s air, soil and water. ‘
Between the two sentences is interposed a photo of a crowded and also smog-filled traditional alleyway in Beijing. You can’t make out much detail beyond a distance of around 50 metres, and at 100 metres larger structures are becoming blurred or invisible.
Although the situation varies between the 39 cities involved. China’s official PM 2.5 standard is 35 micrograms, compared to the WHO standard of 2.5 micrograms.
Average concentrations of hazardous airborne particles known as PM2.5 rose 40 percent in February to hit 108 micrograms per cubic meter for the 39 cities. If the 40 percent is deducted, on the grounds it is an abnormal reading due to the inflluence of holiday celebrations, you are still left with a 77 microgram pollution level as your average which is 31 times the WHO standard, and perhaps 10 times higher than Sydney.
It does seem to me that the Chinese government itself now recognises the extent of it’s atmospheric pollution problem in its Northern regions, and I don’t really think they would agree with your thesis that because people in that region have been burning coal for centuries in the past with no adverse effect (or so you seem to suggest), its therefore perfectly safe to continue doing so.
So far as I know, there are no plans to suddenly (perhaps overnight), cease the export of Australian high-quality coal to overseas markets, or to slap a massive surcharge on what is currently exported to our Asian neighbors. It’s neither sensible nor virtuous to do that.
The Chinese Government is itself well aware of the problem, are attempting to deal with it, and it’s up to them to set their internal priorities as to which aspect they deal with first according to their particular circumstances.
According to this recent article published on BBC future in August 2018: .
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180822-why-china-is-transforming-the-worlds-solar-energy
China is attempting to install large-scale solar farms on a massive scale, but has found that their national grid is in such a bad state its incapable of transmitting the electricity generated to where its needed. As well, there’s huge distance mismatch at times, between where the solar plants can be established, and where the electricity is required. Which of course adversely affects the economics due to transmission losses.
They now seem to be looking far more closely at roof-top solar PV as part of their energy mix, and as well, have been rather innovative by using solar PV in Tibet to melt the permafrost, so that trees can be grown on the reclaimed land.
Although what one might call a ‘transition to renewables’ is clearly underway in China, (on a giga-massive scale), it is not without its problems. But the rapidly declining cost of solar panels has already helped solved many of those.
Hi Markx – energy from newly-built solar and wind are already cheaper than old fully amortized and depreciated coal-fired plants. Who sez? None other than those sneering lefto pinkists as Lazard Investment Bank and also the lily-livered communist social just warriors at Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Lazard
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
Bloomberg
https://reneweconomy.com.au/unsubsidised-wind-and-solar-now-cheapest-form-of-bulk-energy-96453/
Bbg – batteries – https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/
There’s also this CSIRO/AEMO analysis that says more or less the same thing… https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar-and-storage-clearly-cheaper-than-coal-45724/
” Even without fossil fuel exports, Australia can still export energy – and solar power can play a role. For example, Sun Cable’s proposed Australia-Singapore Power Link (ASPL) near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory involves a 10 gigawatt solar farm with 20-30 gigawatt hours of battery storage. It’s envisioned some of its output will be exported to Singapore via a 3,800-kilometre high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cable. ”
and
“There’s also the massive Asian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) project that has again upped its potential wind and solar energy capacity to 15GW and shifted in focus to hydrogen production for domestic use and export.”
Seriously – are these jokes ? Let’s see some critical analysis of the Cost-Benefit analyses for these. Hint – I bet they rely on massive government subsidies.
OldCynic,
If you bothered to refer to the website for the Asian Renewable Energy Hub,
you will find a ‘timeline’ for the whole project shown at the foot of the home page at https://asianrehub.com/
That page indicates that the final investment decision won’t be made until
22/23, so presumably ‘critical analysis of the Cost-Benefits’ will be made at that future time. Construction is scheduled to commence in 23/24, and be completed two years later.
On this web-page you will find details of the various partners in the venture, https://asianrehub.com/about/ .
None of the partners strike me as being ‘clueless’ or ‘inexperienced’ so far as the various aspects of large-scale renewable projects are concerned. Macquarie Bank are involved in raising any necessary borrowings for the project.
Will subsidies rear their ugly head in the future? Who knows. But they don’t seem to be at all on the agenda at the moment. The WA Government does not appear to be involved in any major financial way at present, other than providing assistance with facilitating regulatory compliance and relationships with the Nyangumarta People .
OldCynic,
You state:
“I bet they rely on massive government subsidies.”
All the “massive government subsidies” are already being spent on the fossil fuel industry – $5.2 trillion globally and $29 billion in Australia.
See: https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/
And nuclear plants are also heavily subsidised:
“In the U.S. and later in other countries, the armament and energy industries
grew comfortable with nuclear power only after they had received significant subsidies. Further, since the 1960s the construction of new nuclear power plants has not led to a reduction in fixed unit costs. Instead, the cost per kilowatt (kW) of nuclear power plant output has steadily risen.[10]”
See: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf
Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put out a report entitled “The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions” that calls for offering subsidies to unprofitable nuclear power plants.
“Nuclear plants are hugely expensive, and it has been known for a while that they are not an economically competitive choice. Thus, building new nuclear plants makes no sense. In the UCS report too, the power planning model used does not recommend constructing new nuclear plants, even at the highest assumed price of carbon.”
See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-subsidize-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change/
So, OldCynic, why don’t you demand a cost-benefit analysis for fossil fuels and nuclear?
Hi Michael,
Storing solar power in batteries sounds expensive and cumbersome.
Is there any system that the day time excess power from the panels could be utilise to power an electric motor, to wind up a large mechanism similar to a clock,
In the evening, the wound up mechanism is released, to drive a generator to feed power back into the home.
Has any body ever devised any thing like this.
Hi B Haines
There are a few high quality storage systems. By “high quality” I mean storage systems that can allow the running of a lot of stuff for a long time at a reasonable cost.
At the largest scale is a high-capital cost but very long-lived life asset which ultimately results in a cheap unit cost of power and that’s off-river pumped hydro storage.
To build a pumped hydro storage system you need an upper reservoir of water and a lower reservoir of water. You either dig a big hole in the top of a mountain/block off a mountain valley (or you use a really big and deep hole (thanks miners!)) and pump water into it when energy is cheap. You can also use the ocean as one of the reservoirs. When you want the energy back again, you open the sluice gates, the water falls down spinning turbines as it goes and et voila your fridge stays on. Prof Andrew Blakers reckons there’s something like 22,000 potential sites mooching about Australia that we could use. https://theconversation.com/want-energy-storage-here-are-22-000-sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275
Another example is “the flywheel”. Think of an electric motor. It works by whizzing coils of copper (? I think?) through the magnetic field of batteries. This causes electro-magical energy to flow. Which is nice.
So what you do is you get a great big hunk of heavy cylindrical steel and you put it in an enclosure and you suck as much of the atmosphere out of it as you can. If I remember right you also balance it on top of magnetic fields (remember magnets have north and south poles. A north-south attracts but a north-north or south south repels. So whatcha do is use the cheap energy to spin that steel cylinder as fast as it can go right up to ludicrous-fast speed. That’s a super-fast speet. Now, ‘cos it aint got air in the enclosure and because it ain’t touching anything it will spin and spin and spin for ages without slowing down even a little bit. So what you’ve done is store heaps of energy in the spinning wheel. So when you want the energy back again you just link the spinning cylinder (using computers, mechanics, magnets and stuff and not, y’know, your bare hands) to the electric motor.
Why link it to an electric motor? Because another word for “electric motor” is “dynamo” i.e. if you spin copper coils really fast through magnet fields it will generate electrical energy which you can use to power your electrified lama-and-horse feeding machine (well, you can if you’re Ronald).
So there are two good options for storing a lot of energy cheaply. There’s little in the way of fancy science, both systems are proven. Pumped hydro is in use around the world and the are quite a lot of small towns in Australia now that are using a solar/wind and flywheel combo system.
I won’t go near a lama. You know they have vampire fangs, right?
Accck! I DID NOT know that! Now I’ll have vampire-lama nightmares! Thanks Ronald :0(
Interestingly, if you mix up the concepts of “Vampire” and “Lama” you might get a “Lamia” a person-devouring seductress demon – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia
Anyway, I’m off to go and get elected as the Shadow Minister for Sandwiches.
Cheers
J
Only check out the vampire teeth in this link if you are brave of heart:
https://alpacasofmontana.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-anatomy-of-alpaca-teeth.html
That’s for an alpaca. Llamas are even worse.
Globally a new sense of urgency has entered discussions regarding the technological imperatives that must be met to massively electrify and industrialize developing nations to modern standards in all ways and means, as well as transition away from fossil fuel generation to a primary non-polluting generation technology that will reduce global GHG emissions to insignificant levels.
This is the critical challenge, and the clock is ticking before runaway GHG effects will become impossible to mitigate with devastating consequences, including the disintegration of global social structures, that will increasingly and through sheer necessity, become the disruptive global society norm.
With emissions rising and the realisation that without drastic action, the world is on a track to precipitate a runaway climate change situation by the end of the century; recognition is growing of the need for a new level of ambition in current efforts to decarbonise and transform the global energy system.
The incumbent primary global fossil fuel (coal) generation technology, as a major contributor to the urgent climate change issues unfolding, has a diminishing future to one of minor significance within about 70 years as a future global generation technology.
Decarbonisation of the industrial, heating, transportation, as well as the development of zero emissions power generation, will be the whole focus of the new frontier age of power generation science this century.
The global renewables sector (across the board) remains fragmented and lacks the capacity for sustained long-term investment and development on a global scale, to massively electrify and industrialize developing nations as well as satisfy the permanent ongoing redevelopment imperatives of developed nations. The global renewables sector, already firmly tracking on the obsolescence pathway, will diminish steadily to minor significance by about 2040.
NANS technology (new age nuclear solutions) being at the apex of power generation science, is the appropriate and practical form of power generation technology that has the exploitable attributes that can satisfy the global energy imperative going forward in perpetuity.
A recap on the key technological attributes that are essential moving global energy generation science forward (in broad terms) are:-
1. Must be an energy dense technology at the apex of the energy science pyramid, and be able to deliver massive, safe, clean and low-cost energy in perpetuity;
2. Replace all other forms of inefficient and polluting energy generation sources globally, and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to insignificant levels permanently;
3. Be modular and scalable and easily deployed cost effectively to power new age energy intensive technologies, industries and businesses;
4. Be available through modular design to cost effectively benefit all people throughout the world effectively and decisively.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence Coomber,
I see my comments at:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/andrews-government-solar-victoria/#comment-479690
…have apparently still not been accepted by you. You are apparently repeating here at this thread the same things you have stated elsewhere (that I’ve challenged and rebutted) without any evidence to support (what looks like to me) your ‘manifesto’.
You state:
“NANS technology (new age nuclear solutions) being at the apex of power generation science, is the appropriate and practical form of power generation technology that has the exploitable attributes that can satisfy the global energy imperative going forward in perpetuity.”
Lawrence, where’s the compelling evidence to support this statement? That would include verifiable costings and time-frames to deploy this technology, and a practical demonstration of the technology actually working reliably now. Do you have this information, Lawrence, or is this just a fantasy of yours?
IMO, humanity cannot now rely on fantasy and wishful thinking – that luxury is not something humanity can afford now. Human-induced GHG emissions must be reduced 50% by 2030, and to net-zero by 2050. A significant failure to achieve those target milestones risks dangerous climate change consequences that brings forth human civilisation collapse within this century.
See: http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html
You state:
“The global renewables sector, already firmly tracking on the obsolescence pathway, will diminish steadily to minor significance by about 2040.”
Evidence, Lawrence?
AMEO/CSIRO would disagree.
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
Lazard would disagree.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
BNEF would disagree.
https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/
EWG/LUT would disagree.
http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
Where’s your evidence, Lawrence? Or does your ‘nuclear power will save the world religion’ not require evidence?
Lawrence,
I agree with you that ‘a new sense of urgency has entered discussions’ and that ‘recognition is growing of the need for a new level of ambition in current efforts to decarbonise’
Unfortunately, having ‘discussions’ and acquiring a growing ‘recognition’ of the NEED to do something, is some light-years away from ACTUALLY doing something.
This absence of actual action is to my mind one reason that groups such as ‘Extinction Rebellion’ have appeared on the scene.
From their point of view, few in government leadership have taken any notice at all of the science, the fact that the real world problems are staring them in the face and portend far worse to come, and the mostly reasoned and polite arguments of the existing environmental movement.
Now, I don’t support at all the sometimes extremist activities of ‘Extinction Rebellion’, but I believe I can understand where they were originally coming from. I emphasis ‘originally’ because what seems to have happened to them since is that additional political agendas have subsequently been ‘added on’ from one source or another.
As a result, the seemingly endless ‘debate and discussion’ is slowly but steadily morphing into a hostile ‘them and us’ political environment of extremism which might ultimately lead to deep divisions within our Australian society.
‘Doing nothing’ in a sense creates a ‘vacuum’ which can ultimately get filled with all kinds of unexpected things over which you have no control at all.
Unintended consequences of ‘who knows what’ already seem on their way to me.
Possibly, a week or three of 45-50 degree days in Canberra next summer, along with a grid break-down and a fully evaporated Lake Burley Griffin along with other Canberra water reservoirs could prove beneficial.
It may succeed in accelerating ‘actually doing something’ before the worst of the ‘unintended consequences’ begin to arrive, and so avoid the default response of holding a Royal Commission to ‘come up with recommendations for future action’ which can then be ‘discussed’, ‘reviewed’, and then ‘added to existing growing recognitions’ which can be proudly held up as a shining example of ‘steady progress in areas of critical concern to every Australian voter’ just prior to the next election.