News aggregator

Sydney Leadership represents one of the most extraordinary and most powerful leadership development opportunities in Australia today.

Since 1999 over 360 senior and emerging leaders from businesss, government and not-for-profit organisations have discovered the meaning of real leadership in this challenging, year-long program. Inspired by a Harvard model but taught in the 'real world' - not in a classroom - Sydney Leadership will help you discover the skills, wisdom and bravery you need to activate real change in yourself, in your organisation and in the real world.

• Social Policy

read more

Austrailan Policy Online has one free ticket to this conference to give away to a lucky reader. This two day conference pass is valued at $3,625! Don't miss this chance to get there for free.

• Social Policy

read more

And finally, following on from where we left off in Part 3 of this series, let’s have a look at some of the key themes of this election campaign, such as they were. Again, this builds on the keywords and key phrases we identified using WordStat in Part 2: from those stats we can extract and cluster a number of themes which bear further attention.

Let’s begin with actual policies: from the WordStat data, five policy fields emerge as having been of major interest to #ausvotes commenters during the campaign – national broadband policy (most centrally, the choice between Labor’s NBN scheme and the Coalition’s alternative broadband proposal); the ‘Cleanfeed’ Internet filter pursued by Labor communications minister Stephen Conroy; climate change; asylum seekers; and same-sex marriage. It’s probably no surprise that of these, two are very clearly identified as topics of interest to heavy Internet users – an indication, not least, that the Twitterati whose content we’re analysing here are unlikely to be representative for the wider Australian population. So, let’s have a look at what we find:

Clearly, the early running (if at very low volume) is mainly dominated by low-level rumblings about the Internet filter. There’s a brief spike of interest in climate change topics, but this mainly remains limited to one day. Things only get interesting half-way through the campaign: with an announcement by the Coalition on 5 August that it would block the Internet filter project, which boosts the numbers for that topic, and with a massive spike following the Coalition’s announcement of its own – frankly, somewhat incoherent – national broadband policy and Tony Abbott’s attempts to explain that policy on the 7.30 Report, on 10 August. From that point on, of these five topics, broadband policy clearly dominates the discussion, even in comparison to the Internet filter – and without looking closer at the data for now, my impression would be that it’s not favourable to the Coalition: whatever good its opposition to the filter might have done it would have dissipated due to the backlash against its broadband plans.

Against this, issues surrounding asylum seeker policy remain backgrounded: whatever the level of media coverage they have received, the Twitterati are less than interested. Especially compared to the level of attention which the ‘boat people’ have received in the mainstream media, by contrast, the coverage of gay marriage reform (not a major theme on the mainstream media) on Twitter is relatively substantial. This comes out especially when we look at the normalised data:

As before, here are the search filters I used: ‘(nbn|broadband)’ for National Broadband Policy; ‘(filter|cleanfeed|openinternet)’ for Internet Filter; ‘climate.?change’ for Climate Change; ‘(stop.*boat|boat.*people|asylum)’ for Asylum Seekers; and ‘gay.?marr’ for Gay Marriage.

Beyond the policies, it’s also worth taking a look at the discussion of politics on Twitter: of the political process, rather than of policy substance. Looking again at the key themes which emerged from our WordStat analysis, the main observation is that for the most part, there’s nothing much to see here:

Again a note on search filters: ‘hung.parl’ for Hung Parliament; ‘minority.?gov’ for Minority Government; ‘major.?part’ for Major Parties; ‘(informal.?vot|vot.*informal)’ for Informal Voting; ‘press.?conf’ for Press Conference; ‘campaign.?launch’ for Campaign Launch; and ‘swing’ for Swing.

So: even though there certainly was plenty of process to discuss in the lead-up to the election, the paradigm well and truly shifted on election day. Discussion of potential swings, and brief blips around campaign launches and press conferences did occur before 21 August, and informal voting came up as an issue following Mark Latham’s intervention on 60 Minutes, but only from election day onwards did we begin to discuss the questions surrounding a hung parliament and a minority government in earnest. Though there were rumblings about this as a potential outcome of the election, it seems like nobody on Twitter was prepared to engage in any sustained discussion of these issues until they became a reality.

And that’s where we find ourselves now – probably a good point to end on! Good luck to us all…

Having looked (in Part 2 of this series of posts) at the overall keyword and key phrase trends in the over 400,000 #ausvotes tweets discussing the Australian federal election, we’re now in a position to chart the prominence of key themes across the five weeks between 17 July and 24 August 2010. There are quite a number of potential themes to track here, so I won’t combine them all into a single graph – rather, I’ll group them into a number of (hopefully) fairly sensible clusters.

First, a little light relief: since we’ve already looked at the relative number of mentions of each leader by name (in Part 1), let’s extend this and examine mentions of their nicknames and catchphrases. For PM Julia Gillard, the catchcry was – especially in the early stages of the campaign – the interminably repeated phrase ‘moving forward’, while Opposition Leader Tony Abbott encouraged Australians to ‘stand up for real action’. Additionally, after Gillard ditched her overly controlled campaign, she promised to let the ‘real Julia’ come to the fore, while inadvertently also bestowing the nickname ‘Mr. Rabbit’ on Abbott, as a result of her pronunciation of her opponent’s name.

Here’s how things unfolded – first, in terms of real numbers:

We can clearly see the overwhelming dominance of the ‘moving forward’ slogan in the early days of the campaign (it’s quite likely that very few of those many tweets would have been positive in sentiment, though). After the first couple of weeks, it’s also evident that the sidelining of the slogan by the Labor campaign has also reduced its repetition on Twitter, it does make an appearance again towards the end of the campaign, though, especially in a spike on 14 August, which is likely to be the result of Labor’s twibbon campaign that encouraged users to show their support for the party through their Twitter avatar and resulted in many tweets such as this:

I’m with Julia. On August 21 let’s move Australia forward. Show your support too #ausvotes http://twb.ly/cd6557

By contrast, the ‘real Julia’ meme spikes (obviously) on the day of its introduction, but generally fails to capture much sustained attention. ‘Mr. Rabbit’ is more successful overall – from mid-campaign onward, it’s gradually becoming more and more widespread. And ‘stand up for real action’ figures prominently only on 8 August, the day of the Coalition’s official campaign launch, but fizzles otherwise.

Normalising these results to 100% further helps show the overall tweetspace which either of these memes were able to capture. Clearly, ‘Moving forward’ dominates the early running, but drops away just as the ‘real Julia’ makes her brief appearance (though note that we’re dealing with some very low numbers overall during the first fortnight); from about the same time onwards, ‘Mr. Rabbit’ makes his presence felt, too.

Note: I should mention the search filters which generated those numbers. Written as regular expressions, anything that matched ‘mov.*forward’ was counted for ‘Moving Forward’ (i.e. ‘move forward’, ‘moving forward’, etc., as well as ‘moving Australia forward); ‘(stand.?up|real.?action)’ for ‘Stand Up / Real Action)’; ‘real.?julia’ for ‘Real Julia’; and the search term for ‘Mr. Rabbit’ was simply ‘rabbit’ (so it could have included mentions of other rabbits under the #ausvotes tag as well, but that’s probably not a quantity we need to worry about).

But back to somewhat more serious matters: as I mentioned in the previous post, while Abbott won out against Gillard on the personal count, Labor still bested the Coalition on party mentions. Here are the graphs to prove it, with a few minor parties thrown in:

We see a fairly persistent advantage for the Labor party over the Coalition throughout the election period, with a total of 54420:34885 mentions overall. Counted in this were the terms ‘Labor’, ‘Labour’ (for misspellings and overzealous auto-corrections), and ‘ALP’ on the Labor side, and ‘Liberal’, ‘Libs’, ‘LNP’, and ‘Coalition’ on the Coalition side; as mentioned in Part 2, I’ve had to exclude the National Party since ‘national’ is also a very generic term, especially in the context of a national election.

From the graph, it appears as if the Greens also make a very good showing. I need to note a major caveat in this context, however: as with the Nationals, the term ‘green’ is also likely to appear in the data in a number of other contexts – in particular, in the names (and Twitter handles) of ABC election analyst Antony Green and Drum editor Jonathan Green! And short of manual coding, there’s no easy way to filter those false positives from the overall number. So, take the ‘Greens’ figure with a large quantity of salt – it’s likely to be substantially inflated by those other Greens.

Here’s the normalised version of the graph, which shows the relative presence of each party in the #ausvotes tweetstream. Clearly, the minnows (Australian Sex Party and Family First) are minnows here, too – though it’s interesting to see that the Twitterati’s interest in the Sex Party narrowly wins out over that in Family First (by 3459:3315 tweets).

A quick note on the search terms again: for the Coalition, ‘(liberal|libs|lnp|coalition)’; for Labor, ‘(labor|labour|alp)’; for the Greens, ‘green’; for Family First, ‘family.?first’; and for the Sex Party, ‘sex.?party’.

Finally for this post, let’s also have a look at some of the bit players in the general campaign: the ministers, minor party leaders, former politicians, and local candidates who for one reason or another appeared reasonably often in the overall tweetstream. The selection here is based on the keyword and key phrase analysis presented in Part 2: we’re looking here at those second-tier politicians who appeared most prominently in those data.

On the Labor side, they include deposed PM Kevin Rudd, Treasurer Wayne Swan, and Climate Change minister Penny Wong, as well as Maxine McKew (the former ABC presenter who won won her seat in parliament from then-PM John Howard at the 2007 election; and for the Coalition, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce. Further, we’ll include Greens leader Bob Brown, Family First Senator Steve Fielding, and former ALP leader turned 60 Minutes reporter Mark Latham, as well as Wyatt Roy (the successful 20-year-old LNP candidate) and independent MP Bob Katter.

The first point to observe here is that for the most part, these politicians all remain relatively unimportant, at least in terms of how they’re seen by the Twitterati – we’re usually dealing with only a handful of mentions per day, except for the excitement of election day itself. The early running, such as it is, is largely dominated by former PM Kevin Rudd; this is unsurprising, but also documents the difficulties that Labor experienced in moving past its last-minute change of leader before the election was called; in terms of mentions, Rudd consistently outranks Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan, for example.

Mid-campaign, Mark Latham’s infamous appearances on the campaign trail begin to intrude on the Twitter discussion; for a while, he manages to overshadow most of the active politicians we’re tracking here. Beyond this, we’ll need to have a look at the normalised graph to see further trends:

What emerges from this is that Greens leader Bob Brown actually has a reasonable showing in the first half of the campaign, compared to the others (but note that like theirs, his total number of mentions too remains very small) – but he seems to go missing during the third quarter of the match. Most others hardly rate a mention – Joe Hockey and Barnaby Joyce only make occasional appearances; Penny Wong has a few good days during week 2, but all but disappears afterwards; and Steve Fielding manages to create no more than a trickle of interest from the Twitterati.

Interestingly, in spite of his pre-election status as something of an irrelevant oddity, Bob Katter has some presence throughout the campaign, though also at a fairly low level (and linked mainly perhaps to Twitter’s discussion of his very homespun TV commercial) – however, as one of the independents now holding the balance of power in parliament, he rapidly shoots to prominence from election day onwards, morphing from a bit player to a major political force. The same can’t be said for Wyatt Roy, who does get his 15 minutes of fame on election day, but disappears from view again as the process of finding a stable majority begins. This, then, he shares with Maxine McKew, whose televised outburst on election night briefly captures attention, but who now – as a newly ex-MP – no longer figures in the political process.

Again, a note on search filters:

• Kevin Rudd: (kevin|rudd)
• Wayne Swan: (wayne|swan)
• Penny Wong: (penny|wong)
• Maxine McKew: (maxine|mckew)
• Joe Hockey: hockey
• Barnaby Joyce: (barnaby|joyce)
• Steve Fielding: (steve|fielding) – which could have captured other Steves as well, but as it turns out his numbers nonetheless remain low.
• Bob Brown: brown
• Mark Latham: latham
• Wyatt Roy: wyatt.roy
• Bob Katter: kat – to make sure the fast-emerging hashtag #bobkat was captured as well.

So, on to part two of our examination of trends and patterns on the #ausvotes Twitter hashtag during the 2010 Australian federal election campaign. (Part 1 is here.)

In the following posts, I’ll be interested to chart the rise and fall of specific themes during the five weeks of campaigning that we’re examining here, and to do so I’ll largely follow the approach I’ve used in Part 1 for charting the volume of mentions of the two leaders in #ausvotes tweets. But to get there, we need to work out what were key themes during the campaign, at least as far as coverage on Twitter was concerned. To get a clearer picture of that, I’ve run the more than 400,000 #ausvotes tweets we’ve captured through Twapperkeeper through the content analysis software WordStat, which provides an overview of both individual keywords and multi-word key phrases found in the data. Here are the top 50 results for each:

  FREQUENCY     FREQUENCY ABBOTT 37578   TONY ABBOTT 11707 ELECTION 33488   JULIA GILLARD 6182 VOTE 30982   HUNG PARLIAMENT 4969 LABOR 28114   WYATT ROY 4231 GREEN 24353   MOVE FORWARD 3277 GILLARD 23942   ABBOTT IS 3138 TONY 22949   STOP THE 3125 JULIA 18026   FAMILY FIRST 3051 ALP 15089   CLIMATE CHANGE 2654 PEOPLE 14221   TALK ABOUT 2652 LIBERAL 11896   MARK LATHAM 2651 CAMPAIGN 11764   SEX PARTY 2609 TIME 11656   PRIME MINISTER 2588 POLICY 11548   BOB BROWN 2487 PM 10807   BOB KATTER 2425 NBN 10442   KEVIN RUDD 2405 GOOD 10349   WATCH SATELLITE FROM YOUR PC 2321 QANDA 9568   GAY MARRIAGE 2004 WIN 9485   AUSTRALIAN ELECTION 1831 COALITION 9415   STOP THE BOAT 1739 PARLIAMENT 8857   LIBERAL PARTY 1654 HUNG 8702   MR ABBOTT 1585 RUDD 8277   SEAT OF 1539 ABC 8207   ELECTION CAMPAIGN 1538 JULIAGILLARD 7594   INTERNET FILTER 1502 JG 7436   BOAT PEOPLE 1482 LIBS 7423   STAND UP 1424 MOVE 7098   GILLARD IS 1354 BOAT 7012   MAJOR PARTY 1300 GOVERNMENT 6988   FEDERAL ELECTION 1291 LATHAM 6978   MAXINE MCKEW 1262 REAL 6755   ASYLUM SEEKER 1194 STOP 6685   ELECTION DAY 1193 FAMILY 6605   MR RABBIT 1179 VOTING 6566   LABOR PARTY 1175 WORK 6288   VOTE LIBERAL 1167 POLL 6191   SAUSAGE SIZZLE 1141 FORWARD 5967   MOVE AUSTRALIA FORWARD 1130 SUPPORT 5762   REAL ACTION 1123 ROOTY 5342   POLLING BOOTH 1099 LATIKAMBOURKE 5317   ABBOTT SAY 1081 TWITTER 5255   ANTONY GREEN 1051 LEADER 5253   CHANNEL 9 1046 LOVE 5252   ELECTION COVERAGE 1022 WYATT 5230   TONY ABBOTT IS 1015 VOTER 5212   INCEPTION DVD QUALITY 999 BIG 5208   REAL JULIA 998 CHANGE 5194   FORWARD TO 993 FILTER 5132   SKY NEW 991 ROOTYQ 5084   WATCH SATELLITE FROM YOUR PC WYATT ROY 990

 
Note: I’ve removed various meaningless or overly generic terms from these lists. For the keywords, this includes ‘bit’ and ‘ly’ (from URL shortener bit.ly), ‘party’, ‘Australia(n)’ (which both have too many possible meanings to be useful), ‘seat’, ‘make’, ‘day’, ‘today’, ‘won’, ‘question’, etc.; for the key phrases, this includes ‘vote/voted/voting for’, ‘has/have/had been’, ‘time to’, ‘lot of’, ‘election is’, ‘watch the’, ‘Australia has/had/have’, ‘sound/sounds/sounded like’, ‘live/lives/lived in’, ‘listen to’, ‘make a’, ‘form a’, etc. While such removals are necessary to focus on the most meaningful content, they do also remove some potential meaningful data – perhaps most notably, any mentions of the newspaper The Australian, whose name contains not one but two ‘generic’ words. Unfortunately, short of engaging in extensive manual coding of the data (which, with 400,000 tweets, I’m not keen on), there’s simply no way to reliably distinguish between ‘the Australian’ meaning ‘The Australian’ and other uses in phrases such as ‘the Australian people’, ‘the Australian government’, ‘the Australian election’. Also worth noting: WordStat tends to reduce words to their basic form – so ‘Abbott say’ is most likely ‘Abbott says’, ‘Sky new’ is actually ‘Sky News’, etc.

Some immediate observations from these lists: as we’ve seen in Part 1, mentions of Abbott win out over mentions of Gillard, whichever way we slice the data. Part 1 presented cumulative totals on the number of tweets which mentioned any of the words ‘Tony’, ‘Abbot’, ‘Julia’, or ‘Gillard’, but even if we narrow those criteria to mentions only of ‘Abbott’ (in the correct spelling) vs. ‘Gillard’, or ‘Tony Abbott’ (as a complete phrase) vs. ‘Julia Gillard’, Abbott comes out on top.

Against this, however, we should also note that where mentions of their respective parties are concerned, the balance is reversed. ‘Labor’ (28114) and ‘ALP’ (15089) rank more highly than ‘Liberal’ (11896), ‘Coalition’ (9415), or ‘Libs’ (7423), and the Queensland version ‘LNP’ appears only in 3108 tweets (I’m not counting ‘National’ here, since the word could both refer to the National Party or be used in any number of other, unrelated contexts). This could be a sign of the complex multi-party structure of the Coalition (combining Liberals, Nationals, LNP, Country Liberal Party, etc.), but even adding up the numbers above the Labor side wins 43203:31842 over the Coalition, so there is a sustained trend here. And again, as with the leaders, the volume of tweets does not imply agreement or disagreement with their political positions, of course – it merely indicates the Twitterati’s overall level of attention. And while ‘Green’ also appears prominently in the list of keywords, a little caution is indicated: in addition to referring to the Australian Greens, it could also have been used in mentions of the ABC’s election analyst Antony Green!

At any rate, in combination these lists of the most tweeted terms and phrases point us to a number of worthwhile trends to chart over the course of the entire campaign period. Some of them we can already assume to be late entrants: the idea of a hung parliament, or the focus on Wyatt Roy (the successful 20-year-old Liberal candidate) and on Bob Katter (the independent MP who now finds himself amongst a handful of independents holding the balance of power) are more than likely to be phenomena to emerge on election night and in its immediate aftermath; Katter and Roy in particular were not major themes during the preceding capaign. Others we would assume to have been more persistent throughout the five weeks – discussion of the two parties’ national broadband plans, of Labor’s Internet filter agenda, of policies on asylum seekers or climate change were all prominent at various stages of the electioneering process. So, over the next couple of posts, I’ll chart these in some more detail.

Okay. A week and a half have passed since the Australian federal election on 21 August, and we’re still none the wiser about who will form the next government (though it’s worth mentioning in passing that it’s blatantly wrong to claim that Australia currently has no government – however dramatic the headlines, they’re simply incorrect). Anyway, while we’re waiting: time enough to work through the more than 400,000 tweets accumulated under the #ausvotes Twitter hashtag between 17 July (when PM Julia Gillard called the election) and the election weekend of 21 August, and to examine what the patterns of activity on #ausvotes might tell us about the shifting preoccupations of the Twitterati during and after the campaign. As before, my data come from Twapperkeeper, this time covering the period of 17 July to 24 August 2010.

There’s plenty to look at here, so I’ll split this post into a number of sections, examining various aspects of the #ausvotes coverage. A quick overview to start us off (as always, click to expand): while there was substantial tweeting activity throughout the campaign, things ramped up significantly towards the tail end, and went through the roof on election Saturday, with a whopping 94910 #ausvotes tweets that day. And the preceding Friday and following Sunday were the next biggest days of the entire period: Friday clocked up 21875 tweets, while 35050 tweets attempted an early analysis of the results on Sunday.

Let’s begin with a familiar approach: I’ve already provided some quick updates during the campaign – following especially the frequency of mentions of the two leaders, and uncovering the somewhat unexpected trend that (after running neck and neck for most of the early campaigning period) Opposition Leader Tony Abbott pulled ahead of Gillard substantially over the final few days of the campaign. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that the election result put Abbott within reach of The Lodge (an outcome few would have expected at the outset), that trend has continued through election eve: mentions of Abbott win out over those of Gillard by close to a 2:1 ratio on 21 August.

Here are a few graphs to illustrate this:

From about 10 August or so (the date of his disastrous 7.30 Report interview with Kerry O’Brien on the Coalition’s broadband plans), Abbott starts pulling clearly ahead – the last week is all his. But again, as the 10 August events remind us, there’s absolutely no suggestion here that all of those mentions will be positive: this is simply about visibility, not support.

The shifting balance between the two leaders becomes even clearer if we normalise the numbers for each day to 100%:

Up until just past half-way in the campaign, both politicians still remain tied for the lead – but from then on, Abbott’s increasing visibility in #ausvotes pushes Gillard back further and further. If we look at the running totals of mentions for both of them, we can even pinpoint when their fortunes change:

Gillard is ahead in total mentions, every so slightly, up until 7 August. Afterwards, Abbott pulls ahead – slowly at first, but more and more as the rest of the campaign unfolds. From 17 July to 24 August, the total tally is 61943:44441 in favour of Tony Abbott.

A small caveat at this point: counting mentions of both leaders in this way is necessarily a little messy. Abbott may be referred to as ‘Tony’, ‘Tony Abbott’, ‘TA’, ‘@tonyabbottmhr’ or ‘Abbott’ (as well as, more often than you’d expect, ‘Tony Abbot’), as well as through various nicknames (most recently, ‘Mr Rabbit’, picking up on Julia Gillard’s pronunciation of his name). Some of these are far from unambiguous: ‘Tony’ could refer to other Tonys (e.g. to Lateline host Tony Jones); ‘TA’ could simply mean ‘thank you’. Included in the stats above, therefore, are any tweets which mention either ‘Tony’ and/or ‘Abbot’ (one ‘t’, to capture misspellings), or either ‘Julia’ and/or ‘Gillard’ (which is not misspelt as much as ‘Abbott’), respectively – expressed as regular expression searches, (tony|abbot) and (julia|gillard). In other words, we’re ignoring both ‘TA’ and ‘JG’, and may be including false positives resulting from mentions of Tonys and Julias other than Abbott and Gillard. Perhaps the most problematic aspect of this is that mentions of Tony Jones (as the most prominent other Tony) could artificially boost Abbott’s numbers – but as I’ll show in the next post, a separate keyword analysis of tweets between 1 July and 25 August also shows mentions of ‘Abbott’ (two ‘t’s) to outstrip mentions of ‘Gillard’ by 37578:23942, so there’s a genuine lead for Abbott even if we considered only the leaders’ last names.

A new date of 23 September has now been set for Media140, a one day Canberra conference planned to explore the way the real time web is transforming (or not!) politics in an election year.

• Politics

read more

• Education

• Politics

Think Better, Think Smarter, Think Creative Innovation 2010

Focusing on the power of creativity in a rapidly changing global environment, Creative Innovation 2010 is a rare opportunity to share ideas (and business cards) with some of the world’s most influential thinkers.

Creative Innovation 2010 will:

• Provide insights and techniques for developing personal and organisational creativity.

• Demonstrate strategies and processes for creating organisational performance, productivity and wellbeing.

• Education

read more

The ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation are currently seeking students to take up QUT postgraduate scholarships that incorporate tuition and an annual non-taxable stipend of between $22,500 and $26,500.

The PhD students will work with a team of supervisors from the CCI’s Creative Workforce Program to research aspects of creative human capital, particularly formal and informal education and training for the creative economy. 

• Education

read more

This report assists government, industry and the community to understand just how rapid is the pace of technology change, how it is impacting Australia and how we might ensure all Australians reap the benefits.

• Social Policy

read more

CIF and CCI are delighted to invite you to a seminar with John Knell, a UK leading consultant on the changing face of work and organisations

• Creative Economy

read more

CIF and CCI are delighted to invite you to a seminar with John Knell, a UK leading consultant on the changing face of work and organisations

• Creative Economy

read more

In this speech the Chairman of Australian Communications and Media Authority announced a public inquiry into customer service in the telecommunications industry.

• Social Policy

read more

Broadband might have divided the major parties before the election, but there's not going to be so much difference now, writes Jock Given in Inside Story

• Politics

read more

Australia's international education industry is in crisis, says Simon Marginson in The Age, but you won't hear political leaders talking about it

• Social Policy

read more

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) is the community services peak body and the national voice of people affected by poverty and inequality.

• Social Policy

read more

This guide will help not-for-profit cultural organisations and individual artists understand the formalities associated with receiving philanthropic gifts.

• Indigenous

read more

A discussion about how artists and their work can play a significant part in raising awareness of the environment and climate change.

• Environment & Planning

read more