Latest news with #US3
The Advertiser
a day ago
- Automotive
- The Advertiser
Ford posts $77.6 billion record revenue amid tariff losses
Ford has posted a $US36 million ($A55.9 million) loss in the second quarter (April-June) of 2025, the least of the US 'Big Three' since the introduction of import tariffs in the United States (US). In the first reporting period since US President Donald Trump introduced automotive tariffs – followed by broader tariffs unsettling the industry – Ford also announced a 22 per cent fall in earnings to $2.1 billion ($A3.26 billion). Yet the automaker said it achieved record quarterly revenue during the period of $US50.2 billion ($A77.6 billion), up 5.5 per cent year-on-year. Ford's commercial vehicle division, led by products including the Ford Ranger, F-150 and Transit, was the biggest contributor to the result, with US$2.3 billion (A$3.56bn) in profits. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. The automaker continued to post losses on winding down its electric vehicle (EV) programs, with a $US1.3 billion ($A2.0 billion) loss after an $US849 million ($A1.3 billion) Q1 loss and $US5.1 billion ($A7.9 billion) loss for the full year 2024. Ford's announcement follows results from rival US company General Motors (GM) which posted a $US1.1 billion ($A1.7 billion) loss of the last three month to the end of June, laying the blame for the loss entirely on the introduction of tariffs on imported vehicles, materials and parts. Rival Stellantis, Netherlands-based owner of iconic US brands Chrysler, Jeep, Ram Trucks and Dodge, posted a €2.3 billion (A$4.1 billion) loss for the first half of 2025. Bill Ford – great grandson of company founder, Henry Ford – said after the April 2, 2025, introduction of tariffs the automaker was to be the least impacted, given it has the largest US manufacturing footprint. US President Trump said the tariffs were designed to strengthen local manufacturing, with Ford since pushing the slogan "Ford Motor Company. From America. For America." On this week's call, Ford said it expects the tariffs to cost more than previously, increasing its earlier $US1.5 billion prediction to $US2 billion ($A3.11 billion) for the full year in 2025, with a total impact estimated to be $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion). The automaker took out a $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion) line of credit on July 29, the day before the earnings call. It enacted counter measures when the tariffs hit, such as offering staff pricing to all US customers to stave off predicted increases in showroom prices and also capitalise on margins of vehicles not impacted by tariffs. The move was followed by Stellantis for its brands in the US shortly after. Ford chief financial officer Sherry House said higher-than-expected tariffs on parts as well as a doubling of the duties on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent were the reason for the predicted higher costs of tariffs. "We recorded our fourth consecutive quarter of year-over-year cost improvement, excluding the impact of tariffs, building on progress we made last year when we closed roughly $1.5 billion [$A2.3 billion] of our competitive cost gap in material cost," Ms House said in a statement. "Our balance sheet keeps getting stronger, further enabling our ability to invest in areas of strength. We are remaking Ford into a higher-growth, higher-margin and more durable business — and allocating capital where we can compete, win and grow." Ford revised its earnings forecast for the year to $US6.5-7.5 billion ($A10.1-11.6 billion), having withdrawn previous guidance of $US7-8.5 billion ($A10.9-$13.2 billion). MORE: Ford slowing electric car rollout as losses mount MORE: Everything Ford Content originally sourced from: Ford has posted a $US36 million ($A55.9 million) loss in the second quarter (April-June) of 2025, the least of the US 'Big Three' since the introduction of import tariffs in the United States (US). In the first reporting period since US President Donald Trump introduced automotive tariffs – followed by broader tariffs unsettling the industry – Ford also announced a 22 per cent fall in earnings to $2.1 billion ($A3.26 billion). Yet the automaker said it achieved record quarterly revenue during the period of $US50.2 billion ($A77.6 billion), up 5.5 per cent year-on-year. Ford's commercial vehicle division, led by products including the Ford Ranger, F-150 and Transit, was the biggest contributor to the result, with US$2.3 billion (A$3.56bn) in profits. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. The automaker continued to post losses on winding down its electric vehicle (EV) programs, with a $US1.3 billion ($A2.0 billion) loss after an $US849 million ($A1.3 billion) Q1 loss and $US5.1 billion ($A7.9 billion) loss for the full year 2024. Ford's announcement follows results from rival US company General Motors (GM) which posted a $US1.1 billion ($A1.7 billion) loss of the last three month to the end of June, laying the blame for the loss entirely on the introduction of tariffs on imported vehicles, materials and parts. Rival Stellantis, Netherlands-based owner of iconic US brands Chrysler, Jeep, Ram Trucks and Dodge, posted a €2.3 billion (A$4.1 billion) loss for the first half of 2025. Bill Ford – great grandson of company founder, Henry Ford – said after the April 2, 2025, introduction of tariffs the automaker was to be the least impacted, given it has the largest US manufacturing footprint. US President Trump said the tariffs were designed to strengthen local manufacturing, with Ford since pushing the slogan "Ford Motor Company. From America. For America." On this week's call, Ford said it expects the tariffs to cost more than previously, increasing its earlier $US1.5 billion prediction to $US2 billion ($A3.11 billion) for the full year in 2025, with a total impact estimated to be $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion). The automaker took out a $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion) line of credit on July 29, the day before the earnings call. It enacted counter measures when the tariffs hit, such as offering staff pricing to all US customers to stave off predicted increases in showroom prices and also capitalise on margins of vehicles not impacted by tariffs. The move was followed by Stellantis for its brands in the US shortly after. Ford chief financial officer Sherry House said higher-than-expected tariffs on parts as well as a doubling of the duties on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent were the reason for the predicted higher costs of tariffs. "We recorded our fourth consecutive quarter of year-over-year cost improvement, excluding the impact of tariffs, building on progress we made last year when we closed roughly $1.5 billion [$A2.3 billion] of our competitive cost gap in material cost," Ms House said in a statement. "Our balance sheet keeps getting stronger, further enabling our ability to invest in areas of strength. We are remaking Ford into a higher-growth, higher-margin and more durable business — and allocating capital where we can compete, win and grow." Ford revised its earnings forecast for the year to $US6.5-7.5 billion ($A10.1-11.6 billion), having withdrawn previous guidance of $US7-8.5 billion ($A10.9-$13.2 billion). MORE: Ford slowing electric car rollout as losses mount MORE: Everything Ford Content originally sourced from: Ford has posted a $US36 million ($A55.9 million) loss in the second quarter (April-June) of 2025, the least of the US 'Big Three' since the introduction of import tariffs in the United States (US). In the first reporting period since US President Donald Trump introduced automotive tariffs – followed by broader tariffs unsettling the industry – Ford also announced a 22 per cent fall in earnings to $2.1 billion ($A3.26 billion). Yet the automaker said it achieved record quarterly revenue during the period of $US50.2 billion ($A77.6 billion), up 5.5 per cent year-on-year. Ford's commercial vehicle division, led by products including the Ford Ranger, F-150 and Transit, was the biggest contributor to the result, with US$2.3 billion (A$3.56bn) in profits. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. The automaker continued to post losses on winding down its electric vehicle (EV) programs, with a $US1.3 billion ($A2.0 billion) loss after an $US849 million ($A1.3 billion) Q1 loss and $US5.1 billion ($A7.9 billion) loss for the full year 2024. Ford's announcement follows results from rival US company General Motors (GM) which posted a $US1.1 billion ($A1.7 billion) loss of the last three month to the end of June, laying the blame for the loss entirely on the introduction of tariffs on imported vehicles, materials and parts. Rival Stellantis, Netherlands-based owner of iconic US brands Chrysler, Jeep, Ram Trucks and Dodge, posted a €2.3 billion (A$4.1 billion) loss for the first half of 2025. Bill Ford – great grandson of company founder, Henry Ford – said after the April 2, 2025, introduction of tariffs the automaker was to be the least impacted, given it has the largest US manufacturing footprint. US President Trump said the tariffs were designed to strengthen local manufacturing, with Ford since pushing the slogan "Ford Motor Company. From America. For America." On this week's call, Ford said it expects the tariffs to cost more than previously, increasing its earlier $US1.5 billion prediction to $US2 billion ($A3.11 billion) for the full year in 2025, with a total impact estimated to be $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion). The automaker took out a $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion) line of credit on July 29, the day before the earnings call. It enacted counter measures when the tariffs hit, such as offering staff pricing to all US customers to stave off predicted increases in showroom prices and also capitalise on margins of vehicles not impacted by tariffs. The move was followed by Stellantis for its brands in the US shortly after. Ford chief financial officer Sherry House said higher-than-expected tariffs on parts as well as a doubling of the duties on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent were the reason for the predicted higher costs of tariffs. "We recorded our fourth consecutive quarter of year-over-year cost improvement, excluding the impact of tariffs, building on progress we made last year when we closed roughly $1.5 billion [$A2.3 billion] of our competitive cost gap in material cost," Ms House said in a statement. "Our balance sheet keeps getting stronger, further enabling our ability to invest in areas of strength. We are remaking Ford into a higher-growth, higher-margin and more durable business — and allocating capital where we can compete, win and grow." Ford revised its earnings forecast for the year to $US6.5-7.5 billion ($A10.1-11.6 billion), having withdrawn previous guidance of $US7-8.5 billion ($A10.9-$13.2 billion). MORE: Ford slowing electric car rollout as losses mount MORE: Everything Ford Content originally sourced from: Ford has posted a $US36 million ($A55.9 million) loss in the second quarter (April-June) of 2025, the least of the US 'Big Three' since the introduction of import tariffs in the United States (US). In the first reporting period since US President Donald Trump introduced automotive tariffs – followed by broader tariffs unsettling the industry – Ford also announced a 22 per cent fall in earnings to $2.1 billion ($A3.26 billion). Yet the automaker said it achieved record quarterly revenue during the period of $US50.2 billion ($A77.6 billion), up 5.5 per cent year-on-year. Ford's commercial vehicle division, led by products including the Ford Ranger, F-150 and Transit, was the biggest contributor to the result, with US$2.3 billion (A$3.56bn) in profits. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. The automaker continued to post losses on winding down its electric vehicle (EV) programs, with a $US1.3 billion ($A2.0 billion) loss after an $US849 million ($A1.3 billion) Q1 loss and $US5.1 billion ($A7.9 billion) loss for the full year 2024. Ford's announcement follows results from rival US company General Motors (GM) which posted a $US1.1 billion ($A1.7 billion) loss of the last three month to the end of June, laying the blame for the loss entirely on the introduction of tariffs on imported vehicles, materials and parts. Rival Stellantis, Netherlands-based owner of iconic US brands Chrysler, Jeep, Ram Trucks and Dodge, posted a €2.3 billion (A$4.1 billion) loss for the first half of 2025. Bill Ford – great grandson of company founder, Henry Ford – said after the April 2, 2025, introduction of tariffs the automaker was to be the least impacted, given it has the largest US manufacturing footprint. US President Trump said the tariffs were designed to strengthen local manufacturing, with Ford since pushing the slogan "Ford Motor Company. From America. For America." On this week's call, Ford said it expects the tariffs to cost more than previously, increasing its earlier $US1.5 billion prediction to $US2 billion ($A3.11 billion) for the full year in 2025, with a total impact estimated to be $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion). The automaker took out a $US3 billion ($A4.66 billion) line of credit on July 29, the day before the earnings call. It enacted counter measures when the tariffs hit, such as offering staff pricing to all US customers to stave off predicted increases in showroom prices and also capitalise on margins of vehicles not impacted by tariffs. The move was followed by Stellantis for its brands in the US shortly after. Ford chief financial officer Sherry House said higher-than-expected tariffs on parts as well as a doubling of the duties on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent were the reason for the predicted higher costs of tariffs. "We recorded our fourth consecutive quarter of year-over-year cost improvement, excluding the impact of tariffs, building on progress we made last year when we closed roughly $1.5 billion [$A2.3 billion] of our competitive cost gap in material cost," Ms House said in a statement. "Our balance sheet keeps getting stronger, further enabling our ability to invest in areas of strength. We are remaking Ford into a higher-growth, higher-margin and more durable business — and allocating capital where we can compete, win and grow." Ford revised its earnings forecast for the year to $US6.5-7.5 billion ($A10.1-11.6 billion), having withdrawn previous guidance of $US7-8.5 billion ($A10.9-$13.2 billion). MORE: Ford slowing electric car rollout as losses mount MORE: Everything Ford Content originally sourced from:
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The man who isn't listening to Trump's ‘Golden Age' story
'A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. 'But, it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed,' he said. 'We're going to need to see the data, and it can go in many different directions. We're going to make a judgement based on all of the data.' The data to date appears benign. The economy grew at an apparently very robust 3 per cent annualised rate in the June quarter, prompting the White House to claim it as evidence that Trump's policies have ignited a new 'Golden Age.' Beneath the headline number, however, things weren't quite as golden. In the first quarter of the year the economy actually contracted, as companies front-loaded their imports to get in ahead of Trump's tariffs. In the June quarter, those bloated inventories were run down and imports fell away. If the first half is looked at as a whole, the economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.25 per cent. In the same half last year, when Joe Biden was in the White House, it grew at 2.3 per cent. Moreover, the US inflation rate, at 2.7 per cent, is still above the Fed's target of 2 per cent and, even before the bulk of Trump's tariffs are active, there are signs of tariff-related goods inflation. To date, on the available data, there is no evidence of a need to reduce rates. Indeed, a case could be mounted for a rate rise. Powell said he still expected tariffs to flow through to consumer prices but that the process might be slower than expected and that some companies might be finding it difficult to fully pass on the costs to consumers because consumers were unwilling or unable to pay higher prices. A case in point is the US car manufacturing sector, where the companies have yet to raise their prices despite substantial tariff-related cost increases. General Motors has estimated the tariffs will cost it between $US4 billion and $US5 billion ($6.2 billion-$7.8 billion) this year. Ford said on Wednesday that the tariffs would cost it $US3 billion this year. Loading Some US companies are starting to raise prices. Amazon, Walmart and other retailers have said they will have to raise some prices and, also on Wednesday, the giant consumer products group, Procter & Gamble, said it would raise prices on about a quarter of its product range because it expects a $US1 billion hit from the tariffs. In theory, the tariffs should produce a one-time impact on prices and inflation. The complex layers of duties Trump has imposed on raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, the messy way in which the tariffs are being rolled out and the degree of uncertainty in what the final trade picture will look like, given the key deals with major trading partners are more statements of intent rather than conventional detailed and binding trade agreements, however, complicates evaluations of their effects. Powell said it was a 'very dynamic time' for trade negotiations but 'we are still aways away from seeing where things settle down.' 'What we see now is, basically, the very beginning of whatever the effects turn out to be on goods inflation. They may be less than people estimate, or more than people estimate. They are not going to be zero. 'Consumers will pay some of this. Businesses will pay some of this. Retailers will pay some of this. We're just going to have to see it through,' he said. Trump has been piling on the pressure on Powell, even using a blowout in the costs of the Fed's renovations of its Washington headquarters to try to pressure him to resign or provide an excuse to fire him 'for cause.' He wants lower interest rates to help generate greater economic growth and lower the cost of servicing the US government's soaring debt levels – debt that will increase substantially as a result of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that cut taxes and increased spending. Powell said the government's interest costs weren't something the Fed took into account. 'We have a mandate and that's maximum employment and price stability. We don't consider the fiscal needs of the federal government. It's just not something we take into consideration,' he said. He also left open the possibility that, after his term as chair ends next year, he might serve out the rest of his term as a governor, which doesn't end until 2028, despite the administration saying that he should, as other chairs have, leave the board when he relinquishes the chair. Trump is going to appoint a successor to Powell who will do his bidding, or at least try to. The administration expects to appoint that person in the near term and hopes that they will, before they displace Powell, effectively become a 'shadow' chair whose views influence the Fed and markets and overshadows Powell's. The worst-case scenario for Trump is that Powell doesn't bow out gracefully, remains a governor and retains his influence over the majority of the Open Market Committee members. In effect, because he is seen as a protector of the Fed's independence from politics and politically-driven decision-making – vital for its credibility and the stability of US financial markets – he would become the shadow chair. Loading That would really frustrate and infuriate Trump, but might help avoid a meltdown in US financial markets that could occur if the Fed were seen as being captured and directed by Trump.
The Age
a day ago
- Business
- The Age
The man who isn't listening to Trump's ‘Golden Age' story
'A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. 'But, it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed,' he said. 'We're going to need to see the data, and it can go in many different directions. We're going to make a judgement based on all of the data.' The data to date appears benign. The economy grew at an apparently very robust 3 per cent annualised rate in the June quarter, prompting the White House to claim it as evidence that Trump's policies have ignited a new 'Golden Age.' Beneath the headline number, however, things weren't quite as golden. In the first quarter of the year the economy actually contracted, as companies front-loaded their imports to get in ahead of Trump's tariffs. In the June quarter, those bloated inventories were run down and imports fell away. If the first half is looked at as a whole, the economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.25 per cent. In the same half last year, when Joe Biden was in the White House, it grew at 2.3 per cent. Moreover, the US inflation rate, at 2.7 per cent, is still above the Fed's target of 2 per cent and, even before the bulk of Trump's tariffs are active, there are signs of tariff-related goods inflation. To date, on the available data, there is no evidence of a need to reduce rates. Indeed, a case could be mounted for a rate rise. Powell said he still expected tariffs to flow through to consumer prices but that the process might be slower than expected and that some companies might be finding it difficult to fully pass on the costs to consumers because consumers were unwilling or unable to pay higher prices. A case in point is the US car manufacturing sector, where the companies have yet to raise their prices despite substantial tariff-related cost increases. General Motors has estimated the tariffs will cost it between $US4 billion and $US5 billion ($6.2 billion-$7.8 billion) this year. Ford said on Wednesday that the tariffs would cost it $US3 billion this year. Loading Some US companies are starting to raise prices. Amazon, Walmart and other retailers have said they will have to raise some prices and, also on Wednesday, the giant consumer products group, Procter & Gamble, said it would raise prices on about a quarter of its product range because it expects a $US1 billion hit from the tariffs. In theory, the tariffs should produce a one-time impact on prices and inflation. The complex layers of duties Trump has imposed on raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, the messy way in which the tariffs are being rolled out and the degree of uncertainty in what the final trade picture will look like, given the key deals with major trading partners are more statements of intent rather than conventional detailed and binding trade agreements, however, complicates evaluations of their effects. Powell said it was a 'very dynamic time' for trade negotiations but 'we are still aways away from seeing where things settle down.' 'What we see now is, basically, the very beginning of whatever the effects turn out to be on goods inflation. They may be less than people estimate, or more than people estimate. They are not going to be zero. 'Consumers will pay some of this. Businesses will pay some of this. Retailers will pay some of this. We're just going to have to see it through,' he said. Trump has been piling on the pressure on Powell, even using a blowout in the costs of the Fed's renovations of its Washington headquarters to try to pressure him to resign or provide an excuse to fire him 'for cause.' He wants lower interest rates to help generate greater economic growth and lower the cost of servicing the US government's soaring debt levels – debt that will increase substantially as a result of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that cut taxes and increased spending. Powell said the government's interest costs weren't something the Fed took into account. 'We have a mandate and that's maximum employment and price stability. We don't consider the fiscal needs of the federal government. It's just not something we take into consideration,' he said. He also left open the possibility that, after his term as chair ends next year, he might serve out the rest of his term as a governor, which doesn't end until 2028, despite the administration saying that he should, as other chairs have, leave the board when he relinquishes the chair. Trump is going to appoint a successor to Powell who will do his bidding, or at least try to. The administration expects to appoint that person in the near term and hopes that they will, before they displace Powell, effectively become a 'shadow' chair whose views influence the Fed and markets and overshadows Powell's. The worst-case scenario for Trump is that Powell doesn't bow out gracefully, remains a governor and retains his influence over the majority of the Open Market Committee members. In effect, because he is seen as a protector of the Fed's independence from politics and politically-driven decision-making – vital for its credibility and the stability of US financial markets – he would become the shadow chair. Loading That would really frustrate and infuriate Trump, but might help avoid a meltdown in US financial markets that could occur if the Fed were seen as being captured and directed by Trump.
The Advertiser
4 days ago
- Health
- The Advertiser
Australia called to lift on global health as US yields
Australia must come to the party with more money to combat climate-related health issues, antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. That's the bottom line of research that indicates the well-off nation is not pulling enough weight on the world stage to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging international health threats. The Australian government spent just under $630 billion on health between 2017 and 2023, according to a report commissioned by the Australian Global Health Alliance. About $35 billion was directed to health and medical research but just $2 billion was specifically set aside for global research. The country must increase and realign its funding to address and anticipate global health challenges more effectively, the report said. "Despite commendable efforts, Australia's investment in global health research lags behind its international peers," it said. "Key areas such as the impact of climate change on health, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic preparedness are notably underfunded." Alliance executive director Selina Namchee Lo said the global scientific community was successful in rapidly delivering vaccines and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But where it fell short was equity, with some of the hardest-hit countries missing out. "What we're saying is equity is not optional for global health," Dr Lo told AAP. Another report, also commissioned by the alliance with Pacific Friends of Global Health, detailed the impact of two Australian-backed global public private partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has collectively poured more than $2.5 billion into The Global Fund and Gavi since 2000, helping to immunise more than 100 million children and save lives in the region. But the country's level of foreign aid has been been in "significant decline" since 2012, stagnating at $US3 billion annually over the past seven years. The multilateral aid landscape is "under pressure" after the US and UK reduced their commitments, the report said. It comes after US President Donald Trump's administration dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cutting funding to its aid programs worldwide. Dr Lo, who has nearly three decades experience in global and international health, said the abrupt exit of USAID left communities "in the lurch". "It's never good to have one group, whether it's a philanthropist or a country, be a monopoly," she said. "Because when they pull out, this is what happens." The Indo-Pacific still accounts for 25 per cent of global infections, with 6.7 million people in the region living with HIV and malaria rampant in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Friends of Global Health chair Brendan Crabb wants Australia to take up the mantle. "As the US administration dramatically steps back from global health leadership, Australia has a critical opportunity to convene and partner with Asia Pacific countries to advance the health priorities of the region," the Burnet Institute chief executive said. Australia must come to the party with more money to combat climate-related health issues, antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. That's the bottom line of research that indicates the well-off nation is not pulling enough weight on the world stage to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging international health threats. The Australian government spent just under $630 billion on health between 2017 and 2023, according to a report commissioned by the Australian Global Health Alliance. About $35 billion was directed to health and medical research but just $2 billion was specifically set aside for global research. The country must increase and realign its funding to address and anticipate global health challenges more effectively, the report said. "Despite commendable efforts, Australia's investment in global health research lags behind its international peers," it said. "Key areas such as the impact of climate change on health, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic preparedness are notably underfunded." Alliance executive director Selina Namchee Lo said the global scientific community was successful in rapidly delivering vaccines and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But where it fell short was equity, with some of the hardest-hit countries missing out. "What we're saying is equity is not optional for global health," Dr Lo told AAP. Another report, also commissioned by the alliance with Pacific Friends of Global Health, detailed the impact of two Australian-backed global public private partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has collectively poured more than $2.5 billion into The Global Fund and Gavi since 2000, helping to immunise more than 100 million children and save lives in the region. But the country's level of foreign aid has been been in "significant decline" since 2012, stagnating at $US3 billion annually over the past seven years. The multilateral aid landscape is "under pressure" after the US and UK reduced their commitments, the report said. It comes after US President Donald Trump's administration dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cutting funding to its aid programs worldwide. Dr Lo, who has nearly three decades experience in global and international health, said the abrupt exit of USAID left communities "in the lurch". "It's never good to have one group, whether it's a philanthropist or a country, be a monopoly," she said. "Because when they pull out, this is what happens." The Indo-Pacific still accounts for 25 per cent of global infections, with 6.7 million people in the region living with HIV and malaria rampant in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Friends of Global Health chair Brendan Crabb wants Australia to take up the mantle. "As the US administration dramatically steps back from global health leadership, Australia has a critical opportunity to convene and partner with Asia Pacific countries to advance the health priorities of the region," the Burnet Institute chief executive said. Australia must come to the party with more money to combat climate-related health issues, antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. That's the bottom line of research that indicates the well-off nation is not pulling enough weight on the world stage to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging international health threats. The Australian government spent just under $630 billion on health between 2017 and 2023, according to a report commissioned by the Australian Global Health Alliance. About $35 billion was directed to health and medical research but just $2 billion was specifically set aside for global research. The country must increase and realign its funding to address and anticipate global health challenges more effectively, the report said. "Despite commendable efforts, Australia's investment in global health research lags behind its international peers," it said. "Key areas such as the impact of climate change on health, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic preparedness are notably underfunded." Alliance executive director Selina Namchee Lo said the global scientific community was successful in rapidly delivering vaccines and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But where it fell short was equity, with some of the hardest-hit countries missing out. "What we're saying is equity is not optional for global health," Dr Lo told AAP. Another report, also commissioned by the alliance with Pacific Friends of Global Health, detailed the impact of two Australian-backed global public private partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has collectively poured more than $2.5 billion into The Global Fund and Gavi since 2000, helping to immunise more than 100 million children and save lives in the region. But the country's level of foreign aid has been been in "significant decline" since 2012, stagnating at $US3 billion annually over the past seven years. The multilateral aid landscape is "under pressure" after the US and UK reduced their commitments, the report said. It comes after US President Donald Trump's administration dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cutting funding to its aid programs worldwide. Dr Lo, who has nearly three decades experience in global and international health, said the abrupt exit of USAID left communities "in the lurch". "It's never good to have one group, whether it's a philanthropist or a country, be a monopoly," she said. "Because when they pull out, this is what happens." The Indo-Pacific still accounts for 25 per cent of global infections, with 6.7 million people in the region living with HIV and malaria rampant in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Friends of Global Health chair Brendan Crabb wants Australia to take up the mantle. "As the US administration dramatically steps back from global health leadership, Australia has a critical opportunity to convene and partner with Asia Pacific countries to advance the health priorities of the region," the Burnet Institute chief executive said. Australia must come to the party with more money to combat climate-related health issues, antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. That's the bottom line of research that indicates the well-off nation is not pulling enough weight on the world stage to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging international health threats. The Australian government spent just under $630 billion on health between 2017 and 2023, according to a report commissioned by the Australian Global Health Alliance. About $35 billion was directed to health and medical research but just $2 billion was specifically set aside for global research. The country must increase and realign its funding to address and anticipate global health challenges more effectively, the report said. "Despite commendable efforts, Australia's investment in global health research lags behind its international peers," it said. "Key areas such as the impact of climate change on health, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic preparedness are notably underfunded." Alliance executive director Selina Namchee Lo said the global scientific community was successful in rapidly delivering vaccines and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But where it fell short was equity, with some of the hardest-hit countries missing out. "What we're saying is equity is not optional for global health," Dr Lo told AAP. Another report, also commissioned by the alliance with Pacific Friends of Global Health, detailed the impact of two Australian-backed global public private partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has collectively poured more than $2.5 billion into The Global Fund and Gavi since 2000, helping to immunise more than 100 million children and save lives in the region. But the country's level of foreign aid has been been in "significant decline" since 2012, stagnating at $US3 billion annually over the past seven years. The multilateral aid landscape is "under pressure" after the US and UK reduced their commitments, the report said. It comes after US President Donald Trump's administration dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cutting funding to its aid programs worldwide. Dr Lo, who has nearly three decades experience in global and international health, said the abrupt exit of USAID left communities "in the lurch". "It's never good to have one group, whether it's a philanthropist or a country, be a monopoly," she said. "Because when they pull out, this is what happens." The Indo-Pacific still accounts for 25 per cent of global infections, with 6.7 million people in the region living with HIV and malaria rampant in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Friends of Global Health chair Brendan Crabb wants Australia to take up the mantle. "As the US administration dramatically steps back from global health leadership, Australia has a critical opportunity to convene and partner with Asia Pacific countries to advance the health priorities of the region," the Burnet Institute chief executive said.
West Australian
4 days ago
- Health
- West Australian
Australia called to lift on global health as US yields
Australia must come to the party with more money to combat climate-related health issues, antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. That's the bottom line of research that indicates the well-off nation is not pulling enough weight on the world stage to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging international health threats. The Australian government spent just under $630 billion on health between 2017 and 2023, according to a report commissioned by the Australian Global Health Alliance. About $35 billion was directed to health and medical research but just $2 billion was specifically set aside for global research. The country must increase and realign its funding to address and anticipate global health challenges more effectively, the report said. "Despite commendable efforts, Australia's investment in global health research lags behind its international peers," it said. "Key areas such as the impact of climate change on health, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic preparedness are notably underfunded." Alliance executive director Selina Namchee Lo said the global scientific community was successful in rapidly delivering vaccines and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But where it fell short was equity, with some of the hardest-hit countries missing out. "What we're saying is equity is not optional for global health," Dr Lo told AAP. Another report, also commissioned by the alliance with Pacific Friends of Global Health, detailed the impact of two Australian-backed global public private partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has collectively poured more than $2.5 billion into The Global Fund and Gavi since 2000, helping to immunise more than 100 million children and save lives in the region. But the country's level of foreign aid has been been in "significant decline" since 2012, stagnating at $US3 billion annually over the past seven years. The multilateral aid landscape is "under pressure" after the US and UK reduced their commitments, the report said. It comes after US President Donald Trump's administration dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cutting funding to its aid programs worldwide. Dr Lo, who has nearly three decades experience in global and international health, said the abrupt exit of USAID left communities "in the lurch". "It's never good to have one group, whether it's a philanthropist or a country, be a monopoly," she said. "Because when they pull out, this is what happens." The Indo-Pacific still accounts for 25 per cent of global infections, with 6.7 million people in the region living with HIV and malaria rampant in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Friends of Global Health chair Brendan Crabb wants Australia to take up the mantle. "As the US administration dramatically steps back from global health leadership, Australia has a critical opportunity to convene and partner with Asia Pacific countries to advance the health priorities of the region," the Burnet Institute chief executive said.
