The Australia Institute Feed Items

The Trump administration, including Elbridge Colby, who is soon to be confirmed as head of policy at the US Defence Department, is now telling Australia it needs to spend 3% of GDP on the military. That would be quite a large increase from what Australia currently spends, but rather than push back, both major political parties are fully in step with the view that Australia needs to spend more boosting our military.

The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers told reporters, “We’re taking defence spending from about 2 per cent of our economy to more than 2.3 per cent in the course of the next decade or so.” The Coalition also seems to be considering an advance on this position and lifting the military budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2029.

The budget papers explain just how much is being spent on both the ongoing military spending, as well as the capital investment.

For the capital investment, the budget papers give both “net capital investment” as well as “purchases of non-financial assets”. The main difference is that the former is adjusted for depreciation and amortisation, while purchases of non-financial assets are not adjusted. There really is no good reason for deducting depreciation and amortisation. They are both rather meaningless concepts when it comes to military assets – is anyone really caring about the decline in the commercial value of the tanks the army has? Moreover, almost all discussions of the budget balance etc are based on cash accounting, which excludes depreciation.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Australia Institute economists Matt Grudnoff and Jack Thrower join Ebony Bennett to discuss the Australian economy and the federal election campaign.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 1 April 2025 and things may have changed.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @mattgrudnoff

Guest: Jack Thrower, Research Economist, the Australia Institute // @jack-thrower

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Raising revenue right: Better tax ideas for the 48th Parliament by Greg Jericho, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

He and Bridget McKenzie say they will work out which jobs need to be cut when they are in government.

Australians – particularly the thousands who would lose their jobs – deserve better than a slogan without a shred of evidence that it will achieve anything.

Australia Institute research shows:

• The Australian Public Service is not large in historical terms or by any international comparison.
• Keeping public service employment numbers low is not efficient. Experience shows service delivery suffers and/or money is spent on contractors, consultants and labour hire workers to meet demand.
• When the Albanese government took office, there was recognised under-investment in the public service. More staff were needed.
• Underinvestment in the Australian Public Service was due to previous governments keeping public service numbers artificially low by placing a cap on staffing.

“Public service bashing without any detail is nothing more than cheap, nasty politics,” said Fiona Macdonald, Director of The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

“Data from Services Australia reveals the recruitment of 5000 staff between 2023 and 2024 cut call waiting times to Centrelink by six minutes and calls to Medicare by nine minutes.

“It also resulted in cutting processing times for Paid Parental Leave claims from 25 days to four days, Job Seeker claims from 22 days to six days and online Medicare claims from 11 days down to two days.

It’s a reminder that despite women making up half the population, men outnumber women in most Australian parliaments and most party rooms.

Ten years ago the Liberal and Labor parties set the same target for women’s representation: 50% of parliamentarians to be women by 2025, this year.

While the Labor Party meets that target, the Liberal Party is far short of it.

When The Australia Institute crunched the numbers last year, male Liberal parliamentarians outnumbered female Liberal parliamentarians more than two to one.

The Liberal Party used to lead on women’s representation. Eight of the first 10 female federal MPs and Senators were Liberals.

Gough Whitlam’s “It’s time” win in 1972 included 93 male MPs and Senators – and not a single woman.

While things soon improved (it was not possible for them to get worse), it would be another three decades before the Labor Party was consistently more gender-representative than the Liberals at the federal level.

Nor were early Liberals opposed to quotas. As former Liberal senator Judith Troeth notes, “from 1944 the Liberal Party had reserved 50 per cent of the Victorian Division’s executive positions for women”.

The argument that quotas do not allow women to be selected on “merit” is facile: Coalition Cabinets always have a quota for National MPs.

For more details, see last year’s article here.

The PBS is, literally, a life saver for Australian families.

The Australia Institute has compared the staggering difference between the prices Australians and Americans pay for some of the most common medicines in the world.

For example, Atorvastatin – a cholesterol pill which is among the top ten most prescribed drugs in Australia – is 125 times more expensive in the US. Australians pay $21.07 for a prescription of Atorvastatin. Americans are slugged $2,628.39 for the same medication.

A commonly used tablet for high blood pressure, Lisinopril, is almost 25 times more expensive in the US than in Australia.

More than 10 million Salbutamol asthma puffers are prescribed or sold over the counter in Australia each year. For every $30 Australians spend on these puffers, Americans are charged $50.

Our research has shown that minimum and award wage increases have no impact on inflation.

Those on the minimum wage are the poorest paid workers in Australia and they deserve to see their living standards improve.

The cost of living pressures of the past three years have hurt those on low incomes the most because the biggest price rises have been on necessities like food.

“Those on award wages have seen their real wage fall by nearly 4% since 2020 and they deserve a wage increase that will restore their living standards,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“It is not surprising that business groups are arguing for a wage rise below inflation because that is what they always do.

“A decent wage rise for Australia’s poorest workers will not fuel inflation; it will only ensure those workers are able to keep their heads above water.”

The post Minimum wage increase would not impact inflation appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Yet the policies enjoy widespread support once people are made aware of them.

The results pose big questions about the ability of government to communicate its record in an era of fractured media and news avoidance.

In the poll of 2009 Australians, respondents were given a list of nine policies (including one fake) and asked to answer whether each policy was implemented by the Albanese government.

They were then asked if they supported or opposed each policy.

The results show:

• 84% of Australians support a wage increase for aged care workers and creating a National Anti-Corruption Commission, but only 39% (aged care pay rise) and 20% (creation of NACC) were aware of these reforms.
• Legislating a social media ban for under 16-year-olds is the only reform that most Australians have heard of (55%).
• Each reform is supported by the majority of Australians.
• 12% of Australians incorrectly identified a national ban on native forest logging as an Albanese Government policy, which it is not. 71% support it – more support than for some real Albanese government policies.

“High levels of news avoidance and declining trust in mainstream media make it harder for governments to communicate their policies and achievements, posing issues for democracy,” said Stephen Long, Senior Fellow at The Australia Institute.

And a second cut – from 4.1% to 3.85% – is exactly what the Reserve Bank should have delivered today.

The Treasurer and Prime Minister constantly remind us that the bank is independent of government and politics.

Now, suddenly, the RBA doesn’t want to look political.

“Australian mortgage holders are suffering too much for the bank to tiptoe around the sensitivities of our political leaders,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“When rates were going up, the bank had no problem slugging borrowers ten times in a row.

“Now that rates are coming down – and the bank board is meeting less often – the RBA is more worried about appearing political than doing the right thing by Australians.

“All the indicators have continued to move in the right direction since the last rate cut. Underlying inflation has now been below 3% for three straight months – so why wait?

“Interest rate cuts never happen as a one-off. The RBA has already indicated that more are coming. So, I repeat, why wait?”

The post Rate hold more political than the cut we should have had  appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Previous Australia Institute research showed that 56% of Australia’s gas exports are based on royalty-free gas and Treasury has confirmed that no gas export project has ever paid Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

Key points:

• Gas export volumes are expected to be maintained at 80 million tonnes per year to 2030.
• This gas is expected to sell for a total of $303 billion.
• 56% of this, or $170 billion is based on royalty-free gas and is unlikely to pay any petroleum tax.

“Big gas is taking the piss,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“Last week we saw Opposition Leader Peter Dutton acknowledge that excessive gas exports are harming Australians.

“Unrestricted gas exports have been a disaster, but even worse is that most of it is given away for free.

“It’s important to understand what these forecasts mean – the Australian Government is planning to give away vast volumes of public gas, for free, out to 2030.

“Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but this is making climate change worse.

“Fossil fuels need to be phased out and kept in the ground, not given away for free.

“The next parliament has a real opportunity to end the gas industry’s free ride and deliver for the Australian public and the climate.”

On this episode of After America, Allan Behm joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the ongoing fallout from the Signal chat debacle, the dire situation facing Ukraine, and Australia’s failure to adapt to a radically changed world.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 28 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Read more from Emma in the latest edition of Australian Foreign Affairs.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Allan Behm, Special Advisor, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

‘Here are the attack plans that Trump’s advisers shared on Signal’ by Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris, The Atlantic (March 2025)

As chunks of rotting salmon from a massive fish die-off wash up on the shores of Tasmania’s pristine beaches, the Albanese government rammed legislation to shield the salmon industry through Parliament within 48 hours, with the support of the Coalition.

Details of the legislation were made public on Monday. On Tuesday, it was introduced to and passed by the lower house. By Wednesday evening it was law. Forget policy on the run, this was slapdash.

While focus was on the government’s surprise income tax cuts and Peter Dutton’s plans to sack 41,000 public service workers, Australia’s environment laws were gutted with no genuine debate. None of the regular parliamentary scrutiny that accompanies a bill.

No Senate inquiry. No time for public hearings or public input into the legislation. No consultation with scientists, or the local community.

It was pure politics. Both Labor and the Coalition rushed the legislation through with an eye on votes in Bass, Braddon and Lyons.

In this election campaign, opposition leader Peter Dutton has set out to defy the weight of his party’s recent history.

Dutton began the year by announcing plans to make the instant asset write-off scheme permanent and to introduce a $20,000 tax deduction for small business meal and entertainment expenses. In his budget reply speech on Thursday night, Dutton promised to temporarily halve the petrol excise, a move which he claimed would save motorists $14 per week.

That’s the extent of the Liberal Party’s tax agenda so far. Shadow ministers have told the media there are no discussions or plans for personal tax relief. When the government unveiled its budget-night proposal to cut the lowest tax rate (from 16 per cent to 14 per cent by mid-2027), Dutton dismissed the measure as a “cruel hoax” and promised to repeal the legislation if elected.

The opposition’s pledge to oppose that measure is truly historic.

Since the Menzies era, there have only been two out of 22 federal elections where the Liberal Party did not offer either personal income tax cuts, family tax relief or company tax cuts.

In elections where the Liberal Party did not make income tax cuts a centrepiece of its policy offering, it still offered proposals such as income tax indexation or half-indexation (particularly under Malcolm Fraser), income tax-splitting (under Andrew Peacock), child tax rebates (under Peacock and John Howard) or changes to the tax-free threshold (particularly under the Howard government) as a form of personal tax relief.

It looks like in this election there is going to be a lot of talk about how immigration impacts house prices. This topic can very quickly become charged with emotion, so instead let’s look at the facts.

Despite what you may have been told, over the past 10 years, housing supply has actually grown faster than the population. The number of dwellings has increased by 19%, while the population has grown by just 16%.

If supply were the only reason for the increase in house prices and the decline in affordability over the past decade, you would expect that during this time house prices would have either fallen or at least risen slower than average incomes. However, house prices have increased by 70% – well beyond household incomes. This clearly suggests that population growth is not the major factor driving house prices.

Even more clearly, during the pandemic the government closed the boarders and net overseas migration fell. That meant for one of the very few times, more people left the country than entered it. In the 18 months from March 2020 until September 2021, over 100,000 more people left Australia than entered it. That was the largest fall ever recorded.

If lowering migration made housing more affordable, then you would have expected that during this period, Australians would have experienced a great improvement in housing affordability. Alas, the complete opposite occurred. Instead of becoming more affordable. House prices rose an astonishing 20% in just 18 months.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the Government’s tax cuts, the big missed opportunities in this Budget, and what it’s like inside ‘the lock-up’.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 27 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Labor’s budget tax cuts make good economic sense – and have backed Dutton and Taylor into a political corner’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (March 2025)

Mr Dutton said a Coalition government would force gas exporters to divert uncontracted gas to Australian customers, demonstrating that there is no gas shortage in Australia.

Key points – Australia Institute research has shown:

• Excessive gas exports have caused domestic gas and electricity prices to triple. Limiting exports is the only way to reverse this price increase.
• Gas exporters such as Santos have stated that part of their goal for export gas projects was increasing domestic gas prices.
• This policy would not significantly affect government budgets or the economy because the gas industry pays little tax and employs few people.
• No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum tax, most gas exports are royalty-free and most pay little company tax.

“It is good to see the Opposition identify the key problem in Australian energy policy – excessive gas exports,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“A decade ago, Santos told investors that their gas projects were ‘as much about raising the domestic gas price as about gas exports’ and finally some of Australia’s leaders may be ready to push back on gas corporations.

“Gas exports have tripled prices for Australians and the only way to stop that is to restrict exports and to switch Australia’s energy demand to cleaner sources.

The Albanese government has often – and rightly – been criticised for lacking policy boldness in areas such as climate change and the need to address inequality and poverty through measures such as increasing Jobseeker. But with regards to industrial relations, the government has shown that bold policy is not just possible, but also successful.

Prior to the election in 2022, enterprise bargaining was on life support.  Over a decade of efforts by business groups had led to a record low share of 14.8% of employees being covered by enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs). Enterprise agreements have long been disliked by companies and business groups because, as a general rule, they deliver better wage growth because they enable workers to combine their bargaining power – often and most effectively through representation by a union.

In 2023, the government introduced changes to workplace relations laws which strengthened the ability of workers to bargain in enterprise agreements and also to ensure more workers can be covered by such agreements. One significant policy reform was the introduction of the ability for multi-employer agreements to cover low-paid employees who often have little individual bargaining power.

The latest figures from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations show that there has been a very strong increase in the number of workers covered by EBAs – up to 21.3%. This is the first time more than 20% of workers have been covered by EBAs since June 2020.

The federal government last night rammed changes to Australia’s environment law – aimed at protecting salmon farming operations in Tasmania – through the Senate.

The legislation aims to scupper a long-awaited review of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, on Tassie’s west coast, by Environment Minister – and Member for Sydney – Tanya Plibersek.

While the legislation was promised and driven by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, this poll suggests voters may punish Ms Plibersek, revealing her first-preference support has fallen to 41.1%, down from 50.82% at the 2022 election.

The Australia Institute commissioned the polling from uComms, which surveyed 860 Australians living in Sydney between 17 and 18 March 2025.

Key Findings:

• 61% support stopping salmon farming in areas where it is putting the endangered Maugean skate at risk of extinction; more than twice as many who oppose (24%).
• 63% have heard about the mass fish deaths currently happening in the salmon industry in Tasmania.
• 68% think the current mass fish deaths are having a negative impact on Tasmania’s ‘clean and green’ brand, including 36% who think it’s having a significant negative impact.

“Voters in Sydney and all around Australia understand and have watched in horror at what’s happening in Tasmania,” said Eloise Carr, Director of The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“That includes voters in the Environment Minister’s own seat.

The announcement today that the Liberal Party will halve the fuel tax excise for one year if it wins the election in May is, alas, yet another of the many policies put in place over the years that encourage the use of fossil fuels. At a time when all political parties should be working to reduce emissions, this policy does the exact opposite.

But while that is bad enough, the dollar benefit to an “average Australian” would seem to be much less than $750 per year suggested by the opposition leader.

The opposition have told reporters that the $750 figure is based on filling up a 55L tank once a week. Now, if you have a pretty standard petrol car that gets around 8.2l/100km that means driving 670km a week. That is a lot of driving for anyone living in the city.

And so it is not surprising that most surveys estimate that people fill up their car a lot less than once a week.

Budget Direct Car Insurance in 2022 surveyed road users and found that only a quarter of Australians filled up once a week – some more than that, but around two-thirds of drivers filled up only once a fortnight or less. For those drivers, the benefits of this halving of the rebate is much less than $750.

Australia has enough gas to supply the domestic market many times over.

But the gas giants are allowed to export 80% of our gas overseas. That creates fake shortages which, in turn, force domestic prices up.

There is no need to approve any new gas projects in Australia.

Australia Institute research proves this would only make things worse. It would lead to more exports. The manufactured shortages would remain and domestic prices would keep rising. The only winner would be the multinational gas companies.

It’s expected Mr Dutton will use tonight’s Budget Reply speech to announce a domestic gas reservation scheme targeting new projects in exchange for faster environmental approvals.

A reservation scheme is a good idea, but it must be for existing gas, not new gas. Exports should be capped.

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss Trump administration group chats, Big Pharma’s big whinge, and the history of conservative efforts to dismantle the federal Education department.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 25 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Read more from Emma in the latest edition of Australian Foreign Affairs.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Host: Angus Blackman, Producer, the Australia Institute // @AngusRB

Show notes:

‘The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans’ by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic (March 2025)

He also wants to introduce a National Interest Test for major projects seeking environmental approval. The test would take into account economic and social benefits.

Woodside’s proposed 50-year NWS gas expansion should be subject to a National Interest Test.

It would fail miserably.

Last night’s passing of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act weakens the protection of our natural treasures, rammed through by a government which promised greater protection.

The amendments increase the likelihood that Australian native species will become extinct, driven by a government which promised no extinctions under its watch.

The amendments are designed to protect the destructive, foreign-owned commercial salmon industry in Tasmania.

But the changes could stop anyone – from local community groups to Federal Government Ministers – from reviewing projects like coal mines, gas exploration, land clearing or other destructive practices.

“This bill has ramifications for industries that goes well beyond salmon. It will affect all industries governed by this legislation,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“Labor and Coalition MPs described what they were trying to achieve as ‘fixing a flaw’ in the EPBC Act. There was no flaw in the law.

“For once, just as our nature law was about to do what it is supposed to – protect world heritage and species threatened with extinction – the major parties have changed the law.

“We have a parliamentary process to scrutinise laws before they pass. But not this time.”

Ten years ago, Anthony Albanese described similar changes proposed by the coalition government as an act of environmental vandalism.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Ebony Bennett discusses the Government’s efforts to weaken the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act with Australia Institute Executive Director Dr Richard Denniss and Strategy Director Leanne Minshull.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 25 March 2025 and things may have changed.

Sign our petition calling on the Government not to gut Australia’s environment laws.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Richard Denniss, Executive Director, the Australia Institute // @richarddenniss

Guest: Leanne Minshull, Strategy Director, the Australia Institute // @leanneminshull

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets.

As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives.
There is very little in this budget that is new, other than some surprise tax cuts, which are welcome given they mostly benefit people on low incomes

There are continuing investments in some key areas supporting wages growth where it is solely needed and for rebuilding important areas of public good. However, there remains much that needs to be done in the next parliament, whoever is in government.

“The budget does deliver a welcome tax cut targeted towards those on low incomes” Chief Economist Greg Jericho notes, “but the lack of new spending and initiatives highlights the need for policies from all political parties in the coming election campaign that address inequality and the needs of people who have been most hurt by cost of living rises over the past three years.”

Read our full budget briefing paper for more information

The post Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Winners

Well, everyone who earns more than $18,200. Everyone gets a tax cut – up to $268 in 2026-27 and another one in 2027-28. It’s a smart tax cut – mostly benefitting those earning less than $45,000.

People who go to the doctor/use the PBS – as was previously announced – cheaper PBS medicine, cheaper GP visits (hopefully) and the energy rebate is extended for another 6 months (tune back in 6 months to see if it gets extended again).

Beer drinkers – the Government will pause indexation on draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duty rates for a two‑year period, from August 2025 – also previously announced.

Gas companies who are projected to pay less PRRT over the next 4 years – $1.95bn than $1.8bn then $1.65bn then $1.45bn. As a result, beer drinkers – even with the pause of excise indexation will still pay $4.8bn more than gas companies do on PRRT over the next 4 years.

Wealthy people who live using the superannuation system to avoid paying tax – no changes to the super tax concessions.

Wealthy people who like using the tax system to speculate in the housing market. No changes to that nor negative gearing.

It has modest sweeteners, in the form of tax cuts, electricity rebates, cheaper medicines and incentives to increase bulk billing.

The tax cuts are well-targeted and cost-of-living measures are not inflationary.

There is nothing in the budget which should stand in the way of more interest rate cuts.

When the then-coalition government sought to weaken the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Mr. Albanese said “the right of citizens with standing to challenge their governments in court is a fundamental pillar of a robust democracy”.

Tomorrow, the Albanese government is planning to do exactly what Mr. Albanese warned against in 2015.

The government will introduce amendments to parliament tomorrow seeking to change subsection 78(3) and subsection 78C(1) of the EPBC Act, which will limit the ability to review decisions and have major consequences for our natural environment.

Science is constantly evolving. Australia needs laws which enable decisions to be reviewed based on the latest evidence. These amendments stop us from doing that.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

What Peter Dutton and the Coalition are offering Australian voters is a fiction.

It’s headlines without substance, chimeras and half-truths that never stand up to scrutiny, but comprehensively misdirects the media’s gaze.

The nation has been in election mode since the beginning of the year, when Anthony Albanese used his January press club address to remind voters of what he had spent the better part of the last three years doing.

Dutton fronted his own quasi election opening campaign launch in Victoria, the state he hopes will help deliver a Labor defeat, complete with a new slogan ‘let’s get Australia back on track’.

If it sounds as though someone in Coalition headquarters ran ‘Make America Great Again’ through ChatGPT with the instruction to make something similar for Australia, but different, congratulations – your neurons are firing in exactly the way someone receiving big money worked to manipulate.

But on the eve of the election being formally called, one has to ask – what track is a Dutton led Australia heading towards?  An imaginary fantasy of the 1950s, when ‘strong’ men made decisions and women did what they were told, and migrants were indistinguishable from their neighbours, as long as their name wasn’t printed on the letter box?

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor preview next week’s Federal Budget and why the Government doesn’t need to leave so much tax revenue on the table.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 20 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

5 ways and 63 billion reasons to improve Australia’s tax system by Greg Jericho, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

That equates to $28,381 per minute, handed to some of the biggest, most profitable companies in Australia at a time when ordinary Australians are battling a long-running cost-of-living crisis.

As the federal election approaches, independent and minor party candidates have indicated that winding back these subsidies would be a key objective if they are elected into a hung parliament.

Key points:

• Federal Government fossil fuel subsidies reached $12.6 billion, mainly due to the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme which refunds fuel tax to major diesel users
• Major mining corporations are the key beneficiaries of federal subsidies, with the coal industry receiving $1.1 billion through the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme
• State governments provided $1.2 billion worth of assistance measures such as cheap access to infrastructure, gas purchase commitments and handouts for research and development

“Fossil fuel subsidies harm the budget and make climate change worse,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Cutting back subsidies like these, which make the community and the climate worse off, should be a priority for the next parliament.

“It is pleasing to see crossbench members looking seriously at fossil fuel subsidies such as the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme.

“This is a major opportunity to redirect billions of dollars from mining companies like BHP and Glencore, and instead invest this money in health, education and other community services.”

The changes to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will reportedly be rammed through Parliament next week as a favour to the salmon industry in Tasmania. They would also benefit gas and coal mines.

The proposal would prohibit third-party civil society organisations like The Australia Institute and Environmental Defenders Office from challenging environmentally damaging projects.

“Weakening environmental laws doesn’t help the Australian community or the Australian economy. It simply boosts the profits of salmon corporations, coal companies and other corporate interests,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director of The Australia Institute.

“Any change that makes it harder for community groups to use Australia’s environment laws is, by definition, anti-democratic.

“This legislation appears to be in response to The Australia Institute triggering a review of the impact of salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, where salmon corporations are pushing the endangered Maugean skate towards extinction.

“This isn’t just The Australia Institute’s view, it’s the view of the Federal Environment Department. Documents released under freedom of information reveal that officials told Minister Plibersek that it was ‘likely’ salmon farming would have to stop while a full environmental assessment is done.

“The role The Australia Institute and other NGOs play in environmental decision-making fundamentally strengthens Australia’s democracy.

On this episode of After America, Dr Ruth Mitchell joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss how Canada and Australia have responded to tariffs, what America’s decision to sell out Ukraine means for efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, and RFK Jr’s performance as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 13 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Read more from Emma in the latest edition of Australian Foreign Affairs.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Ruth Mitchell, Board Chair, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War // @drruthmitchell

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Host: Angus Blackman, Producer, the Australia Institute // @AngusRB

Show notes:

The Australia Institute has recommended an extensive list of reforms to make our once-great university sector more efficient, transparent and democratic – in a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Quality of Governance at Australian Higher Education Providers.

Australia’s higher education sector has been plagued with scandals in recent years, from wage theft and conflicts of interest, to excessive spending on marketing, travel and consultants.

Yet our university Vice-Chancellors are among the highest-paid in the world.

In 2023, the Australian National University spent around $54 million on consultants. It was later revealed that contracts were awarded to a consulting firm run by a friend of Chancellor Julie Bishop. As the University cut costs and slashed jobs, Ms. Bishop spent $150,000 on travel.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Eloise Carr, Director of the Australia Institute Tasmania, the Federal Government’s dangerous proposal to get around Australia’s already inadequate environmental protections and why salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour needs to end.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 19 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Sign our petition to end salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Eloise Carr, Director, the Australia Institute Tasmania // @eloise-carr

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Take your seats, ladies and gentlemen, for Australia’s annual gas pantomime, guaranteed to scare the wits out of struggling consumers.

Every year it’s the same tired script, where the villain is cast as the hero, and crisis is averted in the nick of time. Hurrah! The heating stayed on for another winter. Standing ovation.

Frack that

On Thursday, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) releases its annual gas statement of opportunities, GSOO as it’s affectionately known. Cue scary headlines and claims of a looming “gas shortage” and a “catastrophic supply shortfall” unless we let the gas cartel unleash more fracking and mining of the fossil fuel.

For media companies, GSOO is manna from heaven — almost guaranteed to deliver a “warning” that, framed a certain way, can scare the bejesus out of people and pull in a big audience. For the gas industry, it’s an opportunity to demand more and more gas expansion and to castigate any government concerned about climate change and the environment.

Nothing short of bull

As Public Enemy sang, don’t believe the hype. There is no gas shortage. Australia has an abundance of gas. It is the third largest exporter of liquified natural gas in the world. Each year, giant gas companies ship offshore far more of the fuel than Australian businesses and households could possibly use. The gas industry uses more of it to liquify the gas for export than Australia’s entire manufacturing industry consumes.

When old and new MPs return to Canberra after the election, they’ll have a unique opportunity to tackle Australia’s biggest challenges on inequality, sustainability, health and education.

There is a need for more spending in disability care, childcare, aged care, health care, education and housing. There are also calls for more spending in defence. Regardless of which parties form government after the next election, they are going to need more revenue.

Fortunately, significant revenue can be raised relatively easily, and in ways which will make Australia fairer and safer.

By cutting fossil fuel subsidies, ending the gas industry’s free ride, reforming negative gearing and closing tax loopholes for superannuation and luxury utes, Treasury would raise between $12 billion and $63 billion.

• $12 billion could fund 70,000 extra jobs to improve education, health and a host of other public services.
• $63 billion would enable the government to raise support payments above the poverty line and double spending on education and housing.

Not only would these changes be easy to implement, they’d be popular.

And – after all that – Australians would still be paying significantly less tax than taxpayers in equivalent developed countries.

The Australia Institute’s new Discussion Paper, Raising Revenue Right, has five realistic  recommendations for Australia’s 48th Parliament:

At the time, many argued we had paid too much, and US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium shows it can’t even protect Australia’s steel and aluminium from being slapped with arbitrary tariffs.

Those exports will now face 25 per cent tariffs in the United States.

This should serve as a wake-up call that the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) can’t even do what it’s supposed to do: protect free trade between Australia and its most powerful ally.

AUSFTA was signed in 2004. The Howard Government had pulled Australia into the Iraq War and was dedicated to deepening ties with the George Bush-led USA through a trade deal.

The final text included no major concessions from the US, and, despite Australia’s focus on boosting agricultural exports, the US only gave small and gradual concessions on its otherwise protected and subsidised agricultural sector, and didn’t loosen restrictions on sugar imports at all.

The sector is plagued with scandals, from wage theft and conflicts of interest to excessive spending on marketing, travel, and consultants.

Alongside these scandals, Australia’s Vice-Chancellors are some of the highest paid in the world.

A recent Australia Institute submission provides an extensive list of recommendations that would improve university governance.

However, the Australian National University (ANU) has unwittingly shown that a good place to start would be greater use of a powerful existing tool: Senate Estimates.

Last month ANU’s Chancellor Julie Bishop was the subject of questions at Senate Estimates about external consultants and conflict-of-interest processes.

The Australia Institute’s Chief Economist Greg Jericho has charted exactly where home buyers would be if they’d taken Mr. Hockey at his word.

A decade ago, a home buyer needed a deposit of $154,600 to buy a median-priced house in Sydney.

If someone earning the average full-time male wage had saved 15% of every pay packet in the ten years since, they’d have amassed $126,096.

Not only would that have left them well short of their original target, but the growth in house prices means the deposit they’d need now has almost doubled, to $281,500.

So, a decade after setting out to save $154,600, they’d still be $155,404 short.

The Australian Government’s latest report into the state of live music – “Am I Ever Gonna See You Live Again?” – makes some great recommendations, including for:

• tax offsets to be given to venues that host live music;
• training and education programs to help foster a love of music among young people;
• a rebate or voucher scheme to incentivise younger audiences to attend live music (which, as Australia Institute research has shown, is an approach that has been successful in Europe).

But, for these recommendations to have any weight, they’ll need to be backed up with adequate funding; the March budget is an opportunity for just that.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss new research showing just how difficult it is to save for a house deposit and the political response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 13 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Gone are the days when a ‘good job’ gets you a house – and now we have the data to prove it’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (March 2025)

In 2015 former Treasurer Joe Hockey suggested to buy a house you just needed a “good job that pays good money”

Ten years on new research shows that had a person on the average full-time male earnings in each state been saving 15% of their after-tax income, they would still be unable to afford a deposit on a median-priced house.

Worse than that, in Sydney they would have gone backwards. At the end of 2014 they would have needed a deposit of $154,600, but by the end of 2024 after saving $126,00 for 10 years they would still need an extra $155,404 in order to afford a 20% deposit on the median-priced house in Sydney.

As people have saved, the price of houses – and the size of the deposit needed – has kept going up, even faster.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Dr Fiona Macdonald, Acting Director at the Centre for Future Work, joins Glenn Connley to discuss Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Peter Dutton’s plan to axe public service jobs, and why the private sector generally doesn’t deliver better public services.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 12 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Fiona Macdonald, Acting Director, Centre for Future Work // @drfionamac

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Show notes:

Briefing Paper: Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees by Lisa Heap, the Centre for Future Work (February 2025)

The case has large implications for compensation to Indigenous peoples for government acts between 1911 and 1975, particularly in the Northern Territory and also the Australian Capital Territory.

Prior to Wednesday’s High Court decision, The Australia Institute is pleased to publish research by Dr Ed Wensing outlining the potential implications for the ACT.

Key points:

• Native title matters remain unresolved in the ACT with no statutory land rights system.
• The issues raised by Yunupingu in the Northern Territory have many similarities with historical circumstances faced by Traditional Owners in the ACT.
• The ACT Government has acted hypocritically. It has a policy of reconciliation and healing, but joined the Commonwealth’s appeal to the High Court on two out of three grounds.

“The High Court’s decision has huge implications for the ACT and its Traditional Owners,” said Dr Ed Wensing, Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Indigenous Policy Research at the Australian National University and long-time contributor to The Australia Institute.

“The nub of the case is about the expansion of the period of liability for compensation for Territory Government granted titles over native title.

“If the High Court decides in favour of Mr Yunupingu and the Gumatj Clan, the ACT’s long-held position that all native title rights and interests in the ACT were extinguished by past events simply evaporates.

The costs are being passed onto ordinary Australian households and businesses through skyrocketing insurance premiums. Emergency response, recovery and reconstruction costs are also paid through our taxes.

The one group paying none of the costs are the giant fossil fuel exporters who are causing the problem in the first place.

The Australia Institute has proposed climate damage compensation levy on fossil fuel exports to help take the burden off Australian households and businesses.

Major floods in eastern Australia pushed insured losses in 2022 to a record $7 billion, almost double previous records. Perhaps more alarmingly, since 2013, insured losses in each year have exceeded the combined losses of the five years from 2000 to 2004.

Between 2022 and 2023, the average home insurance premium in Australia rose by 14%, the biggest rise in a decade. As The Australia Institute revealed last week, around one-in-five households are now either uninsured or underinsured.

“If you cause a fire or flood at your neighbour’s house, you pay for the damage. That’s what should happen here,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“Ordinary households and businesses are paying the cost of floods and fires caused by giant global energy companies. It’s time we made them pay instead of us.

“A drop in the ocean of their massive profits would make a huge difference to Australian households and businesses reeling after the QLD floods.

On this episode of After America, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the importance of upholding the international rule of law, the deterioration of relations between Ukraine and the Trump administration, and why Ukrainian security is important for the entire world.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 7 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to Australia and New Zealand // @ambvasyl

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

Poll: Trump a greater threat to world peace than Putin or Xi, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

1.      Care and flexibility

Working from home benefits employers and employees. Despite moves by some employers and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claims about the public service, the Fair Work Commission is working to develop a working-from-home clause for industrial awards.

Fiona says: “It’s unlikely there’ll be a widespread return to five days in the office in 2025. We’re also expecting a continued reduction in overwork and unpaid overtime in the first full year of right-to-disconnect laws, which are expanding in August.”

2.      Gender pay gap

Following reforms to the Fair Work Act, a review of wage rates in female-dominated awards is underway. New cases to address gender undervaluation of work are before the Fair Work Commission.

Lisa says: “Hundreds of thousands of women and their families will benefit from the pay increases already awarded in care sectors. The Commonwealth Government’s preparedness to fund these pay increases has been critical. Continuing commitment will be essential to further narrow the gender pay gap in 2025.”

3.      Economic security for young women

Young women are more stressed by the financial squeeze than men and they’re less able to raise money in an emergency. They’re also more likely to have buy-now, pay-later debt. 60% of Australians with an outstanding HECS debt are women – and the gender pay gap means it takes them longer to pay it off.

In 2024 we saw some welcome developments for working women, led by government reforms.

Benefits from these changes will continue in 2025. However, this year, technological, social and political changes may challenge working women’s economic security and threaten progress
towards gender equality at work Here’s our list of five areas we think will impact on women workers’ economic security in 2025.

1. AI and the digital transformation of workplaces

2024 was the year artificial intelligence really started making its presence felt in Australian workplaces. The take up of AI is likely to accelerate in 2025. Alongside benefits from innovation there are some significant risks for workers, including in sectors dominated by women.

Job displacement is likely. Some new jobs will be created but job loss and casualisation are big risks for workers unless active effort goes into planning, training and support. In numerical terms, the greatest displacements are expected to be in retail trade, administrative and support services, professional, scientific and technical services and health care and social assistance, all female-dominated sectors.

Other risks are to job quality, as algorithmic management spreads from app-driven gig work into traditional workplaces. Assisted by electronic surveillance, AI is being used in selection and recruitment of staff, allocation and direction of work, and evaluation of performance of workers.

The oil and gas industry loves to tell everyone they pay a lot of tax, but the evidence tells a very different story.

The oil and gas industry claim their tax pays for nurses and other public sector services, but new Australia Institute research shows that nurses pay more in income tax than the oil and gas industry pay in company tax and Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT).

Over the last 10 years, Australia’s nurses have paid $52 billion, or an average of $5.2 billion per year, in tax.

By contrast, the oil and gas industry, who can’t stop talking about how much tax they pay, has paid $45 billion or on average $4.5 billion per year.

It’s worth noting that almost all of the oil and gas industry’s payments have occurred in the last two years, since Russia invaded Ukraine and pushed energy prices to record levels.

While official ATO figures haven’t been released yet, the oil and gas lobby group Australian Energy Producers claims that its members paid $11.1 billion in 2022-23 and $13.9 billion in 2023-24. These lobby group figures are included in the above chart. If assessing the average annual tax payment of the oil and gas industry based on only ATO figures, that exclude the Russia war-linked windfalls, then the average is $2.8 billion per year over the ten years to 2020-21.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

Well, those two weeks were quite the month, weren’t they?

The headlines could cause whiplash; from a focus on the alternative prime minister’s past, to election date scuttle, to Chinese military vessels niggling boundaries, to Donald Trump making it clear to the people in the back where his America stands, it’s easy to see how quickly news fatigue can set in.

Trump, who is doing exactly as intended, is following the well-worn path his once most trusted advisor described as ‘flooding the zone with shit’, which is a strategy that boils down to hacking the media’s inability to focus when there are so many shiny headlines around.

The leopards didn’t just tell people they would eat faces, they explained how they would do it. But we have a habit in modern democracies of prescribing good faith to people running in positions we have been taught to respect.  Sure, Trump is enabling an unelected foreign billionaire to rampage through the country, and by association, the world, slashing foreign aid, backing in the far right, lie about allied leaders and abandoning the principles of democracy, but did you hear he’s bringing back plastic straws?