The Australia Institute Feed Items

Australia is a low-taxing nation

 ā€” 

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, replacement Matt (Greg Jericho) and Elinor debunk some long-standing myths about the Australian economy, discuss cuts to HECS and examine the latest in Trump’s beef beef.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 24 July 2025.

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

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

Show notes:

The biggest voices need to admit Australia is a low-taxing nation before joining the economic reform conversation by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (July 2025)

NSW court blocking largest coalmine expansion in state a big win for the environment

 ā€” 

The court found the Independent Planning Commission failed to take into account the impact of all the carbon pollution associated with the project, including pollution from the exported emissions when the coal is sold and burned overseas.

Mach Energy’s Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion near Muswellbrook is one of the most polluting coal projects that was seeking approval in Australia.

The project is so big it covers an area which would almost cover the entire electorates of Sydney and Grayndler.

The decision comes after a challenge from the Denman, Aberdeen, Muswellbrook, Scone Healthy Environment Group.

While this is a welcome result, the NSW Land and Environment Court will have to consider whether conditions can be imposed that would validate the approval, or whether the project must return to the planning commission.

ā€œThere are two other coal mines that were granted extension by the federal government in the Hunter Valley,ā€ said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

ā€œWhile it is welcome news that one may not go ahead, these approvals are inconsistent with Australia’s climate goals and reinforces the country’s reputation as one of the world’s major fossil fuel exporters.

ā€œTo approve huge new coal mines while bidding to host COP31 is a slap in the face to our Pacific neighbors, who have clearly and repeatedly requested that Australia stop expanding fossil fuel production.

Australians aren’t afraid of power-sharing parliaments

 ā€” 

Australians have elected power-sharing parliaments in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania – and a single party almost never has a majority in the federal Senate. On this episode of Follow the Money, Leanne Minshull and Eloise Carr join Ebony Bennett to discuss why collaborative parliaments are popular and how our elected officials can make them work.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

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

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

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

Show notes:

Canada, don’t make the same mistake with LNG that Australia did

 ā€” 

That all changed in 2015 when a few corporations started exporting vast amounts of liquefied natural gas, exposing Australians to high global gas prices. The result was aĀ tripling of wholesale gas pricesĀ in the country, and a huge transfer of wealth from Australian households and businesses to the handful of gas corporations to which we had given control of our resources.

The gas corporations convinced our governments that if they were allowed to develop the vast onshore reserves in the state of Queensland for export, we would experience enormous economic benefits, while gas prices would remain low.

None of it was true. Instead, large areas of our beautiful country have been transformed into industrial gas fields and we now have expensive gas, rolling gas shortage fears and few economic benefits.

It appears Canada may be making the same mistake.

Prior to 2015, the wholesale price of gas in the country was under $4 a gigajoule (all figures in Australian dollars unless otherwise noted). Gas producers couldn’t ramp up prices because of the laws of supply and demand; we had an ample supply of low-cost gas for the limited domestic market.

But the opening of gas export terminals meant the Australian market was now a small part of the huge global market, where gas prices were three times higher than at home. Gas exporters were able to force Australians to compete with Asian customers who were prepared to pay much more than the long-term price in Australia.

New analysis reveals the devastating truth behind Australians’ poker machineĀ losses

 ā€” 

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, one-third of Australian adults use poker machines at least once a year. Excluding Western Australia, where pokies are banned outside of Perth Casino, that equates to 6.6 million people who, between them, lose around $13 billion a year, at an average of more than $1,950 each.

Based on an updated version of the most detailed study of gambling in Australia, the amount an average gambler can afford to lose on poker machines is $301 per year, known as their “low-risk gambling limit”.

For every dollar a gambler loses over that low-risk limit, the risk increases.

Losing more means people who use the pokies have less to spend on other recreational or social activities. But for those who gamble much more, the losses can be devastating.

“Poker machines are making a killing from problem gamblers,” said Skye Predavec, Anne Kantor Fellow at The Australia Institute and author of the analysis.

“If the vast majority of poker machine profits come from risky gambling rather than those who gamble responsibly, it’s time politicians treated the industry in line with the harm it causes.

“The data does not lie. There are Australians who are losing vast sums of money on poker machines who cannot afford to.

Six months down, 42 to go (maybe…)

 ā€” 

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman take a step back to reflect on what’s happened since Trump was inaugurated in January.

Tl;dr: it’s all pretty grim.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 21 July 2025.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order 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:

Most gambling losses are from at-risk gamblers

 ā€” 

Australia has some of the highest rates of gambling in the world, with a third of Australian adults using poker machines at least once a year. But it’s a past-time that could be riskier than you think: At least $10 billion of the $13 billion that Aussies lose on pokies each year comes from exceeding recommended risk limits.

In 2018, consulting firm ACIL Allen produced the Fourth Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania. It included a detailed survey of gamblers, including problem gamblers, which was used to calculate a ā€œlow-risk gambling limitā€ for Tasmanians.

The study compared low-risk gambling limits to low-risk drinking guidelines, both designed to allow people to make informed decisions about risk and the potential harms of certain behaviour.

According to the study, the limit for low-risk gambling is $240 per person per year for poker machines, and $510 per year for all gambling. Those who exceeded these spending limits were found to have almost five times the risk of experiencing gambling harm.

Election result shows Tasmanians want a power-sharing government

 ā€” 

Recent polling commissioned by The Australia Institute shows more Tasmanians agree than disagree that the major parties should seek to form a power-sharing government with Greens and Independents if they cannot form government in their own right.

The Australia Institute studied 25 power-sharing governments, and the results showed that most see out a full term, and can help enforce ministerial responsibility.

ā€œThis election returned another power-sharing parliament for Tasmania,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“One thing this election result should do is dispel the notion that power-sharing governments are punished by the Tasmanian electorate.

“The Rockliff government has faced its second election as a minority government and isĀ arguably in a better positionĀ now.

ā€œThe narratives that the Liberals and Labor have been pushing do not hold up. Polling – and now this election result – show that voters of the major parties prefer power-sharing governments.

“Indeed, more than twice as many Labor voters support Labor forming government with the Greens and Independent crossbench members as oppose.ā€

Why a fossil fuel-free COP could put Australia’s bid over the edge

 ā€” 

Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it’s usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists.

The Albanese government is bidding to host next year’s COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia’s main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now.

One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they’ll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action.

That’s why The Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31.

Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem.

Let’s be clear – coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis.

The United Nations, the world’s scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels.

These companies have no place at UN climate talks.

How Australia helped Japan build a gas empire | Between the Lines

 ā€” 

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

In just a few short days the 48th Parliament will sit for the first time and we will start to see the answer to the question we have been asking become clear; what will Labor do with power?

In many ways, we already have the answer, at least when it comes to climate.Ā  The second term Albanese government wasted no time in approving the carbon bomb that is the Woodside North West Shelf extension and is tripling down on the delusion that more fossil fuel gas fields need to be opened up to service not just the domestic market, but to ensure the success of the Future Made in Australia manufacturing push.

Albanese made headlines in March by slipping in the line ā€˜delulul with no solulu’ during question time, as a tongue-in-cheek shout out to the hosts of the Happy Hour podcast, but it could also sum up Labor’s attitude to gas.

That was made clear in the Jubilee Australia Research Centre report: How to Build a Gas Empire, which was released this week and all but ignored by Australia’s mainstream media outlets.

The report, co-published with the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Fossil Free Japan Coalition lays out exactly how hollow many of the claims Australia is told about its gas industry are.

Japan and Korea have contributed $20.5bn USD of public finance into Australian LNG projects between 2008 and 2024.

10 reasons why Australia does not need company tax cuts

 ā€” 

1/ Giving business billions of dollars in tax cuts means starving schools, hospitals and other services.

Giving business billions of dollars in tax cuts means billions of dollars less for services like schools and hospitals.

If Australia cut company tax from 30% to 25% this would give business about $20 billion in its first year, or $83 billion over four years. This would cost the budget at least $57 billion over four years, accounting for reduced franking credits (which are effectively a tax refund for company tax paid).

2/ Vital public services and infrastructure will be the first to go.

The United Nations has pointed out that after corporate taxed were cuts in America, welfare benefits and access to health insurance were slashed. The ā€˜financial windfalls’ for the very rich were funded by cutting public services.

3/ The big four banks would get billions of dollars. Really.

Australia’s big four banks are some of the most profitable banks in the world, and they have been making record profits.

Special treatment: why are defence dollars different?

 ā€” 

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Matt and Elinor discuss the Prime Minister’s China trip, why spending more on defence doesn’t necessarily make us safer, and the unusual situation whereby our biggest bank thinks we should tax wealth better.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 17 July 2025.

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

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

Show notes:

Australia already spends a huge amount on defence by Matt Grudnoff, the Australia Institute (April 2025)

The latest unemployment figures show the RBA has failed Australians

 ā€” 

Today’s June labour force figures were bad news for everyone except those in the Reserve Bank, who would be celebrating the unemployment rate rising from 4.1% to 4.3%. Last week the RBA monetary policy board had the opportunity to cut interest rates and help keep unemployment low and the economy growing. Instead it chose to keep rates at a level that they know would actually slow the economy.

To an extent, the RBA’s choice was unsurprising. The RBA actually wants more people to lose their jobs. They desire this due to a misguided and cruel belief that there needs to be more people unemployed in order to keep inflation around 2.5%.

Well today the RBA got its wish. Unemployment in June rose from 4.1% to 4.3% – the biggest jump for 14 months and the second biggest increase since the end of 2021.

The labour force figures highlight that not only has the RBA monetary policy board pursed a nonsensical monetary policy, they have also completely misread the economy in a manner that calls into question the board’s competence.

In its statement last week the board noted that “the March quarter national accounts confirmed that domestic demand has been picking up over the past six months.” This was completely wrong.

The secret deal with ā€˜Big Gas’ that threatens heritage listed, ancient rock art

 ā€” 

In May, Environment Minister Murray WattĀ gave provisional approval to a 45-year extensionĀ of the oil and gas giant’s liquid natural gas export hub on the Burrup and an associated gas power plant.

This was controversial, and not just because the project is a carbon bomb that will create a huge volume of greenhouse gas emissions.

Woodside’s gas facilities are also adjacent to what many experts consider the most significant Indigenous rock art site in the world: The Murujuga Cultural Landscape.

It contains a huge concentration of images, known as petroglyphs, etched into the rocks. Some date back up to 50,000 years, depicting ancient megafauna and the oldest known image of a human face.

Murujuga has just been listed on UNESCO’s World Heritage Register. But don’t assume that means it is safe.

The trouble is that burning gas releases pollutants that can damage the rock art.

When Watt announced the provisional go-ahead for Woodside’s gas extension, he said he would put ā€œstrict conditionsā€ on the project to protect the petroglyphs. He refused to disclose what those conditions were.

Supposedly, the secrecy was about giving Woodside Energy ā€œprocedural fairnessā€.

Woodside was given 10 days to respond but failed to meet the deadline. Watt, it seems, has been happy to give it an indefinite extension.

Tasmania can afford a new stadium. Here’s how.

 ā€” 

Whether you’re for or against the stadium, it looms as a huge strain on a Tasmanian budget which is already deep in the red.

But the cost of the stadium is small when compared to the amount of money Tasmanians have been missing out on due to shrinking GST revenue.

The GST was set up as the states’ own revenue source … a source which would grow with the economy.

It was pitched as a way of helping to solve states’ financial problems.

But the GST hasn’t been the growth tax that Australia’s states and territories were promised.

Recently released Australia Institute research shows that if the GST had kept up with growth in the economy, it would have collected an extra $22bn last year.

Tasmania’s share of that would have been $877m.

Let’s put $877m into context. The most recent estimate for the cost of the proposed stadium is almost $1bn, with the Tasmanian government picking up the tab for the lion’s share of that – $675m, which would include about $300m of borrowing.

So, an extra $877m wouldn’t just pay for a stadium; it would pay for a stadium every year.

Of course, Tasmanians might not want all that money spent on a stadium. There are plenty of other areas in desperate need of funding, like hospitals, schools, roads, and public housing, to name a few. The cost of all of these has also raced ahead of the growth in GST revenue.

So, why hasn’t the GST kept up with the rest of the economy?

Just 3% of Australians support the sale of Santos to foreign investors

 ā€” 

53% of Australians say the government should block the sale.

28% of respondents believe the decision should be delayed until the impact of the sale on Australian gas prices is investigated. 16% are unsure.

A group of foreign investors, led by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, is seeking to buy Santos. The purchase requires approval from Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board.

ā€œForeign-ownedĀ corporations already control almost all of Australia’s gas,” saidĀ Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor to The Australia Institute.

“Foreign gas companies have a history of prioritising exports over domestic customers, price-gouging Australians for our own gas, and contributing little to public finances. It is not surprising that Australians would reject further foreign ownership.

ā€œGiven the high level of foreign ownership of Australia’s gas resources, it’s hard to see how giving more control to foreign-ownedĀ corporations fits with the Prime Minister’s philosophy of progressive patriotism.

ā€œThe survey shows strong support for an investigation into the impact of any deal on Australian gas prices, suggesting ordinary Australians have a better grasp of the issues than many of our policy makers who didn’t consider the price impact of allowing foreign-ownedĀ corporations to export almost all of our gas in the first place.”

ā€œOut of patienceā€: it’s time to fix the housing crisis

 ā€” 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Amy Remeikis and Matt Grudnoff join Ebony Bennett discuss the political relevance of the housing crisis, the storm-in-a-teacup over some Treasury subheadings, and #NotAllEconomists.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst, the Australia Institute // @amyremeikis

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

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

Show notes:

What is the government doing to protect the World Heritage-listedĀ Murujuga rock art?Ā 

 ā€” 

The ancient IndigenousĀ rock art on Western Australia’s Burrup PeninsulaĀ has been deservedly listed on the UNESCO World Heritage Register.

But the spectacular Murujuga petroglyphs remain under threat.

Extensive scientific evidence reveals that pollution from the adjacent Woodside gas export terminal has seriously damaged the engravings.

Scientists warn that unless the acid gas emissions from the terminal are curtailed, the rock art will be destroyed, regardless of the World Heritage listing.

“The tragedy is that Woodside’s gas development does not need to be at Murujuga,” said Stephen Long, Senior Fellow at The Australia Institute, who produced The Fight to Save Murujuga documentary.

“The gas from the proposed extension will be shipped in from offshore gas fields hundreds of kilometres away.”

Despite the warnings from scientists, in late May, Environment Minister Murray Watt provisionally approved a 50-year expansion of the gas project, claiming the approval was subject to strict conditions to protect Murujuga.

However, those conditions remain a secret. The Australia Institute last week wrote to Minister Watt requesting the conditions be made public.

ā€œKeeping the conditions secret prevents public scrutiny and undermines public trust and accountability,ā€ said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

Trump’s pharma tariffs would hurt Americans the most

 ā€” 

Dr Ruth Mitchell, neurosurgeon and Nobel Peace Prize winner with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss why a growing number of Australians want an AUKUS review, Trump’s pharmaceuticals tariffs, and what the US President can learn from Jane Fonda.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 11 July 2025.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order 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

Show notes:

Polling – AUKUS, the Australia Institute (July 2025)

America’s AUKUS, PBS push forces Australia toward sovereignty red line

 ā€” 

He wore what he wanted, and if a lounge suit didn’t suit then the event didn’t suit him.

When being sworn into the Privy Council, he simply refused to partake in the elaborate ceremony and in response to the exasperated Lord Chamberlain, just calmly said ā€œI’ll bet you two bob I’m still allowed inā€.

He won the bet.

Chifley was an engine driver before he was a parliamentarian, and he made sure he would wear his working-class blue shirt in rooms where the worker should be represented.

It was a political signal – he was a union man, for the worker, and he made sure his dress, when necessary, represented his origins.

Curtin had workers at the heart of his sartorial signals as well. He was, as Stuart Macintyre wrote inĀ Australia’s Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s, ā€œdetermined to make the Labor Party respectableā€ and dressed in a three-piece suit.

For him, he wanted the worker to be respected when Labor MPs were in the sorts of rooms that workers at the time would be barred entry.

Greg Combet would make a point of rolling up his sleeves when in meetings, which once helped mark the difference between unionists and the capital class.

Volodymyr Zelensky isn’t the first war-time leader to wear military garb as a link to his people – Winston Churchill spent much of World War II in the nautical uniform of the Royal Yacht Squadron.

These signals matter. They’re a public display of a politician’s values and priorities.

Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5Ā experts

 ā€” 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is ā€œforging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the otherā€.

Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

The Liberals haven’t changed, they’ve just worked out when to keep their mouths shut

 ā€” 

Grattan, who among her many talents holds an institutional memory that makes every politician quake, gave a lesson in the intersection between media and politics by focussing on the lack of political reaction to two pieces of news.

One, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s interview on Sky News last Sunday, where he admitted that no one from the NZYQ cohort of immigration detainees, released by a High Court decision, had reached the threshold of laws designed to enable the government to re-detain them.

For that we need a bit of context – for years Australia had detained asylum seekers, refugees and migrants who had their visas either cancelled or refused, but couldn’t be deported because they were stateless, would face death or serious harm in their birth countries, or their countries refused to co-operate with Australia’s deportation.

Most of the people caught up in this had either committed a crime or been charged with a crime. Some have no convictions.

But unlike when an Australian-born citizen commits a crime, is given a custodial sentence and then released back into the community at the end of their sentence to resume life, Australia wanted these people out.

When they ran into a deportation boundary, the workaround was to lock them up in immigration detention.

Unlike a sentence handed down by a court, there is no end date to this sort of detention. It was called ā€œindefiniteā€ and successive governments just sort of swept it under the rug without trying to find a humanitarian solution.

Anthony Albanese can restrict gas exports and save the Tomago aluminium smelter

 ā€” 

Keeping Tomago open and keeping metals refining in AustraliaĀ is important. This is important for local jobs, Australia’s wider industrial development and the shift to green metals.

But before governments hand over public money, it’s important to understand what has caused the problem.

While big companies ask for subsidies regularly, this time taxpayers are being asked to bail out Rio Tinto as a direct result of Australia’s excessive gas exports.

It is the gas companies that are to blame for the energy cost increases that Rio claims threaten Tomago’s future.

Let me explain.

Making aluminium involves huge amounts of electricity. Resource economists like to joke (we really do) that aluminium is just ā€œcongealed electricityā€.

In Australia, the wholesale electricity price is largely set by the wholesale gas price. In fact,Ā there isĀ aĀ ā€œnear-perfect correlationĀ between natural gas prices and electricity prices in Australia’s National Electricity Marketā€.

That’s because, renewables offer their electricity to the market first because their costs are very low once they’re built (and if weather conditions are good).

Coal-fired generators usually come next because they can’t adjust their output up or down particularly quickly.

This leaves more flexible electricity sources to fill in the final amount of electricity required, and because meeting demand depends on them they get to set the price.

No nukes: Australia must push for serious global nuclear disarmament | Tilman Ruff

 ā€” 

On this episode, Paul Barclay is joined by Dr Tilman Ruff, co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) to discuss Australia’s role in trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons, including renouncing protection by nuclear weapons, the need to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and the risks associated with the AUKUS deal.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday, 26 February 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

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

Guest: Dr Tilman Ruff AO, Co-founder and Founding Chair, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons // @tilmanaruff

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review ConferenceĀ by Allan Behm, the Australia Institute (August 2022)

RBA moves goalposts and keeps rates on hold

 ā€” 

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, substitute Greg (Matt Grudnoff) returns to discuss Trump’s Big Pharma tariffs, the privatisation of childcare, and why the RBA got it wrong in its latest interest rate decision.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 9 July 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

Show notes:

Wrong call – RBA rate hold unfairly dashes borrowers’ hopes for relief, the Australia Institute (July 2025)

How to fix Australia’s broken childcare system so everybody wins by Matt Grudnoff, the Australia Institute (November 2024)

Their fair share: the tax debate we need to have

 ā€” 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Matt Grudnoff joins Ebony Bennett discuss Government’s productivity agenda, why the GST is failing to do the job it was designed for, and how 91 millionaires managed to pay no tax.

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

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

Show notes:

The huge cost to states budgets of failing GST, the Australia Institute (July 2025)

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

Theme music: Pulse and Thrum; additional music by Blue Dot Sessions

The huge cost to state budgets of failing GST

 ā€” 

New Australia Institute research shows that if the GST had kept up with economic growth, as it was intended to do, states and territories would have received an additional $231 billion in revenue in the time sinceĀ it was introduced.

That includes $22 billion in lost revenue in 2023-24 alone.

The decline of GST revenue has been driven by inequality. This is because wages haven’t kept up withĀ the cost of housing, which means lower-income earners have less money to spend on other things that GST is applied to, and wealthier people are able to avoid GST on things they are more likely to use, like private health insurance and private school fees.

Key findings:

Trump’s Big Bill makes America more dangerous while enriching a few

 ā€” 

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis discusses how Trump’s ā€˜Big Beautiful Bill’ will further redistribute wealth from lower and middle class people to the richest Americans, before Josh Bornstein joins the show to discuss the Supreme Court and whether the rule of law is crumbling in the United States.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 4 July 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Join Dr Emma Shortis and Dr Richard Denniss in conversation about After America: Australia and the new world order at the University of Melbourne at 6pm AEST, Wednesday 16 July.

Guest: Josh Bornstein, Principal Lawyer, National Head of Employment Law, Maurice Blackburn // @joshbornstein

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

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

Where to now for Indigenous justice? | Thomas Mayo

 ā€” 

On this episode, Thomas Mayo joins Paul Barclay to discuss the Voice referendum, the use of Indigenous issues as a political football, disinformation in the media and social media, truth in political advertising laws, and the continuing importance of the Uluru Statement and a voice for indigenous people.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 6 February 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

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

Guest: Thomas Mayo, Assistant National Secretary, Maritime Union of Australia // @thomasmayo

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Compared to the cost of protesting, buying time with a minister is very cheap by Jack Thrower and Vivien Clarke, the Australia Institute (January 2025)

Wrong call – RBA rate hold unfairly dashes borrowers’ hopes for relief

 ā€” 

At a time when inflation is within the RBA’s target band, today was an opportunity to take the pressure off families who haveĀ been paying too much for too long.

“The high interest rates are slowing the Australian economy at a time when economic growth is on life support,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“With the inflation rate within the target band, what more information does the RBA need to cut rates?

“This decision comes with real costs. Households are struggling to pay the bills, and this delay will only cause more pain.”

The post Wrong call – RBA rate hold unfairly dashes borrowers’Ā hopes for relief appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Tasmanians want a power-sharing government: poll

 ā€” 

More than twice as many Labor voters support Labor forming government with the Greens and Independent crossbench members as oppose (61% agree vs 25% disagree).

Liberal voters are neck-and-neck in their support for the Liberal party to form government with Greens and Independents (45% agree vs 46% disagree).
It’s Tasmania’s second election in just over a year, and polling research suggests another power-sharing parliament is the most likely outcome.

An Australia Institute study of 25 power-sharing governments showed most power-sharing governments see out a full term and can help enforce ministerial responsibility.

ā€œIt is clear that most Tasmanians want whoever seeks to form government to do so with the crossbench, including Greens and Independents, if they cannot form majority government,ā€ said Eloise Carr, Director,Ā  The Australia Institute Tasmania.

ā€œThe question then becomes, will Dean Winter really refuse to attempt to form government should he be given the third opportunity to do so?

ā€œMany Liberal and Labor voters are open to power-sharing governments, despite the narrative that these two parties are pushing. The free public forum which The Australia Institute is hosting this Thursday will debate the opportunities that these types of government can bring.ā€

ā€œPower-sharing governments can be good for democracy and the democratic process,ā€ said Bill Browne, Director of The Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

Tax reform isn’t hard – slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of

 ā€” 

As the Treasurer embarks upon aĀ national tax reform debate, it’s important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much.

Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones.

Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on.

The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity.

The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world.

Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.

Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park.

Why this week matters | Between the Lines

 ā€” 

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

Earlier this week, 2025 clocked up its 183rd day.

Most of eastern Australia would have been keeping one eye on the weather report, given the ā€˜rain bomb’, while others were reeling from the news an alleged child sex offender had been working at Melbourne child care centres.

Like every day, millions of Australians would have been lost in the life changing and mundane, and many wouldn’t have noted the date at all.

But July 2 mattered. At least for those focused on the battle we have to save the planet and life as we (sort of) know it.

From July 2, we are now closer to 2050 than we are to the Year 2000.

It’s just eight more federal elections away (presuming we continue to have three year terms).

That gives us 293 months to try and keep global warming to just 1.5 degrees.

The global average temperature increase last year was 1.6 degrees.

Spikes happen, and a single year isn’t enough to say it’s done.Ā  But we are trending the wrong way.

The house always wins: Why we can’t insure our way out of the climate crisis

 ā€” 

The scientific reality is that sea level rise and increased storm damage will make heavily populated parts of Australia uninhabitable, and the economic reality is that houses in those areas will be uninsurable.

It is impossible to get insurance against likely events.

The only reason an insurance company will insure your car is they know it is unlikely that you will crash it. That’s why no matter how much you are willing to pay, the company won’t insure your car if you have an accident while drink driving.

Put simply, insurance is a gamble, and your premium is determined by the odds of a payout and the size of the catastrophe.

When you insure your house, you are betting that something bad is going to happen and the insurance company is betting that it won’t.

At the end of the year if you do not crash your car or burn your house down you will probably feel good about your choices, but not nearly as good as your insurer who got a few thousand dollars from you in exchange for your peace of mind.

But insurance companies don’t make risky bets. They know that there is only about a one in 600 chance you will have a house fire, which is precisely why they are happy to bet you won’t.

But see what happens if you try ringing them to insure your car against hail damage after hail has been forecast. Hint, no chance.

Insurers don’t make big bets either.

Negative gearing is back, baby!

 ā€” 

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, substitute Greg (Matt Grudnoff) and Elinor discuss the 91 millionaires who paid zero tax, the grim reality driving the gender pay gap, and why negative gearing is back on trend (but still making housing less affordable).

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 3 July 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

Show notes:

Capital gains for the rich and persistent gender pay gaps: what we can learn from the ATO’s annual tax statistics by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (July 2025)

Wealth inequality by asset types. What’s driving wealth inequality? by Matt Grudnoff, the Australia Institute (February 2025)

A matter of preference

 ā€” 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Bill Browne joins Ebony Bennett discuss the extraordinary scale of Labor’s victory in the May federal election, what the devastating result might mean for the Coalition, and why a large crossbench in federal parliament could be here to stay.

Guest: Bill Browne, Director of Democracy & Accountability, the Australia Institute // @browne90

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

Show notes:

Major parties have never relied more on preferences, the Australia Institute (June 2025)

For major party leaders, the Greens, independents and minor parties are the closest threat, the Australia Institute (June 2025)

Federal reform to GST would deliver significant revenue to Tasmania and other states

 ā€” 

The deterioration of the Tasmanian budget means that net debt is expected to reach $10 billion by 2027-28.

However, two simple measures at the Commonwealth level could raise an additional $303 million a year in revenue for the Tasmanian government, or $1.5 billion in total over the 5 years to 2030.

These changes are:

  • Renegotiating Western Australia’s GST deal, which was struck under the Scott Morrison government, and gives WA a much higher share of total GST.
  • Broadening the GST to include private school fees and private health insurance.

Independent Economist Saul Eslake estimates that for the five years to 2030, the average annual cost of the WA GST deal is around $4.1 billion a year, and says changes to the GST carve-up deal are not working as intended.

ā€œA government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy,ā€ wrote Saul Eslake in The Conversation.

ā€œAnd an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.ā€

If that $4.1 billion was distributed to other jurisdictions on existing GST revenue shares, the Tasmanian government would receive around $154 million a year in additional revenue.

Over the period to 2030, close to an additional $770 million could be generated.

How’s that trade war working out?

 ā€” 

On this episode of After America, Professor James Laurenceson, Director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the Trump administration’s confused approach to China and how Australia is navigating these complex relationships.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 13 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Join Dr Emma Shortis and Dr Richard Denniss in conversation about After America: Australia and the new world order at the University of Melbourne at 6pm AEST, Wednesday 16 July.

Guest: James Laurenceson, Professor and Director, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney // @j_laurenceson

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

Show notes:

Making climate action urgent and equitable | Sunita Narain

 ā€” 

On this episode, Sunita Narain joins Paul Barclay to discuss the need for inclusive and equitable growth in tackling climate change, pollution and congestion in Delhi, renewable energy in India and how climate change and climate justice will affect global migration.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

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

Guest: Sunita Narain, Environmentalist Writer and Director general, the Centre of Science and Environment // @sunitanar

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster //Ā @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Our crisis of integrity looms in the PacificĀ by Elizabeth Morison, The Canberra Times (December 2024)

The National Climate Disaster Fund: Our Pacific neighbours, an Australia Institute initiative

Minor party and independent preferences behind Labor’s landslide victoryĀ 

 ā€” 

Read the full analysis here.

Labor’s landslide federal election victory in May, both in seats and two-party preferred terms, was underpinned by a greater number of preferences than ever from voters who didn’t put it first on the ballot paper.

Key findings:

  • The Labor Party has never received so many preferences from voters who didn’t put it first.
  • The growing number of voters giving their first preference to a minor party or independent candidate is hurting the Coalition far more than Labor.
    • In 2013, 21% of voters gave their primary vote to a minor party or independent candidate. Of that, more preferred Labor (62%) to the Coalition (38%). Yet the Coalition was able to form government.
    • In 2025, 34% of voters gave their primary vote to a minor party or independent candidate. Despite an almost identical split of preferences to 2013 (62% Labor/38% Coalition), Labor won in a landslide.
  • In 2025, the Liberal–National Coalition had a historically low vote, whether you measure it in first-preference or 2PP terms.

ā€œOne of the great Australian innovations is the full preferential voting system, which guarantees that every vote matters and you cannot waste your vote,ā€ said Bill Browne, Democracy & Accountability Director at the Australia Institute.

Major parties have never relied more on preferences

 ā€” 

At the 2025 federal election, the Albanese Labor Government won over 55% of the two-party preferred vote. The two-party preferred vote, called 2PP, measures whether Australians preferred their Labor candidate or their Liberal–National Coalition candidate. 55% of the 2PP is the party’s best result since 1943.

This high 2PP vote disguises a relatively low first-preference vote of 35% for Labor. That is, only about one in three voters put “1” next to their Labor candidate.

The Labor Party has never received so many preferences. 20% of Australians preferred Labor to the Coalition but did not put Labor first. That 20% plus the 35% who gave Labor their first preference results in 55% 2PP for Labor. The result is a Labor landslide, despite a relatively low first-preference vote.

The Liberal–National Coalition also depended on preferences to an unusually large degree. Even so, it had a historically low vote, whether you measure it in first-preference or 2PP terms.

The post Major parties have never relied more on preferences appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Nothing to love about gas or greenwashing – ACCC takes big gas to court

 ā€” 

The ACCC alleges that Australian GasĀ Networks misled consumers by suggesting customers could be using “renewable gas” within a generation.

Renewable gas refers to alternatives,Ā such as hydrogen or biomethane,Ā to the naturalĀ gas thatĀ is currently piped into millions of Australian homes.

ā€œWe allege that Australian Gas Networks engaged in greenwashing in its ā€˜Love Gas’ ad campaign,ā€ said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

ā€œIt is not currently possible to distribute renewable gas at scale.

ā€œWe say these ads were intended to encourage consumers to connect to, or remain connected to, Australian Gas Networks’ distribution network and to purchase gas appliances for their homes, based on the misleading impression they would receive ā€˜renewable gas’ within a generation.”

According to the CSIRO, Australia is the 14th biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. The processing and burning of naturalĀ gas is a major contributor to those emissions. Australian gas also contributes to the emissions of many other countries, with huge quantities shipped overseas.

Australia Institute research shows the proposed expansion of the North West Shelf gas export project in Western Australia would lead to 182 million tonnes of emissions being releasedĀ into the atmosphere, which is greater than the emissions of all of Australia’s coal power stations and greater than the emissions of 153 individual countries.

The rich cry poor; the media laps it up

 ā€” 

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss why being a CEO of a top company might be the sweetest gig in the country and the perverse debate over the government’s proposed superannuation tax changes.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 26 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

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

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

Show notes:

Super tax debate highlights everything wrong with Australia’s media and economic system by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (June 2025)

Greens, independentsĀ and minor parties the closest threat to leaders

 ā€” 

Read the full analysis here.

It is a consequence of an election in which more crossbench candidates than ever either won or came second in a House of Representatives seat.

Key findings:

  • Second place to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Grayndler was a Green; to Opposition Leader Sussan Ley in Farrer was an independent; and to Nationals Leader David Littleproud in Maranoa was One Nation.
  • Crossbench candidates set a record for the most first and second-place finishes in the 2025 federal election: 35, up from 27 in 2022 and just 15 in 2019.

ā€œIt is the first time in Australian history that every party leader had to defeat an independent or minor party runner-up to win their seat,ā€ said Bill Browne, Democracy & Accountability Director at The Australia Institute.

ā€œOver the past four decades, Australians have increasingly voted for minor parties and independents at the expense of the major parties.

ā€œThe minor party and independent vote exceeded the Liberal/National vote for the first time at this election.

ā€œAustralians are entitled to fair and competitive elections, but earlier this year Labor and Liberal voted together to pass laws that will give tens of millions of dollars to the major parties and treat independents and new entrants unfairly.

All the way with the USA?

 ā€” 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Dr Emma Shortis and Allan Behm join Ebony Bennett to discuss the American bombing of Iran, the Albanese Government’s choice to back the Trump Administration’s decision, and why upholding and strengthening a rules-based global order is more than just ā€œnostalgiaā€.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

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

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

Show notes:

The costly double standard of winning a cash prize in Australia

 ā€” 

Tomorrow, the shortlist will be announced for the biggest prize in Australian literature, the $60,000 Miles Franklin Award.

The winner is likely to hand over at least a quarter of their winnings to the tax office.

Ironically, if someone backs the winner with a bookmaker, even if they won $60,000 on the bet, their winnings would be tax-free.

Similarly, if they won a raffle or pokies jackpot, the tax office would not take a cent.

The new analysis argues there would be enormous artistic and cultural benefit if the government made the prizes awarded to Australian writers, painters, playwrights and artists from other disciplines tax free.

“Taxing art prizes makes no sense,” said Alice Grundy, Research Manager at The Australia Institute and Managing Editor of Australia Institute Press.

“It raises hardly any revenue, and it stifles the creativity of some of the nation’s greatest artistic talents.

“If you win the lottery, Who Wants to be a Millionaire or The Block, you don’t pay tax on your prize money. Win the Stella Prize for writing by Australian women, and you pay tax. Win the Archibald prize for painting, pay tax.

“The median income for Australian authors is $32,760, which is below the poverty line.

Here’s something absolutely cooked about books in Australia

 ā€” 

Past winners of the award include legendary writers such as Tim Winton, Thomas Keneally, Alexis Wright, Thea Astley and Peter Carey.

And because it’s Australian culture, you canĀ place a bet with a bookmakerĀ on which title on the shortlist will win the award.

The winner of the Miles Franklin can expect prize money of $60,000.

Many will then pay around $20,000 of that back in income tax.

But if you picked the winner of the Miles Franklin with the bookies, your winnings are tax-free.

Isn’t that weird? Winning authors pay tax. Mug punters, no tax.

It gets weirder. If you win the lottery, Who wants to be a Millionaire or The Block, you don’t pay tax on your prize money.

Win the Stella PrizeĀ for writing by Australian women – pay tax.

Win the Archibald prize for painting – pay tax. How about the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Well in that case, “All prizes are tax-free” is in bold on the website.

This shows that whether prizes are taxed is completely arbitrary. It is a decision for Australian governments to make. And should the Australian government choose to axe the taxes on arts prizes, they would be making a sound investment in Australian culture.

The loss of revenue would be unnoticed by aĀ government that just gave away $215 billion dollars’ worth of natural gas for free.

It would barely register given the $10 billion in subsidies the government handed over in the form of the fuel tax credit to mining companies.

Can you put a price on nature? | Bob Brown

 ā€” 

On this episode of What’s the Big Idea?, former senator Bob Brown joins Paul Barclay to discuss the ā€˜price of extinction’, how monetising the environment won’t save it, the corporate capture of democracy and the failure of the major parties to truly protect the environment.

This discussion was recorded on 5 February 2025 and things may have changed since the recording.

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

Guest: Bob Brown, Co-Founder, Bob Brown Foundation // @BobBrownFndn

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Shorting the EnvironmentĀ by Polly Hemming, Rod Campbell and Richard Denniss, the Australia Institute (September 2022)

Carbon credits no excuse for NSW Government to stall on saving koalas, the Australia Institute (April 2024)

The $368 billion question | Between the Lines

 ā€” 

The Wrap with Dr Emma Shortis

As Taylor Swift said, if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Last week the Trump administration sent Australia’s national security establishment into a spin when it announced that it was reviewing the Aukus submarine pact to ensure that it fits Trump’s ā€œAmerica Firstā€ agenda.

But even before that announcement, Aukus was on shaky ground. The deal was a political stunt foisted on the Australian people with no real plan and no democratic accountability at all.

In fact, Trump’s review means that Australia – the country with the most at stake in this deal – is the only partner not to have subjected it to real scrutiny.

That’s why we’ve launched a petition calling on the Australian government to hold a parliamentary inquiry into the Aukus deal. It’s truly wild that in a democracy, a change in our security policy this big and this expensive hadn’t already been properly and publicly examined.

Thank you to the 9000 of you who have already signed. If you haven’t, please add your name:

Why did Trump join the Israel-Iran war?

 ā€” 

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss Trump’s decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites, the comparisons with America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and what this decision could mean for Australia.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 23 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Join Dr Emma Shortis and Dr Richard Denniss in conversation about After America: Australia and the new world order at the University of Melbourne at 6pm AEST, Wednesday 16 July.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

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

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