The Australia Institute Feed Items

Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff said while the cut in the official cash rate from 3.85% to 3.60% will provide long-overdue relief for mortgage holders, it should have happened five weeks ago.

“Borrowers should have been celebrating back-to-back cuts today,” he said.

Mr Grudnoff says the drawn-out period of high interest rates achieved its goal months ago – and is now doing more harm than good.

“Interest rates are still restrictive. They’re still weighing the economy down and causing unnecessary pain for borrowers,” he said.

“Headline inflation is at 2.1%. The underlying rate, which moves more slowly than the headline rate, has fallen every quarter for the last year. Unemployment is up and economic growth has almost completely stalled.

“How far do rates need to fall before they are no longer weighing the economy down? That figure is generally considered to be around 3%. So, we still need another two or three 0.25% cuts on top of today’s cut, before rates aren’t dragging the economy down.”

The post Rate cut welcome – but borrowers are still behind appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Does this make up for its bad call at the last meeting in July, when it left rates on hold?

No, because the data since the July meeting shows it should have cut again in August. So Australian borrowers are still at least one 0.25 per cent cut behind.

Unemployment is up, economic growth has almost completely stalled, and inflation is well and truly under control.

Cutting the official cash rate by 0.25 per cent to 3.6 per cent will be welcome relief for mortgage-holders, but interest rates are still restrictive. That means that rates are acting as a brake on the economy at a time when it needs a boost.

How far do rates need to fall before they are no longer weighing down the economy? This is known as the neutral rate. A rate that is neither slowing nor stimulating the economy.

It’s a bit fuzzy as to exactly what that rate is, but it is generally considered to start at around 3 per cent. So, we still need another two or three 0.25 per cent cuts on top of Tuesday’s, before rates aren’t dragging the economy down.

With headline inflation at 2.1 per cent, which is at the very bottom of the target band, all the talk has shifted to the underlying rate of inflation.

The underlying rate, also known as the trimmed mean, is the headline rate minus the volatile bits. It gives us an indication about where inflation is heading.

So, what is it telling us about where the rate of inflation is heading?

The frog, who has seen scorpions sting and kill its brethren, is cautious and tells the scorpion no, because he is afraid of being stung.

The scorpion reassures the frog by telling it he too would die if he stung the frog while riding it across the river, and the frog sees the truth in this and offers the scorpion his back. As they approach the middle of the river, the frog feels the scorpion’s tail pierce his skin, and the poison immediately begin to flow through and paralyse his body.

“Why?” he gasps as he and the scorpion sink beneath the water.

“I’m sorry,” the scorpion says as the two see the face of death. “It is but my nature.”

The moral of the story, at least as it was relayed to me as a child, is that you cannot expect rationality from those unwilling to fight their worst nature.

This week, watching Tim Wilson and the Liberals attempt to reignite the work-from-home debate, just months after the Coalition was forced to dump its policy to force the public service back into the office mid-election because of how unpopular it was, brought the frog and the scorpion front of mind.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced plans last week to enshrine employees’ rights to work from home for at least two days a week in law, setting off the predictable culture war over whether workers deserve any gains.

It remains true. And that’s how we know business is very worried about the productivity roundtable Jim Chalmers has called for later this month.

Back in 2020, when the pandemic had all elements of Australia’s industrial relations sector in a panic, the emphasis was on the ACTU and business working together.

Countless op-eds were written about how union boss Sally McManus and the Coalition’s then-IR minister Christian Porter worked to find elements of consensus in how to address the looming crisis.

“No time for a workplace brawl”, advised the Australian Financial Review. That push for consensus continued into 2022 when Labor held its Jobs Summit, with the Business Council of Australia and the ACTU jointly releasing “shared principles and policy suggestions” ahead of the talkfest, as if laying the groundwork for the shared interest would make disagreeing later easier.

It didn’t. And getting along doesn’t mean good policy. Usually it just dulls any progressive push for structural change.

Which is why the immediate pushback against the ACTU’s call for a 25 per cent tax on revenue from gas exports in place of the flawed Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), a minimum 25 per cent tax rate on family trusts and individuals earning more than $1 million a year, changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions and caps to the diesel fuel rebate very telling.

On this special crossover episode of Follow the Money and After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Glenn Connley to discuss the Australian protests calling for more action to protect Palestinians, the momentum against the troubled AUKUS submarine pact, and Trump’s decision to fire his chief of labour statistics after job growth slowed.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 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: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

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

Which brings us to Labor’s revamped ‘Safeguard Mechanism’.

First, let’s set one thing straight. This is basically all about the coal and gas industries. More than 54% of emissions covered by the Safeguard Mechanism come from gas or coal:

This chart shows how big the emissions from the gas and coal industries are compared to other industries covered by the Safeguard Mechanism. Often industries like cement production, agriculture or manufacturing are presented as being a big part of Australia’s climate debate. This chart shows that they’re not, at least in terms of the Safeguard Mechanism.

So, here’s how the Safeguard Mechanism manages to look effective while actually facilitating gas and coal projects.

Rising temperatures and ocean acidification caused by greenhouse gases are among the greatest threats to the marine environment, particularly coral reefs.

Australia Institute research shows emissions from the recent expansion and extension of Woodside’s gas export projects in WA will add around 130 million tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere annually, more than all of Australia’s coal power stations.

Woodside also conducts seismic blasting, which is detrimental to marine life, and is proposing drilling close to the pristine Scott Reef, which the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority flagged as unacceptable.

“Woodside is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than virtually any other company in Australia,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“This sponsorship is another example of greenwashing by one of the companies doing the most damage to our marine environment and coral reefs.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg explains the Productivity Commission’s proposals for corporate tax and why Trump fired his labour statistics chief, and Elinor discovers people actually like economics.

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

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 7 August 2025.

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:

‘Donald Trump’s war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (August 2025)

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss how Trump is normalising the idea that he might not leave the White House once his second term is up. Then, Helen Haines MP, independent member for Indi, joins Emma to discuss her community’s concerns about Israel’s actions in Gaza and the growing push for more transparency and accountability in Australian foreign policy.

Emma’s discussion with Helen was recorded on Tuesday 29 July. Her discussion with Angus was recorded on Thursday 7 August.

After America will be back on Tuesday 19 August.

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: Helen Haines MP, Independent Member for Indi // @‪helenhainesindi

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

From multiple press conferences with parliamentarians, to dicussions around how to fix the GST, to our new research into Australian gun laws, we had a lot to talk about.

Watch a select highlight of content and media from the Australia Institute in July 2025.

The post July Media Highlights 2025 appeared first on The Australia Institute.

That for a party’s election campaign to be a success, the leaders would need to kiss the ring, and then News Corp’s coverage would decide the outcome of the campaign.

It was never true, but it was a truism for years.

In reality, News Corp would just see which way the wind was blowing and then back in the party that was already ahead, retconning its support as having MADE the government instead of just following the trend.

The strategy worked – for decades those in the political sphere would tell you of News Corp’s power in deciding elections and how the company, no matter how heinous or one-sided its coverage became, could not be ignored.

It became obvious that News Corp only ever had the perception of influence – rather than influence itself – once it switched its editorial position to campaigning for the conservatives, no matter what.

There have been countless state and federal elections where News Corp has thrown as much muck at Labor as possible and the full weight of its media influence at supporting the losers – the Coalition – and not moved the dial.

But the myth remains in many circles. News Corp cannot be ignored. Why? Because you have to make a play to be a player, even when the result is already known. Especially when it is already known.

Except for the US, which is its own basket case of mutable positions, Australia’s major allies will recognise Palestine when the United Nations General Assembly next meets in September.

On this special crossover episode of Follow the Money and After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Glenn Connley to discuss the Australian protests calling for more action to protect Palestinians, the momentum against the troubled AUKUS submarine pact, and Trump’s decision to fire his chief of labour statistics after job growth slowed.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 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: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

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

Show notes:

The profit motive is a great thing in the right industry.

But long ago we worked out that education wasn’t one of those industries. There is no profit motive driving school education in Australia.

Private schools in Australia are non-profit. They are run by school boards that are supposed to be focused on providing the best education for their students.

How does the government keep the for-profit sector out of school education? A for-profit school is ineligible for government funding.

We need to do the same for childcare.

The only priority of childcare providers should be the children in their care. They should not be distracted by the idea of keeping their shareholders happy.

The government is rushing its childcare changes through Parliament. It will use threats of funding cuts to ensure improvements to safety standards.

It’s a good move. Money talks in this industry.

But the heartbreaking stories out of Melbourne in recent weeks, which are driving these changes, could be a catalyst for significant long-term change.

Australia’s childcare industry is dominated by for-profit providers. They make up 70 per cent of the childcare industry, and 95 per cent of the growth in the industry is in the for-profit centres.

The expansion of government subsidies means that a childcare centre in the right urban location is a licence to print money.

A cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 75 per cent below 2005 levels would broadly align with the science – and strengthen Australia’s bid to host the 2026 United Nations climate conference.

Announcing a bigger number is one thing, though. How the government reaches it is another.

Australia’s current target under the international treaty on climate change, the Paris Agreement, is a 43 per cent cut in emissions by 2030. Progress is tracked through a set of climate accounts called the “inventory” and reported annually. Emissions from across the economy – including energy, transport, industry and land – are recorded, added up, and presented as a single figure.

The Australian government claims emissions for the year to December 2024 were 27 per cent below 2005 levels. But Australia’s emissions inventory is riddled with loopholes and unverifiable modelling that paints a misleading picture of progress. Just this week, United Nations Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell urged Australia not to settle for the bare minimum as it prepares to announce its 2035 target. “Bog standard is beneath you,” he said. “Don’t settle for what’s easy. Go for what’s smart by going big.” But bog standard would be an improvement on what’s happening now.

In the 2025 federal election, Labor won a landslide victory. That victory reflects the strong preference Australians had for the Labor Government over the Liberal–National Opposition. In 100 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives, most voters preferred the Labor candidate to the Liberal or National one.

However, while Labor was preferred on preferences, only about 35% of Australians gave the party their first preference. Despite this, Labor won 62% of the seats. In other words, about five million of the fifteen million votes cast were “1 Labor”, but the party won 94 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.

Major parties win more seats than their share of the vote because only one member of Parliament (MP) represents each seat.

Other countries have similarly distorted results. For example, in the 2024 United Kingdom election the Labour Government won 34% of the vote and 63% of the seats. Significantly, the United Kingdom does not use preferential voting but rather first-past-the-post. If anything, Australia’s full preferential voting system reduces distortions.

An alternative to “winner takes all” is proportional representation, where parties and candidates win seats based on their share of the vote. Proportional representation allows for more diverse representation of parties and interests – as in the Australian Senate or the New Zealand Parliament.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

If there is one thing you can bank on, it is that conservative governments know how to use power.

They never shy away from it.

If a conservative government wants to change something, it will, and it won’t worry about who it is annoying, or the pushback, or whether or not it is the smart move. It will do it, knowing that it will very quickly become the new normal and people, more likely than not, will move on.

John Howard did it for 11 years. Howard changed this country more in the last three decades than almost any other modern politician. While he eventually pushed the electorate too far with Work Choices, he would probably say it was worth it – because many of the changes he went to the wall for still exist today. Why?

Because the left never uses power the same way. And conservatives know it.

It’s pleasing to see a real competition emerging for government in Tasmania the state election a fortnight ago. The Labor Party is finally off the bench and in the game – making a play for crossbench support to form government after refusing the last two opportunities to do so.

So far, negotiations are focusing on procedural changes. But if the numbers in the House of Assembly pan out as expected, it will take more than a conflict resolution process to win over the crossbenchers needed for stable government.

Tasmanians have elected a power-sharing government for the second time in a row. They clearly no longer want Liberal or Labor to act as if they are in majority. Former Premier David Bartlett said recently that he doesn’t think there will be another majority government in his lifetime.

Tasmanian parliamentarians need to get on with making power-sharing government work. A conflict resolution process is necessary, but it’s small beer. Crossbench members know their worth and will likely demand more in exchange for their support.

Both re-elected and new Green and independent crossbenchers have fought to gain traction on issues that matter to their constituents. At least some of them will hold the balance of power, and influence not just who forms government but also what issues will be addressed by Tasmania’s 52nd Parliament.

When crossbenchers and major parties struck successful power-sharing agreements in other Australian parliaments, they covered policy as well as procedure.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor unpack how the latest inflation figures only make it more obvious the RBA should have cut interest rates at their last meeting, and why some people who are unemployed are not looking for work (and it’s not because they’re ‘dole bludgers’).

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 31 July 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

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

Show notes: 

Take a deep dive into the inflation numbers and the RBA’s decision not to cut rates seems inexplicable by Greg Jericho (July 2025)

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

By contrast, in 1903 there were just 25,000 voters per MP (this being the first election where most women could vote).

In the intervening 122 years, the federal parliament has significantly expanded twice: from 74 to 121 seats in 1949, and from 125 to 148 in 1984. Both times, the number of people per seat sat at a then record high: 64,000 and 75,000 respectively.

Voting rights have also expanded: women’s suffrage came in 1903 (though not for all women), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voting rights took until 1963, and the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1974.

But while there are nine times as many registered voters today as in 1903, the number of electorates has only doubled.

As the number of voters per MP grows, the access any individual voter will have to their member necessarily decreases – Australia Institute polling research in 2022 found that only 15% of Australians had ever spoken to their local MP (and only 36% knew their name).

And the more voters there are in an electorate, the larger a campaign needs to be to make any difference to the result, giving communities less power to kick out an unrepresentative or under-performing MP.

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has a target to keep headline inflation between 2% and 3%. By any reasonable measure it has completely failed on this over the last decade.

The June quarter released this week shows that inflation has been within the band for the last four consecutive quarters. This is the first time we have seen four consecutive quarters in the RBA target band since 2014.

Since the end of 2014 there have been just eight quarters where inflation has been in the target band and half of those are the four most recent ones. That means just eight of the last 43 quarters have been in the band. How can that be judged as anything but a complete failure?

Most recently, the inflation rate has been higher than 3%, but for most of the past decade, it has been outside the band because it has been below 2%.

In the 43 quarters since December 2014, inflation has been too high for 12 quarters, but too low for 23 quarters.

You might think that inflation is bad, and so having inflation below 2% is a good thing. But there is a reason that the RBA inflation target has a lower limit.

Low inflation comes with sluggish economic growth and higher unemployment. The 2022 RBA review actually rebuked the RBA for not doing enough to increase inflation in the years before the pandemic. They said that the RBA had kept interest rates too high for too long when inflation was below 2% which resulted in more people being unemployed.

Today in the AFR, the head of the private health insurance lobby group “PrivateHealth Australia” showed the industry is very worried by suggestions by The Australia Institute and others that private health insurance fees should be subject to GST.

When the GST was introduced, John Howard ensured private health insurance fees were not subject to GST, and at essentially the same time, he introduced the “Lifetime Health Cover”, which meant if you did not join private health insurance by the time you were 30 you would have to pay higher fees were you to join it later.

The problem is that even with this virtual forcing of people onto health insurance, most people take out the minimum health insurance they need to qualify for the lifetime health cover, and usually this means lots of things are excluded from the cover, and also you have to pay a lot of excess payments should you actually need to use it. It is not health insurance in any true sense, but it is wonderful for private health insurers.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Alice Grundy and Skye Predavec join Ebony Bennett to discuss how the Howard Government’s brave reforms in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre are falling short of its aims – and what federal, state and territory governments can do to keep Australians safe.

1800RESPECT is the national domestic, family and sexual violence counselling, information and support service. Call 1800 737 732, text 0458 737 732, chat online or video call via their website.

Correction: This podcast was updated to remove a reference to buying firearms and ammunition interstate when there is a limit on the licence, which does not appear in our research. What is possible is for a licence-holder to buy firearms and travel to another state.

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

Guest: Alice Grundy, Research Manager and Managing Editor, the Australia Institute // @alicektg

Guest: Skye Predavec, Anne Kantor Fellow, the Australia Institute // @skyelark

Currently, political parties are allowed to send postal vote application forms bundled with information about a candidate.

The forms are then returned to the political party, which forwards them to the Australian Electoral Commission.

The new poll has found that a vast majority of Australians would rather voters send their voting paper directly to the AEC.

Key findings:

Indeed, Australia Institute research finds most Australians support federal legislation to protect the right to protest and maintain that peaceful protest has a role to play in Australia’s democracy.

The rhetoric of Australian politicians, by contrast, feels increasingly hostile to protesters, even to peaceful protesters.

NSW Police Minister Yasmine Catley said: “I don’t want to see protests on our street at all, from anybody. I don’t think anybody really does.”

South Australian Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas workshopped anti-protest laws on talkback radio before rushing them through the lower house just a day later.

Over the last five years, most states have introduced anti-protest laws. Protestors can be charged much higher fines for expressing their views in the open than lobbyists are charged to express their views privately in exclusive dinners with government ministers.

But non-violent protests, including disruptive and impolite protests, are a key part of the Australian tradition.

On this episode of After America, Assistant Professor Musa Al-Gharbi joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the catastrophic failure of the Democrats to effectively resist Trump’s agenda and whether a new generation of leaders can turn the party around.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 9 July 2025.

Emma and Musa also did a live event with Alex Sloan in Canberra – the recording is available here.

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

Guest: Musa al-Gharbi, Assistant Professor in the School of Communication and Journalism, Stony Brook University // @musaalgharbi

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

Show notes: 

The Australian and Queensland governments’ decisions in 2010 to allow large-scale exporting of Australian gas from Queensland exposed Australians to high global prices, ending decades of abundant, low-cost gas for Australians, leading to higher energy bills, gas shortages and manufacturing closures.

Gas price increases due to excessive exports have also caused electricity prices to rise because gas power stations often set electricity prices.

“When you get your next energy bill, blame the gas industry and your governments for opening the gas export floodgates despite being warned it would drive up energy bills for Australians,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Adviser at The Australia Institute.

“Gas exports have meant Australian households and businesses have paid billions of dollars more for energy over the last decade, all of which went to the profits of a handful of predominantly foreign-owned gas corporations.

“The gas industry’s deliberate plan to increase domestic gas prices for Australians, by exposing us to global gas prices, has been a massive transfer of wealth from Australian households and businesses to Big Gas.

“Gas exports have led to manufacturing closures in Australia. Gas exporters manufacture nothing except gas shortages and higher energy bills for Australians.

To Tasmania’s 52nd Parliament –

Lutruwita / Tasmania’s environment is in trouble. From marine heatwaves, toxic algal blooms and over a million dead fish last summer, to the rapid loss of native vegetation and the increase in animals and plants threatened with extinction, Tasmanians are suffering considerable environmental losses. The 2024 State of Environment Report confirmed this with a majority of indicators classified as getting worse.

We call on you to do your job and end Lutruwita / Tasmania’s environmental and economic decline by protecting and investing in nature, the living system that sustains the state’s prosperity, resilience and way of life.

The well-being and prosperity of all Tasmanians relies on a healthy environment. We call on the next government to make a real change and commit to protecting Lutruwita / Tasmania’s environment from further harm, real action on climate change, and to respect the rights of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people to care for their Country through land returns and Treaty.

Liberal and Labor parties are taking the environment for granted, ignoring signs of ecological collapse,  wielding the term ‘environmental activism’ as an insult, and outlawing peaceful protest. But they are no longer able to govern in majority and must find new ways to work collaboratively in power-sharing government, in the best interest of Tasmanians and the environment we all rely on.

We the undersigned, call on whoever forms Tasmania’s next government act on the following key asks:

This role is so important that our status as “consumers” has been elevated as the dominant identity in our society, trumping others such as “patient”, “student”, “citizen” or “voter”. This evolution in language has been well-documented and reflects the deep ideological change of public services from a collective right to a market transaction.

If we are to believe the rhetoric from government and the private sector, this is a positive development. Because consumers have power. Our money, our attention spans, our time and our sense of identity are constantly courted. Our spending habits and our reviews can apparently make or break a business.

Accordingly, our rights as consumers are enshrined in law and upheld in regulation. In Australia, if the goods and services we procure don’t work as advertised, we are entitled to a refund or a replacement. We are told we are protected from misleading and unfair practices.

Recently, after what could be described as two separate but equally bruising admissions to a Canberra hospital, I was invited to provide feedback about my experience to the Canberra Health Services’ “Consumer Feedback and Engagement” team.

Like the rest of the world, productivity has been sluggish since the COVID pandemic, but that is largely due to businesses failing to adequately invest in machinery, equipment, technology and skills, at a time when many are recording record profits.

The research also reveals that disappointing productivity is not the cause of the problems facing Australian households, like falling real wages, high prices, high interest rates and the unaffordability of housing.

Key findings:

• If real wages had grown at the same rate of productivity since 2000, average wages would be 18% – or $350 per week – higher.
• Australian businesses now invest less than half as much in research and development as those in other OECD countries.
• Higher productivity does not automatically “trickle down” to workers in terms of improved wages or living standards.
• Productivity benefits are trending toward high-paid executives, shareholders and profits, rather than workers.
• Business claims that productivity can be improved by wage cuts, tax cuts, deregulation or reduced unionisation are false.
• The idea that workers should “tighten their belts and make do with less” to improve productivity is a lie.

“Productivity has become an excuse for big, profitable businesses to do whatever they like,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute‘s Centre for Future Work.

Regular readers would know the question we have been asking is “what will Labor do with power?”. Now we have the answer.

The least possible.

Yes, to be fair it has only been a week in this Parliament and we are yet to see what the Albanese government’s version of “ambitious” ultimately ends up looking like, but we have been given the direction.

The very first bill the government introduced was legislation that will reduce HECS/HELP debt by 20 per cent. That is, as Ross Gittens of The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out, the very least they could do.

The bill helps those with university debt now, but does nothing to address the cost of going to university. It does nothing to correct the failure of the Morrison government Job-Ready Graduates program, which has seen minimal students choose to swap fields, but in some cases led the cost of university degrees to increase by 117 per cent.

Labor has been in power for more than three years. This is not a new problem and it has delivered what it said it would at the election – the least it could do.

This same week, Penny Wong signed a statement with 23 other countries and the UN calling for an immediate end to the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

The language used in the statement was much less active, but it is the strongest to date. It is also, the very least Australia could do.

The GST is failing. It was meant to give the states their own independent source of revenue and in the process make them less financially dependent on the federal government.

The problem is that GST revenue is growing slower than the economy and so it has not kept up with the growing costs of providing hospitals, schools, roads and all the other vital services that the states provide.

Australia Institute research has shown that if GST revenue had kept up with economic growth it would have collected an additional $231 billion since it was enacted and $22 billion in 2023-24 alone.

Having an income that grows slower than prices is something that many households have recently experienced. And just like households, the states have found their budgets under increasing pressure.

Early on, states were able to make cutbacks to make ends meet, but over the last 25 years we have seen their collective budgets move from surplus to deficit. At the same time all the cost-cutting has degraded the services they provide.

This has been a lose-lose for Australians.

Some have called for the GST to be increased or broadened to raise more revenue. But that will slug the poor more than the wealthy because the GST is what economists call a regressive tax. But there are other solutions. We could broaden the GST without disproportionately impacting the poor by being selective on what we broaden it to.

The decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week, confirming that states have binding legal obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and protect present and future generations, should be a wake-up call for the Australian government. No longer can it argue that Australia’s emissions exported to other nations can be ignored. But new analysis reveals that the extraction of fossil fuels for exports is also making up a growing share of Australia’s domestic emissions.

As the Australian Government prepares to announce a new 2035 climate target under the Paris Agreement, pressure is mounting to show increased ambition. An easy, and often overlooked, place to find real emissions reductions is the domestic footprint of our fossil fuel exports.

Analysis of Australia’s emissions inventory combined with data from the ABS suggests that the process of extracting and shipping all the coal and gas Australia exports is responsible for close to 18% of Australia’s total emissions. That means that if Australia did not export such huge quantities of coal and gas then total emissions in Australia in 2023 could have been 18% lower.

Emissions in Australia from exporting coal and gas have grown rapidly since 2010, doubling its estimated share of total emissions from 7% in 2010. The strong growth was mainly caused by the rapid expansion in LNG exports over the same period, particularly since 2015.

Projections released by the Albanese Government show Australia’s gas consumption is in long-term decline — undermining claims by the Prime Minister that more gas is needed to support the renewable energy transition.

Analysis by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) confirms that Australia’s gas use peaked years ago and will continue falling as electrification and renewables rise.

“Gas consumption is projected to decline to 2040 as electrification increases across the economy and renewables and storage take an increasing share of electricity generation,” the report said.

Modelling from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) backs this up.

In its 2024 Integrated System Plan, AEMO shows that gas will never again reach past generation peaks and will play only a minor, occasional role in electricity generation in the decades ahead.

Despite this, more than 1,000 new petajoules of gas are scheduled to come online by 2027 — not to support domestic energy needs, but for export.

“Australia is projected to continue exporting significantly more gas than we consume,” said Ketan Joshi, Senior Research Associate at The Australia Institute.

“Gas use in Australia has peaked.

“It is pretty simple: Australia does not need to be expanding its fossil gas production, least of all to run fossil gas power stations.

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: 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:

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)

“Gas consumption is projected to decline to 2040 as electrification increases across the economy and renewables and storage take an increasing share of electricity generation”, wrote the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

This doesn’t sit well with the Prime Minister’s recent claims that more gas is needed for “firming” renewable energy. Figures from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s 2024 Integrated System Plan (ISP) show just how little gas is likely to be required in Australia’s electricity system.

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.

“There are two other coal mines that were granted extension by the federal government in the Hunter Valley,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“While 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.

“To 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 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:

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 a tripling of wholesale gas prices 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.

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 “low-risk gambling limit” 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.

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.

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:

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.

“This 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 is arguably in a better position now.

“The 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.”

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.

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.  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 ‘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.

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

Host: 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)

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 ‘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.

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?

In May, Environment Minister Murray Watt gave provisional approval to a 45-year extension 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 “strict conditions” on the project to protect the petroglyphs. He refused to disclose what those conditions were.

Supposedly, the secrecy was about giving Woodside Energy “procedural fairness”.

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.

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.

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.

“Foreign-owned corporations already control almost all of Australia’s gas,” said 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.

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

“The 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-owned corporations to export almost all of our gas in the first place.”