The Australia Institute Feed Items

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the Coalition’s defence spending announcement, why Australia needs bravery from policymakers, and the latest debate between Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 24 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

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:

Australia Institute research shows that subsidies for luxury imported utes costs the Federal Budget $250 million per year.

Almost every large, dual-cab ute on the market is exempt from the luxury car tax because utes are “designed mainly for carrying goods and not passengers”.

But everyone knows most of these vehicles rarely leave the bitumen of our suburbs and rarely carry anything more than the weekly shopping or children for the school drop-off.

“Big dumb utes make our roads more dangerous, cause more pollution and reduce the government’s ability to fund social services,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“Basic economics says to tax things you want less of and subsidise things you want more of, yet Peter Dutton seems to want less electric vehicles and more American-style utes on our roads.

“The Coalition says it’s scrapping the EV tax break – which it supported up until Monday – because people who buy electric vehicles can afford them. Surely the same should apply for big utes.”

The post Silence on big ute subsidies as Coalition backflips on EV’s appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Election campaigns are when political parties tell us their priorities – they will structure their campaigns around certain themes, all designed to show voters that they are listening and they care.

But these priorities are often limited by notional and often arbitrary lines about what can be afforded to be done. Before the Budget this year, for example, the Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said: “as Finance Minister, I probably get a hundred good ideas for one that we can do.”

Because election commitments are accompanied by costings, voters can get a real sense of what political parties truly think are their priorities – and how much they are willing to spend when something is for them a priority.

Across the community, there is serious concern about the prevention of domestic and family violence. Until today, it hasn’t really featured in the campaign. So far in the campaign, Labor have promised $8.6 million in additional spending to tackle domestic and family violence. While today the Liberal Party has just announced a $90 million policy.

How much is that money? Surely it is sizeable given for example Peter Dutton said this morning that “most every measure in this space is supported on bipartisan basis because everyone accepts the fact that the scourge of violence and domestic violence, financial coercion and every aspect in this debate is completely and widly unacceptable in our society and we should do everything together to try to defeat it and work toward a better outcome for individuals and for our country as well.”

Earlier this year, Business Council of Australia president Geoff Culbert told the AFR that Australia is “permanently in election mode” and our three-year term limits are “too short”. The prime minister and opposition leader both say they support four-year terms, though they’re not willing to chance their arm on a constitutional referendum to make it happen.

In the last 25 years, Australia has had eight (soon to be nine) federal elections. If that sounds like heavy going, spare a thought for generations past. From 1950 to 1975, Australians voted in 15 federal elections, including four separate half-Senate elections.

This is to say nothing of the four separate referendums held between 1950 and 1975, compared with just one in the period from 2000 to 2025.

When Gough Whitlam joked that he was enjoying a rare “non-election year” back in 1985, he had a point.

Australia is a low tax nation, and this has left Australians with higher rates of poverty, poorer services and crumbling infrastructure.

If the government raised as much revenue as the average tax take of advanced nations in the OECD, it would have an extra $135 billion a year.

That could be used to improve infrastructure, deliver better education and health services and fast-track the shift to a low-emissions economy.

The Australia Institute proposes a range of changes to the tax system that are already at the centre of policy debate. Some are supported by current members of parliament, while others have been major party policy in the past. They are well-known by policy practitioners and popular with voters.

Such changes would not mean higher taxes for the vast majority of Australians, but would instead be done in ways which will make Australia fairer and safer.

We could:

• Cut fossil fuel subsidies and end the gas industry’s free ride.
• Reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.
• Close the tax loopholes for superannuation and luxury utes.

Such reforms to the tax system could raise between $12 billion and $63 billion a year:

On this crossover episode of After America and Follow the Money, Ebony Bennett and Dr Emma Shortis discuss the US administration’s mass deportations, the scandals surrounding the Departments of Defense and State, and why Australian democratic institutions are worth defending.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 22 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

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

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

Show notes:

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

The Barossa offshore gas project, operated by gas giant Santos, was today given the green light by Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA).

Barossa is one of the most polluting new gas projects under development in Australia and will pay no royalties on the gas it extracts.

However, its approval during the election campaign provides an opportunity for Peter Dutton to strengthen the Coalition’s gas policy.

“Barossa should not go ahead because of its impact on the climate,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“But today’s approval is an opportunity for Peter Dutton to demonstrate his policy of Australian gas for Australians first.

“If a small amount of Barossa’s gas was reserved for use in Australia, there would be absolutely no need to frack for gas in the Northern Territory.

“Fracking in the Territory is deeply unpopular because of the risks to groundwater that almost all Territorians rely on.

“Securing the NT’s gas supply without fracking could find significant support in the two NT seats, Solomon and Lingiari.

“More votes still could be delivered by committing to make Santos and other gas companies pay for the gas they extract.

“Most gas exporters pay zero royalties, and none have ever paid Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

“Big gas is taking the piss and now is the time to do something about it.”

As early voting for the federal election opens today, rival claims of misleading advertising from both sides of politics are the inevitable consequence of the absence of Truth in Political Advertising laws – because, in this election, it is still perfectly legal to lie in a political ad at a federal level.

Key Points:

• Nine in 10 Australians (89%) support Truth in Political Advertising laws, including two in three who strongly support such laws (64%).
• There is overwhelming and consistent support for Truth in Political Advertising laws from Labor (93%), Coalition (88%), Greens (87%), One Nation (92%) and Independent/Other voters (79%).
• Truth in political advertising laws have operated successfully in South Australia for 40 years.
• At the end of 2024, the Albanese Government introduced legislation to Parliament to implement Truth in Political Advertising laws federally – but this legislation was not passed.
• Independent MP Zali Steggall introduced a private member’s bill for truth in political advertising laws.
• South Australia has had truth in political advertising laws since the 1980s; the ACT Legislative Assembly passed similar laws prior to the 2020 ACT election with tri-partisan support.

“At a federal level, it is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad, and it shouldn’t be,” said Bill Browne, Director of The Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.

But in recent years more and more Australians have abandoned voting on polling day, missing out on sausage sandwiches and – more importantly – the final days of the election campaign.

There are six categories of voting in Australian elections:

The research into the operations of Japanese gas exporter INPEX comes as both Labor and Coalition representatives have stated that Australia’s gas supply issues are caused by gas exports and the lack of restrictions placed on them.

The new research focuses on INPEX, which operates a large gas export terminal in Darwin.

INPEX:

• Exports more gas each year than is used in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia combined.
• Sells no gas to Australians, outside of emergencies
• Pays no royalties, effectively getting the gas for free
• Pays no Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT)
• Has paid no corporate tax on $21 billion in gas exports since 2015

“INPEX is emblematic of Australia’s gas export problem,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“The Australian government is giving vast amounts of Australia’s gas to INPEX for free.

“To add insult to injury, INPEX has paid no company tax on billions of dollars’ worth of gas exports.

“While INPEX exports huge volumes of free gas, the Northern Territory Government is subsidising risky fracking projects to supply Territorians.

“With all sides of politics finally recognising Australia’s gas export problems, the next parliament will be in a good position to do something about it.”

A lot of gas is exported from Australia. To demonstrate this, the chart above compares the amount of gas that is used in all of NSW, Victoria and South Australia with the gas that is exported by just one company, the Japanese giant INPEX.

INPEX’s gas terminal in Darwin exports around 9 million tonnes of liquified natural gas (LNG) each year, which in energy terms is approximately 441 petajoules (PJ).

The Australian Energy Statistics estimate the gas consumption of each state – Victoria 215 PJ, NSW 134 PJ and South Australia 75 PJ, a total of 424 in 2022-23.

INPEX is just one of many multinational companies that export Australian gas. The fact that INPEX alone exports more gas than is used by all households and businesses (including electricity generators) in three states demonstrates that there is no gas shortage in Australia. Instead, Australia has a gas export problem.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

In October 1980, before almost half the people voting in this election were born, Ronald Reagan posed what became one of the defining questions of modern politics.

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

Reagan would go on to beat Carter and along with Margaret Thatcher, usher in the neo-liberal era to western democracies.

It’s been a standard in campaigns ever since.

Peter Dutton has revived it for the 2025 Australian campaign, asking voters to think about if  they are better off now, than they were three years ago.  He has been deploying it with increasing frequency (with four references in the most recent leaders debate alone) confident that the retrospection will fall his way, because the rear vision mirror is always a safer bet for a politician than the windscreen.

But it’s the wrong question.  It always has been.  In this current context, the question is asking you what?  Are you better off now than you were before a global pandemic rocked your entire foundation? Are you better off than before you survived the global inflation crisis that followed that pandemic? Are you better off than before you watched Israel carry out a genocide against the Palestinian people while your leaders pretend it’s not only not happening, but they have no role to play in it?

Are you better off than before  Donald Trump was elected? Were you better off before you saw the worsening impacts of climate change continue to devastate communities and the planet?

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the second leaders’ debate, the major parties’ housing policy announcements, and the two big elephants in the room: negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 17 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

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:

ABC News reports that both the Government and Opposition have sounded out independent MP Andrew Wilkie and Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie as potential speakers in the next parliament.

If it is a minority government, losing a government MP to the speaker position could hurt – giving a crossbencher the role helps the government numbers.

But it would also be consistent with longstanding practice in the UK, and more recently in South Australia.

Every Australian parliament – federal, state and territory – has had a speaker from a party other than the one in government at some point.

The speaker is responsible for keeping order in the lower house and defending the house’s rights and privileges. They also share responsibility for the security, upkeep and functioning of the parliament.

The first speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Frederick Holder, resigned his party membership upon election to the role in 1901, following the British tradition of an independent speakership.

After he died in office, that tradition was abandoned until 2011 when the Gillard government elected Coalition MP Peter Slipper to the speaker’s chair.

Intending to revive the independent tradition, he resigned his party membership – but was replaced as speaker by Labor’s Anna Burke a year later.

For many journalists, the past – specifically the past before 1945 – is a foreign country.

Election coverage is replete with references to “firsts” or “milestones” that assume that Australian history began in the post-war period.

But a longer view would help us better understand the political processes around us.

Journalists described the 2010 federal election result as “Australia’s first hung parliament in 70 years”.

You could alternatively say that the 2010 election produced Australia’s seventh hung parliament.

No party or existing coalition won majorities in 1901, 1903, 1906, 1919, 1922 or 1940.

Minority governments depended on negotiation and collaboration for success and, indeed, survival.

As with those earlier elections, the 2010 result ensured that parliament played a role in keeping governments accountable.

Similarly, journalists said that the 2022 election produced a “record crossbench of at least 16”. But it is only a record in the post-war era.

On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Amy Remeikis and Bill Browne join guest host Stephen Long to discuss housing policy, the Australian electoral system, and the need for truth in political advertising laws.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 15 April 2025 and things may have changed.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

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

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

Host: Stephen Long, Senior Fellow & Contributing Editor, the Australia Institute // @stephenlongaus

Show notes:

The housing crisis continues to grip Australia and it’s a central part of this election campaign. Unfortunately, while both major parties have made housing policies key parts of their election platforms their policies mostly tinker around the edges and fail in four key ways.

In Australia’s Westminster system, governments depend on MPs for support – and MPs can be replaced part-way through the term or change their minds about who to support.

Since Federation, the governing party changed eight times due to non-electoral events, most recently in 1975 with the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government.

While in 1975 it was the Governor-General who forced a change, the other seven were caused by MPs changing their minds about who to support or governments failing to get their agenda passed through the parliament.

A government can also lose its parliamentary majority outside of a general election but hold on to power.

In 2018, when Malcolm Turnbull quit Parliament and independent Kerryn Phelps won his seat, the Morrison Government fell into minority. The government survived, although legislation to allow for medical evacuation of sick refugees and asylum seekers became law despite the government’s opposition.

At the state level, since 1992 there have been three times when crossbenchers have forced a change in premiers or ministers, without bringing down the rest of the government – most recently in Tasmania last year.

Crossbenchers can demand the old convention of ministerial responsibility is upheld without threatening the survival of the government as a whole.

Economist Richard Denniss joined ABC’s Q+A to dig into the election promises and explain how we can actually help people who are struggling in Australia.

Will the major parties housing policies actually help?

With calls for more spending to help those struggling the most, what are Australia’s options to collect more revenue?

“Australia is the third biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world. “Norway, which is also a big fossil fuel exporter, they tax their fossil fuel industry and give their kids free university education. “In Australia, we subsidise the fossil fuel industry.”

“We can either collect more tax from the big businesses that can afford to pay it, or we can say, Sorry, Marge, you’ve had it too good.”

The post Busting myths on Q+A | Richard Denniss highlights appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized.

The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have brought criticism from federal and state governments, the CSIRO, the Climate Council, the Electrical Trade Union (ETU), the Climate Change Authority, the Australia Institute, and independent energy experts.

On this episode of After America, Daniel James, award-winning journalist and host of the 7am podcast, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the potential blowback against Trump’s tariffs at the midterms and whether the next federal government might introduce a little more transparency into Australia’s foreign and defence policy-making processes.

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

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Daniel James, award-winning writer, broadcaster and co-host of 7am // @mrdtjames

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

Show notes:

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

Labor’s announcement that a returned Albanese government would build 100,000 houses for first home buyers is hardly radical. Who’d have thought that actually building houses for people to live in might work? It would.

The Prime Minister’s other housing announcement – to allow people to buy a home with a deposit of just 5%, to avoid mortgage insurance – would give more buyers the chance to bid against each other and push prices up.

The Liberal policy, to allow first home buyers of new homes to claim the interest as a tax deduction, would do the same. Enabling them to dip into their super would make things worse and risk making them poor in retirement.

Neither Anthony Albanese nor Peter Dutton mentioned the two obvious reforms that would help to solve the housing crisis: scrapping or reducing negative gearing and removing the capital gains tax discount for investors.

“We welcome the government’s plan to build 100,000 homes,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“The Australia Institute has long argued the best way for the government to improve housing affordability is to build and own more homes for people to live in – much as it does for Defence Housing Australia.

“This plan is not radical and should become standard for all governments.

“But the plan to guarantee a 5% deposit for first-home buyers will put pressure on prices.

The LNP came first on 38%, Labor second with 27%, and the Greens third also with 27% – just 11 votes behind Labor.

A surprising trend emerged: when right-wing minor party candidates were eliminated their preferences favoured the Greens over Labor.

Preferences from United Australia and One Nation voters, as well as Animal Justice voters, propelled Greens candidate Stephen Bates ahead of Labor, at which point Labor preferences won the seat for Bates at the expense of sitting LNP MP Trevor Evans.

Elsewhere in Queensland, in the seat of Groom, independent Suzie Holt went from fourth place with 8% of the vote to finish second with 43% on preferences.

This improbable result occurred because she was favoured above the Liberal National candidate by voters across the political spectrum: Greens, One Nation and Labor voters.

These unexpected results are a reminder that you, the voter, decide your preferences, not the political parties – and those preferences could decide an election.

The post Election entrée: Surprising preference flows appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Australia doesn’t have a gas shortage, Australia has a gas export problem; and putting a levy on gas exports will help fix the problem.

Unfortunately, Dutton’s wrong on almost everything else.

Gas is driving up the cost of living. After Australia started exporting gas, wholesale gas prices in Australia tripled.

You now pay global prices for Australian gas. For over a decade the gas industry has been pushing the lie that Australia has a gas shortage, but the problem is we export around 80 per cent of our gas.

No matter what crap the gas industry tries to feed you – Dutton has correctly identified Australia has a gas export problem.

For the first time in over a decade, all sides of politics in Australia agree that we’re exporting too much gas, including the Labor government, the Liberals and Nationals, the Greens and most of the independents who sit on the crossbench.

It’s a remarkable political consensus. Politicians now have the opportunity, in the middle of a cost-of-living election, to finally put a stop Australians getting ripped off by the gas industry. It would be a win for the economy, a win for your back pocket and a vote winner for politicians.

To fix Australia’s gas export problem, the Coalition is proposing to tax gas exports to ensure our gas flows first to Australian businesses and households.

Randomising is an improvement on how we did it before 1984 – which was by alphabetical order of surname. Parties preferred “Andersons” and “Brownes” in those days!

When someone numbers 1, 2, 3, etc all the way down the ballot, that’s called a “donkey vote”. It is a valid vote – but not a very thoughtful one.

So do donkey voters give candidates at the top of the ballot an advantage?

Yes – topping the ballot is worth about 1 percentage point. Maybe a little more in electorates with younger voters and where fluency in English is lower.

That’s according to research by academics Amy King and Andrew Leigh – the same Andrew Leigh who is now a federal Labor MP.

If you think this is unfair, there is an alternative – called “Robson rotation”. In Robson rotation, the order of candidates rotates so a random ballot paper could have any candidate at the top of the paper. Liberal Senator James McGrath has pushed unsuccessfully for Robson rotation to be used in House of Representatives elections.

When there is a risk of confusion, the advantage of coming at the top of the ballot may be greater than 1 percentage point. In 2013, there were 45 columns on the NSW Senate voting paper – and the “Liberal Democrats” minor party drew first place. They won 9.5% of the vote, and a Senate seat for Senator David Leyonhjelm. Some of those voters likely saw “Liberal” and assumed it was the Liberal Party.

If you were confused, don’t be embarrassed: the AEC says the way political parties use postal vote applications is the number 1 source of complaints during election campaigns.

Alexandra Koster at SBS News has written a detailed explanation of the strange and somewhat sketchy world of postal vote applications.

Postal vote application forms, packaged with information about a political party, are “reportedly used by political parties to collect data about voters before forwarding to the AEC”.

“At first glance, the material could be mistaken for official AEC communications as there is no party branding, aside from the use of red and blue party colours.”

A multi-party parliamentary inquiry recommended cleaning up the postal vote application practice:

·         Postal vote applications no longer allowed to be bundled with other materials (like party promotional materials)

·         Postal vote applications to be sent straight to the AEC, not routed through a party HQ for data harvesting.

The Albanese Government neglected these reforms in favour of an unfair and rushed deal with the Liberal Party to change the laws around Australian elections. Hopefully they are revisited after this election.

None of that has stopped the gas industry from trying to convince us for the past few years that a gas shortage is imminent. Instead of taking responsibility for the problem they are causing for they’ve relentlessly attacked the Victorian Labor Government, characterizing the banning of gas connections to new homes they see as “the demonisation of gas”, when in fact the government’s attempt to reduce the state’s dependence on gas is exactly the right response to gas industry engineered scarcity and price gouging.

All of the major political candidates at this election have acknowledged that there’s “no gas supply shortage in Australia”. Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen, who admitted at the National Press Club yesterday that “a lot gets exported”, was the last to arrive at the party.

Gas producers and their industry associations try to get their voices heard in multiple ways. One approach is to contribute to major parties’ finances. In 2023-24, Australian Energy Producers disclosed almost $95,000 in contributions to the Labor Party, and a further $77,000 to the Coalition.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss Trump’s tariff turmoil, the dodgy numbers doing the rounds in the election campaign, and the Coalition’s big fund boondoggle.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 10 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

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:

‘Trump’s tariffs could push Australia into recession town. So why is the RBA waiting until May to meet?’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (April 2025)

Imagine if next week you predicted that you would earn 20% less than your actual salary. When you earned your actual salary, would you have just earned a windfall!? No, but that is what the LNP is saying would be the case with their new funds announced today.

Today, the Liberal and National Party announced that they will set up two news funds that will be part of the Future Fund. They are the “Future Generations Fund and the Regional Australia Future Fund”. It all sounds quite nice – who wouldn’t love future generations and regional Australia! Alas, as with the ALP government’s Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) the best parts of these funds are their names.

These funds, like the HAFF, use meaningless figures to make them sound big, but are purely set up to put off doing things.

Rather than spend money on vital infrastructure, health care, and education services now, these funds instead put money into an account and will only spend money once the funds earn a return on their investments.

But by the time these funds have made a return, the infrastructure needs will be much greater, and Australians will have gone without vital improvements in health, education and other services.

In 2022, the Labor Government received just 33% of the primary vote – but won a majority of the seats. In Australia’s single-member electorate system, a minority of votes easily becomes a majority of seats.

New Zealand adopted proportional representation in 1996 after an election where a majority government formed with a record low vote share of just 35%. Since then, most of its governments have formed from parties that won a majority of the vote.

In the 2023 New Zealand election, the incoming three-party coalition of Nationals, ACT, and NZ First had 53% of the vote between them. Another proportional system (Hare-Clark) is employed for elections in Tasmania and the ACT, where governments generally have the support of half or more of the primary vote.

While no Australian government has won a majority of the primary vote since 1975, the Gillard government was in some ways the closest to it.

Only 38% of Australians voted for Gillard’s Labor in 2010, but 13% voted for the Greens and independents who made formal confidence and supply agreements with the government.

That makes the 2010 election is the only time since 1975 where confidence in the government was based on MPs receiving the votes of most Australians.

1. Aggregation of donations for the purposes of both the gift cap and disclosure

The failure of the Act to aggregate donations to different party branches for the purposes of the gift cap and disclosure means that wealthy interests will be able to continue to access the political process in a way the average Australian can’t. This is inequitable.

In respect of associated entities, when such an entity is controlled by, or operates solely or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more political parties, donations to that associated entity should be aggregated with donations to the party for the purpose of the disclosure threshold and donation cap.

2. Spending caps: lower national cap, higher per seat cap and ‘anti-piling in provision’

The national cap of $90 million will be able to be used by parties to flood key races and will do nothing to alleviate the arms race for funding. The setting of the per seat cap also disadvantages new entrants and independents. Our solution is three-pronged:

It means none of the Liberals, Labor, Nationals, Greens, One Nation and Independents believe the multi-national gas exporters’ claim that there is a shortage of gas in Australia.

“People say we have plenty of gas in Australia and that is true, a lot gets exported,” said Chris Bowen, Federal Energy Minister during a debate at the National Press Club.

Peter Dutton has already acknowledged Australia has an abundance of gas, and his idea to tax gas exports to ensure our gas flows first to Australian businesses and households is a good idea.

“It is ridiculous to say we have a gas shortage in Australia when we export so much of it,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“Our research shows we are giving away more than half the gas we export for free, with zero royalties paid on 56 per cent of all the gas we sell overseas.

“It is good to see agreement across the political spectrum on this issue.

“There is also no need for new gas or coal projects in Australia, there is gas there now.”

The post All sides of politics agree – there is no gas shortage appeared first on The Australia Institute.

There were two in the first federal parliament, and between 1980 and 2004, 56 Independent MPs were elected to parliaments across Australia.

At times, they have held the balance of power and decided the fate of governments.

Of the 151 lower house MPs elected in 2022, 10 were independent candidates, and a further 6 represented minor or micro-parties.

Recent elections in comparable democracies have returned fewer, if any, Independents.

The UK’s 2019 election returned no Independents to the House of Commons, and the 2024 election only six (out of 650 members).

Neither Canada nor New Zealand elected any Independents in their most recent elections, nor did the US House of Representatives in 2022 or 2024.

Australia’s uniqueness has several causes.

Compulsory voting means that even disaffected or apathetic citizens show up to vote.

Preferential voting benefits independent candidates because major party voters usually preference independents ahead of the other major party.

In the Senate, proportional representation increases the chances of a well-organised independent or micro-party, and at double dissolution election the reduced quota gives them even better odds, as we saw in 2016.

Local candidates with existing name recognition (or the patience to build a public profile over successive campaigns) can be highly competitive in these circumstances.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Rod Campbell and Mark Ogge join Ebony Bennett to discuss the fixing Australia’s gas export problem, making gas companies pay their fair share in taxes and royalties, and why there is no need for new gas projects.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 8 April 2025 and things may have changed.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Guest: Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor, the Australia Institute // @markogge

Guest: Rod Campbell, Research Director, the Australia Institute // @rodcampbell

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

Show notes:

Peter Dutton’s gas export tax is a good idea – and a turning point, the Australia Institute (April 2025)

The research, by The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, reveals that until recently, government policies reinforced economic trends that eroded workers’ power.

This erosion normalised low wage growth in Australia for both union and non-union workers.

The report – The Curious Incident of Low Wages Growth – found that of the 16 key developments in the labour market over the past half century, 14 reduced workers’ power, one increased the power of female workers only and just one increased the power of all workers.

From 2014, the majority of federal legislation buttressed this trend and further reduced workers’ power.

Since the election of the Albanese government in 2022, almost all federal legislation impacting wages has done the opposite. It has increased workers’ power. And this may continue, with the government seeking a pay rise above the rate of inflation for low-paid workers in its submission to the Fair Work Commission’s annual wage review.

“These findings dispel the idea that governments can do nothing about wages,” said Professor Emeritus David Peetz, Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work and author of the report.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton released the modelling behind his proposed gas tax ahead of last night’s election debate with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Labor is now the only party that hasn’t rebutted the multi-national gas exporters’ ridiculous claim that there is a shortage of gas in Australia when we are exporting huge quantities of it.

“Peter Dutton’s proposal to put a tax on gas exports is proof of just how fast the world is changing now that Donald Trump has ripped up the free trade rule book,” said Dr Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“Australians have been told for a decade that we had a shortage of gas, but now Peter Dutton is rightfully arguing Australia has an abundance of gas and that all we need to do is to tax gas exports to ensure our gas flows first to Australian businesses and households. This is a big shift.

“Economics 101 says governments should tax things we want less of and subsidise things we want more of.

“So far in this election, we have seen the Coalition proposing a tax on gas exports and Labor proposing a subsidy for home batteries. It seems that after 10 years of ignoring economics, the major parties are starting to take energy policy seriously again.

Tonight is the first televised debate between Albanese and Dutton. It will go out live on Sky News at 7.30pm.

But leaders’ debates aren’t the crucial campaign events they used to be. Whether they are worthwhile depends on the format – a scrappy and personal debate turns politics into a blood sport, and alienates voters from the political process itself.

Prime minister Robert Menzies abstained from the first ever televised election debate back in 1958, but his deputy Harold Holt and senior minister Billy McMahon faced off against Labor’s leader H. V. Evatt and deputy Arthur Calwell. Barely 18% of TV viewers bothered tuning in, according to one historian.

Prime ministers and opposition leaders didn’t start debating during elections until 1984. A lacklustre PM Bob Hawke faced off against opposition leader Andrew Peacock, who managed to win the debate but not the election. Hawke chose not to debate John Howard in 1987 but performed spectacularly in a rematch against Peacock in 1990. It was, by Hawke’s own account, the ‘highlight of the campaign’.

This leads to messy disendorsements and a flurry of bad press. When these disendorsements happen late (after the “close of nominations”, after which no new candidates are accepted), the candidate still appears on the ballot as a member of the party that disendorsed them.

Such was the case for Pauline Hanson, who won the 1996 election while listed as a Liberal candidate. The Queensland Liberals expelled her only after nominations had closed in response to highly controversial comments she made to local journalists about Aboriginal issues. Hanson was one of five independents elected in 1996, including others who quit or were expelled from their political party.

Other times, candidates are disendorsed before the close of nominations – which means the party can choose a replacement candidate. In 2016, the seat of Fremantle lost both its Liberal and its Labor candidates, the former for controversial statements about Indigenous politics and same-sex marriage, and the latter for failing to disclose previous criminal convictions concerning drink driving and assaulting a police officer. The replacement Labor candidate, Josh Wilson, won the seat and holds it to this day.

At the upcoming election, three former party MPs are defending their seats: Andrew Gee, who left the Nationals in protest over their opposition to the Voice; and Russell Broadbent and Ian Goodenough who quit the Liberal Party after losing pre-selection.

Australia’s beleaguered university sector is never far from the headlines these days. Former Labor leader and current University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Bill Shorten probably doesn’t envy his former ministerial colleagues who are currently on the campaign trail, but nonetheless, he’s in the news today.

The Canberra Times reports that Shorten is announcing a new voluntary redundancy program for UC’s professional staff. “We are not looking to achieve certain targets nor have we identified further positions as excess to requirements,” he told reporters.

UC has saved about $30 million by letting go of 150 staff to date. But why were these cuts necessary in the first place? Like most universities, UC has spent big on discretionary things that aren’t education or research.

Its 2023 annual report shows that the university spent $16.7 million on consultants’ fees, $9 million on ‘outsource management fees’, $697,000 on ‘sponsorships’, nearly $4.4 million on travel and just shy of $3 million on advertising.

The above graph shows that those items cost more in total than the 150 jobs that UC has since cut to repair its deficit.

This is the highest it has ever been, far above the 25,000 voters per MP in 1903 (the first election where most women could vote).

In the intervening 122 years, 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. While the number of registered voters is nine times that in 1903, the number of electorates has only doubled.

Australia’s voter–to-MP ratio is higher than Canada’s, the UK’s, and much higher than New Zealand’s. Across the ditch there is a member of parliament for every 30,000 voters, four times more representation than in Australia.

As the number of voters per MP grows, the access any individual voter will have to their member necessarily shrinks – Australia Institute polling in 2018 found that only 13% of Australians had ever spoken to their local MP.

The more voters there are in an electorate, the larger a campaign needs to be to make any difference to the result, making it more difficult for grassroots campaigns to have an impact.

On this episode of After America, Dr Richard Denniss joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs, why Australia has never really had a ‘free’ trade agreement with America, and whether the Australian defence and foreign policy establishment can break free of its old assumptions about how the world works.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 7 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

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

Show notes:

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

In 2016, ABC election analyst Antony Green ruefully remarked that it ‘seems impossible to cover an election without referring to bellwether seats’.

A ‘bellwether’ seat is one that predicts the overall election result. For forty years, whichever party won the regional NSW seat of Eden-Monaro also won government as a whole.

But elections – and journalistic fads – change quickly, and 2016 would prove to be the bellwether’s last hurrah. As Green explained, a seat can end up as a bellwether by pure coincidence, not any underlying property of the seat itself. And by the time the bellwether seat is decided, the overall election has usually already been called.

The end of the bellwether seat’s time in the sun is a reminder that what matters are the dynamics in individual electorates, not political cliches or outdated rules of thumb.

‘Bellwether seats’ are so last decade. According to the media database NewsBank, the proportion of metropolitan commercial newspapers using the term ‘bellwether’ to describe political processes during federal election campaigns grew more than threefold between 2001 and 2007. The number of articles was relatively high in 2010, followed by a modest decline in 2013.

References to ‘bellwether seats’ nearly doubled again in 2016.

The Tasmanian salmon industry has conceded that  – following a recent mass death event on the state’s east coast – salmon from diseased commercial pens are being sold for human consumption.

It comes just days after the Albanese government and Dutton coalition worked together to ram through amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act, weakening the nation’s environment laws, specifically to protect the compromised salmon industry.

Questions now need to be answered by the federal Minister for Fisheries, Julie Collins, who is also the local member of Franklin in Southern Tasmania and has previously brushed aside problems with the salmon industry as a state issue.

It is now open for one of the multiple state ministers responsible for the Tasmanian Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), including Eric Abetz and Jane Howlett, to show leadership and inform everyone what, if any, steps they will take to protect the Tasmanian community and economy from an industry that is out of control.

“The Saturday Paper’s revelations are deeply disturbing. Anyone still eating salmon should beware,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“Salmon Tasmania has admitted that diseased fish are being sold for human consumption. It is now also apparent that fish full of antibiotics are being sold on supermarket shelves.

“Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of Liquified Natural Gas but, despite this fact, the largely foreign-owned gas industry has been making the bizarre claim that there is a shortage of gas in Australia,” said Dr Denniss.

“Peter Dutton’s rejection of that silly claim, and his proposal to tax gas exports to encourage greater local supply, is a watershed in Australian energy policy debate.”

Research by The Australia Institute shows that more than 80 percent of gas produced in Australia has been used for exports, and more than half of those gas exports were given away, royalty-free, to the gas exporters.

“Putting a tax on gas exports is an easy way to ensure that more of Australia’s gas flows to Australians and that they pay less for it,” said Dr Denniss.

“Introducing a cap on gas exports as well would be an even better way to both protect Australians from cost-of-living pressures and protect the climate from increased emissions from burning gas.

“The opportunity for Labor to expand on the Coalition’s policy is enormous.

“For decades, the major parties in Australia have seemed afraid to put the interests of Australian taxpayers ahead of the profits of the fossil fuel industry.

“But now that Peter Dutton has made the first step, the opportunities for the new parliament are unprecedented.

A competitive and diverse news industry is key to a democratic society, keeping institutions accountable and transparent. But the ability of Australia’s Fourth Estate to perform that role is increasingly in doubt.

Australia was once labelled the “land of the newspaper” by British visitors, with a flourishing and diverse news industry, but for over a century its newspaper market has only become more concentrated and less competitive. In 1903 there were 21 daily newspapers in the capital cities, with 17 different owners; By the 1950s it was 15, with ten different owners. Now it’s even worse.

It was clear the Reserve Bank was unwilling to make a decision on Tuesday because of uncertainty regarding the leveling of tariffs by the Trump administration.

Although it was clear even at the time that Trump’s tariff policy would result in a slowing of the global economy and risk rising unemployment here in Australia, now that the scale of the tariffs is known, the RBA should reconvene and cut rates rather than wait until May 19-20.

The Reserve Bank should get on the front foot and do what markets and economists know is an almost certain rate cut.

Inflation is well within the target. Indeed, should the inflation figures for the first three months of this year be only slightly below average, the official CPI risks falling below 2%.

“The risks of the economy slowing more than anticipated are now heightened due to the Trump tariffs,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“The Reserve Bank was wrong not to cut rates on Tuesday. The Australia Institute has been calling for those cuts to help bolster spending and deliver relief to households who have suffered from price rises that are not of their own doing.

“Waiting until nearly the end of May is far too long. The RBA should be nimble enough to realise that the tariffs levied by the USA are an unprecedented move that is already sending shockwaves through the world’s economy.

“It should get out in front and cut rates now rather than wait for Australia’s economy to be damaged further.”

Updated analysis by the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute reveals that a fair and appropriate increase to the minimum wage, and accompanying increases to award rates, would not have a significant effect on inflation.

The analysis examines the correlation between minimum wage increases and inflation going back to 1990, and finds no consistent link between minimum wage increases and inflation.

It also reveals that such an increase to award wages could be met with only a small reduction in profit margins.

The report, authored by Greg Jericho, based on previous work by both he and Jim Stanford, finds that an increase to the National Minimum Wage and award wages of between 5.8% and 9.2% in the Fair Work Commissions’ Annual Wage Review, due in June, is required to restore the real buying power of low-paid workers to pre-pandemic trends.

The report also finds that this would not significantly affect headline inflation.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Hayden discuss Trump’s tariffs, the Reserve Bank’s magic 8-ball monetary policy, and why minimum wage increases don’t drive up inflation.

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

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

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

Host: Hayden Starr, Digital Media Manager, the Australia Institute // @haydenstarr

Show notes:

Australia Institute Live from Amy Remeikis

‘You never know what you’re gonna get: Australians will have to wait until after the election to see if there’s an interest rate cut’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (March 2025)

When newspapers began shutting down in big numbers a decade ago, it was hoped that moving online would broaden news diversity and ownership.

Sadly, the opposite has happened.

A new Australia Institute Discussion Paper reveals that many newspapers have moved online in name only.

It also found:

• 11 out of Australia’s 20 biggest cities have just one daily or weekly print newspaper.
• Five of Australia’s eight capital cities have no competition in print news.
• In 2008, there were just over 500 newspapers in Australia. In the following decade 106 shut.
• The COVID pandemic was a mass-extinction event for Australian newspapers, with a further net decline of 184.
• In 2024, 29 Australian Local Government Areas lacked a single local news outline, either in print or online.

“The vast majority of newspapers which stopped printing and told readers they were moving online have become little more than a social media page and subsection of a capital city newspaper website,” said Stephen Long, Senior Fellow and Contributing Editor at The Australia Institute.

“There are now many towns with no news outlet since the local paper shut down.

“That’s been a disaster for local journalism and local storytelling.

“Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was one of those who said newspapers moving online would lead to additional news diversity and avenues to competition.

“In the ten years since, the opposite has happened.

Full preferential voting is a proud Coalition reform – one that benefits every political persuasion

Compulsory voting and full preferential voting make up the backbone of Australian democracy, and protect us from voter suppression and disengagement seen in other countries. We owe both to the parties of the centre-right, what would become the Liberal–National Coalition.

Compulsory voting ensures that most Australians participate in elections. It removes the incentive for nasty campaigns to demoralise people so they do not bother to vote at all and deliberate maladministration to make voting so unpleasant for targeted groups that turnout is suppressed.

Both deliberate voter suppression and poor voter turnout are seen in countries without compulsory voting.

The reform was introduced federally in 1924 via a private member’s bill from the Nationalist Party reformer HJM Payne, nine years after a conservative government adopted it in Queensland. In the 1922 election, voter turnout was just under 60%; In 1925 – the first under compulsory voting – it rose to over 90%.