The Australia Institute Feed Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain.

Making aluminium involves huge amounts of electricity. Resource economists like to joke (we really do) that aluminium is just “congealed electricity”.

In Australia, the wholesale electricity price is largely set by the wholesale gas price. In fact, there is a “near-perfect correlation between natural gas prices and electricity prices in Australia’s National Electricity Market”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is impossible to get insurance against likely events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurers don’t make big bets either.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The global average temperature increase last year was 1.6 degrees.

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

These changes are:

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

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

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

“And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full analysis here.

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

Key findings:

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

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

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

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

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

Host: 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:

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

Read the full analysis here.

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

Key findings:

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

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

“Over the past four decades, Australians have increasingly voted for minor parties and independents at the expense of the major parties.

“The minor party and independent vote exceeded the Liberal/National vote for the first time at this election.

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

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

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

“We allege that Australian Gas Networks engaged in greenwashing in its ‘Love Gas’ ad campaign,” said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

“It is not currently possible to distribute renewable gas at scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wrap with Dr Emma Shortis

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

Last week the Trump administration sent Australia’s national security establishment into a spin when it announced that it was reviewing the Aukus submarine pact to ensure that it fits Trump’s “America First” agenda.

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

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

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

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

So, it’s a bit of mystery why the Liberal Party, in dire need of wooing back women voters in particular, has decided to oppose the changes. It suggests the Liberal Party won’t have much to meaningfully contribute to the serious tax reform debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers foreshadowed in his National Press Club speech.

Australia Institute research shows that twice as many Australians support (52 per cent) the government’s super tax concessions changes as oppose them (26 per cent), with around a quarter still undecided. The polling also found that about one in five of those surveyed thought it would impact their retirement plans when in reality, only one in 200 will be affected.

Perhaps people overestimate how much this will impact them because most people don’t think about their super at all until they get close to retirement, but let’s be clear, collecting more revenue from mostly wealthy men is good for both women and young people.

Only the very richest Australians will be affected by Labor’s plans to reduce the generosity of the superannuation tax concessions for people with earnings over $3 million.

Chalmers’ proposed changes will halve the super tax concession, meaning those will super balances over $3 million will go from paying 15 per cent tax to paying 30 per cent tax. It still represents an enormous tax concession for wealthy people, it’s just slightly less generous.

The role of Monash University in greenwashing the activities of Woodside and other fossil fuel companies has been revealed by journalist Royce Kurmelovs in climate-focused publication Drilled and Crikey.

Kurmelovs’ report reinforces Australia Institute research highlighting the crisis of integrity in the governance of Australia’s universities.

Upcoming Australia Institute research will further outline Monash and other universities’ links to the fossil fuel industry.

“It’s past time for Australia’s universities to stop greenwashing companies like Woodside,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Monash not only names buildings and hosts conferences for Woodside, it has multiple Woodside-funded scholarships and partners with Woodside in research grants.

“While scholarships provide financial support to individual students, this funding pales in comparison to the profits of Woodside.

“The $99,000 Woodside Monash Energy Partnership Research Scholarship represents just 0.00002% of Woodside’s 2024 profit of $5.6 billion, and just 0.0003% of Monash University Group’s $308 million consolidated net result in 2024.

“It gets worse. Monash has four projects funded by the Australian Coal Association Research Program, which aims to prolong the coal industry. Those grants are worth under $1 million.

“This is how cheaply the integrity of our universities is bought by malevolent companies like Woodside.

Australia’s scandal-plagued university sector has today suffered another significant blow, with many slipping further down the QS World University Rankings.

The rankings of 70% of Australian universities have fallen, following revelations about a lack of accountability and scrutiny, poor financial management, exorbitant Vice-Chancellor salaries and lavish spending on consultants and corporate travel.

The Australia Institute has suggested an extensive list of reforms to fix the sector, including:

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss Australia’s growing wealth gap, what Australians think about the government’s proposed superannuation tax changes, and what the escalating conflict in the Middle East means for the global economy.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 18 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

Host: 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:

Wealthy Australians are worried we might realise how rigged the system is in their favour by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (June 2025)

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

One of the problems with hope is that it’s often left to fend for itself. People might work to maintain their hope that things will get better, but hope without action is essentially just delusion.

When hopes are dashed, the flip side is usually despair.

Which makes sense – you don’t have to do anything to despair. You just kind of slide into it.

It’s easy to hope. It’s just as easy to despair. Neither truly require you do anything except throw your hands up in the air and hope that someone will do something. And if that person who does the thing, does the wrong thing, well then you can despair. You had hope, it was dashed. Now you can be bitter. Despair. Because obviously you can’t do something. Right?

Recently I underwent surgery and when I came to, sore and hazed, my mind feeling as though it was coated in molasses, muscle memory had me reaching for my phone. I saw two things. Anthony Albanese again refusing to sanction Israel, despite rightly acknowledging Israel’s on-going blockade of aid to Gaza as an “outrage” and Labor approving the North West Shelf extension.

I did not feel despair. I felt rage. Not because I didn’t see it coming, but because we know they know better.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Allan Behm joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the Trump administration’s decision to review the AUKUS submarine deal, why Australia doesn’t need American Virginia-class boats anyway, and why the Australian and American governments have shared interests but not shared values.

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

AUKUS is a disaster for Australia. Trump has given us an out – let’s take it by Emma Shortis, The Sydney Morning Herald (June 2025)

Polling conducted by YouGov for the Australia Institute shows that twice as many people support the federal government’s proposed changes as oppose them.

Some 52 per cent want the tax concessions on the earnings from these super-sized super balances cut back, compared to just 26 per cent who don’t, the poll shows. A little more than one in five were undecided.

That’s despite ubiquitous media coverage of the wailings of the worried wealthy. The media’s focus on complaints from the tiny proportion of Australians impacted – about 80,000 people – has failed to produce widespread concern among the more than 99 per cent of Australians who have less than $3 million in super.

That’s not surprising when one considers just how far most people are from that level of retirement savings. According to ATO data, the average super balance is a mere $182,000 for men and $146,000 for women. For those between 60 and 65, it’s just over $400,000 for men and $318,000 for women.

Despite this, people tend to overestimate the likelihood they will be affected by the change. About one in five of those surveyed thought it would impact on their retirement plans. The reality is only one in 200 have super balances above the level that attracts the higher tax rate.

The parliament has lost confidence in Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff, and so next month Tasmanians will go to the polls for the second time since March last year.

This is the system working as intended.

In the Westminster democracy Australia inherits from the United Kingdom, the government of the day and its ministers are responsible to parliament.

They answer to the representatives of the people.

The awesome powers Australians vest in their governments – unlimited by a bill of rights and granted without a direct popular vote – are supervised by the democratically elected parliament.

That said, Tasmanians are entitled to feel surprised that this term of power-sharing government ended so abruptly.

Most power-sharing parliaments are stable and see out the full term, according to the Australia Institute’s research.

NSW has its third power-sharing government in a row, as Labor governs with three independents in the Minns government, which followed the Perrottet and Berejiklian Coalition
governments without incident.

In the ACT, Labor and the Greens have collaborated for over 15 years – even as the details of the arrangement have changed.

The Gillard Labor government was very productive either in spite or because of power-sharing, making more laws than other governments, including ground-breaking reform like the NDIS, clean energy future package, cigarette plain packaging and expanding Medicare to dental for children.

The Australia Institute is saddened to hear of the passing of the Honourable Stephen Charles AO KC.

Stephen was a former judge of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal and member of the National Integrity Committee, which, under the auspices of The Australia Institute, made the case for effective anti-corruption commissions.

Stephen worked tirelessly toward the creation of a federal anti-corruption watchdog. He was ultimately successful when the Parliament passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act in 2022 – although the NACC remains restricted in its ability to hold public inquiries, an unnecessary restriction Stephen warned against in 2018.

Last year, with his daughter Lucy Hamilton, he wrote an essay in Meanjin reflecting on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and Australia’s democracy crisis titled “The Year in Truth-telling”.

Our thoughts are with Stephen’s family.

The post Vale — The Honourable Stephen Charles AO KC appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On this episode of After America, Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s 29th Prime Minister, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Trump’s AUKUS review, Anthony Albanese’s meeting with Trump, and why Australia doesn’t share values with the US administration.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 16 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

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

Guest: Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s 29th Prime Minister // @TurnbullMalcolm

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

Show notes:

YouGov conducted a national survey of 1,535 voters on behalf of The Australia Institute between 6 and 11 June 2025, using an online survey polling methodology. Full details are provided in the methodology statement.

The poll is compliant with the Australian Polling Council’s requirements.

The margin of error on the effective sample size is 3.2%.

The post Polling – Superannuation appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Under the proposed changes, Australians with super balances over $3 million would pay 30% tax – rather than 15% – on earnings above $3 million.

According to Australian Tax Office data, the current average super balance in Australia is around $182,000 for men and $146,000 for women. Among those aged 60 to 65, it’s around $402,000 for men and $318,000 for women.

The poll, conducted by YouGov, shows 52% of Australians support the proposed changes, compared to 26% who oppose them, while a similar figure (22%) don’t know or are unsure.

Key findings:

25% of Australians say they “strongly support” reducing tax concessions for people with super balances over $3 million, while 27% support the changes.

14% of Australians say they “strongly oppose” reducing tax concessions for people with super balances over $3 million, while 12% oppose the changes.

One in five of Australians think the changes will have an impact on their retirement plans, but the reality is that only one in 200 people have super balances that would be affected by the changes.

“Twice as many Australians support the proposal to reduce tax concessions on superannuation balances over $3 million as oppose the idea,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.