The Australia Institute Feed Items

Believe it or not, in 2025, with Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport at a near-record high, the Productivity Commission is more worried about subsidies for electric vehicles that account for just 1 per cent of the cars on our roads than it is about subsidies for the enormous 4WDs that have come to dominate our suburban streets in the past decade.

At the same time that the commission insists productivity in the housing market requires cutting back “red tape”, it is recommending a climate resilience code that would add regulation to the same industry. Pick a lane, commission people.

Let’s start with cars. The commission has suggested incentives for electric vehicles, such as the fringe benefits tax exemption, should be phased out on the basis that they “distort the market”.

That makes as much sense as arguing we should impose the GST on fresh food because it distorts the market – when distorting the market was the whole point of the tax break.

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

If the commission doesn’t think we should have more EVs on the roads, it should say so. But arguing that we should remove subsidies for EVs because they are working as intended is simply absurd.

But the real problem with the PC’s pogrom against EV subsidies is its lack of consistency.

“Trust, it is constantly observed, is hard-earned and easily dissipated. It is valuable social capital and not to be squandered.

“If there are no guarantees to be had, we need to place trust with care. This can be hard. The little shepherd boy who shouted ‘Wolf! Wolf!’ eventually lost his sheep, but we note not before his false alarms had deceived others time and again. Deception and betrayal often work.

“Traitors and terrorists, embezzlers and con artists, forgers and plagiarists, false promisers and free riders cultivate then breach others’ trust. They often get away with it. Breach of trust has been around since the Garden of Eden – although it did not quite work out there.

“Now it is more varied and more ingenious, and often successful.”

Modern politics has created the perfect storm for a lack of trust in government and, by association, fractures in our society and the “social cohesion” our politicians hold up as reason, excuse and driver.

One of the ways they destroy trust is through secrecy and half-truths.

The Labor government has still not released the National Climate Risk Assessment analysis, which has been described by those who have seen it as “dire and “extremely confronting” as it continues to obfuscate on setting its 2035 climate target.

On this episode of After America, Professor Elizabeth Saunders from Columbia University joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the extreme volatility of this administration’s foreign policy and how Trump is breaking down the guardrails of American democracy.

This episode was recorded on Thursday 28 August.

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

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

Guest: Elizabeth N Saunders, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University // @profsaunders

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

Show notes:

‘Imperial President at Home, Emperor Abroad’ by Elizabeth Saunders, Foreign Affairs (June 2025)

One of the few outcomes of the Economic Reform Roundtable was the Treasurer announcing the Government would “see where we can reduce complexity and red tape in the National Construction Code”. The Housing Minister has previously said regulations are partly to blame for the housing crisis by making it “uneconomic to build the kind of housing that our country needs most”, stating “builders face a ridiculous thicket of red tape that is preventing them building the homes we need.” But making “over-regulation” the villain in the housing crisis fails to recognise how underregulated much of the housing market is.

The march is advertised as being about ending mass immigration. Of course, there is no “correct” level of immigration to Australia – this will always be a democratic question that’s up for debate. But it’s equally clear that’s not what these protests are really about.

The media and anti-fascism activists have revealed that some of the organisers of the marches have posted white nationalist ideas like “remigration”, including pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler memes, and threatened violence. March for Australia has denied links to some prominent neo-Nazis.

While Australians firmly rejected the Coalition’s harsh anti-immigration rhetoric and policies under Peter Dutton’s leadership, scapegoating immigrants is a sadly effective tactic in politics and in the media.

More than one politician has voiced support for the March for Australia, including independent MP Bob Katter, who threatened to punch a journalist for mentioning his Lebanese heritage when questioning him about his support for the anti-immigration rallies.

For the sake of taxpayers, let’s hope that the Audit Office is inspecting the AUKUS books closely.

Australian money is flushing into the US submarine construction system – a billion US dollars so far, with another billion by year’s end. What will Australia have to show for it?

Nothing. Except, of course, for a lot of international travel and glad-handing by the naval officers and public servants who work in the Australian Submarine Agency.

Hitherto, the only explanation for totally unsecured payments to the US is our need to contribute to America’s submarine-building capacity so that, at some date that seems to be sliding ineluctably further away, we are able to buy some Virginia-class submarines and embark on our adventure as a nuclear-powered submarine navy. Right now, the US yards cannot meet the demands of the US Navy, let alone ours. They need to double their production rate.

It is hard to see where it goes from here.

In a 1954 lecture, then prime minister Robert Menzies said: “A man may be a tough, concentrated, successful money maker and never contribute to his country anything more than a horrible example.”

He, of course, was talking about managers, but the same could apply to the members of his party in 2025.

You don’t have to go too far back to trace the origins of the intellectual malaise that afflicts the party. John Howard was unshakeably a conservative and paved the way for what we are seeing now. Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton were the inexorable end point of Howard’s style of leadership, each having further diluted the conservative value beliefs their mentor held dear, while grasping onto Howard’s single-eyed drive for personal power.

Like Tony Abbott before them, they sought to mould the party into their own personal project, but even Abbott could claim an ideologue’s drive.

Morrison and Dutton were slaves to their own personal instincts, which is why their exit from domestic politics has been so seamless. Both disappeared like they were never there, because they weren’t. Not truly.

When their personal ambitions were thwarted, they simply moved on. In their wake, they have left a party barren of any meaning.

Recent growth in Australia’s population has gone through historically big swings, starting with the closure of borders during the Covid pandemic.

This resulted in the population falling, as many people, such as foreign students, left the country. There was a period of about 18 months (from early 2020 to late 2021) where population growth was at historic lows.

When the borders reopened, many people came back and we had a period where the population increased more rapidly.

Since 2024, population growth appears to have fallen back to pre-Covid rates.

But has the bounce-back in population been larger than the slowdown during Covid? To see that, we need to project growth assuming that the population grew at the average pre-Covid rate.

If we do, we can see that the actual population is lower than it would have been if the Covid pandemic had not occurred. The actual growth in the population is the blue line and the projected number without the pandemic is the dotted orange line.

The data is buried in a footnote of the latest government inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. It reveals that the Moomba CCS project, owned by Santos, captured just half a megatonne of emissions in the first quarter of 2025.

World-renowned climate analyst and Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute, Ketan Joshi, says this equates to just 4.6 days’ worth of Santos’ total emissions and just 1.6 days’ worth of domestic emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel industries.

“In a full year, Santos will, at most, capture about 4.3% of their total emissions – yet it was paid $15 million from the Morrison government to fund this carbon capture and storage facility,” said Ketan Joshi, Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

“If that’s not bad enough, they are now being issued carbon offsets for the use of the CCS facility, which means that another polluter can buy the offsets from this facility to greenwash their emissions, as well.

“The truth is, carbon capture and storage is one of the biggest false promises in the fight against climate change.

“CCS is a fantasy policy at a time when Australia and the world need the exact opposite – real action to reduce real emissions on the road to real zero. Rather than dodgy offsets and questionable carbon capture and storage projects, it’s time to stop new gas and coal projects.”

August was another busy month at the Australia Institute!

With Parliament sitting, the economic roundtable and more, there was already a lot going on! And we were still releasing new research, holding events, press conferences, the list goes on.

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

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

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Matt and Elinor discuss why the latest inflation data isn’t anything to panic about, the case for economy-wide price gouging laws, and why Australia Post has stopped sending many packages to the United States.

Early bird tickets for our Revenue Summit at Parliament House in Canberra – Hon. Steven Miles MP, Senator David Pocock, Kate Chaney MP, Greg Jericho and more – are available now.  You can buy tickets for the early bird price of $99 – available for a limited time only.

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

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 28 August 2025.

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

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

Show notes:

On this episode of Follow the Money, manufacturing industry representative Geoff Crittenden and Australia Institute Principal Advisor Mark Ogge join Ebony Bennett to discuss how governments can ensure there’s more gas available for Australians.

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

Guest: Geoff Crittenden, Chief Executive Officer, WELD Australia

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

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

Show notes:

Impact of gas exports on Australian energy prices, the Australia Institute (July 2025)

Big gas is taking the piss, Follow the Money (April 2025)

Policy can seem like opening a blind box: you’ll get something, but probably not what you want. Jim Chalmers’ economic roundtable was no different. Every option is on the table, yes, but what we’ll get is as unknown as what is driving the Labubu craze.

First, the positives. Holding the roundtable is at least an indication that the government is looking to expand the mandate it took to the election. Despite Anthony Albanese’s repeated statements (always carefully worded in the present tense) that “the only tax policy that we’re implementing is the one that we took to the election”, every Labor MP privately admits there is not only the need to do more on tax but also the space. A whopping majority tends to focus even the most recalcitrant minds on the art of the possible.

The issue with the roundtable is that the same groups advising on how to disarm the intergenerational economic bombs that have started to explode are the same groups that helped set them.

The Productivity Commission, Treasury, the Business Council — the same outfits that have spent the past 25 or more years advocating for more privatisation and tax cuts, claiming they are panaceas for productivity growth — are now sounding the alarms that productivity has continued to fall.

On this episode of After America, Allan Behm joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Trump’s deployment of federal authorities to Democrat-voting jurisdictions, land grabs by the Russian and Israeli governments, and what a collapse of American democracy might mean for Australia.

This episode was recorded on Friday 22 August.

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

Beyond the Two-State Solution: Policy responses to the Destruction of Palestine and the Insecurity of Israel by Emma Shortis, Allan Behm and Bob Bowker, The Australia Institute (February 2025)

The Albanese government’s Economic Reform Roundtable has far more to do with political power than how best to boost the rate of production at Australia’s factories or mines. The agenda was far narrower than the breadth of problems facing Australia and the attendees. With a few notable exceptions, those assembled were more likely to demand more tax cuts and more cuts to government spending than to question why decades of doing precisely that has delivered not just record low productivity growth but also record low quality in our essential services.

One of the core beliefs that unites Australian chief executives, the Department of the Treasury, the Productivity Commission and most of the Australian media is that the less tax a country collects and the less money it spends on essential services, the better its economy will perform. If only there was some data to back up their strong feelings.

According to the pinko lefties at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the OECD – now headed by that well-known progressive Mathias Cormann – Australia is already one of the lowest taxed countries in the developed world and has one of the smallest public sectors. Yet despite decades of taking the advice of organisations such as the Productivity Commission and Treasury, resulting in decades of deregulation, privatisation and tax cuts, Australia has witnessed a collapse in productivity growth.

The laws – which were rushed through late last year – came into effect from the new financial year, ahead of the next state election on March 21, 2026.

The laws go further than any other state in Australia in banning political donations and replacing them with taxpayer funding of parties and candidates.

However, the same pattern appears in other states and in recent changes to federal election laws – the new taxpayer funding is not fairly distributed between parties and candidates, and restrictions fall more heavily on new entrants and independents while loopholes ensure major parties can still operate comfortably.

New entrants are strictly restricted in the donations they can receive – but are not eligible for the same taxpayer funding that existing players will be.

In South Australia, minor parties and independents will struggle while incumbent political parties run multimillion-dollar campaigns with public money.

The 2026 state election should provide more data on how incumbents and challengers alike respond to large-scale taxpayer funding of elections.

Independents and new parties considering national politics will watch with interest, since a Labor/Liberal deal means that the next federal election will also feature party campaigns funded by the taxpayer and restrictions on
fundraising that fall more heavily on new entrants.

In the fight against slavery, abolitionists eventually prevailed over slave owners. The long fight was not won in the sensible centre, but by “radical, democratic” absolutists who risked their lives in the fight to save the lives of others. It scares me to think how the ABC, or indeed most of the world’s media, would report on such a debate today.

Can you imagine the economic modelling on the jobs that would be lost in the slave-using industries? Or the endless discussion of the impact on the price of clothes if slaves didn’t pick cotton?

And can you imagine the modern debate about the best way to compensate hard-working slave owners whose business model was based on long-accepted rules allowing whipping and branding?

Slavery persists today, and England (the major global slave trader of the 1800s) paid out the equivalent of over £17 billion in compensation to slave owners in 1837, but it’s important to remember that change was driven by abolitionists, not centrists.

The incrementalism on the path to abolition was a consequence of sustained pressure against change, but the incrementalism was never the goal. Unsurprisingly, few mock the extremism of those who fought to end slavery in the US and UK, and few argue abolitionists would have achieved more if they had asked for less.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Matt and Elinor discuss the big fine handed to Qantas, how a training levy on businesses could improve productivity, the misunderstandings around the causes of Australia’s housing crisis, and the latest from the government’s economic reform roundtable.

Sign our petition calling on fossil fuel producers to pay a climate disaster levy.

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

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 21 August 2025.

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

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

Show notes:

SA algal bloom underlines urgent need for National Climate Disaster Fund, the Australia Institute (August 2025)

Artificial intelligence is good and red tape is bad.

Really? Wasn’t this a chance to deal with the big issues? To pave the way for genuine reform?

Maybe more will filter out in the coming weeks. After all, the roundtable was conducted behind closed doors. Maybe I’m an old cynic, but I have my doubts.

In the lead-up, we were treated to lots of ideas. Some great, some good, and some thinly disguised self-interest. Yes, I’m looking at you business lobby groups who want to cut the company tax rate.

As it got closer, the push was on to confine it to deal only with small things. After decades of successive governments dodging real reform, all that had been achieved was making all the big problems progressively worse.

And small things are what we got, including the call to reduce red tape.

If people truly want to reduce red tape, then they should come up with specific proposals on what should be changed. Vague calls to reduce red tape are meaningless.

This is exemplified by the call to freeze the National Construction Code. Not only would such a freeze stop good changes from being added, it would also stop bad regulations from being removed or modified. But this was all justified as part of a push to speed up housing approvals and construction times.

The federal government has little to do with building approvals. But it has been out telling everyone who will listen that the problem is housing supply. You know … that thing it has almost no control over but is instead controlled by state governments.

This was a question asked of Anthony Albanese on Wednesday, after alleged war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu denounced him as a “weak” leader who had “abandoned Australian Jews” and “betrayed Israel”.

What led to this? Australia is joining most of the rest of the world in the (largely symbolic) act of recognising Palestine and has cancelled the visas of far-right Israeli politicians who called Palestinian children “little snakes” and the “enemy”. Children.

Netanyahu is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Palestinians are being deliberately starved through Israel’s policies.

It is not an allegation that Israel has plans for the mass removal of Palestinians in Gaza, it is documented. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, most of them women and children, and that is just the numbers we have from when Gaza still had infrastructure in place.

We have no idea how many are still trapped beneath the rubble. No way of counting the missing. Israel’s forces are not fighting against a military. There is no safe place for people in Gaza, no way out, and no way to be safe.

And still, STILL, our leaders are being asked “how do we get the relationship with Israel back on track?”.

When do we stop pretending that Israel has any moral authority to criticise any other nation state?

On this episode of Follow the Money, Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the Government’s economic roundtable, why taxing wealth more effectively would make Australians better off, and why removing as-yet-unnamed ‘red tape’ isn’t going to fix productivity.

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

You can listen to Dollars & Sense each week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

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

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

Show notes:

But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions?

Next week’s productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it’s set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election.

Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable.

And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn’t just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem.

Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax – not the highest amount, just the average – the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.

Previous Australia Institute analysis shows the gas policy mess created by Australian governments allowing virtually unlimited exports of gas from eastern Australia has led to a tripling of gas prices and doubling of wholesale electricity prices.

The analysis shows that incremental and technocratic attempts to fix the problems have failed, and that the ACTU proposal would solve these problems. It would:

• Increase domestic gas supply by providing a strong incentive for gas companies to supply uncontracted gas to Australian customers rather than selling it on the global spot market.
• Reduce domestic gas prices by significantly increasing the supply of gas to the domestic market.

Importantly, unlike the other technocratic policies, the ACTU proposal could not easily be gamed by the gas industry, which has run rings around the government for decades.

The elephant in the room is that it is business that has the biggest influence on productivity. Certainly, it has a much bigger impact than workers, who typically get the blame when things go wrong.

The factor that most shapes how productive workers are, we must remember, is the technology they work with. It is management that is responsible for the decisions about what technology a business introduces, and how. Workers often do not have much of a say.

It is not workers who make the decisions about how much money is available for investment. It is not workers who make the decision about which particular technologies to buy, install and use. It is not workers who decide how much money should be allocated to the training of workers to use the new technology, or how those workers should be deployed. It is management.

Sure, there is lots of evidence that, when workers have a say at work, productivity is higher. But managers often don’t give them a chance to have more than a token say, if they have any say at all. Any attempts by governments to legislate that workers decide or influence decisions on those matters are opposed by business bodies in Australia.

World-renowned climate analyst and Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute, Ketan Joshi, has crunched the numbers and found that, despite claims of a shortage or crisis, Victoria is, in fact, a net exporter of gas.

Data from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water clearly shows that gas consumption has been declining in Victoria for years, which has led to an oversupply. It’s being driven by soaring gas prices (caused by exports) and legislation forcing Victorians to electrify their homes at a faster rate than any other state.

“Victoria exports way more gas than it consumes,” said Ketan Joshi, Senior Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

“The Australia Institute recently produced a video of a massive gas drilling rig near the iconic 12 Apostles. Projects like this simply don’t make sense. They are unnecessary.

“Despite all the breathless claims of a gas shortage in Victoria, federal government data shows the true picture, that there is an oversupply.

“To top it off, demand for gas in Victoria is at its lowest level in a generation – and falling – as high prices and regulations force people to electrify their homes.

“The last time gas use was this low in Victoria, Dirty Dancing was in the cinema and Rick Astley cassette tapes were selling like hot cakes.”

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Angus Blackman to discuss the fallout from Trump’s meeting with Putin, the Australian government’s commitment to recognising Palestinian statehood, and the not-super-encouraging prospects for American democracy as Trump sics the National Guard on Washington, D.C.

This episode was recorded on Monday 18 August.

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

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

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

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

Show notes: 

Australia Institute research has found that a fund, paid for by big polluters responsible for climate change, would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year.

The research found that a levy of $30 per tonne of carbon pollution caused by coal, oil and gas production would have raised $44 billion this year alone.

The South Australian and federal governments have, so far, pledged $28 million of taxpayers’ money in response to the algal bloom, which is being driven by rising sea temperatures due to climate change.

It’s having a devastating impact on sea life, tourism, fishing, and other marine industries.

“As it stands, South Australian communities, families and business owners are being left to foot the bill for this crisis, and that simply isn’t good enough,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, a South Australia-based Director at The Australia Institute.

“State and federal governments have been caught flat-footed in their response to this algal bloom tragedy.

“If the government had a National Climate Disaster Fund at the ready, so that they could quickly roll out the level of support that is actually needed in these communities, it would be a very different story.

“Currently, regular Australians are paying for climate-related disasters through higher taxes, increased insurance premiums, and lost income.

Canberra is in the grip of Abundance fever, a virus that threatens to overwhelm public policy with a diagnosis of overregulation.

For those afflicted, the treatment is to maintain the status quo, but with the sheen of progressivism.

The Abundance agenda is being presented as a panacea for all of America’s problems, and therefore also Australia’s problems. It’s shaping next week’s productivity summit, as policy wonks, institutional heads, journalists and most government MPs hold up the Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson book as the new bible.

In America, the authors have been invited to speak at Democratic retreats as the answer to their woes, even as polling, the New York mayoral primary and the exasperated hair-pulling of millions of Americans say they’d much prefer Bernie Sanders’ socialism. But why change when you can do more of the same and call it abundance?

There are some thoughtful arguments in the book, but the crux of it boils down to “everything would be just fantastic and problem-free if we just cut the red tape that was holding back all that abundance we could be throwing around”.

The report – Three Ways Australia Can Tax Wealth Better –  comes on the eve of Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Economic Reform Roundtable, which recognises the growing need to raise more tax revenue to pay for things like health services, schools, housing, the NDIS, defence, and many, many more essential public services.

Key findings:

• A 2% wealth tax on people worth more than $5 million (excluding the family home and superannuation) would raise $41 billion per year.
• The reintroduction of an inheritance tax (which operated in various forms at a state and federal level in the 1960s and 70s) would not only reduce intergenerational inequality, it would raise $10 billion per year.
• And the government would raise an extra $19 billion a year if it scrapped the capital gains tax discount, which would have the double benefit of making property more affordable for those currently locked out of the market.

“Australia is a low-tax country that does not do a good job of taxing wealth. It is one of the few developed economies in the world which has neither a wealth tax nor an inheritance tax,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Correcting this would raise huge amounts of extra revenue for essential services and ease growing inequality in Australia.

Recently, we published a video showing a huge new gas drilling rig in Victoria, within sight of the 12 Apostles – a globally recognised tourist hotspot. As Dr Emma Shortis says in the video:

“We are putting our coastlines at risk to extract gas we don’t even need. Australia already produces way more gas than we use….Australia doesn’t have a gas shortage. We have a gas export problem”

Despite the undeniable numbers here, a ‘gas shortage’ is still put forward as one of the most common rationalisations for building massive new gas exploration and extraction sites, like the monster off Victoria’s coast.

A little-known data set buried in Australia’s government energy accounts lays it out quite nicely, and quite dramatically.

You may have seen something like this before in our charts, like here. But we’ve discovered recently that you can also zoom down into the state level, and see which regions of Australia have the most significant oversupply problem for fossil gas.

When changes to the EPBC Act were fast-tracked through Parliament earlier this year, The Australia Institute flagged that it would likely lead to the extinction of the endangered Maugean skate. The skate is an ancient species with links to the dinosaur era and can only be found in Macquarie Harbour.

“When Murray Watt became the Environment Minister, he said the salmon industry needed to lift its game on sustainability,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“But this decision protects the commercial salmon industry and condemns the skate to extinction.

“All of the baby skates that have hatched in captivity come from eggs fertilised in the wild. It is not a captive ‘breeding’ program, it’s a captive rearing program. That means if the skate becomes extinct in the wild, it is over for the species.

“Tasmanians have just elected independent Peter George, with the third-highest vote in the state. He was elected due to his work to protect the marine environment.

“It is clear Tasmanians are sick and tired of government inaction to address the harmful effects of the foreign-owned salmon industry on Tasmanian waterways.”

The post Minister backs foreign commercial fish farms over endangered native species appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Matt and Elinor discuss the RBA cutting interest rates five weeks too late, Australia’s biggest bank posting its biggest profit ever in an uncompetitive banking sector, and why Albanese seems to be putting a damper on expectations ahead of the economic roundtable next week.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 14 August 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: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @mattgrudnoff.bsky.social

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

Show notes:

‘Climate and the Economic Reform Roundtable’ by Jack Thrower and Rod Campbell, the Australia Institute (August 2025)

‘Solving the crisis: Raising the living standards of Australian workers’ by Lisa Heap, the Australia Institute (August 2025)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

The Opposition Leader can’t tell you yet what the Liberals would do on housing or cost of living, or energy or climate, or how they would tackle the disruption tsunami from AI, or how they would position Australia in the shifting geopolitical space – that’s all “under review”.

But she can tell you that whenever the Coalition next wins government – at best a prospect for 2031, assuming the Coalition as we know it still exists then – it will “un-recognise Palestine”.

So the first policy priority for a future Coalition government would be going through the process of un-recognising a nation’s statehood in at least six years’ time, and this is something everyone is supposed to treat very seriously.

Yet it made headlines across Australia. Why? What does it possibly matter what the Coalition claims it would do in the 2030s? What is the rationality for thinking this is remotely serious, or even remotely possible?

Sure, it signals the Coalition has not shifted one iota on recognising a genocide, but we knew that. And a serious opposition would not pretend it has any role here other than to say what it supports or doesn’t support.

Pretending that there is any reality in which a government in the 2030s sticks to a commitment made in 2025 based entirely on emotion and political expediency is the epitome of delusion.

The analysis finds that climate change and productivity are inextricably linked, concluding that any genuine economic plan for the future would be incomplete without taking into account the impact of climate change.

The National Climate Risk Assessment, yet to be released to the public, includes important forecasts, modelling and information for consumers and investors about the severity and cost of weather extremes and natural disasters.

The Australia Institute analysis outlines the impact of climate change on the cost of insurance and food, which are among the main contributors to the high inflation that has dominated the global economy for the past three years.

“Australians should see the truth of the climate risks we face before the government locks in a 2035 emissions reduction target,” said David Pocock, Independent Senator for the ACT.

“Setting an emissions reduction target without knowing the extent of climate risk would be like planning a road trip without having access to a map.

“This kind of assessment isn’t an optional extra; it’s at the core of helping us protect the people and places we love.”

“Climate change is going to drive down productivity in all sorts of Australian industries. Extreme weather events will drive up costs and reduce output in industries ranging from agriculture and construction to tourism and the health sector,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director at The Australia Institute.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Richard Denniss joins Ebony Bennett to discuss why the constant search for the centre ground doing Australians harm, why bipartisanship can actually be bad, and his new essay, Dead Centre.

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

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

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

Show notes:

A chance to be brave: understanding Australia’s election result, Follow the Money, the Australia Institute (May 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 7 August 2025.

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

After America will be back on Tuesday 19 August.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to do the same for childcare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 2025.

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

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

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

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

Show notes: