The Australia Institute Feed Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the intervening 122 years, parliament has significantly expanded twice: from 74 to 121 seats in 1949, and from 125 to 148 in 1984.

Both times, the number of people per seat sat at a then record high: 64,000 and 75,000 respectively. While the number of registered voters is nine times that in 1903, the number of electorates has only doubled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, the opposite has happened.

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

It also found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why full preferential voting ensures your vote can’t be ‘wasted’

As for preferential voting, its great benefit is that it ensures that Australians cannot “waste” their vote. Under full preferential voting, Australians number every candidate according to their preference.

The Trump administration, including Elbridge Colby, who is soon to be confirmed as head of policy at the US Defence Department, is now telling Australia it needs to spend 3% of GDP on the military. That would be quite a large increase from what Australia currently spends, but rather than push back, both major political parties are fully in step with the view that Australia needs to spend more boosting our military.

The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers told reporters, “We’re taking defence spending from about 2 per cent of our economy to more than 2.3 per cent in the course of the next decade or so.” The Coalition also seems to be considering an advance on this position and lifting the military budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2029.

The budget papers explain just how much is being spent on both the ongoing military spending, as well as the capital investment.

For the capital investment, the budget papers give both “net capital investment” as well as “purchases of non-financial assets”. The main difference is that the former is adjusted for depreciation and amortisation, while purchases of non-financial assets are not adjusted. There really is no good reason for deducting depreciation and amortisation. They are both rather meaningless concepts when it comes to military assets – is anyone really caring about the decline in the commercial value of the tanks the army has? Moreover, almost all discussions of the budget balance etc are based on cash accounting, which excludes depreciation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

Australia Institute Live from Amy Remeikis

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

It’s a reminder that despite women making up half the population, men outnumber women in most Australian parliaments and most party rooms.

Ten years ago the Liberal and Labor parties set the same target for women’s representation: 50% of parliamentarians to be women by 2025, this year.

While the Labor Party meets that target, the Liberal Party is far short of it.

When The Australia Institute crunched the numbers last year, male Liberal parliamentarians outnumbered female Liberal parliamentarians more than two to one.

The Liberal Party used to lead on women’s representation. Eight of the first 10 female federal MPs and Senators were Liberals.

Gough Whitlam’s “It’s time” win in 1972 included 93 male MPs and Senators – and not a single woman.

While things soon improved (it was not possible for them to get worse), it would be another three decades before the Labor Party was consistently more gender-representative than the Liberals at the federal level.

Nor were early Liberals opposed to quotas. As former Liberal senator Judith Troeth notes, “from 1944 the Liberal Party had reserved 50 per cent of the Victorian Division’s executive positions for women”.

The argument that quotas do not allow women to be selected on “merit” is facile: Coalition Cabinets always have a quota for National MPs.

For more details, see last year’s article here.

The PBS is, literally, a life saver for Australian families.

The Australia Institute has compared the staggering difference between the prices Australians and Americans pay for some of the most common medicines in the world.

For example, Atorvastatin – a cholesterol pill which is among the top ten most prescribed drugs in Australia – is 125 times more expensive in the US. Australians pay $21.07 for a prescription of Atorvastatin. Americans are slugged $2,628.39 for the same medication.

A commonly used tablet for high blood pressure, Lisinopril, is almost 25 times more expensive in the US than in Australia.

More than 10 million Salbutamol asthma puffers are prescribed or sold over the counter in Australia each year. For every $30 Australians spend on these puffers, Americans are charged $50.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Australia Institute economists Matt Grudnoff and Jack Thrower join Ebony Bennett to discuss the Australian economy and the federal election campaign.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 1 April 2025 and things may have changed.

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

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

Guest: Jack Thrower, Research Economist, the Australia Institute // @jack-thrower

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

Show notes:

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

He and Bridget McKenzie say they will work out which jobs need to be cut when they are in government.

Australians – particularly the thousands who would lose their jobs – deserve better than a slogan without a shred of evidence that it will achieve anything.

Australia Institute research shows:

• The Australian Public Service is not large in historical terms or by any international comparison.
• Keeping public service employment numbers low is not efficient. Experience shows service delivery suffers and/or money is spent on contractors, consultants and labour hire workers to meet demand.
• When the Albanese government took office, there was recognised under-investment in the public service. More staff were needed.
• Underinvestment in the Australian Public Service was due to previous governments keeping public service numbers artificially low by placing a cap on staffing.

“Public service bashing without any detail is nothing more than cheap, nasty politics,” said Fiona Macdonald, Director of The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

“Data from Services Australia reveals the recruitment of 5000 staff between 2023 and 2024 cut call waiting times to Centrelink by six minutes and calls to Medicare by nine minutes.

“It also resulted in cutting processing times for Paid Parental Leave claims from 25 days to four days, Job Seeker claims from 22 days to six days and online Medicare claims from 11 days down to two days.

Our research has shown that minimum and award wage increases have no impact on inflation.

Those on the minimum wage are the poorest paid workers in Australia and they deserve to see their living standards improve.

The cost of living pressures of the past three years have hurt those on low incomes the most because the biggest price rises have been on necessities like food.

“Those on award wages have seen their real wage fall by nearly 4% since 2020 and they deserve a wage increase that will restore their living standards,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“It is not surprising that business groups are arguing for a wage rise below inflation because that is what they always do.

“A decent wage rise for Australia’s poorest workers will not fuel inflation; it will only ensure those workers are able to keep their heads above water.”

The post Minimum wage increase would not impact inflation appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Yet the policies enjoy widespread support once people are made aware of them.

The results pose big questions about the ability of government to communicate its record in an era of fractured media and news avoidance.

In the poll of 2009 Australians, respondents were given a list of nine policies (including one fake) and asked to answer whether each policy was implemented by the Albanese government.

They were then asked if they supported or opposed each policy.

The results show:

• 84% of Australians support a wage increase for aged care workers and creating a National Anti-Corruption Commission, but only 39% (aged care pay rise) and 20% (creation of NACC) were aware of these reforms.
• Legislating a social media ban for under 16-year-olds is the only reform that most Australians have heard of (55%).
• Each reform is supported by the majority of Australians.
• 12% of Australians incorrectly identified a national ban on native forest logging as an Albanese Government policy, which it is not. 71% support it – more support than for some real Albanese government policies.

“High levels of news avoidance and declining trust in mainstream media make it harder for governments to communicate their policies and achievements, posing issues for democracy,” said Stephen Long, Senior Fellow at The Australia Institute.

And a second cut – from 4.1% to 3.85% – is exactly what the Reserve Bank should have delivered today.

The Treasurer and Prime Minister constantly remind us that the bank is independent of government and politics.

Now, suddenly, the RBA doesn’t want to look political.

“Australian mortgage holders are suffering too much for the bank to tiptoe around the sensitivities of our political leaders,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“When rates were going up, the bank had no problem slugging borrowers ten times in a row.

“Now that rates are coming down – and the bank board is meeting less often – the RBA is more worried about appearing political than doing the right thing by Australians.

“All the indicators have continued to move in the right direction since the last rate cut. Underlying inflation has now been below 3% for three straight months – so why wait?

“Interest rate cuts never happen as a one-off. The RBA has already indicated that more are coming. So, I repeat, why wait?”

The post Rate hold more political than the cut we should have had  appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On this episode of After America, Allan Behm joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the ongoing fallout from the Signal chat debacle, the dire situation facing Ukraine, and Australia’s failure to adapt to a radically changed world.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 28 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Read more from Emma in the latest edition of Australian Foreign Affairs.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia 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:

‘Here are the attack plans that Trump’s advisers shared on Signal’ by Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris, The Atlantic (March 2025)

Previous Australia Institute research showed that 56% of Australia’s gas exports are based on royalty-free gas and Treasury has confirmed that no gas export project has ever paid Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

Key points:

• Gas export volumes are expected to be maintained at 80 million tonnes per year to 2030.
• This gas is expected to sell for a total of $303 billion.
• 56% of this, or $170 billion is based on royalty-free gas and is unlikely to pay any petroleum tax.

“Big gas is taking the piss,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“Last week we saw Opposition Leader Peter Dutton acknowledge that excessive gas exports are harming Australians.

“Unrestricted gas exports have been a disaster, but even worse is that most of it is given away for free.

“It’s important to understand what these forecasts mean – the Australian Government is planning to give away vast volumes of public gas, for free, out to 2030.

“Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but this is making climate change worse.

“Fossil fuels need to be phased out and kept in the ground, not given away for free.

“The next parliament has a real opportunity to end the gas industry’s free ride and deliver for the Australian public and the climate.”

As chunks of rotting salmon from a massive fish die-off wash up on the shores of Tasmania’s pristine beaches, the Albanese government rammed legislation to shield the salmon industry through Parliament within 48 hours, with the support of the Coalition.

Details of the legislation were made public on Monday. On Tuesday, it was introduced to and passed by the lower house. By Wednesday evening it was law. Forget policy on the run, this was slapdash.

While focus was on the government’s surprise income tax cuts and Peter Dutton’s plans to sack 41,000 public service workers, Australia’s environment laws were gutted with no genuine debate. None of the regular parliamentary scrutiny that accompanies a bill.

No Senate inquiry. No time for public hearings or public input into the legislation. No consultation with scientists, or the local community.

It was pure politics. Both Labor and the Coalition rushed the legislation through with an eye on votes in Bass, Braddon and Lyons.

In this election campaign, opposition leader Peter Dutton has set out to defy the weight of his party’s recent history.

Dutton began the year by announcing plans to make the instant asset write-off scheme permanent and to introduce a $20,000 tax deduction for small business meal and entertainment expenses. In his budget reply speech on Thursday night, Dutton promised to temporarily halve the petrol excise, a move which he claimed would save motorists $14 per week.

That’s the extent of the Liberal Party’s tax agenda so far. Shadow ministers have told the media there are no discussions or plans for personal tax relief. When the government unveiled its budget-night proposal to cut the lowest tax rate (from 16 per cent to 14 per cent by mid-2027), Dutton dismissed the measure as a “cruel hoax” and promised to repeal the legislation if elected.

The opposition’s pledge to oppose that measure is truly historic.

Since the Menzies era, there have only been two out of 22 federal elections where the Liberal Party did not offer either personal income tax cuts, family tax relief or company tax cuts.

In elections where the Liberal Party did not make income tax cuts a centrepiece of its policy offering, it still offered proposals such as income tax indexation or half-indexation (particularly under Malcolm Fraser), income tax-splitting (under Andrew Peacock), child tax rebates (under Peacock and John Howard) or changes to the tax-free threshold (particularly under the Howard government) as a form of personal tax relief.

It looks like in this election there is going to be a lot of talk about how immigration impacts house prices. This topic can very quickly become charged with emotion, so instead let’s look at the facts.

Despite what you may have been told, over the past 10 years, housing supply has actually grown faster than the population. The number of dwellings has increased by 19%, while the population has grown by just 16%.

If supply were the only reason for the increase in house prices and the decline in affordability over the past decade, you would expect that during this time house prices would have either fallen or at least risen slower than average incomes. However, house prices have increased by 70% – well beyond household incomes. This clearly suggests that population growth is not the major factor driving house prices.

Even more clearly, during the pandemic the government closed the boarders and net overseas migration fell. That meant for one of the very few times, more people left the country than entered it. In the 18 months from March 2020 until September 2021, over 100,000 more people left Australia than entered it. That was the largest fall ever recorded.

If lowering migration made housing more affordable, then you would have expected that during this period, Australians would have experienced a great improvement in housing affordability. Alas, the complete opposite occurred. Instead of becoming more affordable. House prices rose an astonishing 20% in just 18 months.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the Government’s tax cuts, the big missed opportunities in this Budget, and what it’s like inside ‘the lock-up’.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 27 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

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

Show notes:

‘Labor’s budget tax cuts make good economic sense – and have backed Dutton and Taylor into a political corner’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (March 2025)

Mr Dutton said a Coalition government would force gas exporters to divert uncontracted gas to Australian customers, demonstrating that there is no gas shortage in Australia.

Key points – Australia Institute research has shown:

• Excessive gas exports have caused domestic gas and electricity prices to triple. Limiting exports is the only way to reverse this price increase.
• Gas exporters such as Santos have stated that part of their goal for export gas projects was increasing domestic gas prices.
• This policy would not significantly affect government budgets or the economy because the gas industry pays little tax and employs few people.
• No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum tax, most gas exports are royalty-free and most pay little company tax.

“It is good to see the Opposition identify the key problem in Australian energy policy – excessive gas exports,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“A decade ago, Santos told investors that their gas projects were ‘as much about raising the domestic gas price as about gas exports’ and finally some of Australia’s leaders may be ready to push back on gas corporations.

“Gas exports have tripled prices for Australians and the only way to stop that is to restrict exports and to switch Australia’s energy demand to cleaner sources.

The announcement today that the Liberal Party will halve the fuel tax excise for one year if it wins the election in May is, alas, yet another of the many policies put in place over the years that encourage the use of fossil fuels. At a time when all political parties should be working to reduce emissions, this policy does the exact opposite.

But while that is bad enough, the dollar benefit to an “average Australian” would seem to be much less than $750 per year suggested by the opposition leader.

The opposition have told reporters that the $750 figure is based on filling up a 55L tank once a week. Now, if you have a pretty standard petrol car that gets around 8.2l/100km that means driving 670km a week. That is a lot of driving for anyone living in the city.

And so it is not surprising that most surveys estimate that people fill up their car a lot less than once a week.

Budget Direct Car Insurance in 2022 surveyed road users and found that only a quarter of Australians filled up once a week – some more than that, but around two-thirds of drivers filled up only once a fortnight or less. For those drivers, the benefits of this halving of the rebate is much less than $750.

Australia has enough gas to supply the domestic market many times over.

But the gas giants are allowed to export 80% of our gas overseas. That creates fake shortages which, in turn, force domestic prices up.

There is no need to approve any new gas projects in Australia.

Australia Institute research proves this would only make things worse. It would lead to more exports. The manufactured shortages would remain and domestic prices would keep rising. The only winner would be the multinational gas companies.

It’s expected Mr Dutton will use tonight’s Budget Reply speech to announce a domestic gas reservation scheme targeting new projects in exchange for faster environmental approvals.

A reservation scheme is a good idea, but it must be for existing gas, not new gas. Exports should be capped.

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss Trump administration group chats, Big Pharma’s big whinge, and the history of conservative efforts to dismantle the federal Education department.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 25 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Read more from Emma in the latest edition of Australian Foreign Affairs.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia 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:

‘The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans’ by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic (March 2025)

The Albanese government has often – and rightly – been criticised for lacking policy boldness in areas such as climate change and the need to address inequality and poverty through measures such as increasing Jobseeker. But with regards to industrial relations, the government has shown that bold policy is not just possible, but also successful.

Prior to the election in 2022, enterprise bargaining was on life support.  Over a decade of efforts by business groups had led to a record low share of 14.8% of employees being covered by enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs). Enterprise agreements have long been disliked by companies and business groups because, as a general rule, they deliver better wage growth because they enable workers to combine their bargaining power – often and most effectively through representation by a union.

In 2023, the government introduced changes to workplace relations laws which strengthened the ability of workers to bargain in enterprise agreements and also to ensure more workers can be covered by such agreements. One significant policy reform was the introduction of the ability for multi-employer agreements to cover low-paid employees who often have little individual bargaining power.

The latest figures from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations show that there has been a very strong increase in the number of workers covered by EBAs – up to 21.3%. This is the first time more than 20% of workers have been covered by EBAs since June 2020.

The federal government last night rammed changes to Australia’s environment law – aimed at protecting salmon farming operations in Tasmania – through the Senate.

The legislation aims to scupper a long-awaited review of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, on Tassie’s west coast, by Environment Minister – and Member for Sydney – Tanya Plibersek.

While the legislation was promised and driven by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, this poll suggests voters may punish Ms Plibersek, revealing her first-preference support has fallen to 41.1%, down from 50.82% at the 2022 election.

The Australia Institute commissioned the polling from uComms, which surveyed 860 Australians living in Sydney between 17 and 18 March 2025.

Key Findings:

• 61% support stopping salmon farming in areas where it is putting the endangered Maugean skate at risk of extinction; more than twice as many who oppose (24%).
• 63% have heard about the mass fish deaths currently happening in the salmon industry in Tasmania.
• 68% think the current mass fish deaths are having a negative impact on Tasmania’s ‘clean and green’ brand, including 36% who think it’s having a significant negative impact.

“Voters in Sydney and all around Australia understand and have watched in horror at what’s happening in Tasmania,” said Eloise Carr, Director of The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“That includes voters in the Environment Minister’s own seat.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Ebony Bennett discusses the Government’s efforts to weaken the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act with Australia Institute Executive Director Dr Richard Denniss and Strategy Director Leanne Minshull.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 25 March 2025 and things may have changed.

Sign our petition calling on the Government not to gut Australia’s environment laws.

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

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

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

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

Show notes:

He also wants to introduce a National Interest Test for major projects seeking environmental approval. The test would take into account economic and social benefits.

Woodside’s proposed 50-year NWS gas expansion should be subject to a National Interest Test.

It would fail miserably.

Last night’s passing of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act weakens the protection of our natural treasures, rammed through by a government which promised greater protection.

The amendments increase the likelihood that Australian native species will become extinct, driven by a government which promised no extinctions under its watch.

The amendments are designed to protect the destructive, foreign-owned commercial salmon industry in Tasmania.

But the changes could stop anyone – from local community groups to Federal Government Ministers – from reviewing projects like coal mines, gas exploration, land clearing or other destructive practices.

“This bill has ramifications for industries that goes well beyond salmon. It will affect all industries governed by this legislation,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“Labor and Coalition MPs described what they were trying to achieve as ‘fixing a flaw’ in the EPBC Act. There was no flaw in the law.

“For once, just as our nature law was about to do what it is supposed to – protect world heritage and species threatened with extinction – the major parties have changed the law.

“We have a parliamentary process to scrutinise laws before they pass. But not this time.”

Ten years ago, Anthony Albanese described similar changes proposed by the coalition government as an act of environmental vandalism.

The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets.

As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives.
There is very little in this budget that is new, other than some surprise tax cuts, which are welcome given they mostly benefit people on low incomes

There are continuing investments in some key areas supporting wages growth where it is solely needed and for rebuilding important areas of public good. However, there remains much that needs to be done in the next parliament, whoever is in government.

“The budget does deliver a welcome tax cut targeted towards those on low incomes” Chief Economist Greg Jericho notes, “but the lack of new spending and initiatives highlights the need for policies from all political parties in the coming election campaign that address inequality and the needs of people who have been most hurt by cost of living rises over the past three years.”

Read our full budget briefing paper for more information

The post Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis appeared first on The Australia Institute.

It has modest sweeteners, in the form of tax cuts, electricity rebates, cheaper medicines and incentives to increase bulk billing.

The tax cuts are well-targeted and cost-of-living measures are not inflationary.

There is nothing in the budget which should stand in the way of more interest rate cuts.

Winners

Well, everyone who earns more than $18,200. Everyone gets a tax cut – up to $268 in 2026-27 and another one in 2027-28. It’s a smart tax cut – mostly benefitting those earning less than $45,000.

People who go to the doctor/use the PBS – as was previously announced – cheaper PBS medicine, cheaper GP visits (hopefully) and the energy rebate is extended for another 6 months (tune back in 6 months to see if it gets extended again).

Beer drinkers – the Government will pause indexation on draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duty rates for a two‑year period, from August 2025 – also previously announced.

Gas companies who are projected to pay less PRRT over the next 4 years – $1.95bn than $1.8bn then $1.65bn then $1.45bn. As a result, beer drinkers – even with the pause of excise indexation will still pay $4.8bn more than gas companies do on PRRT over the next 4 years.

Wealthy people who live using the superannuation system to avoid paying tax – no changes to the super tax concessions.

Wealthy people who like using the tax system to speculate in the housing market. No changes to that nor negative gearing.

When the then-coalition government sought to weaken the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Mr. Albanese said “the right of citizens with standing to challenge their governments in court is a fundamental pillar of a robust democracy”.

Tomorrow, the Albanese government is planning to do exactly what Mr. Albanese warned against in 2015.

The government will introduce amendments to parliament tomorrow seeking to change subsection 78(3) and subsection 78C(1) of the EPBC Act, which will limit the ability to review decisions and have major consequences for our natural environment.

Science is constantly evolving. Australia needs laws which enable decisions to be reviewed based on the latest evidence. These amendments stop us from doing that.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

What Peter Dutton and the Coalition are offering Australian voters is a fiction.

It’s headlines without substance, chimeras and half-truths that never stand up to scrutiny, but comprehensively misdirects the media’s gaze.

The nation has been in election mode since the beginning of the year, when Anthony Albanese used his January press club address to remind voters of what he had spent the better part of the last three years doing.

Dutton fronted his own quasi election opening campaign launch in Victoria, the state he hopes will help deliver a Labor defeat, complete with a new slogan ‘let’s get Australia back on track’.

If it sounds as though someone in Coalition headquarters ran ‘Make America Great Again’ through ChatGPT with the instruction to make something similar for Australia, but different, congratulations – your neurons are firing in exactly the way someone receiving big money worked to manipulate.

But on the eve of the election being formally called, one has to ask – what track is a Dutton led Australia heading towards?  An imaginary fantasy of the 1950s, when ‘strong’ men made decisions and women did what they were told, and migrants were indistinguishable from their neighbours, as long as their name wasn’t printed on the letter box?

The changes to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will reportedly be rammed through Parliament next week as a favour to the salmon industry in Tasmania. They would also benefit gas and coal mines.

The proposal would prohibit third-party civil society organisations like The Australia Institute and Environmental Defenders Office from challenging environmentally damaging projects.

“Weakening environmental laws doesn’t help the Australian community or the Australian economy. It simply boosts the profits of salmon corporations, coal companies and other corporate interests,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director of The Australia Institute.

“Any change that makes it harder for community groups to use Australia’s environment laws is, by definition, anti-democratic.

“This legislation appears to be in response to The Australia Institute triggering a review of the impact of salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, where salmon corporations are pushing the endangered Maugean skate towards extinction.

“This isn’t just The Australia Institute’s view, it’s the view of the Federal Environment Department. Documents released under freedom of information reveal that officials told Minister Plibersek that it was ‘likely’ salmon farming would have to stop while a full environmental assessment is done.

“The role The Australia Institute and other NGOs play in environmental decision-making fundamentally strengthens Australia’s democracy.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor preview next week’s Federal Budget and why the Government doesn’t need to leave so much tax revenue on the table.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 20 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

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

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

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

Show notes:

5 ways and 63 billion reasons to improve Australia’s tax system by Greg Jericho, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

That equates to $28,381 per minute, handed to some of the biggest, most profitable companies in Australia at a time when ordinary Australians are battling a long-running cost-of-living crisis.

As the federal election approaches, independent and minor party candidates have indicated that winding back these subsidies would be a key objective if they are elected into a hung parliament.

Key points:

• Federal Government fossil fuel subsidies reached $12.6 billion, mainly due to the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme which refunds fuel tax to major diesel users
• Major mining corporations are the key beneficiaries of federal subsidies, with the coal industry receiving $1.1 billion through the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme
• State governments provided $1.2 billion worth of assistance measures such as cheap access to infrastructure, gas purchase commitments and handouts for research and development

“Fossil fuel subsidies harm the budget and make climate change worse,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Cutting back subsidies like these, which make the community and the climate worse off, should be a priority for the next parliament.

“It is pleasing to see crossbench members looking seriously at fossil fuel subsidies such as the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme.

“This is a major opportunity to redirect billions of dollars from mining companies like BHP and Glencore, and instead invest this money in health, education and other community services.”

The Australia Institute has recommended an extensive list of reforms to make our once-great university sector more efficient, transparent and democratic – in a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Quality of Governance at Australian Higher Education Providers.

Australia’s higher education sector has been plagued with scandals in recent years, from wage theft and conflicts of interest, to excessive spending on marketing, travel and consultants.

Yet our university Vice-Chancellors are among the highest-paid in the world.

In 2023, the Australian National University spent around $54 million on consultants. It was later revealed that contracts were awarded to a consulting firm run by a friend of Chancellor Julie Bishop. As the University cut costs and slashed jobs, Ms. Bishop spent $150,000 on travel.