Our democracy's not working well. Here are some ideas to fix it

This limp, uninspiring election campaign is a sign our democracy isn’t working as well as it should. The voters’ preoccupation with the cost of living has been a gift to both major parties, allowing them to wave around a few small tax cuts and other sweeties while avoiding controversial measures to tackle harder problems.

The big two are claiming to want to get us “back on track” and “building Australia’s future” while saying and doing little about limiting climate change, reducing intergenerational unfairness (including unaffordable home ownership) and raising our stagnant standard of living.

The two parties have fought themselves to a standstill, where neither side is game to propose anything unpleasant – raising taxes, for instance – for fear of the scare campaign the other side would run.

What could we do to encourage politicians to try harder and show some courage? Well, John Daley, formerly a boss of the Grattan Institute, and Rachel Krust offer some good ideas in a report sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation.

Their idea is to toughen up the institutions and arrangements that surround our federal politicians, putting more pressure on the pollies to get on with making real improvements. They want “a stronger parliament, a more independent public service, more independent advisory bodies and a competitive electoral system that rewards deep engagement with the whole community and pushes incumbents to do better”, Daley says.

They start with reducing political donations, which feed the perception – and the reality – that money is buying access and influence. Many of the donations come from industries which are highly regulated by the government. Gambling companies, for instance, contribute 10 per cent of the donations from industry despite accounting for just 1 per cent of the economy.

The cap on donations from industry bodies should be reduced from $1.6 million a year to $150,000 over the period between elections. The cap on spending by third parties (such as Clive Palmer) should be lowered from $11 million to $2 million. This would also apply to donations from “nominated entities” such as the Liberals’ Cormack Foundation and Climate 200.

The threshold for public disclosure of donations should be lowered from $5000 to $1000.

Daley and Krust say the limits on how much could be spent on campaigning that were agreed by the two major parties unfairly benefit nationwide political parties at the expense of independents by allowing the parties to buy advertising in marginal electorates which independents aren’t allowed to match.

Turning to the public service, the former Coalition government’s robo-debt scandal, in which senior public servants failed to stand up to their minister’s wish to do something unlawful and Barnaby Joyce’s admission that he fired a department secretary to get more compliant advice, tells us the public service has become too responsive to ministers and not independent enough in serving the long-term public interest.

Daley and Krust say we need legislation to require that department secretaries be appointed from a shortlist supplied by the Public Service Commission and the secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department.

Legislation should also limit the grounds on which a department secretary’s employment can be terminated.

Next, the authors want to curb a prime minister’s ability to call an early election. This gives the government an unfair advantage over its opponents because it can pick a date it thinks will work better for it as well as keeping its opponents guessing.

Speculation about early election dates creates uncertainty and distracts politicians and the media from focusing on policy issues.

The authors favour a fixed four-year term, but this would require a referendum. Three-year terms, however, could be made fixed terms by legislation, unless the government loses a confidence motion or is unable to pass supply bills to keep money flowing.

A further idea is to make civics education compulsory in the latter years of high school education.

It’s tempting to try to fix any and every problem by adding it to the school curriculum, but I think civics is a special case. People need to know how our political system works as part of their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

Testing shows that knowledge of civics is falling. Only 28 per cent of year 10 students were at the proficient standard last year – the worst result since testing began in 2004. Perhaps if young people knew more about how the system worked, they’d take more interest in election campaigns. And perhaps if they’d studied democracy, they’d value it as highly as the rest of us.

A further proposal by the authors is that independent members of parliament be given increased staff to help them review proposed legislation, particularly if they hold the balance of power.

Daley and Krust’s ideas are good and could give our politicians’ performance a shot in the arm. But the system as it is now is what makes life easier for the two major parties. Why would either Labor or the Coalition ever want to make such changes?

They wouldn’t. But that’s what makes the pair’s suggestions so timely. If either of the majors wins a majority of seats, those proposals are likely to go straight to the most unreachable shelf in the parliamentary library.

But there’s a high likelihood neither side will win enough seats to govern in its own right. In which case, one side or the other will need to gain the support of enough minor party and independent members to convince the governor-general it’s able to govern with stability.

So these are just the circumstances in which the crossbenchers will be well placed to bargain for their support and the authors’ wish list could come in handy.

I’ve never forgotten that NSW’s move to four-year fixed terms came as part of the bargaining with four independents after Nick Greiner’s Coalition government fell short of the numbers at an election in 1991.

Political miracles do sometimes happen.

Read more >>

My Easter sermon: How we can Trump-proof our society

Since it’s Easter, and we’ve got the day off – and politicians have gone to ground – it’s a good time for, if not religious observance, then at least a little moral reflection.

According to The Economist magazine, Christianity is struggling across the developed world. The Americans seem more devout than other English-speaking countries, but since the turn of the century, church attendance there has fallen from 70 per cent of people to 45 per cent. In Italy, home of Catholicism, the number of churchgoers has shrunk by almost half over the past decade.

Of course, churchgoing and religious identification aren’t quite the same thing. For example, I still put myself down as Salvation Army on the census, which would come as a surprise to my local minister. As a mate explained it, “you can take the boy out of the Salvos, but you can’t take the Salvos out of the boy”.

Anyhow, here in Oz, according to the 2021 census, the proportion of people identifying as Christian has fallen from 61 per cent to 44 per cent in a decade. The proportion of those reporting “no religion” has risen from 22 per cent to 39 per cent.

Well, to each their own. If people are less religious than they were, how does that make much difference to anything? Actually, I think it could. To me, Christianity and other religions are a mixture of beliefs about the supernatural and beliefs about morality – what’s right and wrong behaviour, especially towards others.

It’s the latter that keeps me lining up with the Christians. And if reduced religious adherence leads to less ethical behaviour, then it certainly does make a difference, to our mutual cost.

In my essay last week about the decline in election campaigns, I noted that, these days, both sides of politics limit their appeal almost exclusively to our self-interest. Who was it who said “ask not what you can do for your country – ask which party is offering you the better deal”?

When politicians are no longer game to appeal to the better angels of our nature, that’s when you know we’ve got a problem. When politics becomes little more than making sure you and yours, or your company, or your industry, gets a bigger slice of the national pie, decline must surely follow.

Conventional economic theory is built on the assumption that the economic dimension of our lives is motivated by nothing other than self-interest. If so, heaven help us.

In Adam Smith’s familiar words: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

There’s much truth to his idea that the “invisible hand” of market forces can transform all that self-interest into an economy that meets our material needs pretty well. But that’s not the whole story, and it’s clear Smith never believed we could get along fine without moral behaviour.

The rich world’s experiment with what Australians called “economic rationalism” and academics now call “neoliberalism” had a price we’re still paying. It had the effect of sanctifying selfishness.

There’s a lot of self-interest in the world, and there always will be, but it’s wrong and damaging to imagine that it’s the only emotion that does or should drive human behaviour. As some behavioural economists have reminded us, humans co-operate with each other as well as compete.

To put it in terms more appropriate to Easter, all of us have our “better selves” by which we care about the feelings and needs of others, where we don’t like seeing others treated unfairly, getting an inadequate share of the pie or being denied the opportunity to flourish.

This brings us to Donald Trump. If things keep going the way they are, I won’t be surprised if many people conclude Trump and his tariff madness played a big part in this election’s outcome. The difficulties all the rich economies are having recovering from the post-COVID inflation surge have caused many incumbent governments to be punished for cost-of-living crises – even if, like the Albanese government, they weren’t in power when the seeds were sown.

If Albanese escapes that fate, Trump and his antics will be credited with having united our voters with their government against a threat from a hostile foreign power. But if Peter Dutton doesn’t do well, some will attribute this to his earlier admiration for Trump and his dalliance with some of his policies, such as his attack on government spending and public servants.

What I wonder is how such a crazy man with so many dangerous notions was able to talk his way into such a powerful office in what’s supposed by Americans to be the world’s greatest democracy, especially after they’d had a four-year test-drive to see what he was like.

I put it down to three factors: the Americans’ distorted voting system, their highly polarised party system where many Republicans knew how bad Trump was but voted for him anyway, and the large number of less-educated white voters, particularly men formerly employed in factories, who felt they’d been cheated by the market economy and alienated from those of us who’d done well from the technological advance and globalisation that had greatly reduced the cost of many manufactured goods.

So alienated are many Americans that they voted for Trump not because they believed his promises – they don’t believe any politician’s promises – but because they wanted to see him give the capitalist system an almighty kick in the backside. This is just what he’s doing.

In the heat of their neoliberal fervour, the Americans didn’t bother to look after the victims from their “reforms” – didn’t bother making sure they got decent unemployment benefits, let alone help to retrain and relocate in their search for employment.

If we don’t want to see the rise of our own Trump, we should follow Jesus’ advice to love our neighbour as ourselves.

Read more >>

Whether you eat alone is a good predictor of happiness

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

If you’re sharing a meal with someone this Easter, chances are you’re happier.

In fact, it’s as strong an indicator of how happy you are as the amount of money you’re raking in and whether you’re holding down a job.

That’s according to this year’s World Happiness Report, which examined data from a survey across 142 countries and 150,000 people, finding the link between meal-sharing and happiness holds regardless of age, gender, country or culture.

There are well-established links between income, employment and happiness: someone holding down a job is more likely to be happy than someone who is unemployed. And the more money a person makes (at least until a certain point), the happier they tend to be.

You won’t see the rate of meal-sharing cited by many politicians or economists, but it’s a great indicator of happiness – and in some ways, more so than income.

How much you’re paid and whether you have a job is a stronger indicator of the level of negative emotions you experience, but how often you share meals has a stronger link both to the level of positive emotions you experience and how highly you rank your life satisfaction.

It’s the places where residents share more meals that tend to report greater average life satisfaction.

And while Latin America and the Caribbean are the global leaders in meal-sharing frequency, the link to happiness is stronger in Australia, North America and New Zealand than for any other region in the world. Starting to share most of our meals – meaning eight or more a week – can boost our wellbeing by the same amount as doubling our income.

We’re also a lot more likely to eat dinner with other people than we are to share lunches in Australia, sitting around the dining table with others for five dinners a week on average. Levels of meal-sharing generally are low in south and east Asian countries such as Japan, India and South Korea, where people share less than one meal out of three on average.

But wherever you look, it’s the places where residents share more meals that tend to report greater average life satisfaction.

Part of what makes the rate of meal-sharing such a good measure is that it’s relatively objective. It’s easy to ask and answer, it’s not something people are likely to hide or lie about (like they might for income), and it can be easily compared across countries, cultures, individuals and across time.

Of course, it has its limitations. For instance, how do we know whether sharing meals makes people happier, or if people share more meals when they’re happy to begin with?

We can’t say for certain, but chances are it goes both ways, at least to some extent.

Other factors can muddy the water. For example, are people more likely to share a meal if they have the money to go out and meet people at a restaurant?

These factors, at least, can be accounted for, and researchers found the relationship between meal-sharing and happiness held even after considering income, education, employment and a buffet of other indicators. The more meals you share, the happier you tend to be.

Those who shared 13 meals with others in the previous week reported the highest average life satisfaction. That tumbles the fewer meals respondents shared in the past week. But the biggest jump is between those who ate all meals alone and those who ate at least one meal with someone else.

While the relationship holds across demographics, there are some differences in the ways meal-sharing tendencies affect different cohorts.

Both men and women who eat more frequently with others report higher life satisfaction and feeling more positive emotions, but when we look at the negative impact of dining alone, it tends to hit women harder.

By age, both young and old people report higher levels of negative emotions if they dine alone. But there are much bigger gaps in life satisfaction and the level of positive emotions reported for young people dining alone compared with older adults. The good news is that young people tend to share more meals than their elders.

One strong explanation for why meal-sharing might be linked with happiness is that eating with other people is a way of strengthening social connections.

Decades of research has shown social connectedness is key to our happiness, mental and physical health. People with stronger social connections are also more likely to be promoted, less likely to commit crimes and tend to live longer lives, while those who are socially isolated or lonely tend to experience more negative life outcomes.

This is good news for policymakers who might be looking for new, cost-effective and practical ways to boost happiness. Funding for initiatives or new programs centred around meal-sharing could be a realistic way to help strengthen social ties and well-being.

As a bonus, the research also found that sharing meals was linked to higher enjoyment of the food consumed or prepared. Put simply, eating your food with other people probably makes your food taste better.

While the findings certainly have implications for high-up decision-makers, it’s also something which individuals can think about in their everyday lives. If sharing meals is linked to higher life satisfaction and happiness, it could be worth finding ways to increase the number of meals you share with those around you.

So when your parents drag you to the table for dinner, or when you’re deciding whether to go eat your lunch alone or with colleagues, there’s a good argument for why you should step away from your room or desk and break bread together. It could just make you happier.

Read more >>

Home truths: housing policies are mainly for show

If you think this sounds twisted, it is. The best thing about the two sides’ various promises to help young people afford to buy their first home is the way it has provoked the nation’s economists to rise in condemnation of those schemes’ wrongheadedness. They look like they’ll help, but most of them are more likely to end up making homes less affordable rather than more.

And the parties know it. They know it because their economic advisers wouldn’t fail to make sure they knew. All economists know it, but this is the first time so many have come out and said it, joining independent economist Saul Eslake, who’s been saying it at every opportunity for decades.

You can say housing affordability comes up at every election, but not like it has this time. This time, both sides are giving it top billing. They know they can’t hope to win the election without having promises that seem to be helping would-be home owners. It’s just a pity they aren’t more sincere about it.

So what’s changed? The voting population. For years, the pollies have known that the number of home owners far exceeded the number of people hoping to become home owners. So the number of voters who love seeing the price of homes continually rise far exceeds the number who hate it.

But now, for the first time, the great lump of Baby Boomers is outnumbered by the Millennials and Generation Z. The Boomers are probably the last generation where most were able to clamber aboard the homeownership merry-go-round. And they did that a long time ago.

It’s the younger generations who’ve had the least success in dreaming the Great Australian dream. And guess what? They’re pretty peed off about it.

A recent survey by money.com.au found that housing affordability and rental stress were the dominant concerns for Australians under 40.

And my guess is that their encounter with the bank of mum and dad has helped the older generation see that ever-rising house prices is a two-edged sword. Actually, this intergenerational recycling has been one of the factors helping to keep house prices high and rising.

Why? Because by helping young people afford otherwise unaffordable prices, it’s helping keep them high, rather than falling until they became affordable. And when some new government scheme helps many people afford the unaffordable price, that tends to bid the price up, too.

If prices do rise, the beneficiaries of the scheme end up being not the buyer of the home, but the seller. And that’s been the great attraction of such schemes: they look like they’re helping first home buyers while they are actually benefiting existing home owners. Just what the politicians want.

Most people view such schemes purely from their own perspective: if the government gives me a leg-up, I’ll be able to afford this high price. That would be true if you were the only person helped. But when many people like you are helped at the same time, only the highest bidder wins.

Just about all the schemes proposed by the two parties have this effect. The Coalition’s earlier announced scheme, to let first home buyers take up to $50,000 out of their super and use it towards a deposit, also helps many rival bidders.

If there were lots of similar houses available at that price, then everyone could buy one without affecting the price. But that’s the point: the reason the price is so high is that there aren’t many available relative to the demand.

The Coalition’s new scheme is to grant eligible first home buyers a tax deduction on the interest they pay on their home loan for the first five years, provided they buy a newly built home. This may allow people to borrow more – provided the banks allow it – but just making the monthly mortgage payments easier to afford will add to the demand for homes.

And this is the scheme that frightens economists the most. It could be much more costly to the budget than expected if many more people take it up. It could be hard politically for a Dutton government to chop it off after five years. And it heavily favours high income-earners.

Labor’s huge expansion of a scheme that allows people to buy a place with a deposit of only 5 per cent because the government gives them free “lenders mortgage insurance” is a kind of negative gearing for owner-occupiers rather than investors. But it, too, would add to the demand for homes.

It boils down to this: when the demand for homes exceeds the supply of them, rising prices are inevitable. The only way to slow the rise is either to reduce demand (say, by removing the tax breaks for investors), or to increase the supply of homes by building more of them.

Labor’s scheme to spend $10 billion building 100,000 new homes across the country in a joint arrangement with the state governments on a non-profit basis and with purchases restricted to first-home buyers, is the only scheme that would increase supply and put some downward pressure on prices.

The Coalition claims its interest-deductibility scheme would add to supply because it’s limited to people buying new homes. Sorry, not true. If increasing the demand for housing quickly and easily led to an increased supply of them, house prices would not have risen to the heights they’re at today.

No, our very problem is that state government zoning requirements and an inefficient housing industry stop supply from increasing much in response to increased demand.

Labor’s scheme with the states should overcome the zoning problem, but our years of neglecting to train enough building apprentices will need a lot of fixing and could yet greatly limit the building of more homes.

There’s no quick and easy solution to our housing affordability crisis. And almost all the schemes the two sides are waving about are just for show.

But Labor does get the need to free up the supply of homes. Unfortunately, that message is yet to get through to the Coalition.

Read more >>

This election is one of the worst I've seen

How are you going with the election? Are you getting a lot out of the debate, seeing the big issues canvassed and making up your mind who’ll win your vote?

It’s not as if the choice isn’t clear: do you want to wait 15 months for a permanent tax cut of $5 a week, rising to $10 a week a year later, or would you be eligible for a $1200 once-only tax cut in July 2026, plus an immediate one-year cut of 25c a litre in the price of petrol?

If that’s not enough to seduce you, there’s more. Anthony Albanese will cut the price of draught beer by 5¢ a glass for two years or, for small businesses, Peter Dutton will make entertainment expenses tax-deductible (conditions apply).

But you may want to judge it on the character of the leaders. Again, the choice is clear: do you want the controlled, experienced hand of Albanese, who’ll never do anything rash, whose goals are modest and whose motto is “steady but slow”? Got a problem? He’ll think about it. If you want a prime minister who’s on everyone’s side, Albo’s your man.

Or do you want tough cop Dutton on the beat, always quick on the draw and ready to protect us from the threatening world we live in? He’s heard of a supermarket worker who’d had a machete held to her throat. That won’t happen to you on Dutto’s watch.

And it’s not as if the campaign so far hasn’t been action packed. We’ve had Albanese falling off the platform at an election rally, then denying it. We’ve had Dutton joining a kids’ football game and hitting a cameraman in the forehead.

What would a campaign be without seeing pollies in safety helmets and high-vis vests on TV every night? Or at a childcare centre, showing how human they are and what good fathers they must be whenever they can make it home?

What’s new this time is Greens leader Adam Bandt taking a big red toothbrush with him to TV interviews (must have some meaning I’m missing) or his colleague waving round a bleeding headless salmon in the Senate.

What’s that? You don’t think much of the election campaign? It’s been neither interesting nor edifying, and hasn’t got to grips with the big issues?

Well, I agree. I think both sides are treating us like mugs. Maybe like the mugs many of us have allowed ourselves to become.

In my 51 years as a journalist, this is the 20th federal election campaign I’ve observed at close quarters, and I’m convinced they’re getting worse: more contrived, manipulative, transactional and misleading, and less focused on the various serious problems facing us, which are far greater than they used to be, and now include America’s abdication from leadership of the free world.

In short, election campaigns have become dishonest, aimed at tricking us into voting for one side rather than the other, using trinkets to distract us from the bigger issues that neither side has thought much about nor has any great desire to tackle.

I know that’s easy to say for an oldie like me (77, since you were too polite to ask). “It was much better in my day.” But though things weren’t great in the old days – we’ve never been a paragon of Socratic debate – I think they’ve got worse over the years, and I’ll try to show how they’ve got worse and explain why.

But I must say this: even if things in Australia have got worse, they’re not as bad as they are in many other countries, particularly the US. Nor are they ever likely to be.

Three things protect us from other countries’ decline. First, compulsory voting, which forces everyone to register a choice and pay at least some degree of attention. Second, preferential voting ensures the person who wins is the one most of us prefer.

And third, an independent electoral commission which regularly increases the number of electorates and redraws boundaries to ensure there’s roughly the same number of voters in each, and these have boundaries that aren’t gerrymandered to give one side or the other a built-in advantage.

This is in marked contrast to the US, where each state government determines its own federal voting arrangements. Their gerrymandering ensures they have very few marginal electorates, whereas we have a lot. And we don’t have voting arrangements designed to disadvantage certain classes of voters, such as racial minorities.

So we shouldn’t complain too much. Even so, our election campaigns have changed over the years, and not for the better.

They’ve changed because the voters have changed – Gen Z seems a lot less interested in conventional politics than we Baby Boomers were at their age, when there was so much disapproval of Australia’s part in the Vietnam War, and so many young men (including me) hoping not to be conscripted.

Another important source of change is technological advance, particularly the effect of the information revolution, which has armed the parties with greater knowledge of voters’ views, and changed the media by which politicians reach out to voters.

Finally, the political class’s changing aspirations have affected the way campaigns are run. In the olden days – even before my time – politicians used to travel round, visiting key electorates and talking to voters. They’d do this at evening public meetings or, during the day, from the back of a truck in the main street.

But the advent of television changed all that. While local politicians and their supporters may canvas their electorates door to door, most contact between the party leaders and the voters occurs via TV.

These days, leaders still visit marginal seats around the country, but what they do during the day is aimed at producing the colour and movement that will get them a spot on the evening TV news – hence helmets and high-vis.

They’ve worked up a list of promises to announce, and they (and their media entourage) go somewhere vaguely relevant to deliver the announcement. Guess where they go to announce a change in childcare?

A big advantage of this is that their busy day ends late afternoon, once the TV news camerapeople have got what they need for this evening. Then the leaders can go to a fundraiser, appear on a current affairs program, or get an early night.

Trouble is, though the pollies haven’t changed their routine, the evening TV news bulletin isn’t nearly as universal as it was. When there were only four channels, all airing their news at the same time, if you wanted to watch telly while you had dinner, you couldn’t avoid the nightly news bulletin.

Now the proliferation of TV choices makes it much easier to avoid the news, which many do. The parties have started using social media to spread their messages, but this makes it harder for the rest of us to see what they’re up to.

As the proportion of people who don’t follow the news – and aren’t much interested in politics – has grown, the parties have had to reach them via advertising. They now spend a fortune on TV ads, with far fewer ads in print and on radio. My theory is that, for the many people who don’t follow politics but know they’ll have to vote, they do their last-minute homework by remembering the TV ads they’ve seen.

But advertising works by appealing to our emotions, not our brains. Don’t explain the details, just make me feel nice – or angry. The parties know negative ads – attacks on their opponents – work better than positive ones (“you’re gonna love my policies”), which is hardly a boon to the democratic process.

This is what has made fear campaigns – misleading people about how badly they’d be affected by the other side’s planned changes – so fearfully effective. And the increasing resort to fearmongering is a major way by which election campaigns have become less informative and more misleading.

So it’s not just the way the mechanics of campaigning have changed. More importantly, it’s the way what’s said has changed, and the way the politicians’ objectives and behaviour have changed.

Politics has become more professional. In former times, politicians tended to be men (yes, almost all of them men) who turned to politics after a career as a lawyer, businessman or union official. They’d wearied of making money and decided to spend the last part of their working life fighting for a cause.

I’m sure personal ambition has always been a big motivation for getting into politics, but in those days, it came mixed with a strong desire to make the world a better place. These days, politics has become a career path you follow for most of your working life.

When young people are interested in politics and would like to make a career of it, they get started as soon as they leave university, taking a job working for a union, or in a minister or opposition minister’s office. The number of people working in ministers’ offices has grown considerably during my time in journalism.

It started in the Labor Party, but then the Liberals joined in. You work your way up the ladder, first aiming for preselection as a parliamentary candidate. Once you’ve made it into parliament, you work towards a job as a minister or shadow minister, then see how far you can make it towards the very top.

Such a career path teaches you a lot about how the political game is played, but not much about how government policies work best in the interests of the public. It tends to replace any initial idealism with pragmatism and cynicism. It tends to feed ambition.

These days it’s rare for politicians to enter politics later in life. Two exceptions were the Liberals’ Dr John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull. Both were hugely intelligent, and both cared about good policy, but both had trouble playing the political game at the professional level and didn’t survive at the top. Labor’s exception was Bob Hawke. His great success at the top came from all the politics he’d learnt while rising to the top of the union movement.

So when the barroom experts assert that most politicians care more about their personal advancement than about doing good things for the nation, I’m inclined to agree. As someone famous once said, “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

The professionalisation of politics is a main reason that what’s said and done in election campaigns has changed, but another reason is that politics has become more scientific. In former days, politics was played by ear. Pollies decided what voters liked and didn’t like from what the voters they met said to them, then used their own intuition to fill in the gaps.

These days, the parties spend a lot of money conducting private polling, not just of how people intend to vote, but what issues are more important to them at present. They also use carefully selected focus groups to get ordinary voters expressing their views on particular issues.

When someone says something and everyone round the table says “yes, that’s right”, the professionals running the group take note and pass it on to the pollies for them to use. Or it can work the other way: the pollies and their people think of lines to help sell a policy measure, and they’re tried out on appropriately chosen focus groups. What goes over well gets used in public utterances.

Between the careerism and the carefully gathered knowledge of what voters think, election campaigns have become more contrived. We’re transported to a fantasy land, where everything is nice and nothing is nasty (except the bad guys on the other side).

The pollies never try to tell a voter something they don’t want to hear. They never tell a voter they’re wrong about anything, and seem to go along with anything you may say, no matter how silly.

Have you noticed the way politicians expect us to be – and encourage us to be – completely selfish? It simplifies their job. They tell us what they can do for us and our families, never what we should be agreeing to in the interests of the country.

And the more they talk about doing this little thing or that little thing for us – the more they make following elections good preparation for a trivia quiz – the more they avoid having to talk about a host of big but controversial issues: climate change, the environment versus jobs, AUKUS, school funding, online gambling and even uninsurable homes. Of course, I couldn’t swear the media had played no part in dumbing-down election campaigns.

The pollies always tell us about the various nice things they plan to do to make our lives better, and never tell us of the not-nice things they’ll have to do to improve our lives. In election campaigns, every player wins a prize.

Not so long ago, a big part of elections was pollies being pressed to tell us exactly how much their promises would cost and exactly how they’d be paid for.

But doing that is what caused Labor’s Bill Shorten to lose the 2019 election he was expected to win. He had some expensive promises, but spelt out some small tax changes that would cover their cost.

These changes had been carefully selected to hit only some well-off people who could afford the loss, but the Libs ran a scare campaign telling ordinary punters they’d be hit and, with the effect magnified by a lot of yellow and black ads paid for by some fat Queenslander, Shorten lost enough votes to cost him the election.

The trouble here is that politicians on both sides have broken so many promises and said and done so many tricky things for so long that many voters have concluded they are all liars. This is why so many people have stopped listening to them.

But there’s one exception. The only thing a politician says that the doubters are prepared to believe is that their opponents are not to be trusted because they’re out to get you. “Ah yes, ain’t that the truth.”

That’s why scare campaigns have become the currency of election campaigning, with stultifying effect.

And that’s why the 2019 election has made elections and their campaigns much worse than they were. Under Albanese, Labor vowed never to be caught like that again. He made himself a “small target” at the 2022 election, promising to do very little, and not to do many things: introduce new taxes, increase existing taxes, and cancel or change the already legislated stage 3 tax cuts.

Apart from the latter, he’s kept those promises. He’s been a small-target prime minister, doing as little as possible to tackle our many problems, which is why so many of us are so uninspired by his performance. It’s far too risk-averse.

A leader who’s not game to do anything unpopular – such as putting up taxes – is a leader who’ll never make much progress solving our deeper problems, like giving our youngsters a fair shake, and never improve the future they profess to care about so much.

Trouble is, under our two-party system, when one side takes a position, the other side almost always copies it. We get less choice, not more. So when Albanese decides it’s safest to stay small target, Dutton stays small target.

When ditto Dutto keeps changing his policies mid-campaign, we’re watching him learning on the job not to be daring, not to fix things and, above all, to be only superficially different from the other side.

The big change since the 2019 election is that neither side will ever have the courage to propose any kind of tax change that would have some people paying a bit more – even those who could easily afford it. The tiniest possibility of an increase for some, and the fearmongers on the other side will soon have taxpayers throughout the land shaking in their boots.

This has taken the election-campaign fantasy land to a whole new level of unreality. The laws of economics have been suspended for the duration of the campaign. Government spending can only ever go up, while taxation can only ever go down. The budget deficit is presumed to be unaffected, covered by a sign saying Don’t You Worry About That.

Surely you remember the days when campaigns devoted much attention to “what do your promises cost and how will you pay for them?” That’s what tripped up Labor in 2019 and, I confidently predict, Dutton won’t let trip him up now.

Some worthy souls in the media keep lists of what the promises have cost and demand a detailed account of how that cost will be covered, but the two sides just brush them aside. They’re in tacit agreement not play that game any more. In truth, both sides will add to deficit and debt.

The other way to look at all this is that, by their poor behaviour – government by scare campaign – the two sides of politics have fought to a standstill. Neither side is game to do anything about any of our big problems for fear of the lies this would allow the other side to say about them. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “OK, Ross, if you’re so smart, what’s the solution to the mess election campaigns have got into?”

The good news is, the nation’s voters are already working on the solution. So many people have lost faith in the two sides of politics that the proportion of people voting for the two majors is the lowest it’s ever been.

In the 2022 election, the share of first-preference votes going to the minor parties and independents rose to almost a third, with the remaining two-thirds shared roughly equally between Labor and the Coalition. We saw the Libs losing seats to the teal independents, and the Greens winning more seats in the lower house.

I’m confident the minor parties’ share of the vote will go higher in this election. The experts are pretty sure that, whichever major gets more seats, it will be in minority government, needing the support of enough minors and independents to convince the governor-general it could govern effectively.

Both major parties would like us to believe minority government would mean chaos and no agreement on anything. Don’t be fooled. As we saw with Julia Gillard’s minority Labor government in 2010, the government was stable and passed more legislation than usual.

What changed was that, to get that support and stability, Labor had to agree to put through controversial measures it wouldn’t have been game to propose by itself. Such as? The carbon tax. Minority government transfers some power to the parties and independents who still believe we need real, controversial policy changes to solve our problems and improve our future.

So if you don’t like what the two major parties have done to campaigns and timidity in government, you should share my hope that this election puts neither major party back in majority government.

Read more >>

Hey Dutton: Good economic managers don't try to panic the punters

A problem in economics is that you can’t use the economy to do experiments. But as economists realised some years ago, sometimes the economy presents you with circumstances that constitute a “natural experiment”. This happened last week, and Peter Dutton flunked the test.

In the days immediately after Mad King Donald’s big tariffs announcement on “Ruination Day”, sharemarkets around the world were crashing, people were feeling panicky and no one was sure what it meant or where it would lead, except that it sounded very, very bad. As usual, the media wasn’t helping.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his boss, and Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock, were doing their job, calmly trying to calm everyone down. Acknowledging the great uncertainty, but trying not to add to it.

Treasury had done some initial modelling, and though it looked bad, it didn’t look that bad. Bullock and her boffins had thought hard about it and decided we’d weather the cyclone without too much damage. Certainly, we were well-placed to withstand the buffeting. (Translation: the Reserve had plenty of scope to cut interest rates if necessary, and unemployment was unusually low.)

So, how did the leader of the party claiming to be the best at managing the economy react? He should have resisted all his instincts as a good economic manager to join the authorities and help put out the fire, and just kept his mouth shut.

How did Dutton react? He thought: “You little beauty, here’s my chance to put the frighteners on. I’ll go for it.” So he stoked fears that a recession was imminent.

Asked if Australia was heading into recession, he replied, “it is under Labor” and “the government hasn’t prepared our economy”.

Elsewhere, he said: “We know that Australian families have lived through almost two years of household recession. That’s what Labor has already delivered during the term of government.

“The treasurer is talking about a 50-point reduction in interest rates, which means obviously he sees a recession coming for our economy.”

With that performance, Dutton has disqualified himself from high office. He’s been a cabinet minister for decades, but still hasn’t learnt – or doesn’t care – that people at the top don’t use the R-word until the numbers actually on the board leave them no choice.

He doesn’t know that, whereas individual commentators like me can say what they like without anyone taking much notice, when people in high office speculate about the likelihood of recession, confidence is further damaged, which risks making their predictions self-fulfilling.

Despite his bachelor’s of economics, Anthony Albanese has taken little interest in the economy, but at least he knows what not to say. Dutton’s problem is his Superman complex. He sees himself as responsible for the saving us from the rising tide of crime and pestilence that besets us.

His powers allow him to see what we can’t: the roaming African gangs keeping Melburnians trapped in their homes; the women in supermarkets with machetes being held to their throats.

This is how he knows he can do a deal with Trump that Albanese can’t; he can save us from the recession that’s inevitable under Albanese. He doesn’t need to know the details of economics because he has kryptonite to do his heavy lifting.

Note that Dutton’s shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, hasn’t joined him in his fearmongering. Taylor is a qualified economist of good repute. His trouble is that, not having served an apprenticeship in a minister’s office, he can’t play politics at a professional standard. He can’t tell lies with a straight face.

He wouldn’t have resorted to the muddled thinking Dutton used to justify bandying the R-word about. Dutton thinks Chalmers’ self-serving prediction of imminent hefty interest rate cuts is proof a recession is coming. It doesn’t occur to Superman that, if rates were cut sharply, the objective would be to forestall a recession. Is he implying that he could prevent recession without cutting rates?

It’s true that, thanks partly to high rates (but also an earlier fall in real wages, and massive bracket creep), consumer spending has been weak, so that only strong growth in the population has kept gross domestic product struggling on. Many have said this means we’ve suffered a “per-person recession” for the past two years.

But let’s get real. And let’s not be misled by the money market and media-promoted nonsense that two successive quarterly falls in real GDP constitute a “technical” recession. Why is it that sensible people live in fear of recessions and responsible political leaders never use the R-word until they have to?

Well, it’s not because GDP has fallen backwards for a couple of quarters. What can take a bit longer to appear is the consequence of a significant fall in economic activity: falling employment and rising unemployment. It’s the sight of thousands of people losing their jobs, the fear you may be next, and the knowledge that it would take weeks or months to find a new job, that scares the pants off normal people.

So, if we’ve been in “per-person recession” for two years, what’s happened to the jobs market in that time? Total employment has risen by more than 750,000, the proportion of working-age people with jobs is almost the highest it’s ever been, and the rate of unemployment has crept up just 0.5 percentage points to a still-amazingly-low 4 per cent.

Does that sound like a recession to you? It’s the complete antithesis of a recession, which is why the Reserve has been so reluctant to cut interest rates.

In this campaign, there’s been far too much whingeing about the cost of living with almost no acknowledgement of one fact that should have all of us thanking our lucky stars: our jobs market has never been better. Almost everyone who wants a job can find one – or more than one.

In all Dutton’s efforts to convince us life is insufferable, and it’s solely Albanese’s fault, there’s been zero mention of our tip-top jobs market. In all our self-pity, we’ve allowed a man with no interest in the economy, and little knowledge of economics, to mislead us.

Read more >>

Supermarkets: Be polite, say "excessive pricing" not "price gouging"

 By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

They’re the villains that return in every episode of the cost-of-living fight. And despite the competition watchdog swallowing any mention of “price gouging” in its recent inquiry, supermarkets are still copping heat.

They’re an easy target because there’s little competition for places where people have been noticing price spikes more than in the aisles – and checkouts – of their local Coles or Woolworths.

We also know consumers tend to overestimate price pressures. Why? Because eye-popping price rises are more memorable than the deals and discounts we land. Humans are programmed that way because it’s more important for our survival to spot bad things – like a tiger in the trees – than good things, like a warm patch of sunshine.

But eagle-eyed customers were a key reason supermarkets got bitten by the watchdog for their illusory discounts last year, and both Labor and the Coalition know that cost of living is the single biggest issue they have to win voters over on for a chance to form government.

That’s why Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pushed for powers that would give him the ability to break up the major supermarkets, and Labor has been cracking down with a mandatory food and grocery code and a promise to outlaw price gouging.

But there’s been a key bullet point missing on the shopping list: a clear idea of what “excessive prices” actually mean. One shopper’s idea of price gouging could be vastly different to that of their neighbour – and almost certainly different to that of the bosses of Coles and Woolworths.

Now, the competition watchdog this year released a damning report revealing Australian supermarkets nudged up their profit margins during the cost-of-living crunch and are among the most profitable supermarkets in the world.

But they stopped short of calling Coles and Woolworths out for “price gouging”: a subjective and pejorative term for when businesses increase their prices much more than is considered “reasonable” and “fair” – which are also subjective.

And in their list of 20 recommendations, not once did the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission mention the need to ban the practice.

So, if the ACCC didn’t suggest it, where did the idea come from? And why is a ban on excessive mark-ups on the cards?

Well, it’s another case of Labor proposing a small but worthwhile reform. These ideas have to be ticked off by big-wigs, but the heavy lifting is done behind the scenes.

Pull back the curtains of government, and you’ll find a section of Treasury beavering away under the leadership of assistant minister and former economics professor Dr Andrew Leigh.

The Competition Taskforce, established by the government in 2023, is a response to the increasing concentration of the Australian economy over the past 20 years. It’s made up of a couple of dozen people and Leigh says it’s not just a handful of men with grey beards tapping out once-off reports, which has traditionally been the way economic reform has been put on the table.

Instead, he labels it a “crack team” of about a dozen people, churning out policy advice on an ongoing basis and tick-tacking with stakeholders – in a way that experts tasked to do a single report may not.

While the ACCC has taken the reins on scrutinising supermarkets recently, most memorably through its scathing report, Leigh says the government’s policies have been informed by the taskforce’s previous work in the space, such as the mandatory food and grocery code – aimed at protecting suppliers and farmers – which came into play at the beginning of this month.

And while the ACCC might have shied away from slapping the “price gouger” label on the supermarkets, Leigh says the weight of the evidence suggests there’s a clear problem.

“We’ve seen their margins increase over COVID,” he says. “We’ve got them in court with the ACCC. The supermarkets have not exactly covered themselves in glory over the last couple of years.”

And compared with the last time the competition watchdog probed the supermarket sector in 2008, Leigh says the 2025 inquiry is awash in data. “[The ACCC] has analysed more than a billion prices so they’ve got data on more than a million prices from the two supermarkets, every week, over a five-year period,” he says: something that was unheard of two decades ago.

The availability of information and the ability to crunch and analyse huge amounts of data has given the government confidence to make the call – or at least to take action on an issue they know voters are still eyeing very closely and passionately.

It’s far from an immediate fix. The government’s promise to ban price gouging by supermarkets will first require them to form a new taskforce to give advice on what “excessive pricing” might actually look like.

And chasing the two giants around with a stick doesn’t necessarily remove some of the key barriers to stronger competition in the supermarket sector, such as inconsistent zoning laws which lock out competitors in many areas around the country. While the government has, in principle, agreed with all the recommendations from the ACCC, we’re yet to see follow-through on most of them.

That doesn’t mean that setting out to define “excessive pricing” is a bad thing. It’s one of those concepts that seems obvious but which people still disagree over. And without a yardstick, the supermarket giants – and every other business – know there’s a grey area they can play in and take advantage of.

The government’s latest action on supermarkets is good because it puts Coles and Woolworths on notice. If they are misbehaving or pushing their luck with questionable pricing, the bosses should be gathering at their drawing boards, rethinking their approach and preaching some caution.

If they’re not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

Either way, it also puts every other sector on notice – especially given the taskforce’s current work on identifying concentration hotspots: areas of the economy where big firms dominate and competition is especially weak.

And by clearly setting out what “excessive pricing” means, we can more easily deter firms from crossing the line, identify when and where it’s happening and crack down on the practice – and ultimately the prices we pay.

Read more >>

Energy's a big part of living costs, but fixing it won't be cheap

The voters’ insistence that the election campaign must be about the cost of living has been a godsend to both major parties. They can look as if they’re lowering electricity and gas prices and avoid talking about their failure to tackle climate change.

Unfortunately, however, climate change and energy prices are closely connected – which does much to explain why their promises to cut power prices never mean much.

Voters seem permanently obsessed with energy prices, and they’ve figured in most election campaigns for decades. But it’s mainly been smoke and mirrors.

Julia Gillard introduced a tax on carbon in 2012 and, had it survived, we’d now be well advanced in reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. Instead, Tony Abbott got himself elected partly by his exaggerated claims about what it would do to electricity prices, then promptly abolished it.

Today, Labor is still a supporter of climate action, with a legislated commitment to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. But it doesn’t want to talk about it because it’s proceeding slowly, and working both sides of the street by agreeing to new coal mines and gas platforms.

I doubt if Peter Dutton’s Coalition wants to talk about climate change either. They claim to believe in climate action, but their new plan to switch from renewables to using taxpayers’ money to build multiple nuclear power stations is really an excuse for doing nothing until those power stations may be built in a decade or two’s time.

The switch to distant nuclear resolves the Liberals’ disagreement with the Nationals who, being close to the mining lobby, have no enthusiasm for the Libs’ commitment to net zero emissions by 2050.

So, let’s not mention any of that. “You say the high price of energy has worsened your cost of living? Well, have we got a deal for you.”

Everywhere you look in this campaign you see one side or the other promising something to do with energy. Labor promises to extend its $75 a quarter discount on electricity bills for another six months until the end of this year.

The Coalition’s promising to cut the excise on petrol and diesel immediately by 25c a litre for a year. And it’s promising to reduce the wholesale price of gas by forcing gas producers to make more of it available to local users rather than exporting so much of it at high prices. (Gas is the most expensive fuel used to produce electricity, so reducing its local price would make power a bit cheaper.)

This has made the gas producers very unhappy. And Peter Dutton hasn’t provided much detail about how his gas plan would work.

Even so, Dutton has brought to light some truths that successive federal governments haven’t wanted us to know.

We’re always being told there’s a great shortage of gas because the three big gas liquefaction plants in Gladstone have lucrative contracts to export it all. But as Dutton has correctly said, there’s still a lot of it that’s uncontracted and so could be diverted for local use.

One way to discourage those companies from exporting so much of our gas would be to impose a tax on those exports, as Dutton has suggested. This has these largely foreign-owned companies reaching for their lawyers.

We always assume that our exports bring us great benefits. Mostly, but not always. We are one of the world’s biggest exporters of liquified natural gas, but research by the Australia Institute has found that no royalties are paid on 56 per cent of the gas we export.

Why? Because of loopholes in our petroleum resource rent tax.

Getting back to our complaints about the cost of energy, Labor’s always telling us that “renewable energy is incredibly cheap because its fuel [sun and wind] is free”.

That’s true, but misleading. At present, our grid of high-voltage power lines run from the coalfields to big cities such as Melbourne and Sydney. Switching from coal to renewables involves building a whole new network of powerlines running from solar and wind farms.

Building all those poles and wires is hugely expensive, and the cost will be passed on to you and me in the electricity prices we pay. Only when the new network’s been paid off will retail prices be a lot lower.

But this is where Labor has played a smart card in this election with its promise to subsidise the cost of adding a battery to your new or existing rooftop solar panels (and maybe the Coalition will announce something similar).

Some people have rooftop solar because they want to play their own part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some people see it as an investment in reducing their electricity bills. And some people have panels because all the neighbours have them.

Whatever the reason, about a third of all Australian homes have rooftop solar which, on a per-person basis, makes us the world’s biggest rooftop solar country. Many people were encouraged to install solar by federal and state government subsidy schemes.

Obviously, the panels produce more power than you need during the day, and none at night when you have many gadgets running, especially in winter. So most people put power into the grid during the day and take it out night.

But the energy experts don’t really see rooftop as a key part of the complex distribution system they’re running, and sometimes rooftop can disrupt it.

So, although Anthony Albanese’s offer to cover up to 30 per cent – or $4000 – of the cost of buying and installing a home battery strikes me as likely to be pretty attractive as electoral bribes go, it will help reduce pressure on the grid.

True, it’s of no benefit to renters, or home owners who can’t afford the cost of panels or a battery. But it’s wrong to imagine it’s only the wealthy who’d benefit. If you’re really rich, you don’t worry how big your power bill is.

And don’t forget this: the more voters who see themselves as the good guys doing their bit to stop climate change, the more likely our politicians are to lift their game.

Read more >>

Trump's trade war is bad, but how bad is up to the rest of us

At last, we know enough about President Donald Trump’s opening move on tariffs to start thinking about what it all means. By imposing tariffs on America’s imports, he’s shot his economy in the foot, but the rest of the world decides how bad it’s likely to be by what we do in response.

But first, don’t be too impressed by the big fall in share prices. The sharemarket isn’t the economy. You could regard its movements as a predictor of whether the economy will keep growing strongly or fall in a heap, but it’s an unreliable guide, having called a lot more recessions than have actually happened.

Compulsory superannuation has given every employee a stake in the sharemarket – including overseas sharemarkets – but although share prices go down as well as up, over the years they tend to rise. So only if you’re just a year or two away from retirement – and will be needing to sell shares for money to live on – should you care about the latest drop.

Back on tariffs, everyone benefits from being able to trade with other people, whether they live inside or outside our country. The lower the barriers to trade, the better off we and our trading partners become.

So, while Trump’s tariffs – import duties – will hurt the countries it imports from to an extent, it’s the American businesses and consumers now having to pay more for their foreign purchases that will be hit hardest.

What he’s done will increase US prices and discourage growth in his economy – an unusual combination – increasing the risk of a US recession.

But, as most people realise, the direct effect on Australia from Trump’s act of self-harm won’t be great. That’s because the Yanks take a surprisingly small share of our exports, and the new tariff on us is just 10 per cent. Thankfully, neither Anthony Albanese nor Peter Dutton is foolish enough to add to the harm by slapping tariffs on the modest amount of stuff we import from the US.

So, what matters most to us is the indirect effects on us from Trump’s attempts to start a trade war with the other big economies. If they decide to damage themselves by hitting the US back tit-for-tat, then it really would be a global economic disaster.

Fortunately, the early signs are that most countries have been too smart to yield to that temptation. They’ve said that while they’re ready to take “countermeasures”, they’ll start by opening negotiations to secure a deal.

Trump is so crazy there’s always a chance that’s all he’s after. “You give me something, and I’ll put the big stick away.” If so, the trade war doesn’t really get going. But it’s risky to give in to bullies, which only makes them want to come back for another bite.

If Trump demands too much in return for dropping his new tariff, America’s former friends and allies will be obliged to press on with the countermeasures they’ve prepared. Since a tit-for-tat approach would be self-harming, we can hope that these will have been carefully designed to hit the US harder than they damage their own economies. That would minimise the fallout from the trade war.

On the face of it, however, the main country Trump is trying to punish, China, has not resisted the temptation to give as good as it’s got. Trump’s new tariff on China is 34 per cent which, added to its existing duties, gives it a total impost of 65 per cent. China will hit all its imports from the US with a 34 per cent tariff.

“Face” could well be part of the problem here. China, now the world’s biggest economy (when you allow for “purchasing-power parity” because $US1 buys a lot more in China than it does in the US), can’t fail to hit back when whacked by the second-biggest economy.

The trick is that America buys a lot from China, and China buys a lot from America. It’s when the two big boys really start slugging it out that the risk of recession in the US becomes a risk of a global recession. And, since China is our biggest export market, that’s where the most indirect damage could hit us.

There’s always a possibility that when enough Americans realise that, contrary to what it says on his baseball cap, Trump is Making America Poor Again, he’ll be forced to wind the whole madness back down.

If we do really have a trade war that lasts longer than a year or so, then there are two things to remember. First, if the other big economies, such as the European Union, Japan and Britain, don’t join in the madness, then most of the damage is confined to the US and China as they slug it out. We’d still be hit by a significant indirect loss of export income, but it could have been worse.

Second, the longer the two biggest economies continued their boxing match, the more the rest of the world would start diverting our trade away from the US. And since the US is attacking all the other countries – including very high tariffs on some South-East Asian economies – but China is attacking only the US, much of the diversion is likely to head in China’s general direction.

Remember, the US was the primary driver for a Trans-Pacific Partnership, aiming to set trade rules in the Pacific Rim and counter China’s growing economic influence. When, in his first incarnation, Trump pulled out of the proposal, the rest of us – including Japan, Canada, Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico and several South-East Asian nations – pressed on, simply renaming it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And note, just before Trump’s “Ruination Day” announcement, the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea met and agreed to strengthen trade ties in response to whatever Trump announced.

If Trump’s tariff madness isn’t likely to kill off the world economy, it will certainly cause major changes to who’s trading with whom. And we’ll be doing a lot more trade with the countries in our region.

Read more >>

The fine print costing Australians a pay rise

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

Hidden in the job contracts of about one in five Australians are little clauses weighing down their chances of landing a pay rise or a better-fitting role.

They might, for instance, ban you from working for any of your employer’s competitors for a set amount of time – even after leaving your job. Or, they can prevent you from setting up your own business in the same industry. These are called “non-compete” clauses, and they’ve been on the rise for the past five years.

From 2027, non-compete clauses on workers earning less than $175,000 a year could be banned by a Labor government. But why are these clauses so bad? And will banning them make much of a difference for workers or the economy?

Non-competes are mostly in place to protect business interests, but in some roles, they can be reasonable. For example, they might stop a big bank employee from sharing timely and confidential information or business secrets with a competitor or prevent them from taking client relationships they’ve developed through the bank to another bank.

But in some cases, these clauses simply handcuff low-paid workers to their jobs, stopping them from seeking better jobs. Roughly 3 million Australians are affected by these clauses, including childcare workers, construction workers and hairdressers. Who knew childcare was so full of sensitive trade secrets?

Non-competes are generally not enforceable – unless a court rules that it’s “reasonably required” to protect a “legitimate interest”. But as former Fair Work Commission president Iain Ross points out, these “interests” have expanded to concepts such as a “stable workforce”.

The open-endedness also tends to benefit employers because they usually have more resources to back them up, and workers aren’t often willing to foot the legal costs and spend time arguing their case in court. A 2013 study, for example, put the cost of legally challenging the validity of a non-compete at between $20,000 and $100,000 – a year’s worth of salary or more for some employees.

Another 2020 study in the US found that non-competes tended to discourage workers from leaving for a competitor by roughly the same degree regardless of whether it was enforceable or not.

That means workers tend to just suck it up and stay in their jobs – even if it means missing out on a pay rise. And it’s often the lower-skilled and lower-paid workers with weaker bargaining power who are hit hardest.

Economic research institute e61 found people who work for companies that use these clauses are paid 4 per cent less on average than similar workers at similar firms that don’t use them. Lower-skilled workers bound by non-competes were even harder hit, earning about 10 per cent less after five years than those who weren’t bound by these clauses.

For a worker on a median wage, banning non-compete clauses could lead to a wage increase of up to $2500 a year.

But non-competes aren’t just an issue for workers. They are also a drag on the economy.

Lower job mobility – that is, less ability for workers to switch jobs – can be a downer for productivity. Why? Because they’re less able to move to jobs they might be a better fit for, and because it dampens the incentive for businesses to better themselves in order to attract and retain their workers.

Ross also points out that some of the key barriers to Australia improving its productivity include weak business investment and a slowdown in business dynamism: meaning fewer new firms, less movement of workers between firms and weak adoption of new technologies.

Banning non-competes will boost productivity because it allows workers to move to jobs they may be better at. It also forces businesses to innovate and find ways to improve the way they do things – including investing in training and support they provide to their workers – in order to stay ahead of their competition and stay in business.

Research from the Productivity Commission suggests the proposed ban on non-compete clauses could fast-track productivity and add $5 billion – or 0.2 per cent – to Australia’s GDP.

Neither major party has been game to tackle the big issues such as tax reform (which are crucial to improving our productivity and living standards), but banning non-compete clauses for those earning less than $175,000 a year is a start.

Of course, the details of this change are yet to be ironed out. And business groups have been quick to leap out against it.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce, for example, called it “workplace overreach” while the Council of Small Business of Australia said it made life harder for small businesses already struggling with skills shortages.

There’s valid criticism that banning non-compete clauses puts some confidential information at risk. But this could be covered by non-disclosure agreements, which are less of a drag on job mobility and wages – and, in any case, the positive impacts for the economy will outweigh the negatives.

Critics also claim non-compete clauses encourage businesses to invest in areas such training and upskilling their workforces because they can be less worried about losing their workers and wasting resources if those employees decide to leave the job.

But stronger competition could also drive businesses to offer better training opportunities and foster more productive work environments to maintain their edge over competitors.

The Coalition is on the fence about the proposed change, saying it believes employees shouldn’t be “unreasonably restrained” from changing employers or starting their own business, but that small businesses shouldn’t face having their sensitive commercial or customer information “taken by an employee and given to one of their competitors”.

It’s worth noting large businesses are twice as likely to use non-compete clauses as small businesses and that non-competes tend to favour large, existing businesses over small and new firms.

There are certainly limitations in the government’s proposed policy, and details yet to be ironed out. For instance, would the change apply only to new contracts drawn up from 2027 onwards, meaning it would have no effect for the millions of Australians currently bound by them? These questions won’t be answered until the government completes its consultation process.

There’s also evidence that a full ban on non-competes – not just for those earning under a certain threshold – can have widespread benefits. Evidence from California – home to the Silicon Valley – for instance, suggests a complete ban could foster a more dynamic labour market where workers can move around more freely and share knowledge.

It’s taken a long time for the government to care enough to pursue this change – most likely because of the backlash it knew would come from business owners. But if we want agile and innovative businesses, productive workers and a stronger economy, a ban on non-competes is a no-brainer.

Read more >>

Are you better off now? That's Dutton's trick question

For most people, the simple answer to Peter Dutton’s repeated question – are you better off today than you were three years ago? – is “no, I’m not”. But if Dutton can convince us this is the key question we need to answer in this election, he’ll have conned us into giving him an easy run into government.

Why? Because it’s the wrong question. It’s the question of a high-pressure salesman. A question that makes the problem seem a lot simpler than it is. A question for people who don’t like using their brain.

And it’s a question that points us away from the right question, which is: which of the two sides seems more likely to advance the nation’s interests in the coming three years?

Economists have a concept called “sunk costs” – money (or time) that you’ve spent, and you can’t unspend. Economics teaches an obvious lesson: you can’t change the past, so forget it and focus on what you can change, the future.

But, since it’s become such a central issue in this election, let’s dissect Dutton’s magic question. For a start, it’s completely self-centred. Focus on what’s happened to you and your family and forget about what’s happened to anyone else.

Similarly, the implication is to focus on the monetary side of life. Forget about what’s happened to the natural environment, what we’ve done to limit climate change, and what we’ve done about intergenerational equity – the way we rigged the system to favour the elderly at the expense of the young.

Next, Dutton’s question is quite subjective. He’s not asking us to do some calculations about our household budget or to look up some statistics, just to say whether we feel better or worse off.

Guess what? This subjectivity makes us more likely to answer no. As we’ve learnt from the psychologists, humans have evolved to remember bad events more strongly than good events.

This is why most people believe that inflation is much higher than the consumer price index tells us. As they do their weekly grocery shopping, they remember the price rises much more clearly than any price falls. And in the personal CPI they carry in their heads, they take no account of the many prices that didn’t change – which they should, and the real CPI does.

Humans find the bad more interesting and memorable than the good because the bad is more threatening, and we have evolved to search our environment for threats.

In this case, however, objective measurement confirms that most people are right in thinking their household budgets are harder to balance than they were three years ago. There are various ways to measure living standards, but probably the best single measure is something called “real net national household disposable income per person”.

Between June 2022 and March 2024 (the latest quarter available), it fell by 3.6 per cent. It may have recovered a bit in the 12 months since then, but not by enough to stop it having fallen overall.

But that’s just an economy-wide average. We can break it down into more specific household categories. Those dependent on income from wages are worse off because consumer prices rose a little faster than wages – though wage rises fell well short of price rises in the couple of years before Labor came to power. This is a shortfall wage-earning households would still be feeling in their efforts to balance their budgets.

The rise in interest rates since the last election means the households feeling by far the most pain over the past three years are those with mortgages.

This also means those who own their homes outright have felt the least pain. Most people on the age pension have done OK because most of them own their homes and the age pension is fully indexed to the rise in consumer prices.

As for the so-called self-funded retirees, they’ve been laughing. Not only do they own their homes, their super and other investments earn more when interest rates are high.

True, it’s common for elections to be used to sack governments who’ve presided over tough economic times. Be in power during a recession and you’re dead meat. So elections are often used to punish governments, on the rationale that the other lot couldn’t possibly be worse.

But the side that benefits from such circumstances, taking over when everything’s a mess, won’t have it easy getting everyone back to work and having no trouble with the mortgage in just three years.

I can remember when the Morrison government was tossed out in 2022, smarties among the Liberals telling themselves this probably wasn’t a bad election to lose. Why? Because they could see consumer prices had taken off and had further to go. Using higher interest rates to get the inflation rate back down would be painful and protracted, possibly inducing a recession.

This is why Dutton’s question is so seductive to people who don’t follow politics and the economy, and don’t want to use their grey matter. “If I felt the pain on your watch, it’s obvious you’re to blame and you get the sack. Don’t bother me with the details.”

Remember, however, that all the rich economies suffered the same inflation surge we did, all of them responded with higher interest rates, and most suffered rising unemployment and even, like the Kiwis, a recession. But not us.

So let me ask you a different question: over the past three years have you ever had cause to worry about losing your job? Have you spent a lot of time unemployed while you find one? Have more people in your house been able to find work?

Our employment rate is higher than it’s ever been. Our rate of unemployment is still almost the lowest it’s been in 50 years. This has happened because the Albanese government and the Reserve Bank agreed to get inflation down without a recession.

But the price of avoiding recession is interest rates staying higher for longer. If you think Labor jumped the wrong way, kick the bastards out.

Read more >>

Budget deficit perfection would be nice, but among the best is fine

The independent economist and former Treasury officer Chris Richardson, the leader of Treasury-in-Exile and thus chief apostle of fiscal rectitude, does the country a favour with his eternal campaigning to keep budget deficits and public debt levels low.

It works like Defence, where the retired generals do the talking for the serving generals, whose opinions must be expressed only to their political masters in private.

But all those people who, only in recent times, have joined the protest march demanding an end to deficit and debt don’t want to do the country any favours. I’m no great admirer of the Albanese government, but that doesn’t make every criticism of its performance reasonable.

According to these partisans’ version of events, the budget was in surplus and doing fine until this terrible government started spending with abandon, plunging the budget into deficit, where it’s likely to stay for the next decade, leading to ever-rising public debt. So should some great global mishap come along, we’d be in deep doo-doo.

The first thing wrong with this narrative is its implication that the prospect of a decade of deficits is all Labor’s doing. There’s nothing new about budget deficits; the budget’s been in deficit for more than two in every three years in the past half-century.

What’s more, Treasury was projecting a decade of deficits in then-treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s budget before the last federal election in 2022. So why don’t I remember the people who profess to be so worried now, expressing much concern then? Surely not because debt and deficits only matter when you’ve got a Labor government?

Actually, and as Treasurer Jim Chalmers never tires of reminding us, the projected decade of deficits and rising debt we’re told about today isn’t nearly as bad as the one we were shown back then – the one that didn’t seem to worry anyone.

Why was the projection three years ago so much worse than this one? Because Treasury’s forecasts and projections soon became woefully wrong. The budget deficit of $78 billion it was expecting in 2022-23 turned out to be a surplus of $22 billion. For the following year, the expected deficit of $57 billion was a surplus of $16 billion.

That’s an improvement of more than $170 billion right there. And because this hugely better outcome came so early in the decade, it also meant a huge reduction in the feds’ projected annual interest bill.

But while Chalmers is wrong to claim so much credit for this astonishing turnaround, his critics are wrong to give him none. They dismiss this vast improvement in the debt outlook as nothing more than good luck.

Huh? Rather than falling, as Treasury always assumes they will, iron ore and coal prices took off, so mining company profits and company tax payments boomed.

That’s only half the story, however. Treasury failed to foresee that the economy would return to near full employment – and pretty much stay there to this day, despite the big increase in interest rates intended to get the inflation rate down.

This meant a record proportion of the working-age population in jobs, earning wages and paying income tax. As well, the inflation surge meant a lot more bracket creep than expected.

So, remembering the Albanese government and Reserve Bank’s joint policy of seeking to get inflation down without inducing a recession, you have to say there’s been an element of good management as well as good luck, for which Chalmers and Albanese deserve some credit.

Chalmers gets credit for saving rather than spending most of the government’s higher-than-expected tax collections – something that wouldn’t have happened if Labor had been spending as uncontrollably as the partisan critics claim.

Much effort has been put into demonstrating that government spending is “out of control” and will continue that way for a decade unless something’s done. But analysis by Dr Peter Davidson of the Australian Council of Social Service gives the lie to such claims.

Davidson measures budget spending by the average annual increase after adjusting for inflation and population growth – real spending per person. Over the 27 years to 2018, the long-term average increase was 1.7 per cent a year.

But under the Abbott and Turnbull governments from 2014 to 2018, there was a period of budget austerity when the spending increase averaged just 0.1 per cent a year, as backlogs were allowed to build up and deficiencies were ignored.

Then, during the Covid response period from 2018 to 2022, spending grew by an exceptional 2.6 per cent a year. Now, over the six years to 2028, spending growth is expected to average 1.3 per year.

So claims of Labor’s profligate spending are themselves on the profligate side. It’s here that the critics move from partisanship to self-interested ideology. Their obsession with government spending comes from their ideology that, while all tax cuts are good, all spending increases are bad.

Why are they bad? Because they increase the pressure for higher taxes and reduce the scope for tax cuts. A decade of deficits caused by excessive tax cuts would be OK, but one caused by trying to ensure the punters got decent education, healthcare and social security is utterly irresponsible.

The final respect in which decade-of-deficits bewailers are wrong is their claim that our government’s financial position has us sailing close to the wind. Rubbish.

As former top econocrat Dr Mike Keating advises, if you take the debt of all levels of government in 2024, our gross public debt is equivalent to just 58 per cent of our gross domestic product. This compares with the Euro area on 90 per cent, Britain on 103 per cent, Canada on 105 per cent and the US on 122 per cent.

Much of the credit for our relatively low level of debt and deficit should go to decades of preaching by Treasury and its alumni, including Chris Richardson. But though they sometimes imply we’re at risk of being dangerously overloaded with debt, what they’re really trying to do is maintain our longstanding record as only moderate drinkers.

Read more >>

Budget to give the economy a push next financial year

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

If there’s only one thing you gleaned from the budget – and it is the new tax cuts – that’s exactly what the government wanted.

The clock is ticking for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who, at the time of writing, was expected to call an election as early as Friday. That means a sweetener – such as a promise to let you keep more of your pay – is perfectly timed to nudge voters its way.

But the move also doubled as a distraction from something Labor would rather not talk about: the fact the nation’s finances will be in the red for the next decade despite a turnaround in the economy’s health.

This isn’t the end of the world, but with most of its major policies already announced in preparation for the election, the government knew it needed to give the press something good to latch onto when it unveiled its budget on Tuesday.

The tiny tax cut – the equivalent of about $5 a week for most taxpayers – due to kick in next year, was a sure-fire way to make a good impression.

But the budget revealed a bit more than just a cute tax cut. It also painted a picture of the state of the economy and the government’s game plan.

“Fiscal policy” is the government’s way of steering the economy by changing how much it spends and collects in tax. When the government increases its tax collections by more than it increases its spending from year to year, it’s choosing a “contractionary” stance (one that slows down the economy by taking more money out of it than the government pumps in).

When the government increases its spending by more than it increases its tax collection, it is adopting an “expansionary” stance (stimulating the economy by pumping more money into it). That’s the position taken by the government this year.

Turning to a page in the budget papers many economists call the “table of truth” shows us how the budget position for this financial year (and expectations for future years) has changed from previous forecasts – and what the biggest drivers are.

The “parameter variations” in this table tell us how cyclical factors – things the government has little control over – affect the budget. For example, lower global interest rates over the next few years are expected to shrink the interest rate bill paid by the government despite its growing debt.

AMP chief economist Shane Oliver says higher commodity prices and employment were the kind of parameter variations that helped deliver the government two back-to-back surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Then there’s the effect of government policy decisions that weighed down the budget this financial year (2024-25) by $137 million more than was expected back in December, mostly because of an increase in spending on things such as cheaper medicines. This affects what’s called the “structural” part of the budget.

Next financial year, 2025-26, the government’s decisions will drain roughly $7 billion more than previously expected. That’s because it has made new promises such as earmarking $8 billion to boost the amount of bulk-billing and a six-month extension of electricity bill relief at a cost of $1.8 billion.

But improved economic conditions next year should help top up the budget by $12 billion. That’s mostly because of what’s called “automatic stabilisers”, which affect how much money comes into – and leaves – the government’s coffers, adjusting automatically to changes in the speed of the economy.

When business is booming and incomes are rising, for example, people pay more in tax, meaning more cash gets swept into the government’s hands. When the economy gets sluggish and people lose their jobs, the amount of tax flowing in falls.

As Betashares chief economist David Bassanese notes, the government is assuming (among other things) that there will be more people in jobs over the next few years, meaning there should be more income tax flowing in.

The government is also expecting economic growth to pick up and inflation to stay around the 2 per cent to 3 per cent target range, while slightly tweaking down its unemployment forecast to 4.25 per cent over the next four years.

Most of the savings, though, will be spent by the government, leaving the budget only a few billion dollars better off than expected back in December over the next four years – and still in deficit.

At the time of the mid-year budget update, the coming financial year was expected to have a $47 billion deficit – which is 1.6 per cent of GDP. Now, because of measures in the budget and changes in the government’s forecasts, it’s going to be $42 billion, or 1.5 per cent of GDP. The deficit is still a lot bigger than it was last financial year.

Now, it’s worth noting the Coalition, in 2022, also had deficits (that is, spending exceeding revenue) laid out for 10 years. As independent economist Saul Eslake points out, neither side of politics really wants to have the tough conversation of how to fix this problem when there’s growing demands for spending in areas such as healthcare and defence – and especially not before an election.

But the government isn’t the only major player when it comes to managing the economy. The Reserve Bank is also a heavyweight. It doesn’t have the same spending or tax powers, but it uses a tool called “monetary policy” – which you might know better as interest rates.

Like the government’s fiscal policy, monetary policy can be expansionary when interest rates are dropped (because it encourages spending and investment), or contractionary when interest rates are increased.

For the past few years, the bank has been cranking up interest rates in an effort to rein in inflation. For the first time since mid-2022, the bank in February notched down interest rates from 4.35 per cent to 4.1 per cent, moving towards an expansionary stance. Why?

Because it reckons, like the government, that prices are now rising slowly enough, and demand has softened enough relative to supply, to indicate the economy is no longer running too far ahead of its capacity.

The budget is unlikely to have much sway on the Reserve Bank’s forecasts or coming rate decisions. The spending changes were modest, the deficits have been flagged for months and the government’s forecasts aren’t drastically different to what the bank is expecting.

But if the outlook for the economy over the next few years is as rosy as the government is expecting, there’s a case for whoever is in charge in future years to ramp up efforts to return the budget to a surplus, or at least a neutral position, earlier.

That doesn’t have to mean drastic cuts to spending. It could mean changing the way the government collects revenue by introducing an inheritance tax or reducing the capital gains tax discount, and pursuing bolder productivity-boosting measures (Labor’s ban on non-compete agreements is a good start).

In the meantime, the budget for this financial year is expected to be nearly $28 billion in deficit. In the coming year, that deficit is expected to increase to $42 billion. This is an increase equivalent to 0.5 per cent of GDP, making the stance of fiscal policy adopted in the budget mildly expansionary.

Read more >>

The government is timid and uninspired. This budget is a perfect fit

If you’re having trouble working up much interest in the budget, don’t feel bad. It’s not you, it’s the government. So much fuss is made about the annual federal budget that we expect it to be full of major announcements. Well, not this one, and not from a government that never wants to rock the boat.

It is, however, a budget we’ve wished on ourselves. We’ve made it clear that, while ever we’re feeling pain from the cost of living, we’re not much interested in anything else, and an unambitious government has been relieved to take us at our word.

Most of the measures in the budget are small cuts to various charges that affect households’ budgets. The government will be spending more to encourage GPs to bulk-bill their patients and to cut the maximum cost of a pharmaceutical prescription to $25 a pop.

It will extend the electricity bill rebate for the last half of this year, yielding households a saving of $150.

And not forgetting the big one that will make all the difference to the cost of living: indexation of the excise on draught beer will be paused for two years. Anyone who can see the saving per glass gets a prize for exceptional eyesight.

All this is to be done just as soon as we vote to re-elect the Albanese government – except that Peter Dutton has promised a Coalition government would do the same.

Of course, all these measures to ease the cost of living have already been announced, with one exception: a two-stage cut in income tax. Who knew? Surely, that’s something to get excited about?

Well, yes, until you examine the details. When Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the tax cuts are modest, he’s not exaggerating.

It boils down to this: in 15 months’ time, July next year, everyone earning more than $45,000 a year ($860 a week) will get a tax cut of a bit over $5 a week. A year later, they’ll get a further cut of $5, taking it up to $10.30 a week. Part-timers earning between $350 and $860 a week will get an initial saving of up to $5 a week.

Even with this last-minute addition, it’s not hard to believe that, until Cyclone Alfred intervened, Labor was hoping to hold the election in April and leave the budget until later. Why did the delayed election date prompt it to go ahead with a budget when it had nothing much to announce? Law and practice. It had to.

Still, budgets also tell us the government’s latest forecasts for the economy and for the budget bottom line: is the government expecting to spend more than it raises in taxes, or less? More. Every financial year for the next 10.

So the government foresees a decade of budget deficits and further borrowing to cover those deficits. Does it have any plan to correct this? Not that it’s telling us about. My guess is that its policy is to worry about that only after it has been re-elected. If it isn’t, good luck, Mr Dutton.

But since we can’t see further than the cost of living, how are we doing? On the face of it, we’re well over the worst. Over the year to December, consumer prices rose by a modest 2.4 per cent.

The rate of inflation is forecast to stay low, meaning the Reserve Bank is likely to keep cutting interest rates in coming months by a total of 1 percentage point or so, which will take a lot of pressure off people with big mortgages.

The government expects wages to rise a bit faster than consumer prices which, if it comes to pass, will ease the cost of living to a small extent. But if many people still feel it’s a struggle to pay their bills, I won’t be surprised.

Why not? Because, over the five years to last December, consumer prices rose by about 4.5 per cent more than wages did. Until that “wage deficit” is closed, many people will still be feeling the pinch.

This makes it all the more important to understand why the government’s move to continue its energy rebate for another six months isn’t as good as it sounds.

The rebate – which is temporary and paid directly to your electricity retailer – began from July 1 last year. It thus caused quarterly electricity bills to be $75 less than they otherwise would have been.

Its extension for the last two quarters of this year won’t stop your bills being higher than they were because your retailer has increased its prices. But it will stop your bill also being $75 a quarter higher than otherwise. Thanks to generous Anthony and Jim, that unpleasant surprise won’t come until you get your first quarterly bill in 2026. (Come to think of it, maybe the new tax cut is timed to ease the pain of higher power bills.)

As for Trump and his planned trade war, the T-word doesn’t get a mention. Rather, Chalmers worries about “heightened global uncertainty” and “escalating trade tensions”. Why the obfuscation? Maybe Chalmers wants us to see what a great job the government’s done fixing the cost of living and doesn’t want that terrible man raining on his parade.

Actually, it’s too early for concrete actions. We don’t yet know how stupid Trump intends to be, let alone whether the other big economies intend to worsen it by giving as good as they get (otherwise known as cutting off your nose to spite your face).

So right now is the time to think hard about our options, not announce a response. We do know our government won’t be tempted to retaliate, and Chalmers is right to say we must make our economy more resilient to shocks from overseas.

But spending on a new “buy Australian” campaign? It may make uninformed voters feel better, but I doubt it will fix the problem.

This government is timid, uninspired and uninspiring. This budget fits it perfectly.

Read more >>