The Liberals won't win without more women and fewer oldies

If the Liberals have any sense, they won’t waste too much time blaming their shocking election result on Peter Dutton, Donald Trump, Cyclone Alfred, the party secretariat, an unready shadow ministry or any other “proximate cause”, as economists say. Why not? Because none of these go to the heart of their party’s problem.

The Liberals’ problem is that Australia has changed but their party hasn’t. They’re like someone still driving a Holden Commodore: a great car in its day but looking pretty outdated today.

In other words, the Libs’ problem is structural, not merely cyclical. It can’t be fixed just by finding a more attractive leader – not unless that leader has the authority to make what many Liberal MPs and party members would regard as radical changes.

Liberal leaders have been aware of their party’s two key problems for some years without facing up to them. The first is their “women problem”. While Labor has put much effort into increasing the proportion of women among its parliamentary members and ministers, the Libs have been quite half-hearted about it, refusing to use quotas to speed up the process.

I’m sure Labor people have been sincere in believing a roughly 50-50 split should become the norm, but I’m equally sure they’re aware of the political advantage that comes with making sure they attract the votes of at least half the female voters, and preferably more.

Go back far enough and you find Australia’s women slightly more attracted to the Coalition than Labor. Not these days. The Australian National University’s Australian Election Study, which uses polling of people after they’ve voted – at the democracy sausage stage – found that, in the previous, 2022 federal election, while 38 per cent of male respondents voted for the Coalition, only 32 per cent of females did.

I’d be surprised if that disparity was much reduced on Saturday, and not surprised if it had increased. Surely a party incapable of attracting its share of the female half of the voting population is a party without a bright future.

Did you notice Monday’s photo of Labor’s just-elected federal members in Brisbane? Seven broadly smiling, youngish women. A lot of them who’d just taken seats from the Libs.

And, as I’m sure you have noticed, all the teals are women. Could there be a message in there somewhere? If so, Labor’s got it, but the Libs haven’t yet.

Another relevant finding from the study of the 2022 election: whereas only 9 per cent of men voted for the Greens, for women it was 16 per cent. My guess is that a lot of those women voting Greens were young.

You surely can’t have missed the news that Saturday’s was the first election in which the great bulge of Baby Boomers has finally been outnumbered by the Millennials and Gen Z, which now account for 40 per cent of the electorate.

With some Zoomers yet to reach voting age, the younger share of the electorate can’t fail to grow as the Boomers start falling off the twig. (Last week I had to go to Melbourne for the funeral of a mate. I stayed with another mate whose wife died last year. Could mortality be catching up with the invincible Boomers?)

So let’s shift from gender to age. The 2022 electoral study observes that “across the democratic world, younger voters tend to prefer parties and candidates of the left and centre-left more so than older voters”. But each Australian election study since 1987 has found that as age increases, so, too, does Coalition support.

In 2022, however, the Coalition’s share of the vote fell in almost every age group, but especially among the youngest age groups. Question is: will today’s younger voters drift to the Coalition as they age, as previous younger generations have?

Probably not. As the Millennials aged between 2016 and 2022, the Coalition’s share of their votes actually fell from 38 per cent to 25 per cent. In both 2019 and 2022, only 26 per cent of Zoomers voted for the Coalition, with 67 per cent voting for the Greens or Labor.

“No other generation records such skewed preferences at similar early stages of the life course,” the 2022 study concludes.

What could possibly cause the latest batch of younger voters to be so down on the Coalition that they may never grow more conservative as they grow older?

Well, one candidate is “intergenerational inequity”. Home affordability has been an issue for yonks, but never has it been as big as it was this time. “How come our parents had little trouble buying a home of their own while we’re finding it almost impossible?”

Until now, politicians have shed only crocodile tears for first home buyers – with the most openly unsympathetic of them being the Liberals’ second Menzies, John Howard.

But home affordability is just one of the ways the system of taxes and benefits has been biased in favour of the well-off elderly – the self-proclaimed “self-funded retirees” – at the expense of younger, working taxpayers.

Who was it who did most to advantage better-off single-income families who could afford private schools and private health insurance? The same John Howard. He rejigged the system to benefit the Liberal heartland, but now that heartland has resigned from the party.

Why? Many reasons, no doubt, but one that stands out: the Liberals’ lip-service-only support for action to reduce climate change. Turns out women worry more about climate change than men, and young people worry more than oldies – for obvious reasons. Thinks: I’ll be dead before it gets intolerable.

Ever since Labor’s Julia Gillard introduced a carbon tax in 2012, the Libs, while denying they were climate-change deniers, have taken the low road: don’t worry about climate, just stop electricity prices rising.

If the Liberals want a future, a future with more votes from women and younger people, the place to start is getting fair dinkum about climate change.

Read more >>

Dutton's election campaign rout lets RBA off the hook

Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock must be breathing a quiet sigh of relief now the Albanese government has been triumphantly returned to office. If you can’t think why she should be relieved, you’re helping make my point.

There was something strange in all the accusations hurled at the Labor government for doing little or nothing to ease the great cost-of-living pain so many voters had suffered over the three years of its first term in office.

And that was? Never once did Peter Dutton mention the Reserve Bank. The tough state of the economy was 100 per cent Labor’s fault. And never once did Anthony Albanese or Treasurer Jim Chalmers say what they could have: “Don’t blame us, it was the central bank wot dun it.”

“And there was nothing we could do to stop it doing what it did,” Labor didn’t say. “Had we tried to counter what the Reserve did in increasing mortgage interest rates by a massive 4.25 percentage points, it would just have raised rates even further.” (As every macroeconomist knows, such behaviour is dignified by the title “the monetary policy reaction function”.)

So Albo & Co. did what the system required of them: they stood there and took all the abuse on their own chin. Since the Reserve was granted independence of the elected government in the mid-1990s, the deal between the elected government and the Reserve is that the Reserve says nothing about the government’s conduct of fiscal (budgetary) policy, and the government says nothing about interest rates.

Albanese’s quite unexpected landslide win will tempt many people to start rewriting history in favour of the victors. “Ah yes, Labor was never really in any bother and there was never much risk that all the cost-of-living pain could see it tossed out.”

Bollocks. Before the formal start of the campaign in late March, the polls showed there was a big chance Labor would be tossed out. The Coalition was ahead in the polls, and Dutton’s personal approval rating was high.

It was only as the five-week campaign progressed, and voters got their first close look at Dutton and started listening to what he was saying, that the Coalition’s lead in the polls started sliding down and voters’ comparison of him with Albanese started shifting in Albo’s favour.

Both sides knew from their research that the cost of living was the only issue voters wanted to know about. So both sides vowed to talk about little else. Labor stuck to that resolve, but Dutton couldn’t make himself.

The truth is, throughout his long career in politics, Dutton has shown little expertise or interest in the management of the macroeconomy. He’d been a copper, who saw his life’s vocation as to “protect and serve”. He was on about the threat to our security from abroad and the threat on our own streets. And, as the campaign progressed, that’s what he kept returning to.

He was the wrong person to be leading the Coalition at a time when economics was all that mattered. He had a powerful (though misleading) line asking people if they felt better off than they were three years ago, but failed to keep pushing it. This left Labor room to push its antidote: “don’t worry, the worst is over, interest rates have started coming down, and soon everything will be back to normal”.

But what’s that got to do with the Reserve Bank? Just this: had the Coalition succeeded in getting Labor sacked, Labor would rightly have blamed the Reserve’s tardiness in cutting interest rates for that sacking, and its side of politics would have gone for at least a decade seeing the central bank as the enemy.

But don’t think the Coalition would have loved the Reserve forever. It would have thought: “If those blasted bureaucrats can trip up Labor, next time they might trip us up”. Get it? Both sides would have been looking for ways to clip the Reserve’s wings.

Two points. First, central bank independence and democracy make awkward bedfellows. They mean the Reserve has all care and no responsibility. Much as they may want to, the voters can’t sack Michele Bullock. The only people voters can take the Reserve’s performance out on is the elected government.

Second, the post-pandemic price surge is the first big spike in inflation in the 30 years since the rich economies adopted the policy of handing over primacy in the day-to-day management of the economy to an independent central bank with an inflation target.

So, only now has this regime been stress-tested. This test has revealed how hard it is for a democratically elected government to carry the can for a central bank taking a seeming eternity to use higher interest rates to get the inflation rate back into the target zone.

The truth is, all the seeds of the inflation surge were sown before Labor was elected in May 2022. But Labor didn’t waste its breath trying to mount that argument. The retort would have been obvious: surely three years is long enough for any macroeconomic problem to be fixed?

Good point. When Labor took over, the annual inflation rate stood at 5.1 per cent. By the end of 2022, it had peaked at 7.8 per cent. But by this time last year – 15 months later – it was down to 3.6 per cent. And now it’s back in the 2 to 3 per cent target range.

So, with consumer spending almost flat, the past year has seen inflation do what it could always have been expected to do: keep falling back to target. So why did the Reserve start cutting the official interest rate only in February?

The first rule of using interest rates to manage demand (spending in the economy) is that, because rate changes affect demand with a “long and variable” delay, you don’t wait until inflation reaches the target before you start cutting rates.

But the Reserve has ignored this rule because of its fear of a wage explosion that was never likely to happen. Its “blunt instrument” has hurt voters with mortgages more than was needed. Fortunately for the Reserve, however, its mismanagement hasn’t got an innocent government kicked out.

Read more >>

Young people will decide who's the next PM

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

By now, it’s no secret that young people are the biggest voting group. While no demographic fits neatly into either the Labor or Coalition camp – or completely agrees on any given issue – it will be a relief for many young Australians to know they are more than an afterthought this election.

Neither party has been exceedingly visionary, but as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton jet around the country in a final scramble to cement their messages in the dying days of the election campaign, one leader will be tossing and turning far less when they hit the hay every evening.

For the past few decades, voters have tended to be “rusted on” to the major parties. That is, there wasn’t much anyone could do to change their minds in the weeks leading up to election day – and “safe” seats, where one party was practically guaranteed to win, were actually safe.

But young people have thrown a spanner in the works. Not only do Gen Z (born after 1996) and Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) make up more than 40 per cent of the national vote – outnumbering Baby Boomers for the first time – but they are increasingly pulling their support from the major parties.

The Greens have taken a bigger bite of the youth vote in recent elections, and the Australian Electoral Study – which has surveyed voters after every election since the mid-1980s – has found support for the major parties more widely has dropped to the lowest level it's seen.

That may also be thanks to the rise of independent or teal candidates who have offered platforms more in tune with issues such as climate change – especially hurting the Coalition in wealthier, inner-suburban electorates.

While there is diversity within the youth cohort, there are certain trends, shared experiences and grievances that have clearly shaped the major parties’ campaigns – and which will ultimately determine the result of the election.

Issues such as housing affordability, climate change and cost of living consistently dominate polling among young people.

With house prices continuing to slip out of reach of younger Australians (which their parents and grandparents are also seeing secondhand), both Labor and the Coalition have put housing policies front and centre in their campaigns.

Their demand-side policies are not especially helpful for dampening house prices because they increase the number of people bidding for a new home (and therefore push up house prices). Labor has guaranteed to allow all first home buyers to buy a place with a 5 per cent deposit, and the Coalition has promised to allow first home buyers to withdraw some of their superannuation and reduce their income tax by deducting their mortgage payments.

But these policies are short-term carrots that both parties know will appeal to first home buyers – many of whom are younger.

After facing a red-hot rental market, wage growth failing to keep up with the growth in everyday prices, and a pandemic which could have a long-term drag on their career progression, a seemingly lower hurdle to enter the housing market may be welcome for many young people.

It’s also more immediate than policies aimed at increasing supply, such as the Housing Australia Future Fund aimed at building thousands of homes, and the Coalition’s less direct promise to invest in housing infrastructure such as water, power and sewerage systems, which are more effective, longer-term responses. Both Labor and the Coalition know voters do not have the patience to wait (more) years to be able to crack into the housing market.

While cost of living has persistently been the number one issue for voters, one party has taken the extra step when it comes to easing pressures for young people. Labor’s promise, for example, to wipe 20 per cent off student loans, is a compelling proposition – especially for recent graduates who have racked up record levels of debt amid higher course fees. It’s a policy that has strong support – even among young Coalition voters.

The risks for Labor, of course, include the tendency of voters to “punish” or kick out whoever is in power during hard times, even if those hard times had little to do with the government, and the possibility of young people – who tend to be more progressive – choosing to back minor parties such as the Greens who have pushed for more radical policies such as capping rents.

While there’s recent evidence some young men are leaning more to the right and holding more conservative views than older generations, young people are, for the most-part, “issues-based” voters, meaning action on top offenders: housing affordability, climate change and cost of living are crucial to gaining their support.

Albanese, while arguably lacking extraordinary charisma, speaking ability or policy ambition, has done the basics well. He has relentlessly hammered home announcements on urgent care clinics, affordable medicines, childcare and fee-free TAFE, many of which matter to many, but especially young people.

By contrast, the campaign period has revealed some of the cracks and weaknesses in the Coalition. While their fuel excise cut is undeniably one of the policies with the strongest cut-through this election, they have been slow in releasing their costings, backflipped on their policy to end work-from-home for public servants, and only spoken about their nuclear policy when prodded.

Meanwhile, Albanese has consistently demonstrated he has a solid grasp of how systems, from health to roads and renewables, work – focusing on small improvements but never backing down or straying from his core policies.

Albanese has also connected more effectively in the social media space where young people tend to reside, at least much more than older generations. Dutton’s refusal to engage with influencers has narrowed his reach, while missteps such as his declaration that he would prefer to live in Sydney’s Kirribilli House over Canberra’s Lodge, did the rounds.

While Albanese has made his fair share of mistakes and neither leader has a natural flair for social media, the prime minister’s quips, vulnerability when speaking about his mother, and ability for banter may have put him in a stronger position on platforms such as TikTok where a sense of authenticity and personality are key to connecting with users, most of whom are younger.

Young people may have an appetite for bolder reform and back in more independents and minor party candidates this election, but Albanese will almost certainly secure a second term as prime minister. While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to attracting young voters, doing the “ordinary” well is probably enough to get Labor across the line.

Read more >>

Be warned: Ever-higher defence spending means ever-higher taxes

By tacit agreement of both sides, election campaigns exist in a highly contrived fantasy world where the future holds nothing unpleasant. Government spending only ever goes up to meet our growing needs, while those nasty taxes only ever go down. Debt and deficit have been banished to the never-never land of Don’t You Worry About That.

But last week Peter Dutton ripped a great big hole in the circus tent, through which you could see a frightening prospect: we seem to have strayed into a land where taxes just keep going up.

And this from the leader of the Liberals, the party that long has assured us taxes would always be lower under it than under its evil Labor opponents, the party of “tax and spend”.

It’s a lovely thought: there’s a party you can vote for that will always keep taxes lower. It’s just a pity the record doesn’t bear it out. I learnt long ago never to play the game that says one side is always better at running the economy or keeping taxes low.

This may shock you, but the record shows the two sides are much of a muchness. That’s because much that happens in the economy is caused by factors beyond a government’s ability to control.

When taxes are low relative to size of the economy, it’s usually because we’re in a world recession. That’s also when government spending is soaring and the budget deficit’s blowing out.

When taxes are particularly high, it’s usually because the economy’s booming, the government isn’t having to spend quite so much, the budget balance is heading back to surplus, and income tax collections are growing like steam – thanks to something you may have heard of, bracket creep.

Don’t believe any politician who tells you the other side’s into bracket creep, but we’re not. No sign of that in the record books. Similarly, don’t be fooled when some pollie – Dutton last week, for instance – tells you he “aspires” to end the tyranny of bracket creep. Even if he really believed it, his treasurer would take him into a back room and sort him.

Get this: it’s the magic of bracket creep – the effect of inflation in steadily increasing your income tax bill even though you’re no better off – that sustains the whole happy illusion that government spending can keep growing without any announced increases in the rates of income tax.

The pollies never have to announce an increase because inflation – even at a low rate – does the increasing without being asked, or much noticed. Bracket creep is the tax increase you have when the politicians have sworn not to increase tax rates.

What few of the people complaining about the cost of living realise is how much of the pain they’re suffering comes from bracket creep. They see prices rising at the supermarket, they see the Reserve Bank increasing interest rates, but they don’t see the taxman quietly increasing the income tax they pay.

Remember Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ incessant boasting about the two financial years in which the annual budget deficit suddenly turned into two surpluses in a row? Much of that turnaround was caused by bracket creep – a point they didn’t think to mention.

Note, too, that it’s bracket creep which allows governments to announce modest tax cuts before elections, or promise them after elections. Bracket creep quietly but continuously pushes up the average rate of tax on all our income, allowing politicians to look like they’re cutting tax by occasionally giving back some of the bracket-creep proceeds.

But let’s get back to what Dutton did last week. It was yet another effect on this election campaign coming from Cyclone Donald. Trump has not just increased tariffs, he’s pressuring America’s former allies to greatly increase their spending on defence so they’re not as reliant on America’s own defence spending.

It’s true that we’ve gone for decades spending less than we might have, hoping that the way we’ve slavishly sent troops to just about everywhere in the world the Americans have picked a fight will ensure that, should we ever face a threat from some foreign power, the Yanks will fly to the defence of their loyal Aussie buddies.

This hope has always been dubious, but now Trump has turned on America’s defence allies it has become impossible to believe. So, although just a third of poll respondents think we should increase our defence spending, that’s pretty sure to be what happens.

At present, we’re spending about $56 billion a year on defence, equivalent to 2 per cent of our national income (aka gross domestic product). Labor’s existing plan is for this to rise to $100 billion a year by 2034, or 2.3 per cent of GDP. But the Americans say we should be spending 3 per cent. So last week Dutton promised to raise it to 2.5 per cent by 2030, on the way to 3 per cent by 2035.

Dutton says getting to 2.5 per cent would involve additional spending of a cumulative $21 billion. How would he pay for this? Simple, he says. He’d repeal Labor’s promised tax cut of about $5 a week, rising to $10 a week the following year, which it has already legislated. This would save $17 billion over the next four years, and about $7 billion a year thereafter.

What? Did you get that? Here’s a politician – a Liberal politician, no less – standing up in an election campaign and promising to increase taxes. By the standards of modern elections, that’s brave. Something Albanese would never dare to do. And that’s not all. If our politicians are serious about greatly increasing our spending on defence on the way to 3 per cent of GDP – and they seem to be – we’re talking really big bucks, not something we could just put on tick.

Speaking of which, we’re already looking at budget deficits totalling $150 billion over the coming four financial years. Do you really think we won’t be paying a lot more tax in coming years?

We’ll be seeing a lot more bracket creep, and far fewer seeming tax cuts.

Read more >>

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 >>

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 >>

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 >>

It's official: supermarkets are overcharging. So change the subject

Why does a government release a highly critical report on the conduct of Woolworths and Coles on the Friday before a budget that will lead straight into an election campaign? Short answer: not for any worthy reason.

One worthy reason could have been to show Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers really wanted to do something about fixing the cost of living, by making the question of what we should do about our overcharging grocery oligopoly a major issue for discussion in the campaign.

Since the remedies proposed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in its report seem so inadequate, should the two grocery giants be broken up? As, indeed, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says he would do if elected.

As the business press so indelicately put it, the competition watchdog’s mild-mannered recommendations despite all its evidence of what the punters see as “price gouging” meant the supermarket giants had “dodged a bullet”. But should they have? Let’s discuss it.

Sorry, I’ve been observing the behaviour of politicians for too long to believe Labor’s motives for releasing the report at such a time could possibly be so pure. It’s more likely the reverse: Labor wants to close the issue down.

What Labor did last week looks suspiciously like what’s known in the trade as “taking out the trash”. When you’ve got an embarrassing report you hope won’t get much notice from the media, you release it on a Friday, when the media’s busy packing up for the weekend. The reporters ought to return to the topic on Monday, but they don’t because of their obsession with newness. Spin doctors 1; press gallery 0.

Or governments can achieve the same result by releasing an embarrassing report at a time when everyone’s attention is turned to a much bigger issue – say, a budget, or an election campaign.

But why didn’t Labor just keep the report to itself until after the election? Because, I suspect, it wanted to show it had been on the job, investigating complaints about supermarket overcharging.

And it probably wanted to arm itself to reply to Dutton’s promise to break up the two giants. “We had the competition watchdog investigate the matter, and it explicitly declined to recommend divestment. But it did make 20 recommendations, and we’ve accepted them all.”

(The last time I heard that one was before the 2019 federal election, when the Morrison government released the report of the royal commission into misconduct in banking and said it had accepted all its recommendations. After the election it dropped many of them.)

But if even Labor isn’t game to touch the thought of breaking up Coles and Woolies, why are the Liberals promising to do it? Because they wouldn’t really.

Why does the notion of divestment frighten Labor? Because it doesn’t want to get offside with business. However, in the case of the two supermarket giants, their interests are defended inside Labor’s corridors of power by their union, “the shoppies”, aka the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

Trouble is, the report’s findings show there’s a lot to try sweeping under the carpet. The two chains account for two-thirds of all supermarket sales, and their market share has increased since 2008 despite the advent of Aldi. Their profitability is among the highest in the world and their profit margins have increased over the past five financial years.

“Grocery prices in Australia have been increasing rapidly over the last five financial years,” the report says. “Most of the increases are attributable to increases in the cost of doing business across the economy, including particularly production costs for suppliers, which has increased supermarkets’ input costs.

“However, Aldi, Coles and Woolworths have increased their product [margins] and earnings-before-interest-and-tax margins during this time, meaning that at least some of the grocery price increases have resulted in additional profits.”

So if the Libs don’t seize on the report’s findings to step up their claim to want to do something real and lasting about the cost of living, it will be a sign they’re not genuine in their professed desire to break up the grocery oligopoly. A sign both sides of politics want the report and its disturbing findings buried ASAP.

But it’s not just the political duopoly that doesn’t want to know about the pricing power of the grocery market’s big two. Most of the nation’s economics profession don’t want to think about it either. Why not? Because it’s empirical evidence that laughs at their conventional model – whether mental or mathematical – of how the economy works.

There’s a host of contradictions in their model, and the profession long ago decided that the easiest way to leave its beliefs unchallenged and unchanged was to avoid thinking about them. (And for all those economists snorting with derision as they read yet more of Gittins’ nonsense, I have five words: “theory of the second best”. Those words strike terror into the heart of every conventional economist.)

Economists divide their discipline into micro (the study of how individual markets work) and macro (study of how the whole market economy works), but they’ve given up trying to make the two approaches fit together. This groceries report is a classic example of how the two lines of thinking don’t fit.

Every microeconomist studying “imperfect competition” (aka “industrial organisation”) knows oligopoly brings market power and allows firms to avoid competition on price. But every macroeconomist assumes – explicitly or implicitly – that market power isn’t a relevant problem.

As we saw with the conventional wisdom on the domestic causes of the recent inflation surge, the Reserve Bank assumed it was caused by excessive monetary and budgetary stimulus. That is, it was caused by “demand-pull” not “cost-push” inflation pressure.

The fact that, through our own neglect, we have one of the most oligopolised economies in the developed world, is assumed away. We’ve allowed our economy to become inflation-prone, while economists in general, and the supposedly inflation-obsessed Reserve Bank, have said not a word.

But not to worry. We’ll compensate for our negligence by punishing people with home loans all the harder.

Read more >>

How many more cyclones before our leaders finally do something?

Forgive me for being hard-headed while everyone’s feeling concerned and sympathetic towards those poor flooded Queenslanders and people on NSW’s northern rivers, but now’s the time to resolve to do something about it.

As the rain eases, the rivers go down, the prime minister flies back to Canberra and the TV news tires of showing us one more rooftop in a sea of rushing water, the temptation is to leave the locals to their days and even months of getting things back to normal, while we go back to feeling sorry for ourselves over the cost of living and waiting impatiently until the federal election is out of the way, and we stop hearing the politicians’ endless bickering.

But speaking of politics, let’s start with Anthony Albanese. He’s been forced to abandon his plan for an April 12 election because calling an election in the middle of a cyclone would have been a very bad look.

“I have no intention of doing anything that distracts from what we need to do,” he told the ABC. “This is not a time for looking at politics. My sole focus is not calling an election, my sole focus is on the needs of Australians – that is my sole focus.”

Ah, what a nice bloke Albo is. Convinced? I’m not. You don’t get to be as successful a politician as Albanese unless your sole focus is, always and everywhere, politics. It’s because his sole focus is politics that he knows now’s not the time to look political. “Election? Election? If I don’t make out I don’t care about the election at a time like this – I could lose it.”

One thing I’ve learnt from watching prime ministers is that, though they all make mistakes – buying a holiday beach house during a cost-of-living crisis, for instance – they never make the same mistake that helped bring down their predecessor.

Every pollie knows Scott “I don’t hold a hose” Morrison’s greatest mistake was to persist with his Hawaii holiday during the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20. The ABC has helpfully dug up footage of people in the affected area refusing to shake Morrison’s hand after he turned up late.

Now do you get why Albanese’s been doing so much glad-handing up in the cyclone area?

The election campaign that’s already begun is between two uninspiring men, neither of whom seem to have anything much they want to get on and do. You’re going to fix bulk-billing, are you? Wow. Anything else?

But, perhaps in an unguarded moment, Albanese did say something impressive. He seemed to elevate climate change as a major election issue, saying all leaders must take decisive action to respond to global warming because it is making natural disasters such Cyclone Alfred worse and more expensive to recover from.

Actually, this is the perfect opportunity to make this an election worth caring about. You’ve got a Labor Party that cares about climate change but is hastening slowly, versus a Liberal Party that only pretends to care and whose latest excuse for doing nothing is switching to nuclear power. This would take only a decade or two to organise so, meanwhile, we can give up on renewable energy and abandon Labor’s commitment to cut emissions by (an inadequate) 43 per cent by 2030.

Both sides are likely to lose more votes to the two groups that do care about climate change – the Greens and the teal independents. Labor is delaying announcing its reduction target for 2035 until after the election. If Albanese had the courage, he’d promise a much more ambitious target and make it a central issue in the election.

The point is, Alfred is hardly the last cyclone we’ll see. Extreme weather events – including heatwaves, droughts and floods - have become more frequent and more intense. How many more of them will it take to convince us we need to do more to reduce our own emissions, as well as taking responsibility for the emissions from the coal and gas we export to other countries?

What’s different about Alfred is it hit land much further down the coast than usual. Reckon that’s the last time this will happen? Modelling by scientists at UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre suggests that weakening currents may lead to wetter summers in northern Australia.

Other researchers from the centre tell us “our climate has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. More rapid melting of the ice sheets will accelerate further disruption of the climate system.”

A big part of our problem is the longstanding human practice of building towns near a good source of water, such as a river. Rebecca McNaught, of Sydney University, tells us Lismore is one of the most flood-prone urban centres in Australia.

Dr Margaret Cook, of Griffith University’s Australian Rivers Institute, reminds us that, until recently, 97 per cent of our disaster funding was spent on recovery, compared with 3 per cent invested in mitigating risk and building resilience.

That’s all wrong and must be reversed. Armies of volunteers – plus defence forces – emerge after disasters to help mop up. But Cook argues for an advance party that arrives before a disaster to help prepare by moving possessions, cleaning gutters and drains and pruning trees.

She advocates advanced evacuation, permanently relocating flood-prone residents, raising homes and rezoning to prevent further development in flood-prone areas.

“We must improve stormwater management, adopt new building designs and materials, and educate the public about coping with floods,” she says.

As we saw at the weekend, the defence forces have become a key part of the response to natural disasters. Great. Except that, according to a review in 2023, the Australian Defence Force is not structured or equipped to act as a domestic disaster recovery agency in any sustainable way.

It could be so structured, of course, though it might take a bob or two. And that’s before you get to the problem of houses that are uninsurable and insurance policies that are merely unaffordable.

The more you think about climate change, the more you realise it’s going to cost taxpayers a bundle.

Read more >>

To make Medicare healthy again, the pollies must fix its symptoms

I don’t know if you noticed, but the federal election campaign began on Sunday. The date of the election has yet to be announced – it may be mid-April or mid-May – but hostilities have begun. And they began with an issue that’s been big in election campaigns for 50 years: Medicare.

On Sunday, Anthony Albanese revealed his election masterpiece, the knockout punch that would send Peter Dutton reeling, something Albo has had up his sleeve since December. You know how hard it’s getting to find a doctor who bulk-bills?

Well, Labor will fix that. Remember Bob Hawke’s famous election promise that “by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty”? Albo’s topped that. He’s promising that, by 2030, nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed. And all that for a mere $8.5 billion over four years in extra spending.

Politically, it was brilliant. Health is important to Australians, and they love being able to see a doctor without coughing up, so to speak. Poll after poll shows that when in comes to healthcare, Labor’s the party voters trust. And fixing bulk-billing ticks another box: cost of living.

It gets better. Dutton has form on bulk-billing. Do you remember when Tony Abbott won government in 2013? He’d promised not to cut various classes of government spending, but in his first budget he was making savings everywhere. He was going to introduce a “patient co-payment” of $7 a pop on visits to GPs.

There was so much public uproar and opposition in the Senate that most of the planned nasties were dropped. Guess who was minister for health at the time?

What a fabulous political tactician Albo is. A whole election campaign discussing the need to restore bulk-billing. Sorry, great move – not gonna fly. Within a few hours, Dutton had matched Labor’s offer “dollar for dollar”. The man who told us the Albanese government was “spending like a drunken sailor” said “see you, and raise you”. He’d be spending $9 billion over four years, thanks to $500 million for an already announced improvement in mental health.

Dutton had no time to consider the detail of Labor’s proposal, nor how he’d pay for it. By the way, how would he pay for it? Don’t worry, he’ll tell you later. How much later? Didn’t say.

Remember all those election campaigns when we agonised over debt and deficit? Where the media kept count of the cost of all the promises, and parties struggled to find ways to pay for it all?

Not this time. Neither man has an accountant’s streak. If Albanese keeps producing measures to help with the cost of living, and Dutton keeps matching him, this will be a costly campaign.

And now that the question of Medicare and bulk-billing has been neutralised, I doubt we’ll hear much about them again. So, since they matter far more to our lives than the incessant politicking, let’s take a closer look while we can.

Medicare – first introduced as Medibank by the Whitlam government in 1975 – is Australia’s first system of universal health care, in which everyone who needs help gets it, regardless of their ability to pay. Every rich country has a universal system, except the United States.

Under Medicare, the federal government pays about half the cost of the states’ public hospitals. In principle, bulk-billing ensures everyone can see a doctor when they need one. If in practice that’s too expensive, you can always wait in a public hospital’s emergency department.

Trouble is, universal health care is expensive and getting more so, which is a problem when politicians like appearing to cut taxes, and never increase them or introduce new ones. However, the government’s accountants know there’s more than one way to skin a budget.

When the $7 patient co-payment got rejected, the feds solved the problem by freezing the Medicare rebates to GPs rather than adjusting them for inflation. As Australia’s leading health economist Professor Stephen Duckett explains, this slowly forced GPs to abandon bulk-billing and introduce their own patient co-payments as their practice costs increased but their rebates didn’t.

It’s said that by the time Labor returned to office in 2022, bulk-billing was in freefall. Labor restored the indexation of Medicare rebates, then tripled the special incentive for GPs to bulk-bill pensioners and holders of healthcare cards, children and people in rural and remote areas.

This helped, but the increased payments weren’t enough to eliminate the gap between the rebate and the fees GPs were charging in metropolitan areas. The present average out-of-pocket payment is $46 a pop. (Bit more than $7, eh?)

At present, less than half of people are “always” bulk-billed when they see a GP. A further quarter of patients are “usually” bulk-billed.

Co-payments hit poor people harder than the rest of us, and I think they can be a false economy. The medical problems of people who don’t see the doctor because they can’t afford it can get a lot worse, which is both tough on them and tough on the taxpayer when they have to be rushed to hospital for operations and a long stay.

Albanese’s new promise is to further increase the incentives for GPs to bulk-bill, as well as to extend those incentive payments to cover all patients, not just pensioners, children and the others. His third change is to introduce an additional 12.5 per cent “practice payment” to those medical practices that bulk-bill all their patients. The changes would take effect from November 1.

Of course, Medicare has more problems than just out-of-pocket payments. The standard fee-for-service way of paying GPs makes sense for people with acute problems, but not the growing number with multiple chronic conditions (like a certain ageing journo).

Fortunately, Duckett thinks the promised changes could “start the necessary transition” away from fee-for-service in general practice.

Read more >>

Sorry, this isn't the day we stop feeling sorry for ourselves

I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but I very much doubt that this small cut in interest rates will be the circuit breaker everyone from Treasurer Jim Chalmers down has been hoping for. After our many months of longing for this moment, such a modest saving can only be an anticlimax.

I doubt this will be the reason the economy begins to recover as we all go out and shop. Nor will it be the sea change that secures another term in office for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Consumers and voters are in a sullen, sour mood and have been for a year or two. We’re feeling so sorry for ourselves it will take a lot to lighten us up and make us forget our obsession with the cost of living. Even if things improve, our negativity may lift only slowly over many months.

Normally, a change of government would help a lot. New leaders get a honeymoon in which hope springs eternal. The taller and better-looking the new guy is, the better their chance of making a good impression.

But it’s hard to see a man whose specialty is making us feel angry or afraid being the bloke to cheer us all up.

For someone with a mortgage of $600,000, a rate cut of 0.25 percentage points is worth about $23 a week.

Do you remember Chalmers’ tax cuts last July? No one was terribly excited about them. But they were worth $34 a week for someone on $84,000 a year, and $54 week for someone on $122,000 a year.

There may be more cuts to come this year, of course, even a possible two more before an election held in mid-May. But from what the Reserve Bank is saying, I doubt it’s in a tearing hurry to keep cutting.

And though the Reserve raised interest rates by 4.25 percentage points over the 18 months to November 2023, I don’t expect it to cut rates by more than about 1 percentage point, leaving the official interest rate at about 3.35 per cent.

Why? Because its 4.25-point increase brought the rate up from its crisis level of almost zero during the pandemic and its lockdowns. Now the Reserve will be getting the rate back to normal, not crisis territory.

And while we’re all feeling so sorry for ourselves, don’t forget this. Normally, by the time the Reserve starts cutting interest rates the economy is in recession and unemployment is way up.

Our economy is becalmed, but in nothing like a recession. Right now, we have a higher proportion of the working-age population in jobs than ever before. At 4 per cent, our rate of unemployment is lower than it’s been in most of the past 50 years. Sound terrible to you?

Indeed, it’s the remarkable strength of our jobs market that’s the main reason the Reserve has been so reluctant to cut interest rates until now, and remains “cautious” about cutting them further.

Read more >>

When does bipartisanship happen? When there's mutual self-interest

If you think Labor and the Liberals are always at each other’s throats and never agree on anything, you haven’t been watching closely enough. Sometimes – last week, for instance – they do deals with each other they hope we won’t notice.

When they’ve reached an agreement they don’t want seen, it’s because they’ve colluded to do something that advances their interests at the expense of the voters.

It reminds me of economist Adam Smith’s observation that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public”.

What do we want from our politicians? That they get on with fixing our many problems. When we discover the present lot isn’t doing that, we toss ’em out. In practice, however, it’s not that simple. We’ve long had a system of two-party government, which means that when one side’s no good, we turn to the other one. But what happens when it too proves to be no good? We have no alternative but to return to the first side, which we already know isn’t up to snuff.

That’s the position we’re in now. We tossed out Scott Morrison and replaced him with Anthony Albanese, only to discover he’s not game to do what it takes. So, does Peter Dutton strike you as the good leader we’re looking for? You’d have to be a terribly rusted-on Lib to think so. What now?

Actually, our loss of faith in the political duopoly isn’t new. It’s become clear that the two sides have just about fought themselves to a standstill. Neither side is game to do anything much, for fear of the scare campaign the other side would run.

This explains why voters have been groping towards plan B. In the 2022 federal election, almost a third of voters – a record proportion – gave their first-preference vote to candidates other than from the two majors. Many Labor voters have turned to the Greens, while the growing number of independents was boosted by the six teal independents taking over seats in the Liberals’ heartland. What’s the single biggest source of discontent with the duopolists? Their reluctance to get on with fighting climate change.

We’ve already come close to having a minority government, and there’s high chance we’ll get one at this year’s election. This gives the smaller parties and independents the balance of power, allowing them to achieve braver policies in return for keeping the minority government in power. Not such a bad arrangement.

But this is where last week’s passing of the electoral reform bill comes in. After doing a deal with the Coalition, Labor got it through the Senate despite the vehement opposition of the Greens and, particularly, the teal independents.

As Labor claims, the act involves the most comprehensive changes to the electoral system in four decades. And many of the changes are genuine reforms, limiting how much individuals can donate to candidates or parties, and tightening up rules on disclosing the identity of donors and the timeliness of that disclosure.

Labor claims its reforms will take the “big money” out of election campaigns. Don’t you believe it. It’s true it will stop the Clive Palmers from giving millions to a party, but that was never a big worry. Various loopholes will allow Labor to continue getting big bucks from the unions and the Libs getting much moolah from business and the secret funds in which money has been stashed.

In any case, the act makes up for any loss of donations by greatly increasing the money the parties and independent candidates get from the taxpayer. After an election, candidates who get more than 4 per cent of the votes get about $3.50 per vote. That will be increased to $5 – which you can double because we each cast two votes, for the House and the Senate.

And that’s before you get to a new payment to cover “administration costs” of $90,000 per election for members of the lower house, and half that for senators.

The point is, these old and new payments go to incumbents, giving them a huge financial head start over new people trying to get in. Even before you think of all the expensive advertising you’d like, setting up an office, staffing it, and paying for printing and stationery ain’t cheap.

But sitting members get an electoral office and a staff of five, plus transport and a generous printing budget they use to get themselves re-elected. So, would-be independents have to raise and spend a lot of money to have any chance against an incumbent member.

Which is where the act’s new limit on spending of $800,000 per candidate puts incumbents way ahead of newcomers. What’s more, political parties are allowed to spend $90 million each on advertising, which they can direct away from their safe seats to their marginals.

Get it? The two major parties have cooked up “reforms” that benefit them by stacking the rules against new independents. The Greens aren’t greatly disadvantaged because they’re a party and have incumbents. The existing independents don’t get the extra benefits going to a party, but do now have the advantage of incumbency.

But future independents – including further teals – will find it a lot harder to win seats than before. Why has Albanese done a deal that mainly benefits the Liberals, his supposed lifelong enemies? Because if independents can do over the Libs, next they can do over Labor.

When the chips are down, the duopolists must stick together and put their mutual interests ahead of the voters’ right to choose. If you want proof that our politicians put their own careers way ahead of their duty to the people who vote for them, this is it. I’ve never felt more disillusioned.

But note this: these changes won’t apply to this year’s election. This will be our last chance to register our disapproval.

Read more >>

Everyone hates government spending - until someone tries to cut it

It seems government spending will be an issue we hear a lot of in this year’s federal election campaign. But remember this: much of what’s said will be influenced by partisanship, ideology, self-interest and populism.

Peter Dutton is making wild claims that need fact-checking. The business press is saying things that aren’t a lot better. And the debate will proceed according to an eternal political truth: while voters never mind you bad-mouthing government spending in general, as soon as you get specific, they start fighting back.

“I’ve always thought the money the government’s giving you was a great waste, but the money – and the tax breaks – I’m getting are vital to the economy.”

It’s obvious that some part of the $730 billion the federal government spends each year must be wasteful, just as some of the 365,000 people it employs must be in excess. But how much is some – at lot or a little? No one’s ever bothered to find out. Much easier to stick to unsubstantiated claims and exploiting voters’ prejudices.

Dutton has been laying it on thick. When he made Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price shadow minister for “government efficiency”, he claimed the Albanese government “has spent money like drunken sailors”.

So what spending would he cut? He’ll tell us later. We do know, however, that Albanese & Co have increased the number of federal public servants (not the same thing as total federal employees) by 36,000.

This addition of “Canberra public servants”, Dutton has said, was “wasteful” and meant the public service was now “bloated and inefficient”. It’s an example of “wasteful spending that is out of control”. “We’re not having 36,000 additional public servants in Canberra”.

So is he going to sack them all? He’d be happy for you to think so, but he hasn’t actually promised he would. What he has said is he’d get rid of diversity and inclusion positions, along with “change managers” and “internal communication specialists”.

Whether that would be a good or bad thing, the saving would be chicken feed.

Dutton has tried hard to give the impression all the extra workers are in Canberra. Not true. The proportion of all federal public servants in Canberra has actually fallen to 37 per cent. Most of the extra people are working in frontline services around the states, helping people using the national disability scheme, visiting Centrelink and so forth.

Andrew Podger, a former top Canberra bureaucrat, notes that, at less than 0.7 per cent, the federal public service is now smaller than it was in 2008 as a proportion of the population, with its share of the total Australian workforce having fallen to less than 1.4 per cent.

Dr Michael Keating, a former topmost bureaucrat, says there’s plenty of evidence that the previous Coalition government was underfunding many services. Hospital waiting lists blew out, public schools didn’t get the resources needed to do their job adequately according to the Gonski standards, waiting times for welfare payments and for veterans’ compensation were far too long, and delays in processing visa applications led to more unauthorised immigrants.

Ending or reducing these policy-caused delays explains most of Albanese’s increased government spending. Sound like waste to you?

Keating notes that, according to the latest official estimates, federal government spending this financial year will be almost the same as it was in the Morrison government’s last year, when measured as a proportion of gross domestic product. Sound profligate to you?

He further notes that, when you take total spending by all levels of government as proportion of GDP, Australia is actually the lowest among the 38 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, save for Ireland, South Korea and Switzerland.

And get this: as a proportion of national income (GDP), our spending by all levels of government is more than 4 percentage points lower than the average for all OECD countries. Remind you of a drunken sailor, does it?

According to the opposition’s shadow minister for the public service Jane Hume, “you don’t grow the economy by growing the size of government. Every public-sector job has to be paid for by a private-sector worker”.

I hope Hume is smart enough to know she’s talking nonsense and is just trying to mislead those people silly enough to believe her. This is a defence of private-good/public-bad ideology that makes no sense. Apart from her inference that people who work for the government don’t have to pay taxes, it’s as silly as saying Woolies and Coles don’t add to the economy because every cent they earn comes from their customers’ pockets.

If we left health, education, law and order and all the rest completely to the private sector, do you reckon we’d have an economy that was bigger or smaller than we have today?

Back to Dutton. He says “a major cause of homegrown inflation is rapid and unrestrained government spending”. If it’s the huge spending by federal and state governments during the pandemic he’s referring to, that’s no more than the economists’ conventional wisdom.

But I guess he’s referring to the more recent spending by Albanese & Co. And get this: ignore the wild exaggeration and the business press has been saying much the same thing for months.

Although the argument has been disavowed by Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock, the business press has been arguing that the government’s spending, especially that intended to ease cost-of-living pressure by subsidising electricity prices and increasing rent assistance for pensioners, is causing consumer demand to be stronger than otherwise and keeping the jobs market stronger than otherwise, so has allowed businesses to keep increasing their prices.

Fundamentally, the business press is right. The way to get inflation down faster would have been to hit the economy harder, with higher interest rates and zero discretionary spending by the government. Instead, the Reserve and the government took the compromise position by aiming for a soft landing and a consequent slower return to low inflation.

I get why the press hasn’t wanted to spell out more clearly its preference for the tougher choice. What I don’t get is why it thinks its business customers would have preferred a full-blown recession.

Read more >>