Carbon tax not real reason for soaring power prices

Tony Abbott is right about one thing: the price of electricity has shot up and is now a lot higher than it should be. It's a scandal, in fact. Trouble is, the carbon tax has played only a small part in that, so getting rid of it won't fix the problem.

Until a rotten system is reformed, the price of electricity will keep rising excessively, so I doubt if many people will notice the blip caused by the removal of the carbon tax. (As for the price of gas, it will at least double within a year or two, as the domestic price rises to meet the international price, making the carbon tax removal almost invisible.)

So Abbott will be in bother if too many voters remember all the things he has said about how much the tax was responsible for the rising cost of living, how much damage the tax was doing to the economy and how much better everything would be once the tax was gone.

He would be wise to change the subject and join the push to reform the electricity pricing arrangements.

A new report by Tony Wood and Lucy Carter, of the Grattan Institute, Fair Pricing for Power, says that over the past five years the average Australian household's electricity bill has risen by 70 per cent to $1660 a year.

And this has been happening while the amount of electricity we use has been falling, not rising. Just why electricity demand has been falling is a story for another day.

The cost of actually generating the power accounts for 30 per cent of that total. The cost of delivering the power from the generator to your home via poles and wires - that is, the electricity transmission and distribution network - accounts for 43 per cent of the total.

That leaves the costs of the electricity retailer - the business you deal with - accounting for 13 per cent of the total bill, with the carbon tax making up 7 per cent and the various measures to encourage energy saving or use of renewables making up the last 7 per cent.

Of these various components, the one that does most to account for the rapid rise in overall bills is the cost of the physical distribution network. Whereas there's fierce competition between the now mainly privately owned power stations, the network businesses - still government-owned in NSW and Queensland, but privatised in Victoria and South Australia - are natural monopolies.

This means the prices the networks are allowed to charge - whether government or privately owned - are regulated by government authorities. And this is the source of the problem. Loopholes in the price regulation regime have made it easy for the network businesses to feather their nest at the expense of you and me.

Why would a government-owned network business want to overcharge? Because their profits are paid to the state Treasury, which needs all the cash it can get. So the NSW and Queensland governments gain by looking the other way while their voters are ripped off. The gouging hasn't been nearly as bad in privatised Victoria, where electricity prices are well below the national average.

An earlier report from the Grattan Institute identified four main faults in the system used to regulate the prices of network businesses: the pricing formula allows excessive rates of return, considering essential monopolies are low-risk; government ownership leads to excessive investment in infrastructure and reduced efficiency; reliability standards to prevent blackouts are wastefully high; the pricing formula rewards investment in facilities you don't really need.

The various combined state and federal regulatory bodies have belatedly begun attempting to fix these problems, but they could do a lot more if the politicians prodded them harder.

Meanwhile, the latest Grattan report proposes a solution to one aspect of the over-investment problem: coping with peak demand. The trouble with electricity networks is that, if you want to avoid blackouts, the network has to be powerful enough to cope with the periods when a lot of people are using a lot of electrical appliances at the same time, which these days is a hot afternoon.

Over the course of a year, these occasions are surprisingly few, so you end up having to build a lot of capacity, which is expensive, but then is rarely used. It would make far more sense to encourage people to avoid such extreme peaks in their demand.

The way the pricing system works at present, however, is that far from discouraging people from buying airconditioners and turning them on full blast on very hot afternoons, they're subsidised by those householders who don't.

The simple answer would be for the part of people's bills that relates to their share of network costs to be changed from charging for how much power they use to a capacity-based charge. That is, they pay according to the maximum load they put on the network in peak periods.

The result would be to remove the subsidy between high and low-capacity users, increasing or reducing their bills by up to $150 a year.

The greater benefit would be the price signal sent to high-capacity users to reduce their use of appliances during peak periods and save. As people responded to this incentive, the need to keep adding to the network's capacity would fall, thus reducing the need for higher electricity prices.

Read more >>

Bankers and wealth managers take ethics oath

As the misadventures of the can-do Commonwealth Bank remind us, even though our bankers didn't bring the house down in the global financial crisis as happened elsewhere, we still had too many victims of bad investment advice losing their savings.

So, what's the answer? Tighter regulation of banks and investment advisers, or a higher standard of ethical behaviour by individuals working in banking and wealth management? Try both.

I'm not so naive as to have much faith in self-regulation, but that's not to deny that some people's behaviour is more ethical than others', nor that more individuals behaving ethically would make a difference.

When you stop believing our personal behaviour matters, that we're all mere cogs in some uncontrollable machine, it's time to slit your throat.

My guess is most people like to think of themselves as reasonably ethical, which is not to say most of us actually are at all times (not even me). Trouble is, most people make their judgments about what is ethical and what's not from the behaviour of those around then.

Moral compasses are hard to find. But that's why I'd like to see a movement initiated by Dr Simon Longstaff, of the St James Ethics Centre, the "banking and finance oath", get more publicity and more signatories. The better known are the oath and those who've signed up, the better judgments others can make about how a particular action measures up.

The oath consists of nine principles: trust is the foundation of my profession; I will serve all interests in good faith; I will compete with honour; I will pursue my ends with ethical restraint; I will create a sustainable future; I will help create a more just society; I will speak out against wrongdoing and support others who do the same; I will accept responsibility for my actions; my word is my bond.

The names of the many signatories to this oath are listed on its website, thebfo.org. They include Glenn Stevens, Jillian Broadbent, Carolyn Hewson, Warren Hogan, Andrew Mohl and Elizabeth Proust.

Why doesn't someone ask the chief executives of the big four banks just what it is that makes them feel unable to sign up? It couldn't be a threat to their profitability, surely.



THESE days the world is positively awash with forecasts of what will happen to the economy. Treasury publishes its forecasts twice a year, the Reserve Bank publishes four times a year and a couple of dozen economists in the financial markets make their forecasts regularly and freely available.

But it wasn't always like that. Before the financial markets were deregulated in the early 1980s few economists worked in them, the Reserve kept its opinions to itself and Treasury's official forecasts in the budget papers were kept terribly vague. Billy Snedden's last budget advised that "economic growth is expected to quicken considerably in 1972-73".

When I became an economic reporter in 1974, one of the few unofficial forecasters was Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute, where the regular pronouncements of Dr Duncan Ironmonger drew rapt attention from the media.

And by then Philip Shrapnel's business selling his forecasts had been going for 10 years, meaning the economic analysis and forecasting firm BIS Shrapnel is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

Shrapnel, who trained at the Reserve, spent a few years working as a forecaster for pretty much the only notable management consulting firm in those days, WDScott, before going out on his own. He was a character, said to polish off a least half a bottle of scotch as he stayed up studying the documents on budget night.

A lot of the people who paid to attend his forecasting conferences - still held today - would have been there to get his forecasts and plug them into their company's annual budget. These days my guess is his company makes more of its money from its research reports on particular industries and its special focus on property and construction.

Whereas David Love's rival subscription newsletter, Syntec, made its name from its uncanny ability to read the mind of Treasury, Shrapnel was fiercely independent. Not for him the risk-averse strategy of clustering with everyone else around the official forecast.

His successors retain this approach of doing their own analysis their own way and sticking to it. Like all forecasters they've had their misses, but their independence of mind may explain some notable calls: no downturn as a result of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98; a downturn in 2000-01 no one else was expecting; and no recession following the global financial crisis.

Read more >>

How economists changed their tune on minimum wages

When the Fair Work Commission announced a 3 per cent increase in the national minimum wage to more than $640 a week - or almost $16.90 an hour - from last week, employers hinted it would lead to fewer people getting jobs and maybe some people losing theirs.

And to many who've studied economics - even many professional economists - that seems likely. If the government is pushing the minimum wage above the level that would be set by the market - the "market-clearing wage" - then employers will be less willing to employ people at that rate.

That's because market forces set the market rate at an unskilled worker's "marginal product" - the value to the employer of the worker's labour.

Almost common sense, really. Except that such a conclusion is based on a host of assumptions, many of which rarely hold in the real world. And over the past 20 years, academic economists have done many empirical studies showing that's not how minimum wages work in practice. They've also developed more sophisticated theories that better fit the empirical facts. It's all explained in the June issue of the ACTU's Economic Bulletin.

As a result, there's been a big swing in academic thinking on the question of the minimum wage. Last year, researchers at the University of Chicago asked a panel of economists from top US universities whether they agreed with the statement that "the distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $US9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy".

Fully 62 per cent agreed and 16 per cent disagreed, leaving 22 per cent uncertain.

Earlier this year, more than 600 US economists - including seven Nobel laureates - signed an open letter to Congress advocating a $US10.10 minimum wage. They said that, because of important developments in the academic literature, "the weight of evidence now [shows] that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers".

The first such study, published by David Card and Alan Krueger in 1994, compared fast food employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania after one state raised its minimum wage and the other didn't. They did not find a significant effect on employment.

Since then, many similar US "natural experiments" have been studied and have reached similar findings. In Britain, the Low Pay Commission has commissioned more than 130 pieces of research, with the great majority finding that minimum wages boost workers' pay but don't harm employment.

There's been less research in Australia, but one study by economists at the Australian National University, Alison Booth and Pamela Katic, suggests that the facts in Australia seem to fit the "dynamic monopsony" model of wage-fixing.

Under the simple textbook, "perfect competition" model of the market for labour, individual firms face a horizontal supply curve: each firm is so small that its demand for labour has no effect on the price of labour. It can buy as much labour as it needs at an unchanged price.

In the dynamic monopsony model, however, each firm faces an upward-sloping labour supply curve. This is because more realistic assumptions recognise the existence of "imperfections" or, more specifically, "frictions".

Such as? Workers may not have perfect information about all the alternative jobs they could take and this could make them cautious about moving. Searching for a job may involve costs in time or money. Workers and jobs may be mismatched geographically, so changing jobs may involve greater transport costs. Workers - being humans rather than inanimate commodities - may not have identical preferences about the jobs available.

In other words, there are practical reasons why it takes a lot for a worker to want to leave their job.

These frictions, or "transaction costs", are assumed away in the simple model. But their existence can result in employers having market power, which they can take advantage of to pay workers less than the value of what they produce (their marginal product).
Economists call such power "monopsony" power. Just as a monopolist is a single seller, so a monopsonist is a single buyer. But don't take that word too literally. An employer with monopsony power doesn't need to be a monopolist in the market for its product (the "product" market), nor the sole buyer of labour in the region or the industry.
"A single employer in a market with many employers can have monopsonistic power if workers bear costs of job search," the article continues. In other words, it possesses a degree of monopsony power.

The point is, if a firm is facing an upward-sloping labour supply curve and wants to hire more workers, it may need to pay a higher wage than it is paying its existing workers. So, if it goes ahead with hiring, it will need to increase the wage rates of its existing workers.

And this means the firm's profit-maximising level of employment and wages will both be lower than they would be under perfect competition.

In such a model, if the minimum wage rate is set at or below the marginal product of labour, this won't cause employment to fall and may cause it to rise. Monopsonistic models don't have an unambiguous prediction for the employment effect of a minimum wage.

A paper by Bhaskar, Manning and To, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2002, concluded that "a minimum wage set moderately above the market wage may have a positive effect or a negative effect on employment, but the size of this effect will generally be small".

It will be interesting to see how long it takes those many Australian economists who don't specialise in studying the labour market to catch up with this change in their profession's thinking.

Read more >>

Ignoring climate change will cost the economy

Sometimes I fear Australia has decided to go backwards just as the rest of the world has decided to go forwards. Take climate change. If the repeal of the carbon tax gets through the Senate this week there will probably be celebrations in the boardrooms of all the business groups that lobbied so hard for its removal.

But if they imagine the lifting of this supposedly great burden on them and the economy will mean it's back to business as usual, they'll soon find out differently.

They may have rolled back the economic cost of doing something about climate change, but now they'll face the increasing cost of not doing something about it. As Martijn Wilder, an environmental lawyer with the Baker & McKenzie law firm, finds in a new report for the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, we're going to be hit from all sides.

There are the costly physical effects of climate change we've already started experiencing, there are the consequences for us of measures our trading partners are starting to take to limit their emissions, there's the growing reluctance of foreign institutions to fund new coalmines and power stations and there's the threat to our fossil fuel industries from ever-cheaper renewable energy.

In case anyone's forgotten, Wilder reminds us that the physical effects of climate change include a rise in the sea level, acidification of the ocean, change in rainfall patterns and an increase in the frequency of natural disasters, including droughts. Extreme weather may lead to more bushfires, while heavy rainfall and cyclones may lead to flooding.

Do you think all that generates no costs to business, no disruption to the economy? Take the Queensland floods in 2011, Wilder says. They not only hit insurance company earnings, they also halted production at various coalmines. This forced up world coal prices, with adverse effects for industries reliant on coal.

Since we've always had cyclones and floods, no one can say climate change caused this particular disaster. But the scientists tell us events such as these will become more frequent. And the insurance industry's records tell us the number of catastrophic weather events is already increasing, with the economic losses associated with weather rising.

As for the idea there's no hurry in preparing for problems that may not become acute until later this century, consider this. Had a levee to protect Roma, in Queensland, been built in 2005, it would have cost $20 million. Since it wasn't built, $100 million has been paid out in insurance claims since 2008 and a repair bill of more than $500 million incurred by the public and private sectors since 2005.

This sort of thing is happening in other countries, too. Hurricane Sandy, in October 2012, caused widespread damage in New York, crippling electricity infrastructure and leaving downtown Manhattan without power for four days. The record-breaking storm surge alone cost the local electricity company $500 million and New York businesses $6 billion.

Perhaps such events explain why many other countries are moving forwards rather than backwards in their efforts to combat climate change. Australia's coal and natural gas industries won't escape being affected by tougher regulation of the use of fossil fuels in the countries to which they export.

While Europe has had a weak emissions trading scheme since 2005, the Chinese are trialling such schemes in six provinces. South Korea, one of our main trading partners, is to introduce a scheme next year. The US is taking direct action to cut power station emissions.

China is moving to limit coal to 65 per cent of energy consumption by next year and has banned new coal power generation in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Wilder says this will cut demand from the largest importer of Australian coal and thus affect the value of big mining and loading assets in Australia.

The more the rest of the world seeks to reduce its use of coal and other fossil fuels, the more Australian businesses need to contemplate the possibility of their mines becoming "stranded assets" - assets that suddenly become unprofitable and so lose their value.

Until recently, foreign investors and financiers haven't taken climate-change risk into account. Now they're starting to worry not just about the morality of emitting more greenhouse gas, but the risk that investments in new mines and power stations will lose their value before they reach the end of their useful lives. The change started with international agencies such as the World Bank, but is spreading to pension-fund investors.

Then there's the threat from the rise of renewable energy. China's goal of becoming a world leader in renewable energy has made it the world's largest maker of renewable energy equipment and the single largest destination for investment in renewables.

Wilder says renewables are reaching a "point of disruption" and will displace coal and gas power stations in many parts of the world. In Australia, the sharply rising price of gas is increasing the cost-competitiveness of renewables.

"Unlike natural gas and coal, the input for renewable energy is not subject to the volatility of global energy markets and with renewable costs continuing to decline, renewable generation represents a safer long-term investment," he says.

I know, let's get the government to put the kybosh on renewables. That would be a smart move.

Read more >>

Tough times restore productivity performance

It's official: Australia's rate of improvement in the productivity of labour returned to normal during the reign of Julia Gillard.

How is that possible when big business was so dissatisfied and uncomfortable during Gillard's time as prime minister? The latter explains the former.

According to figures in a speech by Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens last week, labour productivity in all industries improved at an annual trend rate of 2.1 per cent over the 14 years to the end of 2004, but then slumped to an annual rate of just 0.9 per cent over the six years to 2010.

This is what had big business rending its garments over the productivity crisis. Egged on by the national dailies, chief executives queued to attribute the crisis to the Labor government's "reregulation" of the labour market, its failure to cut the rate of company tax, plus anything else they didn't approve of.

Except that, according to the Reserve Bank's figuring, labour productivity improved at the annual rate of 2 per cent over the three years to the end of 2013.

So why no crisis after all? Well, as wiser heads said at the time, much of the apparent weakness in productivity was explained by temporary factors such as, in the utilities industry, all those desalination plants built and then mothballed and, more significantly, all the labour going into building all those new mines and gas facilities.

No doubt much of the recent recovery is explained by the many mines now starting to come on line - meaning we can expect the productivity figures to remain healthy for some years. Few extra workers are being employed to produce the extra output - another way of saying the productivity of the miners' labour is much improved.

But mining hardly explains all the improvement, so what else? At the time when business complaints were at their height, many businesses - particularly manufacturers - were suffering mightily under the high dollar.

Many have been forced to make painful cuts, abandoning unprofitable lines and laying off staff. Some have gone out backwards, with the best of their workers being taken up by rival employers.

Guess what? Such a process is exactly the sort of thing that lifts the productivity of the surviving firms. In their dreams, chief executives like to imagine their productivity - which they perpetually conflate with their profitability - being improved by governments doing things to make their lives easier.

But requiring them to be lifters rather than leaners - which is pretty much what That Woman did - usually gets better results. And since the dollar remains too high and seems unlikely to come down anytime soon, it's reasonable to expect the non-mining sector's productivity performance to continue improving. Who told you productivity was soft and cuddly?

As for the convenient argument that the productivity slump must surely be explained by Labor's "reregulation" of the labour market under its Fair Work changes, it's cast into question by some figuring reported in another speech last week, from Dr David Gruen, of Treasury.

Gruen examined the rise in nominal wages over the decade to March this year, as measured by the wage price index, then compared this aggregate rise with the rise for particular industries. In contrast to the days when wage-fixing really was centrally regulated, he found a far bit of dispersion around the aggregate.

Wages in mining, for instance, rose a cumulative 9.7 percentage points more than the aggregate. Wages in construction rose by 5.4 percentage points more and wages in the professional, scientific and technical sector rose by 2.5 points more.

By contrast, wages in manufacturing rose by a cumulative 0.9 percentage points less than aggregate wages. Those in retailing rose by 4.3 points less and those in the accommodation and food sector rose by 7.6 points less.

Notice any kind of pattern there? It's pretty clear. Wages in those industries most directly boosted by the resources boom rose significantly faster than aggregate wages, though not excessively so considering it was a 10-year period.

By contrast, wages in those industries worst affected by the boom-induced high exchange rate - manufacturing and tourism - rose more slowly than the aggregate. Retail had its own problems, with the return of the more prudent consumer, and its wages grew by less than the aggregate.

That's just the dispersion you'd expect to see in a "reregulated" labour market? Hardly.

What it shows is that we now have a genuinely decentralised and more flexible wage-fixing system, delivering wage growth in particular industries more appropriate to their circumstances.

If that's reregulation, let's have more of it.

Read more >>

We've handled the resources boom surprisingly well

Are we in for big trouble in the aftermath of a misspent resources boom, or has the boom been over-hyped, leaving us in good shape to face the future?

This is a matter of debate among some of Australia's most prominent economists. Professor Ross Garnaut, of the University of Melbourne, advanced the former argument last year in his book Dog Days: Australia After the Boom, and Dr John Edwards, a fellow of the Lowy Institute and member of the Reserve Bank board, makes the counter-argument in his new book, Beyond the Boom.

This week Dr David Gruen, of Treasury, weighed into the argument in a speech written with help from Rhett Wilcox. Gruen took a middle position, agreeing with each man on some points and disagreeing on others. Appropriately, he was speaking at the annual conference of economists in Hobart. They enjoy that kind of thing.

Gruen strongly disagrees with Edwards' claim that the resources boom "hasn't been as important for Australian prosperity as widely believed", saying the boom was "one of the largest changes in the structure of our economy in modern times" which "generated the largest sustained rise of Australia's terms of trade ever seen".

"The result was that resources investment increased from less than 2 per cent of gross domestic product pre-boom to around 7.5 per cent in 2012-13, an increase, in dollar terms, from around $14 billion to more than $100 billion a year," he says. "This has seen an additional 180,000 workers employed in the resources sector since the boom began and will see the capital stock in the resources sector almost quadruple by 2015-16."

But Gruen disagrees with Garnaut's implication that the economy was not well managed during the boom. He notes that all previous commodity booms - including the rural commodity boom of the early 1970s - led to blowouts in wages and inflation, followed by recessions after the boom busted.

This time, however, wages have been well controlled and the rise in prices has rarely strayed far from the Reserve Bank's 2 per cent to 3 per cent target range. The boom in the resources sector has not led to excessive growth in the economy overall. Real GDP growth averaged 3 per cent a year over the decade to 2012.

Edwards supported his claim that the resources boom has not been as important for our prosperity as commonly believed by comparing this 3 per cent growth rate unfavourably with the 3.8 per cent annual rate achieved over the decade to 2002.

But Gruen counters by noting the earlier decade "saw above-trend growth as the economy recovered from the deep early-1990s recession, with unemployment falling from above 10.5 per cent to below 6 per cent over the course of that decade".

So why has the upside of the resources boom been handled so much better than in earlier commodity booms? Gruen gives much of the credit to three micro-economic reforms: the floating of the dollar in 1983, the move to letting the Reserve Bank set monetary policy (interest rates) independent of the elected government, formalised by Peter Costello in 1996, and the decentralisation of wage-fixing, largely completed by the Keating government before 1996.

(This to me is a point worth noting: the greatest continuing benefit from the era of micro reform - but also from the move to set formal "frameworks" for conducting the two arms of macro-economic policy - is a much more flexible economy, one that is less inflation-prone and less unemployment-prone. By the way, Garnaut and Edwards can take their share of credit for these reforms.)

Next Gruen rebuts Garnaut's argument that the income the nation earned from the boom was misspent.

Garnaut might have in mind the Howard government's decision to respond to the temporary increase in collections from company tax and capital gains by cutting income tax for eight years in a row, a move that does much to explain the trouble we are having getting the budget back into surplus.

But there is more to the economy than what the feds do with their budget. And Gruen points out that, over the decade to March 2014, national consumption spending (by households and governments) actually declined from about 76 per cent of GDP to 73 per cent. If so, the nation's saving must have increased by 3 percentage points of its income (remember: income equals consumption plus saving).

Against that, over the same period bar the last few quarters, national investment has been high and rising, relative to income. "Rather than the income gains from the boom having been consumed, it would be more accurate to conclude that they were invested," Gruen says - a point Edwards also made.

(Had the nation been "living beyond its means", that would show up as a widening in the current account deficit. Instead, the deficit has been narrower in recent years.)

But what about the downside of the boom? Will the bust result in a period of contraction for the economy as a whole? Gruen's answer is "so far, so good", but he concedes that, over the next three or four years, investment spending by the miners is expected to fall from about 7 per cent of GDP to about 2 per cent or 3 per cent, a subtraction from growth of about 2 per cent to 2.5 percentage points (remembering that about half of mining investment is in imported equipment).

Remember, too, that mining production and export volumes will be growing strongly. Even so, avoiding recession will require a further significant fall in the dollar.

Gruen agrees with Garnaut that for the economy to benefit from such a "nominal" depreciation in the currency, it will need to be translated into a "real" depreciation by only moderate wage growth. But this could be achieved provided real wages grow by less than the growth in labour productivity.

Read more >>

The news on our health is good

It's good news week. There are lots of bad things happening in the world and journalists regard it as their job to dig them out and wave them in front of your face. No piece of disheartening news should go unreported.

But good things are happening, too. And I often think people would enjoy reading the news more if we didn't ignore so many of them.

One of the main jobs of the federal government's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is to produce a report card on the state of Australia's Health every two years. The latest edition is just out and it's crammed with good news.

Perhaps our most basic desire is to delay our death, and on this score we're doing particularly well. "Australians have one of the highest life expectancies in the world and can expect to live about 25 years longer, on average, than a century ago," the institute says.

In 1910, a baby boy could expect to live for 55 years and a baby girl 59 years. Today it's 80 and 84. That puts us sixth highest on the world league table for boys and seventh for girls, but the countries coming top - Iceland and Japan - beat us by less than two years. And we leave the Yanks for dust.

Of course, that's just for babies. Those of us who survive beyond our youth can expect to live longer again. A man turning 65, for instance, can expect to live another 19 years to 84. Women can expect another 22 years to reach 87.
All that's on average, of course. It happens because, by the time you reach 65, you've successfully avoided having your life cut short by accidents or other causes of premature death. You've become one of those who'll exceed the at-birth average.

But even if we are living longer, is that so wonderful if it means we're spending more years living with some kind of disability? Well, some disabilities are worse than others. And my guess is most people would tell you that, though their particular disability isn't fun, it beats the alternative.

The news is better than that, however. The institute's figuring shows that as our years of life are lengthening, our years of living with disability aren't increasing commensurately. And though they're increasing slowly for women - to almost 20 years for a newly born girl - they're falling slowly for men, to less than 18 years for baby boys.

The rate of daily smoking has been falling for 50 years, from 43 per cent of adults in 1964 to 16 per cent today. Quitting smoking can increase your life expectancy by up to 10 years if you do it early enough.

The institute says vaccination is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions. And the proportion of five-year-olds who've been vaccinated rose from 79 per cent to 92 per cent over the four years to 2012. Thank God for the nanny state.

The proportion of new cases of cancer each year is steady - kept up by the ageing of our population - but rates of death from cancer are continuing to fall. Over the 20 years to 2011, the mortality rate for all cancers fell by 17 per cent to 172 deaths per 100,000 people.

This is because of reduced exposure to the risk of cancer (such as fewer smokers), improved prevention (such as better sun protection), advances in cancer treatment and, for some cancers, earlier detection through screening programs (bowel, breast and cervical).

The reduction was mostly the result of falls in lung, prostate and bowel cancer deaths among men, and falls in breast and bowel cancer deaths among women.

The five-year survival rate from all cancers has increased from 47 per cent to 66 per cent over the past 20-odd years. And among people who've already survived five years, the chance of surviving for at least another five is 91 per cent.

There's been a 20 per cent fall in the rate of heart attacks in recent years and death rates from heart disease have fallen by almost three-quarters over the past three decades. The rate of strokes has fallen by 25 per cent in recent years and the death rate from strokes has fallen by more than two-thirds.

In just over 20 years, the death rate from asthma has fallen from a peak of 6.6 per 100,000 people to 1.5 deaths. The rate of people being hospitalised for asthma has fallen by 38 per cent.

And the rates of death through most causes of injury - accidents, drowning, suicide and homicide - are down by 3 per cent to 5 per cent in less than a decade.

We're even feeling better. More than half of those 15 and over consider themselves to be in excellent or very good health, with another 30 per cent saying their health is good. This is up a bit on a similar survey in 1995.

What's more, even the oldies are feeling pretty good. Among people aged 65 to 74 living in households, more than three-quarters rated their health as excellent, very good or good. Among those 75 and older, it was two-thirds.

It would be wrong to think everything about our health and healthcare is fine but, just this once, we'll celebrate what's going right.

Read more >>

Ulterior motives abound in privatisation push

The trouble with the latest round of state government privatisations is that those who oppose them do so for the wrong reasons, but their promoters are also pushing them through for the wrong reasons.

Joe Hockey's 15 per cent incentive payment to encourage "asset recycling" - selling existing government-owned businesses to fund the building of new infrastructure - has fallen on receptive pockets in the NSW and Queensland governments, which are worried about their credit ratings and, unlike the Victorian government, still have valuable electricity transmission and distribution businesses to flog off.

The previous, Labor government in NSW tore itself apart over electricity privatisation, with the cabinet supporting it but the powerful public sector unions bitterly opposing it. It wasn't much better with the previous, Labor government in Queensland.

Now Labor is free of the responsibilities of office, it will be completely united in its opposition and its unceasing claims that privatisation will lead to big rises in electricity prices.

Since voters in all states strongly oppose privatisation, Labor will hope to do well with this argument at the NSW election in March. But polling also shows voters are much less opposed when the sale of businesses is linked to the building of specific new projects.

Labor's counter-argument is deceptively simple: government-owned businesses act in the best interests of their customers, whereas privately owned businesses seek to maximise their profits by raising their prices.

The truth is far more complicated than that. Whether publicly or privately owned, the monopoly business that doesn't seek to overcharge its customers has yet to be discovered by archaeologists. Monopolies that don't seek to maximise profits usually succumb to overstaffing and overpaying workers and managers. Why wouldn't they?

The public sector unions understand this full well, which is their real reason for opposing privatisation so vehemently.

They know that whether or not the private owner succeeds in raising prices, it will seek to improve its profitability by moving in on union perks and rorts. They know even Coalition-government owners give them an easier ride than a private owner would.

So voters would be mugs to believe Labor and its union mates have consumers' best interests at heart.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean Coalition privatisers can be trusted to do their best by customers. The temptation facing all privatising governments is to seek to maximise the price they get for the asset they're selling.

If you can't see why that would be a problem, you're helping demonstrate why privatisations so often fail to deliver their promised benefits.

The main thing that protects customers from being overcharged is effective competition between the privatised entity and other businesses.

So the main way governments seek to inflate the price they get for a privatised business is to protect it from competition, or otherwise ensure its ability to overcharge. They tie the hands of the price regulator in some way, or explicitly guarantee freedom from certain future sources of competition, or sell the business to some player who already owns businesses in the industry and so can use the acquisition to increase the player's pricing power.

The simple truth that escapes so many privatisation supporters on the non-Labor side is that privatisation is only worthwhile if it leads to greater competition in the market. If it doesn't, it will be of little benefit to anyone bar the new private owners.

When the Keating government privatised Sydney airport, it guaranteed the purchaser first refusal on control of any second Sydney airport, thus virtually ensuring that even with two airports there'd be no competition between them.

When the Kennett government privatised Victoria's electricity industry in the 1990s it took care to ensure a wide range of buyers.

But it seems the Baird government in NSW has no such scruples. It planned to sell Macquarie Generation, the state's largest power producer, to AGL, one of the state's three largest power retailers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission tried to block the deal, judging it would have resulted in a substantial lessening of competition in the electricity market. But last week the commission was overruled by the Competition Tribunal, so the deal is likely to go ahead.

Only a couple of days earlier, however, the chairman of the commission, Rod Sims, reiterated his view that "electricity companies have a strong commercial incentive to have all players vertically integrated ... If electricity retailers can tie up most of the generation then they can create a stable oligopoly with high entry barriers and so higher prices and better returns."

I'd be wary of believing any politician who tried telling you electricity privatisation won't lead to higher prices.

Read more >>

Why weaker demand means lower pay rises

Just about everyone assumes we can never have enough jobs. So it's funny that our unending discussion about how the economy's growth is doing rarely delves into the detail of what's happening in the labour market.

But that's what Dr Chris Kent, an assistant governor of the Reserve Bank, did in a speech last week. He shows it really is a market, with the demand for labour interacting with the supply of labour to help determine the price of labour (wages) and the quantity demanded (employment). Unlike textbook markets, however, this one never "clears" - there's always some labour left unsold (unemployment).

It shouldn't surprise you that, in studying developments in the labour market in recent years, one big thing stands out: the effect of the resource boom as it moves through its three stages of high export prices, booming mine construction and rising production of minerals and energy.

The demand for labour is "derived" demand - it flows from the demand for goods and services. To produce those things you need machines and workers. The more you produce, the more workers you need.

For most of the two years since the middle of 2012, the economy (real gross domestic product) grew at less than its 3 per cent annual trend rate, held back by the decline in mineral export prices, the decline in mining construction, the high level of the dollar and the weak growth in public demand (government spending).

A big part of the problem was that the downturn in mining-driven activity came at a time when the non-mining economy was subdued.

This below-trend growth in the production of goods and services meant weaker growth in the demand for labour, as we can see from the various indicators of labour demand.

The rate of unemployment is high relative to its recent history. The rate at which people of working age (15 years and above) are participating in the labour force, either by holding a job or actively seeking one, is at about the lowest it's been over the past eight years. And since 2010 there's been a significant decline in the ratio of employed people to the working-age population.

It's true the economy seemed to grow more strongly in the last quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014. And we can see some small improvement in the indicators. Using the trend estimates, employment grew by 0.7 per cent over the first five months of this year, unemployment seems to have stabilised at 5.9 per cent and the participation rate at 64.7 per cent.

But much of the growth in real GDP over the past two quarters has come from greatly increased production and export of minerals and energy, as newly built mines start working. Trouble is, mines are so capital-intensive that all this extra production would have created few extra jobs.

So, for once, the growth in real GDP overstates the increase in demand for labour. Kent suspects the growth in employment is explained partly by slightly stronger growth in the non-mining economy and by a catch-up from weaker-than-you'd-expect employment growth last year.

If so, we're not out of the woods yet. And Treasury's forecast is that unemployment will have risen a little further to 6.25 per cent by June next year.

Now let's turn to the supply of labour. At the most basic level, growth in the population of working-age adds to the supply of labour, whether that growth comes from "natural increase" - more young people joining than old people retiring - or immigration.

But not everyone of working age chooses to participate in the labour force, of course. And, in practice, changes in the participation rate are a key indicator of the strength of labour supply.
Kent says growth in labour supply has slowed substantially over the past year or so, with the "part rate" down from 65.1 per cent.

This is a sign of the interaction between labour demand and supply: when demand is strong, more is supplied, but now it's vice versa. So it's usual for the part rate to fall during periods of weak demand.

"As jobs become more difficult to find (at the prevailing wage), some individuals become discouraged from searching," Kent says. If they are still available to work these people are "discouraged workers", many of whom will resume the search for work when conditions improve.

But Kent says that, since 2010, the rise in the number of discouraged workers accounts for only less than a quarter of the fall in the part rate. Some of these other people may have chosen to make themselves unavailable to work by embarking on a period of study or accepting involuntary early retirement.

But another, more structural, factor helping to explain the fall in the part rate is the ageing of the population. Ageing means a higher proportion of the population is in older age brackets which tend to have lower rates of participation. (And if oldies are still working, they're more likely to be part-time).

Kent says ageing is estimated to have subtracted between 0.1 and 0.2 percentage points a year from the part rate over the past decade-and-a-half. But now the rate is a clear 0.2 points. In recent decades this purely demographic change has been offset by the decisions of individual oldies to continue working, but now this second trend seems to have stopped.

In textbooks, prices adjust automatically to bring supply and demand into balance. In the real-world labour market, it ain't that simple. Even so, the weaker demand for labour has seen wage growth decline to well below its average over the past decade. Pay rises of more than 4 per cent are now far less common and rises of 2 to 3 per cent are more common than 3 to 4 per cent. So are rises of 1 per cent or less.

Read more >>

No handouts for miners not paying enough tax

It's in the nature of the news media to focus on the new, on the bit that's changing. So when people like me bang on about the resources boom - as we've been doing for about a decade - it's probably inevitable we leave many people with an exaggerated impression of the size of the oh-so-important mining industry.

Most people have little idea how mining compares with the rest of the economy. Some, when asked, say it may account for a third of the total.

Sorry to mislead. It's actually a bit over 10 per cent of all the goods and services we produce. If that doesn't seem like much, it is. It's a bit more than the whole of the manufacturing industry contributes and about three times what agriculture does.

More to the point, it's up from about 4 per cent before the boom began. And it's a big deal for any industry to go from 4 per cent to 10 per cent in the space of a decade. That couldn't happen without having big implications for other parts of the economy, with the high dollar just one example. So it's little wonder the economists have been so obsessed by it.

It's the biggest single development affecting the economy - the whole of the economy - in that time. And though the smarties began proclaiming the boom's death a year or two ago, its closing stages will still have big effects on the economy - favourable and unfavourable - for at least another couple of years.

Many people are uneasy about the expansion of mining. Digging non-renewable resources out of the ground and shipping them overseas seems such a dead-end occupation. People's reservations are compounded when they realise how amazingly capital-intensive mining is. That is, how few people it employs.

Mining may account for 10 per cent of our total production, but it accounts for only about 2 per cent of total employment. Building new mines is labour intensive, but running them isn't. If so, why bother?
It's a mistake to think it's only direct employment of people that makes an industry worthwhile. What matters is how much income an industry generates. Why? Because when that income is spent it will generate jobs elsewhere in the economy. That's what spending does: generate jobs.

In the case of mining, however, there's a complication. Though the powers that be don't trumpet the fact, mining is about 80 per cent foreign-owned. Even BHP Billiton is, essentially, a foreign company. And most of the extensive capital equipment mining uses is imported.

Mining in Australia is a highly profitable activity because we possess a large share of the minerals and fuel the world values highly, and because our deposits are generally high quality and easily extracted.

If mining creates so few jobs directly, and so little of its profits accrue to Australians, that leaves two key concerns to ensure Australians get suitable recompense for the exploitation of our natural inheritance: make sure miners pay adequate royalties on the minerals we grant them and make sure their profits are adequately taxed.

Business people tend to portray taxes and revenue received by governments as dead money. The opposite is true. The government spends the money it receives, and when it's spent it creates jobs, like all spending does.

The Labor government bungled its attempt to ensure the miners' profits were adequately taxed. But, rather than correcting Labor's errors, Tony Abbott has pledged to abolish the tax and let the foreign miners off the hook. Then he'll wonder why the huge expansion in mining production we're now seeing is creating so few jobs.

It gets worse. Not only are we under-taxing the miners, we're giving them lots of subsidies. Not only does the federal government give them a rebate on the excise on their diesel fuel, the state governments give them assistance by building the roads, railways and ports they need to ship their minerals abroad.

According to calculations by the Australia Institute, the states gave the mining industry $3.2 billion in concessions in the financial year just ending. Queensland gave assistance worth almost $1.5 billion, mainly by providing railway infrastructure and freight discounts.

Western Australia spent almost $1.4 billion, mainly on roads and port infrastructure. Other states' subsidies are much smaller - $140 million in NSW, $40 million in Victoria - but so too are their receipts from mining royalties.

It turns out the Queenslanders' subsidies to mining are equivalent to almost 60 per cent of the royalties they receive. In WA it's about a quarter, and in NSW it's less than 10 per cent. In Victoria, however, it's three-quarters.

And this while governments, federal and state, are crying poor and cutting spending on many worthy causes.

As Ian McAuley, of the University of Canberra, has pointed out, we're slashing our planned spending on foreign aid because we can no longer afford such generosity, but by abolishing the mining tax we're being very generous to big foreign mining companies. This makes sense?

Read more >>