I suppose the NAAC can't be questioned by government. But the NAAC decision not to investigate players referred to it by the Robodebt Royal Commission is fishy. It smacks of a conflict of interest.
There simply should be an increase in Jobseeker, to at least to the poverty line, especially if the government subscribes to a belief in a certain percentage unemployment (I wish someone could explain that to me)
But increasing Rent Assistance doesn't help anyone except landlords. Wouldn't a cap on rents(even temporarily) help more people and deter associated increases in landlord expenses such as owner corporate fees?
I think you've been overly generous to the ALP, Professor John. It is indeed a meagre scorecard given the scale of the problems facing the country, and the availability of a crossbench that has both imagination and is relatively independent of corporate vested interest.
I would like to highlight the rebate for electricity expenses. First, surely any government handout of this kind flows straight through to the retailers or generators, it's a subsidy to them rather than to the public. The electricity market is a shambles, I would have thought that a subsidy deserves to be ridiculed.
Second, I fail to understand the position of mainstream economics to energy pricing. On one page of a newspaper, we read that energy prices should be reduced because they are a cost to productive enterprise; on the facing page we read that pricing is a tool to manage supply and demand. Shouldn't we tax energy to reduce demand, reduce emissions and hasten the transition to a better energy future (and compensate low income households)? Without debating the short-lived carbon tax, isn't there a general principle at stake, that the government should subsidise consumptions that should be encouraged, like scientific knowledge; and tax consumptions that are deemed undesirable (as they do with tobacco)? Energy in several forms would seem to be ideal candidates for taxing.
Also, I love your “who cares” response to Surpluses. Despite the attitude, it is not entirely irrelevant. Australia is a monetary sovereign government so one don't have to balance any budget at a federal level. People so concerned are just parroting a neoliberal lie about government spending needing to be financially restrained, as opposed to resource constrained.
My “care” about public surpluses is they just suck money from the private economy that already has unjustified high interest rates, loss in real wages due to inflation (as you noted), a housing crisis, a private debt crisis (125% of GDP headed back up from 2023), 3.1M Under and Unemployed — Roy Morgan not ABS, and 3.319 Million in poverty (ACOSS 2024 Stats). So a Government surplus that is creating a massive Private sector deficit (which some basic accounting understanding should inform us is the case) is the absolute last thing we need now in an economic downturn. Unemployment and poverty after all is a political choice because the federal government has the capacity to financially to resolve both. All a surplus does is lead to the very real possibility of a recession next up as Albanese is strangling the private sector of money by maintaining a surplus in times of economic stress. Keep in mind a surplus means they are essentially taxing more than they are spending and in the economic stress felt by citizens, taking money away from the economy is a terrible policy.
Much as I loved your attitude to surpluses and deeply sympathise with the view that this should not be an indicator they should boast about, the working class and the unemployed stripped of significant spending the economy needs, should care!
Jim Chalmers recommended providing funds for the free provision of TAFE courses in 180,000 spaces in 2023. This barely registers as an impact on the ABS unemployment estimate at the time of 473,000. Keep in mind that the ABS estimate is far lower than the counted (not estimated) number of people unemployed that are granted “JobSeeker” benefits even after the draconian rulings of private JobSearch suppliers take thousands off jobseekers for minor infringements (not because they found work). The Labor Party’s attitude lacks sincerity. The boost in immigration that competes with these TAFE students coincides with the interests of their corporate capitalist funders, who gain from cheap immigrant labour. All of this benefits dominantly these donors rather than the general working class and providing a limited set of free TAFE courses that are too low in number to resolve the unemployment malaise doesn't give me confidence in Labor’s spending choices.
I don't have any inside knowledge. It's obvious the NACC is a miserable failure, but whether this reflects internal conflicts or uselessness built into the design, I can't say.
Certainly, along with the Voice and HAFF, it exemplifies the comprehensive failure of Albo's three main commitments at the 2022 election.
I have literally not once, ever in my life had an issue getting a bulk billing appointment and due to personal circumstances I go to the doctors 10 times a year for specific specialist reasons and have had to change doctors 3 times in the last 18 months, each time I found a new doctor on either the first or 2nd phone call
Is the ‘bulk billing crisis’ the kind of thing upper middle class opinion formers with private heath insurance imagine is a thing that just isn’t? Is it only a country thing? Where does this bulk billing crisis!!!! narrative come from?
It's a remarkably coherent package. In an alternate universe where the electoral and media landscapes created a government which reflected the actual values of the Australian electorate, I think it would represent the efforts of a gently socially progressive centre right government. Imagine Malcolm Turnbull unafraid of the ghouls in his own party and the Murdoch media.
Plus, in that alternate universe there'd have to be no such thing as climate change. In a world without climate change, without Murdoch and with the only the first stirrings of the possibility of a housing crisis in the future, it's a perfectly respectable first-term centre right government.
In those terms, the surplus is one of its great achievements. They managed to do what none of the other centre right governments did - control their spending. It's better to have a shortage of productive spending and a surplus than the Coalition outcome, which is a shortage of productive spending and a deficit.
Such mediocrity is exceptional by any measure
Glad to see my feelings about the budget surpluses shared by an Actual Economist.
As to the symbolic Chinese sanctions, they caused a wine glut, and consequent availability of a lot of cheap red wine, which I didn't mind.
Reasonable assessment of different matters.
I suppose the NAAC can't be questioned by government. But the NAAC decision not to investigate players referred to it by the Robodebt Royal Commission is fishy. It smacks of a conflict of interest.
There simply should be an increase in Jobseeker, to at least to the poverty line, especially if the government subscribes to a belief in a certain percentage unemployment (I wish someone could explain that to me)
But increasing Rent Assistance doesn't help anyone except landlords. Wouldn't a cap on rents(even temporarily) help more people and deter associated increases in landlord expenses such as owner corporate fees?
A cap on rents would have to be done by the states, which doesn't mean the Commonwealth couldn't persuade them that it was a good idea.
John, you haven’t been harsh whatsoever. They should shove their surplus where the sun don’t shine.
The Albanese gov is a LNP Lite gov, in a L suit.
I think you've been overly generous to the ALP, Professor John. It is indeed a meagre scorecard given the scale of the problems facing the country, and the availability of a crossbench that has both imagination and is relatively independent of corporate vested interest.
I would like to highlight the rebate for electricity expenses. First, surely any government handout of this kind flows straight through to the retailers or generators, it's a subsidy to them rather than to the public. The electricity market is a shambles, I would have thought that a subsidy deserves to be ridiculed.
Second, I fail to understand the position of mainstream economics to energy pricing. On one page of a newspaper, we read that energy prices should be reduced because they are a cost to productive enterprise; on the facing page we read that pricing is a tool to manage supply and demand. Shouldn't we tax energy to reduce demand, reduce emissions and hasten the transition to a better energy future (and compensate low income households)? Without debating the short-lived carbon tax, isn't there a general principle at stake, that the government should subsidise consumptions that should be encouraged, like scientific knowledge; and tax consumptions that are deemed undesirable (as they do with tobacco)? Energy in several forms would seem to be ideal candidates for taxing.
G Edwards
Also, I love your “who cares” response to Surpluses. Despite the attitude, it is not entirely irrelevant. Australia is a monetary sovereign government so one don't have to balance any budget at a federal level. People so concerned are just parroting a neoliberal lie about government spending needing to be financially restrained, as opposed to resource constrained.
My “care” about public surpluses is they just suck money from the private economy that already has unjustified high interest rates, loss in real wages due to inflation (as you noted), a housing crisis, a private debt crisis (125% of GDP headed back up from 2023), 3.1M Under and Unemployed — Roy Morgan not ABS, and 3.319 Million in poverty (ACOSS 2024 Stats). So a Government surplus that is creating a massive Private sector deficit (which some basic accounting understanding should inform us is the case) is the absolute last thing we need now in an economic downturn. Unemployment and poverty after all is a political choice because the federal government has the capacity to financially to resolve both. All a surplus does is lead to the very real possibility of a recession next up as Albanese is strangling the private sector of money by maintaining a surplus in times of economic stress. Keep in mind a surplus means they are essentially taxing more than they are spending and in the economic stress felt by citizens, taking money away from the economy is a terrible policy.
Much as I loved your attitude to surpluses and deeply sympathise with the view that this should not be an indicator they should boast about, the working class and the unemployed stripped of significant spending the economy needs, should care!
Jim Chalmers recommended providing funds for the free provision of TAFE courses in 180,000 spaces in 2023. This barely registers as an impact on the ABS unemployment estimate at the time of 473,000. Keep in mind that the ABS estimate is far lower than the counted (not estimated) number of people unemployed that are granted “JobSeeker” benefits even after the draconian rulings of private JobSearch suppliers take thousands off jobseekers for minor infringements (not because they found work). The Labor Party’s attitude lacks sincerity. The boost in immigration that competes with these TAFE students coincides with the interests of their corporate capitalist funders, who gain from cheap immigrant labour. All of this benefits dominantly these donors rather than the general working class and providing a limited set of free TAFE courses that are too low in number to resolve the unemployment malaise doesn't give me confidence in Labor’s spending choices.
What do you make of Anthony Kwan's writing on National Anti-Corruption Commission? Is it is conflicted and compromised as he suggests? https://theklaxon.com.au/robodebt-conflicts-extend-beyond-brereton-nacc-hides-the-documents/
I don't have any inside knowledge. It's obvious the NACC is a miserable failure, but whether this reflects internal conflicts or uselessness built into the design, I can't say.
Certainly, along with the Voice and HAFF, it exemplifies the comprehensive failure of Albo's three main commitments at the 2022 election.
Not just Kwan, also a couple of other journos. But there's minimal coverage in mainstream media. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nacc-boss-misled-dreyfus-over-robodebt
“The Housing Australia Future Fund
A half-baked idea, still to produce any actual houses. Greens pressure drove much stronger action.”
The kind of comment you can only make if you pretend Greens councils don’t exist
I have literally not once, ever in my life had an issue getting a bulk billing appointment and due to personal circumstances I go to the doctors 10 times a year for specific specialist reasons and have had to change doctors 3 times in the last 18 months, each time I found a new doctor on either the first or 2nd phone call
Is the ‘bulk billing crisis’ the kind of thing upper middle class opinion formers with private heath insurance imagine is a thing that just isn’t? Is it only a country thing? Where does this bulk billing crisis!!!! narrative come from?
It's a remarkably coherent package. In an alternate universe where the electoral and media landscapes created a government which reflected the actual values of the Australian electorate, I think it would represent the efforts of a gently socially progressive centre right government. Imagine Malcolm Turnbull unafraid of the ghouls in his own party and the Murdoch media.
Plus, in that alternate universe there'd have to be no such thing as climate change. In a world without climate change, without Murdoch and with the only the first stirrings of the possibility of a housing crisis in the future, it's a perfectly respectable first-term centre right government.
In those terms, the surplus is one of its great achievements. They managed to do what none of the other centre right governments did - control their spending. It's better to have a shortage of productive spending and a surplus than the Coalition outcome, which is a shortage of productive spending and a deficit.