My Blog

Author: annamations

  • Urgent Need for Australia’s Climate Industry Policy

    Urgent Need for Australia’s Climate Industry Policy

    by Charlie Joyce in The New Daily

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on August 28, 2023

    For the first time in decades, Australia is talking about industry policy.

    And the interest is coming from all sides.

    At Labor’s recent national conference, the Electrical Trade Union (ETU) led a successful motion demanding the Commonwealth government invest big money to support domestic clean technology industries.

    The Business Council of Australia (BCA) released last week a report that called for a reinvigorated government industry policy to develop advanced manufacturing and renewable sectors, among others.

    Several landmark reports, including by the Centre for Future Work, have all reached the same conclusion: Government must invest big in industry policy to accelerate the clean energy transition and build Australian renewable industries.

    No doubt about climate crisis

    Business, unions, and civil society are all singing from the same sheet. Clearly, something has changed – but why?

    The past year has seen tectonic shifts in the global policy landscape.

    The climate crisis is now impossible to ignore.

    The past eight years have been the eight hottest on record – and July may have been the hottest month in 120,000 years. The northern hemisphere has been buffeted by floods, fires and natural disasters, and Australia is anxiously anticipating the coming El Niño summer.

    The costs of climate inaction are clear. However, awareness is also growing of the profound opportunities of climate action.

    In the United States, President Joe Biden has embraced climate action as an economic and jobs opportunity. Decarbonisation has been put at the heart of his administration’s “modern American industrial strategy”.

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act direct between $US750 billion and $US1.2 trillion to expand clean tech manufacturing, renewable energy generation, and sustainable infrastructure.

    In just its first year, this legislation has driven massive private sector investment, and already created more than 170,000 new green jobs.

    In China, long-term government investment and industry planning in renewable tech has given that country global dominance in the clean energy supply chain.

    Last year, the Chinese government invested $US546 billion into clean energy – more than the rest of the world combined. This included the installation of 107GW of solar output, roughly equivalent to the entire historical installed capacity of the US.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates China holds 60 per cent of global manufacturing capacity for most clean technologies.

    The rush is on to keep up

    Suddenly, the world is rushing to keep up with the US and China’s investment.

    The European Union now plans to invest more than $US1 trillion into renewables over the next decade and the EU is expected to reach 2030 clean energy targets years ahead of schedule.

    The governments of Japan, Canada, South Korea, India, and even Saudi Arabia are also all investing substantially in clean tech manufacturing.

    Back in Australia, senior government ministers declare their ambitions to make Australia a “renewable energy superpower”. But it takes more than just aspiration to achieve that.

    Across the world, big money is being spent empowering renewable industries. The global clean technology race has begun, and Australia is barely on the track.

    The Australian government must act now.

    Promisingly, the Commonwealth government set aside funding in the 2023 budget to investigate the changing global, clean energy, industrial landscape and prepare Australian policy responses before the end of this year.

    This suggests the government already realises its present policies – including the National Reconstruction Fund, the Powering the Regions Fund, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – are inadequate to this competitive challenge.

    The bottom line is that we need to spend more – much more.

    Centre for Future Work research presented to the recent National Manufacturing Summit estimates Australia must spend between $83 billion to $138 billion over the next decade to proportionately match the US IRA in fiscal supports.

    The ETU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) have gone further, suggesting a total investment of $152 billion.

    More than just spending

    But spending alone is not the answer.

    To ensure a new Australian industry policy actually works to drive decarbonisation, rebuild manufacturing, secure supply chains, and create secure, well-paid jobs, that money must be spent effectively.

    This means any government support for private industry comes with conditions attached, particularly concerning fair pay, secure working arrangements, and rights to collective bargaining.

    This means planning and co-ordination across various levels of government, the private sector, trade unions, and other stakeholders to ensure policy has maximum impact and money is spent where it is needed most.

    This means developing an expanded, skilled, and inclusive workforce through investment in apprenticeships and TAFEs.

    This means ongoing performance monitoring, backed by enforceable
    requirements (like claw-back provisions) to ensure businesses receiving public finance are accountable to public expectations.

    And beyond just grants and subsidies, government should not be afraid to make direct, public equity investment in private, clean-technology companies.

    This ensures the Australian public will share in the profits of successful subsidised ventures, not just bear the cost of unsuccessful ones.

    The growing consensus around the need for a new Australian industry policy provides an opportunity to reshape the Australian economy, rebuild manufacturing, and create thousands of secure jobs – all while acting on the climate crisis.

    It’s time for the Commonwealth government to make it happen.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    Education & Training, Tax, Spending & the Budget

    The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia
    by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Education has long been recognised as a vital determinant of both personal life chances and broader economic and social performance.

    Public schools play a critical role in ensuring access to educational opportunity for Australians from all economic and geographical communities.

    Public schools are accessible to everyone. They provide a vital ‘public good’ service in ensuring universal access to the education that is essential for a healthy economy and society.

    However, inadequate funding for public schools – measured by persistent failure to meet minimum resource standards established through the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) – is preventing students in public schools from fulfilling their potential. Growing evidence (including the latest NAPLAN testing results) attests to declining student completion and achievement in Australia, with major and lasting consequences for students, their families and communities, and the economy.

    In this new report, Centre for Future Work researchers Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford document the large economic and social benefits of stronger funding for public schools. The report measures three broad channels of benefits:

    1. The immediate economic footprint of public schools, including direct and indirect jobs in schools, the education supply chain, and downstream consumer industries.
    2. The labour market and productivity gains resulting from a more educated workforce.
    3. Social and fiscal benefits arising from the fact that school graduates tend to be healthier, require less support from public income programs, and are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system.

    Citing international and Australian evidence regarding the scale of these three channels of benefit, the report estimates that funding public schools consistent with the SRS would ultimately generate ongoing economic and fiscal benefits two to four times larger than the incremental cost of additional funding. For governments, the fiscal payback from those benefits (via both enhanced revenues and fiscal savings on health, welfare, and criminal justice expenses) would exceed the upfront investments required in meeting the SRS.

    Please see the full report, The Case for Investing in Public Schools: The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia, by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Share

  • For most workers, wages are still failing to keep up with inflation

    For most workers, wages are still failing to keep up with inflation

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on August 17, 2023

    While overall wages grew in line with inflation in the June quarter for workers in most industries real wages are still going backwards.

    The best news from the June quarter wage price index is that average wages rose 0.8% – the same as inflation. This means that after 11 consecutive quarters, real wages have finally stopped falling.

    That is the good news, but as Policy Director, Greg Jericho noted in his Guardian Australia column, for most workers real-wages kept falling. Only good wage growth in construction, mining, transport and warehousing, and the utility industries enabled the overall growth to be equal with inflation. For workers in all other industries, real wages kept falling.

    And for all workers, real wages in the past year have fallen sharply and are around 5.4% below where they were before the pandemic.

    These latest figures only serve to reinforce that wages are not driving inflation and there is no sign at all of a wages breakout. Indeed, annual wage growth fell in the June quarter to 3.6% from 3.7%.

    It highlights that we do not need unemployment to rise to 4.5% in order for inflation to get under the RBA’s 3% target ceiling. The current rate is more than consistent with long-term inflation of between 2% and 3%. Any further efforts to raise unemployment by increased interest rates would only hurt workers and households for no benefit.


    You might also like

  • Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Environment & Jobs, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Australia’s Position in the Global Race for Sustainable Manufacturing
    by Charlie Joyce and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom

    Australia needs to respond quickly to powerful new incentives for sustainable manufacturing now on offer in the U.S. and several other industrial countries, or risk being cut out of lucrative new markets for manufactured products linked to renewable energy systems.

    That is the finding of a major new report from the Centre for Future Work. The report catalogues new incentives for production of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products provided under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and parallel public programs.

    Many other industrial countries, including the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada have already implemented major new incentives to support the expansion of the manufactured products and technologies that will be required for those systems.

    Australia is considering its response, but with no clear announced strategy yet.

    The report provides evidence that the U.S. incentives and content requirements are sparking an unprecedented expansion in manufacturing investment in the U.S. and other industrial countries.

    This response confirms that active climate industrial policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment. It also confirms that Australia must move quickly to respond to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.

    The report notes that Australia has many advantages in the global race for sustainable manufacturing – including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals. However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left Australia’s industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities being opened up by the global energy transition.

    The report estimates the proportional fiscal effort that would be required to match the American IRA in the Australian context. The government would need to commit $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    The report also catalogues several qualitative best practices that should be incorporated in the Australian response to the IRA, to generate maximum economic, social and environmental impact: including strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidized projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    The paper was released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 830am to 430 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.



    Full report

    Share

  • We need more than a definition change to fix Australia’s culture of permanent ‘casual’ work

    We need more than a definition change to fix Australia’s culture of permanent ‘casual’ work

    by David Peetz in The Conversation

    David Peetz

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on July 31, 2023

    The surprising thing about the Albanese government’s announced reforms to “casual” employment is not that they’re happening.

    It’s that employer advocates are getting so excited about them, despite the small number of people they will affect and the small impact they will have.

    That’s not to say the changes aren’t needed. Rather, true reform of the “casual” employment system, of which this is just a first but important step, has a lot further to go to resolve the “casual problem”.

    What is the ‘casual problem’?

    This problem is that most “casual” workers aren’t really casual at all — as shown by analysis that I and colleague Robyn May did, using unpublished data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

    The premise for hiring them is that the work is intermittent, short-term and unpredictable. But, as you can see from the chart, the last time the ABS collected these data, a majority of “casuals” worked regular hours.

    Almost 60% of “casuals” had been in the job for more than a year. About 80% expected to still be there in a year’s time.

    Only 6% of “casuals” (1.5% of employees) worked varying hours (or were on standby), had been with their employer for a short time, and expected to be there for a short time.

    Even now, some “casuals” have been doing the same “casual” work for over 20 years.

    Permanent ‘casuals’

    All this has led to a class of “permanent casuals” – a nonsense term. They should more accurately be called “permanently insecure”.

    The one thing “casuals” have in common is they’re not entitled to sick leave or annual leave, and they are in a precarious employment situation. Their contract of employment only lasts till the end of their work day.

    That means they have much less power than other workers. So little power, in fact, that barely half of them even get the casual loading they are meant to be paid in compensation for not receiving other entitlements.

    On average, low-paid “casuals” get less pay than equivalent permanent workers, despite the loading.

    Changing legal definitions

    Not many “casuals” have been brave enough to challenge this exploitative relationship. But when they did a few years ago, Australia’s courts agreed permanent casual work was nonsensical.

    To be a “casual worker”, there had to be no promise of ongoing employment. A court would judge this not just by what was in the formal contract of employment but also by what the employer actually did. If they kept hiring you, week after week, on a predictable roster, you weren’t casual.

    In 2018, mine worker Paul Skene challenged his classification as a casual worker, arguing he had done pretty much the same work, with a few changes along the way, for five years.

    The Federal Court agreed he wasn’t a casual employee and should be back-paid annual leave. Another mine worker, Robert Rossato, had a similar victory in 2020.

    Employer organisations were “outraged” by the “billions” in back pay they could be forced to pay for having misclassified ongoing workers as casuals. They lobbied the Morrison government to amend the law, and challenged the rulings in the High Court.

    The Morrison government changed the law in early 2021, to give primacy to the written contract, ignore employer behaviour, and protect employers from back-pay claims.

    Later that year the High Court overturned the Federal Court decisions, ruling it was the written employment contract that mattered. If that was worded a certain way, you couldn’t test whether a worker was “casual” by whether the employer treated them that way afterwards.

    Labor promised to overturn these interpretations, and that’s what this proposal does.

    What will the legislation change?

    The details of the government’s plan is still not clear, but it is likely it will seek to amend the Fair Work Act to revert to something close to the pre-2020 definition of casual work, with a procedural twist.

    It will again be possible to judge whether an employee is “casual” based on employer behaviour. And an employee who repeatedly works a similar roster can, after six months, demand “permanency” – meaning rights to sick leave, annual leave, and better protection against arbitrary sacking.

    The twist: until they demanded “permanency” they won’t be entitled to any leave. So employers will be protected against claims for back pay.

    Theoretically this could affect hundreds of thousands of “casual” workers. In reality, it will likely help far fewer.

    Suppose you’re a “casual” labour hire worker in mining. You can tell what time you’ll start work on the first Friday next June. You go to your employer — the labour hire company — and say: “Make me permanent.” The labour hire company says: “We can’t. You might not have a job tomorrow.”

    And indeed, now that you’ve asked, maybe you won’t have a job. So would you really ask?

    It will depend critically on the protections offered to workers who ask to convert, and how credible they are to workers.

    Most people only expect a few people to make the demand. Workplace relations minister Tony Burke says he believes only a “very small proportion” of “casuals” working regular shifts will do so.

    Part of that reluctance will be fear of the consequences, and part of it will be that many casuals rely on their casual loading. About half of “casuals” are on the award minimum rate, compared with 15% of “permanent” full-time workers. Most cannot afford to “choose” to trade the money for holidays and other entitlements.

    If you’re not getting the casual loading, you’ve got nothing to lose — except your job. If the power imbalance means you don’t get the loading, you won’t fancy your chances.

    So, it will just work for a small number or workers – though it’s likely to be very important to them.

    More needs to be done

    In short, this is a good step but more needs to be done.

    In most other wealthy countries all workers – including temporary workers – are entitled to annual leave. That’s not the case in Australia, because of the “casual” ruse. These laws will not change that.

    There should be universal leave entitlements. Sure, there needs to be a loading where work is unpredictable, and hence so short-term that leave entitlements would not be practical.

    But everyone else should get annual and sick leave, and minimum award wages should be high enough that low-wage workers don’t have to rely on the casual loading to get by.

    The challenge should be about how we transition to that situation.


    You might also like

    “Permanent Casuals,” and Other Oxymorons

    by Jim Stanford

    Recent legal decisions are starting to challenge the right of employers to deploy workers in “casual” positions on an essentially permanent basis. For example, the Federal Court recently ruled that a labour-hire mine driver who worked regular shifts for years was still entitled to annual leave, even though he was supposedly hired as a “casual.” This decision has alarmed business lobbyists who reject any limit on their ability to deploy casual labour, while avoiding traditional entitlements (like sick pay, annual leave, severance rights, and more). For them, a “casual worker” is anyone who they deem to be casual; but that open door obviously violates the intent of Australia’s rules regarding casual loading.

  • Inflation is falling so let’s make sure we don’t let unemployment rise

    Inflation is falling so let’s make sure we don’t let unemployment rise

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on July 27, 2023

    Inflation is coming down fast so we should now shift our attention to making sure unemployment does not rise

    The latest quarterly CPI figures showed that inflation is falling dramatically and in line with that of other major economies such as the USA and Canada. This, Chief Economist, Greg Jericho writes means we have a prime opportunity to lock in the current level of low unemployment.

    Through the past year of the Reserve Bank raising interest rates, the main justification has been that the economy needs to be slowed in order to bring down demand pressures on inflation.

    What the latest figures reinforce however is that the major pressures have come from the supply side. Australia’s inflation is essentially following the same path as other nations. This is because inflation is slowing largely due to reduced world prices of commodities rather than any response to increasing interest rates.

    Indeed the largest driver of inflation in the June quarter was rental prices, which will have been in part due to investors raising their prices to deal with higher mortgage payments.

    In the past year, unemployment has remained at 3.5% while inflation has gone from 6.7% up to 8.4% and now down to 5.4% (using the monthly measures). The belief that we needed to raise unemployment to 4.5% in order to stop inflation from accelerating is a cruel approach that treats inflation in the wrong way.

    Fortunately, in spite of the RBA’s best efforts, unemployment has not yet risen. This presents Australia with a genuine chance to lock in historically low unemployment as the norm.

    Rather than pursuing higher unemployment in order to reduce inflation the RBA and the government should be pursuing policies that keep unemployment low while also reducing inflationary pressure. This can mean a price cap on essential items such as rents and energy, introducing windfall-profits taxes, and increased public housing investment to reduce housing price surges.

    Interest rates are not the only way to tackle inflation and in an environment where profits are been driven by supply-side issues and profits they are one of the worst ways.

    Full employment needs to be the target, not a mythical “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” that largely justifies higher unemployment and more ho0usyheold living in poverty.


    Related research



    Profit-Price Spiral: The Truth Behind Australia’s Inflation



    Full report

    You might also like

  • Hollywood actors showing that unity is strength

    Hollywood actors showing that unity is strength

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on July 20, 2023

    When workers are united, and able to collectively bargain, they can win good outcomes

    The Screen Actor’s Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike launched last week against Hollywood studios has brought large attention because of the celebrities involved. But as Chief Economist, Greg Jericho, notes in his Guardian Australia column, there are lessons for Australian workers as well.

    For the past 40 years there have been consistent efforts in Australia and other English speaking countries to reduce to power and role of unions in industrial relations. And while we are often told that there are reasons such as a need for greater flexibility to ensure increased productivity, the reality is there has been no evidence that any of the changes to IR laws have produced anything like the productivity that was promised.

    The past decade has seen as much “flexibility” and reduced power for unions as any business group could (and did) desire, and yet productivity levels have plummeted.

    The problem, as the SAG-AFTRA strike makes clear, the reason governments and business groups have agitated against unions and the ability to conduct industrial action is not because of concerns about productivity, but because unions garner better wages for their members and faster wage growth.

    The past decade shows that as the number of days lost to industrial action have fallen, so too has wage growth.

    The Hollywood strike might notionally be about payment for film and productions on streaming services and concerns about AI, but as SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher made clear, it is truly about workers demanding respect, and to be honoured for their contribution.

    Australian workers should learn from the strike and see that unity and union membership delivers benefits – and we know this is true, because employers will do anything they can to prevents it happening.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • The key legislation changes that will help workers get a better deal

    The key legislation changes that will help workers get a better deal

    by Fiona Macdonald in The New Daily

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on July 14, 2023

    In recent years, workers have been held back from demanding better working conditions and pay by a lack of bargaining power.

    However, with recent changes to industrial relations laws, and with unemployment at record low levels, some workers are now in a better position to bargain for better pay and conditions.

    Slow wages growth, low bargaining coverage and high levels of insecure work are good indicators of how workplace power imbalances have stifled prospects for many employees.

    Over the last decade Australia’s wage growth has been at its weakest since the middle of the last century, coverage of workers by enterprise agreements has rapidly eroded, and over a third of workers are now in insecure casual, labour hire or fixed-term jobs.

    Bargaining hobbled

    Despite low unemployment – meaning there are fewer workers available to fill vacancies – employees have not been able to bargain for higher pay and the real value of wages has been declining.

    Industrial relations reforms passed by parliament in late 2022 are designed to restore some balance to the workplace.

    The changes don’t mean there is a massive shift of power to workers but, with the removal of some barriers to bargaining, there should be greater opportunity for employees to gain improvements at work.

    At the present time, the labour market is tight and employers are competing to find and retain workers so they may be prepared to offer higher wages and other benefits.

    Already, unions representing early childhood education and care workers have applied to use a new multi-employer bargaining option – which came into force last month – to seek a pay increase for these low-paid workers.

    While it will be some time before we see any outcomes, there is early evidence that other bargaining reforms are getting workplace bargaining moving after years of decline. Certainly some employers may now be more ready to negotiate enterprise agreements to avoid being roped into multi-employer agreements.

    Other non-bargaining reforms introduced as part of the 2022 Secure Jobs, Better Pay package attracted much less attention than bargaining changes during last year’s debates over the new laws.

    However, these other changes are not insignificant for working conditions.

    The right to flexible work

    More than half of all employees now have new rights to request flexible work, including employees who are parents of children of school age or younger, carers and workers aged 55 or over, those with a disability or people experiencing or supporting someone experiencing family violence.

    Before the flexibility changes, which came into effect in June, some limited flexible work rights already existed. However, now there is much greater onus on employers to show there are reasonable business grounds if they wish to refuse employees’ requests for flexible work.

    While this is no guarantee that all employees can access the flexibility they need, it has potential to be a game-changer in some workplaces through pushing employers to find ways to organise work for greater employee-friendly flexibility.

    Research shows that Australians are some of the most stressed and overworked of all workers worldwide. We know we need better-work life balance.

    Post-pandemic, there is widespread experience of more flexible work arrangements and greater recognition of the benefits of flexible work.

    There is some impetus to lock in more employee-friendly flexibility, and workers are having some success in achieving these changes through collective bargaining.

    Working lives are longer than ever, including as the retirement age has just been increased to 67 years.

    Along with pay increases that stop the decline in the value of wages, bargaining for better work-life balance will continue to be important.


    You might also like

  • If the unemployment rises to 4.5% who is likely to lose their job?

    If the unemployment rises to 4.5% who is likely to lose their job?

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on July 13, 2023

    The RBA is currently targeting a 4.5% unemployment rate, and that is going to hurt young, low skilled and low paid workers,

    The next 12 months ahead look to be a time of rising wages, and rising unemployment. The Reserve Bank is trying to raise unemployment in order to prevent rising wages. It’s target of 4.5% will see around 130,000 to 150,000 more people unemployed than is currently the case.

    Labour market policy director, Greg Jericho, in his Guardian Australia column, examines which workers are likely to be the ones who will lose their jobs.

    In a bitterly ironic point, he notes that these are the same workers whom Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank Michele Bullock recently boasted were the ones who had gained the most from the strong employment growth of the past 18 months:

    people on lower incomes and with less education who have benefited the most from the strong labour market conditions

    More worrying is that the Reserve Bank’s own estimates suggest that the rises in unemployment over the next year will see Australia breach the “sahm Rule” of recession, in which the unemployment rate rises more than 05%pts in a year. Oddly however the RBA’s correspondence on the issue revealed in an FOI disclosure has them suggesting that for Australia the recession trigger is a 0.75% rise.

    Either way, history suggests that when unemployment rises in a year by the amount the RBA is estimating it usually keeps rising.

    The RBA’s own estimates show just how close to a recession the economy is set to go in the next year. It already looks likely to hit workers with low skills and low paid jobs, and if the RBA gets it wrong, it will quickly hit many more of society.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • Public Attitudes on Issues in Higher Education

    Education & Training, Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation

    Public Attitudes on Issues in Higher Education

    Corporatised Model for Australian Universities is Eroding Public Trust, Education Quality
    by Eliza Littleton

    Author

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Stronger public universities are vital to the success of dynamic, innovative economies, and more inclusive labour markets. But decades of fiscal restraint and corporatization have eroded the democratic governance and equitable delivery of public higher education in Australia. There are widespread concerns among both university staff and the broader Australian community regarding many higher education issues: including funding, governance, the insecurity of work in universities, the quality of education, and the affordability of attending university.

    This report, by Senior Economist Eliza Littleton, combines data from the Department of Education, the OECD, and original survey data from a national poll conducted by the Centre for Future Work to draw attention to key challenges facing public universities today. The Federal Government’s new ‘Universities Accord’ creates an important opportunity to address these challenges and put higher education back on a better path.



    Full report

    Share