My Blog

Category: Article

  • The RBA should keep its finger off the interest rate trigger

    The RBA should keep its finger off the interest rate trigger

    by Greg Jericho

    Share

    With unemployment tumbling in February, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) should resist the urge to raise interest rates, says Australia Institute Chief Economist Greg Jericho.

    Unemployment fell dramatically in February, defying the expectations of many policymakers and economists.

    While the RBA has genuinely seen low unemployment as a key driver of inflation, Jericho said their belief is misguided.

    “The Reserve Bank, we know, has this belief that unemployment needs to rise to lower inflation,” he said on the latest episode of the Dollars & Sense podcast.

    “We here at the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work have been saying, ‘no, that’s completely wrong’.

    “Inflation has not been rising and falling because there’s more or less unemployment in the system – it was because of what has been happening on the supply side, what’s happening with corporate profits.”

    This view was supported by a 2023 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which found that high corporate profits was a more significant factor in driving inflation after the Covid-19 pandemic than wages.

    “Stop trying to put people out of work just to get inflation down. It’s a stupid thing to do,” said Jericho.

    “And, actually, these figures kind of confirm that.

    “Inflation has been slowing and what have we seen? Unemployment drop!”

    The drop in the seasonally adjusted jobless rate, from 4.1 to 3.7 per cent, means roughly 116,000 additional Australians were in work in February. This represents the single biggest improvement since the early 2000s, outside the core years of the pandemic.

    The next interest rate decision will be handed down by the RBA on 7 May.

    Dollars & Sense is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.


    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 gas industry is laughing at us as they make more money but not more tax

    The gas industry is laughing at us as they make more money but not more tax

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on February 29, 2024

    Despite soaring production and revenues the gas industry is not paying more tax

    Australia produces more than six times the amount of gas needed to supply our manufacturing industry, power stations and homes. But more than 80% either heads overseas as LNG exports or is used to convert natural gas into LNG:

    We export much more gas than we used to. In the 2000s we exported around 14m tonnes of LNG a year. Now, due to the opening of the Gladstone LNG terminal, we send 83mt overseas – the second most of any nation.

    But more production and more revenue has not led to more tax, even though the petroleum resources rent tax (PRRT) is in place to supposedly raise revenue from windfall profits such as those generated by the gas industry after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    When Australia exported 15.4mt of LNG in 2008-09, the government raised $2.2bn in PRRT. In 2022-23, exports had increased 437% to 83mt but PRRT revenue was up just 7% to $2.4bn.

    Did gas suddenly become unprofitable?

    No, the problem is that the PRRT is open to manipulation that enables companies to use costs to reduce their PRRT liability such that it appears they are never making “super profits”.

    In last year’s budget, the government finally proposed limiting the deductions to the PRRT in any year to 90% of LNG project revenues. Alas that proposal also had a punchline. The government announced the changes would raise an extra $2.4bn in PRRT over the next four years. That was roughly a 30% increase in tax.

    Thirty per cent!

    You would think the gas industry would launch the mother of all campaigns against it. But no. They loved it.

    The day it was announced the gas industry peak body recommended bipartisan support as the changes “would see more revenue collected earlier”. The key word was “earlier”. It won’t raise more tax; it just moves some tax from later to earlier.

    But it won’t even do that.

    In December’s midyear economic and fiscal outlook, the government announced it was revising down its estimate of how much PRRT would be raised over the next four years.

    How much did it reduce its estimate by?

    You guessed it: $2.4bn.

    We need to change the way the PRRT operates, we need to tax our gas more and we need to do it now.


    You might also like

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    The Federal Government has released a new report that includes projections of how much gas Australia is set to use over the coming decades. There is no ambiguity in its message: Australia reached peak gas years ago, and it’s all downhill from here:

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    by Jim Stanford in The Conversation

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on December 11, 2023

    Australia has one of the weakest tax systems for redistribution among industrial nations, and as Dr Jim Stanford writes, the Stage 3 tax cuts will make it worse.

    One of the chief purposes of government payments and taxes is to redistribute income, which is why tax rates are higher on taxpayers with higher incomes and payments tend to get directed to people on lower incomes.

    Australia’s tax rates range from a low of zero cents in the dollar to a high of 45 cents, and payments including JobSeeker, the age pension, and child benefits which are limited to recipients whose income is below certain thresholds.

    In this way, every nation’s tax and transfer system cuts inequality, some more than others.

    Which is why I was surprised when I used the latest Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data to calculate how much.

    The OECD measures inequality using what’s known as a gini coefficient. This is a number on a scale between zero and 1 where zero represents complete equality (everyone receives the same income) and 1 represents complete inequality (one person has all the income).

    The higher the number, the higher the higher the inequality.

    Australia is far from the most equal of OECD nations – it is 21st out of the 37 countries for which the OECD collects data, but what really interested me is what Australia’s tax and transfer system does to equalise things.

    And the answer is: surprisingly little compared to other OECD countries.

    Australia’s system does little to temper inequality

    The graph below displays the number of points by which each country’s tax and transfer system reduces its gini coefficient. The ranking indicates the extent to which the system equalises incomes.

    The OECD country whose system most strongly redistributes incomes is Finland, whose tax and transfer rules cut its gini coefficient by 0.25 points.

    The country with the weakest redistribution of incomes is Mexico which only cuts inequality by 0.02 points.

    Australia is the 8th weakest, cutting inequality by only 0.12 points.

    Apart from Mexico, among OECD members only Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, Switzerland, Türkiye and Iceland do a worse job of redistributing incomes.

    What is really odd is that, before redistribution, Australia’s income distribution is pretty good compared to other OECD countries – the tenth best.

    It’s not that Australia’s systems don’t reduce inequality, it’s that other country’s systems do it more.

    Of the OECD members who do less than Australia, four are emerging economies: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Türkiye. Like most developing countries, they have low taxes, weak social protections and poor tax-gathering systems.

    Indeed, in Chile and Mexico, taxes and transfers do almost nothing to moderate extreme inequality.

    The other three countries ranked below Australia – Iceland, Switzerland, and South Korea – boast unusually equal distributions of market incomes. Each is among the four most equal OECD countries by market income, and each is considerably more equal than Australia.

    Australia ‘less developed’ when it comes to redistribution

    This makes Australia’s weak redistribution system more typical of a low-income emerging economy than an advanced industrial democracy.

    Even Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand do a better job of redistributing income than Australia.

    This new data enhances concerns about the impact of planned Stage 3 tax cuts. By returning proportionately more to high earners than low earners these will further erode the redistributive impact of Australia’s tax system.

    It also highlights the consequences of Australia’s relatively weak payments programs, including JobSeeker which on one measure is the second-weakest in the OECD. It’s an understatement to say we’ve room for improvement.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on December 14, 2023

    As the Budget outlook improves, with most of the benefits of Stage 3 tax cuts going to those earing over $120,000, over 80% of workers will be short-changed

    Yesterday’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) provided some pleasing news for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. But higher revenue does not mean a stronger economy nor that households are better off.

    While the Treasurer was releasing the latest budget numbers the annual figures for median earnings were released by the Bureau of Statistics.

    These figures showed that the median weekly earnings in August this year were $1,300 – a rise of 4.2% from last year, which was less than the 5.4% increase in inflation.

    That weekly amount translates to $67,600 in annual earnings.

    People earning that amount will get just $565 from the Stage 3 tax cuts (0.8%) while someone on $200,000 – well in the top 10% of earners will get a 4.5% cut worth $9,075.

    The Treasurer told ABC 730 on Wednesday night that the government has not changed its position on Stage 3 and that “We think there is an important role for returning bracket creep where governments can afford to do that.”

    The problem is the Stage 3 cuts are mostly focused at rewarding those on high incomes, who are least affected by bracket creep.

    If the Government was truly worried about using the bonus revenue from higher export prices to assist low and middle-income earners it would care more about those on the median income of $66,700 than those in the top tax bracket and top 10% of income.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Paying for Collective Bargaining

    Paying for Collective Bargaining

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Recent labour law reforms in Australia have focused attention on the crucial role played by collective bargaining in achieving higher wages, safer working conditions, and better job security.

    New provisions contained in both the Secure Jobs Better Pay (2022) and Closing Loopholes (2023) legislation will expand the scope for collective bargaining (including more opportunities for bargaining at a multi-employer level), make it harder for employers to evade collective bargaining, and empower union delegates to fulfil their responsibilities in workplaces to administer and enforce collective agreements.

    However, one important challenge for Australia’s collective bargaining system, that has not been addressed by these reforms, is how to pay for collective bargaining. The infrastructure of representation, bargaining, implementation and enforcement requires ongoing commitment of people and resources, from both the union and the employer sides of the relationship.

    In Australia at present, the workers’ side of this infrastructure is dependent on voluntary union dues contributed by individuals who choose to join a union in their industry. No collective system of union security or dues collection (such as closed or agency shop arrangements, dues preferences, or bargaining fees) are presently allowed under Australian law. Moreover, Australian law fully protects the ability of individual workers to ‘free ride’ on the benefits and protections negotiated by unions in their workplace: every provision of a collective agreement must be provided to all workers in a defined bargaining unit (whether they are members of the union that negotiated them or not). From a perspective of narrow self-interest, this system discourages union membership — and in turn starves the collective bargaining system of the resources it needs to be viable.

    In this article published in The Conversation, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discusses the nature of this ‘free rider problem,’ and highlights how the treatment of this problem varies wildly between business and union applications. Legal contracts which enforce collective revenue solutions to free-rider problems are common and fully acceptable in many common applications: such as residential strata arrangements, the governance of joint stock corporations, and even government tax collections. Where unions are concerned, however, the law prevents workers from making and enforcing a collective decision to jointly fund the apparatus of collective bargaining, to the shared detriment of workers who consequently cannot exercise collective bargaining power to improve their employment relationship. The rhetoric of ‘individual choice’ is applied selectively to industrial relations; no owner of a strata unit, or shareholder in a corporation, has the ‘free choice’ to refuse to pay the normal costs and obligations associated with those arrangements.

    Australia’s restrictions on union security and collective dues arrangements are uniquely restrictive among industrial countries; they are similar to the rules in so-called ‘right-to-work’ states in the U.S., where union representation has fallen to the low single digits. Free riding has been an important factor in the long-term erosion of union density in Australia: most recent data indicates that just 12.5% of employees in Australia are presently union members. Workers with greater awareness of the importance of collective bargaining to their long-term prosperity will support their unions, even though they are legally entitled to all the benefits of a collective agreement whether they join or not. But the current laws discourage this act of collective solidarity, and collective bargaining has been eroding accordingly. At present just 15% of workers in Australia are covered by an active enterprise agreement (and less than 10% in the private sector). The erosion of collective bargaining has contributed to wage stagnation, growing inequality, and job insecurity.

    Dr Stanford’s Conversation article has been selected for inclusion in the new anthology, 2023: A Year of Consequence, published by Thames & Hudson, and edited by Justin Bergman (International Editor of The Conversation). The book contains several essays published by The Conversation in 2023 that are judged to have contributed most to public policy dialogue in Australia over the past year.

    Further information on the extent and consequences of free riding in Australian collective bargaining, and five different strategies for addressing this problem (based on the variety of policies implemented in other industrial countries where collective bargaining is better-resourced, and hence stronger and more effective), are provided in Dr Stanford’s recent scholarly article in Labour and Industry, titled “International approaches to solving the ‘free rider’ problem in industrial relations.” Click below to see the full article.


    Related documents



    Attachment

    Related research



    Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023



    Full report



    Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia



    Full report

    You might also like

  • Solidarity Research for Union Renewal

    Solidarity Research for Union Renewal

    Share

    A Symposium of Researchers and Trade Unionists co-hosted by the Centre for Future Work and Unions WA.

    • Tuesday 30 January 2024
    • 5:30pm for 6pm start
    • UnionsWA, CSA Building, 445 Hay Street Perth

    To coincide with the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) holding its 2024 conference in Perth, the Centre for Future Work and Unions WA are pleased to present a unique and important event for union members, supporters, and activists.

    ‘Solidarity research for Union Renewal’ brings together cutting-edge researchers and unionists to share their knowledge and wisdom about renewing unions and building solidarity between all workers. Find out how:

    • Canadian Health Workers restored their jobs to the public sector
    • African unions have fought back against Multinationals
    • Australian unions are organising and advocating for migrant workers

    The evening will be chaired by Professor Emeritus David Peetz, the Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work – who will also be presenting his research on Developing Union Delegates

    This event is FREE, with refreshments, but we need you to register for a ticket here: https://www.unionswa.com.au/solidarity_research_for_union_renewal.

    And here is the full program of speakers and topics.

    See you in Perth!


    Related documents



    Attachment

    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

  • Australia is an energy super power, we need to use that power for good

    Australia is an energy super power, we need to use that power for good

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on October 19, 2023

    Australia is already an energy superpower, but our governments have lacked the courage to use that power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    As the Australian Government continues to pursue policies notionally designed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, a great store has been placed in Australia becoming a “renewable energy superpower”. However as Labour Market and Fiscal Policy Director, Greg Jericho, notes in his Guardian Australia column, Australia already is an energy superpower. But we fail to use that power for good.

    Australia is either the world’s largest or second-largest exporter of metallurgical coal, thermal coal and LNG. And yet we have not sought to use this power to pursue policies that would reduce demand for fossil fuels and transition the world towards renewable energy. Instead, we placate mining companies and give no timeline to end coal and gas use. We continue to approve new coal mines and fail to insert a climate-change trigger into environment protection legislation that determines whether new mines can be approved.

    Given September this year was the hottest September on record, after August this year being the hottest August on record, July this year being the hottest July on record and June this year being the hottest June on record, the time for action that reduces Australia’s and the world’s emissions is urgent and critical.

    Climate change is one area where Australia can legitimately take a leading role in global affairs, our power as an energy producer and supplier of fossil fuels which continue to exacerbate climate change demands we show this leadership.

    For too long Australian governments have cowered before mining companies, now it’s the time to realise we have the minerals they want now and in the future when renewable energy becomes the dominant power and thus we can dictate terms.

    Leadership requires the grasping of power and using it for good.


    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

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    The Federal Government has released a new report that includes projections of how much gas Australia is set to use over the coming decades. There is no ambiguity in its message: Australia reached peak gas years ago, and it’s all downhill from here:

  • ‘Wages, employment and power’: Call for conference papers

    ‘Wages, employment and power’: Call for conference papers

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work is hosting a stream at the upcoming AIRAANZ Conference.

    Join us as we continue the AIRAANZ and the Centre for Future Work traditions of bringing researchers and activists together to debate important issues in the world of work and industrial relations.

    The AIRAANZ (Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand) 2024 Conference will be held in Perth from the 31 January to 2 February 2024.

    Wages, employment and power
    Papers are sought on topics that relate to issues concerning employment, power and/or wages.

    Topics could include, but are not limited to:

    • the relationship between power and wages at the firm, industry or national level;
    • legislative reforms affecting wages, employment or power;
    • bargaining strategies to boost power and wages;
    • explanations for changing worker power;
    • job vacancies, labour shortages and wages;
    • the gendering of wages, employment or power;
    • employment, unemployment or participation amongst particular groups or industries;
    • product or labour market competition and worker power;
    • the effects of norms and institutions in labour markets;
    • the geography of power or wages;
    • the ideologies and strategies of employers, unions or the state.

    Submit your abstract to the conference organisers by 29th September.

    Feel free to get in touch with us if you have any questions about topics or the stream or would like any additional information.

    David Peetz d.peetz@griffith.edu.au, davidp@australiainstitute.org.au, +61 466 166 198 or +64 204 127 6749
    Fiona Macdonald fiona@australiainstitute.org.a, +61 437 301 065

    Abstracts must be submitted to the conference organisers via: https://consol.eventsair.com/airaanz-2024/submission-site/Site/Register.

    For AIRAANZ 2024 Conference details see: https://www.airaanz.org/conference/reimagining-industrial-relations-airaanz-2024-conference-31-jan-2-feb-2024/


    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

  • Don’t worry about a budget surplus, worry about a slowing economy

    Don’t worry about a budget surplus, worry about a slowing economy

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on May 11, 2023

    Rather than be a budget that will fuel inflation, the budget is actually closer to austerity than stimulation

    The Budget announced this week by Treasurer Jim Chalmers revealed a projected surplus in 2022-23 before returning to a deficit in the future years. In response many commentators and economists have suggested that the budget is therefore expansionary and will fuel inflation. But as policy director, Greg Jericho notes in his Guardian Australia column given the projected slowing economy, if anything the budget should be more expansionary.

    Most of the claims around the budget fueling inflation are based on the movement of the budget from surplus in 2022-23 to deficit in 2023-24. And usually, this would suggest that the government is stimulating the economy. But when we look at the actual figures within the budget, the overwhelming reason for the shift from surplus is due to parameter changes relating to oil, gas, coal and iron ore prices. The spending measures the government is proposing are hardly expansionary at all. Their direct impact on total household income is minimal, and the largest spending is on reducing medical and energy bills rather than directly giving households more money.

    When we look at the forecasts for public demand growth we see a level of expansion that is more akin to an austere budget than one attempting to stimulate the economy.

    But when we also look at the forecasts for economic growth over the next two years we see an economy slowing quite abruptly in a world that is teetering on a global recession. In the past, such weak forecasts for household spending and GDP growth would have seen governments spending more and lifting economic growth.

    This budget appropriately deals with the concerns of inflation by directly lowering the costs of energy and medical bills – it demonstrates that governments do have a role to play in lowering inflation and that it need not be done purely by the traditional view that the government must slow the economy. The economy is already projected to slow, and by this time next year the calls will likely be less about why the budget is not in surplus and more about what is the government doing to simulate the economy


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

    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

  • Wealth inequality across generations will only fuel voter disenchantment

    Wealth inequality across generations will only fuel voter disenchantment

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on April 13, 2023

    Millennials are not becoming more conservative as they age – and the rigged housing market is just one reason why

    While income inequality is an often discussed topic, wealth inequality is just as pernicious though often less discussed issue. Worse still the inequality of wealth across generations has lasting impacts for people into retirement.

    Policy director Greg Jericho writes in his Guardian Australia column how economic policies of the past few decades has served to provide those with wealth more of it, while depriving younger people of gaining a foothold that previous generations had.

    The issue is most acute with housing. Housing affability is often debated with some suggesting that because of lower interest rate than in the past owning a home is not as difficult as in the past. But the reality is that the size of the mortgage relative to incomes is so much greater than in the past that even with lower interest rates payments account for much more income than they used to. Whereas for those entering the housing market in the 1980s one incomes was often more than enough, now two incomes is a necessity.

    But what is often forgotten is that while interest rates were higher at times in the 1980s and 1990s those rates fell and with them did the payments all the while incomes rose. As a result those who bought homes in the 1980s and 1990s saw their repayments as a share of income fall to very low levels – levels unheard of now.

    And while the arguments about whether housing is more or less affordable can turn on definitions of affordability, the fact is that for the first time fewer than half of people aged 30-34 own their own home.  That’s not through choice, but through the reality of a housing market that is locking out younger people.

    This in turn sees younger generations have less wealth at  their age than did their parents and grandparents.

    It is little surprise that Millennials are not becoming more conservative in their voting as they age in the same way that did Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. The wealth inequality will have ongoing repercussions for political parties who have in the past taken it as given that older voters will vote for them.


    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

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    The Federal Government has released a new report that includes projections of how much gas Australia is set to use over the coming decades. There is no ambiguity in its message: Australia reached peak gas years ago, and it’s all downhill from here: