My Blog

Category: State: NSW

  • A smooth move or a tough transition? Protecting workers who’ll lose their jobs when the Eraring Power Station closes

    A smooth move or a tough transition? Protecting workers who’ll lose their jobs when the Eraring Power Station closes

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute has urged the federal government to take charge of transitioning hundreds of workers into secure employment when the Eraring Power Station shuts down.

    The power station is scheduled to close by August 2027. More than 1000 workers will be directly impacted by the closure.

    This is an important test in Australia’s transition from fossil fuel power to renewables.

    The Centre for Future Work has written a submission to the Net Zero Economy Agency (NZEA) urging it to apply its Energy Industry Jobs Plan to the Eraring closure, to avoid inflicting undue pain on workers currently employed at the power station.

    In the submission, it argues that this important process should not be left solely to the power station owner, Origin Energy, but managed under the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, which was set up for this precise purpose.

    “We hear a lot about how the transition to a clean energy future involves helping workers in the coal and gas industry secure jobs when theirs disappear,” said Charlie Joyce, Researcher, Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute.

    “To help this process, the government set up the Net Zero Economy Authority, which established an Energy Industry Jobs Plan, designed specifically to support workers who’ll lose their jobs when coal and gas power stations close down.

    “Well, now the nation’s biggest coal-fired power station is closing down. It’s time for this plan to deliver.

    “Origin has made some noise about helping workers with retraining and career counselling, but that’s not enough. This impacts far more than those employed directly by Origin Energy. It requires coordination with industry, unions, and the broader community.

    “The nation will be watching how the Eraring closure unfolds. This is an important test for transitioning workers into good, secure jobs.

    “It would be senseless for the Net Zero Economy Authority not to use its Energy Industry Jobs Plan in this situation.  This is what it was set up to do.”


  • Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    Share

    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:

    “Gas consumption is projected to decline to 2040 as electrification increases across the economy and renewables and storage take an increasing share of electricity generation”, wrote the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

    This doesn’t sit well with the Prime Minister’s recent claims that more gas is needed for “firming” renewable energy. Figures from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s 2024 Integrated System Plan (ISP) show just how little gas is likely to be required in Australia’s electricity system.

    In AEMO’s ‘step change’ scenario, there isn’t a single year where gas generates more than its historical peak in the National Electricity Market. In this scenario, more gas was burned in the past 16 years than is burned over the next 25 years.

    In short: while gas might serve occasional use during low wind and sun periods, Australia simply will not end up using large amounts of it.

    It is weird, then, that Australia has a massive pipeline of planned fossil gas extraction projects. Many of them are justified on the grounds that they’re required to help Australia decarbonise its power grids, with more than 1,000 new petajoules coming online by 2027, according to the latest government projects report.

    The chart below compares the above projections of Australia’s domestic gas use to projections of the volume of gas exports, prepared by the separate Department of Resources and Energy (DISER). It makes it pretty clear where all the new gas is going – exports.

    Only looking at new gas production capacity, and only looking at the proportion that has a clear operation date, that is still around 11 times the amount of gas projected to be used in the power sector. In fact, the use of LNG for FY23 was greater just for processing LNG than the entire power sector in Australia:

    This analysis by climate expert Tim Baxter lays it out in even more detail.

    “Again, more than 3,000 petajoules of gas were exported from Western Australia in 2022–23. If the entire transition to clean energy were to stand dead still as if renewables weren’t already going gang-busters — in Western Australia renewable energy generation has increased by an average of 20% each year for the past five years — we would need just 2.5% of that gas to keep the lights on for the state”.

    It is pretty simple: Australia does not need to be expanding its fossil gas production, least of all to run fossil gas power stations. It’s a hollow fossil fuel industry talking point, and the Federal Government should know better than to repeat it.


    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

  • Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Share

    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 brought criticism from federal and state governments, the CSIRO, the Climate Council, the Electrical Trade Union (ETU), the Climate Change Authority, the Australia Institute, and independent energy experts.

    The CSIRO, among others, has refuted the Coalition’s claim that nuclear will be cheaper than renewables; instead, they have shown the energy produced by Australian reactors would cost approximately eight times more than the same amount of energy produced by renewables. If this cost is passed on to consumers, the average household would pay $590 per year more on their power bill. Unsurprisingly, Australia Institute polling has found that fewer than one in twenty Australians (4%) are prepared to pay this nuclear premium.

    The cost alone should be enough to bury this nuclear proposal. But it is also important to recognise how the Coalition’s plan will impact – and fail – workers.

    False promises

    The Coalition has proposed that large nuclear reactors would be built on the sites of five operational or recently decommissioned coal fired power stations: Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, and Loy Yang in Victoria. In doing so, the Coalition has promised that nuclear energy would be a source of stable and plentiful work for the communities where coal-fired power plants are phasing down.

    This is a false promise. Six coal fired power stations have already closed in the past decade, with 90% of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations set to close in the next decade. These communities are already undergoing structural adjustment, and they need new sources of employment now. But this is not what the Coalition’s plan delivers. The Coalition outlines that the first two nuclear reactors would not come online until the mid-2030s – more than a decade from now – while the remainder would be completed by 2050.

    And energy and technology experts agree that even this timeline is impossible. On average, a nuclear reactor takes 9.4 years just to build in countries with established and capable nuclear industries. Former Australian Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has estimated that it would take until the mid-2040s at the earliest for Australia to build an operational nuclear reactor. Moreover, analysis from the Institute for Energy, Economic & Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has found that, in economies comparable to Australia’s, every single nuclear reactor project experienced multi-year delays and cost blowouts of up to three and a half times over budget. It is hard to see how Australia, which lacks the experienced workforce, training and research base, or regulatory framework, would buck this trend.

    Lost jobs

    While the Coalition’s nuclear plan would not bring jobs to the communities that need them, it might have the real effect of depressing investment in renewables.

    Renewable energy already generates approximately 40% of Australia’s energy and is by far the cheapest form of electricity. Renewable energy industries already account for the employment of tens of thousands of workers, and Jobs and Skills Australia estimates that approximately 240,000 new workers will be required in industries associated with clean energy by 2030.

    But this requires ongoing and expanding investment in renewables, which the Coalition’s nuclear policy is likely to derail. The Clean Energy Council has estimated that by capping renewable energy to 54% of total use (as the Coalition’s modelling has assumed), 29GW of renewable energy generation projects would not be built – squandering an expected 37,700 full-time-equivalent construction jobs and 5,000 ongoing jobs in operations and maintenance. By limiting renewables investment, prolonging fossil fuel usage, and diverting investment towards nuclear energy, the full employment opportunities of the renewable energy transition are lost.

    Scarce and dangerous work

    If the Coalition’s nuclear plan does come to fruition it will hardly create any ongoing jobs for the communities that have undergone structural readjustment. According to analysis from the Nuclear Energy Agency, while the peak period of construction of the average 1GW nuclear power plant can demand up to 3,500 workers, ongoing operations and maintenance will only require about 400 workers – with only a quarter of these being onsite blue-collar jobs that might provide work for the people who will have lost jobs with the closure of coal-fired power stations. Most jobs will be in administration, regulatory compliance, energy, marketing, sales, science and emergency personnel – and many of them are likely to be located away from the nuclear facility itself.

    Disturbingly, any jobs on-site may put the health of workers at risk. Recent analysis of multiple studies of the health impacts of nuclear power plant employment across multiple countries found that workers have a significantly higher risk of mesothelioma and circulatory disease due to exposure to radiation. Nearby residents also exhibit a significantly higher risks of cancer, with children under the age of five at particular risk. And this does not even factor in the risk of sudden plant failure and reactor meltdown on workers and communities – a risk sharpened by the Coalition’s plan for these reactors to be built on geological fault lines with heightened earthquake risk.

    Australian workers have much to gain from the renewable energy transition, including cheaper power, new clean technology industries, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The Coalition’s nuclear plan only brings false promises, lost jobs, and – if the plan comes to fruition – few jobs and potentially dangerous work.


    You might also like

  • 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

  • More loopholes to close on insecure work … and a new right to disconnect from work

    More loopholes to close on insecure work … and a new right to disconnect from work

    by Fiona Macdonald

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Share

    Late yesterday the final part 2 of the government’s Closing Loopholes industrial relations bill was passed by the Senate.

    This means Australia’s employment laws will be further amended to tackle the problems of insecurity and low pay, with the changes targeting casual employment and gig platform work arrangements. The package also includes a new right for employees to disconnect from work outside their paid work time.

    A new definition of casual employment will be included in the Fair Work Act, making it harder for employers to classify their employees as casual when, in reality, the employees are required to work regular hours for a continuing and indefinite period. The legislation also establishes a new pathway for casual employees to seek permanent status.

    The casual employment changes should go some way to stopping and reversing the growth of so-called ‘permanent casual’ arrangements, which have become widespread. Workers in these arrangements are actually in permanent jobs while they are given casual employment status.

    Casual employment means lower pay, little or no job security and no right to paid leave. Lack of employment security in casual employment creates all sorts of other insecurities for workers, such as limiting access to finance, secure housing and childcare. According to government estimates, there are over 850,000 casual employees who could be eligible to seek permanency under the legislation.

    Gig worker or ‘employee-like’ reforms in the Closing Loopholes package aim to address low pay and poor working conditions experienced by workers on digital platforms who are engaged as independent contractors, are low-paid and/or have very limited bargaining power, such as delivery riders and rideshare drivers. The Fair Work Commission will now be able to make orders for minimum standards for these digital platform workers.

    This ‘employee-like’ reforms extend the scope of Australia’s Fair Work Act to provide protections and rights to vulnerable workers, who are not employees. This should prove to be an effective response to the challenges facing vulnerable ‘gig workers as argued by the Centre for Future Work’s David Peetz has argued in a recent Centre for Future Work report on self-employment.

    Closing Loopholes also includes a ‘right to disconnect’ from work, an initiative of the Greens, included to get the minor party’s support for the bill. In future, employees will have a right to refuse to respond to contact from their employers outside their scheduled hours if the contact is unreasonable.

    Go Home on Time Day research conducted in 2022 by the Centre for Future Work found that 8 out of every 10 workers supported a right to disconnect. This level of support is not surprising, given the amount of unpaid overtime workers are doing. In 2023, the Centre for Future Work reported employees are, on average, working 5.8 hours a week — total of 280 hours, or 7 weeks, a year of unpaid overtime per employee.

    The new right to disconnect is a practical solution for many employees that should also assist to shift cultures in workplaces where reliance on unpaid overtime has become the norm.

    Some employer groups are arguing the Closing Loopholes legislation ‘goes too far’. To the contrary, if there is a weakness in the legislation, it is that it does not always account for power imbalances in the relationship between employees and employers. And this may limit the effectiveness of the some of the new provisions.

    As a result of amendments put forward by independent David Pocock and the two Jacqui Lambie Network senators in response to employers’ concerns, a number of the bill’s provisions will be weaker in the final legislation than they were in the government’s original bill.

    The amended bill passed by the Senate yesterday provides greater scope for employers to refuse casual employees’ requests for permanent status. The proposed prohibition on employers unreasonably contacting employees out of work hours has been removed. In the amended bill the prohibition is now on employers punishing employees who refuse to monitor and respond to unreasonable contact.

    The Closing Loopholes part 2 reforms are welcome changes that will limit some of the damage and disadvantage caused by insecure work and the encroachment of (unpaid) work into life outside work.


    You might also like

  • 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

  • Australia’s emissions are rising at a time they need to fall quickly

    Australia’s emissions are rising at a time they need to fall quickly

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on August 31, 2023

    The latest quarterly greenhouse gas emissions survey shows that Australia is heading in the wrong direction – and that needs calling out.

    The latest Quarterly Greenhouse Gas Emissions data came and went last Friday with little coverage. As Policy Director, Greg Jericho writes in his Guardian Australia column this meant that much of the terrible news was missed.

    In the past year, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased with the rise in transport emissions undoing any of the good that comes from falling emissions out of the electricity sector. At a time when we should be on a clear path to reducing emissions by at least 43% below the 2005 level by 2030, we are heading in the opposite direction.

    The figures also highlight the weakness of our 2030 target. The only reason we are even halfway to achieving that cut is because Australia includes land use in its calculations. Without including the faux cuts in emissions that come from using 2005 and the massive land-clearing that occurred that year as a baseline, Australia’s emissions would be just 1.6% below 2005 levels.

    Next week the June quarter GDP figures will be released.  We know exactly when they will be released and they will receive massive coverage, including a press conference by the Treasurer soon after 11:30am on Wednesday. By contrast, the quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data is released at random times with now warning and without any minister fronting media to discuss, explain and defend the government’s policies.

    We need to treat the greenhouse gas emissions release with the same level of attention we give to GDP, and we need to demand what the government is doing to ensure in 3 months time with the next release the figures will show a fall, rather than a rise.


    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

  • 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

  • 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