Economics is often called the dismal science. The accusation was justly made after Thomas Malthus predicted that “misery and vice” were the only check on world population growth. Of course these days many economists argue the exact opposite and suggest that population growth is essential for community wellbeing, but despite the U-turn the dismal tag

It can’t be only nine months since the last federal election. It feels like an eternity. That, of course, is the objective of Tony Abbott who has worked 24/7 to argue that the election result, the formation of the minority Gillard Government, and in turn, any legislation it proposes, is illegitimate and undemocratic. But this

The final version of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was a cobbled together compromise between Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. The Government’s own advisor, Professor Ross Garnaut, described it as one of the worst cases of public policy development he had ever seen. So why is it the starting point for negotiations between the

Once upon a time the justification for delivering the federal budget speech at 7.30pm was so that the stock market and money market would have time to absorb the information before the next day’s trading began. But these days, with many Australian shares listed on international stock exchanges and the Australian dollar traded just as

What is the point of Canberra’s 40 per cent emission reduction target? If you thought it was to help reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions then you should probably be far more concerned with the current negotiations between the Gillard Government, the Greens, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. Put simply, unless those negotiations result in a

While we might not ever be able to agree on whether advertising works or not, or why it is that companies who say it doesn’t are so determined to spend a fortune doing it, it is easy to answer a slightly different question: do politicians think advertising works? Based on the way they conduct election

There has been a lot of talk about the need to ‘reframe’ the debate about climate change among the Australian environment groups who have tasked themselves with persuading our politicians to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, their attempts to reframe the debate have been as unsuccessful as their attempts to persuade our politicians. The

The Defence establishment must find it pretty hard not to chuckle when they hear people talking about climate change policy. Climate change has been described as a fundamental challenge to democratic decision making. The problem, we are told, is that while the costs are up front the benefits are both uncertain and will arise in

The only thing that big business in Australia wants more than certainty is the certainty that they will get their own way. When they aren’t certain about that, it’s amazing how much uncertainty they are willing to tolerate. It seems it’s better to have a chance of a win than be certain of a loss.

Picking teams in Australian policy debates used to be as simple as picking sides in old movies; the good guys wore white, the bad guys wore black, and the audience knew where everybody stood. But life just isn’t that simple especially when we consider the milk price war that is raging at the moment. Am

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s decision to give U.S. President Barack Obama an iPod of Australian music speaks volumes about the ongoing evolution of the strong relationship between Australia and the United States. While successive leaders have demonstrated their warm commitment to the international relationship, it is hard to imagine John Howard, or even Kevin Rudd,

Julia Gillard’s multi-party committee on climate change (MPCCC) has achieved what the Rudd government should have relied on its cabinet for – a good political outcome likely to deliver a good policy outcome on that wicked problem of climate change. While there is still plenty of room for negotiations to go off the rails, the

Henry Rosenbloom, founder and publisher of Scribe, argues that while there are good political arguments for maintaining the $1000 threshold for imposing GST on imported goods, there are no reasons of “principle” for doing so. If that’s the strongest argument that can be mounted in defence of the big retailers, then their market share is

According to Australia’s big retailers the Australian tax system is making them uncompetitive against overseas online stores. Poor old Gerry Harvey says he will have to set up an online shop in China so that he too can ensure that Australians importing things worth less than $1,000 via the internet can avoid paying GST. But

Most people when they get back from a week at a tropical resort are usually inclined to want to lead a simpler life. For the planet’s sake, let’s hope the entourage getting back from the latest round of climate talks in Cancun are also in the mood for simplicity. What simpler way could there be

There is nothing more profitable for the banks than confusion about what they do. As long as they keep talking about acronyms no one has heard of and financial theories that no one understands, they can continue the enormously profitable business of borrowing money at low rates and lending it at high rates. This year

Australia’s banks seem to have embraced the credo that if you are going to tell a lie, you might as well tell a big one. One of the biggest is that when the Reserve Bank lifts official interest rates, the banks have no choice but to pass on the rate rise in full to their

Political power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The second the Commonwealth Government began to vacate the policy stage the state and territory governments began to pour in. It’s a good thing too. The first shot in this new battle between the states and the Commonwealth came from John Brumby. And what a shot it was.

The most boring election campaign in living memory has delivered the most interesting election result since World War II. While the major parties, and many of the commentators, are struggling to figure out what it all means, the result is actually quite simple to interpret. Australia’s voters do not think that either the ALP or

Don’t you just love the banks? They just give and give and give. In fact, they are so generous that, according to a recent survey by The Australia Institute, more than half of Australians who do not have a job received unsolicited offers of credit cards last year. Offering money to people in their time

The problem with modern elections is that they are designed to actively prevent community debate about the big issues. It is not an accident, it is not the media’s fault (well not entirely), and it is not the fault of new technology and the 24- hour news cycle. It is simply the consequence of two

Big business loves rapid population growth for the simple reason that they profit from having more potential customers. Governments seem to love rapid population growth because they benefit from having more taxpayers. But neither big business nor government wants to invest in the essential infrastructure that all those extra customers and taxpayers require. While the

In a big Australia, there are more people, more profits. But it’s a lazy way to grow. This opinion piece by Richard Denniss, first published in The Age, argues that population growth should impose obligations on governments to invest in new schools, new hospitals and new public transport.

Should Australia increase its population to 36 million? In this era of evidence-based policy, it seems strange that for all the government inquiries that have been held there is yet to be a major scientific, social and economic analysis of the impact of rapid population growth in Australia. While it might be hard to agree

The big banks now dominate the Australian financial system in the same way that the Melbourne Storm dominated the rugby league. They take the profits they made last year and they use them to fend off new competitors next year. They take the profits they earn in one part of their business and cross subsidise

Back before the CPRS took the wind out of the community it was common sense to believe that early action was cheaper than delayed action. And back before anyone had heard of ’emission intensive trade exposed industries’ it was patriotic to believe that Australia should lead the world, not lag it. If we are to

The Greens and government should at least be able to agree that some carbon price is better than none, writes Richard Denniss.

According to the spin doctors, governments should never let a crisis go to waste. And of course the best crises are the ones you invent yourself. Done well, they ensure others spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. Of course the latest intergenerational report, like its predecessors, is full of doom and

AH, Copenhagen. Never before have so many gathered for so long to achieve so little. In the past year, the government has consistently linked the need to pass the CPRS with the need to get a binding agreement at Copenhagen. Rather than focusing on the real dangers of climate change and the benefits of early

The scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent problem; the economic evidence says that the costs of tackling climate change are trivially small compared to the costs of inaction; and polling shows that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to see real action. So why has the CPRS stalled and why