Michael Keating

  • MICHAEL KEATING. National water reform- A REPOST from September 28,2017

    According to the Productivity Commission’s draft report on National Water Reform, Australia is now viewed internationally as a world leader in water management. Nevertheless, these reforms continue to be challenged by special interests. In particular, the history of poor investment in irrigation continues, encouraged by the comfortable expectation that governments will not enforce the requirement to recover irrigators’ share of the costs through cost-reflective water pricing. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Inequality, wages and economic growth- A REPOST from July 31,2017

    Changes in inequality and in the relationship between wages and productivity help explain the poor economic performance of many advanced economies in this century. Interestingly the Governor of the Reserve Bank indicated that Australia might be facing the same risks of inadequate wage growth, although he felt that ‘Australia’s monetary policy framework is better placed to deal with this world than some others’. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook

    This Mid-Year review of the economic and fiscal outlook contains no new surprises. However, the balance of risks is  that the outcomes will  be worse than predicted. Clearly on the Government’s own projections, the nation cannot afford income tax cuts in the foreseeable future. Instead what this review reminds us, is just how threadbare this Government’s economic and fiscal strategies actually are. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The Productivity Commission on more effective government. Part 2 of 2.

    The Productivity Commission’s findings regarding the effectiveness of Australia’s public services reflect the findings of many previous reviews. Fundamentally a change of culture is needed in favour of well-calculated risk taking and, I would add, greater independence based on the pursuit of evidence through comprehensive program and policy evaluation.  (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The Productivity Commission on more effective government. Part 1 of 2.

    This article, the first of two which discuss the Productivity Commission’s recommendations for more effective government, focuses on how to improve Commonwealth-State relations, and fiscal disciplines and accountability. The conclusion is that the Commission’s recommendations are for the most part disappointing. They fail to take account of the practical difficulties in better matching taxable capacity with expenditure responsibilities, and the extent to which governments are already held to account for achieving budget targets.  (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Tax Cuts: What can we expect? Part 2 of 2

    In Part 1 of this series, posted yesterday, the conclusion was that restoration of a sustained Budget surplus would require a combination of expenditure cuts and tax increases. This second Part 2 finds that the projected swing from Budget deficit to surplus requires a swing of 3 per cent of national income. It then explores the scope for expenditure cuts and tax changes to achieve this swing. The conclusion is that most of the required swing will have to be achieved by a net increase in taxation revenue relative to GDP. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Tax cuts – what can we expect? Part 1 of 2.

     

    The evidence suggests that Malcolm Turnbull just doesn’t have the fiscal room to responsibly offer income tax cuts, which means it was very irresponsible to raise expectations in this way. Part 1 in this series of two articles examines the relationship between taxes and economic growth, and the demands upon the revenue to repair the Budget. In the following Part 2, the scope for expenditure cuts and the future of tax reform is discussed. The conclusion is that Australia will need to increase the share of tax revenue relative to GDP.  (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Should VET be contestable?

    The introduction of contestability into training markets is often cited as a prime example of the failures of privatisation. However, the totality of the evidence is rarely examined in support of this allegation. This article aims to fill this gap. It finds that a contestable training market can fail if not properly regulated, but now that Australia’s training market is being properly regulated, the quality of training is being preserved, while competition is reducing costs and increasing choice and responsiveness to customer needs. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Trump’s Economic Policies: Part 2 of 2

    In Part 1 of this series of two articles, yesterday I examined the impact of President Trump’s economic program on the American economy. Today’s article discusses the impact of the Trump economic program on the rest of the world, and Australia in particular. The key danger is that Trump will further encourage a rise in protectionism, that will damage the foundations of the open economy that in the last seventy years has delivered the biggest rise in living standards in human history. However, continuing economic growth inevitably involves economic transformation, and maintaining support for the open economy will depend upon programs that better assist workers to adapt to structural adjustment pressures, from whatever source. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Trump’s Economic Policies: Part 1 of 2

    President Trumps economic policies have so far received much less attention than his foreign and national security policies. The examination here and in a following article concludes that the economic policies are based on fundamental contradictions and are therefore bound to fail. This failure will be felt by Americans and by the rest of the world. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Can Parliament control Government Expenditure?-The Use of the Advance to the Minister of Finance

    The High Court has upheld the Government’s decision to use the Advance to the Minister of Finance to pay for its survey of attitudes regarding same-sex marriage, and notwithstanding that funding for this survey was unlikely to gain parliamentary approval.  Furthermore, the Court found that while the Finance Minister’s decision must be “formed reasonably”, he “is not obliged to act apolitically or quasi-judicially” in determining access to the Advance. My concern is that this High Court decision may have tipped the balance too far against parliamentary control of government expenditure, which is a key feature of our democracy ever since Magna Carta. The question we now face is what should and can be done to restore this parliamentary control, while still allowing governments to respond to unforeseen and urgent circumstances? (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Contestability and Defence Advice

    Major defence decisions have long been made with a minimum amount of consultation. That is certainly true of the recent decision to give the French Naval Group a monopoly over the design and build of Australia’s next submarine. The way this decision was made seems to reflect a long-standing view that civilians are not competent and cannot be allowed to question military expertise. This post suggests this is not good enough as many relevant considerations in defence planning and acquisitions range well beyond military expertise. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Is it legitimate to pay for a postal plebiscite using the Advance to the Minister of Finance?

    This article questions the legitimacy of by-passing the need for Parliament’s approval by using the Advance to the Minister of Finance to pay for the Government’s postal plebiscite regarding attitudes to marriage equality for same-sex couples. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Electricity Prices.

    Electricity prices are a hot topic at present. Amidst the welter of claim and counter-claim as to what is the cause of higher electricity prices, there has been remarkably little use of the available evidence.   (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Why Blame Neo-Liberal Economics: A Response

    My previous article on Why Blame Neo-Liberal Economics, which argued that neo-liberal economics was not a main cause of increasing inequality, drew an unusually large and mostly critical response. While it is not feasible to respond to all the detailed points that my many critics have raised, in this response I propose to focus on two big issues: (i) what is neo-liberal economics and how does it influence policy outcomes, and (ii) why has inequality increased since the 1980s. I will also briefly discuss the policy implications that flow from my analysis. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Why Blame Neo-Liberal Economics?

    The claim is frequently made that neo-liberal economic policies are responsible for an increase in inequality. However, no supporting analysis is ever offered to sustain such claims; the obvious reason being because they reflect the author’s imagination and prejudices. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. An appreciation of Ian Marsh.

    Ian Marsh who passed away last week, was a highly original thinker with the genuine curiosity of a true intellectual.

    Ian liked to describe himself as one of the last ‘Deakinite Liberals’. This apt description reflected:

    1. Ian’s contributions to industrial policy, and especially how the state can help foster innovation, and
    2. Ian’s preference for a more consensual negotiated approach to policy making, such as applied during the first decade of the Australian parliament. 

    (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The British Election and Brexit

    Mrs. May called the election ostensibly to strengthen her mandate in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. Although she failed to strengthen her majority, it is doubtful if the election result will have any impact on the Brexit negotiations. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The 2017 Budget – A welcome change in direction. Part 1 of 2

    This Budget represents a welcome change in direction. Forget the politics, it deserves to be supported. This latest Coalition Budget finally reflects a realistic appraisal of Australia’s fiscal needs.  (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The 2017 Budget – A welcome change in direction. Part 2 of 2

    Budget repair was never going to be easy. That is one reason why it has taken so long with quite a few false starts. While some of the individual decisions in this Budget are debateable, overall the quality of the policy changes is good. Probably a greater concern is that some very significant policy issues haven’t been adequately addressed.  (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, 2016

    The Government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) released yesterday contains few changes and no surprises. The critical question is whether the path back to surplus is actually credible, especially given the many failed promises in the past. This post examines the government’s economic forecasts that underpin the budget numbers and whether the government’s approach to Budget repair is really viable.

    (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Donald Trump and the ANZUS Alliance – Quo vadis series.

    Quo vadis – Australian foreign policy and ANZUS.

    Summary. Dennis Richardson, the Secretary of the Defence Department, recently informed us that the ANZUS Alliance was ongoing, irrespective of who was President of the United States. Of course, this is true, but so what? What was the point of Richardson’s admonition, and what was he hoping to achieve? It would be most unfortunate If Richardson’s comment was a crude attempt to stop the much-needed debate in Australia about how we should adjust to changing circumstances in the Asia-Pacific region and develop a more independent foreign policy as advocated in numerous articles posted on this blog. To my mind it is now more important than ever for Australia to forge an independent foreign policy, given the uncertainties attaching to future American policies and priorities under President Trump. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Superannuation Tax Concessions

     

    Almost everyone agrees that Budget repair will only be possible if both the revenue side of the Budget is reviewed as well as the expenditure side. In that context, the tax concessions for superannuation have loomed as a prime target.

    Indeed, the Treasury Statement of Tax Expenditures shows that the annual cost of the present superannuation concessions is almost $30 billion and rising. Furthermore, it appears that 37 per cent of the total value of these concessions flows to people in the top decile of the income distribution. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The Future Outlook for Economic Reform

     

    In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins pronounced that we are ‘staring at the end of the era of economic reform. It has ended because it is seen by many voters as no more than a cover for advancing the interests of the rich and powerful at their expense.’

    Gittins then goes on to cite a lot of evidence that people are disaffected. Thus the size of the support for Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK, and to a lesser extent, the success of minor parties favouring more economic autarchy in Australia, all point to a threat to economic reforms aimed at deregulation and open markets. In addition, Gittins argues that the reform agenda has been captured by the supporters of small government bent on privatising those services that remain funded by government, often with what Gittins claims to be dubious results or worse.

    But according to Gittins, ‘the reformers’ greatest failure has been [to] … ignore their reforms’ effect on fairness’. Indeed, ‘at a time when technology and globalisation are shifting the distribution of market income in favour of the top few per cent of earners they’re pushing “reforms” to make the tax system less redistributive’.

    There is much that resonates in Gittins critique of the present reform agenda and why it is foundering. Nevertheless, I would like to offer a somewhat different perspective. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Taxation Reform

     

    Taxation reform is a continuing and topical issue. With a new government and the need for budget repair I am reposting below an earlier article in the policy series by Michael Keating.  John Menadue

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, is reputed to have said, ‘I like to pay taxes. In this way I buy civilisation.’ However, in contrast to Holmes’ noble ideal, too often today we hear people railing about the burden of taxation, as though it is in some way an unfortunate even illegitimate imposition upon ourselves, our economy, and our way of life.

    Lower taxation has been embraced by all political parties without any evidence that, given our already low starting point, less taxation will in fact lead to higher economic growth, let alone pay for itself. Indeed there is no evidence that the advanced economies with high growth rates of per capita income have lower levels of taxation. Nor have past cuts in our income tax led to faster growth, such as when the top income tax rate was reduced from 60 per cent to 45 per cent. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Improving employment participation.

    This is a repost of an article by Michael Keating last year which was part of the Fairness, Opportunity and Security policy series.  John Menadue

    The rate of employment participation and the productivity of those employees together determine the average per capita incomes of Australians, and therefore our living standards. In addition, being employed creates many of the social contacts and sense of self-esteem that are vital to our individual well-being. While arguably the best way to reduce inequality is to create the conditions where those disadvantaged people who are presently on the margin of the workforce get work, or in other cases get more work.

    In short increasing employment participation is most important if governments want to improve living standards, individual well-being, and equality. (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. The role and responsibilities of government.

     

    With the election of the new government, I have decided to repost several articles from our policy series that are still relevant.  One of these is by Michael Keating (below) on the role and responsibilities of government.  John Menadue

    Different possible conceptions of the responsibilities and roles of government are an important backdrop to the policies that will be examined later in this series of articles. The purpose of the present article is to show that despite the ideological debate between the extremes on the Right and the Left of the political spectrum, in practice:

    • The responsibilities of governments have changed little in the last thirty years
    • The roles have changed, but changes in regulatory regimes and the ‘marketisation’ of some services has enabled governments to better fulfil their continuing responsibilities. 

    (more…)

  • MICHAEL KEATING. Brexit – What does it mean?

     

    To the evident surprise of most of the pundits the UK has voted decisively to leave the European Union (EU). The question now is what follows next? (more…)

  • Michael Keating[i]. From Deficit to a Balanced Budget

    The issue of budget repair has not been addressed adequately in the current election campaign. See below an earlier article by Michael Keating on various revenue and expenditure items that need to be considered.  John Menadue

    A Report by the CEDA Balanced Budget Commission

    The Committee for Economic Development of Australia, which has a long history of independent public policy engagement, this week released an important report discussing the options for restoring the Australian Government Budget to balance. (more…)

  • Michael Keating. The 2016-17 Budget. Part 1 of 2.

    The Turnbull Government’s Budget for 2016-17 reflects an essentially ‘steady as she goes’ fiscal strategy. Not that that is a fault – indeed it can be a virtue, especially when matched against the give-aways in other previous pre-election budgets.

    Furthermore, we could not have realistically expected any other sort of Budget, given the extent to which the Government had narrowed its options before Budget day. In addition, a policy of matching every new spending initiative by a saving, is bound to produce minimal change; not least because cutting existing programs typically generates more opposition than the support for the new initiatives. But that said there are a few interesting and useful initiatives in this Budget.

    First, the changes to superannuation go further than just about anybody expected. While the big super funds will not welcome the consequent reduction in the funds that they have to manage, the changes should be widely supported by all but the top 4 per cent of superannuants, as better targeting the tax concessions and improving equity. In particular, I welcome the changes that should help women with broken work patterns. I think, however, that it would have been better to have reduced the threshold for the increased 30% tax on superannuation contributions to $180,000 rather than the proposed $250,000 per annum; the lower $180,000 threshold would then correspond with the threshold for the maximum income tax bracket.

    Second, the other useful initiative is the new approach to assisting young unemployed people make the transition into employment. This represents a marked improvement on the Abbott Government’s harassment of these young people, as if their unemployment was purely their own personal fault. Of course, there are risks that the new approach might be exploited by unscrupulous employers – and that has happened in the past – but this approach does seem worth trying. My main concern is that governments tend to spread the funding too thinly with labour market programs, in favour of assisting more people with the limited funds available, but at the risk of dropping the quality of the assistance to the point where it loses effectiveness.

    Nevertheless, overall, and in stark contrast to the 2014 Budget, this Budget does seem to generally pass the test of ‘fairness’. Perhaps the biggest future concern for fairness is that the Government clearly intends to increase the fees paid by university students to cover an average of 50% of course costs, instead of the present average of 40% of course costs. So far as I am aware there is no evidence that the private benefit from a university education is as high as 50% of the course costs, in which case this change will be unfair and it will very likely particularly impact on enrolments by disadvantaged students.

    I also think that it would have been fairer if the Government had kept the deficit repair levy in place which affects the people in the top tax bracket. After all the deficit is as far as ever from being repaired, and lower income people have been called upon to make bigger sacrifices to help repair the deficit in the past, and they are not now going to get any relief.

    The major criticism of this Budget, however, is that it does not really represent any further progress towards achieving fiscal repair and a return to surplus. On the relatively optimistic Budget projections we are being promised that a surplus will be achieved by 2021. But we have heard that one before, and many have ceased to believe such projections.

    Of course, some will say why should we worry? Certainly Australian Government debt is not high. Even at its projected peak in 2017-18 it will still represent only 19.2 per cent of GDP, much less than half the ratio for the US. And as for the rating agencies they lost all credibility after their incredibly optimistic ratings leading up to the Global Financial Crisis, and they still seem happy to give the US Government a AAA rating.

    Instead, the real concern about continuing budget deficits is that they have already greatly reduced Australia’s capacity to respond to the next external shock to our economy. Furthermore, these deficits are continuing even after twenty-five years of uninterrupted economic growth in Australia. While on the other hand, the risks of an external shock are if anything increasing as the world economy continues to be highly volatile and uncertain, with the outlook for China – our most important trading partner – being perhaps especially problematic.

    Frankly Australia needs a more ambitious medium-term approach to Budget Repair. The Government, however, continues to proclaim that this repair must come from more restraint on the expenditure side, and rules out increases in taxation; even if this is achieved by reductions in tax concessions, which really are an alternative form of expenditure.

    The reality is that on the evidence in this Budget, this Government is running out of options to further reduce expenditure. The Government has made great virtue of its claim that since the 2015-16 MYEFO all policy decisions have been more than fully offset, resulting in a small surplus over the four years of $1.7 billion. But this claim is itself suspect. The claimed surplus of $1.7 billion over the next four years is dependent on a projected net surplus from policy decisions of $5.9 billion in the final year, 2019-20. In the other years, policy decisions have in fact added to the budget deficit, including as much as $3 billion in the forthcoming financial year. While the likelihood of the net $5.9 billion saving being achieved in the last year is highly problematic.

    In addition, this budget is continuing to factor in $13 billion of previous expenditure savings and $1.5 billion worth of revenue increases that have not passed the Parliament. Maybe that will change after the election, and maybe it won’t. In fact, the likelihood seems to be that following the election even if the Government is returned it will not have a majority in the Senate, in which case it really needs a better fiscal strategy to repair the Budget.

    Instead of continuing to remove funding from a lot of small programs, with a loss of services – especially cultural and welfare services – the Government needs to refocus on achieving improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the big spending areas such as education, health, infrastructure and defence (as discussed in my article “Fixing the Budget – Part Two” and published in Fairness, Opportunity and Security). But even if the rate of growth in the Forward Estimates for these expenditure functions were reduced by as much as a feasible two percentage points per annum, it is doubtful that would be enough to restore a Budget surplus equivalent to around 1 per cent of GDP which is the medium term target.

    Furthermore, this pre-election Budget strongly suggests that this Government does not envisage that the majority of Australians actually want smaller government. Thus the overall Budget outcome according to the Government’s own figuring is that, even in four years’ time, in 2019-20, total receipts will still represent 25.1 per cent of GDP and payments will represent 25.2 per cent of GDP – both higher than under Labor’s last year in office in 2012-13 when they were 23.0 and 24.1 per cent respectively.

    As the Balanced Budget Commission of experts, appointed by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, found Australia has a revenue problem rather than just an expenditure problem. Furthermore, that Commission identified sufficient revenue options that had a reasonable chance of gaining majority support to play the major role in restoring the Budget to a satisfactory surplus (see my post 29 March 2016).

    In sum, sooner or later politicians will find that they have to talk about the revenue options if we want to maintain the present nature of our society and the social obligations that involves. And frankly the sooner that conversation begins the better. But unfortunately don’t expect that conversation to happen over the next two months of this election campaign.