Last week's Reserve Bank decision to cut the cash rate to a record low 1.75 per cent on the back of a quarter of consumer price deflation is a symptom of a deeper malaise afflicting the global economy as it spreads to Australia. Whichever party wins the federal election will face a grim reality – it will be governing in an era of weak global growth that is certain to drag down the Australian economy. The global economy has failed to achieve a sustainable recovery from the Great Recession of 2009. Worse, an array of formidable forces is preventing any prospect of a recovery in the foreseeable future. A profound shift in federal government policy-making will be needed if Australia is to be shielded from the most severe effects of global economic torpor.
Read moreThe election campaign needs an honest economic foundation
Last week's budget is like no other budget – it is a plan. We know that because the Treasurer mentioned the word plan 29 times in his 30-minute budget speech. But like its predecessors, the 2016 budget provides no credible path back to surplus. Its rosy assumptions about commodity prices, inflation, productivity growth and economic growth have been selected to position a surplus as a shimmering light, like the Hotel California, on a dark desert highway of ongoing deficits.
Read moreCut Deficit, Win The Election
In this election year the Government has taken a journey on tax reform that has led it up one dry gully after another. Meanwhile, the Opposition has set the policy agenda. Yet neither tax reform nor extra spending on health and education – as worthy as they are – will determine the election outcome. Rather, Australia’s debt trajectory under the two parties will: rising government debt will be the number one issue in the election campaign.
Read moreReforming Budget Still Possible
Tax reform is out but the government could still reform by issuing Infrastructure bonds and even splitting the budget into two parts.
Read moreStop Making Promises You Can't Keep
Governments which win while promising not to do unpopular things frustrate themselves, and voters too.
Read moreThe case against the effects test
If Barnaby Joyce supports an effects test you know it's anti-competitive. Small-business organisations also support the government's effects test because they want protection from competition. That's understandable from their perspective. But the objective of competition law should be to benefit consumers by protecting competition – not competitors.
Read moreWe don't need no education
You can tell an airline is in trouble when its management says it can't afford to buy a fleet of modern new jets that are more fuel efficient and comfortable for passengers. The company will quickly lose competitiveness against forward-looking rivals that are willing to invest money to make money. So it is with education. Australians are being told the federal government cannot afford the cost of a needs-based school funding system and of a demand-driven higher education system – ensuring as a nation we lose competitiveness against our forward-looking rivals in Asia and beyond. Yet the government seems willing to spare no expense in keeping almost all existing tax shelters wide open.
Read moreMalcolm Turnbull can save by cutting John Howard's middle-class welfare state
In embarking upon the twin tasks of tax reform and budget repair, the Turnbull government’s insistence that tax revenue cannot rise from its current proportion of GDP has placed it into a straightjacket from which there is no escape. In a clash between ideology and the laws of arithmetic, the latter will win every time.
Read moreDon't waste time on tax cuts
Day by day, political reality is ambushing the great tax debate of 2016. It will inexorably herd the government into a place where for policy reasons it should have been all along – sealing off holes in the income tax base to help fund reductions in the budget’s structural deficit without cutting social programs to pieces.
Read moreA case for a royal commission into tax avoidance
In the post-war era, Australia has held 49 royal commissions, including one into Aboriginal land rights, two into drugs, several into our national security agencies, five into trade unions and none into tax avoidance – well, not a planned one, anyway. One of the five trade union royal commissions – into the Painters and Dockers Union in the early 1980s – uncovered rampant tax avoidance implemented through the notorious bottom of the harbour schemes. More than three decades later, community trust in the tax system has again broken down.
Read moreEffects test is all about the politics
The guiding principle should be that competition is good and more competition is better. For anyone wanting to participate in that debate, here's a piece of gratuitous advice from a former MP: conduct it without seeking to anticipate which way the cabinet and Senate might jump and leave the politics to the politicians.
Read moreEconomic Growth: Disruptive Technologies Can Boost Productivity
Evidence is mounting to support the proposition that the global economy has entered a period of secular stagnation.
Read moreA Christmas public policy wishlist for Australia
Most Australians sitting down to Christmas dinner will reflect that since the change of Prime Minister in September Australia has taken a turn for the better.
Read morePerfect taxes exist only in Rainbow Land
Ideal tax reforms are easy to talk about but voters will be suspicious of government offers of compensation.
Read moreGST's mystical powers in tax reform package overrated
In optimisation theory, it's called a non-feasible solution space: the tax reform debate is imposing so many binding constraints on an acceptable package that none are achievable.
Read moreThe big switch to electric cars
Global pollution targets can't be met without big use of electric vehicles. But they will need substantial incentives to get to that point.
Read moreAustralia at economic crossroad in a choice between smooth or bumpy transition
When a resource-rich country like Australia adjusts to the end of a once-in-a-century mining boom, it can choose either a smooth or a bumpy path. Australia has a foot on both paths. Soon we must choose between them.
Read moreIt's just not PC to question trade deals
In recent public discourse about trade agreements the initials PC have taken on dual meanings – political correctness and the Productivity Commission. It is simply not politically correct these days to criticise any aspect of a trade agreement. Anyone with the temerity to question a clause in an agreement is branded anti-trade or worse, a racist peddling xenophobia
Read moreMalcolm Turnbull gets the National Reform Summit band back together
By inviting the key participants in the National Reform Summit to a meeting on Thursday, Turnbull is signaling a new philosophical approach to the task of government.
Read moreA way through on the China-Australia FTA
Economic Note 19
Background
Negotiations for a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) began in 2005. In 2012, as Australia’s Trade Minister, I judged that after 17 rounds of negotiations no outcome was in sight. I proposed to the Chinese side that instead of including every conceivable matter in the agreement we conclude a foundational agreement on which the two countries could build over time. The Chinese side welcomed this new approach and negotiations began on the foundational agreement. The incoming Coalition Government followed this path and successfully concluded ChAFTA.
The agreement
ChAFTA was announced on 17 June 2015. Trade Minister Andrew Robb did a very good job in expanding the scope of the agreement and in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. The agreement greatly reduces China’s tariffs on imports of Australian agricultural produce and offers tangible benefits to the financial services sector and other service industries.
Controversially, ChAFTA eases labour market testing requirements. Labour market testing involves assessing whether Australian workers are available to perform the jobs before issuing work visas to foreign nationals.
Labour market testing under ChAFTA
The Government claims labour market testing is mandatory under the agreement: “There is no possibility of placing foreigners in Australian jobs without labour market testing.”[1] This is incorrect.
· Chapter 10 of ChAFTA removes the Australian Government’s ability to apply labour market testing to 457 visas that currently are subject to such testing, including for nurses, engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders and carpenters.
· In a Memorandum of Understanding, the minimum size of projects to which Investment Facilitation Agreements (IFAs) for 457 visas apply is set at $150 million, compared with $2 billion for Enterprise Migration Agreements (EMAs). Whereas the EMAs related to major resource projects, the IFAs extend to food and agribusiness, resources and energy, transport, telecommunications, power supply and generation, the environment and tourism.
While the Immigration Department can apply labour market testing at the stage of issuing work visas under IFAs, it has the discretion to waive this requirement, as acknowledged by the Department itself.[2] However, the Immigration Minister can remove the Department’s discretion by stipulating in the IFA approval that labour market testing shall apply.
The solution: amending the migration regulations
A simple solution is available: amend the relevant regulation of the Migration Act to make labour market testing mandatory for the lower-skill 457 visa categories in work agreements. Since the Government claims labour market testing is already mandatory, this proposed amendment would simply give effect to stated Government policy. The change would cover all lower-skilled 457 visa categories associated with work agreements, not only those related to ChAFTA.
The amendment would be to Migration Regulation 2.72AA dealing with labour market testing and would add work agreements to that regulation.
Advantages of the proposed solution
The proposed simple amendment to the Migration regulations would:
· Give effect to the Government’s stated policy;
· Require no amendment to or renegotiation of ChAFTA;
· Avoid any delay in the passage of the enabling legislation for ChAFTA; and
· Apply on a non-discriminatory basis to all countries.
Conclusion
A simple, one-line amendment to the relevant migration regulation could offer a resolution enabling the early passage of the legislation for the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
[1] Prime Minister Abbott, Parliamentary motion on ChAFTA, 8 September 2015.
[2] See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/china-free-trade-agreement-cost-australian-jobs-fact-check/6653214 See also https://theconversation.com/factcheck-could-the-china-australia-fta-lock-out-australian-workers-43470