Category: Griffith University Feed

By Professor Fabrizio Carmignani, Dean (Academic), Griffith Business School

The context of this federal budget is characterised by a favourable alignment of political and economic incentives. Given 2018 is an election year, the political incentive for the government is to strengthen its consensus by adopting “expansionary” budget measures such as lowering taxes and increasing expenditure (possibly targeted to key constituencies). At the same time, with the Australian economy still running below potential, these same expansionary measures will help stimulate aggregate demand and close the gap between actual and full-employment potential Gross Domestic Product.
This alignment of incentives means that the government does not have to choose between what is good for the economy and what is politically convenient. The only possible downside risk is that by engaging in expansionary measures, the government could compromise its fiscal consolidation strategy and hence disrupt the path towards a fiscal surplus. However, the estimates available from

See Full Post >>

By Professor David Grant, Pro Vice Chancellor (Business), Griffith Business School
Last year’s Federal Budget produced an unwelcome surprise for the major banks in the form of the Banking Levy. The cries of pain from those affected are now long since forgotten and any remaining sympathy for their situation has dissipated given what has been uncovered by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. With the Commission revealing what is seemingly a systemic problem in the industry, attention has now turned to whether and how the banks and other major financial institutions might be penalised and further regulated.
Against this background, the 2018 budget becomes all the more interesting; not because it does anything to single out the banks and others in the financial services sector for special (punitive) treatment as a response to their wrongdoings highlighted by the Commission, but rather because the budget is

See Full Post >>

By Associate Professor Albert Gabric, Director, Master of Environment Program, School of Environment and Science
Some indisputable facts about the Great Barrier Reef:

the world’s most significant coral reef ecosystem of immense biodiversity and global heritage value;
total economic, social and iconic value estimated in 2017 by Deloitte Access Economics at $56 billion;
under threat from multiple local stressors including, declining water quality, coastal zone development, and periodic invasions by the crown of thorn starfish;
compounding these local threats are a host of climate change related global problems, including bleaching and acidification and extreme weather events, viz. marine heat waves and cyclones.

These threats to the GBR have been the subject of several major government studies in the last 20 years, including the Industry Commission Report (2003) and Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (2017). The latter report stated:

The main source of the primary pollutants (nutrients, fine sediments and pesticides) from Great Barrier Reef catchments is diffuse source

See Full Post >>

By Professor Paul Burton, Director, Cities Research Institute
The problem with funding for cities is that it’s everywhere and nowhere.  A great range of spending measures have an impact in and on cities, whether in terms of direct spending on urban infrastructure or less directly on people who happen to live and work in cities, and that represents about 90 per cent of us.  But is that spending on public services and investment in infrastructure guided by a national policy for cities?
Unfortunately, no.
What passes for a national debate about the pros and cons of a ‘big Australia’ often touches on productivity and the changing dependency rate brought about by an aging population but the design and location of major urban infrastructure is by the far the most important element to consider.
Our major cities are struggling to cope with population growth as house prices move beyond the reach of new households, unless

See Full Post >>

By Professor Patrick O’Leary, Professor of Social Work, School of Human Services and Social Work
The 2018-19 Federal Budget has the opportunity to make a social impact on equity, safety and restitution to people disadvantaged structurally by violence. Over the past five or so years, there has been significant attention to ravages of violence and abuse, particularly on children and women across the life course.
The costs to society and restraint on human potential can never be underestimated. Rosie Battie was Australian of the Year in 2015 on the basis of her lived experience of domestic violence and her activism to bring about change. Former Chief of Defence David Morrison followed as Australian of the Year on the basis his efforts to challenge gendered violence and raising societies recognition of discrimination and sexism. December 2018 saw the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, after a watershed

See Full Post >>

By Dr Liam Wagner, Professor of Economics, Griffith Business School

The 2018 Federal Budget includes incentives for the energy sector with the further development of coal, oil and gas. However, a lack focus on oil security diverts energy policy debate away from the availability of our energy supplies and onto back-pocket affordability. Oil supplies barely rated a mention in the 2018 Budget and most notably there will be:

No additional funds to acquire the strategic storage of oil
Energy Security Board to conduct regular security assessments, which may include oil and gas.

While the geopolitical chess game grows in its complexity, South Korea, Iran and disputes in the South China Sea will become more important to everyday cost of living. Australia imports 75% of its petroleum needs and the vast majority of its refined gasoline and diesel.
Most notably, South Korea is our largest supplier of refined petroleum products, which travel via the South

See Full Post >>

By Dr Parvinder Kler, Program Director, Bachelor of Commerce, Griffith Business School
Long-term unemployment in Australia has increased since the Global Financial Crisis, ticking up from 14.8% of the total unemployed in January 2008 to 23.8% in March 2018 (Australian Bureau of Statistics). These figures mask (i) geographical variations whereby long-term unemployment is more pronounced in regional areas, (ii) age profiles, with older unemployed Australians finding it harder to gain employment, both of which are partially attributed to (iii) structural change within the Australian economy that has eschewed manufacturing and more labour-intensive jobs requiring less formal education to a more services-oriented economy that increasingly favours the educated and indeed female labour market entrants, not to mention the arrival of the so-called fourth industrial revolution driven by technology that has swept quickly through the global economy, creating havoc on jobs and employment.
Thus, governmental response needs to be multi-faceted. Re-training programs have been

See Full Post >>

By Professor Christine Smith, Portfolio Director, Research and HDR, Griffith Business School
Although the 2018 budget has been portrayed as one which seeks to shore up electoral support for the government in the context of an impending election, there is not a great deal of additional money being promised for expenditure programs in non-metropolitan Australia.
There is a continuation of the Building Better Regions Fund, the Stronger Communities Program, the Roads to Recovery Program, the Black Spots Program, the Bridges Renewal Program and the National Highway Upgrade Program.  However, there are no major increases in funding for these programs in the 2018-19 financial year.
There have been a number of major infrastructure projects announced and these will be very much welcome in the affected regions; however, the majority of the big-ticket items in this area are targeted at congestion-busting in greater metropolitan regions.
The most significant new item is the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative

See Full Post >>

By Professor Andrew O’Neil, Dean (Research), Griffith Business School
The 2018 Federal Budget endorses another positive year of outlays for the Defence portfolio and security more broadly. The Defence Portfolio Budget Statement confirms that the Turnbull Government has authorised growth in real terms, which equates to 1.9% of GDP.
The Abbott Government’s commitment in 2014 to endorse an expenditure target in the Defence portfolio of at least 2% of GDP per annum by 2020-21 has meant this area of the budget has effectively been ring-fenced from cuts. The ambitious strategic guidance laid out in the 2016 Defence White Paper (DWP), coupled with signs of a deteriorating security environment in Asia, has reinforced the logic of this in the eyes of senior policy makers, and it’s unlikely this would change in the event a Labor Government was elected.
“Australia currently outlays around $35 billion per year on Defence.”
As in previous years, the primary outlays

See Full Post >>

With the 2018-19 Federal Budget freshly released, Griffith University asked some of its foremost experts about a range of crucial social and political issues to offer their analysis of the shape Treasurer Scott Morrison’s ledger has taken.
See below for a summary of key cornerstones of this year’s Budget, and use the links to read more commentary from our academics.
Dr Andreas Chai – Overview
1999 was a great year to be alive in Australia. Apart from Prince hitting the airwaves again, Powderfinger were still playing and topped the Hottest 100, the first Matrix movie was released and you could still get a flat white for under three dollars. In terms of the Federal Budget, 1999 marked the start of a remarkable period in which the Federal Budget accumulated approximately $90 billion dollars between 1999-2008.
2018 is starting to look a lot like 1999, at least in terms of international commodity prices. While global

See Full Post >>