The Centre for Independent Studies Research Collection

The Bondi Beach attack of 14 December 2025 forced a reckoning that many Australians had been quietly avoiding. Antisemitism was not, it turned out, a relic of European history or a pathology confined to the political fringes. It was here, active and emboldened. The question that followed — “what must we do about it?” — has since animated parliamentary inquiries, legislative proposals, and now a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion led by former High Court Justice Virginia Bell. The Centre for Independent Studies has been engaged through the antisemitism research program led by the Culture, Prosperity and Civil Society program. The CIS’s work on antisemitism has been driven by the conviction that the health of a liberal democracy depends less on the architecture of its laws than on the vitality of its civil society. This conviction runs through our most recent work on institutional resilience under conditions of moral and political stress, and it connects this project to the Centre’s civic pluralism series – Fractured Loyalties, The Ties That Bind, and Drawing the Line – each of which has explored the conditions under which pluralist societies hold together. Antisemitism functions as a diagnostic. It is not merely an offence to be regulated or managed; rather, it is a signal of deeper institutional failure and a warning that the mediating structures once capable of transmitting civic norms across generations have been weakened, captured, or hollowed from within. Dimitri Burshtein’s new report is a significant contribution to this ongoing work. Burshtein takes that diagnosis seriously and develops it with rigour and force. His argument is, at its core, Burkean: the informal sanctions of a healthy civil society are more powerful, and more durable, than any legislative remedy the state can devise. In making his case, Burshtein draws on comparative evidence from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to demonstrate that the demand for more hate speech law is itself a symptom of institutional failure rather than a remedy for it. When communities lose the capacity to enforce shared norms, they reach for the state. But the state is ill-equipped to cultivate the virtues it has displaced. This does not mean legal indifference. Violence, incitement and intimidation must be prosecuted firmly, a point about which Burshtein is clear. What his report resists, rightly, is the conceit that moral and cultural problems can be resolved by what Burshtein calls the ‘legislative fantasy’. The report also asks harder questions about institutional capture — in universities, the arts, the legal profession and the media — that deserve far greater scrutiny than they have received. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central ones. If the commanding heights of Australian cultural life have been systematically oriented against our liberal democratic inheritance, then the challenge of antisemitism cannot be separated from the broader challenge of civic renewal. That renewal is the real work before us. In his new report, Dimitri Burshtein helps make the case for why. To read the paper, go to www.cis.org.au

Read the paper at www.cis.org.au  Executive Summary. This paper is an expanded version of a submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Operation of the Capital Gains Tax Discount. The author gave evidence to the Committee at a hearing on 25 February, 2026. Although there is much public discussion of the capital gains tax discount, there is no proposal from government on the table for us to respond to — only rumours and speculation — so our comments are broad-ranging and not confined to housing. As well as the submission, there have been three relevant research publications on CGT issued by the CIS in 2009, 2015 and 2019. Perusal of those publications will show that we do not think much of proposals to reduce the CGT discount. If three publications looks like an obsession, we have had a lot to say on the issue because calls for the discount to be cut or eliminated have been a persistent theme of tax policy debate ever since the defeat of the Howard government, which put the 50% discount in place in 1999. Along with superannuation concessions and negative gearing, the discount has been a favourite whipping boy. Cutting the discount is variously seen as a key plank of tax reform, a revenue-raising measure, the key to lowering house prices, and a solution to intergenerational and vertical inequality. Our submission argues that it is none of those things, or at least not in significant measure, and that the 50% discount is justified. In brief, we make the following points: The principle of taxing nominal capital gains at lower rates than ordinary income is unexceptional and was recognised in Australia’s first model of CGT in 1985. The 50% discount in 1999 replaced what was essentially a different form of discount in the 1985 model based on indexing the cost base of assets to CPI inflation combined with an averaging scheme that limited the effect of lumpy capital gains pushing taxpayers into higher tax brackets. The pre-1999 arrangements produced a variable discount, but for average rates of return on assets and inflation rates and various asset holding periods it can be demonstrated that the effective discount often fell in the 30–45% range — and that is leaving aside the additional benefit of averaging. The point is that the 50% discount is not much more generous than the average result of the policy it replaced. To those who say the 50% discount over-compensates for inflation, in some cases it does and in some it compensates or even under-compensates, but the key point is that it was never intended solely to compensate for inflation. It was meant to be a general incentive for saving and investment, which is needed now more than ever in view of stagnant productivity. On housing, several researchers have estimated that cutting the CGT discount would reduce house prices by a few per cent while increasing rents by a similar amount. These effects are tiny relative to other influences on prices and rents. CGT affects much more in the investment world than housing, so housing considerations should not drive CGT policy. The claimed revenue costs of the discount vastly overstate the revenue that could be gained from any reasonable change. The claimed distribution of that revenue cost across income deciles is meaningless. Cutting the CGT discount would barely move the dial on income and wealth distribution. Changing the CGT discount on its own is not tax reform, but it could have a place in broad tax reform that substantially reduces marginal rates and reduces the large disparities in the tax treatment of different forms of saving. However, nobody in government is talking about that. The key conclusion is that there is a very strong case for some form of tax concession for capital gains relative to full marginal rates. This concession should go beyond simply allowing for inflation. While various structures are possible to satisfy this condition, the current 50% discount (and one-third discount for superannuation funds) has the advantage of being simple and well understood. It has been the basis for investment decisions over the past 26 years and is therefore entrenched in the accumulated stock of investments. There is no strong case for changing it. Read the paper at www.cis.org.au 

Immigration and housing affordability have become politically inseparable in contemporary Australia. With rents high, home ownership increasingly out of reach, and housing supply persistently undershooting official targets, it is tempting to conclude that fewer migrants would mean lower prices. That argument has intuitive appeal. More people require more homes. In tightly-constrained markets, additional demand pushes up rents and prices. But intuition is not policy. The evidence suggests a more nuanced reality: migration increases housing demand, yet whether that demand translates into sustained price pressure depends fundamentally on the responsiveness of supply. Where planning systems restrict land use, delay approvals, and cap density, even modest demand shocks quickly become price shocks. Where supply is flexible and institutions allow building to respond, the long-term affordability effects are far smaller — and can even be offset by stronger economic and housing growth. This paper argues that Australia’s housing crisis is primarily a supply failure, not simply a headcount problem.  It examines international and Australian evidence on migration and housing markets, including research on zoning restrictions, supply elasticity, and labour bottlenecks in construction. It also considers the role of skilled migration in strengthening the productive capacity of the economy — particularly in the very occupations needed to design, approve and build more homes. The central point is straightforward. Australia does not face a binary choice between skilled migration and affordable housing. It faces a policy choice between maintaining restrictive land-use systems that convert growth into scarcity, or reforming those systems so that population growth can be absorbed through construction rather than capitalised into higher prices. In short, the housing shortage is not an inevitable consequence of migration. It is the predictable result of constrained supply. The choice is not ‘immigration or affordability’In Australia today, mass immigration is a political non-starter partly because many voters see the increased cost of housing as one of the country’s most urgent cost-of-living problems. A more plausible approach to immigration is narrower and more practical: a focused intake of skilled migrants who can help Australia innovate, raise productivity, and fill capability gaps without automatically worsening housing shortages. True, a growing population raises housing demand, but the size of the cost effect depends on whether supply can respond. Skilled migrants can strengthen the supply side of the economy, including the people and systems needed to approve, design, and build more homes. In that sense, the real choice should not be ‘immigration or affordability’.  It should be whether Australia combines skilled immigration with faster homebuilding and better land-use rules. Australia’s housing shortage and the concomitant affordability decline is real, as Sam Fox and I noted in a recent CIS report. But it does not follow that more skilled immigration must make matters worse. The key word is must. In a city where housing supply is fixed, adding more people pushes up rents and prices. In a city where supply can expand, the same population growth can be absorbed with much smaller price effects; especially over time. The research supports both parts of that claim. The argument is not that demand disappears. The argument is that policy and supply response decide whether demand becomes a lasting affordability problem.Start with the point that critics get right. Albert Saiz’s well-known U.S. study finds that immigration inflows raise local rents and housing values in destination cities, with an estimated effect of about 1% on rents and values for an inflow equal to 1% of a city’s population. That is a real demand effect that no serious account of the housing problem should deny. But Saiz’s broader work shows that housing supply differs sharply across cities because of geography and regulation. In plain language, some places can build — but don’t. If a city’s house building program is constrained by planning rules, height limits, approval delays, and political veto points, then any demand shock, including migration, turns into a price shock faster. If supply is flexible, more of the shock turns into construction. Read the whole paper at www.cis.org.au  

In the second half of the twentieth century, Australia’s cheap, reliable electricity attracted heavy industry to our shores. By 1990, power-hungry copper, aluminium, lead, manganese and zinc smelters had popped up in each of the eastern states that would one day form the National Electricity Market (NEM). As Matthew Warren, former chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, the Energy Supply Association of Australia and the Clean Energy Council, describes the Australian grid: In 2000, the coal and gas used were abundant and cheap, and the hydro was provided by rainfall. It was by international standards, about as cheap and reliable an electricity system as you could build. Its brutal simplicity, reliability and low cost had attracted global industries including aluminium and other processors. These were ‘the good old days’ of cheap and reliable electricity in Australia. But trouble has been brewing in Australia’s smelting paradise over the last two decades, as rising energy prices, carbon charges and foreign competition have taken their toll. These forces have eroded the comparative advantage Australia once enjoyed, shuttering existing industries and dissuading investors from building new ones. Government promises of a ‘renewable energy superpower’ Future Made in Australia built on intermittent renewables, batteries and hydrogen are looking increasingly implausible. Read the paper here:  https://www.cis.org.au/publication/future-no-longer-made-in-australia-how-we-lost-our-low-cost-electricity-advantage/ 

Recent Australian laws risk undermining fundamental freedoms and weakening the principles that underpin a democratic society. In The Rule of Law, Excessive Regulation and Free Speech, Dr Paul M Taylor argues that government responses to challenges such as misinformation, online harms, privacy and hate speech are increasingly disproportionate and, in some cases, ineffective. “While governments are right and bound to protect citizens from genuine harm, measures that curtail political expression, encourage censorship, or prioritise one right over another threaten the very principles of accountability and fairness that the rule of law is designed to safeguard,” Dr Taylor says. The paper highlights several recent developments, including: The proposed misinformation bills, which would have incentivised excessive censorship without adequate safeguards for free expression. The expansion of the eSafety Commissioner’s powers, raising concerns about transparency, accountability and overreach. The rushed passage of privacy and social media legislation, with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny. The introduction of criminal hate speech provisions that lower the threshold for liability and remove long-standing protections for legitimate public debate. According to Dr Taylor, these examples suggest that governments may be adopting an increasingly protective stance that risks subordinating individual freedoms to collective interests. He calls for a renewed commitment to rule of law principles: transparency, proportionality, accountability, and full respect for fundamental human rights. “The rule of law is meant to be more than just theoretical,” Dr Taylor says. “It ensures that power is exercised fairly and responsibly, that laws are clear and predictable, and that rights are properly protected for all. If these principles are weakened, democracy itself is diminished.” The paper concludes with a call to reassert the rule of law in Australian governance, warning that without vigilance and cultural commitment, recent trends may erode freedoms that citizens have long relied upon. Dr Paul Taylor is an Honorary Senior Lecturer in the T. C. Beirne School of Law, and Fellow of the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law; Adjunct Professor at the School of Law, The University of Notre Dame Australia; and Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Australia’s extraordinary modern prosperity, built on the supply-side economic liberalisation of the 1980s and 1990s and boosted by the China-fuelled resources boom, is being squandered. In Our Prosperity is Slipping Away: Submission to Economic Reform Roundtable, Michael Stutchbury writes that urgent reform is needed to stop the slump. “History shows such periods of relative affluence are rare and temporary, as seen in the 1850s–80s, early 1950s and late 1960s–early 1970s,” Stutchbury says. “Australia’s most recent peak in prosperity occurred in 2011–12 and has been in decline ever since.    “Rather than taking the policy decisions necessary to sustain growth, the political process has descended into a contest over redistributing shrinking wealth.   “The Reserve Bank’s downgrading of productivity forecasts confirms an unacceptable low-growth future.”  The paper urges the Economic Reform Roundtable to reject this trajectory and commit to making Australia “an aspirational and enterprise-driven high-growth nation bursting with investment opportunities”.   It argues that this means reinstating credible fiscal rules, restraining government spending, and undertaking genuine tax reform — beginning with indexing personal income tax scales to curb bracket creep  “The tax system is weighing on the economy but piecemeal 'tax reform' should not become a mechanism to validate the increase in the size of government that already has contributed to declining absolute productivity,” Stutchbury says.  Housing shortages, caused by restrictive zoning and planning laws, must be addressed alongside a broader removal of “thickets of regulation” that stifle business dynamism. Education reform is also critical to reverse declining literacy, numeracy, and lifetime earnings.  Finally, energy policy must restore Australia’s low-cost advantage, reversing trends that have driven up prices, undermined competitiveness, and fueled costly protectionism.  Michael Stutchbury is Executive Director of the Centre for Independent Studies.  #auspol #economics 

For all references and graphs, read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-productivity-problem-australias-growth-slump-is-undermining-prosperity/  Key Findings: Labour productivity growth has halved, sliding from 2.4% a year in the late 1990s to just 1.2% in recent years. Australia is falling further behind the United States, with the productivity gap now wider than it was in the early 2000s. Business investment – a driver of growth – is subdued, starving firms of the latest technology and techniques needed to compete globally. Cox outlines that even small, sustained improvements in productivity compound into large gains. Conversely, persistently slow growth risks turning policy development by political parties into a zero-sum scramble for slices of a shrinking pie, undermining social cohesion and democratic norms. The paper identifies a triple threat: Dwindling innovation diffusion, in which Australian firms are adopting new ideas more slowly than global leaders. Rising regulatory burden, with Commonwealth legislation now containing 356,198 restrictive provisions, up 80% since 2005. Cultural change, with surveys revealing fewer Australians now see work as “very important”, while support for environmental protection over economic growth has risen. Cox calls for a new wave of micro-economic reform, smarter regulation that does not stifle experimentation, and a renewed national conversation about the values that underpin innovation. “Prosperity is not automatic,” Cox concludes. “It requires deliberate choices: investment in skills, encouragement of risk-taking, and institutions that reward creativity rather than rent-seeking.” “The prize is a richer, fairer and more resilient Australia.” A subsequent paper by Cox, which proposes options — including a new initiative — to best boost productivity growth rates to promote greater prosperity, will be published by CIS on Thursday, August 14. Jim Cox is a prominent economist and former Deputy Chair and board member of the Australian Energy Regulator, and former chief executive of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. He has held positions with the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Social Policy Secretariat of the Department of Social Security.

Australia’s government expenditure has surged to a post-war high (except for the pandemic-era spike) of 38–39% of GDP, up from 34–35% before the 2008 global financial crisis, a new Centre for Independent Studies paper outlines.   In Leviathan on the Rampage: Government spending growth a threat to Australia’s economic future, economist Robert Carling warns that federal spending alone has climbed from 24–25% to 27.6% of GDP since 2012–13, fueled by a culture of entitlement and relentless program expansion in social services, defence and debt interest.   Key Findings Real per capita federal spending has risen 1.8% on average annually since 2012–13, far exceeding Australia’s 0.5% productivity growth and more than double real GDP growth. A dozen fast-growing programs — including the NDIS, aged care, defence, schools, Medicare and child care — account for 63% of the increase in federal own-purpose spending in that period and now represent around half of such spending. Public debt interest is projected to rise 9.5% a year for the next decade, as higher rates refinance pandemic-era borrowing and ongoing deficits push debt up further. Off-budget ‘investments’ — from student loans to energy transition funds — add a further $104 billion in hidden spending over five years.   Drawing on Bastiat’s warning that “the state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else”, Carling argues Australia has crossed a tipping point.   “More than half of voters now rely on government for most of their income — through wages, benefits or subsidies — creating a formidable bloc against restraint,” he says.   “The honeymoon of debt-funded largesse is over. Without a determined reset of expectations, Australia risks sliding into a European-style welfare state — slower growth, higher taxes and a culture where ‘voting for a living’ replaces ‘working for a living’.”   Carling urges immediate expenditure reform, not just tax tinkering. His reform menu includes:  Rolling reviews of major programs to cut waste and lift effectiveness. Fiscal rules to cap per-capita spending growth below GDP growth. Freeze public-service numbers and shift from consultants to permanent staff. Shelve new spending ideas — including universal child care and expanded Medicare dental cover. Return to structural surplus by 2029–30, echoing successful consolidations of the 1980s and 1990s.   Robert Carling is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and a former World Bank, IMF and federal and state Treasury economist. #auspol #economics #australiannews 

A new Centre for Independent Studies paper underlines the importance of developing early number sense in children, with advice for both parents and teachers, as well as invaluable exercises. In  Early Numbers, Big Ideas. Fostering Number Sense in Young Children, authors Dr Nancy C. Jordan and Dr Nancy Dyson say children's trajectories in mathematics are shaped early. and the development of early number sense will reap benefits in later schooling and adult life.  “Foundational mathematical knowledge at school entry is a strong and consistent predictor of later achievement, with effects that persist through primary and even secondary schooling,” Dr Jordan says. “Children who begin school with low numeracy skills are significantly more likely to continue struggling with mathematics across their schooling years, and early gaps in understanding tend to widen over time if left unaddressed,” she says. “All the evidence reinforces the need to ensure all children get off to a strong start in developing key foundational skills — particularly number sense — during the early years of schooling.” Number sense involves three key strands that work together — knowledge of numbers, understanding relationships between numbers, and grasping elements of number operations. Research shows that teaching all three together helps make explicit the connections between these three strands, especially for children who struggle with number sense. “Making connections between these three strands is essential for a firm foundation of number sense, starting with smaller numbers and visual representation,” Dr Jordan says. “Fluency rooted in number sense is the goal. “Instruction for the development of number sense should also use linear representations of number whenever possible to emphasise the linear nature of numbers and prepare children to think about numbers on the number line. “By the time children reach Foundation or Year One, many can see that numbers follow a linear pattern, with each number being exactly one more than the previous one.  This understanding lays the foundation for using the visual number line, a critical tool for organising and comparing all real numbers.” Dr Jordan and Dr Dyson’s paper is structured in three parts. The first section defines number sense and outlines its significance in early cognitive and mathematical development. The second section explores how difficulties with number sense arise, how they can be identified through effective early screening, and why timely identification is essential. The final section presents practical, evidence-based instructional strategies and classroom routines that educators can use to support number sense development in all learners.   Dr Nancy C. Jordan  the Dean Family Endowed Chair and Professor of Education at the University of Delaware. Her research centres on how children learn mathematics and why many struggle, particularly in early and middle childhood. Prof Jordan authored numerous highly cited articles, with recent work appearing in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Developmental Psychology, and the Journal of Research on Mathematics Education, among others. Dr Nancy Dyson is a research associate at the University of Delaware where she received her doctorate, studying under Dr Nancy Jordan and Dr James Hiebert. The focus of her research is developing and testing instructional approaches and curricula for students who struggle with mathematics. She has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals and has made numerous conference presentations on this topic.

The re-elected government faces a long list of economic challenges, some of them created or exacerbated in its first term. This CIS review discusses some of the major challenges: budget repair; fiscal reform; productivity growth; and housing. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/post-election-economic-challenges/  Subscribe to all our shows: Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/ #auspol #news #economics 

Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-ties-that-bind-reconciling-value-pluralism-and-national-identity-in-australia/  Executive summary Australia’s multicultural democracy is under increasing pressure, not only from economic uncertainty but from the moral and cultural disagreements that have intensified in recent years. Deep cultural and moral diversity presents both remarkable opportunities and profound challenges for our national identity. This report explores whether value pluralism — the recognition that people will continue to hold fundamentally different moral, religious, and cultural beliefs — is compatible with a cohesive national identity in a liberal democracy. It argues that Australia’s future cohesion depends not on suppressing disagreement, but on managing it fairly through civic institutions, democratic procedures and mutual restraint. This entails rethinking national identity in light of enduring moral diversity so cultural differences do not threaten social harmony. Drawing on the political theory of value pluralism developed by Isaiah Berlin, John Gray and others, the report argues that civic nationalism — not ethnic or cultural nationalism – offers the best foundation for Australian identity. This model does not require moral consensus, but depends on shared political commitments: to the rule of law, democratic accountability, and the peaceful resolution of disagreement. It is a model that offers a robust framework for managing disagreement in a pluralist society. The report draws a careful distinction between non-negotiable limits (such as prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and ritual violence) and morally contested ‘grey zones’ where rights and values may conflict. These include religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws, parental refusal of child vaccinations, and ritual slaughter. It argues that these contested areas require structured negotiation, not moral coercion, and that pluralism must be bounded by core liberal principles, including human dignity and equal protection under the law. Addressing these challenges demands more than rule-setting; it requires a civic culture capable of managing moral disagreement with fairness and refrainment. To strengthen national cohesion in a context of deep moral diversity, the report proposes five exploratory policy directions: Reform civic education to equip citizens for principled disagreement and deliberation. Revise the citizenship test to reflect shared civic institutions rather than narrow cultural values. Encourage voluntary intercultural dialogue, especially in communities under pressure. Design conflict-resolution mechanisms that defuse moral clashes before they escalate. Commission longitudinal research on public attitudes and pluralism’s institutional performance. Rather than calling for renewed consensus around fixed national values, the report calls for a civic culture capable of managing deep diversity. It argues that Australia’s identity must be grounded not in sameness, but in the institutions and norms that allow citizens to live together amid enduring difference. Only by managing difference fairly can Australia protect its democracy, strengthen social trust and build a national identity embracing a new understanding of ‘patriotism’ fit for the challenges of the 21st century. In "Rooftop Solar: Paradise Lost," Zoe Hilton, Michael Wu, and Aidan Morrison examine the unintended consequences of Australia's rooftop solar boom. They argue that while rooftop solar has been promoted as a means to lower electricity bills and support the environment, it has inadvertently led to increased costs for non-solar customers. The paper analyzes the financial dynamics of rooftop solar adoption, highlighting how current tariff structures result in cross-subsidies from non-solar to solar customers. It also discusses the implications for energy equity and suggests potential reforms to address these disparities. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-ties-that-bind-reconciling-value-pluralism-and-national-identity-in-australia/  Audio Produced by: Randall Evans Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/

The proposed tax on superannuation balances exceeding $3 million is poorly designed, economically damaging, and sets a dangerous precedent by taxing unrealised capital gains, a Centre for Independent Studies paper outlines. In How to Vandalise Savings: the New Super Tax, economist Robert Carling delivers a scathing critique of the tax, calling for the scheme to be shelved or substantially revised and deferred to a later start date than 1 July 2025. This analysis arrives at a critical juncture as the re-elected Labor government prepares to reintroduce legislation that had previously stalled before the May 2025 election. While the tax is marketed as affecting only a small number of high-balance super accounts, the paper makes clear that its impact will widen rapidly and disproportionately affect those who have saved prudently under previous rules. The new tax is often described as doubling the existing tax — which would be severe in itself — but in fact it is more than a doubling. The existing tax allows for a one-third discount of capital gains from longer held assets, which reduces the effective tax rate to 10%. This discount will not be available under the new tax. The treatment of dividend franking credits also means that tax payable will more than double on balances above $3 million. “Far from being the ‘modest change’ described by the government, this tax represents a radical shift with long-term implications for retirement planning, capital markets, and the integrity of the tax system,” Carling warns. “Doubling a rate of tax is anything but modest.” “The new tax being applied to unrealised gains will distort investment behaviour, increase compliance costs, and undermine confidence in superannuation as a long-term savings vehicle.” Carling points out that the lack of indexation for the $3m threshold is a time bomb for workers. “The threshold is not indexed to inflation or wages, meaning more Australians will be caught over time as balances naturally grow,” Carling says. “Even indexing to the CPI would not be enough, because average CPI-adjusted balances will grow as real incomes grow.” “This design flaw echoes the bracket creep issue in income tax and suggests a stealthy revenue grab.” The paper highlights the near-impossible task of applying “broadly equivalent” treatment to unfunded public sector pensions, arguing it could result in unfair double taxation and legal confusion. Carling points out that the tax is also likely to drive investors away from growth and innovation-focused assets — such as small businesses and start-ups — towards more conservative, liquid holdings, “with long-term costs to economic productivity”. “Further, despite the significance of the tax, the government has provided little in the way of theoretical justification, relying instead on administrative convenience and political rhetoric,” he says. “Making such a far-reaching change out of administrative convenience is like the tail wagging the dog.” Recommendations Carling urges the government to delay the implementation date by at least 12 months and undertake a full review of the policy design – most importantly to resolve administrative obstacles to calculating earnings as they are now, including discounted realised gains rather than undiscounted unrealised gains. A temporary waiver of impediments should be granted to allow those affected to shift funds out of superannuation before the tax takes effect. Ultimately, the paper argues the tax should not proceed in any form, echoing the views of other leading economists, who have warned of its far-reaching consequences. Robert Carling is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and a former World Bank, IMF and federal and state Treasury economist. #auspol #supertax Subscribe to all our shows: Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/

In "Rooftop Solar: Paradise Lost," Zoe Hilton, Michael Wu, and Aidan Morrison examine the unintended consequences of Australia's rooftop solar boom. They argue that while rooftop solar has been promoted as a means to lower electricity bills and support the environment, it has inadvertently led to increased costs for non-solar customers. The paper analyzes the financial dynamics of rooftop solar adoption, highlighting how current tariff structures result in cross-subsidies from non-solar to solar customers. It also discusses the implications for energy equity and suggests potential reforms to address these disparities. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/rooftop-solar-paradise-lost/  Audio Produced by: Randall Evans Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/ #SolarEnergy #auspol #greenenergy 

In "Super for Housing," Peter Tulip and Matthew Taylor explore allowing Australians to access their superannuation funds to purchase a home. He examines the rationale behind this idea, considering home equity and superannuation as alternative means of securing retirement. The paper analyzes potential impacts on housing demand and ownership rates, and discusses various approaches to implementing such a policy. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/super-for-housing/  Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/

In "Fractured Loyalties: Australian Citizenship and the Crisis of Civic Virtue," Peter Kurti examines the foundational role of tolerance in secular liberal democracies, particularly in embracing religious diversity. He explores how this principle, integral to the liberal conception of citizenship, is under threat due to a concerning rise in antisemitism within Australia. Kurti argues that such intolerance not only undermines social cohesion but also erodes the civic virtues essential for a healthy democracy. Through a historical lens, he underscores the necessity of mutual respect and equal concern among citizens to maintain the fabric of civil society. This audiobook delves into the challenges posed by diminishing civic understanding and the imperative to uphold the principles that bind a diverse nation. Listeners are invited to reflect on the importance of reinforcing civic virtues to counteract divisive forces and ensure the resilience of Australia's democratic values. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/fractured-loyalties-australian-citizenship-and-the-crisis-of-civic-virtue/   Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/  #FracturedLoyalties #Citizenship #CivicVirtue #Democracy #Australia #Tolerance #SocialCohesion #Antisemitism #LiberalValues #PeterKurti #Audiobook #PoliticalPhilosophy #CivicEngagement #Freedom #Diversity #auspol

Interest, Usury and the Common Good by Ian Harper and Peter Kurti Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/interest-usury-and-the-common-good/ Listen to all our papers here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/  Delve into the intricate history and ethical debates surrounding the practice of charging interest in "Interest, Usury, and the Common Good," authored by Ian Harper and Peter Kurti. As economies evolved, so did perspectives on interest, shifting from outright prohibition to discussions about fair rates. Harper and Kurti trace this transformation, examining how the term 'usury' became associated with excessively high interest rates deemed unjustifiable. They analyze the balance between facilitating economic growth through credit and maintaining ethical lending practices that serve the common good.  #Audiobook #Economics #Finance #Ethics #Usury #InterestRates #CommonGood #History #Philosophy #Christianity #CIS

Less Crowded Houses. NZ’s housing policy success and implications for Australia by Stuart Donovan. Audio produced by Randall Evans.  To read the paper: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/less-crowded-houses-the-success-of-nzs-housing-policy-reforms-and-implications-for-australia/ To become a member: https://www.cis.org.au/membership-2-step-1/    Introduction to the Paper: Many Australians are increasingly concerned by deteriorating housing affordability and its implications for socio-economic outcomes. In a recent survey, 62% of respondents agreed that “continued increases in house prices is bad for the economy and is exacerbating wealth inequality”.[1] In another survey, around two-thirds of respondents agreed that the federal government was not doing enough to address Australia’s housing problems.[2] Analysis by the Australian Bureau of Statistics finds genuine cause for concern, with rates of home ownership for those aged 25-39 years falling from 66% to 55% in the period from 1991 to 2021.[3] Such concerns are increasingly reflected in policy, with a recent federal government report observing that “rising housing costs” pose “challenges for many young Australians”.[4] The same report pointed to a need for housing supply to be “responsive to demand”, especially in locations that are accessible to jobs. There is indeed growing evidence that housing policy reforms can increase supply and support affordability. Perhaps most notably, rates of housing supply in New Zealand have — after a decade of reform — surged past Australia. For these reasons, this paper reviews New Zealand’s reforms and considers potential lessons for Australia. First, the paper summarises the context to housing policy reforms in New Zealand, which have sought to streamline planning processes and enable housing in desirable locations, a process known as ‘upzoning’. The term is used here to describe changes to planning policies that enable more housing to be built, such as increased building height limits. A recurring theme in New Zealand’s housing policy reforms has been the potential distributional effects of upzoning — that is, who ‘wins’ and ‘loses’. Growing awareness of the distributional benefits of housing appears to have fostered broad-based support for reforms in New Zealand. The paper then briefly reviews empirical evidence on the impacts of New Zealand’s housing reforms. These effects are apparent from even a cursory comparison of housing outcomes in councils that have upzoned versus those that have not. In 2023, for example, upzoned councils in Auckland, Canterbury, and Lower Hutt have accounted for around two-thirds of all the dwelling consents issued in New Zealand, which is much more than their share of the population. Several credible economic studies find upzoning supported large and rapid improvements in housing affordability as well as a rapid expansion in social housing. Thirdly, the paper presents some preliminary analyses of New Zealand’s housing policy reforms. Whereas dwelling growth in Canterbury and Auckland initially lagged population growth, after each region was upzoned in 2011 and 2016, dwellings have grown faster than population. Moreover, analysis of data from Auckland shows the population of people aged 20-34 years grew most strongly in areas that experienced the most upzoning, and vice versa for those aged 65+ years. While more research is needed, these preliminary analyses suggest young people may have disproportionately benefited from these reforms, where benefits likely represent a ‘double dividend’ of more affordable housing and better access to jobs and amenities. There have been several recent overviews of New Zealand’s housing reforms, including Maltman (2023), Greenaway-McGrevy (2024), Blick and Stewart (2024) and Politano (2024).  These summaries focus on estimates of the effects of Auckland’s Unitary Plan. Like this paper, they agree that upzoning led to large increases in construction and improvements in affordability.  This paper updates this earlier work, provides a broader context, and is targeted at a broad Australian audience. To conclude, this paper argues that Australia can learn from New Zealand’s experience: enabling more housing can quickly lead to more supply and improved affordability. Read more: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/less-crowded-houses-the-success-of-nzs-housing-policy-reforms-and-implications-for-australia/ #auspol #nswpol #nz #nzhousing #realestate #property #propertyinvesting 

The Argument For Debate: how school debating can improve academic outcomes and foster a stronger democracy.  This podcast audiobook explores the pivotal role of debate in addressing Australia’s educational and civic challenges. With academic achievement in decline and public confidence waning, the nation's 2024 Senate Inquiry into civics education underscores the urgency of reform. Anchored in evidence-based practices like a "knowledge-rich curriculum" and explicit teaching, debate emerges as a time-tested tool to enhance critical thinking, English proficiency, and civic engagement. From its ancient Greek roots to modern formats like parliamentary debates and mock trials, this episode examines how integrating debate into schools can restore academic excellence, foster a deeper appreciation of Australia’s democratic foundations, and prepare young Australians for active citizenship in a 21st-century democracy. Perfect for educators, policymakers, and anyone passionate about empowering future generations. By Deidre Clary and Fiona Mueller.  Read the full paper: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/fortifying-a-healthy-democracy-why-young-australians-must-learn-the-art-of-debate/ For more research, head to www.cis.org.au #auspol #education #debate #audiobooks #EducationReform #DebateSkills #CivicsEducation #AustralianEducation #CriticalThinking #ActiveCitizenship #Democracy #TeachingStrategies #KnowledgeRichCurriculum #21stCenturySkills #StudentEngagement #EducationMatters #FutureLeaders

In Gorillas in the Mist: How Government Obscures Its Spending, Gene Tunny examines how Australian governments increasingly rely on off-budget mechanisms—such as loans, equity injections, and special investment funds—to finance major policy initiatives without those costs appearing in the core budget balance. These tactics allow governments to maintain the appearance of fiscal discipline while accumulating hidden financial risks. The paper details the rapid growth of off-budget measures, evaluates their impact on transparency, accountability, and inflation, and calls for greater scrutiny to ensure public money is managed responsibly. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/gorillas-in-the-mist-how-government-obscures-its-spending/  Audio Produced by: Randall Evans Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/

In "Riches from Royalties: How Australia’s States and Territories Depend on Mining," Gene Tunny highlights how royalty payments from mining companies serve as a vital source of revenue for state and territory governments. These funds support essential public services such as health and education while helping reduce reliance on federal transfers. The paper reviews the value of royalties, explores alternative models like resource rent taxes and state-owned enterprises, and discusses the broader fiscal implications for federal-state financial relations in Australia. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/riches-from-royalties-how-australias-states-and-territories-depend-on-mining  Audio Produced by: Randall Evans Subscribe to all our shows: What You Need to Know About delivers concise insights from CIS experts, breaking down complex topics like policy, economics, and societal challenges. Subscribe here: https://whatyouneedtoknowabout.podbean.com/  The CIS Research Collection delivers our research papers in an audio format so that you can listen to them on the go. Subscribe here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Liberalism in Question features thought-provoking interviews with world experts in politics and culture from a Classical Liberal perspective. Subscribe here: https://liberalisminquestion.podbean.com/ CIS Events Experience: From the studios of CIS our events team brings you engaging discussions from our live events, featuring lectures, panel discussions, and conversations with leading experts: https://cisevents.podbean.com/ #mining #auspol #greenenergy 

The Rise of Activist Corporations: How activism agendas subsumed shareholder primacy by Peter Swan AO September 26, 2024 Australian companies have been shifting from a purely shareholder focus to a much vaguer, less accountable, and damaging stakeholder focus for many years. One important byproduct of this decline in shareholder focus has been former shareholder resources moving into ‘social responsibility’, corporate activism, and promotion of political and popular causes that are often antithetical to the interests of corporations’ own shareholders. This has resulted in many corporations becoming ‘woke’. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-rise-of-activist-corporations-how-activism-agendas-subsumed-shareholder-primacy/   #auspol #woke

Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/government-spending-and-inflation/ That government expenditure in Australia has grown apace in recent years is well-known. The growth became gargantuan during the coronavirus pandemic. However, to a less dramatic extent, it was happening before the pandemic — and has continued since it ended. Some observers welcome this growth to the extent it is a reflection of new spending programs and expansion of existing programs perceived to meet legitimate needs. But it is also a matter of serious concern for reasons that include the implications for higher taxation and public debt, the effect on incentives and the diversion of scarce resources away from alternative and higher productivity activities. Recently, attention has turned to the impact of higher public spending on inflation as monetary policy struggles to restore inflation to its target. Specifically, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has spoken of the high level of aggregate demand relative to the economy’s potential output. The RBA has drawn attention to the relatively rapid growth of public final demand as a contributor to excessive aggregate demand —­ although the Governor has also stated that public sector demand “is not the main game” in the policy response to persistent inflation. This policy paper presents the key facts about public expenditure growth in recent years and discusses its contribution to inflation.

All our links: https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies  All Things Considered. Making Moral Sense of the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza by Nigel Biggar. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/all-things-considered-making-moral-sense-of-the-wars-in-ukraine-and-gaza/  The pacifist answer to the problem of #war is straightforward. Any use of violent force by anybody in any circumstances is immoral and should cease. War is always worse than its alternatives; peace is always preferable. This is not a view to which I subscribe. We all want peace, but at what cost and to whom? If those who believe in the possibility of morally justified war have to reckon with the dreadful consequences of their position, so do pacifists. Not going to war in 1994 was good for Britons and Australians, but not so good for the Tutsi in Rwanda: our staying at peace left the Hutu at peace to slaughter 800,000 of them. Peace, like war, is morally complicated. The war in #Ukraine has resulted in the widespread devastation of the country. Russian president Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons hangs over it, and it seems unlikely that the Ukrainians can triumph over Russia. So, surely it would have been better, if Kyiv had not resisted in the first place. And would it not be best, if it were to stop resisting now? Meanwhile in #Gaza the civilian casualties of the war between Israel and Hamas continue to mount. South Africa has accused Israel of genocide, and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has applied for a warrant to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister. And yet, it was Hamas that began the current phase of the conflict with the horrendously deliberate and indiscriminate massacre of #Israeli civilians on October 7 last year. And it is Hamas that planned to make a battlefield out of a dense urban environment, building tunnels for its gunmen but no shelters for non-combatants. And it is Hamas that is constitutionally committed to eradicating #Israel. So how are we to make coherent moral sense of the situation?

Counting the Cost: Subsidies For Renewable Energy By Michael Wu. For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of CIS. As this paper is graph and data-heavy, it’s a good idea to have the paper open as you listen along. Download here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/ CIS Membership - https://www.cis.org.au/membership-2-step-1/  YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@CISAus  Twitter - https://twitter.com/CISOZ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/CentreIndependentStudies/ Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-centre-for-independent-studies/ Telegram - https://t.me/centreforindependentstudies CIS - https://www.cis.org.au/ 

How to Build Low-Cost Nuclear: Lessons from the world by Aidan Morrision. First published on April 11, 2024. For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of CIS. As this paper is graph and data-heavy, it’s a good idea to have the paper open as you listen along. The paper can be downloaded from here:  https://www.cis.org.au/publication/how-to-build-low-cost-nuclear-lessons-from-the-world/

Mind over matter. The philosophical arguments around AI, natural intelligence and memory. In this intriguing research paper by Professor John Sweller, he deftly navigates the complex intricacies surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), natural intelligence, and memory. The entry in the research series of the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), he challenges traditional perspectives as he critically examines both artificial and natural systems and what denotes them as intelligent. Professor Sweller employs metaphor and insights from evolutionary biology to provide an innovative understanding of intelligence’s foundation. Professor Sweller underscored the essential role of knowledge, especially in educational contexts focusing on students' learning process. He posited that human cognition, an intelligent system itself, largely depends on our existing knowledge. Furthermore, he emphasized that the importance of knowledge in human cognition has been often downplayed both in educational research and AI development. This subtle observation explains AI's remarkable growth in recent times. In a remarkable comparison, he explored the idea that like humans who struggle with limited intelligence due to insufficient knowledge, AI applications too have limitations in their utility without considerable accessible knowledge and information, the recent proliferation of which has been facilitated by the massive storage of data. He delves deeper into the potential limitations of AI and the inefficiency of discovery learning for both humans and artificial intelligence systems. This becomes particularly relevant when false or implausible conclusions, known as AI hallucinations, are generated due to insufficient or low-quality data available to an algorithm. Sweller stimulatively invites us to grapple with the concept of intelligence, its interplay with our knowledge and the foundations of intelligent systems. By reflecting on these foundations, we can better navigate the opportunities, challenges, and limitations of today’s AI and its potential implications for future educational systems and wider societal dimensions.

What is the Science of Learning? By Trisha Jha. Listen to all our research here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/ Despite billions of additional experts and concerted efforts at reforming several pillars of the Australian education ecosystem, students’ results continue to plateau. While the focus on teaching quality and effective, evidence-based practices is welcome, it is incomplete. Australian education needs to position the science of learning as the foundation for policy and practice. The establishment of the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) — in particular its recent work How students learn best — and the Strong Beginnings report into initial teacher education reforms are important because they create space for shifting focus towards the science of learning. Unfortunately, key pillars of Australian education policy do not reflect the science of learning, due to the far-reaching impacts of progressive educational beliefs dating back to the 18th century. These beliefs include that: Students learn best when they themselves guide their learning and it aligns with their interest; Rote learning is harmful; Learning should be based on projects or experiences, and that doing this will result in critical and creative thinkers. But these beliefs are contradicted by the science of learning, which is the connection between: 1) insights from cognitive science and educational psychology; and 2) the teaching practices  supported (and not supported) by those insights. Key concepts include: Biologically primary knowledge (BPK) and biologically secondary knowledge (BSK): These concepts are not about stages of schooling. Rather, BPK includes things like basic social relations and problem-solving skills we have evolved to learn and do not need to be taught. In contrast, BSK includes foundational skills — like reading, writing, maths as well as coding, Cubism and how to kick a football (what schools are for) — we can only learn through instruction; Domain-specific and domain-general skills: domain-general skills overlap with biologically-primary knowledge but critical thinking and analysis are specific to domains such as maths, history etc; Working memory and long-term memory: working memory is severely limited and can only handle small amounts of new information; making it a funnel to long-term memory. A strong long-term memory can help strengthen working memory; and Cognitive load theory: given these models of human cognition, teachers should design instruction to optimise the burden on working memory in a way that best helps learning. The teaching approach best supported by the evidence is explicit instruction of a well-sequenced, knowledge-focused curriculum. Some key features of explicit instruction include: Careful ordering of curriculum content so that new information and concepts are built sequentially; Explanation of new information in small steps, taught through modelling and worked examples, with student practice after each step; Asking questions and checking for all students’ understanding of what has been taught before gradual release of students for independent work and more complex tasks; and Regular review of previous content to ensure retention. There are many implications for the science of learning: For teachers, it is an opportunity to design instruction in a way that is likely to lead to most students’ success with learning; Parents can become more informed about how their child will learn best and more empowered when selecting or having conversations with their child’s school; and For policymakers, it provides a foundation for future reform of policy at all levels. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/what-is-the-science-of-learning/

Read the paper here.  In a comprehensive exploration of the Australian housing market, Emily Dye uncovers the stark reality of home ownership for young Australians. Homeownership has sharply declined over the past 20 years with the younger generations especially hit hard. Emily breaks down the complex terms such as 'housing affordability' and 'affordable housing', churning out an incisive analysis of the intergenerational struggle for home ownership. When taking a closer look at the regulations presently stifling the housing market, it reveals a grim picture where tax concessions and local goverments' influence play a significant role. Emily Dye exposes how perceived views, heritage protections and desire for preservation overrule the need for more housing, leading to an unreasonably high ration of median house prices to incomes. Dye spotlights the need for a shift in housing preference. As younger generations are drawn towards environment-friendly, high-density housing, the bureaucratic regulations continue to favor single-family sites. The zoning tax—a housing constraint resulting from bureaucratic interventions—is dissected in the publication, revealing its heavy contribution to the high home prices in major Australian cities. While high immigration is frequently blamed for the surge in home prices, Emily argues that restrictive supply is, in fact, the culpit. She asserts that demand only becomes a problem when supply is handicapped. Dye concludes with a compelling argument for increased housing stock through strategic state interventions, arguing that this is the only path to make housing affordable for Australia’s future generations.

A Crucial Asset in the Economic Landscape In this comprehensive review, David Murray brings into focus the pivotal role played by Australia's Future Fund in cementing the country's long-term financial stability. Established in 2006, the Future Fund was devised to shift Australia's budget surpluses and asset sales into an investment aimed to counter the financial strain from the nation's unfunded superannuation liabilities and an aging demographic. Ranked the 19th largest among the world's leading 100 funds, the Fund currently holds assets worth $205 billion, or a whopping $255 billion inclusive of the ancillary funds. Amidst its successes and mounting contributions, the Future Fund has faced criticisms. Despite this, Mr. Murray underscores the Fund's adherence to the Santiago Principles and reflects on its function, investment horizon, withdrawal model, and outstanding return on investment. Mr. Murray signifies in his analysis that the Future Fund has been instrumental in contributing to Australia's credit standing, producing wealth for future generations, and checks on the government's expenditure. The analysis extends into issues surrounding leveraged investment vehicles operated by the government and their associated risks. Perspectives are also lent to various Future Funds carrying such debt, questioning their necessity. On a different note, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund is highlighted for its distinctive social, economic, and cultural designation. While the Future Fund has showcased transparency, accountability, and autonomy from political sway, Mr. Murray suggests continued scrutiny of its operation. Despite the challenges presented, the study concludes, retaining the Future Fund offers key advantages. These range from managing resource dependency to enhancing foreign investor confidence and promoting critical policy re-evaluation. In conclusion, Mr. Murray affirms the Future Fund's invaluable role as an institutional asset in Australia's financial roadmap, urging for a balanced dialog on its future and warning against the risk of modifying its mandate or liquidation that could jeopardize $200 billion in likely returns. #auspol

Bungles, Blowouts and Boondoggles: why Australia’s infrastructure projects cost more than they should.  By Grahame Campbell A large amount of taxpayers’ money, state and federal, is expended on large scale infrastructure that is intended to play a crucial part in Australia’s growth and prosperity — although some of it is arguably wasteful or perhaps even pork-barrelling. And as the recent federal government Infrastructure Investment Review found in axing around 50 planned projects, some “do not demonstrate merit, lack any national strategic rationale and do not meet the Australian Government’s national investment priorities. In many cases these projects are also at high risk of further cost pressures and/or delays.” But major infrastructure projects in Australia are often also more expensive than comparable projects in other countries, even after even after adjusting for differences in currencies and purchasing power. While a 2014 Productivity Commission Inquiry report on public infrastructure argued that there were examples where Australia was competitive internationally, and that the systematic evidence was missing or incomplete, it noted that several commentators argued Australia performed worse than other countries. The PC, while arguing for substantial reform to our infrastructure processes, also noted there was “considerable uncertainty about many facets of construction costs. There are sometimes large and inexplicable variations in the construction costs for what appear to be similar activities, such as the cost per kilometre of rail projects.” It is unlikely that much has improved since 2014, especially given the findings of the recent review and estimates that construction costs increased more than 25% over the five years to mid-2022. There are several factors that contribute to the higher costs of major infrastructure in Australia. The available evidence on major infrastructure construction costs shows that there have been some recent significant increases in input costs. This particularly applies to labour and project management costs, plus contract design, complexity and poor management leading to risk offloading, cost over-runs and costly schedule over-runs. However, it is important to note that the cost of projects can also vary based on specific circumstances, project scope, and other factors. As listed below, and explained in more detail in the subsequent sections related to costs, factors that can contribute to higher costs for Australian infrastructure projects include: Labour and Industrial Relations: Australia generally has higher labour costs compared with many other countries. Wages, benefits, and labour regulations can contribute to higher project costs. Lower Productivity: Productivity is hampered by the lack of a sufficiently educated, skilled and engaged workforce, an efficient work environment, innovation, efficient procurement models and ultimately trust between industry stakeholders. Regulations and Standards: Australia has strict regulations and standards when it comes to construction, safety, and environmental considerations. Compliance with these regulations often adds to the complexity and cost of infrastructure projects. Design Complexity: Infrastructure projects in Australia often involve complex engineering and design requirements. This can include considerations such as environmental impact, sustainability, and resilience, which may contribute to increased costs. Project Management: Effective project management is crucial for successful infrastructure projects. Factors like inefficient planning, delays, and changes in scope can contribute to cost overruns. Risk Offloading: Project cost is often inflated in Australia by a misguided focus on unloading risk in the early stages of a project’s development. This is often driven by the type of contract that is presented to the industry by lawyers, with the objective of minimising up-front costs and putting most of the risks on the contractors. This practice is not generally followed in other countries, which look at ‘whole of Life’ costs and benefits, resulting in a more cooperative and cheaper outcome. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/bungles-blowouts-and-boondoggles-why-australias-infrastructure-projects-cost-more-than-they-should/

Are you a student who believes in free markets, smaller government, and individual liberty? Perhaps you’ve studied the works of Freidrich Hayek, Adam Smith, or Jonathan Haidt. If this sounds like you, the CIS has an exciting opportunity for you to meet and network with other like-minded people from Australia and New Zealand. Click here to learn more.  Essays on the relevance of Smith after 300 years. Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher and economist, is one of the most significant figures to have emerged from what came to be known as ‘the Scottish Enlightenment’. His work across a number of disciplines changed the way people thought about economic theory and the field of what is now known as ‘political science’. Smith was superbly educated in moral philosophy, ancient philosophy, jurisprudence and natural theology — at a time when science and religion were regarded as complementary rather than antagonistic. In developing a moral philosophy that informed a deeper understanding of human interaction, Smith laid the foundation for a thorough exposition of the human practices of commerce and government. By encouraging use of our capacity for imagination, Smith argued that every member of a civil society needed to put themselves in the shoes of others and to see matters as others see them. For Smith, imagination — and the fostering of sympathy — was the key to our ability to engage in social and commercial exchange. Adam Smith is one of the intellectual pillars of the Centre for Independent Studies. Informed by the breadth of Smith’s vision, the CIS has always been committed to investigating the nature of society and has argued that the exercise of civic responsibility by individual citizens is every bit as important to the health of society as the policies delivered by government. This year marks the 300th anniversary of Smith’s birth, but his ideas and critical insights retain their importance today for contemporary Australia. In this Occasional Paper, Professor Paul Oslington and Dr David Hart, two distinguished Australian scholars, reflect both on the work of Smith and on the lessons he can teach us today. Paul Oslington introduces Adam Smith and sets his work in the context of the intellectual world in which Smith formulated his ideas; he then looks at the thorny issue of rent seeking in modern Australia through the prism of Smith’s thought. At time when many are disillusioned with the processes of government, David Hart’s evaluation of Smith’s thought concerning the business of politics is especially timely. I am delighted that Professor Oslington and Dr Hart have contributed these essays to mark the anniversary. In doing so, they allow the CIS to honour the vast intellectual contribution that Smith continues to make to the very fabric of contemporary Western society. Peter Kurti, Director – Culture, Prosperity & Civil Society program. Read the essays here. 

Bracket creep chips away at living standards, especially those of younger generations, a new Issue Analysis by Centre for Independent Studies outlines.   The paper’s authors, Matthew Taylor and Emilie Dye, point out that Australia’s younger workers have the most to lose from bracket creep because bracket creep is regressive and hits harder for those earlier in their careers and making less money.   For those on lower incomes, even a small increase in nominal income leads to a larger increase in their overall tax rate.  And young people feel the loss of income from a tax increase more acutely than those established in their careers with higher incomes and more wealth.   The Issue Analysis outlines what the government should do to stop this hidden tax hitting our younger generations — particularly when they are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis.  Young people have less bargaining power and will likely struggle to convince their employers to make cost-of-living adjustments to their earnings, let alone the rise needed to compensate for both inflation and a higher tax rate due to bracket creep.  Periodic tax cuts only help temporarily; they barely scratch the surface in offsetting bracket creep’s insidious impact. To genuinely tackle this issue, Australia needs a long-term solution that does not depend on the whims of politicians.  The solution is simple: Index tax brackets to inflation.  The government already does this for Age Pensioners. The Age Pension, unlike tax brackets, is indexed to inflation; ensuring pensioners can maintain the same standard of living.  The income brackets used to means-test their pension payments also automatically increase with prices.  If pensioners are spared the burden of bracket creep, why not young Australians?   Indexing tax brackets would also fight the cost-of-living crisis  Indexation would help Australians currently facing a cost-of-living crisis. In the 10 years prior to Covid, the annual rate of inflation averaged 2.1%. Inflation in the post-Covid era has almost doubled to 3.9%.   Tax payments are an expenditure. There is only one difference between a tax increase and higher prices at the supermarket: you cannot shop around to reduce your tax bill. Bracket creep further disadvantages workers, sneakily diverting their money to flow to the government.  Indexation would cut the hidden tax hikes that erode real income — a straightforward solution to a complex problem with potential to make a real difference in people’s lives.  Mathew Taylor is Director of the Centre for Independent Studies Intergenerational Program, in which Emilie Dye is a Research Analyst. 

In Australia, and in education settings across the world, student behaviour and levels of student engagement are significant issues for teachers, school leaders, system administrators and the public. Student behaviour affects community perception, teacher efficacy and wellbeing, and the academic achievement of all students. When students are engaged, they learn more. This paper uses the current attention on student disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms to offer policy makers, and educational jurisdiction and school leaders an insight into how to shift the paradigm, policy and practice towards student behaviour in Australian schools. The solution to disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms will be achieved if three key ideas gain mainstream recognition. These will be discussed in full later in the paper, but they are: Managing student behaviour is about learning. Learning is the result of good management. To maximise learning in the classroom, it is necessary to teach the students how to behave. Behaviour needs to be taught explicitly to all students. Instruction in behaviour is central to effective classroom management. The teaching of behaviour needs to be planned, resourced and rehearsed just like any academic content. Behaviour as a curriculum needs to be the norm across Australian schools.  If behaviour is incorporated in the national curriculum, it would lift standards of behaviour and learning productivity in classrooms. The teaching of behaviour to students would also to help lessen the disadvantage gap in Australian schools. Read the paper at www.cis.org.au 

Published on 3rd of September 2023.   Increasingly there are calls for de-growth, not just to abandon the pursuit of economic growth, but to shrink economies. The call for de-growth comes from environmentalists, including activists in groups such as Extinction Rebellion, and some economists, particularly in the field of ecological economics. It is related to concerns about climate change, pollution, species extinction, and resource exhaustion. Economic growth is to blame, proponents say, and the proposed solution is de-growth, an aggressive contraction of economic activity that requires an acceptance of significantly lower living standards. The de-growth movement is not just a fringe movement. It is gaining attention worldwide, has international conferences dedicated to it, and tenured academics are supporting or contemplating de-growth. For example, the University of Sydney’s Professor Manfred Lenzen has modelled de-growth as a climate change mitigation strategy, and, along with co-author Lorenz T. Keyßer has concluded “de-growth pathways should be thoroughly considered.” Furthermore, books preaching de-growth are gaining widespread attention. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf selected Jason Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World as one of the newspaper’s “Best Books of 2020: Economics” — although Wolf at least observed “this programme is neither a plausible nor an effective way to respond to the imminent climate crisis.” More recently, in August 2023, the New York Times profiled so-called ‘de-growth communism’ proponent Kohei Saito, a University of Tokyo philosophy professor and author of Capital in the Anthropocene.  While its origins may have been altruistic, its impact on society would be devastating.    It would require restrictions on personal freedoms, as well as the aforementioned lower living standards. These could only be enforced by an authoritarian government — a serious curtailment of the principles of capitalism, free markets, and a liberal democracy. This paper first reviews the arguments for de-growth and then dissects them, addressing several myths which appear to drive this call. The paper then considers what would likely happen if a de-growth agenda were adopted. Finally, the paper considers how policy advisers and policy makers should think about economic growth and whether the calls for de-growth should be heeded.

https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies Authority, Expertise And Democracy. Should those who know best rule the rest of us? By Peter Kurti. Published on July 27, 2023. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/authority-expertise-and-democracy-should-we-trust-the-experts/ For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of the CIS. You’ll be part of Australia’s growing movement towards free markets, individual liberty, cultural freedom, and a limited government. Join today at www.cis.org.au/membership. On Heeding Expert Advice. During the Covid-19 pandemic, state and territory leaders afforded great responsibility for decisions about managing both the impact of the virus and the expectations of a fearful public to unelected public health experts. Severe restrictions imposed on movement and association at the behest of these experts — Chief Medical Officers — lasted for many months. The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic hardly formed part of the regular routine of government. Indeed, so exceptional was the pandemic that dependence on advisors with medical and public health expertise might well have been unavoidable if government was to be effective. Faced with the need to assuage public fears, there was also a need for the public to hear what medical experts made of the pandemic and the dangers it posed. Most Australians readily complied with state-imposed edicts, apparently confident that governments were acting only in the best interests of citizens. However, many expressed concern that as the pandemic ran its course, political leaders appeared to be doing one of two things. Either they followed the advice of medical experts blindly and without regard to the social, economic and community impact of the imposed measures; or they ignored expert medical advice because of concerns about its likely impact would fuel worries that they were not doing enough to keep citizens ‘safe’. These concerns only compounded as, during the course of the pandemic, medical experts began to fall out with one another, thereby dissolving any notion of universal medical consensus about how best to manage contagion. As the pandemic ran its course, populations bowed to the dictates of chief medical officers. The will and wishes of the demos were subordinated to the opinions and directions of the knowledgeable few. While the Covid-19 pandemic provides a rare, if egregious, example, of their doing so, the ceding by elected representatives of decision-making to health bureaucrats is just one example of the problem that Adrian Pabst, a political scientist, has described as double delegation — “whereby representatives elected by citizens delegate power to unelected officials who are part of a professional political class.” Read the whole paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/authority-expertise-and-democracy-should-we-trust-the-experts/

https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies Politicisation – the attack on merit and our way of life, by Scott Prasser. Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/politicisation-the-attack-on-merit-and-our-way-of-life/ Scott's paper examines the issue of ‘politicisation’ of our public services and other public institutions. The meanings and permutations of ‘politicisation’ are identified, its causes and both positive and negative impacts considered. It asks whether ‘politicisation’ is undermining the integrity of our institutions, the functioning of our democracy and the core principle of merit – which many regard as the cornerstone of a progressive, modern, western liberal, industrial, and fair society. It considers whether claims of ‘politicisation’ have been exaggerated and misinterpreted as trends and changes to our system of governance, that many see as necessary. It proposes some practical suggestions to minimise the worst aspects of ‘politicisation’.

A Future Without Future Funds by  Dimitri Burshtein Read here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/a-future-without-future-funds/ In 1984, Milton Friedman reminded us that “there is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government program”. And so it has come to pass that the Future Fund, which was envisaged to have a finite life, is now seeking immortality.    The Future Fund is an uniquely Australian creation.  Often — and arguably erroneously — described as a sovereign wealth fund, it has been given near-mythical credence.  Its board is not comprised of mere directors but rather ‘Guardians’.  The Future Fund’s existence has attained such an exalted economic status in Australia that despite its recent questionable economic contribution, it has spawned several new ‘children of Future Fund’ established at the Commonwealth and State levels.  Approaching 18 years of age, however, it is now time to consider the future of the Future Funds because as Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson once quipped: “When the facts change, I change my mind”.  And when it comes to the Future Fund, the facts have changed significantly since it was established in 2006.  The economic case for its continuing existence has since eroded.    In Australia’s current economic straits, the most economically responsible action for a government to take is to liquidate, in an orderly manner, the holdings of the Future Funds and pay down debt. With every additional dollar of Commonwealth debt accumulated and every interest rate increase, the case for closing and retiring the Future Funds becomes ever more compelling.   Importantly also, once all Future Fund investments have been liquidated, the Future Fund entity should be permanently shut down to reduce the political incentives for the establishment of ‘grandchildren of Future Fund’ .  https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies

Starting off on the wrong foot: How to improve Initial Teacher Education in Australia by Glenn Fahey and Rob Joseph.  Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/starting-off-on-the-wrong-foot-how-to-improve-initial-teacher-education-in-australia/ Initial teacher education (ITE) is responsible for providing beginning teachers with the knowledge, skills, and characteristics to prepare them for the classroom. Typically, ITE involves beginning teachers enrolling and completing an undergraduate or postgraduate degree at a university by an approved ITE provider. In an ITE course, preservice teachers complete a combination of courses that include pedagogical, subject matter, and — where applicable — subject-particular pedagogical knowledge. Enrolments are typically for either primary or secondary education. As at 2019, there were 367 programs, 48 ITE providers, and 91 locations preparing around 92,000 enrolled ITE students across Australia. Teaching graduates typically complete a standalone Bachelor of Education, or complete an undergraduate degree followed by a teaching course. Others pursue two-year postgraduate teaching degrees, with 39% of graduating teachers having completed a postgraduate degree, while some jurisdictions permit partially shortened postgraduate qualifications. Over recent years, Australia’s ITE sector has been under near-constant review. At least in part, this has been due to persistent concern about the preparedness of graduate teachers, along with broader challenges in ensuring there is a sufficient quantity and quality of graduates to meet workforce needs. While it’s true that graduate teachers in all school systems are less effective when they first enter the workforce than they are a few years later, most enjoy a steep learning curve over their first few years in the classroom. Given that direct supervision of early career teachers is more limited than is typically observed in other professions, this requires considerable preparation for independent practice to be provided during initial training before entering the workplace. Mitigating the ‘novice penalty’ of graduate teachers is an important opportunity to ensure better outcomes for students, as well as reducing the considerable pressure on teachers in their early years. Moreover, evidence shows that teachers who start out being relatively effective when they graduate become increasingly more effective over time. Altogether, this makes raising classroom-readiness of teaching graduates a priority across school systems. But while this concern about classroom-readiness is a preoccupation of many countries’ ITE sectors, there’s evidence that Australia’s school systems have particularly underperformed in this area, especially in the formative area of classroom and behaviour management. Against this context, this paper provides a detailed analysis of Australia’s ITE sector’s current challenges and opportunities for reform. It starts with a review of the recent history and policy developments in Australia and comparable countries. It is then followed by analysis of the performance and structure of Australia’s ITE sector. In considering the ITE pipeline, it follows with assessment of the drivers of both the commencements to, and completions from, ITE qualifications. It then examines the current content of ITE qualifications and options for improving the accountability of Australia’s ITE providers. The paper concludes with recommendations for Australian policymakers in undertaking ITE sector reform. https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies