17 January 2024

Labor under the pump to take the (cost of living) pressure down

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
41
Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is under pressure over the cost of living. Photo: Michelle Kroll (file pic)

Cost-of-living pressures are consuming the Federal Government, which is under huge pressure over soaring prices of just about everything.

High energy costs and rising interest rates have put the government on the back foot as it scrambles to be seen to be taking action ahead of an upcoming crucial byelection and the May budget.

But Labor wants to deliver some form of cost-of-living relief before the budget.

More energy rebates are being considered, but the government is floundering over what action it can take without handing out cash.

Groceries are one focus, with demands on the government to do something about suspected supermarket price gouging.

During a media conference on Tuesday (16 January), Anthony Albanese said his government was looking at all possible measures and was consulting extensively with the departments of Treasury and Finance.

“We’ve said that we’ll always look at more measures to assist households, and that is precisely what we did last year; it’s what we’ll do this year,” the Prime Minister said.

“I’ve asked for Treasury and Finance to give ongoing advice. We did that in the lead-up to the mid-year economic forecast that we released in December. That work is ongoing to get that advice about ways in which we can provide support for people whilst putting downward pressure on inflation.

“Now, the good news this month is the inflation figures year to year on a monthly basis are down from 4.9 to 4.3. That shows it’s heading in the right direction.

“There’s more to do. Our main fight is against inflation. We are fighting for things to be cheaper in stores. Peter Dutton is fighting over what goes into stores in a culture war.”

READ ALSO All right, stop! Collaborate and listen – and then save, save, save

The Opposition Leader had called for a boycott of Woolworths because it wasn’t selling Australia Day paraphernalia this year.

But the Prime Minister said the Opposition Leader had his priorities wrong.

“Woolworths alone employs some 200,000 Australians. Peter Dutton needs to explain to those 200,000 Australians why they shouldn’t continue to be employed,” Mr Albanese said.

“Because if no one goes into their stores, if there’s a boycott by all shoppers, then the company stops trading and people lose their jobs.

“Our priority is serious. Our priority is not thought bubbles and just negative politics like Peter Dutton is constantly engaged in.

“Our priority is providing assistance for people and making sure as well that people can get their goods for the cheapest possible price.”

The PM promised further announcements about grocery prices over the coming days.

Former Labor minister Craig Emerson is currently reviewing the food and grocery code, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is also examining the sector.

“The ACCC are having an ongoing look at it, and the head of the ACCC, the chairwoman, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, is carefully looking at potential litigation and is saying in a very clear warning that that’s an option that’s open to the ACCC,” Mr Albanese told ABC radio.

“What we’ve said is that we will do whatever is necessary, including looking at changing the voluntary code of conduct, looking at mandating, in order to provide that support for people.

“We want to make sure that people are paying the lowest possible prices when they get to a checkout, that’s our priority, along with other measures to assist people.

“And I’ve said very clearly we’ll look at ways to take pressure off cost-of-living whilst not putting pressure on inflation.”

READ ALSO Emerson to lead review of food and grocery code as government put supermarkets on notice

Stage three personal income tax cuts, amounting to $20 billion a year, still look like they’re going ahead for people earning more than $45,000 a year. That’s despite being criticised by some as tax relief for high-income earners.

The PM has defended the cuts as important.

The Coalition, which introduced the measure and timeline while Scott Morrison was prime minister, says Labor must be more direct about introducing the stage three tax cuts.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor suggested the Prime Minister’s language around the cuts appeared to be equivocating.

“He needs to keep it very simple. He needs to unambiguously commit to the stage three tax cuts as promised and as legislated,” Mr Taylor told Sky.

“That’s what he needs to do. And he’s refused to do that. And as I say, we know the Treasurer at the same time has been getting advice on alternatives.

“Australians need this tax break, but Labor loves increasing taxes.”

Join the conversation

41
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

For such a big PR stunt to get the pollies back for one day…its seems there is only one idea (solution) to the cost of living crisis.. change the stage 3 tax cuts and that all they can come up with. A lot of time and effor and $$ wasted just for that. One hit wonders

@Bulldog
Pssst … the Labor caucus meeting is tomorrow, when members will present and discuss options. That little snippet you mentioned is a teaser for the media.

Cost of living is not an issue in Australia. The only ones complaining are those who survived solely on government handouts during the pandemic whilst “working” from home and are now facing the realities of a competitive labour market. Everyone I know that has even the remotest amount of talent and nous has had massive pay rises the past few years far exceeding inflation. Plenty who were on salaries under $100k pre-pandemic now doing the same job with pay packages over $200k.

Capital Retro12:22 pm 23 Jan 24

The cost of living is a major issue for self-funded retirees, Sam. But most governments don’t give a **** about them anyway.

@Sam Oak
If I owned a large property portfolio, when Australia’s rental prices have reached a new record high, I’d probably not be at all concerned about a cost of living crisis either, Sam.

@Capital Retro
And why should the government give a **** about self-funded retirees, Capital Retro?

We, self-funded retirees (yep, I’m one too), have too much in our pension accounts to qualify for the Age Pension and/or a Health Card. Wow being able to draw down on an account that gives us a more comfortable living than those on aged welfare – that’s a bitch. Nevertheless, you may still get a ‘Commonwealth Seniors Health Card’ unless your income from investments is too high – again, what a bitch.

We, in most cases, own our home, so we are not stressed by the RBA meetings each month, awaiting the outcome on interest rates or having to wonder if our landlord is going to hike up our rent again. Actually re the RBA, low interest rates were a negative as it impacts the interest we get from the cash holdings in our super account.

The ACT government does give a small ****, as we get discounts as ACT seniors (you do have an ACT seniors card, don’t you?) on many government services – https://www.communityservices.act.gov.au/seniors/seniors_card.

So, CR, seems like the only thing you really have to complain about, is the absolutely shocking removal of “the daily bake of rustic diamond rolls” from Coles and Woolworths. A global crisis of the highest magnitude.

HiddenDragon8:28 pm 17 Jan 24

“More energy rebates are being considered, but the government is floundering over what action it can take without handing out cash.”

This is a problem largely of the Albanese government’s own making. It talked endlessly about the “cost of living crisis” when it was in opposition and came to government with a handful of narrowly focused initiatives to deal with the unrealistic expectations that it had raised, and then spent far too long pretending that those initiatives were a full and fair response to worsening cost of living pressures.

More recently, it has obviously been seduced by the half smart cleverness of targeted non-cash assistance which aids some, but by no means all, but also serves to lower measured (by the CPI) inflation – thus allowing ministers to blather on about “putting downward pressure on inflation” while ignoring the inconvenient reality that many miss out on that assistance. Aside from alienating the people who miss out, this approach also has more than a whiff of “we know what’s best for you, and you can’t be trusted with cash” – an interesting double standard from a government of social justice warriors who promised to abolish the Cashless Debit Card.

Rather than faffing about with more of the same, with the attendant administrative costs and inequities, the best thing the government could do would be to swallow its pride, ignore the advice of officials who are apparently against it (presumably for the compelling policy reason that they miss out on it) and cook up a truly worthwhile LITO/LMITO for all low(er) income earners and improved welfare assistance for the hardest pressed. Measured inflation might nudge up, but it could solve a lot of problems for a lot of people.

What is the problem with tax relief for high income earners? Workers need an incentive to earn more not less and 30% of 200k is much more tax revenue than 30% of 80k.

Conversely, the government should strongly look.at where it can save on admin costs. We don’t need more of the same staff going to meetings, talking buzz words and achieving very little. It’s endemic so rather than penalise those that provide the funding, give them incentive and see where internal costs can be cut as there are many.

Labor was in a good position financially to help subsidise fuel, which would have brought the cost down for at least a year. Instead, all it did was sit on its fat, commie hands

Capital Retro8:36 am 21 Jan 24

Keeping the cost of fossil fuels artificially high is a tactic in the strategy to try and convince us that EVs using “cheaper” renewable electric energy are what we need.

The government fails to see the big picture through higher energy costs being the main driver of inflation.

Capital Retro highlights a key benefit of EV’s in that they are not subject to global oil price fluctuations and attempts to turn it into a negative.

Too funny.

I find it interesting that “… the government is floundering over what action it can take without handing out cash” yet is till going ahead with it’s proposed $20bn per year stage 3 tax cuts. Surely, injecting so much cash into the economy is only going to fuel inflation?

Of course on one hand, we have the Opposition, including Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, continually lambasting Labor for doing nothing about cost of living pressures, while on the other, Taylor is criticising Albanese for equivocating over the tax cuts.

It’s much easier to be in Opposition than it is in government.

The inflationary impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts is expected to be real, but minor.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/stage-three-tax-cuts-will-have-a-negligible-effect-on-inflation-20240112-p5ewth

Although nothing is truer than your last sentence. Opposition’s complain constantly about anything they think has a political edge to it. Even if it’s for something that the government has little actual control over, such as the cost of living or globally driven inflationary pressures.

@chewy14
Thank you for the link to the AFR article. I can see the logic of J P Morgan’s assessment of negligible impact – based on the savings capacity of the high end of town, even in these difficuly times for average households.

I hope they are right, as this ABC News article (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-12/stage-three-tax-cuts-inflation-impact-treasury-modelling/103311048) is less prescriptive in its assessment of the inflationary impact of the cuts.

Justsaying,
I think your original point though is correct, the opposition is selective around their choice of when to be concerned about inflation.

Although, with the Stage 3 tax cuts, I also think it’s important to note what the government would do with the additional revenue if they didn’t go through with them. Considering history, it’s unlikely that they would fully bank the additional revenue, so the alternative may also have inflationary effects through increases government spending in other areas.

@chewy14
” I also think it’s important to note what the government would do with the additional revenue if they didn’t go through with them” Yep – fair point that

What did people think printing $400 billion dollars and artificially shutting down the economy would accomplish? Most galling, I know, from FOI requests, the ACT Government didn’t even do a basic cost-benefit analysis before imposing lockdowns, and I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised if none of the other states did either. This is entirely a government caused economic problem and government is trying to pass the buck.

You are correct. COVID was viewed solely as a medical issue – and then only with highly questionable science – all other fields of knowledge be damned. And one of the worst things is how a deadbeat like me, from simply taking the time early on in the pandemic to listen to others not mainstream, knew exactly what was wrong with the popular COVID narrative, and why. How much more should all the ‘experts’, with all the massive resources at their disposal, have known to

@Vasily M
The experts, as in renowned epedemiologists, etc., did know more than “deadbeats” like you … that’s why there expert opinion was heeded and yours was not.

The economy is also people’s lives. Government actions will have killed more people than the virus. We’re still running at sky-high excess deaths, and have exceeded the deaths-per-capita of countries that didn’t lock down.

@TheSilver
Ummm … ok … I’m sure you have facts to support your argument.

CaptainSpiff7:56 pm 17 Jan 24

“that’s why there expert opinion was heeded”

Ahh, the “experts”… Who came up with brilliant policies like lockdowns accompanied with industrial scale money printing… And all for nothing – everyone caught Covid anyway! And when inflation comes due, they have every excuse under the sun – it was Ukraine, it is global uncertainty, it’s supermarket gouging.

Anyone who defers to “expert opinion” at this point has got a screw loose.

@Captain Spiff
OK .. whatever … go with the conspiracy theories – you are entitled to do so … forgive me if I choose not to do so

The government’s own data, visit the ABS’s latest Provisional Mortality Statistics (for some reason I can’t link to it as it is marked as an unsafe site by RiotACT).
Excess deaths is still 10% higher than the baseline. It isn’t the virus either, it’s cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

CaptainSpiff8:37 am 18 Jan 24

@JS Right, it’s a conspiracy theory to think that printing 30% of your money supply could cause significant inflation… Got it.

The “experts” thank you for your gullibility.

@TheSilver
“Excess deaths is still 10% higher than the baseline. It isn’t the virus either, it’s cancer and cardiovascular diseases.”
So, how does this translate to ‘Government actions will have killed more people than the virus.’? Are ‘Government actions’ causing cancer and cardiovascular disease?
As for the ABS data – again, where does it link its analysis of mortality statistics to ‘Government actions’?

@CaptainSpiff
Actually, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be, CaptainSpiff.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-25/did-the-reserve-banks-money-printing-cause-inflation/101471028

I’ll back the experts over keyboard warriors every day of the week.

It is simply a fact that lockdowns had broad and varied consequences (as did money printing at the Federal level). The burden of proof should be on those who advocated for them, which is why there absolutely should be a document considered by the ACT Cabinet that outlines the cost-benefits of lockdowns. How many missed diagnoses of acute conditions are expected? How many additional suicides due to shutting down support networks (which are typically not mediated by governments) do we expect? How many deferred deaths do we expect in the future due to the economic problems we will be imposing on the community now? etc, etc.

(It also raises broader questions of the meaning and purpose of life and government. Quality of life is more important than quantity in my view. My mother [and me] was prevented by being at the side of my sister during a difficult labour because of lockdowns, something she would have gladly risked her life to do. That is something government stole from her, and, as she died months later due to a late cancer diagnosis is also on government. It is the relationships we have with each other that gives life purpose, not how long we live. Indeed, government itself even made this argument as they were ironically arguing for legalising euthanasia during lockdowns.)

That no such document exists outlining how many quality-adjusted-life years the government expected to save and the reasoning for that conclusion *is* the crime the government committed. It precisely means it wasn’t done based on expert analysis as you say. It was done based on fear and politics. (A clear example of this, although not on the ACT, is the deportation of Novak Djokovic. It took a week so the Feds could do polling to decide how the politics would play out. Any examination of the “science” – your expert analysis – would tell you someone who had already recovered from this virus was not a risk compared to vaccinated people.)

We can infer that government will have caused more deaths than the virus by comparing ourselves to comparable places that didn’t lockdown. There is little difference in overall infections (closing Australia’s external boarders in 2020 is what had the biggest impact overall on Australia, but that, of course, was not sustainable). Where there is a difference is excess deaths above the baseline and the other consequences of lockdowns – financial stress, domestic violence, suicides, education loss – that’s what can be blamed on government. Indeed, it also demonstrates a profound lack of trust. It wasn’t the case that places that didn’t lockdown did nothing. Individuals generally reduced their contacts, travel and other social reaction voluntarily. What wasn’t destroyed was the social bonds between individuals and the destruction of the important events that give life meaning. Governments that don’t trust their population don’t deserve trust from their populations.

@TheSilver
Oh my apologies, I didn’t realise it was all about you and your family. I thought the precautions taken during pre-vax COVID days were for the protection of us all.

I was unable to trvael interstate, attend my favourite aunt’s funeral due to the lockdowns. Similarly, a friend was unable to attend his father’s funeral, also interstate. We both accepted that this was part and parcel of the need to ensure the safety of the whole community rather than simply thinking of ourselves.

I’m sure you speak for several like-minded people when you rail over the lockdowns but I doubt you are speaking for the majority – as shown in the results of the immediate post-lockdown state and territory elections, when the government was returned.

So, sorry if I don’t share your outrage at what I considered a justifiable imposition on my frredom of movement during the health crisis.

CaptainSpiff6:45 pm 18 Jan 24

@JS – Amazingly you are not bothered by the fact that authorities imposed these restrictions with no cost-benefit analysis.

Doesn’t seem very “expert” does it?

Are you aware that countries with no lockdowns at all had better outcomes than Australia?

The problem is that there is no evidence that lockdowns prevent transmission. They simply shift the majority of transmission from the workplace to home environments. Any apparent effect of lockdown is more likely to be based on seasonality of the virus.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/2/334
There was, of course, no reason to expect otherwise. As Henderson said twenty years ago:

> Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Another example then, that is on the ACT government, is masking. We’ve known for nearly a century that masking has negligible benefit at preventing respiratory diseases. Twenty years ago, during the original SARS pandemic, the NSW (Labor) government was so confident of this, they were fining people $110,000 for attempting to profiteer off masks.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html
The experts, who you think are listened to, published updated meta-analysis in both 2020 and 2023 concluding there is no strong evidence that masking is effective, and in 2023 additionally that the harms of masking are understudied.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
Cochrane being the current gold standard of medical knowledge.

I have too much experience with the public service to think there are any experts there, or that when they are they are listened to. It’s always about politics.

My position is that if government is going to curtail freedom it better have damn good evidence for that position. That the government didn’t even bother to do the cost-benefit analysis is so egregious that it brings every decision ever made into question. How can anything they have ever done be trusted?

@TheSilver and CaptainSpiff
Cost/benefit analysis = cost: death, benefit: living => done.

Ah, so what you should have said is that you don’t care about expert analysis, you only care about current consensus.

@TheSilver
Absolutely not true, The Silver – I definitely care about ‘expert analysis’ when it comes to COVID. It’s the very reason, I followed the advice of the medical experts – including my own GP. Just as I would never go to my GP for financial advice, I would never seek the advice of the finance or business sector on matters medical.
There’s definitely a need for an after the event lessons learnt analysis, as nobody is suggesting things couldn’t have been done better, particularly once it became a political football.

> Cost/benefit analysis = cost: death, benefit: living => done.

This shows you aren’t serious. At best lockdowns defer deaths into the future. If government is going to spend $400 billion, the social, emotional and physical capital of the public, then it better be damned sure that the trade-off is worth it. Given that we knew the risk profile fairly early on, and it was also obvious that this virus could not be driven to extinction, lockdowns were a catastrophic mistake. There were plenty of expert economists who said so at the time. Myopia driven by politics is the problem. There is far more to life, and many more ways to die than this particular virus that we’re going to have to learn to live with anyway.

(I would argue it should be be beyond the scope of government, as the public can be trusted to reduce voluntarily withdraw from group events if they feel their risk is high. If the government doesn’t trust us, then we shouldn’t trust them.)

You know why it became a political football? Because no public cost benefit analysis was done. Show how many quality-adjusted life years the government expected to save, and the reasoning behind getting to those numbers and they’d have brought many more people along. (They couldn’t do that because the numbers don’t add up.)

“updated meta-analysis in both 2020 and 2023 concluding there is no strong evidence that masking is effective”
This is the relevant quote from the 2023 (updated) paper, repeated from the 2020 version.
“The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.” And they don’t. Instead, they say:
“There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness”

I needn’t even bother with the takedown of that Cochrane by Mcintyre et al, among the researchers on whose studies the review supposedly relies. In fact the conclusion I just quoted supports critique of drawing generalisations from the paper.

As for “and in 2023 additionally that the harms of masking are understudied””
There is no such statement. There is reference to the fact some people found masks uncomfortable to wear, and some were troubled by acne. Surprise.

“Given…it was also obvious that this virus could not be driven to extinction, lockdowns were a catastrophic mistake”
A statement of the bleedin’ obvious, never denied, then your characteristic non sequitur. You figure it out, although I doubt that your fervid prejudices will allow it.

JS as usual, if your argument is too weak to refute your opponent, you go in with the smears and hope they’ll be intimidated. Here, you go for the smear that they’re a conspiracy theorist. I can think of various experts who were critical of the narrative, and as the fomented fear and loathing around covid recedes, seem in retrospect to have been vindicated on at least some of their points. But to appreciate that, you need to hold viewpoint tolerance.

@TheSilver
“This shows you aren’t serious.” Why would you think that?

Could it have something to do with “There were plenty of expert economists who said so …”? Sorry, but I don’t take anyone seriously who gets their medical advice from economists.

Justsaying,
On a macro setting for setting government health policy and optimising responses to things like COVID, I would trust health economists far more than GP’s or other frontline health professionals.

We aren’t talking about a system with unlimited resources. Any choice government makes will use finite resources and have impacts in other areas that can only be effectively assessed by people with the right skill sets which most definitely includes economists.

In saying that, I don’t agree with The Silver’s one sided presentation of policy choices and impacts either.

@chewy14
You are probably right, chewy. Given that we are talking about historical policy to get us to the point of high vaccination rates across the population, I haven’t taken too much notice of TheSilver’s and CaptainSpiff’s railings.
My reference to my GP was a personal one – as my wife and I discussed it a lot with him, particularly the scare mongering around vaccination, etc.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.