It's now $61.15 billion of gross borrowing by the Abbott government

Fri, 21 Mar 2014  |  

The week ends with the Abbott government borrowing a further $700 million today, which brings the total of gross borrowing since 9 September 2013 to $61.15 billion.

$61.15 billion of bond and T-Notes that have been issued in just over six months as the government funds the budget deficit, covers maturing bonds and T-Notes and prepares to fund a range of its policy expenditure items.

As I have noted at nausium on the issue of government debt over recent years, the Australian government's debt level remains trivial, chicken feed, small beer and the campaign of the Coalition Parties to suggest otherwise was factually flawed and it still is.

Even in government, the Coalition bemoan the level of debt and pretend it is a major factor threatening to undermine Australian sovereign risk or some similar nonsense.

The credit ratings agencies, all which rank Australia triple-A with a stable outlook and have since 2011, suggest the level of government is low. So do foreign investors who own close to three-quarters of the government bond market and a huge proportion of the stocks listed on the ASX as well as an increasingly large holding of property. They do so comfortable in the knowledge that a government debt problem that would hurt the Australian dollar or bond yields is very unlikely.

The cumulative effect of the new borrowing means that gross government debt now stands at $310.1 billion, some $36 billion higher than when Mr Abbott convincingly won the 2013 election.

It was always obvious the promise to stop the borrowing and repay Labor's debt were false. The facts confirm this.

comments powered by Disqus


Peter Costello and the Future Fund Fiddle

Mon, 24 Oct 2016

This article first appeared on The Adelaide Review website at this link: 


Peter Costello and the Future Fund Fiddle

The latest portfolio update from the Future Fund confirmed that the average annual return on its investments has been 7.7 percent since it was established in May 2006.

Former Treasurer Peter Costello, who is the Chair of the Future Fund Board of Guardians, judged this return to be good to the point where he claimed that it was successful in “exceeding the return objective”.

That is an expansive claim.

In the media release – that included details of the fund return up to June 30, 2016 – there was a table that showed the 7.7 percent annual return that Costello referred to. It also noted that the ‘target return’ or objective for the Future Fund since inception was 6.9 per cent, which no doubt leads Costello to his conclusion that the 7.7 percent was larger and had exceeded the objective.

Alas, that target return for the Future Fund in its own media release is misleading. According to the Future Fund Act 2006, the investment objective or target return is at “least the rate of inflation (measured by the change in the CPI) plus 4.5 to 5.5 percent”.

This return was designed to be achieved “over the long term” which is prudent and sensible given the inherent short-term volatility and variability in many market values.

The real reason young Aussies are struggling to get on the property ladder

Fri, 21 Oct 2016

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 website at this link: 


The real reason young Aussies are struggling to get on the property ladder

I thought kids stopped screaming and being blindingly selfish when they turned 3 or maybe 4. I was wrong. It could be that 30 is the new 3.

Having witnessed, first hand, some of the froth and bubble surrounding the issue of consumption patterns of millennials, that they prefer spending money on lattes and smashed avocado on toast rather than a dwelling, there is an irrational, self centered discussion that blames anyone and everyone for their inability to get into the housing market.

If Twitter and some of media articles are anything to go by, a bevvy of millennials have explicitly expressed their overwhelming desire to spend their money on avocado, ubers, the latest phones and travel rather than saving to buy a house. I have noted, ad nauseam, that this is fair enough – it’s their money, spending it whichever way floats your boat is a fundamental tenet of economics. It is all part of that basic choice we all have about where we wish to spend our money.

Rather than leaving it there, the millennial group then unrelentingly complain about their perceived in ability to tap into the housing market. This is incongruous given they have just said they are no longer looking to buy a house. Why would anyone care about the price of a Brett Whitely painting, for example, when you aren’t looking to buy one? But the millennials are vocal about their insistence of unapologetically wanting to spend their money on lattes, pulled pork and a mascarpone pancake stack whilst still moaning about their inability to buy a house.

It’s this juxtaposition that leaves me wondering what the fuss is about.