Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Business voices competing for Tony Abbott's ear


AFR headline 'PM advisor demands deep cuts'

Prime minister Tony Abbott's post-election declaration that Australia was 'open for business' needed fleshing out. Possibly it got that on Monday evening in a strident landmark address given by the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council Dr Maurice Newman. Newman said the economy was 'running on empty' and needed radical reform and fiscal discipline to avoid 'the prospect of growth with a zero in front of it'.

He criticised Labor for 'five long years of reckless spending, economic waste, class warfare particularly aimed at business, the mindless destruction of Australia's international competitiveness and the reintroduction of workplace rigidities'. He was referring to 'common good' policies such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski school funding reforms, which he believes are a waste of money (implicitly he discounts the role of education in boosting economic productivity). 

Newman regretted that the Coalition had 'limited its options' by making 'hasty' election promises to avoid necessary cuts to such reforms. He also urged measures to shift the balance of power from ordinary Australians towards big business. These include the easing of competition laws to give big companies the 'necessary critical mass in a small domestic market' to become 'national champions'. Is he talking about going soft on any collusion between Coles and Woolworths, or perhaps even allowing a merger?

At his media conference on Tuesday, Abbott denied that Newman holds sway over government policy. But Newman has been meeting with Abbott at least weekly since the election, and it's said that Newman's speech was prepared after close consultation with Abbott. 

It's Newman's job to lobby for big business against, as it happens, the common good. But even among some of his peers in the business world, he is regarded as arrogant and aloof, particularly on his unwillingness to accept the need for a reduction in carbon emissions. The Financial Review's Chanticleer observed that 'his strident position on climate change was contrasted with the balanced views taken by Santos chief executive David Knox and Nestlé Australia director Elizabeth Proust on Q&A on ABC later the same night'.

It's to be hoped that Knox and Proust are among the 'range of voices that the Government takes very seriously', which Abbott alluded to in his media conference while trying to hose down suggestions that Newman is writing his government's business policy.

Another voice that merits a hearing is that of ANU economics Professor Ross Garnaut, who talks about 'policy making in the public interest' in his new book Dog Days: Australia After the Boom. Garnaut is one with Newman in advocating the need for fiscal restraint, but is critical of Newman's wish to 'put all the adjustment burden on vulnerable Australians when that's neither economically rational nor politically feasible'. Instead Garnaut wants what he calls 'shared sacrifice'.

Newman argues for tax reform that will shift the burden away from business towards workers, and does not mention a key concern of Garnaut's, which is the cost to our productivity of Australia's high rates of executive remuneration when compared with similar economies.

We can only hope that Abbott is in fact true to his word when he tried to assure journalists that he listens to a range of voices on how to sustain the wellbeing of all Australians, and not just big business people.

Michael MullinsMichael Mullins is editor of Eureka Street. 

Topic tags: Michael Mullins, Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott, Ross Garnaut, business, economics, productivity, GDP, regulati



submit a comment

Existing comments

Extremely disappointing to hear blatant falsehoods from once-respected leaders. But appalling to hear that advice from such people is being sought by the Government. Claims such as “five long years of reckless spending, economic waste, class warfare” and “mindless destruction of Australia's international competitiveness” and “so much economic damage inflicted in just six years'' are just nonsensical. In 2007, Australia was the 10th ranked economy in the world, behind Iceland. Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Now it is top-ranked. That’s on income, wealth, jobs, growth, debt, budget, trade, productivity, inflation and credit ratings. Unless basic realities are understood and accepted, then there is no hope for effective decision-making in challenging times.

Alan Austin | 18 November 2013  

I am disappointed that Michael has not been more objective in his comments about Michael Neman's paper given at a recent CEDA Meeting.Certainly he highlighted the damage done by the profligacy of the last Government.He highlighted that our labour market was internationally uncompetitive and many of our business practices were out of touch.I welcome his sometime stringent views on a range of business &community structural issues.There will be other views around the PM s advisory council to provide balance.Overall though I belief the challenges he laid out in his paper were needed

Brian Martin | 25 November 2013  

Similar Articles

Abbott should not punish the ABC

  • Michael Mullins
  • 25 November 2013

The prime minister said he 'sincerely regrets any embarrassment that recent media reports have caused' Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Did he mean the media was doing its job and that the embarrassment was collateral damage? Or was he regretting that the media was out of line? Outspoken monarchist Professor David Flint says the government should retaliate against the ABC by reviewing the its overseas broadcasting contract.


Change tax tack to take power back

  • Jean-Paul Gagnon
  • 18 November 2013

What if citizens were given the chance to fill out a preference form online as part of their own personal, digital tax portal? You could choose to pick 'below the line' and individually choose what your tax money can and can't be spent on. For example you might like to spend on funding public schools, the bullet train, hospital supplies and museums, and not to spend on nuclear power plants, weapons development, or the automotive industry subsidy.