logo
McDonald's battles ‘fierce' Aussie competition as global sales drop

McDonald's battles ‘fierce' Aussie competition as global sales drop

Courier-Mail25-05-2025
Don't miss out on the headlines from Restaurants & Bars. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The famous golden arches might be losing their glow, with McDonald's recording a surprising drop in global sales as the fast-food giant battles 'fierce' competition in Australia.
McDonald's reported a one per cent fall in global comparable sales in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period in 2024, which included a Leap Day.
In its US birthplace, McDonald's recorded a 3.6 per cent decline in sales – marking the biggest sales drop since the pandemic, when restrictions were in place.
McDonald's attributed a decrease in the number of comparable customer transactions at restaurants as a major factor behind its decline in US sales.
McDonald's Chairman and CEO Chris Kempczinski said customers were 'grappling with uncertainty'.
'McDonald's has a 70-year legacy of innovation, leadership, and proven agility, all of which give us confidence in our ability to navigate even the toughest of market conditions and gain market share,' Mr Kempczinski said.
McDonald's recorded a 3.6 per cent decline in sales in the US. Picture: Charly Triballeau/AFP
In Australia, research suggests the fast-food giant's sales are rising, with market research firm IBISWorld estimating McDonald's sales to be $5.7 billion in 2024-2025, compared to $5.4 billion in 2023-2024.
But it's not all good news, with the fast-food giant having to fight off hungry competitors eating into its market.
'While absolute sales figures might be rising, it is anticipated that McDonald's is losing market share to other fast food providers in Australia,' IBISWorld Industry Team Leader Disha Jeswanth told news.com.au, adding 'McDonald's faces fierce competition from several sources'.
'Within the fast food segment, the main differentiator is price in terms of value for money.'
According to IBISWorld, McDonald's market share has consistently dropped from 21.5 per cent in 2021-2022 to 19.3 per cent in 2024-25.
McDonald's is fighting off hungry competitors eating into its Australian market. Picture: Glenn Campbell
Aside from competing against KFC, Dominos as well as burger joints of the likes of Hungry Jack's and Grill'd, McDonald's is also facing off with Mexican food brand Guzman y Gomez (GYG) which has proven itself to be a 'major emerging competitor'.
'Guzman y Gomez is capturing market share through its perceived healthier food offerings,' said Ms Jeswanth.
'While a large burger meal at Maccas is averaging above $15 these days, GYG is offering a burrito bowl for a similar price. The brand is also marketing its use of free-range chicken and high-quality ingredients.
'GYG's next move involves expanding into drive-thru operations, which will further weigh on McDonald's demand.'
'Grill'd, on the other hand, although it doesn't compete with Maccas on the basis of price, is offering gourmet burgers that are often a healthier choice.'
To counter this, Ms Jeswanth notes McDonald's has continued sourcing over 90 per cent of its ingredients locally and using 100 per cent RSPCA-approved chicken.
'McDonald's also provides nutritional information with its food orders to maintain transparency. However, public perception around McDonald's food quality remains a challenge.'
Guzman Gomez is a major emerging competitor against McDonald's. Picture: NewsWire/Gaye Gerard
Jump in price
An increase in prices, as other restaurants have done amid rising cost-of-living and inflation, have also hurt McDonald's reputation.
'McDonald's value proposition has long centred on providing affordable meals, appealing especially to budget-conscious consumers,' said Ms Jeswanth.
'However, consistent price increases in recent years, driven by rising input costs and wages have eroded this perception of value.'
The price of a large fries has increased by more than 50 per cent since 2019, from $3.20 to $4.85 as of this month, while a classic Angus burger is up more than 25 per cent from $7.95 to $10.
The increase has come at a time when cost-of-living pressures has changed Australians' spending habits.
'Lower-income households and younger consumers are extremely cautious of their discretionary spending', said Ms Jeswanth.
McDonald's has seen an increase in prices in recent years.
According to Finder's Consumer Sentiment, only 61 per cent of Australians reported spending money on food delivery or takeaway services per week in May 2025, compared to 68 per cent in May 2022.
'The cost of living is putting significant pressure on household budgets, and one area many Australians are cutting back on is non-essential spending such as takeaway,' Graham Cooke, head of consumer research at Finder told news.com.au.
'Fast food prices of some menu items at McDonalds have been rising faster than inflation.
'At the same time, local fast-food brands have diversified their offerings.'
'When groceries, energy bills, and housing costs rise, the convenience of restaurant-prepared meals becomes a luxury that is harder to justify for many individuals and families,' he added.
'What might have been a weekly or even bi-weekly habit could shift to a monthly treat or only for special occasions.'
X
Low customer satisfaction
According to Sydney-based Fonto, which conducts weekly surveys of customer experiences at 19 Quick Service Restaurants (QSR) across Australia, McDonald's consistently underperforms on customer satisfaction compared to other brands across the last 16 months.
In the first quarter of the year ending in April, McDonald's scored 69 per cent overall satisfaction – a drop from 71 per cent compared to the same period last year.
Out of the top 15 brands, the fast-food giant was ranked last in the first quarter of this year.
'We're seeing consistently that McDonald's ranks towards the very bottom,' Fonto CEO Ben Dixon told news.com.au, adding it sits in the bottom third of 19 brands.
Meanwhile, competitors GYG, Crust and Grill'd made up the top three brands for overall satisfaction.
'They're really focusing on fresh and healthy, they're brands that an athlete would consider buying from, and their prices aren't too far away. The gap in price used to be quite significant between, say, a Grill'd burger and a McDonald's meal, and it's not as big anymore.'
Grill'd beef burgers range from $13.50 to $16.50, according to current prices listed on its website.
In the first quarter of the year, McDonald's ranked 13 for price out of the top 15 brands.
'McDonald's customers have consistently got the least satisfaction with their prices than any of the other brands,' said Mr Dixon.
'So people feel like they're still paying a lot, and the quality is not there for what they're paying.'
Grill'd recorded 88 per cent overall satisfaction among customers surveyed by Fonto between February and April 2025.
Between March 2024-May 2024, Grill'd's overall satisfaction jumped from 85 per cent between to 88 per cent between February and April 2025. Over the same period, McDonald's dropped from 74 per cent to 69 per cent respectively.
Despite the low customer satisfaction, 75 per cent of McDonald's customers told Fonto they didn't consider going elsewhere.
Mr Dixon said one major reason behind this decision is proximity, with McDonald's owning over 1,000 restaurants across the country.
'If you're in a regional or rural area then it's hard to consider going somewhere else if there's nothing for a long way away,' he said.
McDonald's over 1,000 restaurants across the country. Picture: Evan Morgan
But as competitors open more stores the game could change.
Last year, GYG announced its goal to expand its network to over 1,000 stores.
'The question that everyone probably needs to think about is, if every town had a strip, and in that strip was a McDonald's, a Hungry Jack's, a KFC and a Subway, would McDonald's hold the massive market there that it does?' Mr Dixon questioned.
'Or would people move between them because they don't want to eat a burger every night, or because the quality and the satisfaction is not necessarily as high in some of those restaurants?'
The future of fast food in Australia
New competitors such as US-based chicken chain Wingstop – which opened its first store in Australia this month – is also looking to take a bite out of an increasingly crowded market.
'McDonald's has stood the test of time in the Australian market, there is always the risk of losing market share to new competitors,' said Ms Jeswanth.
'International fast food giant Wendy's is set to expand to over 200 locations in Australia over the next decade, proving to be a direct competitor to Maccas.'
To compete, Ms Jeswanth said brands will need to focus on providing premium quality and healthier meals at affordable prices.
'Consumer behaviour is tilting towards sustainable and healthier options, and fast food giants will need to match these preferences (including plant-based options) to remain viable in his highly competitive market,' she said.
The fast food market is predicted to become more crowded in Australia. Picture: Glenn Campbell
'Despite McDonald's loyalty and scale within Australia, the brand will need to focus on bettering its offerings to remain competitive.'
Mr Dixon agrees 'the competition will just get tougher'.
'If I was McDonald's or a McDonald's franchisee, I'd have my work ahead of me,' he said.
'They've got to think seriously about how they reinvent themselves again, or what they do differently to continue to dominate.'
News.com.au contacted McDonald's for comment but was referred to its first-quarter sales data.
Originally published as McDonald's battles 'fierce' competition in Australia as global sales drop
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia
The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia

The Age

timean hour ago

  • The Age

The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia

Tucked away in an unassuming suburban business park in Fairfax, Virginia, not far from Washington DC, is the single-storey office of Burdeshaw Associates, a company that has done millions of dollars worth of confidential business with the Australian Defence Department over the past 10 years. Located alongside neighbours that include an escape room and a karate studio, it's a surprisingly low-key location for a firm that describes itself as 'the premier aerospace and defense boutique consulting firm' offering the services of 'over 700+ [sic] retired generals, [and] admirals'. For years the company has acted as a conduit for highly paid advice to the Australian government from a raft of retired senior US navy and defence personnel who charge thousands of dollars a day. And there are likely to be further rich pickings ahead, as the AUKUS pact moves the Royal Australian Navy towards a nuclear-powered submarine fleet (albeit at a grindingly slow pace) and government dollars start to flow from upskilling a workforce, and building the infrastructure, to enter the nuclear domain. The depth and duration of Burdeshaw's relationship with Canberra's defence establishment is striking. Records on the federal government's Austender site reveal that the Australian Defence Department has struck contracts worth at least $11.7 million with Burdeshaw over the past decade for 'strategic planning consultation services'. A further $1.5 million deal was signed between the company and the Prime Minister's Department in 2021 for advice to then prime minister Scott Morrison. That's $13.2 million flowing through Burdeshaw's books courtesy of the Australian taxpayer over the past decade, including its most recent three-year contract with Defence, valued at $1.2 million, and dated February this year. However, a request to the Defence Department to provide a comprehensive list of the names and roles of personnel hired under the Burdeshaw contracts has been stymied, with Defence citing 'security and commercial-in-confidence reasons'. Burdeshaw and its principal, lawyer Alex Heidt, have also failed to respond to numerous attempts by this masthead to elicit further information. A visit revealed that Burdeshaw shares its premises with Heidt's law firm. A large painting of the late general William M. Hartzog, a former chief executive of the company, adorns the wall, and a stack of Heidt's awards from Lawyers of Distinction are assembled on a desk by the front door. An employee, Tyler Heidt (Alex Heidt's son), wanted to know if this masthead had security clearance, and when told no, said the dealings with Defence were confidential. Even on the limited information publicly available, Burdeshaw's record shows the deep involvement by senior retired US Navy personnel in confidential deliberations about the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly as Australia pivoted towards the AUKUS submarine deal under Morrison. As investigative journalist Andrew Fowler noted in his book Nuked, by the time Morrison had junked the deal to buy conventional French submarines and replaced it in September 2021 with the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact with America and Britain, 'US senior military officials were liberally sprinkled across the highest levels of the administration'. By late 2022 – the last time Defence made figures readily available to a federal parliamentary committee – no less than eight retired senior US Navy officers were providing well-paid advice to the Australian Defence Department, among them, an admiral, a vice admiral, a rear admiral, a commander and four captains. All were either advising on 'naval shipbuilding' or on managing the transition of the RAN submarine fleet to a nuclear-powered future. It is unclear how many were on contracts negotiated through Burdeshaw. (At least two senior retired US Navy figures appear to have struck their own deals with the Australian Defence Department under separate consultancy companies they set up.) Defence also refused to provide updated figures on how many foreign nationals are working on AUKUS-related programs. In response to questions, a spokesperson said the department needed 'the support and expertise of the US and the UK to deliver AUKUS' and that 'all personnel regardless of nationality, are subject to appropriate security clearance requirements and operate under strict contractual obligations'. Burdeshaw first came to public notice in 2022, when The Washington Post published an investigation revealing more than half a dozen former US Navy and civilian navy leaders were playing advisory roles at senior levels of the Australian defence hierarchy in the lead-up to AUKUS. The Post named six former navy admirals and Dr Donald C. Winter, a onetime US Navy secretary to George W. Bush. Winter had been a key member of the Australian government's high-level Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board as far back as 2016, before being handpicked by Morrison to help drive AUKUS forward in September 2021. Documents unearthed by the Post show Winter's services were being provided via Burdeshaw in late 2021 for $US6000 ($9318) a day, plus expenses. In 2022, specialist industry publication Australian Defence Magazine highlighted the 'significant American influence in Australia's defence capability decision-making'. It noted the Defence Department's submarine advisory committee included two senior US shipbuilding industry figures: Jim Hughes and retired US admiral Kirkland Donald. Hughes was a former vice president of submarines at US shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding (which makes Virginia-class submarines of the type Australia is now seeking to acquire from the US before it gears up to make its own). Loading Donald sat on Australia's top-level submarine advisory committee from 2017, while he was also on the board of and subsequently chairing US nuclear submarine builder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), which owns Newport News. He eventually stepped down from the Australian advisory committee in April 2022, citing a potential conflict of interest. This masthead is not suggesting there was a conflict of interest. Defence officials later insisted he'd declared his HII role and 'in his capacity as a member of the submarine advisory committee he did not provide advice on nuclear-powered submarines'. In 2018-19, former US Navy rear admiral Stephen E. Johnson was appointed a deputy secretary inside the Australian Department of Defence, one of the most senior positions in the nation's security hierarchy. Former US Navy vice admiral William 'Willy' Hilarides, a veteran of 35 years in the American service, was also deeply embedded in Australian defence advisory structures for years. A former head of the US Navy's ship and sustainment program, Hilarides sat as a key member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board for four years before becoming chair of its successor body, the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, in 2021. Figures provided by the Defence Department to a Senate committee in late 2022 put the value of Hilarides' contracts – negotiated through Burdeshaw – at $1.9 million. Subsequently, this masthead reported he received $2.4 million for his role on the two advisory panels. Head of the Defence Department Greg Moriarty told the Senate that Hilarides had played no role in the Morrison government's decision to scrap the French submarine contract in 2021. In 2023, the Albanese government handed Hilarides a new role, heading a review to advise on achieving 'complementarity' between Australia's surface navy fleet and the AUKUS submarines. Labor Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the extensive use of advice from former top-ranking US Navy officers, telling this masthead in 2023, 'where we have sought advice from those former officials in the US Navy, that has been on issues of profound importance for our nation's future'. Others have questioned how genuinely objective such advice could have been, even with the best intentions. Gary Slater, a former American marine turned consultant for local lobbyist ADCG, says 'there's a good and a bad to it: the good is that you're getting access to global expertise. And the bad is a perception ... that you're paying consultant rates for retired officers to give you advice that is not necessarily in Australia's best interest'. Rex Patrick, former South Australian senator and submariner, speculates that it appeared the department had wanted only one perspective. 'If you only seek counsel from US admirals, you'll only get a US answer. The department had the ability to reach out to other very experienced submarine-operating nations to bring different perspectives 'inside the tent'. They didn't.' Defence's refusal to answer this masthead's questions about the Burdeshaw contracts stands in marked contrast to some of the detail it provided in past Senate estimates hearings. Loading In 2023, Defence Department secretary Moriarty confirmed that contracts for advice by another American, retired US Navy rear admiral Thomas Eccles, then stood at $1.2 million. In early 2023, in written advice to Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, the department confirmed that the maximum amount payable on contracts relating to just three of the US Navy's former top brass – Hilarides, Eccles and Kirkland Donald – totalled close to $5.3 million. The AUKUS pact faces a raft of challenges, not least the review now being undertaken by Pentagon Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby. Finding the workforce to crew, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines will pose a years-long challenge. However, one pool of labour that won't run dry any time soon is the pipeline of US and other consultants in waiting as the AUKUS project gathers momentum. Meanwhile, the federal government's Australian Submarine Agency is criss-crossing the globe at a seemingly frenetic pace. According to figures provided to the senate, between June last year and the end of January this year, its staff clocked up 218 international trips, at a total cost of around $3 million.

The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia
The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia

Tucked away in an unassuming suburban business park in Fairfax, Virginia, not far from Washington DC, is the single-storey office of Burdeshaw Associates, a company that has done millions of dollars worth of confidential business with the Australian Defence Department over the past 10 years. Located alongside neighbours that include an escape room and a karate studio, it's a surprisingly low-key location for a firm that describes itself as 'the premier aerospace and defense boutique consulting firm' offering the services of 'over 700+ [sic] retired generals, [and] admirals'. For years the company has acted as a conduit for highly paid advice to the Australian government from a raft of retired senior US navy and defence personnel who charge thousands of dollars a day. And there are likely to be further rich pickings ahead, as the AUKUS pact moves the Royal Australian Navy towards a nuclear-powered submarine fleet (albeit at a grindingly slow pace) and government dollars start to flow from upskilling a workforce, and building the infrastructure, to enter the nuclear domain. The depth and duration of Burdeshaw's relationship with Canberra's defence establishment is striking. Records on the federal government's Austender site reveal that the Australian Defence Department has struck contracts worth at least $11.7 million with Burdeshaw over the past decade for 'strategic planning consultation services'. A further $1.5 million deal was signed between the company and the Prime Minister's Department in 2021 for advice to then prime minister Scott Morrison. That's $13.2 million flowing through Burdeshaw's books courtesy of the Australian taxpayer over the past decade, including its most recent three-year contract with Defence, valued at $1.2 million, and dated February this year. However, a request to the Defence Department to provide a comprehensive list of the names and roles of personnel hired under the Burdeshaw contracts has been stymied, with Defence citing 'security and commercial-in-confidence reasons'. Burdeshaw and its principal, lawyer Alex Heidt, have also failed to respond to numerous attempts by this masthead to elicit further information. A visit revealed that Burdeshaw shares its premises with Heidt's law firm. A large painting of the late general William M. Hartzog, a former chief executive of the company, adorns the wall, and a stack of Heidt's awards from Lawyers of Distinction are assembled on a desk by the front door. An employee, Tyler Heidt (Alex Heidt's son), wanted to know if this masthead had security clearance, and when told no, said the dealings with Defence were confidential. Even on the limited information publicly available, Burdeshaw's record shows the deep involvement by senior retired US Navy personnel in confidential deliberations about the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly as Australia pivoted towards the AUKUS submarine deal under Morrison. As investigative journalist Andrew Fowler noted in his book Nuked, by the time Morrison had junked the deal to buy conventional French submarines and replaced it in September 2021 with the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact with America and Britain, 'US senior military officials were liberally sprinkled across the highest levels of the administration'. By late 2022 – the last time Defence made figures readily available to a federal parliamentary committee – no less than eight retired senior US Navy officers were providing well-paid advice to the Australian Defence Department, among them, an admiral, a vice admiral, a rear admiral, a commander and four captains. All were either advising on 'naval shipbuilding' or on managing the transition of the RAN submarine fleet to a nuclear-powered future. It is unclear how many were on contracts negotiated through Burdeshaw. (At least two senior retired US Navy figures appear to have struck their own deals with the Australian Defence Department under separate consultancy companies they set up.) Defence also refused to provide updated figures on how many foreign nationals are working on AUKUS-related programs. In response to questions, a spokesperson said the department needed 'the support and expertise of the US and the UK to deliver AUKUS' and that 'all personnel regardless of nationality, are subject to appropriate security clearance requirements and operate under strict contractual obligations'. Burdeshaw first came to public notice in 2022, when The Washington Post published an investigation revealing more than half a dozen former US Navy and civilian navy leaders were playing advisory roles at senior levels of the Australian defence hierarchy in the lead-up to AUKUS. The Post named six former navy admirals and Dr Donald C. Winter, a onetime US Navy secretary to George W. Bush. Winter had been a key member of the Australian government's high-level Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board as far back as 2016, before being handpicked by Morrison to help drive AUKUS forward in September 2021. Documents unearthed by the Post show Winter's services were being provided via Burdeshaw in late 2021 for $US6000 ($9318) a day, plus expenses. In 2022, specialist industry publication Australian Defence Magazine highlighted the 'significant American influence in Australia's defence capability decision-making'. It noted the Defence Department's submarine advisory committee included two senior US shipbuilding industry figures: Jim Hughes and retired US admiral Kirkland Donald. Hughes was a former vice president of submarines at US shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding (which makes Virginia-class submarines of the type Australia is now seeking to acquire from the US before it gears up to make its own). Loading Donald sat on Australia's top-level submarine advisory committee from 2017, while he was also on the board of and subsequently chairing US nuclear submarine builder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), which owns Newport News. He eventually stepped down from the Australian advisory committee in April 2022, citing a potential conflict of interest. This masthead is not suggesting there was a conflict of interest. Defence officials later insisted he'd declared his HII role and 'in his capacity as a member of the submarine advisory committee he did not provide advice on nuclear-powered submarines'. In 2018-19, former US Navy rear admiral Stephen E. Johnson was appointed a deputy secretary inside the Australian Department of Defence, one of the most senior positions in the nation's security hierarchy. Former US Navy vice admiral William 'Willy' Hilarides, a veteran of 35 years in the American service, was also deeply embedded in Australian defence advisory structures for years. A former head of the US Navy's ship and sustainment program, Hilarides sat as a key member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board for four years before becoming chair of its successor body, the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, in 2021. Figures provided by the Defence Department to a Senate committee in late 2022 put the value of Hilarides' contracts – negotiated through Burdeshaw – at $1.9 million. Subsequently, this masthead reported he received $2.4 million for his role on the two advisory panels. Head of the Defence Department Greg Moriarty told the Senate that Hilarides had played no role in the Morrison government's decision to scrap the French submarine contract in 2021. In 2023, the Albanese government handed Hilarides a new role, heading a review to advise on achieving 'complementarity' between Australia's surface navy fleet and the AUKUS submarines. Labor Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the extensive use of advice from former top-ranking US Navy officers, telling this masthead in 2023, 'where we have sought advice from those former officials in the US Navy, that has been on issues of profound importance for our nation's future'. Others have questioned how genuinely objective such advice could have been, even with the best intentions. Gary Slater, a former American marine turned consultant for local lobbyist ADCG, says 'there's a good and a bad to it: the good is that you're getting access to global expertise. And the bad is a perception ... that you're paying consultant rates for retired officers to give you advice that is not necessarily in Australia's best interest'. Rex Patrick, former South Australian senator and submariner, speculates that it appeared the department had wanted only one perspective. 'If you only seek counsel from US admirals, you'll only get a US answer. The department had the ability to reach out to other very experienced submarine-operating nations to bring different perspectives 'inside the tent'. They didn't.' Defence's refusal to answer this masthead's questions about the Burdeshaw contracts stands in marked contrast to some of the detail it provided in past Senate estimates hearings. Loading In 2023, Defence Department secretary Moriarty confirmed that contracts for advice by another American, retired US Navy rear admiral Thomas Eccles, then stood at $1.2 million. In early 2023, in written advice to Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, the department confirmed that the maximum amount payable on contracts relating to just three of the US Navy's former top brass – Hilarides, Eccles and Kirkland Donald – totalled close to $5.3 million. The AUKUS pact faces a raft of challenges, not least the review now being undertaken by Pentagon Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby. Finding the workforce to crew, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines will pose a years-long challenge. However, one pool of labour that won't run dry any time soon is the pipeline of US and other consultants in waiting as the AUKUS project gathers momentum. Meanwhile, the federal government's Australian Submarine Agency is criss-crossing the globe at a seemingly frenetic pace. According to figures provided to the senate, between June last year and the end of January this year, its staff clocked up 218 international trips, at a total cost of around $3 million.

Signs are already not good for Chalmers' productivity testament
Signs are already not good for Chalmers' productivity testament

The Age

time2 hours ago

  • The Age

Signs are already not good for Chalmers' productivity testament

This week, the festival of productivity kicked off in Canberra. The quasi-religious ritual will culminate in a productivity roundtable, at which an anointed few will gather to chant the catechism of economic reform. Policy festivus is celebrated in Australia when a political party is ascendent but its courage is in retrograde. This cargo cult-style ceremony mimics the Accord, a revered moment in Australian political lore when the Hawke-Keating government brought together the heads of the unions and business to reach a groundbreaking arrangement which, it is widely agreed, set Australia on the path of prosperity. The Albanese government has shown itself to be a great devotee of the Cult of the Accord. In its first term, it held the Jobs and Skills Summit, which lined up all the key players and ideas to simulate the process. Thanks to meticulous planning, the Rites of Full Employment performed at the summit confirmed the government in its conviction that it is the key player in creating jobs. Those who lack faith say that it is doubtful that the summit has led to actual employment outcomes. Aglow from its success, Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched his next project, ' Measuring What Matters', or the wellbeing budget. But Measuring What Matters had a problematic feature: it opened a window into a deeper theology. Namely, the question of what exactly wellbeing might be. If there is one thing the Albanese government, dominated by Labor Left, will not tolerate, it is the idea that there might be different conceptions of wellbeing than the one which it preaches. By the October 2022 out-of-cycle budget, wellbeing had been reduced to a tiny addendum. The following May, it was gone entirely, and the addendum from October had been scrubbed from the previous year's budget papers online. In July 2023, Treasury put the completed paper up online without fanfare. Measuring What Matters was shrunk and sunk. Not to be deterred – and it is quite refreshing to see a politician doggedly attempt to do his actual job rather than just play politics – Chalmers requested that the Productivity Commission produce a set of proposals for improving Australia's prosperity. This week the first of these dropped, marking the official start of the festival of productivity. Loading It's a doozy. The interim report on ' Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy' is brief (under 100 pages), simple and bold. It proposes lowering the tax on companies with revenue below $1 billion from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, replacing the resulting decrease in tax take with a 5 per cent tax on cashflow. Companies with a turnover above $1 billion would continue on the 30 per cent tax rate, as well as paying the cashflow tax. Regardless of size, all companies could immediately deduct capital investment – for instance in equipment needed to grow the business – against the cashflow tax. The genius of the cashflow tax, which would be the first of its kind in the world, is that it would encourage companies to buy what they need in Australia, creating a further benefit to the economy. In particular, overseas companies with revenue over $1 billion – those that could undertake their procurement anywhere in the world – would have an incentive to make their acquisitions in Australia in order to reduce their tax bills.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store