Latest news with #Chalmers'
Sydney Morning Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The treasurer is telling us to stay calm, but this could be the time to panic
'AI may be the most transformative technology in human history,' wrote the treasurer this week. It's the rarest kind of statement: at once emphatically grand and altogether too modest. Grand, because it has AI outstripping, say, the wheel, electricity, or the internet. Modest, because it puts AI on the same continuum as all this, as though its difference is merely one of scale and speed, rather than something more fundamental. In this way, Jim Chalmers echoes the spirit of the Productivity Commission's latest interim report, also released this week, examining how AI will change our economy. It would be fair to say the report is optimistic, seduced by AI's promise of significantly increased productivity. To that end, it warns the government against overregulating AI, on the basis that this would slow down its productive march. Chalmers' version of the same idea has government regulating 'as much as necessary to protect Australians, but as little as possible to encourage innovation'. All of which presumes some kind of clear-eyed assessment of AI's risks. And it's hereabouts that all this optimism should give us pause. Not because either the government or the commission deny there are serious risks. But because they characterise these risks – much as they characterise AI – as mere extensions of previous experience. Indeed, the commission's report could hardly be clearer on this point. After running through a series of potential problems – including some serious ones such as AI making mistakes in high-risk situations like healthcare or law enforcement – it concludes there is ultimately nothing new to see here: 'AI can exacerbate existing risk of harm but does not create wholly new risks where none existed before'. Loading Meanwhile, Chalmers acknowledges the possibility of significant unemployment, but believes it will not be widespread or structural. To this end, he makes the observation that while technological developments always eliminate jobs, they create more than they destroy. 'We've seen this play out before,' he affirms. But this is more an assumption than an argument. It assumes that all technological advancement is some single, undifferentiated phenomenon, such that its history broadly repeats. But this is something the Albanese government must know not to be true. It is, after all, implementing a ban on social media platforms for children under 16, a belated response to a damaging technology we spent years assuming would be as benign as, say, television. Now we seem to be assuming similarly AI will neatly fit into a benign pattern. That assumption only holds to the extent AI is analogous with most of what has come before. And in the circumstances, we'd be wise to examine it far more rigorously before settling on it because there are good reasons to suppose it is a different species altogether, for which history is a poor guide.
The Age
5 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The treasurer is telling us to stay calm, but this could be the time to panic
'AI may be the most transformative technology in human history,' wrote the treasurer this week. It's the rarest kind of statement: at once emphatically grand and altogether too modest. Grand, because it has AI outstripping, say, the wheel, electricity, or the internet. Modest, because it puts AI on the same continuum as all this, as though its difference is merely one of scale and speed, rather than something more fundamental. In this way, Jim Chalmers echoes the spirit of the Productivity Commission's latest interim report, also released this week, examining how AI will change our economy. It would be fair to say the report is optimistic, seduced by AI's promise of significantly increased productivity. To that end, it warns the government against overregulating AI, on the basis that this would slow down its productive march. Chalmers' version of the same idea has government regulating 'as much as necessary to protect Australians, but as little as possible to encourage innovation'. All of which presumes some kind of clear-eyed assessment of AI's risks. And it's hereabouts that all this optimism should give us pause. Not because either the government or the commission deny there are serious risks. But because they characterise these risks – much as they characterise AI – as mere extensions of previous experience. Indeed, the commission's report could hardly be clearer on this point. After running through a series of potential problems – including some serious ones such as AI making mistakes in high-risk situations like healthcare or law enforcement – it concludes there is ultimately nothing new to see here: 'AI can exacerbate existing risk of harm but does not create wholly new risks where none existed before'. Loading Meanwhile, Chalmers acknowledges the possibility of significant unemployment, but believes it will not be widespread or structural. To this end, he makes the observation that while technological developments always eliminate jobs, they create more than they destroy. 'We've seen this play out before,' he affirms. But this is more an assumption than an argument. It assumes that all technological advancement is some single, undifferentiated phenomenon, such that its history broadly repeats. But this is something the Albanese government must know not to be true. It is, after all, implementing a ban on social media platforms for children under 16, a belated response to a damaging technology we spent years assuming would be as benign as, say, television. Now we seem to be assuming similarly AI will neatly fit into a benign pattern. That assumption only holds to the extent AI is analogous with most of what has come before. And in the circumstances, we'd be wise to examine it far more rigorously before settling on it because there are good reasons to suppose it is a different species altogether, for which history is a poor guide.
AU Financial Review
31-07-2025
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
Australia's recognition of Palestine case of ‘when, not if': Chalmers
Treasurer Jim Chalmers says Australia's recognition of Palestinian statehood is a matter of 'when, not if', in the strongest indication yet the Albanese government is about to break with the US and Israel over a major sticking point in the protracted Middle East conflict. Chalmers' comments come after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was willing to recognise Palestine at the United Nations in September subject to conditions, joining Britain and France in moving in that direction.
AU Financial Review
18-07-2025
- Business
- AU Financial Review
Chalmers bets on AI to revive stagnant economy
The artificial intelligence revolution could not have come at a better time for Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has been struggling to sell the narrative that 'the Australian economy is turning a corner'. AI is being prescribed like it's the new wonder drug to revive stagnant productivity, boost business investment and kickstart growth. The Treasurer appears to have embraced this idea. He told The Australian Financial Review last month that AI was an absolute game changer, a key part of the productivity agenda, and that while 'regulation will matter, we are overwhelming focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails'. Harnessing data and digital technology is the third pillar of Chalmers' Productivity Agenda which he has tasked the Productivity Commission with.
Sydney Morning Herald
10-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't worry. Politics will always stop politicians from lifting the GST
One of Chalmers' priorities is wrangling the federal budget back into shape. That's why, when he holds his productivity roundtable next month, he will look for packages of policy ideas that patch up the budget bottom line – or at least keep it steady. Increasing the GST makes some sense given what it could pay for. This financial year, the GST raised about $90 billion. If there were no exemptions, Treasury estimates that figure would have been $30 billion higher. If, instead, the rate of GST were bumped up to 15 per cent, we might expect to raise roughly $45 billion more. Loading Now, GST revenue is mostly given to the states. We've seen the fierce debate over Scott Morrison's 2018 GST deal which gave WA a bigger slice of the pie, and which Albanese locked in ahead of the 2022 and 2025 elections, helping Labor to win WA seats such as Hasluck and Pearce. Risking Labor's strong majority in the west by tinkering with the system is something Albanese is probably reluctant to do. But the federal government could (if it were prepared to deal with state governments tantrums) pocket the additional money from increasing the GST. That would help it pay for other changes such as cutting personal income tax which some see as a more 'costly' tax, weighing down economic activity. The Parliamentary Budget Office, for example, points to studies that put the broader cost to the Australian economy of each additional dollar raised through GST at about 8¢, compared to 25¢ for personal income tax. But as Australian Council of Social Service principal adviser Peter Davidson points out, more recent Treasury modelling suggests there may be little difference. The bigger issue, though, is fairness. GST is generally considered a regressive tax – one that takes a bigger bite out of lower incomes than higher incomes – because lower-income households tend to spend a larger slice of what money they bring in. Increasing taxes on spending means higher-income earners – especially the top 20 per cent who tend to do most of the nation's saving – get away with a lighter tax burden. The only way a GST hike could really be sold to voters would be to offer other tax cuts – such as lower personal income tax – to compensate for the higher prices people would be paying. It's a large part of the reason Howard managed to introduce the GST in the first place. He compensated low-income earners through social security increases, raising the tax-free threshold and lowering the bottom rate of taxation. But adequately compensating people is hard. Governments can increase social security payments, for example, but five years down the track when they're needing to tighten their belts, they may cut them again while the GST increase stays put. Davidson also notes some of the most vulnerable people (who would be hit hardest by a GST increase) may be outside the income support system, making it difficult or impossible to find and compensate them. Albanese has said a change to the GST is not on his agenda. 'I'm a supporter of progressive taxation,' he said at a News Corp event. Especially for a country that prides itself on giving everyone a 'fair go', raising the GST, or the range of things it covers, is hard. It's probably why neither Labor nor the Liberals have made any major changes in the more than two decades since it was introduced. Selling an increase in any tax is tricky – even when you've got a sweetener or something to offset the change. Humans are naturally wired to focus on the things they perceive as a threat more than the things that might benefit them. And dishing out compensation could lead to most of the possible gains in economic efficiency (from reducing other taxes and raising GST) largely flying out the window. Many economists, and big businesses wanting the GST to be raised in return for lower company taxes, will never stop pushing for change. But tweaking the GST is a big gamble for governments because every voter shoulders higher prices and only some will see – and acknowledge – the benefits. It's also an easy target for a scare campaign, which we know can kill a politician's career quick smart.
