Wednesday 21 February 2018
“The ABC Removed A Story Criticising Government Policy After The PM Wrote A Cranky Letter,” said the headline on Junkee.com.
Since writing her views on the subject Emma Alberici has been, in my view, unduly criticised. Her work though has been backed by Peter Martin, John Menadue and Greg Jericho which gives it suitable credence.
Her argument is being put forward by many independent economists and columnists who take an opposing view to the government.
But the PM wasn’t happy at all and acting like a petty dictator made the ABC delete it. It’s an argument that I have said on many occasions is going to be an incredibly hard one to win.The public are well aware that one in five companies pay no tax at all. They are also well aware of the many tax saving loopholes open to the rich and privileged.
Throwing their support behind Alberici, The Monthly reports that:
“Alberici’s right. Her analysis simply confirms what we already knew. A December dump by the ATO showed that 732 companies paid no tax in 2015–16. Stalwart investigative reporter Michael West has published a stinging series of articles naming and shaming tax avoiders, including this piece that names News Australia Holdings, Goldman Sachs, two Glencore companies and others, and says that around third of the biggest companies in Australia pay no tax.”
Greg Jericho at The Guardian wrote that:
Appearing before the House economics Committee the Governor of The Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, said that the benefit of the tax cuts very much depended on how they were funded. He described the Trump cuts as “very problematic” because they were unfunded and would increase the size of the deficit. Lowe suggested that “if we were to go down the direction of having lower corporate tax rates, I think it would be a big mistake to do that on the back of higher budget deficits.”
“He said that if the company tax cuts were funded based on bigger deficits, “animal spirits could turn the wrong way”, especially if at some point the economy did slow down and stimulus was required. He also noted that the choice was essentially one of a cut in tax or government services. Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves – even Scott Morrison concedes the government will get back, through increased economic activity, only 37 cents in every dollar lost from the cut in company tax rates.”So either something else needs to be taxed more or government spending needs to be cut”
I would have thought this was rather obvious. There is nothing controversial about it at all. It has been reported that because it was Ms Alberici’s first piece in her new roll as chief economics correspondent up to eight editorial executives and lawyers went over her article.
Quentin Dempster on John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations concurs, and:
“Obviously concerned that she had been thrown under a bus by her ABC superiors she pointed out via Twitter: “In 2001 I was a @Walkleys finalist for a story on tax minimisation”. She has made no further public comment as her work is being reviewed by the ABC’s internal complaints handling adjudicators. Her authority and reputation as the ABC’s chief economics correspondent is now at stake.”
Judith Sloan and The Australian newspaper (paywall) tasting blood, have together with gossip columnist Joe Aston from the AFR, made repeated personal attacks criticising Alberici’s piece since.
Twitter was busy.
John Quiggin tweeted:
No obvious factual problems, and Judith Sloan’s critique in the Oz doesn’t point to any. It’s opinionated, but then, as I understand it, it’s an opinion piece.
Craig Emmerson tweeted:
What is incorrect in the @albericie report? I’ve read it & there are no factual errors. It does contain opinion, but dozens of ABC journalists express opinions daily. Pulling down the story & still having it under review sure looks like censorship
Saul Eastlake tweeted:
“I didn’t detect any factual errors and the quotes she attributed to me were accurate and in context.”
The problem as I see it is that Turnbull, Morrison and others have invested a lot of economic credibility into their proposed tax cuts and they need to win the philosophical argument. At present they are losing it.
Hence they will attack anyone who disagrees with them, including the ABC. However, it does look a little unseemly for a Prime Minister to be using his perceived power to stare down the ABC. Equally, it is unseemly for the ABC to be seen to be kow towing to a government drunk with power.
The simple fact is that the economy has been chugging along very nicely on government (borrowed) spending. If that is to continue, they cannot also borrow for the tax cuts. Either something else needs to be taxed more or government spending needs to be cut. Which is it, and how is it to be done?
[textblock style=”3″]
My thought for the day
“Less informed voters unfortunately outnumber the more politically aware. Therefore, conservatives feed them all the bullshit they need. And the menu generally contains a fair portion of untruths.”
[/textblock]
