The economic reform round table should discuss AI and robots, not just tax and productivity
The 25 citizens in the assembly would be better off trying to come up with a decent set of policies on artificial intelligence and robots. And they could start with a briefing about what US President Donald Trump will reveal in his AI Action Plan to be announced on July 23, and follow up with a rundown on China's eight-year-old strategy to become the global leader in AI by 2030.
As for the five reports on productivity's five pillars commissioned from the Productivity Commission by Jim Chalmers in December, and the 453 ideas people have sent in, a way for PC chair Danielle Wood to instil a sense of urgency into the round table might be to read out this article from the Financial Times last week about Meta Platforms Inc offering as much as $150 million sign-on bonuses for AI engineers working for the developer of ChatGPT, OpenAI.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is trying to build a team that will help him create AI that is smarter than human beings. And the staff at OpenAI have apparently been knocking him back!
The combined market value of the five leading AI companies – Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Nvidia – is $20 trillion, almost twice the value of all houses and units in Australia.
The only way any of this makes sense is that Meta, OpenAI and the other peddlers of AI are going make more money from it than from any other technological revolution in history. And the only reason the rest of the business world will pay so much money for AI software and robots is because they will make even more money by replacing humans and increasing the productivity of those still employed.
There are two ways of applying AI in a business: top down and bottom up.
At the risk of over-simplifying it (but not much) top-down involves a business's executive leadership team deciding to use AI to replace a bunch of human workers by, say, getting it to write software code, or do data entry, answer phone calls or write articles like this one.
Bottom-up is where individual employees use AI to become better at their jobs. The key to making the bottom-up use of AI work is writing a good prompt, which is rapidly becoming one of the more important modern workplace skills.
An AI consulting business called Fourday is building a 'prompt library' for clients and has developed a prompt writing assistant called Prompt Cowboy. You write into it a sort of lazy, plain language prompt and it spits out a much longer one that is better designed to get the best answer from the AI. ChatGPT performs better with a more detailed, better-written prompt.
Fourday founder Henry Badgery says it is possible to get productivity increases of 30-40 per cent with AI but many businesses are reporting no extra value at all because: "You're not using it correctly. You're not asking the right questions because that's essentially what a prompt is, you're asking it the right question, you're giving it the right information to answer your question."
If the round table is going to be pragmatically useful in lifting productivity, it should do two things: first, develop a national system for helping small to medium enterprises and employees to write better AI prompts, and second, modernise the welfare safety net so people don't have to be scared of it, allowing companies to replace workers with AI without worrying about contributing to societal breakdown.
Specifically, the government needs to rethink unemployment benefits. The current JobSeeker system is not fit for purpose because it's assumed to be a temporary payment for a job seeker.
The money is not enough, and the points system that includes the need to apply for four jobs each month won't work if there aren't any jobs to apply for.
A Universal Basic Income for everyone, as some are pushing, is going too far, but the government needs to prepare for a period of more permanent unemployment – even if it's not needed in the end because AI does not cause mass unemployment.
Business executives and staff need to embrace AI and a good safety net is needed for that to happen. It's another reason for more tax revenue, along with the need for more public housing. And more tax revenue comes down to a new tax – either a wealth or inheritance tax – or increasing the GST.
Australia's two previous bouts of major tax reform when tax revenue was falling short of government spending also involved new taxes: capital gains and fringe benefits in 1985 and GST in 2000.
Twenty-five years later revenue is short again because of the aging of the population, the NDIS and the decision to increase defence spending.
But the near-hysterical response to the plan to reduce the tax break on superannuation balances above $3 million suggests that a new wealth or inheritance tax is too hard. Lifting the GST rate towards the global average of 15-20 per cent is what it will probably have to be.
The problem with GST is that it's regressive – it hits the poor more than the well-off. But there is a solution to that, invented by UNSW Professors Richard Holden and Rosalind Dixon.
In their book From Free to Fair Markets Holden and Dixon suggest increasing the GST rate to 15 per cent and applying it to all goods and services, but only levying it on spending above a threshold of $12,000 per year.
How? By giving back each taxpayer 15 per cent of $12,000, or $1,800, each year, preferably in two six-monthly payments of $900 – simply put it in their bank accounts.
Holden and Dixon have modelled the outcome and say the higher GST on a broader base would double GST revenue from $90 billion to $180 billion and that the refunds would give back half that, leaving $45 billion in net extra revenue which they say could be spent on income tax cuts and eliminating the budget deficit.
Whether $12,000 ($1,000 per month) is the right threshold for GST-free spending could be debated, but the idea is worth spending an hour or two on at the round table.
Then the 25 round tablers could get on with the real business of AI and robots.
Alan Kohler is finance presenter and columnist on ABC News and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Gehamat Shibasaki's incredible road to Origin selection
Interviews and feature reports from NITV. A mob-made podcast about all things Blak life. The Point: Referendum Road Trip Live weekly on Tuesday at 7.30pm Join Narelda Jacobs and John Paul Janke to get unique Indigenous perspectives and cutting-edge analysis on the road to the referendum. Watch now

News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Construction times for houses have grown by 50 per cent in the last decade, building costs 53 per cent more expensive, IPA finds
Construction time for an average home has increased by a whopping 50 per cent in the past year, with Australia's ambitious 1.2 million homes target already 55,300 homes behind just one year in. While a house took about 8.5 months to build from approval to completion in 2014, it took an average of 12.7 months in 2024, data compiled by the Institute of Public Affairs has revealed. Costs for building materials had also increased by 53 per cent in the same period. Construction times increased across the board in 2021 as a result of supply-chain issues during the Covid pandemic. The lacklustre figures come as Australia marks one year into the five-year National Housing Accords, in which states and territories must build a combined 1.2 million well-located homes by June 30, 2029. The Commonwealth government has also encouraged states and territories with a $3.5bn funding pot as a carrot for reaching the goal. Using building activity data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the IPA found Western Australia was leading the construction lag, with an unenviable increase of 85 per cent to 17.8 months. Building costs have also increased by 45 per cent. South Australia had the next slowest builds of 15.8 months, a hike of 74 per cent, with cost going up by 51 per cent. Over 10 years, the cost of materials had increased by 58 per cent in both NSW and Queensland, where it now respectively takes 12.7 months and 10.2 months to build a detached home. It takes 11.3 months to build a home in Victoria, and 12.6 months to complete a home in Tasmania, with material prices increasing by 56 per cent and 55 per cent. IPA research director Morgan Begg said it was 'little wonder' that Australia was in a housing crisis, with the 'unprecedented demand' for housing being exacerbated by increased construction time and costs. 'The federal government's National Housing Accord will mark its first-year anniversary being tens of thousands of homes behind schedule, as red tape strangles new home builds, with construction times ballooning by 50 per cent,' he said. 'Home ownership is fundamental to the Australian way of life. It gives people a stake in our country and provides long-term financial security for families.' Mr Begg said 'all levels of government must do their part to fix this crisis,' highlighting action points like reducing migration, urging state and local governments to open up more land and cut red tape to boost construction. 'Over the past decade Australia has seen demand-driven cost increases to construction material and labour caused by large, inefficient government projects, creating the perfect storm of rising prices and rents, particularly in the post-pandemic period,' he said. 'Across the board, the latest figures reinforce the depth of Australia's housing crisis, brought about by out-of-control migration intakes, a construction sector burdened by red tape, and competition for resources from large, expensive, and inefficient taxpayer-funded projects.' Coalition housing spokesman Andrew Bragg said the housing targets were a 'dead duck,' adding that completed dwellings had dropped by 1 per cent over the last 12 months, according to the ABS. 'A year since Labor's Housing Accord 'officially began', building approvals and activity have gone backwards,' he said. 'Labor is more interested in announcing targets and building bureaucracies than actually erecting any homes. 'Labor's actions show they don't support private developers and builders. They think they know better. No wonder the construction industry has consistently led the nation in insolvencies.' Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has previously said reducing the 'thicket of regulation' around building homes will be a key priority in Labor's next term of government. As of June, the Hotham MP will also oversee planning policy after she inherited it from the the treasurer's portfolio. A spokesman for Ms O'Neil said on Tuesday Labor had been 'very frank' that building homes both costed too much and took too long. He said Labor was focused on 'working closely with all levels of government and builders to try and fix that,' while also 'increasing productivity, encouraging the building sector to look at more modern methods of building and improving planning pathways and removing red tape'. 'The Liberals can run their mouths, but the reality is they haven't put forward a single legitimate proposition that would increase the number of homes being built in Australia – in fact, their solution was to rip billions of dollars from funding for tens of thousands of social and affordable homes,' he said. 'Talk to anyone who knows the residential building sector and they will tell you that structural reform takes time, and building homes takes time, and the Commonwealth is doing that work. In contrast, the Liberal Party didn't touch that work in their last decade in office.'


West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
Charities call for end to deadly new Gaza aid system
More than 170 non-governmental organisations are calling for a US- and Israeli-backed food aid distribution scheme in Gaza to be dismantled over concerns it is putting civilians at risk of death and injury. More than 500 people have been killed in mass shootings near aid distribution centres or transport routes guarded by Israeli forces since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation started operating in late May, according to medical authorities in Gaza. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to get supplies into Gaza, largely bypassing a UN-led system that Israel says had let militants divert aid. The United Nations has called the plan "inherently unsafe" and a violation of humanitarian impartiality rules. As of early afternoon in Geneva on Tuesday, where the joint declaration was released, 171 charities had signed onto the call for countries to press Israel to halt the GHF scheme and reinstate aid co-ordinated through the United Nations. "Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families," the statement said. Groups signing it included Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and Amnesty International. In a response, the GHF told Reuters it had delivered more than 52 million meals in five weeks and said other humanitarian groups had "nearly all of their aid looted". "Instead of bickering and throwing insults from the sidelines, we would welcome other humanitarian groups to join us and feed the people in Gaza," the GHF told Reuters. The NGOs accused the GHF of forcing hungry and weak people to trek for hours, sometimes through active conflict zones, to receive food aid. The Israeli military acknowledged on Monday that Palestinian civilians have been harmed at aid distribution centres in the Gaza Strip, saying Israeli forces had been issued new instructions following what it called "lessons learned". Israel has repeatedly said its forces operate near the centres in order to prevent the aid from falling into the hands of Palestinian Hamas militants.