Fearless and free, the Treasury isn't holding back — and that's good for everyone

Australia Broadcast Center

a day ago

At first glance they don't look like much — succinct headlines prepared for Jim Chalmers by Treasury following Labor's May election win.
We haven't been given access to the full text of each chapter, but the headlines alone give a rare insight into what Treasury thinks are the big economic challenges facing Australia.
They are there in black and white — raising broad and important issues.
You want the budget to be sustainable?
Let's look at lifting taxes.
There's a need to cut spending.
Your key election promise, to build 1.2 million homes? "Won't be met."
When I requested the incoming government brief prepared by Treasury for Jim Chalmers, I was hoping for an insight into the economic challenges and opportunities facing the nation.
That's what we got.
But you're only reading about it because a staffer forgot to remove a hard-to-find key section. Then, having made that mistake, requests to have the ABC delete the document helped to highlight there was something there.
Freedom of Information or FOI is a system that allows anyone access to documents created by government departments and agencies.
The overwhelming majority of requests are people seeking information about themselves and their interactions with government departments.
At a federal level this means the Department of Home Affairs (visas) and Services Australia, which administers Centrelink. At a state level requests to the health sector and law enforcement agencies dominate because they are very "public facing" and create and store large amounts of personal information about individuals.
If you search "FOI" on their websites, you'll find out how to make a claim.
However, another element is that FOI is used by journalists, researchers and members of parliament to find out more about topics they are interested in. The immense restrictions of what they can seek, and the broad ability of the decision-makers to redact information has given it a joke name amongst these groups: FFI — Freedom From Information.
Before every election, federal government departments create a brief for the incoming minister.
Because they don't know what the result will be, they typically create a so-called "Red Book" in the event of a Labor win, and a "Blue Book" in the event of a Coalition win.
(Don't bother trying to get the brief prepared for the loser of the election. A colleague took that one all the way to the High Court and lost.)
Each of them sets outs the current state of the sector covered by the department, and how the election promises of the winning party could be enacted.
It is routine for journalists at different outlets to submit an FOI request for the "incoming government brief". One day in May I sat down and sent off about 60 requests to different departments and agencies.
My FOI application to Treasury was made on May 14.
Barely two weeks later — this is lightning speed in FOI land — I received a "Notice of Decision" and a 111-page document.
But there's a reason it was so fast. It was basically empty.
The brief is filled with obvious information — Michele Bullock is the governor of the Reserve Bank, with a short biography and her contact details (which are redacted).
There is more information about Treasury's physical offices, their locations and the staff there. A list of committees and agencies and the expiry dates of their chair's terms.
Again, nothing that gives us any insight into Treasury's thinking or concerns about the economy.
I file it and move on.
But, on June 11 I receive an email saying Treasury sent the wrong document.
"The version sent contains a limited amount of exempt and confidential information. Our sincere apologies for this oversight. A replacement version is attached," it wrote, asking me to delete copies of the original.
The idea that they wanted to redact even more made me chuckle.
The next day another email.
"For record keeping purposes, could you please confirm by close of business today (Thursday, 12 June) that you have deleted the earlier version of the documents and won't report on or reproduce it."
Treasury's request that I delete the document only served to renew my interest. Perhaps I'd missed something?
So, using two computer screens, I slowly — half-page-by-half-page — compared the original document (May 30) and the "replacement" (June 11). I can find no differences in the two documents.
I even tried the "cut and paste" technique that derailed last year's Victorian high school exams. In it, the department either changed the colour of the text to transparent or put a "white box" over it. Enterprising students selected the text into a new document and were able to read it. For me, nothing. Other colleagues join the search and come up blank.
Eventually, a colleague in Brisbane finds what Treasury are so concerned about.
The first version of the document sent to me on May 30 includes what is essentially a table of contents, for what is in the entirely redacted briefs discussing policy for Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O'Neil.
They provide fascinating insights into Treasury's thinking on some of the key economic challenges facing Australia, and it's for that reason that the ABC decided to publish them.
Treasury said to achieve a sustainable budget "tax should be raised as part of broader tax reform".
Currently, the government spends more money that it receives.
"Reform of the tax system is necessary to strengthen economic resilience and the fiscal position."
A key part of that would be the GST, described in the brief as "reforming the indirect tax system" to support "budget repair" and the sustainability of the federal and state governments.
Any rise in the GST would be politically contentious because poorer people pay more as a percentage of their income, but economists and other commentators suggest ours is low compared to similar nations.
Our GST is also confusing, excluding items like fresh food adds complexity to administering it.
Any extension of the GST would no doubt be coupled with support for low-income earners and welfare recipients.
Income tax will also need to be "rebalanced" to get more people into the workforce by lowering the barriers and to "give workers a fair go".
Changes to the amount we rely on income tax would bring us closer to those of other OECD countries.
It would also acknowledge our aging population — which will likely reduce the percentage of the population who are working and earning, over time.
And while the current changes to superannuation tax are controversial, the bookmarks suggest options to "build upon" them. The bookmarks don't tell us how Treasury thinks Mr Chalmers can do this, but the fact they appear to be floating options in this space is substantial.
Some of the brief addresses the growing issue of Australia not having — or building — enough homes to house its population.
The housing minister is advised to use the migration and skills systems to boost the construction workforce, and using more "leverage" over states to build more houses.
Ultimately, Treasury appears to suggest the states and territories might need to change how they do things.
"Leverage existing policies and commitments to incentivise state and territory reform," it writes.
The detail of what that means is not included in the documents seen by the ABC.
Housing Australia is the independent national housing agency. When it was created in 2018 under the former Coalition government, it was called National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC).
Treasury calls out issues with the body.
Under the heading of opportunities for policy reform, it suggests a deep look at the agency.
"Review Housing Australia," the heading reads, before a further note gives homework to the new housing minister, Ms O'Neil.
"Take steps to improve oversight and reset the relationship with the CEO and board".
The brief lists three key challenges with the agency in charge of the government's multi-billion-dollar social housing construction scheme.
All three, listed below and quoted directly from the brief, are serious:
It also pointed to the "dysfunctional" present arrangements for funding infrastructure to "enable" new housing.
The document describes that funding — which is for works such as pipes, sewers and connecting roads — as a "barrier" before a heading about "funding enabling infrastructure more sustainably".
This is potentially embarrassing because a key election platform of the Coalition was a $5 billion fund to do exactly that.
The government set aside $500 million over the last two financial years to help state and local governments deliver new housing developments.
Another $1 billion was already provided to state and territory governments for infrastructure to enable social housing specifically. That money was given to jurisdictions on a per-person basis.
There's lots more in the documents, about global trade, about US President Donald Trump, about the future of AI and "climate-related risks".
This is all stuff Treasury should be worried about. It is.
The difference is now we've seen it written down.
Many of the revelations in the incoming government briefs for Mr Chalmers and Ms O'Neil won't be a shock to seasoned news watchers.
For example, to hit the 1.2 million new homes target we need to massively boost the number of dwellings being approved to be built and then constructed.
But the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the number of houses being approved is below the number in 2012.
Not only is that the same as a time when Australia had a much smaller population, it's nowhere near the boost required.
As another example, the US dollar has been falling as investors grow increasingly uncertain about the chaos and uncertainty of United States' economic policy.
It's no shock that Treasury is modelling the impact of this. So are super funds, banks, traders, anyone with their eyes open to the impact on the global economy of Mr Trump's policy choices.
Treasury is deeply engaged on the biggest economic issues facing Australia
It's also unafraid of telling its boss hard truths: such as the fact the government's key election promise about housing will fail, or that the relationship with the body overseeing housing needs to be "reset".
Treasury might not have wanted you to read these notes, but it should give taxpayers and citizens confidence it is holding fearless and tough conversations with the people making the decisions.