Have facts passed their use-by?

Have facts passed their use-by?

 

 

In the pre-internet age, facts had a pedigree. You could trace them back to a source, weigh their credibility, and argue your position with some confidence. These days, we are so awash with claimed ‘facts’ that we are overwhelmed. Cheap, mass-produced, often anonymous ‘facts’ handed from one digital platform, morphed and handed on again. No clear origin, no accountability, just noise, self-serving claims, paranoia, or dreams, dressed up as certainty.

That creeping uncertainty has seeped into every corner of our lives, mostly unnoticed. The rules we live by are still shaped by politicians and enforced by institutions funded with our tax dollars. But the values behind those rules have all but disappeared.

We used to look for consistency. If someone claimed to value integrity, we expected them to act like it. Now we get performative posturing. Followed by policy U-turns, PR spin, or flat-out contradiction.

When behaviour doesn’t match the values on the label, it screams hypocrisy. As the old marketing joke goes ‘the consumer is not stupid, she is your wife’

We’re hardwired to trust facts. However, when the ‘facts’ themselves are selectively shaped, bent to fit a narrative, or worse, manufactured from thin air, we get understandably anxious and likely to distrust.

In its mild form, this is spin. In its extreme form, it’s lying. Denial. Gaslighting.

Hypocrisy is no longer just the politician’s disease; it has crept into every corner of our lives.

Public debate has been hijacked by competing ‘facts’. Not competing opinions. Competing truths. There’s no transparency, because transparency forces accountability. When nobody is accountable, integrity goes out the window.

Integrity now is so rare we wouldn’t recognise it even if it walked up and smacked us with a code of conduct.

The result? Polarisation.

Information travels faster than reflection. The moment a ‘fact’ hits the feed, the rebuttal, if it exists at all, is buried under a pile of clickbait. And if by chance a real fact does slip through, one that’s been tested, sourced, and stands up to scrutiny, it gets drowned in the noise.

Knowledge used to mean something. Now it’s riddled with bias, spin, and wishful thinking. Often wrong. Always louder than it should be.

That erosion of clarity has gutted our trust in political systems. We expect spin, so we ignore or do not recognise the occasional truth when it confronts us. When we stop trusting the institutions, we stop trusting what they publish, even when they’re right, imagination and conspiracy theories take their place.

What follows is stubbornness disguised as principle.

We cling harder to our own view, no matter how flawed. We trust only those who confirm it. Collaboration becomes competition. Dialogue turns into tribal shouting.

Meanwhile, confirmation bias is doing its work: steering our decisions, shaping our teams, and wrecking our ability to truly listen.

So, what’s the fix?

Truth. Accountability. Transparency. Not slogans. Actions.

Tell the truth based on facts you can trace. Show your working. Hold yourself and others to the same standard. Accept that facts evolve, but insist that the path of that evolution is open for all to see.

That’s how you earn trust back. One uncomfortable truth at a time.

 

 

Header credit: A single panel from and old ‘First dog on the moon’ cartoon says it all.

 

 

 

 

Sucked in by the ‘Colesworth’ magic price pudding.

Sucked in by the ‘Colesworth’ magic price pudding.

 

 

As a kid Mum used to make a Christmas pudding and claim that the fairies had magically stuck in a bunch of threepences and sixpences into it. (yes, I am that old)

The possibility of finding a couple of weeks pocket money in the pudding created intense sibling rivalry around who could sneak the biggest piece, and thus have a greater chance of finding some magic.

Coles and Woolies in their most recent results announced in the last fortnight have delivered the Australian community a magic pudding.

Times are tough, there is a cost of living crisis happening around us, yet their recently released year end results hide magic for shareholders. (to be fair, most of us are now shareholders via superannuation)

The domination of these two chains is fuelling inflation.

This is a perspective not covered in any of the commentary I have seen so far.

The logic is as follows:

Margin expansion.

Coles and Woolworths have been able to preserve, and in Coles’ case expand, healthy margins over the past year. Together, they control roughly 60–65% of the supermarket sector, with Aldi and various independents supplied by wholesalers (usually Metcash) making up most of the rest. This means that for most packaged food and grocery suppliers, the path to survival runs through the trading terms imposed by just two buyers.​

The latest financials show that Coles has widened its supermarket margins from 26.6 % to 27.4% and its EBIT margin edged up from 5.0% to 5.3%. Woolworths’ Australian Food division reported a gross margin of 28.6% and EBIT margin 5.4% in FY25, only slightly down from the previous year after a period of “price investment”. In other words, the duopoly has not absorbed the inflation shock through lower profits; it has kept margins high and, in Coles’ case, increased them.

The cost of living crisis has not dampened the margins of Colesworth during the tough times.

Retail real estate.

Coles and Woolies dominate shelf space and therefore set the ‘reference prices’ that other retailers follow. As a result they influence price inflation far beyond their own stores.

Woolworths and Coles use their buyer power to squeeze suppliers via terms demands, rebates, expensive promotional deals, and all the other tricks they have in their magic pudding. The power suppliers are able to exert in these pricing negotiations is extremely limited. This applies even for major key suppliers in major categories for whom supermarket volumes are essential to covering operating overheads. Colesworth are then able to set shelf prices with no reference to any competitor beyond the other gorilla. Suppliers must accept lower margins and/or push up prices in other channels just to survive.

Smaller independents, convenience outlets, foodservice and export customers then face higher input costs, which in turn pushes their retail prices closer to and usually way above the duopoly’s. They rely on ‘convenience’ and stores in population centres below the cut-off for the gorillas to invest in outlets.

The more the big two protect or expand their margins under the cover of “inflation”, the more this cost‑shifting machine drives price rises right across the grocery market.

‘Colesworth’ market share sets prices and terms across two thirds of Australia’s FMCG market.

Scale delivers price immunity to Colesworth 

Oligopoly economics.

This is an oligopoly at work. They are taking advantage of a general inflationary environment to widen or protect margins, and establishing a sticky price level that will persist when inflationary pressures ease. That will be a nice windfall!

In a genuinely competitive market, we would expect that at least some of the pain of higher energy, labour and logistics costs shows up in thinner supermarket margins.

In Australia’s hyper‑concentrated grocery sector, the evidence points the other way. Without Aldi as an anchor, we would be in real trouble at the checkout.

Increasing costs are not impacting on Colesworth margins. Their scale enables them to push EBIT above 5% by pushing price up faster than the cost increases.

 

Medicine unavailable.

Unfortunately, I see no short-term measures that will reverse the concentration it has taken the 45 years I have been observing, to evolve.  Politicians can have all the enquiries, reports, and ‘band-aid’ measures they can dream up, but none will get at the core problem other than breaking up the oligopoly. Forced divestiture.

I have written elsewhere that this is a really stupid idea. A legislated breakup would only increase costs significantly in the supply chain that would be felt at the checkout. It is therefore only a brainfart of those who will never see government, but which persists as a policy option.

The horse has not just bolted, it is over the hill. It will take another 20 years for changes in the retail environment to deliver a more genuinely competitive sector.

 

Header: My thanks to Scott Adams. The single Dilbert panel says it all.

 

 

Should energy sovereignty be the driver of energy policy? 

Should energy sovereignty be the driver of energy policy? 

 

The political energy wars in Australia will flare again with the ascendancy of the right of the Liberal party, surging of One Nation, and relative gutlessness of the government.

The ‘debate’ will be about residential energy costs.

It is too easy for faux ‘Current affairs’ programs and politicians to find someone with 3 small kids not able to pay the electricity bill. That story gets splashed around as the core of the ‘national conversation’.

What is rarely given any oxygen is the impact of energy costs on industry. From the local coffee shop, bakery, and warehouse to energy intensive industries like smelting commodity ores, and cement.

When energy becomes too expensive, unstable or unreliable, businesses close, or relocate, and lift prices.

The principals of these businesses rarely get heard, unless they are a really major business like an aluminium smelter. As a result, the ‘debate’ will be about the wrong thing.

We should be talking about ‘energy sovereignty’.

Throw away the slogans, and work towards making energy one of the inputs to our way of life that we actually control. Why be a price taker at the whim of others, and a flailing and ineffective domestic policy vacuum.

Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuel generated power, but the fight remains about the environment and retail prices, not cost and sovereignty.

Cheap power is rapidly becoming the strategic necessity of the 21st century. It shapes both national and geopolitical outcomes. Those who control power generation will end up controlling the economy.  Foundational to control of power generation is the control of the essential elements in the power supply chain: lithium, graphite and other science fiction sounding minerals.

China is not only generating the cheapest power, but they also control the supply of these minerals from the extracted commodity to the final input to manufactured products.

Our focus on the retail price of energy is way too narrow.

We should be focussed on the strategic importance of the whole supply chain, and where in that chain strategic power can be exercised.

Currently Australia has none, but we have the potential to be a major global player.

That means bi partisan agreement on significant long-term investment with a long-term ROI measured by the standard of living of our grandchildren.

Is there any chance of all of that happening?

Header courtesy Tom Gauld at New Scientist.

 

 

Australia Day 2026: Can we escape old ideas to rebuild the foundation?

Australia Day 2026: Can we escape old ideas to rebuild the foundation?

 

John Maynard Keynes observed that the real difficulty in progress lies not in developing new ideas, but in escaping from old ones. On Australia Day 2026, that quote sounds entirely appropriate.

We remain trapped in habits that once worked but now quietly undermine our future: short‑term populism, dependence on other nations’ industrial and manufacturing infrastructure, and a policy culture that treats national problems like household pests: spray them, move on, and hope they do not return.

If we want our children to inherit a standard of living at least as good as our own, we must move beyond management by press release and confront the structural weaknesses of Australia.

Public Policy: Reform in Name Only

Genuine reform has become a terminal case. A three‑year election cycle rewards noise over nuance, blame over building, and slogans over systems.

We need bipartisan, long‑term policy that serves the economy and the welfare of Australians. Debate and argument about the detail is healthy and welcomed, but the strategy should be bipartisan and apolitical. It seems we are moving further away from that ‘Pollyanna’ view of what is needed by the day.

Governance

Four‑year fixed federal terms would create the certainty required for capital, planning, and reform. Nations do not rebuild themselves on political marketing timetables.

Our federated system with the states and territories all having their own political and economic agendas leads to a disjointed, fragmented and inconsistent set of regulations that act as an ‘internal tariff’ adding complication, and therefore cost to doing business, innovating, and employing people. The further complexity and general incompetence of local government magnifies the complexity for little or no return.

Tax: Builders vs. Rent‑Seekers

Our tax base leans ever harder on PAYE workers while wealth slips through loopholes. The Henry Tax Review still gathers dust after more than a decade, its recommendations largely consigned to the waste basket with little or no serious consideration. We reward speculation more than production and tolerate profit shifting, particularly of international companies.

Multinational companies can, and are encouraged by the rules, to move profits made in Australia to low tax countries. Billions of dollars in profits made using Australia’s infrastructure, education, natural resources, and innovation without contributing to the development, or even maintenance of the assets they plunder are moved ‘taxless’ overseas.

Sovereign Capability

Depending on the stability of others is not strategy; it is complacency. We must replace “cockroach subsidies”, panic payments to multinationals to stay open, with disciplined investment in capabilities where Australia can genuinely compete. Agricultural and mined  commodities, critical minerals, med‑tech, and renewables.

As the world fractures, defence will consume more of an already overstretched budget as we seek to ensure we can defend ourselves. In this context, the shipping of billions to a now unpredictable partner should lead to reconsideration of the budget chunk being allocated to AUKUS. Investing our own defence capability would be a catalyst to building the complexity of the economy by enabling domestic innovation and manufacturing.

When you look at the erosion of sovereign capability, and the lack of development over the past 20 years from a ‘first principles’ perspective, energy costs play a significant role. The little we are doing to re-engineer energy is too little, too slow, and too mired in vested interest.

Political Maturity

The shallowness of political discourse has been obvious for decades, but the Bondi attack,  exposed how little institutional depth we have built beneath decades of prosperity. We struggle to conduct informed debate, let alone deliver constructive outcomes. The coalition bust-up during the past week, seemingly more serious than the tiff just after the election whitewash is ample demonstration of the lack of depth and maturity.

The Coalition was in a weak electoral and philosophical position before the split. Now however, the current government is without an effective, rational, or even marginally coherent opposition, which is never a good outcome.

Economics

Current expenditure patterns discourage entrepreneurship and quietly mortgage the future. Eight state‑based regulatory regimes function as internal trade barriers and sources of massive and wasteful duplication. Harmonising licensing, standards, safety rules, and a host of other factors would remove a silent and pervasive tax on productivity.

We are running a structural budget deficit. This cannot last forever, but since Covid, we seem to have just accepted that as the status quo. Prior to Covid, the argument across the federal parliament was defined by who could deliver the least deficit. Economic logic played little part in the finger pointing, but even that quasi discipline is now gone. To be fair, the deficit to GDP ratio in Australia currently around 1%, compared to the enormous debt in other countries, notably the US. However, that just means we are a little less worse off than they are.

Making change is hard. There will be winners and losers, and the losers will not be grateful. Instead they will make a lot of noise, goose up their local members, creatively make up statistics that demonstrate that the sky will fall, and generally try and scare away any change that might affect their position.

Lee Kwan Yew, then the PM of Singapore observed that Australians risked becoming the white trash of Asia in about 1978. The comment contributed to the significant changes made by the Hawke and Keating governments, but since then, with the single exception of the introduction of the GST by the coalition on July 1, 2000, there has been no further progress.  Meanwhile the world has changed, but we remain stuck in the 20th century.

Transparency

The promised culture of openness by the current government as part of their election platform for the 2022 election never arrived. The NACC, set up to ‘honour’ the election pledge, exists without teeth. FOI processes now resemble obstacle courses as anything that might be debated is redacted, assuming you can get a request filled without a court order. Government transparency has become a slogan, not a practice.

Gambling Reform

Every poll tells us that a huge majority of Australians are in favour of a complete ban on gambling advertising. It was promised, then abandoned. Advertising continues, while sporting bodies and state treasuries collect their share of a misery dividend. The fact that we cannot excise such a blight on the national face because the vested interests are too strong, and cash strapped states need the revenue is a national disgrace.

Housing

Housing is a wicked problem born of long neglect. Any meaningful reform will create losers who will complain loudly. The memory of the changes proposed in the 2019 election still paralyses political courage. Meanwhile, a generation drifts further from ownership and stability.

Infrastructure and the Future of Work

We cannot build a nation on slogans. We must invest in productive assets that will generate returns over time by acting as the foundations of commercial activity.

Energy

The renewable transition is not optional. We either invest in transmission, storage, and firming, or we continue our slow slide toward industrial irrelevance. Mobile capital will not invest when the key manufacturing input, energy, is not internationally competitive, and stable. Australia is a net exporter of energy delivered via huge reserves of gas and coal. Added to that is the potential of renewables to deliver globally competitive energy for manufacturing, and initial value adding of current commodity exports. The political ‘food‑fights’ over the last 20 years introduced uncertainty. That delays and erodes the competitiveness of both domestic private investment, and the needed international capital inflows.

Education

Education is foundational infrastructure. From primary school through to post graduate and trade certification, we desperately need to invest to provide a base for future prosperity.  The recent loading of university costs onto student, is incredibly stupid, short sighted, and destructive. Treating international students, who are filling a significant funding gap in universities, as a housing policy instrument is economic self‑harm and diplomatic short‑sightedness. We amputate revenue, talent, and long‑term regional influence in one clumsy gesture to appease a noisy minority.

Universities must also abandon twentieth‑century teaching models. The future belongs to those who can govern machine reasoning, not merely memorise outputs. The need to teach kids how to think, rather than to remember has never been more fundamental.

Industrial Complexity

Australia now ranks around 102 on the global complexity index, nestled uncomfortably between industrial giants Senegal and Yemen. That is not a badge of honour.

We need trades, technicians, managers, and engineers again. Complexity depends on energy certainty, skills depth, and management capability. Right now, all three remain constrained.

How Enterprises Must Respond

While governments stumble, enterprises cannot wait.

Digitise everything.

Search is no longer a box on Google. It is a behaviour across Instagram, TikTok, ChatGPT, Reddit, and LinkedIn, amongst others. Businesses must structure their messaging for conversational discovery, not keyword games.

Platforms are building ecosystems that punish exits. Businesses must capture leads inside ecosystems using automated, conversational engagement rather than fighting algorithms designed to manage behaviour. I suspect the digital world will coalesce into a small number of ecosystems with high and expensive barriers to exit.

Like it or not, the world is now digital, and rapidly evolving in unpredictable ways (despite my prediction above) beyond knowing that tomorrow will be different to today. Resilience, awareness of externalities and a willingness to embrace change have become mandatory, and being digitised enables that.

Conversely, this need to digitise to survive also means that there will be a rebirth of the importance of brands, what they stand for and deliver to customers. Being differentiated in ways that create genuine value for customers in a niche your brand ‘owns’ will evolve into a driver of success greater than it ever has been.

The power of one to one communication, referrals, and deep personal relationships will a hugely valuable discriminator amongst this sea of Digital ‘sameness’.

The Age of AI is here.

AI has flooded the world with plausible nonsense, as well as astonishing potential for productivity gains. Building AI capability into all facets of an organisation is essential to survival, but it will not happen by decree or osmosis, it takes that magic and rare ingredient: leadership.

Authenticity and evidence of humanity now carries commercial value as bulwarks against the tsunami of AI generated slop assaulting us from all directions

The problem is that the slop improves daily. Branding, as noted, will become more important, not less. Unfortunately, branding demands patience, discipline, and faith: three qualities accountants, lawyers, and engineers who run corporations rarely demonstrate. Those representing the customer must step up an ensure that investment choices are made that enable long term commercial sustainability

Australia and Geopolitical Reality

The American writer and philosopher H.L. Mencken wrote in the Baltimore Evening Sun on July 26, 1920:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

It took 103 years, but Menken, were he still alive, would have seen his prediction come true. Perhaps he was looking down as President Trump berated rationality generally, and Europeans specifically in Davos last week.

Australia, like much of the world, has largely bent the knee to the Trump administration. With limited exceptions, such as recognising the rights of Palestinians to have a place of their own. We have accepted the chaotic and inconsistent behaviour of our long-term alliance, trading and defence partner because we cannot change it, and are wary of the consequences of any level of disagreement. Our options are limited. Middle powers cannot reshape empires, but they can preserve self‑respect and build sovereignty. This position was effectively articulated by Canadian PM Mark Carney in Davos, just before Trump delivered his incomprehensible bucket of drivel

Short‑term discomfort from speaking plainly costs less than long‑term erosion of national confidence.

Meanwhile, our chief trading partner, China, is in a race for world dominance with the US. It seems they are standing back, recognising the wisdom of never interfering with a rival while they are busy screwing up. However, being the meat in the sandwich is never comfortable.

Climate Change: The Moral Failure

Kevin Rudd proclaimed ‘Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation’ in 2007. This came at the tail end of 30 years of scientific evidence and advice to governments from Fraser onwards that we were going to have a problem, and the sooner it was tackled the better it would be. Climate change is not Australia’s scientific failure; it is another failure of governance. To be fair, Australian politicians are in good company from around the world on that score.

We have never lacked information. We have lacked resolve. We have treated climate policy as a political inconvenience rather than an intergenerational responsibility. Each government has acknowledged the problem in principle, then diluted it in practice. Targets were framed as aspirations, not obligations. Timelines became negotiating tools, and responsibility was endlessly deferred. The result is a policy culture that behaves as though physics is negotiable.

Climate change exposes a deeper problem: our inability to act collectively when the benefits are long‑term and the costs are immediate. It reveals how easily leadership collapses into tactical marketing when sacrifice becomes visible.

Indigenous Australia

Australia Day cannot pass without recognising the unresolved deficit in Indigenous living standards. Of nineteen ‘Closing the Gap’ targets, only four remain on track. It is a national disgrace that one group of Australians does not enjoy the living standards of the rest of us, finds themselves incarcerated at multiples of their share of the population, and are denied basic services. Clearly the efforts that have cost billions are ineffective, but we seem not to recognise that fact, and try some different strategies.

To many, today is ‘Invasion day’, and while I disagree with that interpretation as a reason to change the name or date of the public holiday, I do accept the generational pain that came as a result.

Conclusion: The Real Deficit

Australia’s true deficit is not fiscal. It is moral.

We avoid honest conversations about trade‑offs, replace leadership with performance, and substitute courage with political choreography.

Reform will remain theatre until we demand better from those who claim to represent us, and the systems that generate political leadership are fundamentally reformed. I expect that reformation is in the very early stages of development. Our grandchildren will not have an institutionalised two party system, but one made up of independent members, and loose groupings of them that evolve to face the challenges of the day. One thing the writers of the constitution did give us that has, and will continue to deliver stability, is the compulsory preferential voting system

Meanwhile, amongst the economic and political carnage, we have what is becoming the usual summer bushfires, while at the other end of the country, the place is under water. In those times, Australians find that working together, pulling for the common good pays off, and we do it automatically. Why would you want to live anywhere else?

Yes, have a beer. Throw another snag on the barbie. But between mouthfuls, we should be considering the country we are leaving behind, and setting out to address in our own small ways the challenges our descendants will face, as we progressively pop off.

Escaping old ideas is hard. But if any country can do it, Australia can.

Happy Australia Day.

Header Image by Nano Banana

 

 

A marketers explanation of the difference between Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Assets. (ROA)

A marketers explanation of the difference between Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Assets. (ROA)

Many of those who run SME’s turn off when their accountant starts mumbling about ROE and ROA at the annual $500/hour financial roundup.

Understanding the difference is important to the long term health of the enterprise. They reflect how effectively a company’s management team is doing its job of managing the capital entrusted to it.

The primary differentiator between ROE and ROA is the amount of debt compared to equity is being used. Together they are a measure of the efficiency of the enterprises efforts to generate profit.

The difference is that ROA takes into account debt, while ROE does not.

Return on equity (ROE) is net income divided by shareholder equity. It measures profitability by relating how well a company generates profit from money invested by shareholders.

Return on assets (ROA) is net income divided by total assets. It’s an efficiency measure of how well a company is using its assets.

The difference is important for several reasons.

  • ROE is focusses on the return generated on the shareholders’ equity. The easy analogy is the interest you receive on the balance in your bank account.
  • ROA is focussed on the return generated on the total assets of the company, including debt.

In the absence of debt, ROE and ROA would be the same.

Viable businesses are able to make choices about the financial leverage they apply to their operations. The mix of debt and equity they employ.

A business that no longer has that option, in other words, investors have better options to generate a return on their funds, they will be withdrawn. At that point it often becomes difficult to borrow to replace the withdrawn equity, so the business becomes progressively unable to fund operations. At that point, it requires a ‘restructure’, or goes into liquidation.

Leverage works both ways.

ROE is used by investors to assess the profitability relative to their investment.

ROA is used to assess management’s efficiency in using all the enterprises assets, both debt and equity to generate profits.

The Anti‑Forecast: The Reforms Australia Won’t Make but should. 

The Anti‑Forecast: The Reforms Australia Won’t Make but should. 

StrategyAudit works with small and medium businesses. That offers a perspective into how things work, and don’t work, across a variety of domains. We are in a season full of forecasts, pundits everywhere are forecasting what tomorrow will bring. Most will be destined for the round bin, as any business knows, unless you address the foundational challenges and problems hindering performance today, building on top of a shaky foundation is a road to failure.

My advice is always to address three headline challenges.

Simplification.

Focus.

Mutual interest.

Each on their own are challenging. However, they are also interdependent, and compound with every small improvement. If we apply the same formula to the ‘Australian condition’ we can come up with a list of priority items that to date have been endlessly deferred by politics, vested interests, and lack of will.

Simplify

We have made governing, investing, and even trading across state lines needlessly complex. Every layer of approval and every bespoke state rule turns a national economy into a bureaucratic obstacle course.

One economy, not eight miniregulators

Harmonise licensing, product standards, and safety rules. Default to national templates unless a state can prove a unique public interest, which should then be applied nationally. Every extra bureaucratic form and protection of some politically engaged but fringe vested interest is a tariff disguised as stationery.

Regulation should protect the public, not the loudest lobby. Each new compliance layer should sunset unless proven that there is widespread benefit.

Transparent, fixed cycles for reform

Adopt fouryear fixed federal election cycles. Certainty attracts capital and allows initiatives to gather momentum before being relitigated by the next political marketing campaign. Genuine reform takes time to gather momentum. The current adversarial 3 year term is akin to a terminal case of cancer to most genuine reform. 

Legal and regulatory compliance.

The legal and compliance regimes currently in place institutionalise and solidify power. Those with the resources will (almost) always win against those that do not, as the latter do not have the resources to leverage the necessary lawyers, accountants and relevant experts to argue a case. This mismatch represents a gross mismatch of equal opportunity, a foundation of the nation which is now just a cliche.

Focus

We cannot continue to fund everything but achieve little beyond self-congratulatory press releases, and a few happier individuals and enterprises. Choices must be made about where public capital, political effort, and regulatory clarity will deliver compounding national benefit. Choice requires that we actively choose what not to do. This side of the equation is ignored totally in public and political discourse.

Opportunity cost should be a mandatory line item in every budget and policy submission.

Direct capital to national capabilities

Pick a handful of sectors where we can win. Critical minerals, medtech, agtech, renewables, and back them with predictable, performancebased coinvestment. Stop scattering grants like confetti to the most cashed up and politically engaged opportunists. The absence of a clear national strategy inevitably results in disjointed capital allocations, delivering subpar outcomes. We do not have enough depth of capital to allow this to continue.

Build the grid before we build slogans

Power transmission, firming, and storage are the enablers of the renewable transition, which is happening, like it or not. Without them, debate, announcements, and political jockeying are just supercharged brakes on output. Treat the grid as a platform to future productivity and living standards, not as a project.

Tax what’s unearned, reward what’s built

Shift the tax system to favour productive effort over rentseeking. Reform land and capital gains taxes, reduce bracket creep, close offshore residency for tax purposes, return artificial domestic tax minimisation structures like trusts back to their original purpose, and simplify compliance. Productivity grows when builders beat speculators.

Tax reform is the most challenging domain, which is an indicator of its most important priority. With a massive majority in the reps, and an opposition fractured and almost irrelevant, there will never be a better chance to generate meaningful and long-term change than right now. Political history demonstrates that once a reform is instituted, subsequent governments might fiddle at the edges, but do not reverse the direction.

Maintain what we own

Ringfence funds for maintenance of infrastructure, schools, and hospitals. It’s cheaper to fix a leak than rebuild the roof.

Maintenance is far less politically ‘sexy’ than announcing new things, particularly things that can be opened, and generate lots of press releases and hard-hat photo opportunities. Maintenance over new investment is a choice, which sadly favours the latter to our detriment. Fix what you have before replacing it. At the very least, you get a better price when you sell it.

Mutual Interest

A society works when effort and reward align, and when longterm collective benefit trumps shortterm political advantage. Education, national security, climate resilience, and competition all belong here. They’re not partisan, they are foundational.

Education that serves every child

Make needsbased funding sectorblind and tied to evidencebased teaching. Publish learning growth metrics nationally. Equality of educational opportunity, irrespective of geography, socio economic position, and learning style and preference should be a national priority, not a slogan.

Shared national objectives

Matters of strategic importance: energy transition, sovereign capability, defence, and education should be somehow quarantined from the election cycle. A comprehensive national set of strategic priorities as previously noted is essential, requiring non-partisan engagement.

The real deficit is not fiscal, it’s moral. We lack the will to argue transparently, in public, with facts about the past and a clear sense of plausible futures beyond the next poll. Until that changes, reform will always be a press release.

Almost everything in the current adversarial culture of party and individual politics aligns itself against this absolute necessity if we are to leave the place better than we found it. There is really only one cure for the disease: collective leadership, and a leader who inspires followers. It seems we have run out of those!

The reasons these things won’t happen are familiar: politics seeks popularity, not durability; vested interests fund resistance; bureaucracies protect complexity; and the public has been trained to demand benefits without tradeoffs. None of that is inevitable.

The antidote is political courage married to public literacy. Tell the truth about the tradeoffs, publish the facts, and stop pretending that every tough decision can be deferred until after the next election.

This has been the last post for 2025. My thanks to the (very) few people who have stuck to reading the thoughts I have as presented in this blog. Amongst the tsunami of AI generated slop that is increasingly infecting publicly available platforms, it is becoming increasingly challenging to be seen.

Header by Nano Banana. it is an amazing tool!