UNSW Sydney: Media Release
Australia must focus on fiscal space in the 2025-26 Budget to manage rising debt and future economic and geopolitical challenges.
Fiscal space refers to a government’s ability to spend in response to economic shocks without jeopardising long-term stability. It allows for emergency support during crises like recessions or global downturns withoutexcessive borrowing or harsh austerity measures.
As the Australian federal government prepares to hand down the 2025-26 Budget next week, Scientia Professor Richard Holden from the School of Economics at UNSW Business School has warned that rising deficits threaten this flexibility. After major spending during the COVID-19 pandemic, he said restoring fiscal discipline is crucial to ensuring the Australian economy can respond effectively to future economic shocks.
“Since 1996, Australia has had fiscal rules. Both sides of politics, including governments under Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, and then Kevin Rudd again, had fiscal rules that said we would not spend more than this percent of GDP, and that forces a kind of discipline. And those were thrown out in early 2020, and I think the question is whether they’re going to come back,” said Prof. Holden, a leading Australian economist, speaking at an e61 and UNSW Sydney policy research partnership launch.
He told delegates that the upcoming budget must include enough fiscal space to cushion against potential economic shocks, and he didn’t hold back in his analysis. “I worry it has something to do with the people who are in politics,” he said. While acknowledging that Australia still has good politicians, he questioned whether the political system is attracting the best and brightest in the way it did during the reformist Hawke-Keating era (from 1983 to 1996).
How much is the Australian government in debt?
The latest data shows net debt is forecast to increase from 32.0% of GDP ($881.9 billion) in 2024-25 to 35.7% of GDP ($1,136.3 billion) in 2027-28. This substantial debt level underscores the urgency of reinstating fiscal rulesto ensure economic resilience against future shocks. But the Australian government’s rising debt burden isn’t just about the sheer size of the budget deficit – it’s about the government’s ability to manage it.
“I was asked the other day, what are the two things you’d love to see in this budget? And I said, I’d love to see the treasurer stand up and say, I’m going to re-establish the fiscal rules.
And we’re not going to go back to that percentage right away, but over the course of the next parliament, during the time that I’m treasurer, over the next three years, we’re going to go back to that level of fiscal discipline. and we’re going to re-establish the rule,” he said.
“And the second thing is, we’re going to… index our tax brackets to GDP. That means there is no bracket creep. And if there is no bracket, you can’t be a lazy government, a lazy treasurer. Those two things together demand and force fiscal discipline.”
“Because without it, I think we’ll sort of, you know, hope for the best, not plan for the worst, sort of hope for the best and plan for the best, and it probably won’t turn out very well.”
Fiscal space and Australia’s cost-of-living crisis
Soaring rents, high grocery prices, and rising energy bills continue to drive cost-of-living pressures for Australians, making the 2025-26 budget a crucial moment for relief. With Treasurer Jim Chalmers set to announce a deficit of $26.9 billion, the government must balance financial support with fiscal responsibility.
A deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenue, adding to national debt – the total amount owed over time. Sustainable measures, such as targeted subsidies or tax reforms, are essential to easing household strain without deepening Australia’s fiscal challenges.
Prof. Holden warned that ongoing primary deficits, where the government is borrowing not just to cover spending but also to pay interest on existing debt (which recently increased by $4.5 billion, from $48.1 billion to $52.6 billion for 2026-27), signal a worrying trend.
Without fiscal space, he said the government has limited capacity to provide relief for households struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. This lack of flexibility makes it harder to implement effective support measures, such as targeted financial aid or social welfare programs, that can directly alleviate the pressure on everyday Australians.
To restore fiscal discipline and ensure long-term economic stability, Professor Holden argued that clear spending limits are essential – limits Australia had in place prior to the pandemic but abandoned in response to the economic crisis.
Prof. Holden said: “I will note that in each of the last two major crises, COVID and the 2008 financial crisis, we spent more – 10% of GDP – to buffer those shocks. And we need to have what David and Christina Romer called ‘fiscal space’ in order to do that. If you don’t have that fiscal space, you can get very, very bad outcomes.”
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Critique: The Myth of Fiscal Space as a Constraint
Professor Holden frames “fiscal space” as a critical issue, implying that Australia’s ability to respond to economic shocks depends on keeping low deficits. However, this view ignores that Australia, as a currency-issuing nation, does not rely on borrowing to fund its spending. The real constraint is not the size of the deficit or debt but the availability of real resources (labour, materials, infrastructure capacity). The government can spend without causing inflationary pressures if there are idle resources.
Debt-to-GDP Concerns Are Misplaced
The article warns that net debt is set to rise from 32.0% of GDP ($881.9 billion) in 2024-25 to 35.7% of GDP ($1,136.3 billion) in 2027-28, portraying this as a risk. However, Australia’s public debt is relatively low compared to other advanced economies. More importantly, since the government controls the currency its debt is issued, it can always meet obligations without default. The concern over “fiscal discipline” is a political choice rather than an economic necessity.
Flawed Focus on Fiscal Rules
Holden calls for reintroducing fiscal rules that cap government spending relative to GDP. This approach is problematic because it assumes government deficits are inherently bad rather than reflecting the necessary spending required to support employment, infrastructure, and essential services. Arbitrary spending caps could prevent the government from responding effectively to economic downturns or investing in long-term national priorities.
Contradiction: Cost-of-Living Relief vs. Fiscal Austerity
The article acknowledges the severe cost-of-living crisis—rising rents, high grocery prices, and increased energy costs—while arguing for fiscal restraint. If the government reduces spending to meet arbitrary fiscal rules, it will have less capacity to provide the relief needed to support struggling households. Fiscal austerity in the face of economic hardship is counterproductive and would likely worsen inequality.
Conclusion
The article promotes a neoliberal fiscal narrative prioritising deficit reduction over economic well-being. Rather than focusing on arbitrary debt targets, Australia should prioritise full employment, public investment, and economic resilience. If inflation is managed and resources are available, there is no financial limit to what the government can do to support its people.
Another lobbyist from the Chicago school of Economics, clinging to failed and society crushing neoliberal drivel.Those days are in their death throes,notwithstanding the clownish antics of the current Presidential mobster and his squillionaire chancers.
Back home,the current Liar of the Opposition courting the jewish vote with ethereal promises of trade with Israel.(Guardian)Closer ties with Israel would likely make us more attractive target for terrorists.Mr. tough on everything is in urgent need of a brain.
Will we have a budget which deals with the basic needs of all Australians?
Will we have a budget which ensures we have a health system that works for all Australians?
Will we have a budget which addresses the needs of the most disadvantaged Australians?
I think those are far more significant than some academic bean counter looking at % of GDP.
A couple of articles below this one refers to the employment situation in Australia… the lowest unemployment rate since the 1970’s and rising wages. Surely the work this government has done, including the reduction of government debt needs to be highlighted again and again. Fuck the ‘academic question’, look at what is being done, look towards how the benefits of what is being done can be more equitably distributed.
Dennis Hay: Thank you for pointing out that “fiscal space” is a neoliberal invention, and that the good Prof. Holden holds firmly to those principles, even though he is a Labor supporter – which is worrying for those of us who have seen the folly of the neoliberal myth.
On a Liber…er, um…Labor note: Sigh, the donations where just to good to pass up?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/19/albanese-to-rush-through-new-laws-to-protect-tasmanias-salmon-industry-from-legal-threat
GL,Albanese continues to confirm his unsuitability to be Prime Minister,or even someone who has a handle on current politics.PM Jim Chalmers (not Jim Hacker) should do a better job…or else.Little wonder we’ve got a total arsehole like Boofhead who’s rated a chance..he’s not.