By Denis Hay
Government spending directs billions in public money – could it be used better? See what your government could fund instead of wasteful deals.
Location: A single mum in regional Queensland watches the evening news.
Action: The presenter says the government has committed $368 billion to nuclear submarines.
Thoughts: “I can’t even get my roof fixed. What does $368 billion even mean?”
Emotion: Frustration. Confusion. Helplessness.
In Australia, politicians casually toss around figures like billions and trillions. Yet, for most of us, even $1 million feels abstract, let alone a number with nine or twelve zeroes. But what if we could visualise these amounts, understand what they buy, and imagine how different our country could be if government spending were spent on us?
Let’s break it down:
That’s the scale we’re dealing with. Now apply that to money.
So why don’t we feel it? Because we’re not supposed to.
Could you spend a trillion dollars in your lifetime?
The 2024–25 federal budget outlines over $730 billion in planned spending:
Defence: $53.4 billion (expected to rise to $100B with AUKUS)
Health ($110 billion):
Education ($41 billion):
✅ Meanwhile:
Source: Budget.gov.au
Dr. Steven Hail’s extensive work in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and critiques of neoliberal economic policies consistently highlight how public funds are often directed toward private sector benefits.
If they arrive at all, $368 billion for nuclear submarines won’t arrive until 2040. But the need is now:
While firestorms and floods devastate communities, fossil fuel giants such as Woodside and Santos receive over $11 billion in annual subsidies.
Imagine instead:
“It feels like the government is fuelling the fire while we’re burning,” said one bushfire survivor in northern NSW.
Unlike households or states, Australia issues its own currency – the Australian dollar.
What This Means
As an Economist, Professor Bill Mitchell puts it:
“A sovereign currency issuer can afford anything for sale in its own currency. The constraint is political, not financial.”
So why are services underfunded while corporate tax cuts and military expansions thrive?
Because the myth of “fiscal responsibility” is weaponised to serve those already in power.
When people hear the term government spending, they often think of waste or handouts, but it is shaped more by ideology than economics.
Government infrastructure is crucial for health and future prosperity. It’s how nations build roads, fund education, protect the environment, and respond to emergencies like floods or pandemics.
Thanks to decades of neoliberal messaging, many Australians believe public spending should be minimised to avoid “burdening taxpayers.” But this framing ignores two key facts:
* Government spending creates jobs, boosts productivity, and strengthens the economy.
* When the federal government spends, it injects money into the economy, not removes it.
As economist Mariana Mazzucato notes, “The state is not just a market fixer. It’s a market shaper.”
Think of Medicare, the ABC, the NDIS, public libraries, and clean water systems. These weren’t market creations – they resulted from visionary government spending.
When spending is strategic, transparent, and equitable, it:
* Reduces inequality.
* Fosters innovation.
* Strengthens communities.
* Improves long-term well-being.
Australia’s challenge isn’t too much spending – it’s spending in the wrong places. Government spending can be used for the public good if the government has the will to do so.
To make it real, here’s what just $1 billion could fund:
“We’re told we must choose between health, education, and housing – but there’s enough for all three. We need to change the priorities.” – Community advocate, Melbourne.
Other nations prove what’s possible:
Australia could:
Public money should serve:
• Wellbeing
• Sustainability
• Equity
• Community resilience
It’s time to reverse the flow of government spending – from corporate welfare to citizen care.
Australia is not short of money. It is short of political courage and media honesty.
For decades, our leaders have chosen defence contractors over hospitals, donors over students, and profits over people. But we are not powerless.
When we understand the truth about government spending and dollar sovereignty, we gain the power to demand a future that serves all of us.
Q: What is dollar sovereignty, and why does it matter?
A: It means Australia issues its own currency, allowing it to spend to meet public needs, so long as inflation and real resources are managed. It debunks the myth that “we can’t afford” public services.
Q: What’s wrong with billion-dollar defence spending?
A: It’s a long-term, high-risk, low-return investment that benefits private contractors while neglecting urgent public needs like housing, healthcare, and climate resilience.
Q: What can I do as one citizen?
A: Get informed. Share independent media. Support candidates and policies that prioritise public spending for the public good.
Have you or someone you know struggled under poor government spending choices? What would you fund with a billion dollars?
Please share your thoughts in the comments below.
If you found this article insightful, explore more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty at Social Justice Australia.
Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.
💬 Click on our “Reader Feedback” menu: 🧡 Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today!
We deliver independent, people-first analysis – free from corporate influence. To keep doing this, we need your help.
💡 Your support helps:
• Keep this site running ad-free
• Fund research that challenges the status quo
• Raise awareness on critical policies
🔗 Donate now – even a small amount makes a big difference.
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia
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
It’s just my opinion, but… When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly negotiated the AUKUS pact…
The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head…
The term “genocide” emerged in 1945, crafted to encapsulate the deliberate and systematic extermination of…
By Denis Bright With its record majority in the House of Representatives and a…
Charles Darwin University Media Release A boom in the number of Aussies identifying as lesbian,…
It's a pity that Malcolm Turnbull abolished the knighthoods that Tony Abbott had reinstated. While…
View Comments
The biggest no-brainer in Australia is engaging with the USA.
The US claim that China will attack our country is little other than CIA
inventiveness.
Meanwhile, the US is feeding itself from Australia's spilling bunkers of annual taxpayer revenues, held under their umbrella of false and misleading powers of suggestion.
Better for the people of Australia were to have our nation divest itself through our sovereign independent nation status.
Any reason not to do so is just our government's cowardly smoke and mirrors mentality,
Reminiscent of the John Howard era, when Howard laid himself prostrate before the feet of whoever was the US President.
John Howard had a huge fear of the Australian people learning of his craven, cowardly self.
Again on MMT, it's all very well to have academic discussion papers, but bypasses basic issue, there neither models nor working exemplars.
What is ignored is how we like other nations leverage temporary resident churnover as solution to ageing znd tax base decline, as 'net financial budget contributors', like short term tourists, via GST, PAYE and privately insured.
The latter applies to the largest cohort, mislabelled as 'immigrants', international students and education who are under attack by media channeling white Christian nationalist Tanton Network; US, UK and Oz (coincidence?).
Locally a SusPopAus person, when challenged, claimed no need for temporary resident churn over, and dropped a link from Tanton 'Overpopulation Project', promoting MMT as solution.
Me thinks potentially more Trussonomics or Trumponomics to create chaos and crash economy then re-engineer for small government, fewer public services, more privatisation, less regulation and low or no taxes.....then getting older voters to support the same.....
https://overpopulation-project.com/why-modern-monetary-theory-is-good-news-for-population-policy/
Careful what you wish for?
Andrew, while I understand your concern about how economic theories can be misused, I think it’s important to clarify what MMT actually proposes.
MMT doesn’t advocate for chaos or reckless spending—it explains how a currency-issuing government like Australia can responsibly use its monetary sovereignty to meet real-world needs: housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and full employment.
The risk you mention—that MMT could be hijacked to justify economic shocks or authoritarian restructuring—isn’t inherent to MMT itself, but to how any policy framework might be manipulated by vested interests.
I believe in applying MMT principles transparently and democratically to improve public wellbeing—not shrink government or privatise services.
If you’re aware of any serious MMT scholars (like Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, or Steven Hail) who support the kind of agenda you're describing, I’d be genuinely interested in seeing that evidence. Otherwise, it feels like a mischaracterisation of what MMT actually aims to achieve.
Some great ideas have been rorted out of usefulness eg HEECS GOV giving $180b and Naplan's $8m should fix a few roofs.
Intriguing, this discussion between Andrew Smith and Andrew Hay.