Brent Bultitude:
Now let’s talk to Adam Creighton. We do, or Chris does, each and every week, we talk to Adam Creighton. Let me push the button. Adam Creighton, economics correspondent, commentator, all round good guy. Good morning, Adam.
Adam Creighton:
Good morning, Brent. Great to be here.
Brent Bultitude:
Mate, thank you for turning up while Chris is away.
Adam Creighton:
That’s okay.
Brent Bultitude:
This is the last week that I’m filling in for him. So everything’s back to normal next week. You’ll be catching up with Chris, a well rested Chris after his cruise.
Adam Creighton:
Yes, I can imagine. It’s been what, three weeks, has it? Four weeks?
Brent Bultitude:
Three weeks. Yeah, three weeks.
Adam Creighton:
Three weeks. Well, it’s been very pleasant talking to you anyway.
Brent Bultitude:
Thank you, mate. Let’s talk about this Catholic schools funding and the corruption investigation. There are growing questions around how public money is being spent. This was after an investigation was launched into the financial practises of some Catholic schools. These schools receive significant taxpayer funding and the debate now is whether there needs to be stronger transparency and accountability rules for all organisations receiving government money. What do you think, mate? Whenever taxpayer money is involved, should the public have the right to know exactly how that money’s being spent, Adam?
Adam Creighton:
Well, yes, I think they should. And the allegations, and of course they are just allegations, but they seem reasonably serious and I don’t know why the Catholic Schools New South Wales would have done that because I think something like 80% of Catholic school funding in New South Wales comes from federal or state government. So we often speak of them as private schools, but most of the money is still coming from taxpayers and parents are chipping in the other 20%. So if those schools are then giving some of that 80% of funding to one political party for one reason or another, that’s a pretty serious allegation, I would say. So let’s just see what the truth is. I understand there is an independent commission against corruption investigation. Surprisingly, the New South Wales labour government doesn’t seem too excited about it at the moment. They’re just happy for ICAC to do its thing.
The education minister there isn’t doing a separate investigation, so they’re just taking a wait and see approach. And maybe that’s because they don’t believe the allegations. I mean, after all, it is just allegation for one person. So let’s just see what happens there.
Brent Bultitude:
Do you think this issue is bigger than just Catholic schools though? Should every organisation receiving taxpayer subsidies face the same level of scrutiny?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, there should be some scrutiny. I mean, certainly if you’re fully taxpayer funded like a government department or minister’s office, my understanding is it’s already very transparent. Everything pretty much goes in the annual report or goes up online. But if you’re semi-supported, yes, look, I think you should. And that even goes for charities who don’t pay income tax to some extent. They have to be careful too. I mean, the IPA who’s a charity, for instance, so we’re independent, we do research. There’s some level of scrutiny there, just like there should be for any organisation that doesn’t have to pay tax. So yeah, there are responsibilities there for certain institutions, whether they get taxpayer funding directly or indirectly.
Brent Bultitude:
Governments often provide billions, not just millions, billions of dollars in grants and funding programmes. Do you think we have enough checks and balances to make sure the money’s being used properly?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, probably not. I mean, certainly I know there’s an enormous amount of taxpayer money that goes into absurd research projects in the university sector and I’m sure there’s tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on various so-called research initiatives. And I’ve got no doubt that some of that money is wasted on salaries or wages that are too high for the projects, et cetera. I mean, the fundamental problem is government’s just gotten so big and so vast in its spending. It’s just so hard to keep track of what’s going on. I mean, remember the federal government, just the federal government spends $800 billion a year. So just imagine trying to keep track of that.
Brent Bultitude:
Yeah. True. I suppose governments often provide billions of dollars. Yes, true. But increased regulation, what does it do? It just creates more bureaucracy, doesn’t it?
Adam Creighton:
Well, that’s right. That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. I mean, ideally there’d be far fewer subsidies in general so the focus could be just on the government itself, which is big enough as it is.
Brent Bultitude:
Let’s talk about the CSIRO and their energy report. It is a story around today. Energy prices remain one of the biggest issues facing households, businesses. And a new CSIRO report has reignited the debate over our energy future. The report challenges claims that simply abandoning net-zero targets would automatically make electricity cheaper, highlighting the complexity, I suppose, of the energy transition. Look, the energy debate, Adam, has become just a political hotcake, hasn’t it?
Adam Creighton:
Yeah.
Brent Bultitude:
What does the evidence actually tell us about what will make power cheaper?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, it is very complicated because these assessments are based on forecasts that are 20, 30 years into the future about the price of different energy generation, which is absurd in one sense, because we don’t know what the price is next year, let alone in 30 years. There can be technological changes. There can be geopolitical changes around the world. There can be wars, et cetera, that can drastically change the price of things. But we should focus on what we know now, not what may or may not happen in 2040. And that is that every country that has more renewable energy in its system, solar or wind, has much, much higher electricity prices. And you can even see that in the Australian states on a smaller level. South Australia has the highest wind and solar penetration and it’s got the highest electricity. And so if we keep going down the path that the government wants to go down, which is to have a electricity grid, which is almost entirely solar and wind and hydro, then it’s going to be very, very expensive.
And the frustrating thing about these gen cost reports is that they often just look at the cost of generation in isolation when the reality is solar and wind, they have to be connected to the grid. And that involves tens of billion dollars of investment in transmission lines, which you do not need to do for coal and gas and nuclear, which of course we don’t have. So those forms of energy, solar and wind are extremely expensive when you factor in that they only work for eight hours a day, not 24. And then not only that, you have to build thousands of kilometres of transmission line all throughout the country, which has not been done. And of course, who pays for all that? Well, the retailers pay for all that, but that all goes in the electricity bill in the end. So it doesn’t matter what the actual cost of the energy is, the wholesale part. It’s the retail part and that’s where they whack in the cost of the transmission lines.
So that’s why it’s so expensive and it’s going to just get more and more expensive all the time. Mind you, sorry just to drone on, but there’s been a massive collapse in investment in wind and solar already. So I don’t see how they can meet any of these targets, especially in the short term.
Brent Bultitude:
And when you mention that collapse, in simple terms for me, if you agree or disagree with this statement, when we see that collapse, it has only happened because of what has happened in other countries, in other projects. And these companies are seeing that it’s just not financially viable. Is that a correct comment to make, mate?
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. That’s certainly true. In fact, it’s extraordinary that there has been a collapse because there’s tremendous public funding and subsidies for wind and solar. And even with those available, there’s still been a massive collapse in investment, especially in wind. And as you say, not just here, but all around the world in the Western world, there’s been a massive collapse in wind. And my view is that the reason for that is that these various private sector investors, they see the writing on the wall with this form of energy and they worry that in five or 10 years time, there’ll be a big political reaction against it when power bills go through the absolute roof. And then there’ll be a sudden shift back to older and cheaper forms of electricity and then they will lose a lot of money.
So that’s my theory of why no one is building wind and solar at the moment because the government of today might be in favour of it, but you’re already seeing in poles and the rise of one nation and all of that, not just in Australia, but in Germany, France and England, you’re seeing a lot of anger about power prices. And if I was going to make a 10, 15 year investment in solar or wind, I’d be very worried about what might happen halfway through that period. So I think that’s why there won’t be any. Does that make sense?
Brent Bultitude:
It does. Yeah. Many people though, they just want cheaper power bills. So why is the energy policy so difficult for governments to get it right? It doesn’t seem as though it’s brain surgery as the saying goes.
Adam Creighton:
Well, I mean, it’s not brain surgery, but it almost is in a way. I mean, it’s extremely complicated. And our whole electricity market has been set up for gas and coal and for forms of energy generation that work 24 hours a day. It’s not really set up for wind and solar, which only works sometimes. And of course needs batteries too, which is still extremely expensive. I mean, we talk about these huge batteries and sure there are some big ones, but they’ll power the city of Adelaide for half an hour kind of thing. I mean, that’s not really what you want. So that technology’s not really there yet. The reality is the politics of it is just so out of sync with the science and the economics. I mean, to have a fully renewable grid is just astronomically expensive. And indeed there’s nowhere in the world where that exists, not even close.
And yet the political rhetoric is that we’re going to get there in five, 10 years, which is just not scientifically possible. So something’s got to give and I’m pretty sure it’s going to be the rhetoric and not the science.
Brent Bultitude:
So do you think that our energy debate is too focused on politics and not enough on the economics and the engineering and how we get to the end game?
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. Look, it certainly is too much focused on politics. Slogans like net-zero, which of course sounds lovely. I mean, who doesn’t want to have zero pollution? Well, firstly, it’s not even pollution that we’re talking about. I mean, carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s what plants need to live. So it’s pretty important. And it’s just a silly meaning of slogan that people like to sign up to, but then when they realise it’s going to cost an absolute fortune and then they could lose their job, it’s a very different situation. And you’re seeing all the major polls that are done now that the share of Australians who say climate change is a very important issue has fallen off very dramatically. And the shares that say cost of living is important has gone up a lot too. And I can assure you the cost of living won’t be coming down anytime soon because government’s printed all that hundreds of billions of dollars during COVID and that’s still working its way through the system.
Brent Bultitude:
Let’s talk about having a beer, James Boag. I enjoy a James Boag beer on a hot afternoon. In Tasmania, I suppose it’s created a debate about whether government should step in to save important local businesses. The nearly 150 year old brewery, it’s one of Australia’s oldest breweries. It represents jobs in history and a major Tasmanian brand. What do you think, Adam, when an iconic company like James Boag is at risk of closing, should government step in to protect jobs and heritage or do you think the market should decide the direction?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, maybe in some very specific cases they should, but I don’t think this is one. I mean, firstly, it’s sad that it’s shutting down and the company that owns it, Lion Nathan, said it was a mix of demand for beer slowing nationwide, but also energy costs, they said. So that obviously goes to what we were just talking about, the fact that we’ve got a far, far more expensive electricity grid than we used to and that’s putting manufacturers like Boag’s out of business. So that’s very sad. So first we could point out government has actually caused this problem in the first place through its energy policies in part.
Brent Bultitude:
Yes.
Adam Creighton:
And so now it’s going to come and step in and maybe buy it, which I don’t think is a good idea. I mean, that’s a strange precedent to set that the Tasmanian government comes in and purchases businesses that are going badly. And also it’s not to keep the brewery going. It’s to turn it into a kind of a restaurant, shopping precinct, which I don’t think state government should really be doing.
Brent Bultitude:
No, I agree with you. It’s just a sad, sad situation that one of Australia’s oldest historic breweries is going to actually close. I believe it’s 150 years, as I said. And lots of people are going to lose their jobs, unfortunately, as a result of it.
Adam Creighton:
Yes. I know. About 50 people. I know. I know. I just hope they get other jobs. The broader point here is that the Tasmanian economy has been in the doldrums for some times, which is very sad because it’s a beautiful state and people are leaving it. And personally, my view is it’s a shame the states don’t have more independence on tax because they can sit lower tax there and get people to move there and start businesses. But sadly, they’re in the straitjacket of the federal tax regime and they can’t do that.
Brent Bultitude:
Well said. Always good to catch up with you, Adam, as I said. Thank you for your time. And Chris is back next week. So we’ll talk again when I fill in for Chris.
Adam Creighton:
Indeed. Thanks very much.
Brent Bultitude:
Thanks, mate.
Adam Creighton:
I’ve enjoyed it. Bye.
Brent Bultitude:
Okay. Thanks, mate. Bye-bye. That’s Adam Creighton.
This transcript with Adam Creighton talking on 2SM Mornings with Brent Bultitude from 16 July 2026 has been edited for clarity.
