The Australian Government has been having trouble getting its proposed Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) passed by the Senate. The policy looks odd. With some justification, the Australian Greens have commented: “In its current form the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) legislation will see the housing crisis get worse. We can’t fix the housing crisis by gambling money on the stock market and not guaranteeing a single cent will be spent on housing.” In their dissenting report on the bill, the Greens’ cited the views of this episode’s guest, Dr Cameron Murray. Cameron is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Henry Halloran Trust at the University of Sydney.
About Dr Cameron Murray
Dr Cameron Murray is Post-Doctoral Researcher at Henry Halloran Trust, The University of Sydney. He is an economist specialising in property and urban development, environmental economics, rent-seeking and corruption.
What’s covered in this bonus episode
- Cameron’s submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill [2:39]
- What’s going on with the Housing Australia Future Fund [5:02]
- The only reason you can make a premium is if you take risk [8:57]
- Why you need to separate the funding and the spending [10:36]
- Why doesn’t the Future Fund just directly invest in new houses? [14:21]
- How governments are increasingly doing financially tricky things that don’t make sense [19:23]
- Cameron’s thoughts on the impact of the bill on the level of investment in housing [23:14]
- What’s going on behind the scenes at Parliament House [26:18]
Links relevant to the conversation
Cameron’s submission to the inquiry into the Housing Australia Future Fund:
Direct link to Senate Committee inquiry report:
HAFF inquiry home page:
Transcript: Odd way to fix housing crisis proposed by Aus. Gov’t: invest in stocks first w/ Dr Cameron Murray, Sydney Uni.
N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.
Gene Tunny 00:06
Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, welcome to this bonus episode on the housing Australia Future Fund. The H A double f or half. It’s Saturday the 25th of March here in Australia and throughout the week, the Australian government has been having trouble getting the half passed by the Senate. That’s probably unsurprising because the policy looks like a bad one. With some justification the Australian Greens have commented in its current form the housing Australia Future Fund legislation will see the housing prices get worse. We can’t fix the housing crisis by gambling money on the stock market and not guaranteed a single cent will be spent on housing. That paragraphs from the Greens dissenting report on the housing Australia Future Fund bill. In that dissenting report, the greens relied significantly on testimony to the inquiry from my guest this episode, my fellow Brisbane based economist Dr. Cameron Mary Cameron is a postdoctoral researcher at the Henry Halloran trust at the University of Sydney. I recorded this conversation with Ken Friday last week on the 17th of March 2023. I’ll link in the show notes to Cameron’s submission to the inquiry into the half cam submission as a great example of the application of economic logic to an important economic policy issue. Cam sees through the accounting trickery and the financial engineer at behind the fund. He shows how the Australian government has been too clever by half. It’s trying to get credit for doing something about the country’s housing crisis. But what it’s proposing could be next to useless. Right. Let’s get into the episode. Please let me know what you think about what either camera I have to say by emailing me at contact at economics explored.com. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Cam Dr. Cameron Murray, welcome back to the show.
Cameron Murray 02:39
Thanks for having me again, Gene.
Gene Tunny 02:40
Oh, it’s a pleasure, Cameron, I read with much interest your latest post on fresh economic thinking. And it’s about your submission to the Senate inquiry into the housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and other bills. Could you tell us a bit about what that involves? So you’ve written a submission to this inquiry? And you’ve also presented to the inquiry you gave testimony? Did you?
Cameron Murray 03:07
Yeah, that’s right. So this bill was passed their house, the lower house, and now the Senate is reviewing it. And what they’ve done is held this inquiry asked for public submissions, and had people who made submissions come in for a day of expert testimony so that their senators can ask specific people, you know, technical questions, what do you think about this? What about this design element? And so I was part of that on on Wednesday, this week. And yeah, so the bill itself is called the housing Australia future funding bill. And the basic idea is the government has decided to address Australia’s current housing problems. We’ve seen rents rise, we’ve seen rising homelessness, we’ve seen longer queues in public housing waiting lists, they’ve decided the best thing for them to do is take $10 billion from the Treasury and give it to the Future Fund, which is a sort of publicly managed investment fund, and cross their fingers and hope that that fund makes a return that’s higher than their opportunity cost, you know, the cost of the government’s dead and use that margin on the risk to fund something in the future, some unspecified, granting in relation to what in the text of the bill is called supporting housing need. So that’s what it was all about. And, and yeah, I gave some testimony on Wednesday.
Gene Tunny 04:35
So the federal government’s claiming that this is going to help them build I think 30,000 social housing dwellings over the next five years or so. So that’s their that’s the plan. But I think what I like about your submission is it essentially talks about how this is a rather roundabout way of going about it, which doesn’t actually guarantee you’re going to deliver it to you As in,
Cameron Murray 05:00
this is the mad thing. And this is. So let me start by saying, to be clear what they’re doing to build houses is taking $10 billion and buying all sorts of assets in the future funds that are not houses. Right? So that’s what they’re trying to do. And it’s really funny because there’s an actually an episode of Utopia, you know, the comedy show about the bureaucracy in Australia, where Rob switches character, who’s the sane one, amongst the insanity is explaining to a political staffer who says to him, What about an infrastructure? Future Fund? Yeah, don’t you get it, it’s about the future, he says. But spending the money on infrastructure today solves the future, we don’t need a fund. We don’t need a new office, we don’t need these fund managers. And you know, when we watch utopia, we all laugh and think we’re the same guy in the room. But what happened at the Senate inquiry is that I was the only guy and everybody else who laughed at Utopia when they watched it was the crazy guy who thinks that spending money on not houses is the best way to spend money on houses. And so there was this really perverse political slogan that kept creeping in, which was, this is going to secure funding for the future and insulated from future political decisions. And I just sat there going, I don’t, I’ve read this bill, because this funding is riskier, because you’re investing in a risky asset and the current Future Fund loss $2.4 billion last year, and spent half a billion dollars on fund managers to achieve that outcome. So we almost lost $3 billion last year. So it’s possible that we put 10 billion in this fund and have 9 billion next year. And then that’s the way we’re securing the future funding. The legislation is also written such that the future Minister has the discretion of how much from the fund to spend, and on what projects. And it also introduces a cap of 500 million per year that a future minister can withdraw from the fund. So what you’re actually doing is providing a great excuse for a future minister to spend less than 500 million. And in fact, zero if the fund is losing money. So there’s this weird disconnect between the political slogan of securing long term funding insulating it from politics and the reality, which is adding risk to a fund compared to just having 10 billion in the bank or at the Treasury where it is, and not insulating at all, and just still relying on future ministers discretion with no commitments. So that 30,000 dwellings you said, is not enough. There’s no, it’s not written in their rules. It’s written in the guideline as a hypothetical of how much, you know, if all went according to plan, and we would expect this, and I’m like, but there’s like, like many housing strategies and plans that the federal government and state governments have had in the past, there is nothing holding them to account on those promises. So yeah, it’s, it’s a really, really strange one. And I felt like there are about 20 or 30 witnesses or experts at the hearing. Now, only two or three of us actually calling this out the majority of the industry. And the researchers had really, I don’t know, bought the line that this is something that it’s not.
Gene Tunny 08:16
Yeah. So what’s going on, it appears to me is they’re essentially that borrowing, they’re going to be borrowing this money, or it’s going to increase the borrowing requirement by $10 billion, because we’re currently we have been running budget deficits. So it’s going to increase that, that borrowing requirement, we’re going to put that into this the future funds, so we’re essentially borrowing money to then invest in the share market or Enron’s Yeah, well,
Cameron Murray 08:45
if we’ve invested in bonds, we’re borrowing money to buy the bond back off ourselves. If this fund, if this fund is like eight or seven or 8%, government, Australian government treasury, that’s just pure accounting. Yeah, you know, trickery, you know, and that shows it but the whole thing is accounting trickery, right? Because, you know, you’re just recycling the money via the current shareholders of BHP into Telstra and Commonwealth Bank, right, by buying the shares off them and then later selling it back to them. And the only reason you can make a premium with this fund over the over not borrowing it, right, because you still gotta pay interest on the Treasury borrowing. The only reason you can make a premium is if you take risk. Yeah, if you’re taking risk, then it’s not a secure, long term funding thing. You’re just adding risk unnecessarily, and delaying spending money on building houses. And, you know, it took a little bit of explaining to get that through at the hearing. But ultimately, I had, for example, John Corrigan, you know, back me up on that argument, and I think Brendan Coates from the Grattan Institute who is a big supporter, the policy sort of had to concede that Yeah, at the end of the day, you’re adding risk in the hope of increasing the funding. But risk is real, right? We just can’t count on winning In the next few years,
Gene Tunny 10:02
right, so Brennan was buying the government’s line that this is about getting a secure funding source. He, I mean, I know you can’t speak for Brendan, I’m just wondering where he was coming from?
Cameron Murray 10:13
Well, actually, the idea is actually from one of our Grattan Institute report, and they proposed a $20 billion social housing fund. And, and, and, you know, I’m not averse to the government sort of diversifying the capital side, right on its balance sheet. Yeah. And and owning some high risk assets? I don’t, I’m not averse to that, in principle, right. But you’ve got to separate the funding and the spending idea. So the way I try to tell people, if the government’s saying we don’t have the money for it, it means we don’t want to do it. Because look at the submarines look at every other big look at the Olympics, right, no one’s has gotten the Olympic Future Fund, no one’s got a submarine future fun. We spend on what we want. And if someone’s saying where’s the budget, or where’s the funding, you sort of missing the idea, but but even more fundamentally, you know, if you go and raise money in the share market, from new investors for your business, each investor doesn’t say, I’ll give you this money, but you can only spend this money on, you know, cleaning your office and and the other shareholder says, no, no, but I only want you to earmark my money for doing this, right. What we do is we pool that money together and spend it the best way we can on the operations we need to do and it’s the same for the government, you need to separate Well, we’re gonna raise money, the best way we know how, whether that’s different types of taxes or borrowing, and we’re going to spend money the best way we know how and tying two things together is bad. Operationally, it’s just like, it’s bad for my business to promise one shareholder that their money goes to one type of spending, and another shareholder that I’ll only spend yours on new trucks. You know, it doesn’t really make sense it and it’s very hard to break through this kind of weird, I don’t know, budget illusion that we’ve all got that, you know, we must do this. For this, we must raise money in this way for this spending.
Gene Tunny 12:06
Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.
Female speaker 12:12
If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world, you can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.
Gene Tunny 12:41
Now back to the show. I liked how you wrote about this off balance sheet trick or the off balance sheet tricks, the basic idea of the half. So that’s the housing Australia Future Fund is to create an off balance sheet accounting trick whereby the debt associated with the fund and the assets in the fund are considered as a bundle and hence not counted in measures of public debt. So I mean, I haven’t seen exactly how they’ll what the accounting treatment of this will be in the budget, it seems to me what they’re doing is they’re setting this up as a, it’s an SPV, or some sort of public Financial Corporation so they can get it outside of the traditional balance sheet measures. They put in the budget, which is for they have it for general government, but then they also have public non financial corporations, but they don’t have public Financial Corporation. So I’m wondering if that’s what they’re going to categorise it as
Cameron Murray 13:34
I think, yeah, that’s part of the intention. And we actually see those types of budget tricks a lot, I think, New South Wales rail, you know, they tried to shift things off balance sheet, but at the end of the day, you know, we as economists should be looking through that, right. Oh, yeah. And saying, Look, you know, debts debt, but, you know, these are all assets, we can bundle them all together, you know, doesn’t matter where you’ve accounted for them. And the way we’re going to assess whether that debt was, you know, justified or efficient or productive is what, you know, what the investments made in general are, so whether it was on budget or off, you know, it should be the same, right, and you’re borrowing money to buy these assets. Doesn’t matter how you account for it. And that’s the that’s what sort of leads me to my other point is that houses are assets. Yeah. Australia’s property market is the hottest market every property every investor wants to own some. Yeah. So why doesn’t the Future Fund build new houses to expand this pool of property assets in the process, that equity can be on its balance sheet, but instead of, you know, bumping up the prices of BHP shares that you’re going to buy, you actually expand the housing stock in the process, and you can still have your off balance sheet tricks. I actually looked historically and since the Future Fund started in 2006, that’s the current investment fund Australia hands. They’ve made 7.8% average return annually, the average Australian dwelling increased in value by 7.7% per year since 2006. So just the capital value increase of owning a representative sample of Australian property would have got you the same returns as the Future Fund. So it’s not clear to me why we’re recycling this money via other assets, before we build housing assets, we can look at the balance sheets of state, public housing managers. Yeah. And when they value their land and their property portfolios every year, they got to bump it up, you know, 5 million billion. So here 10 billion here, because all this portfolio of properties they own, you know, it’s a valuable asset that rises in value. So So I’ve proposed quietly to a lot of people involved that if you want to have your financial trick and your Future Fund, get the border of the future find to only spend the money, building new dwellings, and then put the equity that you have, yeah, into the fund, you can keep your financial track, but at least you’re you know, keeping the housing construction going. And you’re immediately accumulating a pool of houses that you can allocate to the people who need it at a cheap price.
Gene Tunny 16:13
Yeah. And so is this been driven by the State of the Commonwealth budget, they, they want to make sure that they think they’re gonna get some earnings from this housing Australia Future Fund that can then offset the spending that they’ll have to make on public housing. So they want to get that they’re hoping they can get that. Because if they just go ahead and start building public housing, then they don’t have that revenue to offset that. Is that what they’re thinking?
Cameron Murray 16:39
I think you’re right, I think that’s what the thinking is. But at the end of the day, you know, having those houses supplied to people at a cheap price offsets are the spending on those people already. So the benefit is there, either in the form of the rental, or in the form of the income from the other assets. So, if I was to put on my cynical, political economist hat, I would say the reason this programme has gained so much traction and is probably going to be the law few months, is because it doesn’t change the housing market, it’s going to pass because it doesn’t achieve anything. And that’s what is truly desired. By, you know, the political parties involved is that they want to look like they’re doing something without actually doing it. I’ve had conversations with politicians who’ve told me what’s wrong with the housing market? You know, prices went up, because we dropped the interest rate, that’s good. And rents went up, because incomes went up. That’s good. There’s no market failure here. government shouldn’t do anything. So if that’s what they say to me, how is it then that they passed this bill that’s meant to do something, the only coherent story there is that this bill is to look like you’re doing something, but not doing something because you genuinely think the property market is doing what it’s doing? Well? Yeah, that’s my super cynical. Political Economy hat.
Gene Tunny 18:08
Yeah, you may well be right. I mean, it’s the Sir Humphrey Appleby type of approach where people actually don’t care about whether a problem solved, they just want it look as if something’s being done.
Cameron Murray 18:21
I’ve had a lot of people message me since my testimony to tell me their experiences of this. And I don’t know what I’m going to call this pattern, you know, does it have a name? I’ve tried to call it something like pre compromising. Where you take a good idea, you turn it into a bad idea, but it’s still got the same words in the bill. While so it looks like you’re still doing something. Yeah, you push that. And you’ve totally compromised the content, or the effectiveness, just so you can keep the name because the name is what people will talk about. And it looks like you’re doing something. It’s a what’s it called housing Australia Future Fund? Yeah. Sounds like something important is being done. Right. Yeah. And the more that gets in press headlines, the more we give credibility to the current government, who is trying to, of course tread this line of keeping prices up for people who own property, and pretending they want to keep prices down and rents down to people who don’t own property. And that’s a real interesting political tightrope. That happens a lot in this country.
Gene Tunny 19:23
Yeah, I really liked your submission, Cameron, because I thought it. I mean, it highlights our governments are increasingly doing these sorts of things. And they don’t really make a lot of sense when you think about it, because I remember when I was in Treasury, we had to set up these buildings Australia fund education investment fund, that’s I forget the name of the other one. And it didn’t really make a lot of sense because you’re just taking money and we ended up I think we ended up having to borrow money to put into them, because of the time you know, but the original idea was that there was Yeah, and they were gonna stick them in these funds, but then by the time On had to transfer the money, it was the financial crisis. So the timing wasn’t very good. And then they we see they constrain your ability to get cash. I mean, because you’re saying, Okay, we’re going to lock up all of this money in these funds, even though we don’t need it at the moment. So it can it can constrain your budget flexibility. So I don’t like them for that reason. And the other point that you’re making is your your, if you end up having to borrow to invest in it, well, you’re, you’re borrowing money just invested in the share market. And it’s not necessarily achieving the public policy objectives that you that you want to achieve. So yeah,
Cameron Murray 20:43
that’s exactly the way to put it, you’re gonna borrow 10 million to build houses for people and give it to them below market? Why do you need to recycle that money through the share market? Why don’t you put it through the pokies, there’s also a chance of making more money there, you know, it’s high risk. Why don’t you just take your half million, that half billion that you want to spend each year and spend it for the next 20 years, and just start a construction programme? Like, the really bizarre thing? To me, I read this bill. And in Part Seven H or whatever it is, it says, The Treasury will credit the housing Future Fund with $10 billion. It just doesn’t. And I just think to myself, How does where’s this 10 billion coming from? Aren’t we having this fund to get the money that we don’t have a now you’re saying we have 10 billion? If we have 10 billion? We don’t need the fund? Right? Yeah. And, you know, no one else seems to pick up on that, oh, we just credit with 10 billion. I’m like, why don’t you just build houses, credit them? Credit, the builders is 10 billion. Yeah.
Gene Tunny 21:45
So this is where they’re hoping that by doing it, you know, essentially gambling or well investing with borrowed money, they can get enough of a return on that, to then help fund this additional expenditure. And that’s going to lessen the budgetary impact. So that’s essentially what’s going on. And I just think it’s interesting, because it’s an interesting example of one of these. These things, these clever financial vehicles, the Polly’s and the advisors, I think, in particular, they love it, they think they’re geniuses, but it’s not really solving the problem.
Cameron Murray 22:20
Yeah. And let me just talk you through what I think is the best case scenario. They put money in this fund, sometime in the middle of this year, after we’ve had a big asset market correction, and they they’re near the bottom. In the next 12 months, there’s a real big boom. And in 12 months time, the ministers say, Oh, look, we’ve been making all this money. I’m gonna make this happen. Yeah, that’s the best case. The worst case is, you know, we’ve just seen a bank collapse in the United States, and you know, Swiss government bailout the Credit Suisse bank, the worst case scenario is they put $10 billion into the Future Fund, start accumulating assets in the next six months. And then come September, October, you know, popular time for financial market crashes, the fund loses 10% of its value. And next year, the minister says, oh, we can’t spend anything on public housing, because we just lost a billion dollars on the share market. Yeah, that’s, I don’t know which one’s more probable, but both are potential outcomes. And if the second one happens, you know, I hope the public and the press hold the government to account and say, Hey, this is what you wanted. You were told this is the risk you’re taking. And you still did it anyway. I really hope that opens people’s eyes. If that happens.
Gene Tunny 23:34
Yeah, that’s a good. That’s a good point. So you’re saying that the the level of investment in public housing could end up being dependent upon the returns on this fund
Cameron Murray 23:46
highly likely, implicitly, tells the minister only spend what you make, you know, for funds doing well spend money, if it’s not don’t spend money, the way it sort of described, and it’s got this cap in it as well. I would say there’s a sort of, you know, a built in excuse, yeah. Whereas you kind of want the opposite incentive. You want more public spending on housing during a downturn in the markets, right? You want to smooth out construction cycles. Yeah. Whereas I sort of feel this builds in the opposite political incentive. But the you know, the next 12 months are going to be very interesting if this bill is finally passed. And you know, the markets are very volatile at the moment. And the Future Fund, of course, lost a couple of percent last year, you went down the existing funds. So if that happens again, yeah. Who knows? Yeah.
Gene Tunny 24:40
Just before we wrap up, Cameron, can I ask you what was it like presenting to the committee? I mean, did anyone get it? Did any bells rang? Or what’s the expression? I mean, I imagined some of the Imagine that. There must have been, some of them must be sceptical, or I hope some of the people on this committee worse sceptical. But yeah. What was your impression?
Cameron Murray 25:05
My impression is that this process is a little bit of a charade. So that each political party in the crossbenches can get their sort of own experts on to provide excuses for the political bargain that they want out of this in the Senate. So I think most of the action is happening behind the scenes. And this is just each, each person in the Senate had a chance to call forth their own experts. And so that was done. My impression is that your committee is loaded based on the political party of the day, right. You know, I was cut off from my introduction, when I was saying, you get a few minutes to make introductory remarks. And I was explaining how I can’t believe you’re trying to describe this as a low risk secure, politically insulated funding stream when it seems the exact opposite. Yeah. And they’re like, oh, you know, we only allowed two minutes for these opening remarks get. And, of course, if you if you go and check the footage, everyone bloody rambled for five minutes. So you can sort of see that and, and, you know, I’ve spoken to a variety of Senators offices, as well. And they’ve obviously taken on board what I’ve said, but you don’t see minds being changed. Live during this process. That’s not where it happens. It’s all happening with phone calls and meetings and negotiations amongst each party and independents are
Gene Tunny 26:36
all behind the scenes. Okay. Because I was just wondering, I imagine that the, the greens would probably be pushing the for the government just to build public housing. Right. Yeah. Well, that must be in there. That’s right. So
Cameron Murray 26:50
I think it’s Nick McKim is the green senator from Tassie. And he was, you know, onboard when I started my opening remarks by saying, you realise there’s a scene in the comedy show utopia, right? We started today. That is exactly what you’re doing. But you all laughed with the other side of the joke. And now you’re you are the joke. And so he got a few chuckles But you know, the other the other people didn’t really like it. So yeah, the greens are definitely not keen on these off balance sheet financial tricks at all, which is really puzzling, right? It’s really puzzling to me. I don’t know what the Liberals should be sort of have a similar mind being a bit more honest financially and say, let’s focus on what’s a waste of money and what’s not. Let’s not focus on where you record it in the accounts. So I don’t I don’t know what their views are. But my impression is the Labour Party, you know, they’ve almost got this superannuation brain, or this Future Fund brain like this sort of, yeah, it’s inhibited their ability to go, you know, this is not magic. It’s not a Magic Pudding. It’s just buying different assets.
Gene Tunny 27:57
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So I’ll put a link to your submission in the show notes. I think it’s really good. And you make a good point about how, yeah, I didn’t realise the fees paid by the Future Fund for funds management was so high, but I guess it makes sense, given the amount of funds under
Cameron Murray 28:13
point 2% of the funds under management. That is still half a billion dollars a year, which is of course, again, the maximum that this Future Fund for housing can actually spend on housing subsidies or housing construction. Yeah. So the maximum they can spend is roughly what the average management fee is for the existing Future Fund. Yeah, just to get your orders of magnitude straight of what’s involved.
Gene Tunny 28:40
Okay. And, yes, it has been passed by the lower house, it’s going to it’s being considered by the Senate at the moment, and it’ll probably be passed, I imagine, based on what you were saying,
Cameron Murray 28:51
my understanding is the cross bench has a lot of power in the Senate here to get things changed. My suspicion is that if there are key crossbenchers that take my argument seriously and a couple of other of the submitters as well, they may, for example, put in the legislation a minimum amount of spending out of the fund instead of a maximum to sort of guarantee it. And they may, you know, and that might just be a way of diverting instead of buying bhp shares and Commonwealth Bank, you know, build houses with it and own the equity of those houses with your public housing developer or however you account for that. So that that that may be a realistic change. I don’t think it’s gonna get thrown out or go back to the drawing board.
Gene Tunny 29:38
Right. Okay. Well, again, well done, Cameron. Yeah, excellent submission, lots of very sound, economics and public finance in there. Any final words before we wrap up?
Cameron Murray 29:49
No, I just want to, you know, cross my fingers that the best case scenario turns out if this fun gets passed.
Gene Tunny 29:55
Very good. Okay. Cameron Murray, thanks so much for appearing on the show.
Cameron Murray 29:59
Thanks for having me, Gene.
Gene Tunny 30:02
Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via firstname.lastname@example.org Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.
Cameron Murray 30:49
Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com
Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au.
Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.