Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 202

Government debt: how much is too much?

The 2017 Federal Budget has turned attention as usual to the issue of government debt. Commonwealth governments ran a surplus during the mining boom from 2003-2008 but it has run deficits since the GFC to prop up employment and growth. The deficits have been funded by running up $500 billion (and rising) in debt. Is this too high? Can we afford it?

The first chart shows the history of annual Commonwealth government balances since Federation. The bars in the top section shows the annual government balance each year. We can see that surpluses (green bars) have been rare indeed. The pink bars in the lower section show debt as a percentage of national output (GDP) each year. The current level of debt at 25% of national output is higher than it has been since 1959.

The government ran rare surpluses during the mining boom from 2003-2008 thanks to high commodities prices but since the GFC a succession of big-spending governments have run up deficits to prop up employment and growth. Strategically timed spending sprees on ‘pink bats’ and ‘school halls’ meant we narrowly avoided an economic recession (arbitrarily defined as two consecutive quarters of negative national output growth), but the cost was a build-up of national debt that will take decades to repay.

 

Is the current debt to GDP ratio too high?

The main debt build-ups were due to the massive deficit spending in the two World Wars. The ratio of debt to national output also increased during the 1930s depression but it was not because of big spending and borrowing, it was because of the massive contraction in national output.

In the first half of the 20th century, Australia was seen as a high-risk borrower in global debt markets, suffering a default and full-scale Greece-style debt restructure in 1931. Australia regained respectability as a borrower in global debt markets after the post-war economic boom reduced debt in the 1950s.

The current level of Commonwealth government debt relative to national income is not high in historical terms but it is high in post-war terms. It is lower than almost every other country in the world today - but that doesn’t make it right. The current $500 billion pile of federal government debt is costing tax-payers $16 billion per year, or $44 million every day, or $1.70 per person per day. This sounds a lot but there is more to the story.

More important than the level of the debt is the affordability of the debt. The second chart shows the cost of servicing government debt in the upper section of the chart.

Government debt Click to enlarge

Here we see the cost of interest on this debt as a percentage of national income (GDP) in the red line and also as a percentage of government receipts (mainly tax revenues) in the black line.

The current interest burden is modest and affordable, at 4% of government revenues and just 1% of national income. This is lower than almost any other time since before World War 1, and lower than almost every other country in the world today. Market yields on government bonds have been rising since the middle of 2016 after the Brexit vote but are still at low levels. Rising bond yields don’t translate into higher interest payments until each bond matures in the future and is re-financed by another bond at a higher rate, which in some cases is 30 years into the future. Even if bond yields rise rapidly the interest cost will remain low for many years.

 

Based on affordability, the current debt is manageable

If the Commonwealth government were a company the board would be sacked for having a ‘lazy balance sheet’ and not borrowing enough to invest in productive assets for future growth.

But here’s the problem. Investing for the long-term future requires coherent vision, long term commitment and willingness to make tough decisions. These critical qualities have been sadly lacking in the recent succession of short-term revolving door governments in Canberra.

I don’t see this improving any time soon. Voting power continues to drift in favour of the aging population of people who have not saved enough for their retirement, at the expense of the young who will have to pay for the deficits for decades to come. The current addiction to debt and fear of electoral backlashes from painful reforms will probably continue. But why worry? About every 30 years, a mining boom comes along that delivers freakish commodities prices and windfall revenue gains.

The windfall revenue gains from the last mining boom were squandered on middle class welfare that is proving extremely hard to wind back. Let’s hope our kids and grand-kids handle the next one better.

 

Ashley Owen is Chief Investment Officer at privately-owned advisory firm Stanford Brown and The Lunar Group. He is also a Director of Third Link Investment Managers, a fund that supports Australian charities. This article is general information that does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

  •   18 May 2017
  • 3
  •      
  •   
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation’s structural failings

Politicians are fighting over access to super, but they may be arguing about the wrong thing. The system’s three fundamental flaws have been hiding in plain sight for decades, costing Australians far more than they realise.

Planning

The great wealth transfer myth

Why do some families preserve wealth for generations while others struggle to? As the great wealth transfer unfolds, the determining factor is often not the structure of the estate, but the preparation of those who will inherit it.

Investment strategies

What comes after bank hybrids?

For years, bank hybrids have been a cornerstone of portfolio income. With tens of billions of dollars now disappearing from the market, investors face a critical question: what comes next, and are the obvious replacements enough?

Investment insights from the US

What happens when knowledge becomes a commodity? The latest themes emerging from the US tech sector suggest AI could reshape company moats, disrupt incumbents and create winners and losers in unexpected places.

Investing

Can Berkshire thrive without Buffett?

Warren Buffett's departure marks the end of an era. But the more important question for investors is whether Berkshire's culture, discipline and capital allocation framework can survive without the man who built them.

Retirement

The Bengen 4% Rule: Lost in translation

For years, retirees have been told to focus on withdrawal rates. But the real question is far simpler: how many dollars can you safely spend? The answer may be very different from what conventional retirement wisdom suggests.

Interest rates

Super low interest rates came with side effects

For more than a decade, investors lived through an era of near-zero interest rates. With bond yields now surging, it's worth asking whether cheap money solved economic problems, or introduced a much larger set of risks.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.