In 2005, Vladimir Putin was relatively new into his Presidency. But he knew the power of the media. And a young Ahron Young was among the first journalists to work for Putin’s new news network, Russia Today.
In 2005, I sat down for a job interview at Camden Lock in London. After a 45 minute audition, where I spoke off the cuff about Michael Jackson as if he had died (a test to see my ad-libbing skills), a woman arrived at the interview, and quietly sat down.
“How would you feel about living in Moscow?” she asked. It was the only thing she said.
I’d never thought about Russia before, other than James Bond films. I’d applied for a job at a “new English language news channel”.
I’d soon be offered a job as a producer and presenter at something called Russia Today, now known simply as RT.
A week and a lot of paperwork later, I was one of 84 American, British and Australian journalists on a British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport.
Before I go on, I’d like to state to the reader that isn’t a “tell-all” piece designed to offend anyone. But given Russia is right now the aggressor in an invasion in Ukraine, it felt like the right time to shed some light on the early days of RT, from my perspective. Just one of many who worked there. RT has now been banned from the airwaves of many countries. So how did the adventure we optimistically started get to this point?
I like to think of myself as an opportunistic guy. But it was immediately clear to me that Russia was very different to anywhere I’d ever been before. A BBC correspondent put it this way: “It’s kind of like going to the moon. It’s round, but completely different to earth.”
The first thing we did when we got off the plane was visit a clinic to be tested for HIV. At one stage there was a mixup and they almost used the same needle on me that was used on the person before. We then spent our first 24 hours nervously waiting to find out if our adventure would be cut short.
I was just 23-years-old at the time and it felt like I was heading off to university. All these young, fun, opportunistic journalists from around the world getting set for an adventure. We partied hard and had no idea what to expect on day one. Some moved in together, I decided to rent a super cool but expensive apartment in Kievskaya. My real estate agent told me there were more billionaires living in my street than in all of Manhattan.
Admittedly, I’d never worked for a start-up before, and in hindsight my expectations probably far exceeded what my new employer could deliver. Our new offices were pretty basic. Our studios were luxurious compared to what the Russian journalists endured in other parts of the building. We called the dividing corridor the Berlin Wall.
The early days at Russia Today. Sasha Twining kicked off RT’s first ever bulletin.
In the weeks that followed, we met former CIA agents who told us how to survive living in Moscow, and how we could avoid paying police bribes. Never keep your wallet in your hand. Never smile at anyone you don’t know.
Management continually told us and international media that RT aspired to be Russia’s version of CNN or BBC News. But in their second breath, they’d criticise CNN and the BBC for pushing western values.
Late on air
We were due to go on air late 2005, but cold temperatures froze the satellite dish on the building’s roof on launch day. Management said it was a “cyber hack”., while a few of the engineers thought it might just need a bucket of hot water.
The place was uber-mysterious, but that just added to the excitement – that feeling you’d never know what would happen next. This was much better than being a suburban newspaper reporter back home in Melbourne, the normal career path for journos my age.
A few things stood out. We were divided into six teams. Three teams working 12 hour shifts, four days on and four days off.
Most of the Russian journalists were young and fresh out of university and were the sons and daughters of influential Russians. I loved the opportunity to work alongside people who could one day become influential Russians.
Editor-in-chief of RT and Rossiya Segodnya — Margarita Simonovna Simonyan
Is the Kremlin watching?
There was an ever-present feeling that the Kremlin was watching. We were told they had a live feed of our three month rehearsals. There was an “Output Editor” some of us were weary about, who watched everything we put to air. Our Russian colleagues told us he’d worked for the intelligence agency.
Our boss, the young Margarita Simonyan was polite and respected by the staff. She never suffered fools. I rarely saw her on the newsroom floor. Her office was upstairs, behind double security doors, just like M’s office in James Bond. Sound-proof and seemingly emotion-proof too.
Then there was Putin. He was never there but he was always there.
In the first few weeks, the adjustment to Russia’s limits on free journalism were laid bare. One British journalist was reprimanded for referring to extremists as “Chechen Rebels”. A rebel sounds sympathetic to the cause.
There were LGBT protests in Moscow, but I never saw them covered on RT’s news. I was once reprimanded for accidentally making a pro-gay gaffe. A sports story about a sack race and I said off the back “there’s nothing inappropriate about two men in a sack”.
Shortly after, Moscow’s mayor YuryLuzhkov told the BBC “there are no gays living in Moscow”, only to correct himself weeks later and thank “those who work in the airline and entertainment industries for their efforts”.
Vladimir Putin’s visit to RT
There were two studios at RT in those first few years. The main news studio was absolutely tiny. And the second studio was huge, devoted to one show that aired one hour a week.
I wondered why we didn’t swap studios, given the news was on 99% of the time and should therefore require a larger, grander space.
“Because if President Putin visits, he’ll be interviewed on the one hour show, so he needs the biggest studio,” came the response from a floor manager.
The first time I ever hosted rolling coverage was when Ariel Sharon went into a coma. Lucky RT had checked my ability to adlib before they hired me, because I had to talk continuously for 45 minutes about his history, and let’s just say that at 23 I was not an expert in Middle Eastern politics!
Then there was the hilarious moment a producer rushed into the studio to save me by handing over some background notes. But she was stopped from entering the studio because the paper was white, the machine had run out of pink paper, and scripts had to be printed on pink paper. But we got through!
Visiting the Kremlin
I toured the Kremlin three times, and was arrested four times. Three of them for not paying a bribe to the underpaid police who constantly demanded papers from tourists, and the other was a late night goose stepping episode with my mates at Red Square. I shall never apologise for that one.
I’d walk to work through the snow, wearing everything I owned, my nostril hairs spiking into my nose, my iPod earphone cables would snap if I moved direction too quickly. I’d call Dad back home in Queensland where it was the middle of summer. Everyone was happy… and smiling!
In Moscow, during that winter, it was easy for depression to set in. It’s daylight for about an hour a day, and that light feels like there’s a fluro on somewhere miles away. Many of my colleagues used sunbeds to help boost their moods, while others quit and headed home to the comparably pleasant English winter.
I discovered the best entertainment on a weekend was to hire a gypsy cab on the side of the road and see how far I could travel while negotiating for the lowest price. When I originally arrived in Moscow, it cost me 2000 Rubles to get to the city from the airport. I got it down to 150 after four months.
The cab drivers would give this young Westerner the same history lesson every time. They despised Gorbachev, were embarrassed by Yeltsin, and while they didn’t entirely trust Putin, they admired his self-made image as a strong leader.
This is a city where tourists could easily buy a bobbing head plastic figurine of Stalin. That’s right, the Soviet dictator who killed an estimated 40 million of his own citizens.
Whenever you questioned a Russian about something bad the country had recently done, they would immediately snap back – without flinching – with a catalog of similar, but not the same, failures by the United States. At that time, it was the invasion of Iraq and Bush’s failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina. Both valid points of course.
But my memory of the Iraq war was being a radio journalist in Melbourne three years earlier. As the US and allies were preparing to invade, there were massive protests in Melbourne and Sydney against the war. Over 200,000 marched in Melbourne every weekend alone. And I covered it live. It led the news on every network and splashed the front pages of newspapers.
In Moscow, unauthorised protests were illegal. Political experts say it’s the difference between western democracy and a managed democracy. It didn’t matter who votes, but who counts the votes.
Young Russians love the high life
Obsessed with the West
During that period, it felt like Russia was a country obsessed by the West.
I often wondered if anyone back home had ever referred to “the East” with the same eagerness to prove a point that no one else worries about.
Russia reminded me of Jan Brady, always looking up to her older, better known sister, shouting “Marcia Marcia Marcia”. Except in this world, Jan has nukes.
I made a few lifelong friends at Russia Today, and everyone was very open about their motivations for moving to Moscow and taking the job. For many, it was the higher pay than working for a news network in London. Some of them are still there. We all had different experiences.
RT was the first of its kind, but now just one of many English language news channels financially supported by governments around the world. During that first year, we never knew who was funding RT. The Kremlin said it wasn’t them. There were rumours it was a friend of Putin’s who received tax breaks.
Story first, safety last
There were several times I didn’t feel safe, and I was open about my editorial concerns. The Russia Focus segments, which we ran during the news, focused on happy stories about Russian animals mostly. I felt that the stories of the lives of every day Russians could be better told. Shouldn’t news shine a spotlight on homelessness and inequality in the hope that things will change?
By June, it was time to go. There had been knocks at my door at weird hours, and I never answered. One day I got on a plane, left all my possessions behind, and headed back to the UK.
I was 24, it had barely been a year, but I left Russia feeling like I’d had the best adventure ever. The most thrilling experience of my life. Sure, not everything was perfect, but I got to start something under unusual circumstances.
Seventeen years later, I fear that Russia has regressed back into its darker, inner self. A look around any democracy in the world shows you it isn’t perfect. But it’s like a harsh diet – you can’t quit it after three weeks and expect results.
I remember going to the Moscow Conservatory to watch a performance of Tchaikovsky. As we entered with our expensive tickets, a group of little old Russian ladies, known as babushkas, were arguing with the attendants as to why they could no longer get in for free. What was this paying business? Well, that’s the difference between communism and capitalism.
The young Russians
I remember the young Russians as friendly extraverts, who loved to visit super cool cafes and nightclubs, who frequently travelled to Europe and had the latest Motorola phone. They represented a stark contrast to the older generations and all those gypsy cab drivers who lamented for the Soviet Union.
The young Russians longed to be citizens of the world, and loved western and European culture. The most popular bootleg DVDs at the markets were Hollywood films. The handbags were fake Guccis and D&G.
This week, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright remarked on her first meeting with Putin, and how the West completely misunderstood him in 1999.
Even if the West is somehow able to deter Mr. Putin from all-out war — which is far from assured right now — it’s important to remember that his competition of choice is not chess, as some assume, but rather judo.
Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright meets Vladimir Putin
Ahron Young is an award winning journalist who has covered major news events around the world. Ahron is the Managing Editor and Founder of TICKER NEWS.
Home ownership in Australia was once regarded as proof of success in life. However, it remains elusive for many people today.
Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government initiatives, including those announced by Labor and the Coalition at their election campaign launches on the weekend, risk driving up demand.
What’s gone wrong?
The Grattan Institute says increasing housing supply is essential to maintain price stability over time, but notes we are not making enough progress.
Australia will miss its goal to build 1.2 million new homes within five years if we stick to the current housing policies and construction practices.
Why it’s not working
There is a wide range of reasons why Australia is failing to provide enough housing:
Fragmented policy approach: A national approach involving all levels of government aligning their policies, rules and regulations is needed.
Planning bottlenecks: Some projects face years of delay due to local council regulations and zoning requirements. The Productivity Commission has reported Australia’s planning system has excessive barriers to new projects, including medium-density developments.
Land release delays: State governments are slow to release new land for housing. This is often because of community opposition, political considerations and market dynamics. This results in limited availability, which leads to higher costs for land that can be developed.
Skills shortages: Recent immigration restrictions have worsened the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the residential construction sector.
Demand-side subsidies: Government programs, such as first home buyer grants, help some people buy homes. However, they also make housing less affordable because they can result in increased prices.
What could work without raising prices
There are various changes that could be made without necessarily raising prices.
Duplication and logjams could be removed if a national housing strategy was introduced. This should integrate policies and regulations across federal, state and local jurisdictions.
Federal grants and incentives should be tied to states meeting targets for land release, re-zoning permits and streamlined approvals.
Using innovative construction technologies can cut construction time by as much as 50%. These include prefabricated and modular building parts, which are made in factories and later assembled at the construction site.
A government update of land use and zoning permits would make it easier and faster to build medium-density housing near transport and job hubs. This is a quick way to add dwellings without sprawl.
Governments could also offer tax or planning concessions for developments that lock in affordable rents. This would help create stable, long-term rental options.
Learning from other countries
Australia can get ideas for increasing housing supply without raising prices from the experience of other countries.
Through substantial investments in social housing, Finland has significantly reduced homelessness and created stable housing options for families with limited income.
Large-scale prefab public housing originated in Singapore decades ago as a method to accelerate construction timelines and reduce expenses. Prefabrication is only used in 8% of projects in Australia at the moment.
Prefabrication is widely used in building sectors in other countries as a cheaper and faster way of responding to housing shortages. brizmaker/Shutterstock
Sweden has adopted advanced modular construction techniques, which result in 80% of homes being built off-site.
Germany employs municipal-led housing associations along with rent controls to maintain price stability and tenant protection.
And in the UK, inclusionary zoning regulations mandate that new developments either contain affordable housing units or contribute to a fund that supports affordable housing in different locations. This helps create diverse housing options in most neighborhoods.
Election promises versus real change
Significant reforms are needed – not election sweeteners. To make genuine progress, we need to invest heavily in modern construction techniques, transform housing approval processes and ensure states promptly release essential land.
The solution requires a coordinated response from federal, state and local governments. This would enable more Australians to obtain homeownership and secure rental options.
Our politicians must avoid short-term promises during elections because these threaten to return us to the destructive pattern of escalating prices and dissatisfied homebuyers. Long-term policy reform is what we need.
Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit for purpose.
The biggest challenge that should be addressed through tax reform is the level of inequality in Australian society.
The five-yearly Intergenerational Reports lay bare the intergenerational squeeze. The future burden of supporting the ageing population will increasingly fall on younger Australians who generally don’t enjoy the same financial wellbeing of previous generations.
But there is also rising inequality within generations. Not all younger Australians can rely on inherited wealth, including the bank of mum and dad. And superannuation balances at retirement vary wildly, given they are tied to work history.
Proper systemic tax reform would play a crucial role building a fairer society.
Reform freeze
But to define what is meant by tax reform, we need to think about some of the big picture concerns that affect our economy.
Arguably we have not successfully pursued a tax reform agenda since the introduction of the GST in 2000. Various governments have changed the tax rates, but that doesn’t constitute genuine reform.
The Henry Review, commissioned by the Rudd government, set out the long-term horizon for reform – including resource taxes and road user charges for the transition to a net-zero economy. However, the Henry blueprint has not been adopted by any succeeding government.
Politicians like to boast of “reform agendas”. Despite the political rhetoric, the tax system has not yet adapted to the 21st century.
Wealth inequality
The biggest gap in our tax base relates to the concessional taxation of wealth and assets, which is an area ripe for reform.
According to the Treasury, the top six revenue losers all relate to superannuation, capital gains and negative gearing. In 2024–25, the estimated revenue foregone for these concessions are:
$29 billion for the concessional taxation of employer superannuation contributions
$27 billion for the main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption (discount component)
$26 billion for rental deductions (this is partly offset by rental income)
$24.5 billion for main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption
$22.73 billion for CGT discount for individuals and trusts
$22.2 billion for the concessional taxation of superannuation earnings
The distributional analysis for superannuation and the Capital Gains Tax discount shows the greatest benefit goes to older taxpayers in the higher earnings brackets. So wealth inequality is perpetuated.
Addressing these overgenerous concessions to broaden the tax base should be the starting point for any meaningful reform in this country.
Taking another look at death duties, which were abolished from the late 1970s, should also be considered.
Death duties were applied to assets transferred to beneficiaries on death. If they were reimposed with a starting threshold set at an appropriate level, they would limit the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which is generating much of the inequity.
Wealth creation tools
The Capital Gains Tax discount was introduced following the 1999 Ralph Review to direct productive capital into Australian businesses.
The 50% discount sparked the boom in residential investment, which combined with negative gearing, has supercharged the inefficiencies in our housing market.
Superannuation is another wealth-creation tool. Again, the design of superannuation, whereby tax was paid at 15% on the three stages of contributions – investment, earnings and withdrawal – was subverted in search of simplicity in 2007 when the Howard government exempted superannuation withdrawals from tax.
Case study
By comparison, the age pension is taxable, if the recipient earns other income. So too are earnings from work allowed under Centrelink rules. This not only allows estate planning advantages, but creates an unfair outcome for retirees who have not had the opportunity to accumulate substantial balances.
Consider the cases of “Jean” and “Kim”, who are both single homeowners aged 68.
Jean has no financial assets and receives the full pension of $1,194 per fortnight plus $512 per fortnight from part-time work. She has a taxable income of $43,816 per annum and, after tax offsets, pays $2,595 in tax including $209.70 medicare levy.
Kim has a superannuation balance of $880,000 and draws a super pension of $44,000. Kim is not eligible for the pension, but pays no tax and no medicare levy.
Is our tax system really delivering a fair go for all Australians?
Tax relief is not reform
Ahead of election day, both the government and opposition are promising tax handouts. Labor is offering top-up tax cuts starting July 1 2026. The coalition says it will temporarily halve the fuel excise.
But meaningful reform will not be achieved by politicians trading off various interest groups to win votes.
Nor do we need yet another review: many of the solutions to Australia’s tax problem were identified by the Henry Review 15 years ago.
And we must avoid cherry-picking incentives that lead to perverse outcomes. For example, cutting fuel excise will slow down the transition to a net zero economy.
Consensus needed
Whoever forms government after the election could build a coalition of business and community sector leaders to seek consensus and pursue holistic reform. The focus must be on addressing the inequality that is emerging as a challenge to the economy and our way of life.
As Ken Henry recently stated, successive governments have fuelled inequality by failing to do three things
one, manage financial risks arising from the erosion of the tax base; two, maintain the integrity of the tax system; and three, have regard to intergenerational equity.
Without significant tax reform, Australia’s wealth divide will continue to deepen with young people and future generations left to suffer the brunt.
This is the sixth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here
The Trump administration has announced a 90-day pause on its plan to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all US imports. But the pause does not extend to China, where import duties will rise to around 125%.
The move signals a partial retreat from what had been shaping up as a broad and aggressive trade war. For most countries, the US will now apply a 10% baseline tariff for the next three months. But the White House made clear that its tariffs on Chinese imports will remain in place.
So why did President Trump back away from the broader tariff push? The answer is simple: the economic cost to the US was too high.
Our economic model shows the fallout, even after the ‘pause’
Using a global economic model, we have been estimating the macroeconomic consequences of the Trump administration’s tariff plans as they have developed.
The following table shows two versions of the economic effects of the tariff plan:
“pre-pause” – as the plan stood immediately before Wednesday’s 90-day pause, under a scenario in which all countries retaliate except Australia, Japan and South Korea (which said they would not retaliate)
“post-pause” after reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn.
As is clear, the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth, and most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards.
Heavy costs of the tariff war
Under the pre-pause scenario, the US would have seen real consumption fall by 2.4% in 2025 alone. Real gross domestic product (GDP) would have declined by 2.6%, while employment falls by 2.7% and real investment (after inflation) plunges 6.6%.
These are not trivial adjustments. They represent significant contractions that would be felt in everyday life, from job losses to price increases to reduced household purchasing power. Since the current US unemployment rate is 4.2%, these results suggest that for every three currently unemployed Americans, two more would join their ranks.
Our modelling shows the damage would not just be short-term. Across the 2025–2040 projection period, US real consumption losses would have averaged 1.2%, with persistent investment weakness and a long-term decline in real GDP.
It is likely that internal economic advice reflected this kind of outlook. The decision to pause most of the tariff increases may well be an acknowledgement that the policy was economically unsustainable and would result in a permanent reduction in US global economic power. Financial markets were also rattled.
The scaled-back plan: still aggressive on China
The new arrangement announced on April 9 scales the higher tariff regime back to a flat 10% for about 70 countries, but keeps the full weight of tariffs on Chinese goods at around 125%. Rates on Canadian and Mexican imports remain at 25%.
The table’s “post-pause” column summarises the results of the scaled-back plan if the pause becomes permanent. For consistency, we assume all countries except Australia, Japan and Korea retaliate with tariffs equal to those imposed by the US.
As is clear from the “post-pause” results, lower US tariffs, together with lower retaliatory tariffs, equal less damage for the US economy.
Tariffs applied uniformly are less distortionary, and significant retaliation from just one major partner (China) is easier to absorb than a broad global response.
However, the costs will still be high. The US is projected to experience a 1.9% drop in real consumption in 2025, driven by lower employment and reduced efficiency in production. Real investment is projected to fall by 4.8%, and employment by 2.1%.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that the costs are still so high. In 2022, China, Canada and Mexico accounted for almost 45% of all US goods imports, and many countries were already facing 10% reciprocal tariffs in the “pre-pause” scenario. Trump’s tariff pause has not changed duty rates for these countries.
US President Donald Trump discusses the 90-day pause.
What does this mean for Australia?
Much of the domestic commentary in Australia has focused on the risk of collateral damage from a US-China trade war. Given Australia’s economic ties to both countries, it is a reasonable concern.
But our modelling suggests that Australia may actually benefit modestly. Under both scenarios, Australia’s real consumption rises slightly, driven by stronger investment, improved terms of trade (a measure of our export prices relative to import prices), and redirection of trade flows.
One mechanism is what economists call trade diversion: if Chinese or European exporters find the US market less attractive, they may redirect goods to Australia and other open markets.
At the same time, reduced global demand for capital, especially in the US and China, means lower interest rates globally. That stimulates investment elsewhere, including in Australia. In our model, Australian real investment rises under both scenarios, leading to small but sustained gains in GDP and household consumption.
These results suggest that, at least under current policy settings, Australia is unlikely to suffer significant direct effects from the tariff increases.
However, rising investor uncertainty is a risk for both the global and Australian economies, and this is not factored into our modelling. In the space of a single week, the Trump administration has whipsawed global investor confidence through three major tariff announcements.
A temporary reprieve
Tariffs appear to be central to the administration’s economic program. So Trump’s decision to pause his broader tariff agenda may not signal a shift in philosophy: just a tactical retreat.
The updated strategy, high tariffs on China and lower ones elsewhere, might reflect an attempt to refocus on where the administration sees its main strategic concern, while avoiding unnecessary blowback from allies and neutral partners.
Whether this narrower approach proves durable remains to be seen. The sharpest economic pain has been deferred. Whether it returns depends on how the next 90 days play out.
