Blocking new coal, gas projects key demand in minority government negotiations, Greens say
If Labor falls short of the 76 seats needed to govern in majority, it would need to look to the crossbench to form government.
The Greens have hounded the Albanese government for greenlighting dozens of new coal mines and gas wells over its first term, and will on Monday use Parliamentary Library analysis to claim Climate Minister Chris Bowen could block new projects under existing laws.
'In the middle of a climate crisis, Tanya Plibersek has approved new coal mines that will release 2.5 billion tonnes of climate pollution,' Greens leader Adam Bandt said in a statement.
'If the Environment Minister won't act, the Greens will get the Climate Minister to do it.
'The Greens will keep Dutton out and get Labor to stop approving new coal and gas mines, because you can't put the fire out while pouring petrol on it.'
According to the Parliamentary Library, Mr Bowen may be able to restrict projects under the Safeguard Mechanism, which requires polluters to limit emissions to the national targets of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050.
The Parliamentary Library acknowledged the 'area of law is complex' and warned its brief 'may not be fully comprehensive'.
Though, Mr Bandt was confident, saying that through Safeguard Mechanism negotiations, the Greens 'gave the Climate Minister the power to stop new coal and gas mines with the stroke of a pen, and with more Greens in minority Parliament we'll get him to use it'.
'They talk up renewables but open up coal and gas. Labor are climate charlatans and the Liberals climate criminals,' he said.
'If you're worried about climate change, you can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result.
'If you want climate action, you have to vote for it, because it's clear Labor won't act on climate unless pushed.'
The Greens have flagged four other key demands, including expanding Medicare to cover dental health, negative gearing and capital gains tax reform, ending logging in native forests, and free universal early childhood education.
The Prime Minister has ruled out negotiating with the Greens to secure a minority government, but his pathways would be limited, based on the current make up of the House and Senate.
Mr Albanese has also flatly rejected any changes to negative gearing, which housing reformists have identified as a major hurdle for first home buyers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Environment groups, researchers say NT EPA policy change is a worrying 'WA blueprint'
Less than a year after Western Australia's environmental watchdog was stripped of its powers to assess the emissions of some of the state's most highly polluting projects, environmental advocates and experts say they are concerned the Northern Territory is moving in the same direction. The WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)'s powers were weakened following a review co-written by its former chair Paul Vogel, which recommended a broad set of changes to environment protection laws that one MP characterised as an industry "wish list". Among the review's recommendations were that major projects, including mining, oil and gas projects, should only be examined at the federal level using the Commonwealth's "safeguard mechanism", to avoid duplication and cut bureaucracy. Mr Vogel is now the chair of the Northern Territory EPA. This week, the NT EPA released its new emissions policy, the atmospheric processes guidance. It allows the EPA to defer projects to the safeguard mechanism, and cites "the desirability of avoiding duplication" with the federal policy — which, it states, "in most cases meets the NT EPA's objectives" for reducing emissions. Critics have described the new policy as a "WA blueprint" and say it could lead to higher emissions, less scrutiny and legal risks. Wesley Morgan, a research associate with the Institute for Climate Risk and Response at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), said WA and the NT had a long history of "competing with each other to attract large-scale fossil fuel projects". "They're falling over each other to make it easier for gas companies to operate in their jurisdictions, and I think this is another example of that," he said. David Slama, the NT director of Australian Energy Producers, which represents the majority of Australia's oil and gas companies, welcomed the NT government's efforts to "reduce regulatory duplication". "The guidelines bring the NT into line with the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments in recognising climate policy is best addressed at a national level through the safeguard mechanism," he said. However, Environment Centre NT (ECNT) executive director Kirsty Howey described the policy shift as "disgraceful". She pointed to new federal data showing the Northern Territory's emissions have risen by 98 per cent over the past two decades, and said the policy change would only exacerbate the problem. "This policy is effectively stripping the EPA of its ability to properly assess the environmental impact of projects, both locally and globally," she said. "We suspect that we are copying a similar blueprint to WA, which is renowned for being frankly a jurisdiction that takes no responsibility when it comes to the proper regulation of climate impacts. "[Previously the policy] required the NT EPA to properly assess the emissions that will be generated by highly polluting projects, and to fundamentally change it in this way, strips back these protections." The new policy comes after the NT's Country Liberal Party (CLP) government backflipped on its 2030 emissions reduction target in June. Since coming to power late last year, the CLP has also scrapped the NT's large emitters policy and its target of 50 per cent renewables by 2030. The federal safeguard mechanism is a policy that has been around for years but has been significantly strengthened by the Albanese government. It requires big polluters to offset emissions that surpass their annual limit by buying carbon credits. But Andrew Macintosh, an environment law and policy professor at the Australian National University, said with carbon prices set "incredibly low", the policy had not been effective. A major study by Professor Macintosh last year found that nearly a third of projects under Australia's carbon credit scheme delivered little or no emissions reductions, despite costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. He also warned that the NT government had opened itself up to legal risks with its policy change. "They're trying to streamline processes for the oil and gas companies, and it could end up doing the reverse by opening up opportunities for legal proceedings," he said. Mr Morgan agreed, saying a recent decision by the International Court of Justice — the world's highest court — could also have significant implications. "What they found is that countries need to be properly assessing the impacts on the earth's climate from new fossil fuel projects," he said. "Countries that continue to open new fossil fuel projects may be committing internationally wrongful acts and so can essentially be sued by other nations for continuing to harm the climate." In a statement, an NT EPA spokesperson said it would require big polluters covered by the safeguard mechanism to submit information on projected emissions from their project and on emission reduction obligations imposed by the mechanism.
Courier-Mail
6 hours ago
- Courier-Mail
Revealed: How Australia's new EV tax rollout will work
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News. EXCLUSIVE Australia's new tax on electric vehicle drivers is set to kick off with a trial period for trucks before it stings cars. can reveal that the Albanese Government is looking at a staged rollout to test the proposed new EV tax and trucks will be the first cab off the rank. It is also interested in a new road user charge that sends price signals on the best time to be on the road, or the freeway. Over time, it could replace petrol taxes and apply to all cars based on distance travelled and when cars and trucks are on the road to tackle congestion. Don't miss a ding! Get all the latest Australian news as it happens — download the app direct to your phone. Free ride for EVs nearly over The free ride enjoyed by drivers of electric vehicles is coming to a close with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and state governments finalising plans for a new road-user charge. All Australian motorists who buy petrol and diesel at the bowser pay 51.6 cents a litre in fuel excise. But drivers of EV vehicles pay nothing. 'The status quo won't be sustainable over the next decade or two,'' Treasurer Jim Chalmers told 'As more and more people get off petrol cars and into EVs we've got to make sure that the tax arrangements support investment in roads. 'But we're in no rush, changes of this nature will be made, because the status quo won't work in 10 or 20 years.' Treasurer Jim Chalmers has shared some details of the government's plan. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman The Treasurer says roads won't keep up without a new system for charging users, with potholes like these in Sydney this week becoming more common. Picture: Richard Dobson The Treasurer made no secret of his support for a road user charge before the election, but favours a staged rollout of the changes. Based on a planned NSW road user scheme, a national rollout will depend on your mileage but might cost between $300 and $400 a year. Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said that electric vehicles are 'heavier and do more damage to the road network as a consequence than do internal combustion engine vehicles'. 'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently,' the Productivity Commission report said. How does fuel excise work? The current rate of fuel excise is 51.6 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased. For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year. But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge. While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government. Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars. Chinese tech to change EVs Rapid charging tech promised by China's CATL could put electric cars in top gear, as David McCowen reports. Video Player is loading. Play Video This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. X Learn More Loaded : 37.82% 0:00 00:00 / 00:00 Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. 00:26 SUBSCRIBER ONLY Chinese tech to change EVs China's... more CATL could put electric cars in top gear, as David McCowen reports. Rapid charging tech promised by... more ... more A road user charge is needed to fill the gap left by the decreasingly profitable fuel excise. Picture: NewsWire / Nicholas Eagar What does the AAA say? The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades. The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure. The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25. Roadblocks to reform Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales. Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type. Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge. Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court. Our road infrastructure must be maintained as heavier EVs do increasing damage. Picture: Alan Barber Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose. They won, with the High Court upholding the legal challenge. There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled. It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed. 'Gold standard' for reform Some experts argue the gold standard for reform is a variable rate that factors in the vehicle's mass, distance travelled, location, and time of day. But there's a big barrier to the Commonwealth imposing those charges because the Constitution prohibits it from imposing taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states. State governments could impose those levies, but as the experience of the Victorian Government underlines, it is legally complex. Originally published as How the Albanese Government plans to revolutionise the taxes you pay for driving a car
The Advertiser
7 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Living in Australia is just less fair than it used to be
Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves."
