Independents unite to demand home support for 20,000 after aged care delay
The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare.
But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care.
"Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae.
"This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package.
"On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads.
The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network.
"I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said.
"We can't afford to delay this further."
Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas.
"We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said.
Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said.
"Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said.
"What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians."
Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures".
Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament.
The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia.
Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together.
Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses.
The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists.
The health minister's office has been contacted for comment.
In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages.
The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare.
But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care.
"Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae.
"This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package.
"On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads.
The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network.
"I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said.
"We can't afford to delay this further."
Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas.
"We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said.
Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said.
"Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said.
"What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians."
Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures".
Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament.
The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia.
Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together.
Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses.
The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists.
The health minister's office has been contacted for comment.
In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages.
The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare.
But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care.
"Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae.
"This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package.
"On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads.
The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network.
"I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said.
"We can't afford to delay this further."
Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas.
"We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said.
Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said.
"Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said.
"What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians."
Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures".
Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament.
The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia.
Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together.
Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses.
The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists.
The health minister's office has been contacted for comment.
In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages.
The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare.
But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care.
"Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae.
"This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package.
"On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads.
The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network.
"I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said.
"We can't afford to delay this further."
Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas.
"We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said.
Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said.
"Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said.
"What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians."
Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures".
Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament.
The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia.
Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together.
Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses.
The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists.
The health minister's office has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
4 hours ago
- 9 News
Experts say the Health Star Rating system has failed. This is why
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here More than 10 years after Health Star Ratings were first introduced, experts say the voluntary system has failed because manufacturers have not been obligated to use it. The system, which was launched in 2014, rates the overall nutritional profile of a packaged food product from 0.5 to 5 stars. Currently just over a third of products (36 per cent) feature a Health Star Rating and, unsurprisingly, it's the 5-star products that are far more likely to feature the rating (61 per cent) compared to only 16 per cent of 0.5-star products. The Health Star Rating is designed to help consumers make healthier choices by comparing similar products. (Getty) "Voluntary uptake has failed," Dr Alexandra Jones, the head of Food Governance at The George Institute for Global Health said. She said because the system was voluntary, it was applied "selectively... often for marketing purposes". "Fundamentally people understand the concept of stars and they can use it to make a better choice," she said. "In the real world their ability to actually use it has been mostly limited by the fact that it's only on a third of products." In 2019, a review of the system found consumers understood the system but it was not on enough labels to adequately compare similar products. The Australian, New Zealand and state and territory governments then set the industry a series of targets in an effort to lift the uptake. The final target, 70 per cent by November 2025, almost certainly will not be met. "Until it's mandatory, people will continue to struggle out there to understand how to make good choices," Dietitians Australia CEO Magriet Raxworthy said. "Australians want easy, transparent nutrition information about the food they are choosing for themselves and their families, and mandating the system will bring more consistency and clarity across the shelves." Jones said Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) had been ordered to start the preparatory work for a mandatory system but she feared the timeline could blow out as far as 2029. Experts say the logo is applied selectively as a marketing tool, rather than health advice for consumers. (iStock) "Now that we've had 10 years of voluntary operation we know a lot about how this system works and where it needs to be improved," she said. "We don't want this to go on any longer than it has to." She said mandatory country of origin labelling, which has seen an uptake of more than 90 per cent in a similar time frame, proved it was possible to implement a mandatory Health Star Rating system quickly. "Rapid food labelling change is definitely possible when it is mandated," she said. A spokesperson from FSANZ confirmed preparatory work to inform future decision-making by food ministers on whether the Health Star Rating system should be mandated was underway. "If the voluntary uptake target (70 per cent of intended products displaying the HSR by 14 November 2025) is not met, FSANZ's preparatory work will enable an efficient process for incorporating the HSR system into the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, should ministers ask FSANZ to consider mandating the system," the spokesperson said. Manufacturers input the nutritional information of their product on a government website, which uses an algorithm to calculate the Health Star Rating of the product. The algorithm gives points for protein, fibre, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes and removes points for saturated fat, sugar and salt. Products are given a rating between 0.5 and 5 stars. The manufacturer can then choose whether to display the rating on their product or not. Consumers ideally then use the rating to compare similar products and ultimately make healthier choices. The rating aligns with the Australian Dietary Guidelines and New Zealand Eating and Activity Guidelines. health Nutrition food Australia New Zealand national CONTACT US
Courier-Mail
4 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
5 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."
