Bank revolt to grow as RBA cut looms
Fresh data released by Mortgage Choice shows there was a 22 per cent spike in the number of Australians looking to refinance over the June quarter thanks to an interest rate cut in May.
Mortgage Choice chief executive Anthony Waldron says the same could happen if the RBA reduces the official cash rate on Tuesday after its August meeting.
'The Reserve Bank is expected to deliver another cut to the cash rate at its August meeting, which should encourage more borrowers to see if they can access a better rate on their home loan,' he said. There was a 22 per cent spike in Aussies refinancing over the June quarter following the May rate cut. NewsWire / Emma Brasier Credit: News Corp Australia
'This aligns with findings from the survey data, which show that 72 per cent of homeowners review their home loan at least once a year, up from 59 per cent a year ago.'
According to Mortgage Choice, 49 per cent of Aussies chose to refinance their mortgage to lower their interest rate, while 11 per cent wanted to consolidate debts and 10 per cent wanted to lock in a fixed rate or switch from fixed to variable (or vice versa).
Separate data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows over the first quarter, $60bn worth of home loans with an estimated 97,835 loans were refinanced with a new lender.
That's a 3.1 per cent increase in both the value and number compared with the December quarter.
The next quarter stats are due out on Wednesday.
Should Aussies refinance
Mortgage holders who can afford to keep up with their repayments could be thousands of dollars better off in the long-term.
Research released by Canstar shows the average Australian borrower with $600,000 debt could save $272 a month on their repayments if there is a third interest rate cut. Australians could be out of debt three years earlier if they continue with higher repayments. NewsWire / Nicholas Eagar Credit: NewsWire
But if that same owner kept the additional $272 a month on their mortgage, they could be out of debt three years and three months earlier.
They would also pay $76,536 less in total interest over the life of their loan.
Australians are being reminded of the benefits of paying more than needed on their monthly repayments ahead of Tuesday's highly predicted rate cut.
At the time of writing, the money market had factored in a near 95 per cent chance of rate cut, when the central bank announces their cash rate decision at 2.30pm.
Canstar data insights director Sally Tindall said while a predicted third interest rate cut 'will give real relief' to struggling households, those in a financial position could be significantly better off if they hold their payments.
'For those managing to hold their budgets together, consider keeping your repayments exactly the same,' Ms Tindall said.
'Every rate cut is another opportunity to invest back into your mortgage and potentially be debt-free months, if not years early.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Courier-Mail
30 minutes 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
an hour 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."
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Responsibility, not legacy driving Chalmers to reform
If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it."
