
Albanese and Chalmers could take the Howard-Costello approach to tax reform. The conditions may never be better
Speaking at the National Press Club, a month after a stunning election victory, the prime minister began publicly signalling his government would not be getting out over its skis.
Explaining that some 'unexpected' decisions Labor had made in its first term were necessary responses to events at home and around the world, Albanese renewed his commitment to careful and considered government decision making. This included managing reform priorities ahead.
'The commitments the Australian people voted for in May are the foundation of our mandate, they are not the limits of our responsibilities or our vision,' he said.
The PM could have distributed photocopies of that speech to the Canberra press gallery this week, when he was back in the expectations management game as the list of demands from stakeholders and vested interests grew longer and longer.
In the past week alone, there was no shortage of ideas being offered up.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Unions called for a minimum 25% tax rate on high earners and family trusts, and changes to wind back generous negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for property investors. The ACTU also wants a 25% levy on LNG exports and caps to limit diesel fuel rebate payments to big corporations.
The Productivity Commission has already proposed slashing the company tax rate to 20% for firms with less than $1bn in annual turnover, representing about 99% of businesses. A 5% net cashflow tax would also be imposed on about 500 of the country's biggest businesses, including miners and supermarkets.
Separately, the teal independent Kate Chaney suggested lifting the GST rate from 10% to 15%. She proposed food, education and health be added to the GST, with a new $3,300 rebate to adult Australians, to help low income earners cope.
Business groups want a three-month tax review completed later this year, while campaigners including the former Treasury boss Ken Henry say long overdue reforms to the country's environmental laws should be used as a stepping stone to boosting productivity and growth.
Faced with this rapidly expanding wishlist, Albanese on Thursday sought to adjust expectations.
He said that ideas being proposed by stakeholders, participants and pretenders alike were still a long way from becoming proposals Labor was prepared to spend political capital on.
'Governments make government policy,' he said. 'The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election.'
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, agreed that final decisions would be made by ministers at the cabinet table.
He went on to praise Albanese's considered, methodical approach to government, something which has led the overhaul of cabinet processes after Scott Morrison's constitutional power grab in the secret ministries saga.
Chalmers said this week he didn't want to kill off ideas before the talks even begin. He gently reminded stakeholders that only proposals that were in the national interest, rather than sectional priorities, would get real consideration. They must also be at least budget-neutral and offer specific and practical outcomes.
On the budget effect, he said some had embraced the challenge of not adding to spending better than others. He expressed gentle frustration with those advocating big-ticket ideas for their own industry.
There is both opportunity and risk for Labor in the lopsided expectations game.
Chalmers hopes a few immediate ideas could come out of the talks. He is chasing consensus on sclerotic regulation, sluggish building approvals, infrastructure upgrades and the energy system. And he could look to overdue developments such as road user charging for short term priorities.
After Albanese opens the summit, presentations from the Reserve Bank of Australia governor, Michele Bullock; the Treasury secretary, Jenny Wilkinson; and the Productivity Commission boss, Danielle Wood, will help frame the talks.
Equally, longer term work should emerge. Here is where tax reform should play a role, even if badly needed adjustments to the GST are off the table.
With a thumping majority in parliament, Albanese and Chalmers could channel the competitive tension that often exists between treasurers and prime ministers to frame policies for the next election. The conditions will probably never be better.
Like Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit – which brought about major changes still present in Australia's income tax system – big ideas need to be refined and debated, giving experts and the public the chance to assess them. The then prime minister Bob Hawke used the summit to dump Keating's preferred option of a broad-based consumption tax, but the 13-year Labor government remains the gold standard for reform.
A decade later, after the 1997 budget, John Howard and Peter Costello agreed to keep open the option of taking a GST proposal. Having famously declared he would 'never ever' revisit the GST in opposition, the move surprised even some of Howard's closest advisers. The plan was discussed in a 13-hour cabinet meeting, which included the first ever PowerPoint presentation in the cabinet room.
The pair eventually went public with the plan and spent months making the case, pushing it through parliament and eking out a narrow reelection victory in October 1998.
Such an approach could suit the methodical and cautious Albanese, and the more ambitious Chalmers – who rarely speaks to the media without mentioning the big ticket spending built into the federal budget, including health, aged care, defence, the soaring NDIS and interest on national debt. Albanese plans to add universal childcare to the list, if the government can afford it.
Back in June at the Press Club, Albanese called consultation and debate essential because, he said, change imposed unilaterally by governments rarely endures.
Instead, Labor would use the term ahead to seek reforms that clearly serve the national interest and 'generate their own momentum'.
'Key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand,' the prime minister told assembled journalists.
Meeting those expectations might just make or break this Labor government's claim to a legacy of lasting reform.
Tom McIlroy is Guardian Australia's chief political correspondent
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Views sought in Devon on plans to scrap two-tier councils
Devon County Council has asked members of the public to give their thoughts on the government's plans to scrap two-tier council systems. A two-tier system means responsibilities are split between a county council and district councils. The government has proposed only unitary authority councils exist, which would see the number of councils in Devon reduced. Devon County Council leader Julian Brazil said he was not "impressed" with the plans, but said it was an "opportunity to look at how services are delivered". Devon County Council currently handles services like education, transport, and social city and borough councils manage housing, planning, and waste plans would see district councils and Devon County Council scrapped and unitary authorities combining services government cited increasing financial pressures and rising demand for services as reasons to re-evaluate how councils are County Council said it wanted to hear from members of the public on what should be considered during the added: "As we plan for the future, we want to hear from you. "Your feedback will help shape local policies, services, and investments to reflect the needs and priorities of our community." Members of the public can share their thoughts through an online survey which would be open until mid-October. Proposals based on responses would be submitted to the government by 28 November. The government would then conduct a formal consultation on the finalised proposals.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie blasts Uber Eats driver for extremely dodgy act that is happening around the country: 'This is not fair'
A frustrated business owner has slammed dodgy Uber Eats drivers for claiming they have picked up an order when they are nowhere in sight. John Jenkins, who runs Gold Coast Kebabs, said a recent experience with a delivery driver left him outraged. Mr Jenkins described how a driver accepted an Uber Eats order but did not arrive at the store for more than 13 minutes. 'He claims he's been waiting for 13 minutes, but there's no driver here,' Mr Jenkins said in a TikTok video, showing the front of his shop. 'So what's gonna happen now?' Mr Jenkins claimed he contacted the driver, who told him he was 'coming', but still took more time to arrive. 'Mate, you don't like it? Cancel the job. Give it to someone who's close by,' Mr Jenkins said. 'You cannot. This is not fair.' He said the situation put him in a difficult position: if he gave the driver a thumbs down for the delay, the driver would know it came from him, and could retaliate. 'All of a sudden you want to give them a thumbs down, what do they do? They go on your Google review and they give you thumbs down,' Mr Jenkins said. 'Is this fair? Is this justice?' The kebab shop owner warned the system creates a risk for business owners, who may avoid giving negative feedback to poor-performing drivers out of fear of bad reviews. 'Uber, you've got to fix this problem,' Mr Jenkins said. 'This is causing businesses big problems. If you don't fix it, you will lose a lot of customers.' Social media users were left disgusted by the dodgy tactics used by some drivers. 'I had one say they had picked it up, but the store rang me to say they hadn't,' one wrote. 'I told them I'd pick it up, and in the meantime, the driver cancelled the order. I got a refund and the food. Some drivers are very dodgy.' Another added: 'Lately my Uber orders are cold. The problem is they are multi-lapping and have three or four orders at the same time.' Uber Eats' rating system allows both customers and delivery partners to leave feedback on each other after a trip. However, small businesses have long raised concerns about the potential for 'revenge' reviews that can impact a store's public reputation and revenue. In February, a retail worker claimed his lunch was stolen by a food delivery driver who pretended to leave the order at his address. Corey Davis, an employee of Billy Hyde Music in Marleston, Adelaide, had ordered the expensive feast from Betty's Burgers for himself and his colleagues. CCTV footage from outside the shop appears to show the Uber Eats driver attempted to cover his tracks by taking photos of the delivery on the kerb, before he immediately picked it up again and drove off. After submitting a complaint, the delivery service offered him a flat $25 refund.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Marles insists Australia ‘not supplying weapons to Israel' but critics argue ‘parts of weapons are weapons'
The federal government won't follow Germany and introduce new export restrictions to pressure Israel, with the defence minister, Richard Marles, insisting no weapons are being sent from Australia to aid the killing in Gaza. Marles, the acting prime minister, said on Sunday that Australia was not exporting any weapons for use by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), a contested claim rejected by human rights campaigners and the Greens. 'Let's be clear: we don't supply weapons to Israel,' Marles told ABC TV. 'We've seen a lot of misinformation in relation to what Australia is doing here. The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that.' The comments follow Germany's decision last week to halt exports of military equipment that could be used in Gaza. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced the decision on Friday, in response to Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to dramatically expand Israel's Gaza operations, a move condemned by the international community. Marles was asked about Australia exporting armoured steel and, separately, parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel previously conceded were used in operations in Gaza. 'We're an F-35 country and we have been that for a couple of decades. That is a multi-lateral arrangement with supply chains that are organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States and have multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains.' David Shoebridge, the Greens' spokesperson on foreign affairs, labelled Labor's statements meaningless. 'Australia is a key part of the F-35 fighter jet program. We are the only place in the world that makes parts like the bomb bay doors and we operate as one of the few regional distribution hubs. 'Two years of hollow talking points from the Albanese government aren't washing with the public any more as we watch a genocide in real time.' Shoebridge argued that, under international law, component parts were considered weapons. 'Watching the defence minister, Richard Marles, refuse to answer basic questions about Australia's export of weapons parts and defence material to Israel is excruciating,' he said in a statement. 'The Australian public knows that the Albanese government is permitting the export of armoured steel, F-35 weapons parts and other critical materials to Israel and wants it to stop.' Shoebridge said if the Albanese government stopped the export of F-35 parts to Israel, their fleet would, in time, be grounded. 'The fact Albanese is choosing not to do that makes us complicit,' he said. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australian exports of component weapon parts to the IDF were 'contributing to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. 'Part of the difficulty is that there can be so many component parts of weapons. Some component parts may have been exported to Israel for civilian use but then utilised for weapons,' he said on Sunday. 'The clearer position that Australia could take is that if it diplomatically, legally and politically objects to Israel's occupation of Gaza, then all exports could be suspended for the time being. That would be the clearest way of ensuring that no Australian exports contribute to the Israeli military effort in Gaza.' Rothwell said he 'would not be as decisive as Senator Shoebridge as to his interpretation of international law'. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Guardian Australia reported in November that Australia had amended or lapsed at least 16 defence-related export permits to Israel. A spokesperson said all of the permits were approved before the 7 October terror attacks by Hamas and none related to weapons or ammunition. The ABC reported in April that a remote weapon system designed and built by an Australian company was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by Israel this year. The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among organisations questioning the government's claims on military exports. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said Australia had appropriate sanctions in place against members of Israel's war cabinet and would not publicly discuss other considerations. 'What we need to do here is to have very clear statements and actions by the Australian government that make a difference, rather than respond to a slogan on a protest,' he said during a visit to New Zealand. Albanese said the government wanted hostages held by Hamas released and for urgent aid to stop the 'humanitarian catastrophe' unfolding in Gaza. Australia's opposition home affairs spokesman, Andrew Hastie, told Sky that Netanyahu's plan to control Gaza City was 'a very risky proposition' and could add to the humanitarian crisis. 'It would be incredibly difficult for IDF troops to move through and clear. All the advantage would be with Hamas defenders and anyone else who would stand and fight.' The foreign minister, Penny Wong, joined Germany, Italy, New Zealand and the UK in a joint statement on Saturday, stating Israel's plan would make an already perilous situation worse and risked breaching international law. London's high court ruled a month ago that Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful.