'It's urgent': Angus Taylor says govt needs to fix Defence recruitment
Mr Taylor said it was "clear that the government's recruitment program and retention programs are not working at the level they need to, to get the right outcomes."
"This is absolutely urgent," he said.
"We're thousands short of the government's own goals ... it's one of the issues that is clearly being underfunded by the government."
The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan aims to grow the ADF to 69,000 by the early 2030s, but is not on track to achieve this as the number of new recruits is not keeping up with people who leave.
Mr Taylor said the solution must include funding better housing and other facilities to support ADF personnel posted in locations in Australia's north.
Defence Minister Richard Marles on Thursday ruled out following in European nations' footsteps after NATO members vowed to dramatically lift expenditure following pressure from United States President Donald Trump.
"We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape, assessing the threats that exist there, and the kind of defence force we need to build ... and then to resource that," Mr Marles said on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands.
"What that has seen is the biggest peacetime increase in Australian Defence spending."
NATO countries, of which Australia is not a member, agreed to increase defence spending targets to 5 per cent of GDP.
Under current settings, Australia is expected to increase its share of GDP defence spend from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033-34, while the Coalition wants it increased to 3 per cent in a decade.
Mr Taylor blasted the Albanese government, saying it had failed "fund its own plan" and that Australia's defence capabilities - from missile manufacturing to drone and counter-drone technologies - were compromised.
"Its Defence Strategic Review is not properly funded ... and that means crucial programs that are central to our sovereignty are not being funded by this government," he said.
"All of these are areas that have to be properly funded alongside AUKUS, the submarines and the frigates."
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley told the National Press Club on Wednesday it was "time for Australia to step up, not step back", and that "the first step must be an increase in defence spending with a focus on key capabilities, including space, drones and missiles."
"And we need a proper strategy to arrest declining recruitment numbers in the ADF," Ms Ley said.
Mr Taylor said when asked if a 3 per cent of GDP target was hollow if Defence misspent funding: "There's a real issue about making sure our procurement processes, our command structure, is efficient and effective in the ADF."
But, he said, the Coalition wanted both higher spending and to ensure that "every dollar ... is being spent as well as possible to keep Australians safe."
Asked about fellow Coalition frontbencher and former soldier Andrew Hastie's comments call for "greater transparency" about the US military's growing presence in Australia, in the context of whether the secretive Pine Gap base was used to launch strikes against Iran, Mr Taylor said the government needed to be "very clear about what our involvement is."
As to whether it undermined Australia's sovereignty if the US was not informing the government of what jointly operated military facilities were being used for, he said while sovereignty was "consistent with strong alliances" but that "transparency between the alliance partners" was important.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have refused to answer questions about Pine Gap on the grounds that military intelligence is classified, saying only that the bombing was "a unilateral action" by the US.
Mr Albanese has said his government will fund Defence based on what is needed, rather than by setting an arbitrary GDP percentage.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told ABC radio on Thursday: "We make these decisions based on advice to government."
"Defence and others come to us. They say what capability they need, what the funding will be, and we provide that funding," Senator Gallagher said.
"I have no doubt we'll have more representations over future budget cycles about what Defence needs, but we also need to make sure we've got the capability to deliver."
Opposition defence spokesperson Angus Taylor has blamed the Albanese government for the recruitment crisis facing Australia's armed forces, while calling out its refusal to commit to higher Defence spending.
Mr Taylor said it was "clear that the government's recruitment program and retention programs are not working at the level they need to, to get the right outcomes."
"This is absolutely urgent," he said.
"We're thousands short of the government's own goals ... it's one of the issues that is clearly being underfunded by the government."
The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan aims to grow the ADF to 69,000 by the early 2030s, but is not on track to achieve this as the number of new recruits is not keeping up with people who leave.
Mr Taylor said the solution must include funding better housing and other facilities to support ADF personnel posted in locations in Australia's north.
Defence Minister Richard Marles on Thursday ruled out following in European nations' footsteps after NATO members vowed to dramatically lift expenditure following pressure from United States President Donald Trump.
"We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape, assessing the threats that exist there, and the kind of defence force we need to build ... and then to resource that," Mr Marles said on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands.
"What that has seen is the biggest peacetime increase in Australian Defence spending."
NATO countries, of which Australia is not a member, agreed to increase defence spending targets to 5 per cent of GDP.
Under current settings, Australia is expected to increase its share of GDP defence spend from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033-34, while the Coalition wants it increased to 3 per cent in a decade.
Mr Taylor blasted the Albanese government, saying it had failed "fund its own plan" and that Australia's defence capabilities - from missile manufacturing to drone and counter-drone technologies - were compromised.
"Its Defence Strategic Review is not properly funded ... and that means crucial programs that are central to our sovereignty are not being funded by this government," he said.
"All of these are areas that have to be properly funded alongside AUKUS, the submarines and the frigates."
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley told the National Press Club on Wednesday it was "time for Australia to step up, not step back", and that "the first step must be an increase in defence spending with a focus on key capabilities, including space, drones and missiles."
"And we need a proper strategy to arrest declining recruitment numbers in the ADF," Ms Ley said.
Mr Taylor said when asked if a 3 per cent of GDP target was hollow if Defence misspent funding: "There's a real issue about making sure our procurement processes, our command structure, is efficient and effective in the ADF."
But, he said, the Coalition wanted both higher spending and to ensure that "every dollar ... is being spent as well as possible to keep Australians safe."
Asked about fellow Coalition frontbencher and former soldier Andrew Hastie's comments call for "greater transparency" about the US military's growing presence in Australia, in the context of whether the secretive Pine Gap base was used to launch strikes against Iran, Mr Taylor said the government needed to be "very clear about what our involvement is."
As to whether it undermined Australia's sovereignty if the US was not informing the government of what jointly operated military facilities were being used for, he said while sovereignty was "consistent with strong alliances" but that "transparency between the alliance partners" was important.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have refused to answer questions about Pine Gap on the grounds that military intelligence is classified, saying only that the bombing was "a unilateral action" by the US.
Mr Albanese has said his government will fund Defence based on what is needed, rather than by setting an arbitrary GDP percentage.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told ABC radio on Thursday: "We make these decisions based on advice to government."
"Defence and others come to us. They say what capability they need, what the funding will be, and we provide that funding," Senator Gallagher said.
"I have no doubt we'll have more representations over future budget cycles about what Defence needs, but we also need to make sure we've got the capability to deliver."
Opposition defence spokesperson Angus Taylor has blamed the Albanese government for the recruitment crisis facing Australia's armed forces, while calling out its refusal to commit to higher Defence spending.
Mr Taylor said it was "clear that the government's recruitment program and retention programs are not working at the level they need to, to get the right outcomes."
"This is absolutely urgent," he said.
"We're thousands short of the government's own goals ... it's one of the issues that is clearly being underfunded by the government."
The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan aims to grow the ADF to 69,000 by the early 2030s, but is not on track to achieve this as the number of new recruits is not keeping up with people who leave.
Mr Taylor said the solution must include funding better housing and other facilities to support ADF personnel posted in locations in Australia's north.
Defence Minister Richard Marles on Thursday ruled out following in European nations' footsteps after NATO members vowed to dramatically lift expenditure following pressure from United States President Donald Trump.
"We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape, assessing the threats that exist there, and the kind of defence force we need to build ... and then to resource that," Mr Marles said on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands.
"What that has seen is the biggest peacetime increase in Australian Defence spending."
NATO countries, of which Australia is not a member, agreed to increase defence spending targets to 5 per cent of GDP.
Under current settings, Australia is expected to increase its share of GDP defence spend from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033-34, while the Coalition wants it increased to 3 per cent in a decade.
Mr Taylor blasted the Albanese government, saying it had failed "fund its own plan" and that Australia's defence capabilities - from missile manufacturing to drone and counter-drone technologies - were compromised.
"Its Defence Strategic Review is not properly funded ... and that means crucial programs that are central to our sovereignty are not being funded by this government," he said.
"All of these are areas that have to be properly funded alongside AUKUS, the submarines and the frigates."
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley told the National Press Club on Wednesday it was "time for Australia to step up, not step back", and that "the first step must be an increase in defence spending with a focus on key capabilities, including space, drones and missiles."
"And we need a proper strategy to arrest declining recruitment numbers in the ADF," Ms Ley said.
Mr Taylor said when asked if a 3 per cent of GDP target was hollow if Defence misspent funding: "There's a real issue about making sure our procurement processes, our command structure, is efficient and effective in the ADF."
But, he said, the Coalition wanted both higher spending and to ensure that "every dollar ... is being spent as well as possible to keep Australians safe."
Asked about fellow Coalition frontbencher and former soldier Andrew Hastie's comments call for "greater transparency" about the US military's growing presence in Australia, in the context of whether the secretive Pine Gap base was used to launch strikes against Iran, Mr Taylor said the government needed to be "very clear about what our involvement is."
As to whether it undermined Australia's sovereignty if the US was not informing the government of what jointly operated military facilities were being used for, he said while sovereignty was "consistent with strong alliances" but that "transparency between the alliance partners" was important.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have refused to answer questions about Pine Gap on the grounds that military intelligence is classified, saying only that the bombing was "a unilateral action" by the US.
Mr Albanese has said his government will fund Defence based on what is needed, rather than by setting an arbitrary GDP percentage.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told ABC radio on Thursday: "We make these decisions based on advice to government."
"Defence and others come to us. They say what capability they need, what the funding will be, and we provide that funding," Senator Gallagher said.
"I have no doubt we'll have more representations over future budget cycles about what Defence needs, but we also need to make sure we've got the capability to deliver."
Opposition defence spokesperson Angus Taylor has blamed the Albanese government for the recruitment crisis facing Australia's armed forces, while calling out its refusal to commit to higher Defence spending.
Mr Taylor said it was "clear that the government's recruitment program and retention programs are not working at the level they need to, to get the right outcomes."
"This is absolutely urgent," he said.
"We're thousands short of the government's own goals ... it's one of the issues that is clearly being underfunded by the government."
The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan aims to grow the ADF to 69,000 by the early 2030s, but is not on track to achieve this as the number of new recruits is not keeping up with people who leave.
Mr Taylor said the solution must include funding better housing and other facilities to support ADF personnel posted in locations in Australia's north.
Defence Minister Richard Marles on Thursday ruled out following in European nations' footsteps after NATO members vowed to dramatically lift expenditure following pressure from United States President Donald Trump.
"We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape, assessing the threats that exist there, and the kind of defence force we need to build ... and then to resource that," Mr Marles said on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands.
"What that has seen is the biggest peacetime increase in Australian Defence spending."
NATO countries, of which Australia is not a member, agreed to increase defence spending targets to 5 per cent of GDP.
Under current settings, Australia is expected to increase its share of GDP defence spend from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033-34, while the Coalition wants it increased to 3 per cent in a decade.
Mr Taylor blasted the Albanese government, saying it had failed "fund its own plan" and that Australia's defence capabilities - from missile manufacturing to drone and counter-drone technologies - were compromised.
"Its Defence Strategic Review is not properly funded ... and that means crucial programs that are central to our sovereignty are not being funded by this government," he said.
"All of these are areas that have to be properly funded alongside AUKUS, the submarines and the frigates."
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley told the National Press Club on Wednesday it was "time for Australia to step up, not step back", and that "the first step must be an increase in defence spending with a focus on key capabilities, including space, drones and missiles."
"And we need a proper strategy to arrest declining recruitment numbers in the ADF," Ms Ley said.
Mr Taylor said when asked if a 3 per cent of GDP target was hollow if Defence misspent funding: "There's a real issue about making sure our procurement processes, our command structure, is efficient and effective in the ADF."
But, he said, the Coalition wanted both higher spending and to ensure that "every dollar ... is being spent as well as possible to keep Australians safe."
Asked about fellow Coalition frontbencher and former soldier Andrew Hastie's comments call for "greater transparency" about the US military's growing presence in Australia, in the context of whether the secretive Pine Gap base was used to launch strikes against Iran, Mr Taylor said the government needed to be "very clear about what our involvement is."
As to whether it undermined Australia's sovereignty if the US was not informing the government of what jointly operated military facilities were being used for, he said while sovereignty was "consistent with strong alliances" but that "transparency between the alliance partners" was important.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have refused to answer questions about Pine Gap on the grounds that military intelligence is classified, saying only that the bombing was "a unilateral action" by the US.
Mr Albanese has said his government will fund Defence based on what is needed, rather than by setting an arbitrary GDP percentage.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told ABC radio on Thursday: "We make these decisions based on advice to government."
"Defence and others come to us. They say what capability they need, what the funding will be, and we provide that funding," Senator Gallagher said.
"I have no doubt we'll have more representations over future budget cycles about what Defence needs, but we also need to make sure we've got the capability to deliver."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
22 minutes ago
- West Australian
Donald Trump says brokering a Ukraine ceasefire with Vladimir Putin is Alaska Summit's imperative
US President Donald Trump arrived in Alaska on Friday for a high-profile meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia in hopes of brokering a ceasefire in the Ukraine war and said he was 'not going to be happy' if the Russians refuse to go along. Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew to Alaska, Mr Trump said 'there's nothing set in stone' regarding a potential agreement, acknowledging that success was uncertain. 'I want to see a ceasefire rapidly,' he said. 'I don't know if it's going to be today. But I'm not going to be happy if it's not today.' In a separate airborne interview with Fox News, Mr Trump said 'I would walk' if Mr Putin baulked at a deal to end the fighting. The President landed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage at about 10.20am local time, and was expected to greet Mr Putin, who had not yet arrived, on the tarmac. The Kremlin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said meetings could last six to seven hours. The White House hopes to hold a news conference by late afternoon in Alaska, announcing some sort of progress. Mr Trump has been unclear about his negotiating positions, but said that while he was interested in resuming economic ties between the United States and Russia, it could not happen 'until we get the war settled.' He said he expected to discuss land swaps between Ukraine and Russia — which Ukraine vehemently opposes — but added that 'I've got to let Ukraine make that decision.' He also said 'there's a possibility' of security assurances for Ukraine as part of an eventual peace deal but 'not in the form of NATO' membership. Hours earlier, Mr Trump injected new uncertainty into his effort to end the war in Ukraine by calling Mr Putin's top ally, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, and then heaping praise on him. Mr Lukashenko is one of the world's longest-ruling dictators and a figure long shunned by US presidents, and he helped Russia begin its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Mr Trump wrote on social media that he 'had a wonderful talk' with Mr Lukashenko, and called him 'highly respected.' — Summit details: Mr Trump and Mr Putin are expected to give a joint news conference after the meeting, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Mr Trump was not scheduled to be on the ground in Alaska for the six - seven hours that Kremlin suggested. The White House said he would depart for Washington at 5.45pm local time. — Possible scenarios: The outcome of the meeting seems to be less predictable than most presidential summits. Among the issues that could shape the proceedings are whether Mr Putin is prepared to discuss a ceasefire and whether Mr Trump will apply pressure on Russia by threatening more sanctions or additional support to Ukraine, as European allies want. — The Trump-Putin relationship: The meeting will be at least the seventh between the two leaders, and the first of Mr Trump's second term. His first term was shadowed by questions over Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which Mr Trump has repeatedly referred to as 'the Russia hoax.' It will be the first US visit in a decade for Mr Putin, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Ukraine and risks arrest if he travels to countries that are members of the court. The United States is not. — On the battlefield: Russia enters Friday's talks from a position of strength against Ukraine. Its army has driven a wedge into Ukrainian defences in the east, and Ukrainian officials have warned that Moscow has amassed forces and equipment for new offensive operations. This article originally appeared in The New York Times . © 2025 The New York Times Company
Courier-Mail
an hour 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
2 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."
