Government to freeze housing code as part of red tape blitz
O'Neil, who a week ago told The Australian Financial Review the code freeze was in play, despite Labor attacking the opposition for taking such a policy to the last election, said on Thursday her consultation with industry had driven a change in thinking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How Laura's stylish house was built twice as fast as normal
Traditionally-built houses take more than a year from approval to completion, according to ABS and AMP data. Prefab and modular experts say they can get more homes built affordably, up to 50 per cent faster, and with fewer disruptions. Prefabricated components are made in a factory and assembled on site; modular sections are factory-produced and combined on site. Prefab modular is a hybrid. Governments need to commit up to 70 per cent of social housing projects to prefab or modular, to achieve the kind of scale that will reduce costs, says Dr Ehsan Noroozinejad, a senior researcher and global challenge lead at Western Sydney University. 'We need some sort of support from the government,' he says. 'We cannot push the private sector and the community alone to use this technology.' The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), a joint body of the federal and state and territory governments, released a handbook last year on how to use modern methods in line with the National Construction Code, and is developing a voluntary certification scheme for manufacturers. However, prefab and modular is still unfamiliar to some councils and building certifiers, who are the guardians of permits and approvals, experts say. A lack of understanding is delaying what should be a speedy option. Noroozinejad says there is not enough training in how to approve the final product, and the voluntary scheme will be more effective if it were compulsory. 'The certifiers and the councils are not familiar with this technology, or they believe that it is not suitable for their area because of cultural heritage value,' he says. 'If the process is streamlined, this type of technology should be very efficient. Otherwise, it's not working.' Jennings' home is the work of Prebuilt, a prefabricated modular manufacturer with a base in Kilsyth and another near Newcastle in NSW. Prebuilt chief executive Malcolm Batten says incorrect perceptions of modular have held it back from wider adoption. 'When the average person thinks modular, they think of flimsy, temporary and cheap, and the permanent buildings we do are not flimsy,' he says. 'They're very strong and will last as long, or longer, than a conventional build.' Prebuilt has constructed hotels, family homes, granny flats, farmhouses and beach retreats, from Sydney's high-end Mosman to the hamlet of Lorne, on Victoria's Great Ocean Road. However, some councils are so uncertain about what modular means, they scotch planning applications that come across their desk. Loading 'In one of them in NSW, we can't put a modular building there because their statutes talk about modular like it's a caravan, and so you're not allowed to because it comes in on the back of the truck,' Batten says. Another hindrance has been access to finance, leaving home owners to meet 90 per cent of upfront costs or enter into arrangements with their builder, as Jennings did. Many banks have been unwilling to make progress payments to builders when the asset – the block of land – is not gaining value while construction occurs elsewhere. However, their stance is softening. The Commonwealth Bank has changed its lending criteria after collaborating with industry group PrefabAUS, and now provides prefab and modular home loans of up to 60 per cent of the contract price. Damien Crough, co-founder and executive chair of PrefabAUS and managing director of Advanced Offsite Group, says companies were shouldering the financial risk, which limited their growth. 'Planning, regulation and financial models all need to be adjusted to recognise off-site construction,' he says, 'and so that's what we've been working on.' PrefabAUS members have drafted an advice paper for the treasurer on barriers to financing and Crough is assisting the ABCB in streamlining industry definitions. Tahi Merrilees and his Wild Modular co-founder Alex Tattle launched their company in 2021 after years on old-fashioned building sites. 'We got sick of trudging around in mud and being delayed, and it got to a point where we just started looking at better ways to build,' Merrilees says. The Sydney-based company has just delivered three social houses in Wollongong for the NSW government under a pilot program. All were handed over within six months, but the build time was only three-and-a-half weeks. To help facilitate loans, Merrilees and Tattle have set up live-feed cameras in their Wetherill Park factory to track progress of projects. The transparency has compelled more lenders to fund their projects, from Tasmania to WA and the Whitsundays. 'There's change happening to make it smoother,' Merrilees says. 'That's going to have a massive impact on housing supply as the industry grows.' Noroozinejad says only 4 per cent to 5 per cent of Australian housing is prefab, compared to European countries such as Sweden, where it is 84 per cent. To increase output, he proposes empty car manufacturing plants be repurposed as prefab housing factories. 'We have the capacity and very positive feedback from the industry,' he says. Jennings, an experienced renovator, has been astonished by what modular can achieve. 'I love the level of finish,' she says. 'After doing renovations that have gone way too long, the build time was extraordinary.'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
How Laura's stylish house was built twice as fast as normal
Traditionally-built houses take more than a year from approval to completion, according to ABS and AMP data. Prefab and modular experts say they can get more homes built affordably, up to 50 per cent faster, and with fewer disruptions. Prefabricated components are made in a factory and assembled on site; modular sections are factory-produced and combined on site. Prefab modular is a hybrid. Governments need to commit up to 70 per cent of social housing projects to prefab or modular, to achieve the kind of scale that will reduce costs, says Dr Ehsan Noroozinejad, a senior researcher and global challenge lead at Western Sydney University. 'We need some sort of support from the government,' he says. 'We cannot push the private sector and the community alone to use this technology.' The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), a joint body of the federal and state and territory governments, released a handbook last year on how to use modern methods in line with the National Construction Code, and is developing a voluntary certification scheme for manufacturers. However, prefab and modular is still unfamiliar to some councils and building certifiers, who are the guardians of permits and approvals, experts say. A lack of understanding is delaying what should be a speedy option. Noroozinejad says there is not enough training in how to approve the final product, and the voluntary scheme will be more effective if it were compulsory. 'The certifiers and the councils are not familiar with this technology, or they believe that it is not suitable for their area because of cultural heritage value,' he says. 'If the process is streamlined, this type of technology should be very efficient. Otherwise, it's not working.' Jennings' home is the work of Prebuilt, a prefabricated modular manufacturer with a base in Kilsyth and another near Newcastle in NSW. Prebuilt chief executive Malcolm Batten says incorrect perceptions of modular have held it back from wider adoption. 'When the average person thinks modular, they think of flimsy, temporary and cheap, and the permanent buildings we do are not flimsy,' he says. 'They're very strong and will last as long, or longer, than a conventional build.' Prebuilt has constructed hotels, family homes, granny flats, farmhouses and beach retreats, from Sydney's high-end Mosman to the hamlet of Lorne, on Victoria's Great Ocean Road. However, some councils are so uncertain about what modular means, they scotch planning applications that come across their desk. Loading 'In one of them in NSW, we can't put a modular building there because their statutes talk about modular like it's a caravan, and so you're not allowed to because it comes in on the back of the truck,' Batten says. Another hindrance has been access to finance, leaving home owners to meet 90 per cent of upfront costs or enter into arrangements with their builder, as Jennings did. Many banks have been unwilling to make progress payments to builders when the asset – the block of land – is not gaining value while construction occurs elsewhere. However, their stance is softening. The Commonwealth Bank has changed its lending criteria after collaborating with industry group PrefabAUS, and now provides prefab and modular home loans of up to 60 per cent of the contract price. Damien Crough, co-founder and executive chair of PrefabAUS and managing director of Advanced Offsite Group, says companies were shouldering the financial risk, which limited their growth. 'Planning, regulation and financial models all need to be adjusted to recognise off-site construction,' he says, 'and so that's what we've been working on.' PrefabAUS members have drafted an advice paper for the treasurer on barriers to financing and Crough is assisting the ABCB in streamlining industry definitions. Tahi Merrilees and his Wild Modular co-founder Alex Tattle launched their company in 2021 after years on old-fashioned building sites. 'We got sick of trudging around in mud and being delayed, and it got to a point where we just started looking at better ways to build,' Merrilees says. The Sydney-based company has just delivered three social houses in Wollongong for the NSW government under a pilot program. All were handed over within six months, but the build time was only three-and-a-half weeks. To help facilitate loans, Merrilees and Tattle have set up live-feed cameras in their Wetherill Park factory to track progress of projects. The transparency has compelled more lenders to fund their projects, from Tasmania to WA and the Whitsundays. 'There's change happening to make it smoother,' Merrilees says. 'That's going to have a massive impact on housing supply as the industry grows.' Noroozinejad says only 4 per cent to 5 per cent of Australian housing is prefab, compared to European countries such as Sweden, where it is 84 per cent. To increase output, he proposes empty car manufacturing plants be repurposed as prefab housing factories. 'We have the capacity and very positive feedback from the industry,' he says. Jennings, an experienced renovator, has been astonished by what modular can achieve. 'I love the level of finish,' she says. 'After doing renovations that have gone way too long, the build time was extraordinary.'
The Advertiser
a day 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."
