You have to be quick in public debate around here. Last week was “tax reform” week — one of the periodic eruptions of the issue into public consciousness. Fixing Australia’s disastrous tax system was the most important matter in public life. Tens of thousands of words were spewed out, mostly in the Financial Review, about how politicians needed to find their policy courage. Right at the end of the week, even The Australian lumbered into action, yelling at clouds about the need for reform.
Well, all that’s so last week — not much around about tax reform today. There’s only so much you can say about it, especially given the self-interest of many of the parties involved. The business lobby will demand an increase in the GST and lower company tax — which is what the Business Council of Australia has called for in every “tax reform” boomlet for the past 15 years.
The AFR will urge Labor to adopt courageous tax reforms, with the goal of campaigning against those same reforms at the next election. Various specialist business sectors will explain how particular changes that benefit them have remarkable economy-wide benefits too. The Melchizedek of tax reform, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, will be summoned to bless the calls for a debate with references to his abandoned review for Kevin Rudd. And so, as they say in the classics, it goes.
The only worthwhile contribution last week came from the redoubtable unionist and Gen X music advocate Dave Noonan, who inquired of the BCA in response to its call for a “national discussion” on tax, “Why not invite a plague of locusts to discuss agriculture while we’re at it?” Having devoted much time over the years explaining, with extensive evidence, why cutting company tax rates has never produced any of its claimed benefits — such as greater investment, more jobs, higher wages or higher productivity — I could only seethe with jealousy at such succinctness.
The real victim of this outbreak of reformitis was Peter Dutton. All anyone — including, eventually, his mates at The Australian — was talking about last week was bracket creep, effective marginal tax rates and the participation effects of lower tax rates income, rather than what Dutton wanted them to be talking about: Anthony Albanese’s lack of integrity in breaking his promise. By the end of last week, The Australian was urging Dutton to develop an ambitious tax reform package including “lifting the rate of the GST and broadening its base”. Or, as Malcolm Turnbull once put it during a previous eruption of tax reformitis, the political equivalent of taking a pistol and retiring into the study.
Dutton and the rest of the opposition ought to be hoping that the impact on the prime minister’s credibility will be, to use Tony Abbott’s phrase, a python squeeze, not a cobra strike. That phrase was pulled out by Abbott as opposition leader when his spectacular warnings that Whyalla would fall into the sea and buying lamb would require a mortgage as a result of the carbon price didn’t eventuate. But Abbott was adept at continuing to hammer a line regardless of how little actual reality conformed to his inevitably nightmarish claims about what Labor was doing to Australia.
So far, Peter Dutton ain’t no Abbott. Gifted a colossal broken promise by Labor, he was slow out of the blocks responding, and his response was — and remains — confusing (will the Coalition support the amended package or not?). His party don’t appear to have war-gamed how it should respond to a Labor change either. The speed with which the debate moved on to who would benefit, would the Coalition reverse the cuts, and what about broader reform, should be a warning that the early rounds in this battle have gone to Labor.
This has required some serious reverse-ferret stuff at the Oz, which was confident Albanese had inflicted serious, possibly terminal damage on himself with the stage three tax cut changes (“When given the chance, voters have rejected the politics of envy” it drooled the day after the announcement), only for the first Newspoll of the year to reveal precisely no change of note in Australians’ feelings — if anything, there was a small drift away from Dutton. Ah ha, enthused the unfortunate Simon Benson, that showed Labor’s tax changes had generated no benefit for the government. Neither python squeeze nor cobra strike anymore, it seems.
Dutton has been gifted a rare political opportunity; so far he’s blown it. Shadow cabinet will settle on a position today on the changes. It needs to be the start of a rebooted effort to sink his fangs into Labor.
Does Peter Dutton have any justified arguments against the tax cut changes? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Obviously they have all done the math and they can’t win the argument. And in this case it’s a broken promise that the same math says 90% of taxpayers are winners from ‘breaking the promise’. It was never a L.A.W. situation for Labor as it was not their legislation. They always said they’d review the situation around about now and decide then on how best to proceed given the economic circumstances. Labor should be given high marks for holding the line and not caving in to the peanut gallery earlier. Labor was only ever worried about having to change it twice if the economic situation forced such. This way they have threaded the needle skillfully and should be recognized for having done a spectacular job politically to achieve a compromise on the policy side that all – but the LNP and their opportunistic cousins The Greens – support.
They always said they’d review the situation around about now and decide then on how best to proceed given the economic circumstances.
When did they once do this? The only comment made by ALP since the legislation was passed was that it is legislated, and it is their policy not to change it. There was no indication that they would ever review it, until they apropos of nothing, backflipped on their position.
The Greens Political Party just say it doesn’t go far enough, not that they don’t support it.
Standard politics: It’s our policy not to change it… until it isn’t. And the moment when it wasn’t, any longer, was the moment they determined that their almost imperceptible read-between-the-lines equivocation, letting the economists and news commentators build up a head of steam, had borne the fruit of a palpable ‘critical mass’ of public opinion having moved towards acceptance of a change of policy. Labor rightly kept stum in order to keep bets hedged, and Spud in a dark corner where he belongs. It’s been an interesting case of leading by being misleading.
‘We have no plans to change the policy’ – but we’re beavering away in the backroom on the possible scenarios.
Chalmers said it repeatedly, but nobody remembers. Conveniently.
nope nope nope.
Feb 12, 2923 – “As you know, David, we haven’t changed our position on those states three tax cuts” – http://tinyurl.com/dj4dadja
Apr 11, 2023 – Speaking on Channel 9’s Today Show, Mr Chalmers said: “They’ll [stage three tax cuts] be in the budget in May”. “As we’ve said before, our position on those stage three tax cuts hasn’t changed.” – http://tinyurl.com/p6h3c8z3
May 10, 2023 – “And that’s why we haven’t changed our position on stage three there in the budget that I handed down last night and we didn’t consider changing them in this budget.” – http://tinyurl.com/bd26am32
Aug 11, 2023 – ”The government’s position on the stage three tax cuts hasn’t changed but we welcome and embrace people having the opportunity to raise these sorts of issues at our national conference,’ – http://tinyurl.com/3aymzn8p
Dec 14, 2023 – Treasurer Jim Chalmers has firmed his support for the stage three tax cuts, saying they will help with the cost of living as well as pare back bracket creep. – http://tinyurl.com/yc66a4vt
None of these quotes from Chalmers look much like suggesting that S3 are on the table.
The only thing I will countenance as possibly suggesting as much is where asked, given the cost-of-living pressures, if he was considering any extra tax relief to low and median income-earners separate to the stage three tax cuts, he said:
Though the question was specific in that it said extra tax relief, not at the ‘expense’ of S3 as it stands.
I think its worth clarifying again, IMO S3 were dumb, New S3 is still dumb, but there isn’t any need to make stuff up. ALP stuck themselves fast to S3 and then did a backflip. Sussan Ley never suggested it was LNP policy to repeal them after the election. There is so much BS flying around regarding this I am shocked (though shouldn’t be)
“We assess things from Budget to Budget” Reading comprehension helps.
He was asked if he was going to make any extra (read extra) measures to help lmi earners separate (another important word) to s3. He said no and that they’re not even workshopping it but they might look at that again come next budget (which hasn’t come around yet since that interview).
I don’t think my reading comprehension is so much the problem.
Nope, nope, nope to you:
We haven’t changed our position…. we haven’t changed our position… we haven’t changed our position…
None of those almost identical quotes suggest that there couldn’t or wouldn’t ever, ever be a change of position.
What do we have now? A change of position. You’re not very good at reading between the lines. Labor was playing a waiting game in which it never absolutely ruled out changing its position.
I have a reply in moderation. In brief it is quotes from Chalmers between Feb 2023 – Dec 2023 confirming full throated support for S3. I couldn’t find any instance of him advocating for a change to them since they passed, but for a whiff of an offer that there might be something that they can do in addition to S3, not instead of.
Finally I lamented the amount of misinformation that is rife in re S3 atm.
Given that the stage 3 never had much acceptance from most of the population, Blind Freddy would have seen that modifications were almost certain.
Blind Freddy I’m sure doesn’t appreciate being referred to as such gramps.
Nonetheless, what is obvious or otherwise, the government at no point prior to announcing the changes offered a hint that this was on the cards, instead constantly confirming their support for S3, going in to bat for them, and extolling their virtues.
Succinctly expressed, Peter.
It is difficult for anyone to argue against a political decision that the population at large think is good.
The media seem to think that a “broken Promise” from a Pollie is the issue, what planet to they exist on?
The public mostly expects Pollies to lie and break promises. The results are then filtered through a process of, “is it good or bad for me or
the Country. Does some unpopular group or person get some comeuppance, do my Kids benefit or loose out”?
Further, and mainly, is there a quid in it for me?
I did love the Oz’s attempt at finding a problem though. ” The tax cuts will cost Aussie workers $$$, headline. Followed in the article waffle by,
” IF this that or the other happens over the next decade”.
The media seem to think that a “broken Promise” from a Pollie is the issue, what planet to they exist on?
I think that think is not the correct word for our current msm. A flock of parrots squawking is both more meaningful and more comforting.
Everything is an existential crisis and/or potential wedge for the LNP’s praetorian guard masquerading as objective MSM.
The media seem to think that they should be in government, or at least running the government.
I love it when the likes of Sarah Ferguson get hyper earnest and put forward the “Will you promise” questions. Like, seriously! It’s just too funny, but understandable, really . . .
The biggest media employers in Australia are mainly ChatGTP propaganda machines, so how can we expect that anyone who works/has worked for those parts of the media will be anything more than a journalist’s worn sock.
Far more astonishing is that any of them actually believe they are journalists, which is even funnier than the idea that politicians can and/or should make promises.
Mind you, there’s one promise we can count on from politicians: It’s a promise that the LNP will always be inadequate. It’s not even a hard promise to keep. <<Pauvres cons>>
Gee, just as well Dutton doesn’t appear to read Bernard Keane’s columns or to follow Bernard’s advice! Do we WANT Dutton to be more successful on this issue or any other? So far, it looks like Albo may have pulled off a neat reverse wedge.
The only worthwhile contribution last week came from the redoubtable unionist and Gen X music advocate Dave Noonan, who inquired of the BCA in response to its call for a “national discussion” on tax, “Why not invite a plague of locusts to discuss agriculture while we’re at it?” ……. I could only seethe with jealousy at such succinctness.
It is a great point and notable that it came not from our msm.
“…colossal broken promise..” Bernard I thought you were better than this. Stage 3 tax cuts were delivered with the same timing and quantum as they said they would be delivered, just with some very necessary tweaking to redistribute them to the advantage of many more people and the economy as a whole. That’s not a broken promise, let alone a “colossal” one.