‘Softly, softly, catchee monkey’, as the saying goes.
It’s so hard to introduce urgently-needed reforms in today’s fevered media climate that governments tiptoe around problems and hardly dare to act.
Inequality is at an all-time high, and people are desperately struggling to pay rent and buy food. Very many are also homeless. So much needs to be done.
When a government does try to introduce changes, they are shouted down by the opposition trying to score political points with full support from the conservative media and their commentators.
No wonder Anthony Albanese soft-pedalled during his first 20 months in government.
Finally, at the beginning of the year, he decided he had to act.
He recalled his colleagues early to propose the unthinkable – to break his oft-repeated promise to leave the stage three tax cuts alone.
Naturally, the opposition criticised him for wasting taxpayers’ money on MPs’ air fares but, when Albo and his colleagues announced they were rejigging the tax cuts, Dutton bellowed they needed to take them to an election, and Sussan Ley announced they would reverse them if reelected. Murdoch media as usual had a field day.
Albo pointed out helpfully that it wouldn’t be possible to have a joint half-Senate and lower house election until the latter half of the year, unless a double dissolution trigger were available, which it wasn’t.
Then something strange happened. Shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, dusted off his abacus and discovered to his horror that the majority of LNP voters would be better off. The Dutton team was in a real quandary. If they voted against the revisions they would disadvantage their own supporters. If they voted for them, they would seem like hypocrites supporting the ‘broken promise’. It was a classic wedge. They caved in and diffused the issue at the same time.
It’s possible the Albanese government had its eye on the Dunkley by-election being held on March 2. Governments often lose mid-term by-elections.
If so, will it work?
An Australia Institute poll held two weeks ago shows Labor leading the Liberal Party 52 per cent to 48 per cent in Dunkley, after preferences are notionally distributed. Two-thirds of voters support the changes. More than a quarter of Liberal voters also support them.
Broken promises
Most governments are obliged to break promises and suffer the opprobrium for doing so.
Look how John Howard broke his promise to not introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2000. It replaced the cumbersome wholesale sales tax and various state and territory government taxes. He got away with that, and stayed on until December 2007.
On the eve of the 2013 election, Tony Abbott promised: ‘no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.’ He massively broke those promises in the 2014 budget. He paid a personal price, but the LNP stayed in power for another eight years.
Will Albo and Treasurer Jim Chalmers now have the courage to introduce more urgent reforms to pay for health, education, housing and climate action?
Changes to negative gearing may be a bridge too far, but surely reforming capital gains tax is possible? John Howard gutted capital gains tax, and that has led to much greater inequality in this country.
How about a wealth tax, as requested by millionaires attending the World Economic Forum in Davos? A three per cent wealth tax on the richest 250 Australians would generate $15 billion a year. Think how many homeless could be accommodated with that.
It’s only a question of the Albanese government having the courage to do it. The ‘softly, softly’ approach simply wasn’t working. They were obliged to make a difficult choice and did so successfully.
We expect our elected representatives at every level of government to represent the interests of the people who put them there, and have the courage to make difficult decisions. If they don’t listen and act, they will pay the price at the ballot box.
Here in Byron Shire, we have a classic case of local government believing they had to allow a controversial development.
Wallum in Brunswick Heads is a 30-hectare area sacred to local people and home to koalas, black cockatoos, gliders and the vulnerable wallum froglet. There’s no way this area should be cleared for housing when there are many other cleared acreages in the Shire that could be used instead.
Houses built there will not be for the homeless, they are strictly for millionaires. It’s very likely there will be significant protests at Wallum and people may well get arrested.
People are getting desperate at inaction of governments on important issues, and laws against protesting have been tightened. Governments under pressure from the people do act, as the Albanese government did on the tax reforms. We all need to come together as a community to ramp up pressure at every level of government.
People lead, governments follow.
Richard Jones is a former NSW MLC and is now a ceramicist.
A rare concession to the intricacies of progressive governing in the Australian political landscape Richard. Well done!
It should have been clear to anyone that the original stage 3 policy was not Labor preference (a little clue in how they sought to amend and split the bill in 2019) but that there were a range of considerations in just abandoning it post election. One was shredded credibility and the gift it would deliver to the Coalition.
Right on cue, the Coalition pounced with a series of bogey-man demands to rule in/
out a range of other taxes. This should be expected but not so much the alacrity with which Max Chandler Mather joined the fray (with its little echo here). Great timing Max!
Max’s approach includes asking the PM if he would phase out tax concessions for property investors like him (Albo). Did Max forget that Albanese was part of the Labor front bench that took reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax to two elections and lost (one supposedly unloseable). Did you forget Richard, when you were discussing the ease of being “courageous”?
Has Max concluded that all those on the Labor side suddenly decided post the 2019 election that they wouldn’t continue to pursue negative gearing because they would rather look after their own investments? Does he know for sure that they all use negative gearing? Does he even know that negative gearing and investment properties aren’t always concurrent, that you can have one without the other and that NG actually requires a net loss?
So now, deprived of a chance to thwart Labor (by a Coalition lack of courage?) the Greens are once again threatening to hold up a proposed housing measure to grandstand. Surely they must know that Labor will not, at this point in time, suddenly go back on negative gearing and CGT. There’s courage and there’s political suicide – there’s courage and there’s putting out the welcome mat for the Coalition.
Are the Greens about getting enduring tax reform or seeking relevance, limelight and votes? Regardless, I reckon the conservatives must be thinking that when they’ve got enemies like the Greens, they don’t need many other friends.
Could all these shortages be caused by importing 4% more population each and every year? That’s 40% more population per decade.
“Tax the rich” has been tried before. What happens is, they take all their capital, move overseas, and invest in projects there instead. Then the government ends up having to invest in those projects instead, and they use your money to do it, and they end up spending 10x the amount, and have a lower success rate. I don’t want Twiggy Forest using his money to build windmills here either, but there are better ways for us to stop him.
Right now the Treasurer Jim Chalmers is discussing taxing billionaires at the G20. Let’s see what happens.
You forget that a key reason Albo bit the bullet and decided to revise the tax cuts was Labor was languishing in the polls in the low thirties. The Greens were and are polling around half their vote. You need to remember the Albanese government cannot get re-elected without preferences from the Greens. They need to work together in harmony.
I’d guess that any one of the following or various combinations thereof were factors behind Labor doing what they always thought was way more acceptable tax policy:
* the meeting with Jim Chalmers in December, requested by backbenchers – no doubt to give some candid feedback from their electorates and a plea to do more.
* the fact that the rejigged tax cuts came as suggestions from treasury to ease the cost of living, along with advice that they were unlikely to be inflationary
* the added attraction of treasury’s model that meant redistributing rather than flat out abolishing would mean most electors would be better off and the Coalition nicely wedged – like Labor was in 2019
*the Dunkley by-election. If done best done before for two reasons – 1, appeal to the electors in Dunkley and 2, not to be seen after the fact as a desperate reaction to a swing
* the polls but Labor was still leading the Coalition
In short, conditions coalesced to allow just enough time for implementation before the other abomination would come into effect, and at a time and in conditions where it could be made palatable to both the Labor caucus and the electorate. Win win – hopefully!
You’re right, Labor and the Greens rely on each other’s preferences and should hold some shared will to keep the country on a reasonably progressive trajectory. I just wouldn’t call what the Greens have been doing to hold up good measures, and make maximum mileage from the latest politically risky move from Labor, particularly harmonious.
I can understand them wanting to improve their vote, I just can’t countenance a return of the Coalition – stripped of most of the moderate wing – so soon.
What on Earth are talking about Richard ? ( surely that couldn’t be THE Richard Jones, AKA ‘Tongue’ of South Grafton origins ?)
In my seventy-odd years of experience, I have found that the first action of any government elected is to break all promises. The massive stand out was, of course, the Witlam government which confounded all tradition and enacted their promises in the first six weeks of office. For their pains they were ousted by the American government with the complicity of the Royal Family and what served for the ‘Opposition’, a total disgrace for all those involved.
It does seem highly unlikely that any government here, will ever have the guts to boldly act in the country’s best interest again.
Cheers,G”)
No, not the “Tongue “ of South Grafton, Black Jones of Epsom.
Notwithstanding Whitlam’s short term in office, he changed the face of Australia in three turbulent years,
Governments that rely on support from independents and Greens MPs are far more progressive.
John Howard got away with the GST (just!) he actually got back with a minority of the two-party preferred vote. However even core and non-core John took it to an election first.
First of all lets just call negative gearing a tax deduction for business expenses. Makes it a lot clearer. Re the tax cuts: labour NEVER intended to pass on the full Liberal policy. How could they in the face of a widening wealth gap? And after all its now THEIR tax policy to stamp. Good to support the past gov with promises until its not! Why would a Westminster gov help their opposition? My view is that a change in CGTax from 50 to 30% discount has the best chance of jumping through the politic hoops — the best compromise. Speaking of compromise, re Wallum — there will have to be a lot doled out there. It has moved to a powerful symbolic issue — it will not go away until there is.
“There will be no carbon tax under the government i lead” ! Short memory richard ? or just a bias one ..
His power bill just isn’t rising fast enough. Takes a lot of tax to make coal power cost more than windmills.
And conveniently our Barrow faithfully regurgers Rupert’s cherry picked partial quote of ex-PM Julia Gilliard.
The full quote – “”There ill be no carbon tax under a government I lead but let me be be clear, I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme”.
Happy to help, again.
Captain planet Joachim ! Ms Gillard lied
Prior to being elected ..and incidentally
This also was replayed on several occasions
On commercial stations also.. who has Cherry
Picked ..!
“….but let me be be clear, I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme”, I’ll cherry pick that for you. Barrow, read that out loud.
Dear Craig,
You’re selectively calling others liars, whilst forgetting the FACT that Peta Credlin (Tony’s brain) has admitted several times they lied about calling it a carbon tax, knowing full well it wasn’t a carbon tax, but leveraging thet to scare the community yet again for electoral gain.
Hmm where have I heard that before? I remember now, the LNP play book: refugees, African gangs, Laura Norder, marriage equality, electric vehicles, the Voice etc pick a topic & your mob have a Lynton Crosby scare campaign ready to launch. Little wonder they’re sooo opposed to truth in political advertising legislation & a Federal ICAC!
…and $100 Roast, Whyalla wiped off the map,
…and ‘end of the weekend’.
Prophetic sloganeering not exactly the strong suit of the L ying N asty P arty.
FYO, John Howard took the GST proposal to an election and won, you know why?, because it was a great idea. Unlike Albo who before the election only let us know a few things, then in government he let rip all if his lefty secret legislation that no one had ever heard of. Very sneaky Albo, be very careful before you try it again….
Actually he didn’t so get your history correct. What lefty secret legislation? You do know that can’t happen because legislation is debated in parliament, not like the secretive coalition agreements, the complete opposite for the Gillard minority government who had support from the greens where the terms were in the public arena. Anyway are you confused with the previous government and what at least 5 secret ministries given to the now vanquished ex pm.