Aussies turn to alternative models for modern and affordable housing
Simon Croft, Chief Executive - Industry & Policy at the Housing Industry Association (HIA), said the shift toward alternative housing models reflects a broader rethink about how Australians live.
"We're seeing stronger interest in a much wider range of housing options," Croft said. "Kit homes, tiny homes, granny flats, container builds, earthships and fully off-grid homes are all part of a growing landscape that offers flexibility, affordability and choice."
The range of alternative housing options in Australia showcases the diverse possibilities of modern home ownership and hints at what the future may look like.
Customisable and cost-effective, kit homes are delivered as pre-cut materials, allowing buyers to assemble with minimal construction costs.
They also lend themselves well to off-grid living as many can be outfitted with solar panels and rainwater tanks for eco-conscious buyers.
"Kit homes are often more affordable to purchase and quicker to build, offering a solution for regional or remote areas where labour shortages or transport costs make conventional builds challenging," Croft said.
Often built on trailer platforms, these compact yet efficient dwellings offer mobility and freedom.
Despite their small size, they are cleverly designed to maximise storage and functionality and are especially attractive to younger buyers and retirees seeking an affordable, low-maintenance lifestyle.
"Tiny homes have captured attention for their low cost of ownership, smaller environmental footprint and suitability for those seeking to simplify or downsize," Croft said.
"However, in many areas, planning schemes have not yet caught up to accommodate tiny homes as a mainstream option and they face regulatory challenges."
Prefabricated models and innovative designs make these secondary dwellings cost-effective and quick to install.
Being self-contained they can serve as guest accommodations, rental investments or independent living spaces for family members.
"Granny flats - or secondary dwellings - are increasingly popular as state governments ease restrictions and provide fast-track approvals," Croft said.
"They offer multi-generational living options, support ageing-in-place and can generate rental income. They also help maximise land use in areas where new greenfield sites are limited."
Repurposing shipping containers into homes is not only sustainable but also offers a modern, industrial aesthetic.
Buyers can combine multiple containers to create unique layouts or opt for a single unit for a compact, budget-friendly home. Insulated and weatherproofed, these homes are well-suited to Australia's diverse climate.
"Recycled shipping containers offer a flexible, fast construction method with sustainability appeal," Croft said.
"But they do require careful design to ensure comfort, insulation and long-term durability, as well as understanding the regulatory requirements controlling their use."
Built with natural or recycled materials, these homes often incorporate features like thermal mass construction, solar energy and water harvesting systems.
"These homes sit at the leading edge of environmentally sustainable living, aiming for complete water, waste and energy self-sufficiency," Croft said. "They appeal to those wanting to dramatically reduce their footprint, but come with higher upfront costs, site limitations and ongoing maintenance needs."
---
While alternative housing solutions are gaining momentum, Croft believes they won't replace traditional homes but rather complement them.
"Australia faces the enormous task of delivering 1.2 million new homes over the next five years," he said.
"A more diverse housing mix will help meet that target, but it's critical governments work to remove regulatory red tape and provide clear, nationally consistent planning frameworks."
Australians are increasingly looking beyond the traditional detached home to meet their housing needs, as affordability pressures, changing lifestyles and sustainability goals drive innovation in the housing sector.
Simon Croft, Chief Executive - Industry & Policy at the Housing Industry Association (HIA), said the shift toward alternative housing models reflects a broader rethink about how Australians live.
"We're seeing stronger interest in a much wider range of housing options," Croft said. "Kit homes, tiny homes, granny flats, container builds, earthships and fully off-grid homes are all part of a growing landscape that offers flexibility, affordability and choice."
The range of alternative housing options in Australia showcases the diverse possibilities of modern home ownership and hints at what the future may look like.
Customisable and cost-effective, kit homes are delivered as pre-cut materials, allowing buyers to assemble with minimal construction costs.
They also lend themselves well to off-grid living as many can be outfitted with solar panels and rainwater tanks for eco-conscious buyers.
"Kit homes are often more affordable to purchase and quicker to build, offering a solution for regional or remote areas where labour shortages or transport costs make conventional builds challenging," Croft said.
Often built on trailer platforms, these compact yet efficient dwellings offer mobility and freedom.
Despite their small size, they are cleverly designed to maximise storage and functionality and are especially attractive to younger buyers and retirees seeking an affordable, low-maintenance lifestyle.
"Tiny homes have captured attention for their low cost of ownership, smaller environmental footprint and suitability for those seeking to simplify or downsize," Croft said.
"However, in many areas, planning schemes have not yet caught up to accommodate tiny homes as a mainstream option and they face regulatory challenges."
Prefabricated models and innovative designs make these secondary dwellings cost-effective and quick to install.
Being self-contained they can serve as guest accommodations, rental investments or independent living spaces for family members.
"Granny flats - or secondary dwellings - are increasingly popular as state governments ease restrictions and provide fast-track approvals," Croft said.
"They offer multi-generational living options, support ageing-in-place and can generate rental income. They also help maximise land use in areas where new greenfield sites are limited."
Repurposing shipping containers into homes is not only sustainable but also offers a modern, industrial aesthetic.
Buyers can combine multiple containers to create unique layouts or opt for a single unit for a compact, budget-friendly home. Insulated and weatherproofed, these homes are well-suited to Australia's diverse climate.
"Recycled shipping containers offer a flexible, fast construction method with sustainability appeal," Croft said.
"But they do require careful design to ensure comfort, insulation and long-term durability, as well as understanding the regulatory requirements controlling their use."
Built with natural or recycled materials, these homes often incorporate features like thermal mass construction, solar energy and water harvesting systems.
"These homes sit at the leading edge of environmentally sustainable living, aiming for complete water, waste and energy self-sufficiency," Croft said. "They appeal to those wanting to dramatically reduce their footprint, but come with higher upfront costs, site limitations and ongoing maintenance needs."
---
While alternative housing solutions are gaining momentum, Croft believes they won't replace traditional homes but rather complement them.
"Australia faces the enormous task of delivering 1.2 million new homes over the next five years," he said.
"A more diverse housing mix will help meet that target, but it's critical governments work to remove regulatory red tape and provide clear, nationally consistent planning frameworks."
Australians are increasingly looking beyond the traditional detached home to meet their housing needs, as affordability pressures, changing lifestyles and sustainability goals drive innovation in the housing sector.
Simon Croft, Chief Executive - Industry & Policy at the Housing Industry Association (HIA), said the shift toward alternative housing models reflects a broader rethink about how Australians live.
"We're seeing stronger interest in a much wider range of housing options," Croft said. "Kit homes, tiny homes, granny flats, container builds, earthships and fully off-grid homes are all part of a growing landscape that offers flexibility, affordability and choice."
The range of alternative housing options in Australia showcases the diverse possibilities of modern home ownership and hints at what the future may look like.
Customisable and cost-effective, kit homes are delivered as pre-cut materials, allowing buyers to assemble with minimal construction costs.
They also lend themselves well to off-grid living as many can be outfitted with solar panels and rainwater tanks for eco-conscious buyers.
"Kit homes are often more affordable to purchase and quicker to build, offering a solution for regional or remote areas where labour shortages or transport costs make conventional builds challenging," Croft said.
Often built on trailer platforms, these compact yet efficient dwellings offer mobility and freedom.
Despite their small size, they are cleverly designed to maximise storage and functionality and are especially attractive to younger buyers and retirees seeking an affordable, low-maintenance lifestyle.
"Tiny homes have captured attention for their low cost of ownership, smaller environmental footprint and suitability for those seeking to simplify or downsize," Croft said.
"However, in many areas, planning schemes have not yet caught up to accommodate tiny homes as a mainstream option and they face regulatory challenges."
Prefabricated models and innovative designs make these secondary dwellings cost-effective and quick to install.
Being self-contained they can serve as guest accommodations, rental investments or independent living spaces for family members.
"Granny flats - or secondary dwellings - are increasingly popular as state governments ease restrictions and provide fast-track approvals," Croft said.
"They offer multi-generational living options, support ageing-in-place and can generate rental income. They also help maximise land use in areas where new greenfield sites are limited."
Repurposing shipping containers into homes is not only sustainable but also offers a modern, industrial aesthetic.
Buyers can combine multiple containers to create unique layouts or opt for a single unit for a compact, budget-friendly home. Insulated and weatherproofed, these homes are well-suited to Australia's diverse climate.
"Recycled shipping containers offer a flexible, fast construction method with sustainability appeal," Croft said.
"But they do require careful design to ensure comfort, insulation and long-term durability, as well as understanding the regulatory requirements controlling their use."
Built with natural or recycled materials, these homes often incorporate features like thermal mass construction, solar energy and water harvesting systems.
"These homes sit at the leading edge of environmentally sustainable living, aiming for complete water, waste and energy self-sufficiency," Croft said. "They appeal to those wanting to dramatically reduce their footprint, but come with higher upfront costs, site limitations and ongoing maintenance needs."
---
While alternative housing solutions are gaining momentum, Croft believes they won't replace traditional homes but rather complement them.
"Australia faces the enormous task of delivering 1.2 million new homes over the next five years," he said.
"A more diverse housing mix will help meet that target, but it's critical governments work to remove regulatory red tape and provide clear, nationally consistent planning frameworks."
Australians are increasingly looking beyond the traditional detached home to meet their housing needs, as affordability pressures, changing lifestyles and sustainability goals drive innovation in the housing sector.
Simon Croft, Chief Executive - Industry & Policy at the Housing Industry Association (HIA), said the shift toward alternative housing models reflects a broader rethink about how Australians live.
"We're seeing stronger interest in a much wider range of housing options," Croft said. "Kit homes, tiny homes, granny flats, container builds, earthships and fully off-grid homes are all part of a growing landscape that offers flexibility, affordability and choice."
The range of alternative housing options in Australia showcases the diverse possibilities of modern home ownership and hints at what the future may look like.
Customisable and cost-effective, kit homes are delivered as pre-cut materials, allowing buyers to assemble with minimal construction costs.
They also lend themselves well to off-grid living as many can be outfitted with solar panels and rainwater tanks for eco-conscious buyers.
"Kit homes are often more affordable to purchase and quicker to build, offering a solution for regional or remote areas where labour shortages or transport costs make conventional builds challenging," Croft said.
Often built on trailer platforms, these compact yet efficient dwellings offer mobility and freedom.
Despite their small size, they are cleverly designed to maximise storage and functionality and are especially attractive to younger buyers and retirees seeking an affordable, low-maintenance lifestyle.
"Tiny homes have captured attention for their low cost of ownership, smaller environmental footprint and suitability for those seeking to simplify or downsize," Croft said.
"However, in many areas, planning schemes have not yet caught up to accommodate tiny homes as a mainstream option and they face regulatory challenges."
Prefabricated models and innovative designs make these secondary dwellings cost-effective and quick to install.
Being self-contained they can serve as guest accommodations, rental investments or independent living spaces for family members.
"Granny flats - or secondary dwellings - are increasingly popular as state governments ease restrictions and provide fast-track approvals," Croft said.
"They offer multi-generational living options, support ageing-in-place and can generate rental income. They also help maximise land use in areas where new greenfield sites are limited."
Repurposing shipping containers into homes is not only sustainable but also offers a modern, industrial aesthetic.
Buyers can combine multiple containers to create unique layouts or opt for a single unit for a compact, budget-friendly home. Insulated and weatherproofed, these homes are well-suited to Australia's diverse climate.
"Recycled shipping containers offer a flexible, fast construction method with sustainability appeal," Croft said.
"But they do require careful design to ensure comfort, insulation and long-term durability, as well as understanding the regulatory requirements controlling their use."
Built with natural or recycled materials, these homes often incorporate features like thermal mass construction, solar energy and water harvesting systems.
"These homes sit at the leading edge of environmentally sustainable living, aiming for complete water, waste and energy self-sufficiency," Croft said. "They appeal to those wanting to dramatically reduce their footprint, but come with higher upfront costs, site limitations and ongoing maintenance needs."
---
While alternative housing solutions are gaining momentum, Croft believes they won't replace traditional homes but rather complement them.
"Australia faces the enormous task of delivering 1.2 million new homes over the next five years," he said.
"A more diverse housing mix will help meet that target, but it's critical governments work to remove regulatory red tape and provide clear, nationally consistent planning frameworks."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Pick up the pace': National Housing Accord ‘fell short' last year as demand increased
Housing Industry Association Managing Director Jocelyn Martin says the National Housing Accord to deliver 1.2 million homes over five years 'fell short' last year, and needs to 'pick up the pace' to satisfy Australia's housing demand. 'It's 12 months on since the announcement of 1.2 million homes over five years, which on average is 240 thousand homes a year,' Ms Martin told Sky News Australia. 'Last year we fell well short of that – we were just shy of 170 thousand homes, so definitely going to need to pick up the pace if we're going to even come close to building the amount of homes that Australia needs to satisfy the demand.'
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australian government super tax: Most Australians are far from being affected by new tax on Superannuation, ATO data shows
Known as the super guarantee, this rate has gradually climbed from 9 per cent in 2013 to 12 per cent, beginning this month, meaning younger workers will be contributing a larger slice of their income to their super over a longer period. Chalmers has said Labor's legislation would not increase the $3 million threshold in line with inflation, meaning more people would be pushed past the cap in decades to come, and by which time that amount will not be worth as much in real terms. Loading Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus told Channel Nine's Today program this week that it would be 'a very long time into the future' before the average worker would be affected by the $3 million cap. McManus also said the threshold has 'got to be indexed' to make sure most people do not end up being hit by the new tax rate. Calculations based on the latest ATO data, for example, suggest a surgeon – the highest income occupation in 2022-23 – earning the job's average salary of about $470,000 a year, and contributing 12 per cent to a super fund (returning an average of 5 per cent), would still have to work about 22 years to accumulate $3 million in superannuation. That includes an assumption that their wages grow at 3.5 per cent a year. Under the same assumptions, an individual earning $180,000 would have to work 34 years before reaching the $3 million cap, and a person earning the median salary of $62,000 in 2022-23 would have to work five decades. The data from the Tax Office shows the median super account balance for those earning more than $180,001 grew from nearly $304,000 in 2021-22 to just over $315,000 in 2022-23, while the overall median balance climbed from $57,900 to $60,000. Grattan Institute Housing and Economics Security program director Joey Moloney, meanwhile, says that in 30 years' time, the $3 million threshold will still hit only the top 10 per cent of income earners, and the threshold – like ones for personal income tax – is likely to change under future governments even without indexation. 'There are people forecasting 30-, 40-plus years into the future as if this threshold will never change,' Moloney said. 'That strikes me as a very bold assumption because there'll be 10 electoral cycles in between that.' Moloney also noted that 85 per cent of those with super balances over $3 million are aged over 60 and the super tax change would reduce the pressure on younger Australians because older, wealthier Australians would shoulder more of the burden of budget repair and the ageing population. Latest data from the ATO shows men aged 60 to 64 and women aged 70 to 74 have the biggest median super balances, at just under $225,000, with both seeing a drop-off in the size of their nest eggs after 75. Men in the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia had the highest median super balances in 2022-23, while among women, median super balances were highest in the ACT, South Australia and Tasmania. Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
The Advertiser
17 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
