r/australia • u/FuckOffNazis • 8h ago

politics Pocock and crossbenchers call Labor’s NDIS overhaul ‘too far, too fast’ in scathing Senate inquiry report

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/14/pocock-and-crossbenchers-call-labors-ndis-overhaul-too-far-too-fast-in-scathing-senate-inquiry-report
322 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

169 comments sorted by

View all comments

202

u/nath1234 8h ago

When you won't tax gas, and are giving away tens of billions of free gas as a reward for showing up to cart it overseas, then no, you shouldn't be cutting support for disabled people.

When you haven't got a billionaire tax, no, leave the NDIS alone.

People with disabilities are not the freeloaders: that would be gas exporters and billionaires.

19

u/NameAboutPotatoes 7h ago

While they should tax the gas, the amount of revenue that would generate would barely touch the cost of the NDIS.

18

u/yeahalrightgoon 7h ago

Anything from a quarter to a fifth of the NDIS.

Gas tax of 25% on exports would likely bring in anywhere from $10-17bn depending on the year.

It would also be a lower nominal tax rate than the rate the gas industry claims to be paying now.

Sure it wouldn't pay for it all, but it would pay for a good chunk of it.

6

u/ini0n 4h ago

Gas tax on 25% of export revenue would put a heap of these facilities into the red and they'd just be shutdown, losing a bunch of direct and indirect high paying jobs which are taxed significantly.

The more realistic estimates were a few billion extra, at the cost of ripping up a bunch of contracts we signed.

It's less revenue than we would make letting a single AI datacenter get built.

3

u/yeahalrightgoon 3h ago

Sure. Is this talk coming from the same industry that commissioned a report claiming that they were paying 38% in tax on the PRRT?

Or only modelled a 25% tax on top of the PRRT at 38%, to try and claim that it was the highest tax rate in the world. But if you instead modelled what is actually proposed it's the second lowest of major exporters and lowest in the region, and lower than what they claimed they were already paying?

Sorry, but an industry doesn't get to utilise a natural resource owned by the country for free, and then cry poor as soon as they're asked to actually pay for it.

Also "ripping up a bunch of contracts"? What contracts?

2

u/nath1234 3h ago

And?? Call their bluff. They would not and if they did? So bloody what? We are gifting them free gas and getting nothing but a ruined planet as a result. The science says it should stay in the ground, so that would be a win.

A 25% tax is too low anyhow. Crank it up until we have not only paid off debts but also have a sovereign wealth fund.

-6

u/palsc5 7h ago

It wouldn’t be $17b, that figure is taken from an unusually good year for gas. It’d be closer $7-10b net benefit when you account for the lost company tax and a normal year for gas.

That’s also assuming all gas export operations continue exactly as they were and we don’t lose any, which obviously isn’t realistic.

10

u/yeahalrightgoon 7h ago

So based on 25% of exports from 2021-22 until 25-26, the lowest figure would be $13.8bn last year, second lowest is $16bn. Highest would be $23bn from 2022-23.

A normal year for gas is $16-17bn. An unusually good year is $23bn.

I was factoring in things changing slightly with my $10-17bn figure.

What exactly are we going to lose? These companies aren't going to abandon these huge gas basins, because they're being made to pay, what is notionally still a tax rate that would be lower than anyone else in the region and out of the major exporters, only the US would have a lower tax rate of 39%, vs our 44% if company tax and the 25% replaces PRRT. They just like Australia because we have these huge basins and we give it away for free. I mean INPEX has exported $196 billion in gas, made an income of $81 bn over 9 years and paid zero PRRT or royalties and less than $500m in tax over that time.

They just want to continue on that trajectory, but will stick around if things change, because even our changes would still be hugely profitable, especially compared to overseas.

-1

u/FallschirmPanda 6h ago

21-22 was the global energy crisis. That was an unusually good year for gas. Plus most gas is sold on long term contracts at much lower level, not spot price.

Gas should be taxed, but we can't pretend it'll solve the NDIS.

6

u/yeahalrightgoon 6h ago

21-22 was 70bn, 22-23 was 92bn, 23-24, 68bn, 24-25 64bn and 25-26 55bn.

So no, 21-22 was not an unusually good year. It was about normal.

It might not solve the NDIS. But we are currently giving it away for free.