23 February 2025

Ken Henry is right, our leaders are selling out the generations to come

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
65
A headshot of Dr Ken Henry AC in a suit and red tie.

Dr Ken Henry says lack of action on tax reform is robbing the next generation. Photo: National Library of Australia.

Former Treasury boss Ken Henry has made a latter-day career out of being a voice in the wilderness about the need for tax reform and the abrogation by elected leaders of their responsibilities to those coming after them.

Dr Henry was at it again at the Per Capita Tax Summit in Melbourne last week, not mincing his words about how self-interest and short-termism were robbing the next generation.

He argued that the country’s tax settings since the Howard government had fuelled inequality and left further generations and young workers “to pick up the tab”.

Our youth were being denied a reasonable prospect of home ownership, burdened by the punishing costs of securing a tertiary education, and would be handed the bill for catastrophic environmental destruction and the increasing costs of carbon abatement and climate change adaptation.

READ ALSO So why are top mandarins paid so much more than the PM?

Dr Henry said this was hardly accidental but more like “wilful acts of bastardry”.

He attacked the kowtowing to the mining and native forest logging industries, which collectively only employed about 2 per cent of the labour force.

“We have political leaders who insist that mining and forestry underwrite Australian prosperity. I will state it plainly. Those who believe this nonsense cannot be trusted with the well-being of future generations,” he said.

Dr Henry said the plunder of natural capital, including non-renewable resources, and environmental degradation, underinvestment in infrastructure, and “public debt accumulated to finance current spending” were the key drivers of inter-generational theft.

This growing inequality should be tackled by broadening the GST, reforming payroll tax and removing taxes on insurance, which stop people from taking out cover.

Capital gains tax should be overhauled to make property more affordable and a greater tax on economic rents, like the high profits of resources, was needed.

He also called for the reinstatement of a carbon tax on Australia’s fossil fuel exports before importing countries did it.

Whether you agree with everything Dr Henry advocates or not, it’s hard to disagree that our major political parties have squibbed when it comes to taking a long-term view, adopting big-picture policies that have the public good at heart and leaving a positive legacy for coming generations.

Rent-seeking constituencies have flourished to the point that any reasonable reform to the tax system is impossible. For example, Labor’s relatively minor changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing and franking credits in 2019 were met with a furious response from vested interests.

We’ve got to the point where the well-off are only rewarded more, despite the impacts on the budget and any sense of actual fairness, and they continue to hold the rest of the nation, especially the young, to ransom.

Labor had six years to undo some of the worst excesses of the Howard-Costello largess, including implementing Dr Henry’s tax review, but didn’t. Traumatised by the 2019 election loss, it has dumped any idea of being a party of reform.

The Coalition remains obsessed with culture wars, cutting taxes, protecting the fossil fuel industry and guardrailing welfare for the rich rather than thinking too deeply about the future. Unless you consider raiding super for house deposits and developing an expensive nuclear power program sometime decades hence visionary thinking.

Labor seems focused on being competent administrators, appearing to be doing something about global warming and not frightening the horses too much to stay in power.

Politics seems to be a game of making a lot of noise but doing as little as possible to warm the treasury benches.

Many of our leaders have done very well, thank you, over the past 20 years, as evidenced by the number of them on all sides of politics with multiple homes.

READ ALSO Palmer to parrot Trump in federal election

If I were a young person today, wondering how to buy a home in a capital city market with median prices of a million or more dollars, with a uni debt, an environment going to hell and being a frog in the pot as global warming wreaks havoc, I would be feeling not just angry but betrayed.

And that’s a positive scenario. What if I were unskilled, enslaved to extortionate rents and virtually disenfranchised?

There is the danger.

In an age of social media-fuelled disinformation, populist demagoguery and blame-seeking, disengaged and alienated youth are ripe for extremism and criminal pursuits.

The antipathy towards getting something as basic as the tax system right as part of good public policy-making is playing with fire.

We need the Ken Henrys to remind our leaders that, in the end, they will be dead, but their works will live on, for better or worse.

We need leaders more like those who returned from a war against fascism determined to build inclusive societies in which everyone had a chance to prosper.

Our young people deserve not just a chance for their own place in the sun but to see that their elders can think about what they leave behind rather than just themselves.

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Our politicians are letting the Australian people down by not creating urgency while we have an economy that is like a wheeling willow, it gives me the impression it wants to live but is always starving water, just like the Australian economy.
For all Trump knockers, let’s look at the positive that Australia needs, it’s called immediate urgency, pro active and progressive, something Australia can learn from.

Incidental Tourist6:56 pm 25 Feb 25

Henry contradicts to himself. He wants to “remove taxes on insurance, which stop people from taking out cover” and at the same time “Capital gains tax (CGT) should be overhauled to make property more affordable”. What does “overhaul” mean? Imposing more CGT or removing it? CGT was introduced by Labor back in 1985 which is when property prices went out of control. How extra tax makes goods affordable? We see how ACT Labor/Greens relentless taxes on real estate ended up with complete disaster. Today the entire generation of young Canberrans is locked out of the home ownership.

Your point about CGT makes no sense.

When CGT was introduced, all assets bought prior to that date were exempt. And the increase in property prices you mention didn’t occur until a few years later, only lasting from 1987-9 before prices flatlined through the early 90’s.

In comparison, it’s well recognised that Howard’s change to CGT combined with negative gearing lit a fire under property prices when it was enacted, with property prices becoming completely separated from key metrics like wage increases and inflation since.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your property spiv fiction.

Incidental Tourist4:26 pm 26 Feb 25

The point I made is that extra tax never make any goods cheaper. This is what Henry says for Insurance. But it looks like everybody agree that more tax makes all goods more expensive except for houses which somehow should make it cheaper? This is what Henry calls “populist demagoguery and blame-seeking”.

The question regarding housing is tax equity, removing distortions, not “more for Incidental Tourist”.

You do put on a brave face of faux-concern for others.

Incidental Tourist9:20 pm 26 Feb 25

I don’t think there is a need to apologise for the “Australian dream”. This is what has built this nation. I am dismayed that things shifted to “populist demagoguery”. I recall Joe Hockey (frmr Treasurer) speech (and you can google it) that if you want a house get a better job and get a mortgage. There were so many attacks “name and shame” him for that. Shame for what? For getting a better job? Or going to a bank to buy your own house?

More self serving nonsense as usual from iTourist. Taxes on property make it less attractive for rent seekers like iTourist to buy up the housing stock as an investment asset. Workers are compensated as Ken Henry advocates for lower income taxation such that workers have more after tax income. Prospective owner occupiers benefit from less demand from investors, more supply available at a lower up front price, and smaller mortgages. Pensioners and recent owner occupiers can be looked after with transition arrangements like tax relief and/or tax deferral to ensure no one is forced out of their home due to an inability to pay.

Incidental Tourist,
Your “point” makes absolutely no sense and is just ridiculous self serving property investor spin.

No one “agrees” with your “point” and the data doesn’t remotely back you up.

Paul Keating wanted sales tax modified not to ever introduce a GST, unfortunately that has created a headache for business owners, today Canberra now under self-government are now hit with higher taxes were as before all Australian tax payers paid for city.

This outline of Dr Ken Henry’s lecture in Melbourne is a good rundown of his intelligent and thought-provoking speech. Dr Henry’s environmental and economic qualifications are too many to list in this comment.

The Melbourne event has been widely reported in their media. It is revealing that our local media has not reported on our event at the NLA, it was booked out.

The video and transcript are available on its website and well worth a watch.
https://www.library.gov.au/whats-on/events/2025-ann-moyal-lecture-dr-ken-henry-ac

Ken Henry, Your generation sold out mine. In the latter stage of the Howard Government money was given away as if it where worth less than water. The problem is ongoing and the can gets kicked further down the road.

HiddenDragon9:22 pm 24 Feb 25

“For example, Labor’s relatively minor changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing and franking credits in 2019 were met with a furious response from vested interests.”

Those “vested interests” included surprising numbers of younger voters who didn’t like the idea of governments getting their sticky fingers further into their own, their parents’ and grandparents’ property portfolios.

Presenting the economic problems and challenges facing the nation as being primarily inter-generational – which this article, the diatribe on which it was based, and many other such outpourings do – is dealing in half-truths (at best) and it’s also less than smart framing (if real change for the better is sought) of issues which are at least as much about socio-economic class as they are about age.

It’s so telling that in all the righteous noise about economic problems and solutions – much of which looks like self-interest artfully dressed up as an heroic commitment to altruistic reform – there is one idea in the December 2009 Henry Report which we never hear about –

“A bequest tax would be an economically efficient way of raising revenue and would allow reductions in other, less efficient taxes.” [Section 4.4]

Even those who love to bolster the case for their favoured economic recipes (usually a variation on the theme of shifting the balance between income and consumption taxes), by quoting other countries which have that recipe on their menu, never mention the point that most OECD countries also impose bequest taxes.

Perhaps that’s because most of the people making most of the noise on this subject have yet to inherit, or don’t much like the idea of sharing their accumulated family wealth with other people’s kids – whatever the case, until the noisy proponents of reform put everything on the table, it’s a bit rich (no pun intended) to expect the political class to put their heads up above the parapets.

Politicians would do well to take Ken Henry’s advice. It’s instructive that only the greens and independents appear willing to listen on tax reform and act in the best interests of all Australians. Labor and the LNP have clearly served vested interests in shifting the tax burden increasingly onto workers while running up debt, and privatising public infrastructure and housing.

Andrew Murphie1:28 pm 24 Feb 25

Great summary of the whole sad situation.

The point is, short-termism is just a symptom of the instant gratification society people have agreed to and the fun and excitement that’s expect above all, often at the expense of anything moral.

Fix the culture, fix the politics. Any other than this is shallow

Seen enough of how you would “fix” the culture. Hard pass.

Stephen Saunders10:52 am 24 Feb 25

Like most “intellectuals” in the top 1%, Henry is totally focused on virtuous commitment to “climate action” and the “net zero” economy.

In the best Treasury traditions, Henry completely overlooks Albanese’s astonishing immigration onslaught, which causes much more “intergenerational” inequality.

Climate change is real, renewables with firming technology are the cheapest form of new energy. Next.

… and immigration in proportion to the population is lower than it has been in decades.

For Stephen Saunders to have a “next” he would need a something “before”. Lacking.

Capital Retro3:29 pm 24 Feb 25

How was action taken against climate change thousands of years ago when the now Sahara Desert was a verdant sub-tropical expanse?
Did the cave men run around thrashing the sunbeams with their clubs?

It was savannah, not a jungle, or even forest or bush.

Troglodytes probably thought whatever they did was successful, given the buildup to a rainfall peak a few thousand years after the last glacial, but they were ignorant of the science on which we now rely, and thus disappointed by desertification during the rise of the Egyptian civilisations. In fact excessive grazing and cropping during decreasing rain and soil conditions may have exacerbated their problems.

Analogous to beating sunbeams with clubs, there are today those who imagine we are unable to model prior and current climatic conditions sufficient to know of human forcing, and steps that must be taken to try to manage humanity’s impact. Fortunately renewable energy makes complete economic sense so that is one of the necessary steps that will progress despite pointless comments from those least informed.

Capital Retro11:34 am 25 Feb 25

Holocene, you are 100 miles offshore and still drifting. Most of us have already woken up to the scam of climate change and renewable energy.
Your use of big words spoken from an elitist position only weakens your resolve to educate us.

There is no need to apologise for having difficulty, Capital Retro, nor any need to under-estimate the ability of people to understand stuff you do not, with no involvement from me.

Why would any government implement the Henry reviews ideas? It is just a list of ways to further burden actual taxpayers to cover irresponsible spending. Maybe look to cut waste before attempting to extract even more money from workers.

How have you got that from what Henry proposed in his review?

It would have actually resulted in workers facing a lower taxation burden than now, along with significantly increased efficiency in the system.

Seeing as it was such a thorough and wide ranging review, which particular recommendations were you opposed to and why?

The huge increase to the tax free threshold for a start, putting more of the tax burden onto fewer taxpayers.
Land tax is also a total scam.
Carbon tax is a scam.
Raising the tax on low income earners and raising GST would causr its own laundry list of issues.
Raising CGT is another scam to extract money from people who aren’t a burden on the budget.

About the only thing I partially agree with is taxing mining more.

By point,
The increase to the tax free threshold and reducing the amount of brackets result in all taxpayers paying less income tax. It makes the entire system less complex and reduces the tax burden on workers, so your point is just flat out wrong.

Creating a broader tax base through increased GST, higher CGT, land taxes and resource rent taxes also mean lower reliance on income tax for government revenue.

You know, less tax on the workers that you claim to support.

Almost seems like what you really want is less tax on rent seekers and investors at the increased expense of workers.

So, Ken M – which taxpayers do you want ‘burdened’ or ‘unburdened’? You don’t like the idea of the increase in the tax-free threshold because it burdens fewer taxpayers, so are you suggesting that we should have flat tax rate from the first dollar earned? Seems not, because you don’t want the tax on low-income earners increased either. You can’t have it both ways. Those who earn more, can afford to pay more. More importantly though, the general theme of the Henry Tax Review was to reduce the tax burden on individuals (e.g. by increasing the tax-free threshold) and increase in taxes from business, resources and reduction of concessions.

What is this comment about people being a ‘burden on the budget’? Sounds like you want a complete user-pays system. Not everyone is able to earn a good income e.g. they may have bad health or a disability or they may have caring responsibilities, or they may be too old to work. Do we just let these people completely fend for themselves? That is not the type of society I want to be part of.

Paying less income tax but being taxed more overall isn’t actually taxing individuals less. It’s just moving where it’s paid. Everybody ends up worse off.

Ken M,
None of those things above are inherently linked to overall higher taxation or government revenue, they are about improving the efficiency of the tax system itself.

Seems you’re perfectly OK with “workers” continuing to face a higher taxation burden than they should.

Every analysis I had ever seen of the Henry review said it would result in higher overall taxation for individuals. I haven’t felt the need to work it out myself, but when even Ken Henry says that his review will result in higher taxation, I’m not going to assume he’s lying.

“Every analysis I had ever seen of the Henry review said it would result in higher overall taxation for individuals.”

Then it should be easy for you to link one.

This last comment from Ken M that he doesn’t really feel the need to work it out pretty much sums it up on the many ill-informed contributions he makes to this site.

Again revealing he is way out of his depth.

I watched Ken Henry’s lecture at the NLA a few weeks ago on this subject and it is available to watch through the Library’s website. And no, not once did Dr Henry’s thought provoking lecture seek to place extra burdens on taxpayper’s to cover irresponsible spending as you claim. The speech was well received with a number of sensible questions.

You should watch it too Ken M you might learn something.

Well here is Ken Henry saying it hinself.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/get-set-for-higher-tax-says-henry-20100121-mo8z.html

I eagerly await your admission of being wrong.

Ken,
That link doesn’t remotely say what you’re claiming and isn’t linked to the review process or outcomes at all.

Henry was making a simple statement that it was likely governmemt tax revenue would need to increase to meet the demands of an ageing population.

This is what you actually said:

“Every analysis I had ever seen of the Henry review said it would result in higher overall taxation for individuals.”

Try again.

I’m pretty sure the article says, very clearly, that Henry has said his review will not reduce taxes, and that taxes will increase. Try again.

2010? Is that how far back in the calendar you had to go in your efforts to defend your previous silly comments Ken M?

Not now, not ever has Ken Henry ever listed or suggested ways to place extra burdens on taxpayers to cover irresponsible spending as you claim.

It is you who should back up your claims!

Ken,
I know you have trouble reading but this is ridiculous.

Firstly, Henry was making a point 15 years ago about the likely position on government revenue requirements, not a position on the purpose or outcomes of the review.

Secondly, even though you’ve had to trawl the records for 15 years to find a statement (not analysis) that you think supports your view, nowhere in the article does Henry mention individuals having to face higher taxation burdens or that the review was designed to achieve that outcome.

Perhaps try reading what you actually wrote, slowly this time

“Every analysis I had ever seen of the Henry review said it would result in higher overall taxation for individuals.”.

Every analysis.

Individuals.

You do realise that taxes on individuals have been significantly increasing since then despite almost none of Henry’s recommendations being enacted right?

Sure thing, “Jack D”. 🤣

It doesn’t matter how far back I went. The fact is Henry himself said taxes would increase by implementing the advice of his review.

Maybe if your mates stopped wasting so much on social engineering, handouts and vanity projects, taxes wouldn’t need to go up to cover it.

I’ll await the Labor social media teams frothing response on their undefendable waste. LOL

Capital Retro9:00 am 24 Feb 25

Sounds like the Australian Institute wrote this.

Sounds like the IPA wrote this.

What is your point capital Retro? Judge the issues/suggestions on their own merit. Stop trying to work out whether you think it is a left or right comment, or from a source you think is left or right leaning.

Capital Retro3:26 pm 24 Feb 25

Aren’t you going to ask Seano what his point is too, Karen10 or you both on the same team?

My point was calling out dumb partisanship, I would have thought that was obvious.

As for “just saying”, what a point is invalid if someone you dislike agrees with it? Talk about dumb. Grow up.

If you have genuine criticisms *cough* for once address Henry’s points on their merits Capital and explain why they’re wrong, I bet you can’t.

Capital Retro4:11 pm 24 Feb 25

Like climate change backed by scientific theory Seano, Henry’s points are purely economic theory.

Thanks for explaining how little you know about either, Capital Retro.

That’s embarrassingly weak even for you Capital. Do you have anything other than is puerile partisanship?

Climate change is backed by irrefutable scientific evidence, adults know this.

And “Henry’s points are purely economic theory” is an embarrassing demonstration of an inability meaningful critique Henry’s points, presumably because they’re over your head.

Capital Retro11:37 am 25 Feb 25

There you go again Hollowscene, talking down to someone who probably has forgotten more than you even know.

Capital Retro11:42 am 25 Feb 25

Climate change theory relies on computer modelling which is like pulling the handle on an old poker machine. It’s not “irrefutable evidence”.
No disrespect to Henry though. He has spent a lot of his spare time and own resources saving the hairy-nosed wombat.

In which you illustrate again, Capital Retro, how little you understand of science and of theories. If that is talking down to you, then I suspect the principal thing you have forgotten is how little you knew in the first place.

You prove it again and again, factually present.

“Climate change theory relies on computer modelling which is like pulling the handle on an old poker machine. It’s not “irrefutable evidence”.”

Clearly not the sharpest tool Capital, you’re confusing proof that the climate is changing and we’re the cause with the modelling to predict future outcomes, which is far more accurate than your silly comment suggests.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

You still haven’t come up with an objective criticism of Henry’s points because they’re above your head as a typical partisan poster.

Get a room you two! 😅

Henry makes some good points, housing affordability is an issue. But blaming this (and inequality) on Howard really is a little lazy. The Gini coefficient was very steady until covid when state and federal policies over-penalised the economy.

It’s hard to work out if the comments about Labor and Coalition governments were attributable to Henry but Labor’s crazy green dream has had a huge negative impact on the young, sending the prices of basic goods and services surging. Labor these days is the party of the elite, sneering at those of us who want less inflation-fuelling government spending and smaller government. And add to that 12 interest rate rises. No wonder today’s Resolve poll has the ALP primary vote at 25% and heading for the exit door.

The thin skin of the Liberal Party boosters is always laughable. Howard should never be forgiven for giving our away our resources for next to nothing.

The major parties don’t deserve our votes, they no longer serve our interests particularly the interests of our children. I’ll be voting for sensible independents again.

The rusted ons who are more partisan than the average football fanatic will of course scream the usual nonsense having either not read the article or being unable to challenge any of the points made because they’re part of the problem.

Yep. The major parties are captured by creditor interests (big capital) and neoliberal econ. Independents, Greens and minor parties is the way to get government to work for the people again.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.