What I’m about to say is probably not fair, but I’ll say it anyway.

When working in party politics, you soon develop a sensitive antenna which sorts all the tidbits of information everywhere into two buckets: (a) is it good for us; or (b) irrelevant.

The good for us bucket is itself split into two containers: does it make them look bad, or us good? Often what makes one look bad simultaneously makes the other good. An example of this is the agreement between 25 nations at COP28 to triple nuclear power capacity; it makes Albanese look bad, and Dutton good.

I like watching Opposition spokespersons twist and turn their words in the face of economic bad news, such as a higher unemployment rate. Such news is good for the alternative government, but who dares be seen celebrating on the heads of sacked workers?

The longer in politics, the faster and more forensic becomes your antenna, and you realise that a key source of information manufacturing is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). It publishes data on the most politically sensitive topics – unemployment, growth, household income, savings, inflation, debt, crime, wages, credit, immigration, etc.

It acts like a confetti cannon, throwing facts into the political arena at 11.30 am most days, and causing everyone to run around, grasping, analysing, and wondering what ‘the line is’.

The nature of the ABS publications can make things even more frenetic, because they rarely ever provides much context or explanation, so a vacuum is created and everyone tries to fill it with their ‘narrative’.

If inflation spikes, well, let’s put that down to Putin, Ukraine, or price gouging. How about the pandemic, can we still use that?

What’s really interesting is the political convention governing how to play it. The core convention is this: if your party holds office at the time, and released ABS data covers a period when you were in charge, then you own that data and will be held to account.

No one ever questions this convention, even though it is largely nonsense. Data released while Albanese is Prime Minister will reflect as much the decisions of Morrison and Turnbull as they will his own.

But a convention is a convention, so here goes.

Since taking office in May 2022, the average amount of tax raised in Australia is equivalent to 26.52 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is the highest average level of any government since 1959, albeit not by much. In political speak, Albanese is the highest-taxing Prime Minister of all time.

Of course, Albanese has governed for just 18 months compared to some governments that ruled for more than a decade. However, on average, so far, he’s recorded the highest tax take as a percentage of GDP. That may change in the future, but he holds the trophy right now.

Given the gravity of my claim, it is important to explain the data.

Firstly, the statistic is a ratio of two numbers: tax revenue is the numerator, and GDP is the denominator. This allows comparison and enables comparison overtime.

Both of these data series are what’s called ‘seasonally adjusted’ and ‘original’, and are published every three months (quarterly) since 1959.

The ABS tax revenue data is close to but not the same as that published by the Federal government as part of its annual and mid-year budget processes.

The chief benefit of using the ABS national accounts data is that it is published on a quarterly basis. This helps is deciding where to allocate data points when government changes in the middle of a data period.

The GDP figure used in the denominator is a national figure, covering production in the whole of Australia. In contrast, the tax revenue figure excludes revenue from the main local and state-based taxes: land taxes, payroll tax, gambling taxes, and local government municipal rates.

Note however, even if these taxes are included in the total revenue figure, the conclusion is the same: Albanese still leads the highest taxing government on record.

Another important note relates to government debt. Government spending is financed from both taxation and debt. Debt is really just deferred tax, so some argue that total government spending is a better proxy for total tax. That’s a debate for another time.

What’s clear is that the current government is getting pretty nervous about the amount of tax being collected. Treasurer Jim Chalmers was quick to point out recently that it was important to give back ‘bracket creep’ – this is a term describing the higher take of tax as inflation pushes wages into higher brackets.

The record tax take also explains why Albanese and Chalmers have been steadfast in keeping the Stage 3 tax cuts, despite a big push back from special interest groups that are reliant on taxpayer funding.

My guess is that, for the current government, Stage 3 can’t come quick enough.

(By the way: out of loyalty to a former boss, I’m not disclosing here which government recorded the second-highest average level of tax per GDP.)

---

Nick Hossack is a public policy consultant. He is former policy director at the Australian Bankers’ Association and former adviser to Prime Minister John Howard.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in