Franking credits inquiry ends as it began – in disagreement

The Parliamentary Committee inquiry into the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) policy on the removal of refundable franking credits has ended as it began – in disagreement and controversy.

While the Government members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics presented a report harshly critical of the ALP franking credits policy, the Opposition members of the committee presented a dissenting report highly critical of the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted, particularly the involvement of Wilson Asset Management (WAM).

In the final analysis, the majority Government led committee report said the committee “has considered the case for removing refundable franking credits for individuals and SMSFs and is of the view the policy is inequitable, deeply flawed and the timeline is rushed”.

Related News:

“In particular, the ALP’s policy will unfairly hit people of modest incomes who have already retired, and who are unlikely to be able to return to the workforce to make up for the income they will lose,” it said.

“In doing so, the ALP’s policy will force many people, who have saved throughout their lives to be independent in retirement, onto the Age Pension. This defeats the stated purpose of the policy, which is to raise revenue,” the report said.

By comparison, the dissenting report described the whole committee inquiry as having been a “farce from the outset”.

“Using tax payer’s dollars to look at opposition policy proposals has been criticised by many Australians, the media and submitters to this inquiry as a waste of scarce government resources,” it said. This inquiry has been more in the nature of a political campaign, than a parliamentary inquiry at tax payer’s expense.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

And the winner is ...... party politics!

and a waste of taxpayers' money.

The Opposition response is not a response to the issue, it's a response to the fact that the issue has been investigated. If they have a refutation of the finds, I'd be interested in hearing it, but they've never been interested in playing the ball, not the man, on this one.

You could say that about Tim Wilson. You could also ask him to say how much taxpayers paid for his committee.

Add new comment