This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday 4 June 2026.

It is happening again. Australians watching the tax debate over the past few weeks will recognise the choreography, because we have all seen it a dozen times.

The most serious attempts at tax reform in a decade, three weeks out of the gate and before the policy details themselves have had a proper hearing, are collapsing into the same political theatre that has wrecked every reform attempt for 25 years, before the policy details themselves have had a proper hearing.

Different government. Different package. Different cast of critics. A familiar pattern coming into view.

Australians already know the economy is not working the way it should. They feel it every week at the supermarket, at the petrol pump, and in the growing gap between wages and the cost of ordinary life. At the same time, the country is ageing and demand for services is rising. The longer reform is delayed, the less competitive the economy becomes and the harder the adjustment will be for younger Australians who will inherit the bill.

A month ago, alongside business leaders, civil society groups, the welfare sector and the policy community, we signed the National Tax Reform Roadmap. It set out the conditions signatories accepted as the price of taking reform seriously. Avoid reducing complex trade-offs to winner and loser narratives. Contribute to public discussion that reflects the long-term nature of the task. Amplify evidence. Create space for elected representatives to make the value judgements reform requires. Prioritise the national interest over short-term positioning.

All of this was intended to help foster a more constructive reform environment.

We are not writing to defend or attack the government's package, the Coalition's alternative, or any stakeholder raising concerns. There is room in a mature reform debate for hard scrutiny, strong opposition, and deeply held views about what good policy looks like. That is how democracy is meant to work, and we want more of it, not less.

There is still a serious policy discussion to be had about the merits of the proposals. The government’s changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax deserve proper scrutiny on their substance, just as the Opposition’s proposal to introduce indexation deserves the same level of consideration. It is entirely possible that useful ideas exist on both sides of politics, and the purpose of reform debate should be to test them patiently against evidence, rather than revert immediately into partisan trench warfare.

That is ultimately the point we are trying to make. Australia may well be looking at a collection of tax ideas, from different political traditions, that could strengthen the economy over the long term if properly designed and implemented. But once again, the risk is that the debate follows the same trajectory that has derailed reform efforts for the past 25 years: instant outrage, hardened political positions, and a public conversation that becomes more focused on conflict than whether the underlying ideas might actually help the country.

We have seen this movie. Both of us have been in it. The GST debate in 2015 and 2016. The mining tax. The Henry Review. Corporate tax cuts in 2016. Negative gearing in 2019. Each followed the same arc. The case for change was strong. Evidence and analysis were publicly available. The political conditions to sustain the debate did not exist, because too few people outside government were willing to hold the line on a conversation that prioritised our collective national interest. The debate ran its course and the country was left poorer. That cannot be the response again.

The coming Senate inquiry into the government’s tax reform proposal is the next test. It offers a chance to model what a serious debate can look like, even when participants disagree sharply on substance.

Every organisation appearing before that inquiry has the right to argue its position hard. Business will defend investment. Unions will defend workers. The welfare sector will defend low-income Australians. Tax practitioners will raise design concerns. All of it is legitimate, and all of it strengthens reform when done well.

What weakens reform is when arguments are pursued through misleading narratives, refusal to engage on specifics because it doesn’t suit talking points, manufactured victim categories, or campaigns designed to shut the conversation down before the trade-offs have been properly examined.

This is the moment to demonstrate something different. We are asking everyone in this debate, including ourselves, to remember that how this conversation is conducted will decide whether it produces anything at all. The trade-offs are real. They deserve to be examined seriously and honestly explained to the Australian public by everyone who enters this debate.

Mike Baird is a former premier of NSW and chief executive of McKinnon. Anna Bligh is a former premier of Queensland and a member of the McKinnon Institute Advisory Committee.