Melbourne Storm slammed by Indigenous elder over Welcome to Country
'A story that goes back to Anzac Day this year was when Welcome to Country ceremonies were being interrupted by people during, particularly … at Anzac Day,' Mr Murray said.
'The Melbourne Storm … decided to cancel a Welcome to Country ceremony not too far away from the dates of Anzac Day. Of course, this exploded in a world of criticism … since the Melbourne Storm have apologised.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
'I'm not motivated by awards,' Eddie Murphy says
Eddie Murphy isn't motivated by accolades - but he'd still love to win an Oscar. The 64-year-old actor has enjoyed huge success in Hollywood, starring in hit film franchises like Beverly Hills Cop and Shrek, but insists he's not motivated by awards. The comedian-turned-actor told Sky News: "The movies are timeless, and they're special, so for years and years those movies play and the movies have commercial success. "So you make a lot of money and people love it, so you don't even think about 'I didn't win a trophy!' The response from the people and that the movie has legs, that's the trophy. "You know what I've earned over these years? One day, they'll give me one of those honorary Oscars. When I'm really old. And I'll say thank you so much for this wonderful honour. I'll be old like that and I'll have no teeth. I'm cool with getting my honorary Oscar when I'm 90." Murphy stars alongside Pete Davidson in The Pickup, the new action-comedy movie, and the actor recently claimed that he has "a lot in common" with Davidson. Murphy also revealed that he relished the experience of working with Davidson, a former Saturday Night Live star. Speaking to Extra, Murphy explained: "I was looking forward to working with him. "I was a fan already from SNL, and we have a lot in common now. We both started doing stand-up when we were really young, and we both started Saturday Night Live when we were really young, and we both lost our dads when we were really young. So, we had a lot in common, and he's a new-generation SNL. So, it was exciting. "I love working with SNL alumni. I feel like a kinship to all of them." Davidson is expecting his first child with Elsie Hewitt but Murphy hadn't offered him any parenting advice. The comedy star said: "I didn't give him any parenting advice. "You know, being a parent is kind of, you know, every kid is different ... You kinda just have to go in there and figure it out on your own. The good thing is that nature has wired us to do the right thing. I think it takes more effort to be a bad parent. "If you love your child, you gotta go out of your way to be a bad parent. And doing the right thing just comes natural. So, I didn't give him any advice."
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive.
Perth Now
6 hours ago
- Perth Now
Keke Palmer shares 'memorable moment' with Eddie Murphy
Keke Palmer experienced "one of [her] most memorable moments" on the set of The Pickup. The 31-year-old actress stars alongside Eddie Murphy in the new comedy movie, and Keke has recalled mistaking Eddie's acting for real praise. Speaking to Sky News, Keke shared: "First of all, Eddie gives me this big speech before I do the monologue, where he's like, 'this is not playing around. This is a pivotal point in the movie'. "I'm crying in the scene, and then it comes to the end, and Eddie's [clapping] like, and I'm literally like, 'oh my gosh, thank you so much'. And he's like, 'I'm acting'. When I tell you, it was so crazy, yeah. That's like one of my most memorable moments in life." Keke considers Eddie to be an icon of the movie industry, even though he's been overlooked for numerous accolades over the years. Speaking to her co-star, Keke said: "I feel like recognition and [being] underrated and all this stuff, it annoys me a little bit because I think impact is really the greatest thing, like how people were moved by your work, which can't really be measured by an award or really anything. "It's very hard to make people laugh, and so when I think about it like The Nutty Professor, Eddie was doing everything, and I swear that the family members were real people. "He didn't camp it to the point where they weren't realistic. His roles had integrity, even when he was in full costume. And I do think that's something that should change in our industry. "Comedy, it should be looked at just as prestigious as when you see somebody cry, because it's that hard to make somebody laugh." Meanwhile, Eddie insists he's not motivated by accolades. The veteran comedy star said: "The movies are timeless, and they're special, so for years and years those movies play and the movies have commercial success. "So you make a lot of money and people love it, so you don't even think about 'I didn't win a trophy!' The response from the people and that the movie has legs, that's the trophy."
