Overzealous environment laws could risk new green energy: WA
WA is embarking on a massive build-out of thousands of kilometres of energy transmission to support a move to green energy over the next decade.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
The simplest solution to a taxing problem is upping GST
For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'raises eyebrows' in Washington by shying away from US in John Curtin address
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision to downplay the US alliance in a major address has rattled the diplomatic relationship amid an AUKUS review, defence spending tensions and criticism from the Trump administration. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has 'raised eyebrows' in the United States at a time of growing disunity, sparking further concerns about his relationship with Washington. In his weekend address at the 80th anniversary of former prime minister John Curtin's death, Mr Albanese distanced Australia from its history as a close ally of the US. He said that Australia would pursue its interests as a 'sovereign nation' and not be 'shackled to the past', after Mr Curtin led the country through WWII as a close ally of the US. Mr Albanese declared the US alliance should be seen as a 'product' of Mr Curtin's leadership in foreign, but not the 'extent' of it. 'Curtin's famous statement that Australia 'looked to America' was much more than the idea of trading one strategic guarantor for another,' Mr Albanese told the John Curtin Research Centre. 'It was a recognition that Australia's fate would be decided in our region.' The comments have been interpreted by policy experts as a rhetorical step away from the US alliance, and risk being seen in Washington as a signal of diplomatic divergence. Former Trump senior advisor Christian Whiton weighed in on the Prime Minister's speech, telling Sky News that it would be met with "skepticism" by the US. 'I think you have to look at it as sort of a globalist, soft on China signal,' Mr Whiton said on Sunday. 'Maybe it's one that the United States invited because, you know, the review of AUKUS is sort of an own goal situation; it's a little unclear." Mr Whiton added that the Australian-US relationship was enduring and that the two countries' shared history was "more important than any verbiage back and forth" "There's a lot of mixed messages going on," he said. Retired major general of the Australian Army Mick Ryan also told Sky News that Mr Albanese's speech would "raise eyebrows in the US capital". "There was a huge amount of enthusiasm for talking down any threat whatsoever posed by China (in the speech)," Mr Ryan said. "The fact that the US wasn't mentioned, not just in the current concept, but also its great contribution to Australia's defence in the Pacific War will really affect many of our friends in the United States." It comes as the AUKUS agreement has come under review by the US Pentagon, a defence pact that was set up to enhance US involvement in securing the Indo-Pacific region. Nationals deputy leader Kevin Hogan warned on Sunday that Mr Albanese had failed to prioritise the US relationship since President Donald Trump was elected in November 2024. 'Given the importance of that country, not just on the economic relationship we have, but the national security relationship, it should be (embarrassing) to all Australians,' Mr Hogan said. 'We know the US is doing a review into AUKUS as well, and the fact our two leaders haven't had a chat and Albanese hasn't been able to secure that is absolutely embarrassing.' — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) July 5, 2025 Tensions rise following AUKUS friction The fallout from Mr Albanese's speech followed weeks of growing strain in the trilateral AUKUS security pact after the US Pentagon ordered a review of the deal. A US defence official said the review would ensure the pact met President Trump's 'America First' agenda, amid criticism of Australia's comparatively low level of defence spending. That decision came before Australia and the UK adopted what critics described as 'ambiguous' positions on President Trump's recent strikes against Iran. Mr Albanese waited 24 hours before his government issued a carefully worded statement that stopped short of endorsing the US strikes, calling instead for 'de-escalation' and 'dialogue'. That response was branded 'flat-footed' by the opposition, with acting shadow foreign affairs minister Andrew Hastie saying Mr Albanese 'should have stood up and spoken to the Australian people'. 'Sending out a government spokesman to make a brief comment about one of the biggest events to happen in the last five years was not good enough,' Mr Hastie said at the time. The perceived reluctance to back US action in the Middle East likely deepened concerns in Washington over Australia's reliability as an ally. The Trump administration has been publicly frustrated by the Albanese government's resistance to increasing defence spending to 3.5 per cent requested by USDefence Secretary Pete Hegseth. The Albanese government has committed to spending 2.3 per cent of GDP by 2033, far shy of the 5 per cent agreed to by NATO allies by 2035. PM dismisses concerns Despite the mounting concerns, Mr Albanese has downplayed the idea of a rift between Australia and the US. Speaking at the Sky News/The Australian's Economic Outlook forum on Friday, he insisted that he was 'not worried' about relations with the United States. He said he was confident in getting a meeting with President Trump, even after their scheduled meeting at the G7 in Canada was abruptly cancelled. President Trump then failed to follow up with a phone call, despite speaking with other world leaders, and no meeting has been booked in since. 'I'm not worried by someone making an understandable decision, which he did, to return to Washington,' Mr Albanese said of the cancelled meeting on Friday. 'Of course, we will have meetings. There will be a range of meetings between now and the end of the year with President Trump.'
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
ADF must stop closing ranks on sexual abuse of servicewomen
The Australian Defence Force's continuing inertia on the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and Ben Roberts-Smith, VC, suggests it is locked in a purgatory of its own creation. It only gets worse. Now the organisation has been revealed as failing to protect servicewomen from predators within its own ranks. Using classified reports and other secret material, the Herald and 60 Minutes have shown how officialdom has betrayed women who have been victims of sexual violence by fellow servicemen, leaving them ignored, sidelined and marginalised. Loading Reporter Nick McKenzie and producer Garry McNab interviewed former servicewomen who suffered sexual assaults and then endured the pain that followed, a suffering that turned into anger heightened by the ADF's failure to help them heal. Their harrowing stories include: the accused rapist who returned as a Defence contractor only to be charged with another rape; the high-ranking SAS officer who assaulted a fellow female officer at a reunion; and the junior airwoman assaulted at knife-point who was forced out and hit by a military gag order that the ADF refuses to remove. The ADF has been wrestling with its dismal record on protecting women servicemen since the 2013 'Skype scandal' at Duntroon, where a male trainee officer filmed a sexual encounter with a female trainee and broadcast it live to other male trainees. It triggered the largest organisational reform effort in Defence's history. But apparently to little avail. The royal commission's September 2024 report into defence and veteran suicide described data showing almost 800 reported sexual assaults over the past five years – a number it warned concealed the true scale of the problem given an estimated under-reporting rate of 60 per cent and the military's failure to 'accurately quantify' all cases of sexual misconduct. The commission also found an unknown number of ADF personnel with sexual offence convictions for attacks on their colleagues were still serving. Ludicrously, more than nine months after the commission demanded a fresh, focused inquiry into military sexual violence, the Albanese government has yet to announce who will lead the investigation and its terms of reference. Even Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, who as ADF chief of personnel is leading reform efforts to combat sexual violence, is in the dark. Asked to respond to the woman now speaking out, Fox admitted the ADF had failed to protect servicewomen. 'I'm sorry we weren't there when you needed us,' she said. Such behaviour is not tolerated in other workplaces. The Albanese government's prevarication is unconscionable. But the ADF's inaction on so many fronts is the stuff of powerful hierarchies with their own codes and loyalties. No institution, whether cloaked in khaki, clerical or any other garb, should ever be a law unto itself.
