Sussan Ley becomes the first female Liberal federal opposition leader
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ABC issues gag order on 'activist' staff pushing their own agendas on social media after Antoinette Lattouf debacle
Australia's public broadcaster has hit employees with new speech rules and social media restrictions following the Antoinette Lattouf case. The guidelines were announced by ABC editorial director Gavin Fang in an all-staff email on Wednesday. They will replace the previous rules, which were in place when the Federal Court ruled ABC unlawfully terminated Lattouf's employment after she shared a social media post relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Company workers have been told to avoid posting material on social media, as well as other public platforms including online petitions and WhatsApp groups, that could arguably compromise ABC's editorial independence. ABC managing director Hugh Marks previously admitted the Lattouf incident had highlighted the 'confusion' about the company's guidelines for employees' personal social media use. ABC's new policies apply not just to employees on social media, but also while in attendance at public events. The standards apply to 'any context where comments may reasonably be expected to reach a public audience'. In the document, ABC employees are told they must not make public comments that 'undermines your perceived or actual ability to perform your role; undermines the independence or integrity of the ABC or any ABC editorial content; implies ABC endorsement of your personal views; is on behalf of the ABC, or in a way that could be seen as representing the ABC, without prior authorisation'. The new guidelines state a worker's contract may include 'specific restrictions' regarding public comment. 'Public comments that do not meet the standards set out in these guidelines will be managed by line management, in consultation with People & Culture and Editorial Policies where required and may constitute a breach of the ABC's Code of Conduct,' the rules read. 'A breach of the Code of Conduct will be dealt with in accordance with the relevant ABC employment contract and/or enterprise agreement and may lead to disciplinary action, including possible termination of employment,' reported Lattouf was hired for ABC Radio on a five-day presenting role in Sydney in December 2023 before being fired. She was let go after just three shifts after sharing a Human Rights Watch post that said Israel was using starvation as a 'weapon of war' in Gaza. Justice Darryl Rangiah, who delivered his judgment in Sydney's Federal Court in June, found the ABC contravened the Fair Work Act by terminating Lattouf's employment. He ruled the broadcaster had breached the act by firing the presenter 'for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. Justice Rangiah found pro-Israel lobbyists formed an 'orchestrated campaign' to pressure then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose to take Lattouf off air. The ABC claimed that they had given Lattouf a 'direction' not to 'post anything on social media that would suggest she was not impartial in relation to the Israel/Gaza war'. But Justice Rangiah found that an email campaign from pro-Israel supporters alleged Lattouf 'expressed anti-Semitic views, lacked impartiality and was unsuitable to present any program for the ABC'. 'The complaints caused great consternation amongst the senior management of the ABC,' he said. Justice Rangiah found that instead of being given a 'direction' from senior ABC management, Lattouf was 'merely provided with advice that it would be best not to post anything controversial about the war'. 'That advice was also qualified by an indication that posting fact-based material from a verified source would be fine.' The ABC was ordered to pay Lattouf compensation of $70,000.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
IIt's time Australia ditched the ‘winners and losers' mentality and built an economy that's best for us all
As pens and notepads were being laid out for start of the much-touted economic roundtable on Monday, the chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, made a number of dark observations in an address to the National Press Club. People in their 30s today, Wood told us, are the first generation to be worse off than those born in the previous decade in terms of earnings, housing affordability, budget burden and climate impacts. Her comments laid bare how important reform of so many aspects of the economy and regulation are if this situation is to change. The flipside of the situation facing millennials is the largesse that has been laid out for the boomers, such as tax breaks on housing and superannuation that benefit those with already substantial resources, but add to the tax burden of lower-income households who can't get their foot in even one door. Quite obviously, not every boomer in Australia is sitting back with multiple investment properties and a multimillion dollar super balance. But boomers were three times more likely to own their own home in their 30s than their counterparts today are. And so, while millennials cry out for change, boomers resist even reasonable adaptation such as the removal of tax exemptions on super balances over $3m or phasing out negative gearing. And it's not just millennials v boomers. Before seats had been taken at the roundtable, business and unions were firing off at each other over issues such as working from home, work week length and AI adoption. Then add to all that the intense bipartisanship we now see in politics and it's a wonder anyone sat down together at all. And this is the rub. When it comes to policy decisions, too many are too quick to focus on what's in it for them instead of what is best for society as a whole. So, if we make housing more affordable for younger generations, those who are already on the housing merry-go-round cry 'unfair'. Increased density proposals are met with cries of 'Not in my back yard!' If we set much-needed strong climate targets to contribute to reducing the horror show of unnatural disasters that have already become much more frequent, and encouraging investment in green industries, then a narrow segment of vested interests (mainly fossil fuel polluters) focus only on the jobs that will be lost. They conveniently ignore the many more green jobs that will be created, not to mention the vast costs from failure to act imposed on individuals, the economy and the budget bottom line each time these exacerbated disasters unfold. We cannot deny that some policies, even as they contribute to national wellbeing overall, come with a cost to specific sectors or regions or even individuals. The go-to book in Canberra at the moment is Abundance, written by two American journalists, and described by the treasurer as 'a ripper'. Much of the book is devoted to the costs associated with trying to keep everybody happy, but ultimately only delivering increased regulation that leaves us all worse off. And the Abundance authors are perhaps right in saying we have moved too far in the direction of trying to prevent every possible loss at the expense of collective societal gain. (The authors are also silent on the deliberate spread of disinformation around supposed harms which also create barriers to progress. Think of the nonsense around whales and windfarms). Much like the Abundance authors, Danielle Wood says: 'Ministers should always weigh up the impacts of new policies on economic growth and productivity.' This is true, particularly when it comes to 'regulatory burden'. (As an aside, it's worth noting that for all the hype about 'red tape' – and there certainly are complex and duplicative processes facing business – Australia rates very highly by international standards in terms of regulatory quality. On one measure at least, we are second only to Singapore). But I'm not entirely convinced that a 'growth mindset', to use another current Canberra buzz phrase, doesn't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we only look at policy from the overarching perspective of growth and productivity, as important as these are, then we overlook other important considerations and by doing so add fuel to the 'us and them' fire. And that makes building a widespread consensus of support extremely difficult. The most critical of these considerations is distributional impacts. Inevitably, big policy reforms will rarely deliver a 'win' for everyone. But instead of pretending this is not the case, governments should be upfront both around the challenges and how they intend to address the impacts on those who may be disproportionately disadvantaged and unable to adjust without support. For example, when we introduced a carbon price scheme in Australia in 2012, widespread compensation was designed for trade-exposed industries and low-income households. When the costly support for the domestic car industry was finally removed, state and federal governments brought in a raft of programs to support workers and businesses in the supply chain. Such solutions may not be perfect but without them we are doomed to be stuck in an economy and society that delivers worse results for successive generations. Surely, we have had enough of that. The two defining crises of Australia today, I believe, are housing affordability and climate change. Required policies on both fronts involve trade-offs for some individuals, while delivering overall benefits to society. Let's stop the 'us and them', 'winners and losers' mentality and focus on planning for solutions such as density done well, credible biodiversity management schemes and regional economic development. Instead of placing barriers to reforms with a narrow, vested-interest mindset, I hope those at the roundtable discussions this week will focus on what is best for all of us. And, if it helps, keep the situation facing today's 30 year-olds in sharp focus and let that not be your legacy. Nicki Hutley is an independent economist and councillor with the Climate Council
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
How do we decide if a tax is good or bad? And which ones are ‘damaging' Australia's economy?
How do we judge whether one tax is better than another? That question will lie at the heart of the tax reform agenda at the economic reform roundtable on Thursday. Four principles have guided tax reform over the decades: efficiency, equity, simplicity and sustainability (or revenue adequacy). All are important. But with productivity growth the name of the game, let's focus on the first: efficiency. Stephen Bartos, a professor of economics at the University of Canberra and a former deputy secretary at the Department of Finance, says taxes inevitably affect behaviour – but 'some taxes are a lot better for the economy than others'. When it comes to efficiency, a core concept is to design a tax system as simple as possible to not discourage productive activities such as work and investing. Chris Murphy, an honorary senior lecturer at the Australian National University, has for decades been a central figure in modelling the impact of tax reform, including the introduction of the GST and the landmark Henry tax review. Murphy has updated his estimates of various taxes' 'marginal excess burden' – the additional economic cost of a tax beyond the revenue raised. His modelling suggests raising the rate of the GST imposes an additional 30c cost to the economy for every dollar raised. Broadening it, he says, comes with a marginal excess burden of 13c. That makes the GST more efficient than personal income taxes (a 48c loss of economic welfare for every $1 of revenue raised) and company taxes (65c). Sign up: AU Breaking News email Speaking at the National Press Club this week, Danielle Wood, the chair of the Productivity Commission, explained that 'generally, anything that switches out higher cost, higher economic-drag taxes for lower cost, more efficient taxes will give you a productivity dividend'. 'Equally, anything that broadens the base of a tax, which winds back concessions but then reduces the rate, will give you an economic kicker.' Four of the five least efficient taxes are at state and territory level. This makes it difficult to coordinate shifts away from more damaging but highly lucrative taxes. The 'worst' taxes on Murphy's measure are the land tax on investment properties (92c of economic damage for every $1 in revenue raised), followed by stamp duties on the purchase of homes (74c) and taxes on insurance (69c). Wood said it was 'very clear' from modelling that 'stamp duties stand out as kind of exceptionally economically damaging taxes'. When experts talk about switching from inefficient stamp duties to a land tax, they are talking about a broad land tax that applies to all homeowners. Murphy says a broad land tax is equivalent to municipal rates – which, as the analysis shows, is a very efficient tax (a 4c offset in extra economic welfare per dollar of revenue raised). Efforts to transition to a more stable and less distortionary land tax have proved a step too far for even the most willing of state leaders. That's why any commonwealth-led discussion on tax reform has to include the states and territories, Bartos says. 'The only way to get the states on side is if you compensate them,' he says. 'Probably the only way to do that is to increase the GST rate or broaden its base' to include excluded items such as fresh food, education and health services. 'Broadening the GST would have the added benefit of simplifying the system.' Luke Yeaman, the Commonwealth Bank's chief economist and a former Treasury deputy secretary, says there is theoretically a strong case for using increased GST revenue to pay for income tax relief – a switch that has wide support among many experts. But cash-strapped states were unlikely to want to make this deal with the commonwealth. 'If you want lower income taxes, you'd have to do some other broader deal with the states, for example, around health funding or education funding, where you agree to provide less on the health and education side, and they claim the extra GST revenue,' he says. 'I think that proves very difficult at the moment in a world where the states are cash-constrained.' Yeaman agrees there could, however, be scope to use any increase in GST revenue to pay for states to get rid of inefficient taxes such as stamp duties. While state-level mining royalties schemes are lucrative for governments such as Queensland, Murphy's analysis shows they are much more inefficient than federal mining 'rent' taxes, which target excess profits. The petroleum resource rent tax, for example, has an offsetting 8c for the economy for every dollar raised. That's in part because foreign owners of the gas companies pay the tax, Murphy says. Bartos explains that 'the problem with royalties is basically you are taxing production, and so that acts as a direct disincentive'. 'A rent tax taxes super profits over and above normal profits, and in that sense they don't distort production at all. That makes them a much better form of tax.' Bartos' high level verdict on Australia's broad tax settings echoes the expert consensus: 'Australia's tax system is weighted too heavily to taxing income and not wealth. 'That encourages people to salt away wealth in unproductive things.' Labor is already chipping away at overly generous tax concessions for Australians with more than $3m in superannuation. But it has balked, at least so far, at suggestions for trimming tax breaks for residential property investors, which also overwhelmingly favour the rich. 'Sadly, the least likely to be on the agenda is inheritance taxes,' Bartos says. 'That doesn't distort behaviour – people are not going to put off dying because they have to pay tax. 'And it actually is a very efficient tax to levy and Australia is really unusual to be one of the few countries to not have some form of inheritance tax. It is very much a political no-no in Australia.' Patrick Commins is Guardian Australia's economics editor
