Baby in drain update, Government's roundtable kicks off.
In today's episode, Ben O'Shea unpacks the harrowing discovery of a baby's body found in a Perth storm drain, a case that has shocked the local community and sparked an outpouring of grief. He also takes a closer look at the Albanese Government's high-profile economic reform roundtable, asking whether the much-hyped three-day summit will deliver meaningful action on productivity, housing and tax reform — or if it risks being dismissed as little more than political hot air.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
30 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Israel weighs Hamas offer of 60-day Gaza truce and hostage release
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision to recognise a Palestinian state of 'pouring fuel on this fire of antisemitism.' The letter, obtained by Sky News, was revealed after N etanyahu slammed Anthony Albanese on social media as a 'weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews.' The spat erupted after the Labor government labelled the retaliatory expulsion of two Australian diplomats from the West Bank as unjustified and disappointing. Netanyahu posted on social media: 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews.' Dated August 17, before the tit-for-tat cancellation of diplomatic visas began, the letter from Netanyahu to Albanese claims that the decision to recognise palestine is appeasement of Hamas. 'It rewards Hamas terror, hardens Hamas's refusal to free the hostages, emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew-hatred now stalking your streets,' the letter claims. Netanyahu called on Albanese to act with resolve to combat antisemitism before September 23, which is the Jewish New Year.
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
After moving a motion of no-confidence in a Rockliff government, has Labor orchestrated one in itself?
Did Labor just successfully orchestrate a no-confidence motion in itself? That's probably the question the party should be asking rather than doubling down on its every decision. Labor leader Dean Winter's much-anticipated motion of no confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and confidence in himself finally came to a head on Tuesday evening — and it spectacularly backfired. How bad do you have to play it that, when compared with an 11-year-old government that has driven the state into debt, bungled berth infrastructure for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships and toyed with the idea of privatising government businesses, you're the worse option? Not only did the opposition fail to gain the support of the Greens, who until recently appeared almost desperate to work with Labor, it could not convince a single other member of the crossbench that it was worthy of government. Not to mention, two of those members of the crossbench voted for the last no-confidence motion in the Liberals. Turns out the alternative was even less appealing. And yet it seems Labor's reaction is that the crossbench got it wrong. Compromise is not the way. The Liberals have sold out. Some will say Labor is right, that it needs to stick to its values and its word. But how good does "right" feel when you have just locked yourself into four more years of opposition (theoretically)? It seems, though, that Labor is not seeing this as a total loss. In a statement after the motion failed, Mr Winter wrote "the Liberals' decade-old Labor-Green scare campaign" had been put to bed and it was now the Liberals in bed with the Greens. "Unlike Jeremy Rockliff, Labor won't abandon workers or make deals behind closed doors," Mr Winter said. "While Jeremy Rockliff caved in to the Greens and compromised his values for power, I stood by workers and did not. "Tasmanians have just witnessed the coronation of a Liberal-Green government, and Tasmanian workers will never forget Jeremy Rockliff's betrayal." Apparently, distancing themselves from the Greens is worth more than not having the power to affect real change. That statement likely says a lot about why Labor pushed ahead with its doomed, no-confidence motion. If it could not grab power then at least it could force the Liberals and the Greens to stand side by side. Because while the crossbenchers made it very clear the vote was not an endorsement of the Liberal government, it was a choice. By choosing not to support the motion, the crossbench has chosen to stick with the status quo, aka the Liberals. And Labor is going to make them pay for that every step of the way. Last year it was the "Liberal-Lambie coalition", this year it's the "coronation of a Liberal-Green government". Labor will no doubt have fun with that. From the opposition benches. But while the Liberals might be rejoicing now, nothing about the next four years (if it gets to that) is going to be easy. It would be a stretch to say Mr Rockliff has the crossbench onside. If anything, he is going to need to work out how to get them onside. They are wary and rightfully so. The Liberals have a track record of promising reviews and then ignoring the findings. They have shown, at times, to be so far from transparent they are bordering on opaque and not to mention that "floating billboard of failure" Spirit of Tasmania IV, which will be sailing into Devonport at the end of the week just to remind everyone it can't be used until the end of next year. Plus the Liberals have broken promises before. They promised taxpayers would spend "$375 million and not a red cent more" on a new AFL stadium, then later said they would use borrowings to cover any shortfall. More recently, they vowed to protect the greyhound racing and salmon industries but then leveraged them to make policy concessions to the crossbench. Not that the crossbench is particularly sad about those last two. But what does it say about Mr Rockliff's word? Labor would argue that it says a lot. That he can vow to support these industries one week and abandon them the next. But do you get to keep all your promises if you fail to win a majority? If 18 is the magic number, the Liberals have three-quarters of a mandate. Labor has just over half. It could stand to reason that if you need to lean on others to govern, you're also going to need to give a little ground. In his speech on the motion, Mr Rockliff said the Liberals' decision to move on certain policy areas was an "acknowledgement that people have spoken". "And this acknowledgement that we are in minority government, and we must respect the views of others." He might have won the day, but there's no denying Mr Rockliff has his work cut out for him. He has to deal with a largely progressive crossbench that would like him to go much further than he has when it comes to his promises on the salmon industry and native forest logging. (They'd end both). On a side note, given the crossbench has been willing so far to accept what Mr Rockliff is offering, it seems they at least know how to compromise. Though Labor might argue otherwise. On the other hand, Mr Rockliff has some very conservative voices in his party who are probably hoping that now they have survived the no-confidence motion, the hard asks are over. Bad news: That work is just beginning. If it wants to survive, the Liberals will need to continue to negotiate, to be up-front, transparent and, yes, compromise. On the face of things, the Liberals — at least some of them — seem aware of this. Members of the crossbench, including the Greens, say Mr Rockliff's language and concessions suggest he has an understanding of how minority parliament needs to work. And the Liberals have made moves that go beyond policy and speak to the way they are hoping to approach this new parliament. They have set up a multi-partisan budget panel that had its first meeting last week. The premier has chosen to forgo any extra portfolios so he can focus on dealing with the crossbench. And they have employed former Liberal MP Nic Street, who is well-liked across the parliament, as a crossbench liaison officer. A position that was desperately needed last time. If they stay on this trajectory, maybe, just maybe, things could work out. After all, they cannot afford to be complacent. They would be remiss to think the crossbench won't throw them out again. Sure, Labor's current tack appears to be doubling down, but they could change course. And Labor is right: Values-wise, they do have far more in common with the crossbench. Look at the legislation they teamed up to pass in the last parliament. If the Liberals forget who is allowing them to stay in power and Labor discovers the ability to compromise, Tasmania could see another change in government. For now, though, Labor is busy licking its wounds and maybe considering a new leader. And there appears to be enough "goodwill" across most of the parliament to try to find a way to make it work for the people they are representing. So hopefully, now, the drama is over (a solid two months after parliament blew up). To borrow a Liberal phrase, they can all just "get on with the job".
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
I've changed my mind about red tape, but cutting it won't solve everything
Another favourite supposed productivity booster would be for the Albanese government to reverse the industrial relations changes it made in its first term, which were intended to shift the balance of bargaining power away from employers and towards employees. Business's third idea is for governments to cut back all the 'red tape' that has tied business up in knots and to improve planning and the approval of major projects. It's not hard to see how this would make businesspeople's lives a lot easier and add a bit to their profits. Loading But here's the thing: it's equally easy to see that reducing excessive regulation and speeding up the approval of major investment projects and even ordinary homes could indeed make a probably small but worthwhile improvement to the economy's productivity. Certainly, those hard-nosed folk at the Productivity Commission are convinced. In her speech on Monday, the commission's boss, Danielle Wood, gave some hair-raising examples of excessive regulatory requirements. One provider told the commission it is required to complete 15 separate accreditation processes across the health and social care services. Another said it was accountable to 350 pieces of legislation and regulations, and has a minimum of 16 program audits every three years – many of which require them to provide the same information over and over. Yet another service provider said the cost of repetitive audits and accreditation processes runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Loading Elsewhere, businesses complain of delays extending to years for the approval or rejection of major construction projects, and many months for ordinary homes. Now, I used to be sceptical of demands to get rid of red tape, fearing they were disguised demands by business fat cats to be able to damage the natural environment wherever they saw fit and build housing anywhere and everywhere. But the greater specificity of the latest proposals has convinced me there's a real problem that is indeed wasting a lot of the private sector's time and money. Part of the problem is government agencies responsible for protecting the environment, or occupational health and safety, or public safety who, in their zeal, set the highest standards without regard for all the other things we need to protect – including our standard of living. They're like the French teacher who wants their students to spend all their time preparing for their French test, at the expense of all the other subjects they're being tested on. But a further complication is overlap between our three levels of government. If businesses in particular fields are being regulated by federal, state and local government, with overlapping and conflicting regulations and separate forms to fill in, this is confusing as well as wasteful. Loading And then you've got the sad truth that government departments and agencies are constantly temped to abuse their power over the rest of us, and often do. We know how private monopolies commonly overcharge and give their customers poor service. They do this for no other reason than that they can. But the government is also a monopoly, and its departments and agencies are just as commonly able to abuse their power over us. They are the law, we can't take our business elsewhere, and if it suits them to wait many months for their approval to build something, that's your problem, not theirs. They save a little by employing too few workers to keep the approval process to time, and you bear the cost of the delay. The more you think about it, however, the more you realise that streamlining regulation, so that a better trade-off between the many conflicting objectives of government is achieved, and the many cases of overlap between the three levels of government, won't be easily or quickly done. Maybe it would take a royal commission, with a continuing monitoring authority, rather than a three-day roundtable.
