Pro-Palestine march shows how much Australians want the ‘hostilities to end'
Pro-Palestine protests occurred across Australia in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Mr Husic told Sky News Australia that people want the 'impact on kids' in Gaza to be addressed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese can make roundtable work for him, no matter where he sits on it
For those who doubt the effect of these changes, go and ask the populations of our AUKUS partners, Britain and the United States, how their health and retirement systems are going. The motivation behind the Accord was the labour movement's resolve to never repeat the errors that had contributed to the swift downfall of the Whitlam government: chiefly the lack of co-ordination between the unions and the party, and the failure to understand the implications of rampant wage claims made as the economy was suffering a shock from oil prices. In other words, the movement had to learn from its mistakes. In the 80 years since the end of World War II, the Labor Party has been elected to office from opposition only four times. Two of those governments – one headed by Gough Whitlam, the other by Kevin Rudd (twice) and Julia Gillard – went down the chute after just two terms. Both experienced sustained periods of internal chaos and failed to live up to their promise. The Hawke-Keating government is the standout success in the entire history of the ALP. It's still early days for the Albanese government, which is now in what was for the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard outfits the death zone of a second term, but its early defenestration looks unlikely. A record lower house majority and a slide in the fortunes of the Liberals and the Greens offer the prospect of a sustained incumbency. The Albanese government is writing its own electoral script. The common experience of new governments from the early 1980s was that they were elected with a substantial majority that was reduced at the next election. Under Albanese, it has worked the other way around, with Labor just getting over the line in 2022 and then securing a landslide second time up. Right now, it is governing from an incredibly strong position. How could the government blow it? By not seizing the opportunity it's been given by the 8,553,231 Australians who voted for it. Those voters, who represented 55.2 per cent of the national electorate, want the country's problems fixed by the government. The extent of those problems has been demonstrated by the evolution of the roundtable, which began six months ago as an idea for a forum to find ways to kickstart productivity growth. It was not to be a summit that would produce a binding communique. Instead, it would be looser and smaller, with invitees asked to come with ideas, a spirit of consensus and a sense of shared responsibility. But as the lead-up to the roundtable has proceeded and the ambit proposals from stakeholders have dribbled out, it became more difficult to limit its remit to productivity. Fair enough, too, because the economic challenges are interconnected and go beyond that. Loading Quickly, to the government's discomfort, a focus on tax emerged. In any event, in a period when the care economy – a sector in which productivity is naturally difficult to measure – is big and guaranteed to grow, and artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionise most aspects of work, what will become of the existing concept of productivity? It follows that if a meeting convened by the national government has economic reform in its title, it needs to generate substantial results. The smartest thing the government can do will be to see the roundtable as an opportunity to expand its policy options, regardless of whether the industry groups or any other stakeholders play a spoiler role or not. If it tries to 'manage' the outcome, it will be shooting itself in the foot and letting down the people who gave it power. Chalmers, as a former staffer of Wayne Swan, treasurer in the Rudd and Gillard governments, will recall what happened to the 2010 Henry review of the tax system commissioned by the Rudd government. The review made 138 recommendations, only three of which the government took up. It was a political and policy disaster. And having studied Paul Keating's political career, Chalmers also knows about the ambitious and far-reaching tax changes Keating introduced in the Hawke government's second term. At the 1984 election, Labor pledged to hold a tax summit if re-elected. After the summit in 1985, Keating cut the marginal tax rate from 60 to 49 per cent and introduced a tax on capital gains and fringe benefits, along with a range of other changes to such things as wholesale sales tax and the company tax rate. Several measures, especially the fringe benefits tax, faced serious pushback from vested interests. The government had no direct mandate for those outcomes, but it pushed ahead and got them through. It was rewarded by voters for its courage, winning in 1987, 1990 and 1993. The roundtable could turn out to be a bust, as some critics have predicted, but that shouldn't matter. If it founders on the rock of self-interested pandering or head-in-the-sand behaviour, Albanese should say it was worth a try, thank the participants for coming, and then get on with doing big things anyway. There is an appetite for this in the community, especially among younger voters, who are getting the rough end of the economic pineapple. Loading A report this week found that house prices are 14 times the annual average wage. To let this continue would be unconscionable and a social catastrophe. The prime minister and treasurer are breathing rare air. They will never get a chance like this again. Then again, who's to say they actually share any historically significant, politically risky ideas for the economy? Postscript: What of my massive career-defining national scoop in 1983? Four paragraphs appeared in a late edition on a left-hand page deep inside the paper, with no byline. On the following Monday morning, I got a call from a senior colleague on the chief of staff's desk, a decent bloke: 'Mate, the other papers have got some of the details of this Labor-unions agreement that they're voting on today. Have you seen it?'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Albanese can make roundtable work for him, no matter where he sits on it
For those who doubt the effect of these changes, go and ask the populations of our AUKUS partners, Britain and the United States, how their health and retirement systems are going. The motivation behind the Accord was the labour movement's resolve to never repeat the errors that had contributed to the swift downfall of the Whitlam government: chiefly the lack of co-ordination between the unions and the party, and the failure to understand the implications of rampant wage claims made as the economy was suffering a shock from oil prices. In other words, the movement had to learn from its mistakes. In the 80 years since the end of World War II, the Labor Party has been elected to office from opposition only four times. Two of those governments – one headed by Gough Whitlam, the other by Kevin Rudd (twice) and Julia Gillard – went down the chute after just two terms. Both experienced sustained periods of internal chaos and failed to live up to their promise. The Hawke-Keating government is the standout success in the entire history of the ALP. It's still early days for the Albanese government, which is now in what was for the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard outfits the death zone of a second term, but its early defenestration looks unlikely. A record lower house majority and a slide in the fortunes of the Liberals and the Greens offer the prospect of a sustained incumbency. The Albanese government is writing its own electoral script. The common experience of new governments from the early 1980s was that they were elected with a substantial majority that was reduced at the next election. Under Albanese, it has worked the other way around, with Labor just getting over the line in 2022 and then securing a landslide second time up. Right now, it is governing from an incredibly strong position. How could the government blow it? By not seizing the opportunity it's been given by the 8,553,231 Australians who voted for it. Those voters, who represented 55.2 per cent of the national electorate, want the country's problems fixed by the government. The extent of those problems has been demonstrated by the evolution of the roundtable, which began six months ago as an idea for a forum to find ways to kickstart productivity growth. It was not to be a summit that would produce a binding communique. Instead, it would be looser and smaller, with invitees asked to come with ideas, a spirit of consensus and a sense of shared responsibility. But as the lead-up to the roundtable has proceeded and the ambit proposals from stakeholders have dribbled out, it became more difficult to limit its remit to productivity. Fair enough, too, because the economic challenges are interconnected and go beyond that. Loading Quickly, to the government's discomfort, a focus on tax emerged. In any event, in a period when the care economy – a sector in which productivity is naturally difficult to measure – is big and guaranteed to grow, and artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionise most aspects of work, what will become of the existing concept of productivity? It follows that if a meeting convened by the national government has economic reform in its title, it needs to generate substantial results. The smartest thing the government can do will be to see the roundtable as an opportunity to expand its policy options, regardless of whether the industry groups or any other stakeholders play a spoiler role or not. If it tries to 'manage' the outcome, it will be shooting itself in the foot and letting down the people who gave it power. Chalmers, as a former staffer of Wayne Swan, treasurer in the Rudd and Gillard governments, will recall what happened to the 2010 Henry review of the tax system commissioned by the Rudd government. The review made 138 recommendations, only three of which the government took up. It was a political and policy disaster. And having studied Paul Keating's political career, Chalmers also knows about the ambitious and far-reaching tax changes Keating introduced in the Hawke government's second term. At the 1984 election, Labor pledged to hold a tax summit if re-elected. After the summit in 1985, Keating cut the marginal tax rate from 60 to 49 per cent and introduced a tax on capital gains and fringe benefits, along with a range of other changes to such things as wholesale sales tax and the company tax rate. Several measures, especially the fringe benefits tax, faced serious pushback from vested interests. The government had no direct mandate for those outcomes, but it pushed ahead and got them through. It was rewarded by voters for its courage, winning in 1987, 1990 and 1993. The roundtable could turn out to be a bust, as some critics have predicted, but that shouldn't matter. If it founders on the rock of self-interested pandering or head-in-the-sand behaviour, Albanese should say it was worth a try, thank the participants for coming, and then get on with doing big things anyway. There is an appetite for this in the community, especially among younger voters, who are getting the rough end of the economic pineapple. Loading A report this week found that house prices are 14 times the annual average wage. To let this continue would be unconscionable and a social catastrophe. The prime minister and treasurer are breathing rare air. They will never get a chance like this again. Then again, who's to say they actually share any historically significant, politically risky ideas for the economy? Postscript: What of my massive career-defining national scoop in 1983? Four paragraphs appeared in a late edition on a left-hand page deep inside the paper, with no byline. On the following Monday morning, I got a call from a senior colleague on the chief of staff's desk, a decent bloke: 'Mate, the other papers have got some of the details of this Labor-unions agreement that they're voting on today. Have you seen it?'
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Working from home hinders unique in-person collaboration, despite the 'fun' of zany zoom backgrounds and muted mics
The critics of Jacinta Allan's monstrous idea that there should be a right to work two days a week from home are getting distracted. They're attacking it on economic modelling or legal principles. Correct, but wrong. The true reason this idea should be fought with the intensity of 300 Spartans is because working from home is, and always has been, awful. I thought Australians agreed to leave everything we did in Covid behind in a group-enforced amnesia, but somehow 'working from home' has endured. We live in an age where we are both obsessed with maintaining a work/life balance, and also finding new ways to bring our work into the areas we devote to life. I'm not blind to the benefits. I am writing this article from home, outside my office hours. I'm currently wearing gym shorts and a winter coat for some reason, and whenever I want to procrastinate I can flick my television back over to Fox Footy. When I was working from home during Covid, I managed to both perform my work duties and lead Wycombe Wanderers to Premier League glory in the 2036 season while playing the 'Football Manager' video game. But today I can also acknowledge that if I were in the Sky News offices writing this article, I would be done by now. And the reason for that is simple - I am a human being, a social animal. Thousands of years of genetics has made me both crave and thrive within social settings - for example, a building containing people I know and share common ground with may be able to help me with information I need, and give me a chance to demonstrate value by sharing information with them. Coworkers, we might call them. An active environment makes me active. Instead I am in my living room not having said a word for hours, only reminded that an outside world exists every time my phone pings. But of course, this is where working from home advocates will refer to their substitution for person-to-person contact: the Zoom call. Yes, this game changing invention that finally answered the question we all had - how can I have all of my coworkers in my house at the same time? Now the person that you may delay going to the staff kitchen to avoid seeing is in your guest bedroom, and he's not impressed by your furniture. My wife's coworkers spend an hour a day in a room that, when friends come over, we don't include in the house tour. But Zoom calls are fun. Sometimes someone forgets to turn their microphone on - hilarious! - and sometimes someone comes in with a zany background - interesting! - but these classic moments don't come close to group conversations and the relationships forged by in-person connections. And those relationships are key, especially for young workers looking to establish themselves. What is better for someone starting out their professional journey - the coffee break in your kitchen, or the coffee break at the cafe with seasoned coworkers who can let the new person know how things 'really work' around the office? What about the first Friday night drink - in front of a television at home or in front of higher ups at the office giving you a chance to form a good reputation in front of them? Forget young workers. Which of those sound more meaningful for workers at any stage of their career? When we're all just an icon on Slack or Teams, it's hard to form any actual connections. The working from home revolution is often seen as workers reclaiming rights over their conditions from greedy corporate bosses, who would rather whip them into soulless concrete mausoleums so they can more effectively rule over them with an iron fist. But those same mausoleums help workers too. We aren't supposed to live in self-imposed silos, connecting with each other through pings and whoops and buzzes. We're supposed to talk, connect, share and impart face to face - it's literally what our genetics push us to do. That's why Jacinta Allan's idea must fail. Yes it's bad for the economy, yes it's legally unsound. But deeper than that is our society is running towards this concept of working that makes living less meaningful - just like how delivery apps are making nights out obsolete, or what dating apps are doing to spontaneous conversation. Technology's ability to provide immediate convenience is lulling people into thinking that it's a preferable lifestyle. Our phones, laptops and televisions are Soma pills the government didn't even need to manufacture. At the risk of accidentally plagarising the Unabomber's manifesto, we're letting technology drive us away from our natural state. So log off of Zoom, turn off Netflix and get back to the office and talk to someone. James Bolt is a contributor
