Peter Dutton gives a ‘voice' to majority of Australians in criticisms of Welcome to Country
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan says Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is setting the example on his criticisms of the Welcome to Country ceremonies.
'I do think we are going to see fewer Welcomes to Country now at inappropriate times because of leadership from Peter Dutton here,' Mr Canavan said.
'He is just giving the voice to a vast majority of Australians.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
29 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
We desperately want productivity growth. But granting that wish has a huge cost
How do you define a failed generation? Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself. If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now. This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it. Who or what will turn this around? For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day. Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer. But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer. A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use. Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs). In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology. In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this. It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone. Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether. The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost. The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers. This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures. That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses. Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story. READ MORE: The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate. Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments. Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere. Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare. All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse. If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States. The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling. The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes. Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start. This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks. This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence. We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it. If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand. How do you define a failed generation? Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself. If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now. This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it. Who or what will turn this around? For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day. Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer. But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer. A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use. Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs). In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology. In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this. It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone. Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether. The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost. The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers. This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures. That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses. Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story. READ MORE: The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate. Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments. Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere. Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare. All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse. If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States. The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling. The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes. Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start. This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks. This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence. We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it. If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand. How do you define a failed generation? Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself. If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now. This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it. Who or what will turn this around? For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day. Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer. But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer. A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use. Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs). In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology. In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this. It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone. Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether. The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost. The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers. This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures. That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses. Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story. READ MORE: The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate. Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments. Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere. Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare. All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse. If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States. The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling. The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes. Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start. This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks. This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence. We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it. If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand. How do you define a failed generation? Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself. If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now. This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it. Who or what will turn this around? For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day. Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer. But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer. A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use. Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs). In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology. In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this. It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone. Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether. The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost. The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers. This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures. That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses. Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story. READ MORE: The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate. Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments. Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere. Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare. All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse. If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States. The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling. The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes. Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start. This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks. This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence. We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it. If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand.
The Advertiser
29 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Relief as airports open and Australians return home
Australian Or Kedem has packed his suitcase for what he hopes will be his fourth and final attempt to leave the Middle East now that missiles have finally stopped hurtling through the sky. In Israel for this birth of his nephew, conflict broke out a week into his trip when the Israeli military launched strikes on Iran on June 13, arguing it was on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. Blasts on apartment buildings near his family's home in Ramat Gan were terrifying and a world away from his day-to-day life with his wife and two children back in Victoria. After three unsuccessful evacuation attempts, he hopes to finally make a flight on Thursday as Israel's airspace reopens and commercial flights start up again. "It's not gonna be easy, I have a four day trip until I'm gonna get home, but I will do everything to see my kids again," Mr Kedem told AAP. "I'm so excited to be home, just to sit on the airplane." It's a common theme among Australians stuck in Israel during the conflict, buoyed by flights becoming available and pressure easing at land border crossings as the ceasefire sets in. About 1000 Australians have registered with the government for help to leave Israel, and an additional 3000 have asked for assistance to leave Iran since the conflict erupted. The war took a turn on the weekend when the US bombed three underground nuclear facilities in Iran, which the Australian government has backed. Never will Australian lawyer Leon Zwier take for granted going to sleep without being woken up by the sound of sirens or missiles. "Last night for the first time we had a night without missiles being fired across our city or into the civilian population," Mr Zwier said from a departure gate Ben Gurion airport south of Tel Aviv. "It was restful, we all relaxed and that was a common theme with everyone we spoke to." Quick dashes to bomb shelters became a nightly reality for him and thousands of others in Israel and Iran since June 13. What was meant to be a trip for a conference quickly became an unexpected insight into life in a war zone, before he booked the first flight home he could find through Thailand. He cannot wait to hug his children and grandchildren, reassuring them he is fine and safe. "Moments like this, you cherish life more than ever, and so it makes you appreciate things more than ever." Australian Or Kedem has packed his suitcase for what he hopes will be his fourth and final attempt to leave the Middle East now that missiles have finally stopped hurtling through the sky. In Israel for this birth of his nephew, conflict broke out a week into his trip when the Israeli military launched strikes on Iran on June 13, arguing it was on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. Blasts on apartment buildings near his family's home in Ramat Gan were terrifying and a world away from his day-to-day life with his wife and two children back in Victoria. After three unsuccessful evacuation attempts, he hopes to finally make a flight on Thursday as Israel's airspace reopens and commercial flights start up again. "It's not gonna be easy, I have a four day trip until I'm gonna get home, but I will do everything to see my kids again," Mr Kedem told AAP. "I'm so excited to be home, just to sit on the airplane." It's a common theme among Australians stuck in Israel during the conflict, buoyed by flights becoming available and pressure easing at land border crossings as the ceasefire sets in. About 1000 Australians have registered with the government for help to leave Israel, and an additional 3000 have asked for assistance to leave Iran since the conflict erupted. The war took a turn on the weekend when the US bombed three underground nuclear facilities in Iran, which the Australian government has backed. Never will Australian lawyer Leon Zwier take for granted going to sleep without being woken up by the sound of sirens or missiles. "Last night for the first time we had a night without missiles being fired across our city or into the civilian population," Mr Zwier said from a departure gate Ben Gurion airport south of Tel Aviv. "It was restful, we all relaxed and that was a common theme with everyone we spoke to." Quick dashes to bomb shelters became a nightly reality for him and thousands of others in Israel and Iran since June 13. What was meant to be a trip for a conference quickly became an unexpected insight into life in a war zone, before he booked the first flight home he could find through Thailand. He cannot wait to hug his children and grandchildren, reassuring them he is fine and safe. "Moments like this, you cherish life more than ever, and so it makes you appreciate things more than ever." Australian Or Kedem has packed his suitcase for what he hopes will be his fourth and final attempt to leave the Middle East now that missiles have finally stopped hurtling through the sky. In Israel for this birth of his nephew, conflict broke out a week into his trip when the Israeli military launched strikes on Iran on June 13, arguing it was on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. Blasts on apartment buildings near his family's home in Ramat Gan were terrifying and a world away from his day-to-day life with his wife and two children back in Victoria. After three unsuccessful evacuation attempts, he hopes to finally make a flight on Thursday as Israel's airspace reopens and commercial flights start up again. "It's not gonna be easy, I have a four day trip until I'm gonna get home, but I will do everything to see my kids again," Mr Kedem told AAP. "I'm so excited to be home, just to sit on the airplane." It's a common theme among Australians stuck in Israel during the conflict, buoyed by flights becoming available and pressure easing at land border crossings as the ceasefire sets in. About 1000 Australians have registered with the government for help to leave Israel, and an additional 3000 have asked for assistance to leave Iran since the conflict erupted. The war took a turn on the weekend when the US bombed three underground nuclear facilities in Iran, which the Australian government has backed. Never will Australian lawyer Leon Zwier take for granted going to sleep without being woken up by the sound of sirens or missiles. "Last night for the first time we had a night without missiles being fired across our city or into the civilian population," Mr Zwier said from a departure gate Ben Gurion airport south of Tel Aviv. "It was restful, we all relaxed and that was a common theme with everyone we spoke to." Quick dashes to bomb shelters became a nightly reality for him and thousands of others in Israel and Iran since June 13. What was meant to be a trip for a conference quickly became an unexpected insight into life in a war zone, before he booked the first flight home he could find through Thailand. He cannot wait to hug his children and grandchildren, reassuring them he is fine and safe. "Moments like this, you cherish life more than ever, and so it makes you appreciate things more than ever." Australian Or Kedem has packed his suitcase for what he hopes will be his fourth and final attempt to leave the Middle East now that missiles have finally stopped hurtling through the sky. In Israel for this birth of his nephew, conflict broke out a week into his trip when the Israeli military launched strikes on Iran on June 13, arguing it was on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. Blasts on apartment buildings near his family's home in Ramat Gan were terrifying and a world away from his day-to-day life with his wife and two children back in Victoria. After three unsuccessful evacuation attempts, he hopes to finally make a flight on Thursday as Israel's airspace reopens and commercial flights start up again. "It's not gonna be easy, I have a four day trip until I'm gonna get home, but I will do everything to see my kids again," Mr Kedem told AAP. "I'm so excited to be home, just to sit on the airplane." It's a common theme among Australians stuck in Israel during the conflict, buoyed by flights becoming available and pressure easing at land border crossings as the ceasefire sets in. About 1000 Australians have registered with the government for help to leave Israel, and an additional 3000 have asked for assistance to leave Iran since the conflict erupted. The war took a turn on the weekend when the US bombed three underground nuclear facilities in Iran, which the Australian government has backed. Never will Australian lawyer Leon Zwier take for granted going to sleep without being woken up by the sound of sirens or missiles. "Last night for the first time we had a night without missiles being fired across our city or into the civilian population," Mr Zwier said from a departure gate Ben Gurion airport south of Tel Aviv. "It was restful, we all relaxed and that was a common theme with everyone we spoke to." Quick dashes to bomb shelters became a nightly reality for him and thousands of others in Israel and Iran since June 13. What was meant to be a trip for a conference quickly became an unexpected insight into life in a war zone, before he booked the first flight home he could find through Thailand. He cannot wait to hug his children and grandchildren, reassuring them he is fine and safe. "Moments like this, you cherish life more than ever, and so it makes you appreciate things more than ever."
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Donald Trump's 'revenge tax' making investing in the United States 'less attractive', AMP's My Bui declares
Donald Trump's controversial tax that threatens Australia's nest egg makes investing in the United States 'much less attractive', a leading economist has declared. The controversial section 899 of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' allows the US to implement 'revenge taxes' on nations his administration believes unfairly treats US firms – such as tech giants Meta and Alphabet. This could mean Australians are forced to pay upwards of 20 per cent more tax on US investments if the bill is approved as the Australian government looks to force tech giants to pay for local news through the media bargaining incentive. Many in Australia's $4.2 trillion superannuation system have expressed concerns about diminished returns if the legislation passes as hundreds of billions of dollars of members' funds is invested in the US. AMP economist My Bui said the changes will make the US a 'less attractive' investment destination and that Australian super funds are rethinking how they will deploy their capital in the future. 'We are definitely at an inflexion point of a regime change when the US starts to look a bit more inwards rather than outwards,' Ms Bui said on Sky News' Business Now. 'This has prompted investors to rethink putting more capital into the US. 'Maybe it is a more attractive time to actually put money into Aussie infrastructure or European equities. Both of those have basically outperformed US equities since the beginning of the year.' She noted there continued to be a 'rationale' for investing in the US, considering the greater capacity for corporate profit growth and higher productivity, but argued the proposed tax change ultimately hurt America. 'Section 899 taxes will make it much less attractive and probably will make super funds in Australia rethink about deploying capital in the future,' Ms Bui said. Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Wednesday told reporters he had discussed section 899 with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and made Australia's case against the looming tax. 'I've engaged a lot with Australian investors over the course of the last couple of weeks on their concerns,' Mr Chalmers said. 'I was able to represent them and raise their concerns directly with US Treasury Secretary Bessent and I know that the Treasury Secretary is very focused on these issues as well. 'We hope that they can be resolved. We do not want to see our investors and our funds unfairly treated or disadvantaged when it comes to developments out of the US Congress.' Investors have expressed caution about investing in the United States over growing uncertainty surrounding section 899. AMP's chief economist Shane Oliver earlier this month said section 899 of the bill, alongside other economic policies by the Trump Administration, 'called into question 'US exceptionalism' and its 'safe haven' status'. The Future Fund chair Greg Combet also expressed concerns about the bill where he argued the US was hurting itself by thwarting investment through section 899. 'Section 899 of the Bill will potentially and dramatically escalate tax rates for Australian institutional investors like the Future Fund,' Mr Combet said in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia earlier this month. 'In combination these policies and dynamics are making the US a more risky and uncertain investment destination.' Two versions of the bill currently exist: one from the US house and one from the senate. Both versions need to be identical before they are shown to Trump for approval. Pitcher Partners said if the US President greenlights the tax, Australia will have to wind back laws the US has deemed inappropriate. 'If it does pass, and Australia is identified as a country with tax practices which are subject to the Bill, it will place pressure on the Australian Federal Government to repeal its own laws so that Australia is not an 'offending' or 'discriminatory' foreign country,' Pitcher Partners said. 'However, as matters stand today, the potential impact of this Bill is certainly something that Australian taxpayers with US interests should keep a close eye on.'
