Shadow Foreign Minister makes fiery speech to Penny Wong in Senate
Ms Cash staunchly defended her colleague Senator Jacinta Price's views on the matter after Penny Wong took aim at the indigenous leader.
The outburst came after several senators expressed their views on the Welcome to Country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Gareth Ward faces historic expulsion from NSW Parliament after rape conviction, with vote expected Wednesday as legal challenge looms
Convicted MP Gareth Ward is facing the prospect of being expelled from the NSW Parliament, with the Labor government set to move a formal motion this week following his recent conviction for multiple sexual offences. Ward, an independent member for Kiama, was found guilty in July of three counts of assault with act of indecency against an 18-year-old man in 2013, and one count of sexual intercourse without consent involving a 24-year-old man in 2015. He has been taken into custody on remand and is due to be sentenced on September 19. The 44-year-old has confirmed he intends to appeal the conviction, maintaining his innocence since being charged in 2022. 'I am absolutely shattered with the result of the trial and have taken the opportunity over the last few days to spend time with those I love following the verdict,' Ward said in a statement last week. 'I am taking advice about next steps, but I can confirm that I have provided instructions to my legal team to prepare an appeal at the earliest opportunity.' The NSW Constitution allows for the automatic removal of an MP only after sentencing of more than 12 months has been handed down and all appeals are exhausted. However, under Standing Order 254, Parliament may expel a member for conduct deemed 'unworthy' of the house, a power not used since 1917. The motion is expected to be moved in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday and debated on Wednesday, following a delay after Ward's lawyers raised concerns about procedural fairness. Leader of the House Ron Hoenig confirmed that Ward had been invited to provide any statement or material for consideration ahead of the vote. While the full details of the legal correspondence have not been made public, it's understood Parliament will still proceed with the motion. Labor has confirmed it will back the expulsion. Premier Chris Minns said it was untenable for Ward to remain in Parliament following his conviction. 'It is completely ridiculous to be in a situation where someone has been not accused, not charged, but convicted of incredibly serious offences and stay as a member of parliament,' Mr Minns said on Monday. 'I haven't spoken to all of my colleagues, and I haven't spoken to the crossbench or the opposition about it, but it would seem ridiculous that he would continue as a member of parliament.' Opposition Leader Mark Speakman added: 'If he won't resign, parliament has to take every available legal step to remove him.' Despite widespread calls for his resignation, Ward has made no move to step down. 'The punitive measure is up to the NSW court. It's not up to parliament,' Mr Minns said. 'They'll make the decision about what punishment is applied, not us.' If expelled, a by-election will be triggered in the seat of Kiama, which Ward held as an independent at the 2023 state election despite a swing of more than 11 per cent against him. Ward left the Liberal Party after being charged in 2022. He was previously suspended from cabinet in 2021 when the allegations first surfaced.
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Nationwide protests planned after pro-Palestine Harbour Bridge march
Protest laws could be repealed or expanded following a march across an iconic national landmark, as activists plan for more demonstrations. The pro-Palestine movement, boosted by a march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge which made news across the nation and around the world, hopes to build on its momentum. The march across the bridge and back in pouring rain came after opposition from police, and a court's overruling approval that has politicians worrying about the rare occurrence becoming common. Further protests are planned on August 24 in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth with hopes more can be organised in other cities. Ahead of the state's parliament resuming on Tuesday, NSW Premier Chris Minns says his Government is examining whether a legal precedent has been set by the Supreme Court judgment that allowed the protest to proceed. 'No one should believe it's open season on the bridge,' he told reporters on Monday. But new laws might be needed to stop future bridge protests. Mr Minns was 'not ruling anything out' but said any legislation could not be rushed. Federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley encouraged the premier to look at 'what might happen next'. 'Because we can't continue to have these protests that shut down such an important area of a major city,' she told reporters. In her determination declining to prohibit the march, Justice Belinda Rigg said the bridge would have been closed to traffic regardless of whether the protest was authorised or not. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said demonstrations were an important part of democracy and highlighted the peaceful nature of the Sydney march. 'Australians want people to stop killing each other, they want peace and security ... they don't want conflict brought here,' he said. Mr Minns has faced some internal dissent from other Labor MPs over protest legislation. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson has also flagged plans to seek the repeal of laws limiting protest, first introduced by the previous coalition government but expanded under Labor. Palestine Action Group organiser Josh Lees, defendant of the court action NSW Police took in an unsuccessful attempt to have the demonstration ruled unlawful, says nationwide protests are being planned for August 24. 'We want to build on this massive momentum we have now,' he told reporters. Despite concerns of regular marches across the bridge, Mr Lees said the group has no plans for a repeat crossing any time soon and accused the premier of having an anti-protest agenda. 'His stance is pretty clear and he's passed a raft of anti-protest legislation already,' Mr Lees said. 'We're going to have to keep fighting for our rights to demonstrate.'
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
