2407msletters2
For weeks the news has carried reports of record heatwaves in the northern hemisphere that are expected to continue throughout August (' Scorched by burning questions ', July 24). Wildfires are raging in Greece and California at the same time as torrential rain and flash flooding have caused havoc and destruction in South Korea, Colorado, India and Italy. Extreme weather events are occurring worldwide exactly as predicted by climate scientists decades ago. It is particularly galling to know that we are a decade behind in our climate mitigation action due to climate deniers and obstructors within the previous Coalition governments, who deliberately blocked action to transition from fossil-fuelled energy to renewables by casting doubt on the science and highlighting the cost of doing so. As Sean Kelly points out, the same negative tactics are now being used against the Voice. 'If it ain't broke don't fix it', and 'if you don't know, vote no' are conservative mantras designed to prevent progressive action that is well overdue. Whether this opposition to change is genuine or politically based, it is costing future generations dearly and will be judged harshly by them.
Alan Marel, North Curl Curl
Thanks, Sean Kelly for your well-articulated warning to Australia; your headline says it all and we must act, now, or be damned. The climate change impacts we are already suffering can't be denied or ignored any longer by our inactive 'leaders'.
Barry Laing, Castle Cove
The climate crisis we're facing is a collective crime - the world has long ignored the need for urgent action and we're paying the price. The Voice is our moment and as Australians, we own this opportunity to make a positive change, it's a request so simple that it shouldn't need asking. Yes to engagement, Yes to commencing reparations long overdue. It's the first step. Should No be our response, we will walk alone with the weight of that decision.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
39 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Living in Australia is just less fair than it used to be
Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves."
The Advertiser
39 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Responsibility, not legacy driving Chalmers to reform
If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it."
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Voice 2.0: Albanese sets his sights on peace in Gaza having tried and failed to find a solution to Aboriginal disadvantage
Anyone who has worked in a newsroom understands the hierarchy of suffering that determines the running order of a bulletin. A tragedy on our doorstep matters more than a larger tragedy on the other side of the world. So we shouldn't be surprised if most Australians care less about the conflict in Gaza than what it is doing to our country. The hatred on our streets breaks the unwritten rule that everyone who enters Australia leaves their troubles at the border. That's not to dismiss the distressing images emerging from Gaza, not all of which are faked. Nor are we downplaying the good fortune of living in the only permanently populated country untouched by civil war. We want to keep it that way. Much as we wish for global peace, our greatest desire is to enjoy harmony at home. Two years after his humiliating referendum defeat, the Prime Minister has once again been drawn into gesture politics with a promise that divides Australians and tests the strength of our social fabric. Belatedly, the PM has adjusted his rhetoric in deference to the discomfort we felt at the sight of an angry mob flying the banners of jihad while burning the Australian flag. 'Australians overwhelmingly want to see the killing stop,' he told a TV host Tuesday. 'They also, of course, don't want to see conflict brought here to our harmonious, multicultural society.' His acknowledgment is almost certainly too little and too late. He was the one who picked sides by recognising the non-existent state of Palestine. It was his announcement that terrorists praised and the US has condemned. The immediate consequence is that Anthony Albanese will be starved of the oxygen to talk about anything else, just as he would with the Voice. There's no obvious way to subdue the hornets now that the nest has been stirred. Every press conference spent on this issue will add to the remorse of Australians who voted, thinking they were electing a prime minister, not an activist-in-chief. Once again, he has failed to explain the point of the exercise, resorting to banal clichés. He wants to 'send a message' that he wants to see 'the world move forward'. He tells us he wants to make 'a practical contribution towards building momentum' and engage 'in detailed dialogue' with the international community, 'talking about what a peace looks like in the region'. He should have begun engaging in a detailed dialogue with the Australian people about what this gesture will achieve, beyond rewarding bad behaviour, getting Australia offside with our most important ally. Polling suggested Australians were sympathetic to the idea of a Voice. By referendum day, however, they'd worked out that its purpose was merely symbolic and that the PM was winging it, hoping to get through on the vibe. The hubris is astonishing. Having failed to find a solution to the problem of Aboriginal disadvantage, the PM has extended his ambition by promising to bring peace to the Middle East. He says Australia can help broker a peace deal that defied the best efforts of Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, Jimmy Carter, King Hussein, Yitzhak Rabin, Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Shimon Peres, Bill Clinton, and a host of others better versed in the art of statesmanship than he. The recognition of Palestine will be welcomed by many, just as millions of Australians were passionately in favour of the Voice. Yet if a plebiscite were held, it is not hard to guess the demographic profile that would vote in favour. They will be the same constituencies, more or less, that voted in favour of a Republic in 1999 and the Voice in 2023. They are the seats that recorded the most significant majorities in favour of same-sex marriage. There would be variations of course in seats with large Muslim populations that were strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. The hypothetical plebiscite would be less well received in "woke" seats with large Jewish populations, such as Wentworth. However, the people who marched over the bridge were, for the most part, the same inner-metropolitan elite who sign up to every fashionable cause. Some of them would have marched across the bridge a quarter of a century ago in the Walk for Reconciliation. Some may have even glued themselves to the tarmac during peak hour in April 2022 to raise awareness about the climate emergency. They are members of the activist class, the people who wear their compassion on their sleeve, heavily invested in the cause of humanity but less concerned about humans themselves, particularly their fellow citizens who have the humility not to advance an opinion about things they know little about. For those people, the behaviour of the radical alliance between progressives and terrorists is a frightening development. They are disturbed by the politics of identity that divides citizens according to race or religion. They find the assault on the Jewish community abhorrent, not just because it is anti-Semitic but because Australian multiculturalism is not meant to work like that. Our social fabric is held together by the twin instincts to live and let live and treat every citizen with equal respect. The implication that Palestinians in Australia deserve special status for inherited suffering, and Jewish Australians must carry the collective guilt for the imagined sins of Israelis, is anathema to Australians who grew up understanding that character is infinitely more important than race. The anti-colonial narrative that divided us between First Nation people and others, by implication, Second Nation people, was the deal breaker in the Voice referendum. Mr Albanese has made the same mistake over Palestine. He has embraced a decisive narrative that exacerbates the divide in Australia, incites hateful protests and leaves many of us wondering if we recognise the country in which we once lived. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
