Never mind the economy, climate change is bad for the health
Hugh Barrett, Sanctuary Point
May the noise made by the main parties not drown out the sane and sensible discussion in federal decision-making. Changed thinking and behaviours are needed about the approval and assistance provided to fossil fuel projects. When community and expert concern and worsening outlooks concerning 'global boiling' are being raised time and time again, stronger federal leadership is needed. The public values considerations that go well beyond party-political eyes being focused on getting past the next election and maintaining sources of donations, and the current yet still modest 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets.
Sue Dyer, Downer (ACT)
Pocock's bill to force legislators to consider the impact on future generations of new fossil fuel licences will be unpopular with Labor if it threatens new coal and gas, which Labor relies on for revenue and to contain energy prices. It throws up in stark relief whether future generations must be considered against winning the next election. It seems surprising that it needs legislation. I was under the naive assumption that governments should consider all our welfare in any legislation anyway. Or is it only those who can afford lobbyists who are considered? The independents are doing a good job of forcing government to face up to difficult issues.
Gary Barnes, Mosman
Pocock says we have a 'moral duty to young people and future generations'. The burden on the youngest members of our society is not just logistical, it is an overwhelming emotional burden. Today's children and young people with whom I work as an occupational therapist are more anxious (scared, fearful, despondent) than this group have been in the last thirty years – and it is over climate. The rest of the article makes it clear that the federal Labor government is trying to shrink the scale of the task in our eyes. Their attempt to displace the emotional burden they promised to take up when they entered office is hurting our children right now.
Jo Jackson King, Gidgegannup (WA)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Albanese confident US tariffs will not affect Australia's economy
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he is confident US tariffs imposed on Australia will not impose on Australia's economic vision. Mr Albanese was quizzed on his economic agenda at an event hosted by Sky News Australia and The Australian, where he invited business leaders to share their ideas to supercharge the economy. 'Our nation does not need to go looking overseas for an economic model to copy … we want to do this the Australian way, not talking to Australia down,' Mr Albanese said. The forum was held ahead of the Prime Minister's visit to China.
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Professional 'Trump basher' Kevin Rudd has to resign in the wake of embarrassing claims of Trump disapproval
If Kevin Rudd genuinely cares about Australia's relationship with America, and not just polishing his own image, he should resign as our ambassador. US President Donald Trump does not suffer fools nor does he reward enemies and this week we got confirmation of what many had already suspected. Experienced pollster Brent Buchanan, a veteran of three Trump campaigns, told Sky News Australia that Mr Rudd is the reason our PM Anthony Albanese has not secured an in-person meeting this term with the President. This wasn't about protocol, or policy. Not even the fallout from that moment when Mr Trump abruptly ditched his schedule to authorise the bombing of Iran. The reason is Kevin Rudd, the former PM and self-professed 'China Guy', who engineers our relationship with our critical ally from a plush office in Washington. "I think he doesn't like the current ambassador, and that's one of the biggest issues," Mr Buchanan told AM Agenda host Laura Jayes. "Donald Trump needs to find an Australian that he likes - or Australia needs to find an Australian that Donald Trump likes and let that person take point - because so much with Donald Trump is personal relationships." What Mr Buchanan was referring to, of course, was Mr Rudd's very public assessment of the President as a "traitor to the west", a "village idiot", a "political liability" and the cherry on top for the June 2, 2020 rant: "the most destructive president in history". "He drags America and democracy through the mud. He thrives on fomenting, not healing, division," the 26th PM of Australia posted on his then Twitter account. "He abuses Christianity, church and bible to justify violence." His appointment to the top diplomatic gig by his Labor pal Mr Albanese came after these openly hostile views and that is still baffling to consider. And it would seem Mr Rudd's digital housekeeping when he got busy scrubbing his wild anti-Trump rants from social media, revealed last November, has not had the intended impact. In an attempt to suture the wound, the ex-MP for Queensland's Griffith electorate has also been in Aspen, Colorado, recently where his praise for Trump was flowing like the region's famed Cabernet Sauvignon. The President got full marks (what a relief) for his Middle East diplomacy, the way he manages NATO allies and there were even hints that he might be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Mr Rudd even managed to sound upbeat about Gaza and the West Bank claiming that Trump's actions would somehow "move the debate and the dial" toward a two-state solution. But the sudden praise isn't savvy diplomacy. It's a desperate and frankly embarrassing attempt to clean up his own mess because "leopard" and "changing spots" springs to mind. Mr Rudd's brand as a Trump basher is so enmeshed it's hard to accept he is suddenly a genuine fan, amid all the think tank waffle. What is clear, however, is that we no longer have the indulgence or bandwidth to let Mr Rudd orchestrate this diplomacy, even if the most generous of observers insist that Mr Trump does not hold grudges. As a nation, we are trying to steer major strategic goals like AUKUS and trade with the US, including the excruciating tariff issue. When questioned about the Pentagon's 30-day review of the AUKUS agreement, Mr Rudd brushed it off, saying the Australian government was "completely relaxed" because it was standard practice for any new administration to reassess programs inherited from their predecessors. Mr Rudd also brushed off the recent G7 summit in Canada when Mr Trump skipped meetings with Mr Albanese as "Everyone got it". No, Kevin. Everyone didn't get it. Australia needs an ambassador to the US who is taken seriously on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Someone who can talk policy without lecturing. Or better yet, someone who doesn't do a complete 180 on past insults without so much as an admission they were wrong, petty and undiplomatic. In essence, a person who is capable of building a serious working relationship with Mr Trump rather than treating him like some kind of moral enemy. Louise Roberts is a journalist and editor who has worked as a TV and radio commentator in Australia, the UK and the US. Louise is a winner of the Peter Ruehl Award for Outstanding Columnist in the NRMA Kennedy Awards for Excellence in Journalism and has been shortlisted in other awards for her opinion work
