Deficit is a worry and right-wing governments aren't going to fix it
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
11 minutes ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Futile bid to hit unachievable net zero target continues to cost households
Anywhere you choose to look, evidence that Labor's renewable energy transition policy is a failure is mounting. For those who don't give primacy to abolishing fossil fuels, the crippling increase in power bills — when we were told renewable energy would make them lower — is enough proof. But for people on the net zero bandwagon, this week has been full of other disappointments. One of the architects of Labor's first attempts at climate change strategies, Professor Ross Garnaut, proclaimed on Monday that the Albanese Government will fail to hit its 2030 renewable energy targets 'by a big margin'. That's because the rollout of new wind and solar projects hit the wall last year, right at the time they needed to be supercharged to meet Labor's policy goal of 82 per cent renewables by the end of this decade. To meet that target would require adding an extra 14GW of wind and 11GW of solar capacity per year. About 7GW was expected to be installed last year. To put that more simply, we would have to install more than 11 wind turbines every day and 3000 solar panels every hour to December 31, 2029. But investment in new renewable energy projects last year was the lowest since 2017. Not one new wind farm has come on stream this year. Labor has put almost all its eggs in the one basket, Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen's capacity investment scheme (CIS) through which taxpayers underwrite renewables projects. The scheme seeks to take the risk out of the projects by guaranteeing revenue streams for some $73 billion of needed investment by 2027. The eventual cost of those guarantees is unknown, but potentially massive. This week Bowen increased the target under CIS from 32 gigawatts to 40, despite the clear evidence that it isn't working at attracting sufficient new capacity. Garnaut says the CIS distorts the market, arguing the best solution was to introduce a carbon price — what most people regard as a tax — having convinced former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to do just that in 2011. And we all remember how that ended. 'The underwriting falls far short of the levels necessary to reach the 82 per cent target,' Garnaut said. 'The big gap on the current trajectory is growing wider now that demand for power through the grid is growing again with electrification and data centres.' Which seems to make the heavy political focus on these targets pretty dumb if they can't be met. Into this scenario of failure to hit any of the targets rides the head of the United Nations' climate change agency, Simon Stiell, who was a speaker at the same renewables talkfest as Garnaut. Stiell is exactly the sort of person who gives the UN its bad name, a second-rate politician from a tiny Caribbean island nation advanced well beyond his capacity with a penchant for exaggeration. He told the conference run by the Smart Energy Council — a lobby group funded mainly by people selling Chinese solar panels — that unless Australia set itself an even higher renewables target for 2035 we would be responsible for very dire consequences. 'The change is working,' Stiell said. 'Now consider the alternative: missing the opportunity and letting the world overheat.' So a nation that contributes just over one percent of global carbon emissions would be responsible for cooking the planet unless it sets a new unreachable target, having missed the existing one by a country mile? This sort of moral blackmail has characterised the climate change debate for decades and clearly is as useless as the targets Stiell envisages for Australia. It got worse. 'Mega-droughts will make fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat,' he warned. 'Australia has a strong economy and among the highest living standards in the world. If you want to keep them, doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer.' Stiell obviously is unaware that Australia's standard of living has toppled since 2022 by the biggest amount of any developed nation, according to the OECD's measure of household income per person. What fools like him will never accept is that the reckless push to adopt renewables quickly has inflated the cost of electricity, one of the main drivers of that loss in living standards. But he believes the dystopian 'alternative' he presented is redeemable merely by Australia setting a new, higher target for cutting emissions. And there's the rub. The idea that an unachievable target has merit because it lifts ambition and effort is hollow. What it really does is distort economic reality and inflate costs. But in the climate change game, these targets are the currency for buying political power as we see being played out within the Liberal Party. An opinion poll emerged this week claiming that support for the transition to renewables is growing, up from 53 to 58 per cent since April. The SEC Newgate Mood of the Nation survey of 1855 respondents found 64 per cent backed the 2030 target and 59 per cent endorsed the commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. That result is unsurprising given that most Australians have been comprehensively misled about the reliability of renewables and their ability to meet demand in a post-coal world. And many climate change opinion polls have found that support levels crash when questions are asked about the cost that respondents are willing to bear, something absent in this one. The idea that wind and solar can meet peak power demand without massive support from gas turbines appears to have some public support. The media has to take its share of the blame. We still get reports about new wind projects, for example, which routinely contain claims that they 'will be able to power 170,000 homes.' What does that mean? That the wind farm can meet all the daily power needs of those homes 24/7 for 365 days a year? If not, what? Because if it is based on the average power use of a home divided into the output of the wind farm, it is fairly meaningless. Those 170,000 homes need to be powered continuously, especially at times of highest demand which is always when the sun isn't shining strongest — if at all — and often when the wind isn't blowing. The reports usually say the farm has a capacity of, say 250MW, but the reality is that they operate on average at below 30 per cent of that maximum output and in some parts of the year, known as wind droughts, they can produce nothing for days on end. But the effect of these repetitive claims is that many people get an unwavering belief in renewable power sources at odds with reality, which is something those considering the Liberals' net zero policy need to keep in mind. The next WA State election will be held on March 10, 2029. That's locked in. With the size of Labor's majority in Canberra, there will not be another Federal poll due until the year before. So the idea that the Liberals should come up with a new net zero carbon emissions policy in a hurry is simply ludicrous. The Liberals don't have to scrap a commitment to achieving net zero, thereby making themselves a target for another Labor scare campaign. By demonstrating the now-obvious inability of Labor's policy to hit its targets, they can argue for a more realistic timeline and a different way of getting there. Scrapping further rounds of the CIS would be a good start. And they must do a better job of convincing the public that the power bill burden householders have carried in recent years is a direct consequence of Labor's renewable energy policies. Renewables are good at producing power at times of average demand, but can't provide guaranteed supplies at affordable prices at peak hours. Those peaks just happen to coincide with the sun coming up and going down, meaning the big quantities of power from rooftop solar is not available. And if the wind isn't blowing strongly at those times, even the recourse to very expensive big battery power will not be enough to avoid system failure. That essential weakness is where the Coalition's policy focus should go. The failings of Labor's policies will be starting to bite in 2027 as coal continues to be retired, gas prices rise thanks to demand pressures, wind turbine prices continue to soar and the shortfall in new renewables capacity combine. Labor has been allowed to paint renewables as affordable and reliable, which they aren't. Anthony Albanese escaped any penalty for breaking his 2022 election promise that power prices for the average home would be $275 lower by this year. The focus on the Liberals' internal wrangling over a 2050 net zero target should not be a distraction from the fact that Labor's policy has made electricity more expensive and potentially less reliable.
West Australian
41 minutes ago
- West Australian
Australians want action on Gaza as rally verdict looms
More than 60 per cent of Australians want tougher government measures to stop Israel's military offensive in Gaza, a poll has found, as protesters await a court verdict to march across an iconic landmark. The NSW Supreme Court is due to hand down a decision on Saturday morning after a bid by NSW Police to halt thousands of anticipated protesters marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The demonstrations slated for Sunday aim to highlight what the United Nations has described as "worsening famine conditions" in Gaza. They have garnered support from activists nationwide, human rights and civil liberties groups as well as several MPs and public figures such as former Socceroo Craig Foster. In solidarity with their interstate peers, protesters in Melbourne are gearing up to rally through the city's CBD, aiming to reach the King Street Bridge. A last-minute application on Friday was also lodged to police by a pro-Israel fringe group for a counter-protest in the tunnel under Sydney Harbour, the court heard. Police confirmed to AAP the group withdrew the application soon after. Respondents to a YouGov poll published on Friday and commissioned by the Australian Alliance for Peace and Human Rights believed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's condemnations of Israel had fallen short. "While the government has recently signed a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, 61 per cent of Australians believe this is not enough," the alliance said. "(Australians) want to see concrete economic, diplomatic and legal measures implemented." The alliance called for economic sanctions and the end of any arms trade with Israel, which the federal government has repeatedly said it has not engaged in directly. The poll surveyed 1507 Australian voters in the last week of July, coinciding with a deteriorating starvation crisis and while diplomatic efforts from countries such as Canada have ramped up. Some 42 per cent of polled coalition voters supported stronger measures and more than two thirds of Labor voters, 68 per cent, are pushing their party to be bolder in placing pressure on Israel. An overwhelming number of Greens voters (91 per cent) wanted a more robust suite of measures as did 77 per cent of independent voters. The results highlighted how the nearly two-year long war on Gaza had resonated with Australians, YouGov director of public data Paul Smith said. "This poll shows there's clearly across the board support for the Australian government to be doing much more in response to the situation in Gaza," he told AAP. "Sixty-one per cent shows the depth of feeling Australians have towards this issue." More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed including more than 17,000 children, according to local health authorities, with reports of dozens of people dead in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's campaign began after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, reportedly killing 1200 people and taking 250 hostages.
Perth Now
41 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Depth of US-Australia ties on show in tariff reprieve
Donald Trump's decision to spare Australia from increased tariffs shows the strength of the bilateral relationship, an expert says, and could give the nation an edge in global trade. While the US president has raised tariffs against dozens of nations, he showed mercy on Australia and kept levies against most products at 10 per cent. This means Australia has secured the lowest tariff rate of any US trading partner, defying speculation it would be hit with a higher levy because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had not yet met face-to-face with Mr Trump. United States Studies Centre research director Jared Mondschein said the result was not surprising given Australia imports more from the US than vice versa and it has a free trade agreement with America. He said the decision highlighted the strength of the US-Australia relationship. "A lot of people put emphasis on the political leaders meeting, but the alliance is far deeper, wider and more expansive," he told AAP. "It's worth getting a meeting, but I just don't think it's an existential threat to the alliance to be unable to secure one. "Securing a 10 per cent tariff rate is definitely a win for Australia." The development has been celebrated by Trade Minister Don Farrell as a vindication of Australia's "cool and calm" diplomatic approach. Senator Farrell has predicted it could give Australia an advantage over other trading partners whose goods have been slugged with higher tariffs. "Australian products are now more competitive in the American market," he told reporters. For example, Australia and Brazil are two of the biggest beef exporters to the US. The tariff rate on the South American nation's goods has been hiked from 10 to 50 per cent, meaning its beef will become more expensive for American consumers, which could push them towards Australian products. Senator Farrell revealed American forces had pushed Mr Trump to increase tariffs on Australian goods, but the president resisted the calls. Mr Mondschein warned Australia not to get too comfortable. "The only certainty in the Trump administration is continued uncertainty when it comes to trade," he said. "In this administration, probably more than any other administration in modern history, there are a lot of folks who are pretty protectionist." The federal government has said it would continue calling for a complete tariff exemption, but no trading partner has been able to achieve this. Opposition trade spokesman Kevin Hogan said the tariff decision was driven by the US having a trade surplus with Australia, "not because of any effort from the prime minister".
