Kamala Harris to speak at Gold Coast real estate conference but not to local media
The former US vice president, who lost November's US election to Donald Trump, will participate in a moderated on-stage conversation at the Australasian Real Estate Conference.
Harris is one of 32 speakers scheduled to speak at the conference, along with the US real estate broker and reality TV personality Mauricio Umansky, gold medal winning Olympians Emma McKeon and Ariarne Titmus, and the British entrepreneur Steven Bartlett, who will appear via satellite.
Speakers are available to the media except for Harris. 'No interviews' was listed next to her bio.
Founded by Australian property mogul John McGrath, the chief executive officer of the ASX-listed McGrath Estate Agents, the event will be held on Queensland's Gold Coast in late May.
In a statement, the organisers said Harris' participation in the conference would be her first speaking engagement in Australia.
Promotional material for the event described Harris as 'a trailblazer through her entire career, committed in her vision for ensuring all Americans can climb the ladder of economic opportunity, including bringing down the cost of living and making housing more affordable'.
She will join a 'selection of esteemed international speakers and Australia's leading real estate professionals set to impart their expertise, industry insights, and strategies for success in an ever evolving property sector', according to organisers.
Organisers would not disclose how much the speakers would be paid.
More to come
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
7 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Irish leaders welcome clarity on EU-US trade deal and pharma tariffs cap of 15%
Taoiseach Micheal Martin said the trade agreement represented a 'significant win' for the EU while Tanaiste Simon Harris said it offered an 'important shield' for Irish exporters. The EU struck a trade deal with the US on July 27, five days before Mr Trump said a 30% tariff would kick in for the bloc. The deal sees 15% tariffs on most EU goods including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals entering the US. There are 'zero for zero' tariffs on a number of products including aircrafts and aircraft parts, some agricultural goods and certain chemicals – as well as EU purchases of US energy worth 750 billion dollars over three years. In the aftermath of the deal, it was not clear whether 15% would remain the rate for the pharma sector or be increased. The EU-US statement published on Thursday said that as of September 1, the US will apply a maximum tariff rate of 15% on generic pharmaceuticals, their ingredients and chemical precursors. 'The United States intends to promptly ensure that the tariff rate, comprised of the MFN (Most Favored Nation) tariff and the tariff imposed pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, applied to originating goods of the European Union subject to Section 232 actions on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber does not exceed 15%.' Mr Harris, Ireland's deputy premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, welcomed the assurances for the pharmaceutical and semiconductor sectors. 'We welcome clarity that the deal includes a single, all-inclusive 15% tariff on EU goods,' Mr Harris said. 'We also now have assurance that this rate will extend to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. 'This provides an important shield to Irish exporters that could have been subject to much larger tariffs pending the outcomes of Section 232 US investigations into these sectors.' Mr Harris said this offered a 'first step' to a more 'comprehensive and formal agreement with the US in the future'. 'Our intention now is to see what other carve outs can be made in areas of interest for Irish exporters.' Irish premier Micheal Martin said the statement brought 'greater clarity and certainty' to what the EU-US agreement would mean in practice. 'This is especially important for enterprises that either import from or export to the US,' he said. 'Given the scale of the pharmaceutical and semiconductor sectors in Ireland, it is important that the Joint Statement confirms that 15% is a ceiling that will apply to EU exports in these areas in all circumstances, including when the current US Section 232 investigations are concluded. 'While I have been clear all along that I do not support tariffs, this is a significant win for the EU. 'Given the significance of the airline sector to Ireland, a specific carve-out for aircraft and aircraft parts is also welcome. 'There are areas where further work remains to be done, including a potential carve-out for med-tech products and spirits. 'I hope this will be advanced as quickly as possible. We will continue to advocate for these sectors given their significant importance to our domestic economy.' Paul Sweetman, chief executive of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, welcomed the joint statement as providing 'greater clarity to business on the future of the transatlantic trading partnership, worth over four billion dollars daily'. 'The framework brings more certainty and allows for further work to grow our mutually beneficial economic relationship,' he said. 'In supporting the US-Ireland and US-EU trading relationships into the future, we must also focus on enhancing competitiveness. 'Now is the time to make smart policy and investment decisions to deliver critical infrastructure projects, meet future skills needs, bolster our RD&I ecosystem, and secure Ireland's position as a digital regulatory hub. 'AmCham will continue to work closely with the Irish Government, the US administration and our EU and US partners in growing investment on both sides of the Atlantic.'
Powys County Times
7 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Irish leaders welcome clarity on EU-US trade deal and pharma tariffs cap of 15%
Ireland's premier and deputy premier have welcomed clarity on the EU-US trade deal, which sees the US commit to capping tariffs on pharma goods at 15%. Taoiseach Micheal Martin said the trade agreement represented a 'significant win' for the EU while Tanaiste Simon Harris said it offered an 'important shield' for Irish exporters. The EU struck a trade deal with the US on July 27, five days before Mr Trump said a 30% tariff would kick in for the bloc. The deal sees 15% tariffs on most EU goods including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals entering the US. There are 'zero for zero' tariffs on a number of products including aircrafts and aircraft parts, some agricultural goods and certain chemicals – as well as EU purchases of US energy worth 750 billion dollars over three years. In the aftermath of the deal, it was not clear whether 15% would remain the rate for the pharma sector or be increased. The EU-US statement published on Thursday said that as of September 1, the US will apply a maximum tariff rate of 15% on generic pharmaceuticals, their ingredients and chemical precursors. 'The United States intends to promptly ensure that the tariff rate, comprised of the MFN (Most Favored Nation) tariff and the tariff imposed pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, applied to originating goods of the European Union subject to Section 232 actions on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber does not exceed 15%.' Mr Harris, Ireland's deputy premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, welcomed the assurances for the pharmaceutical and semiconductor sectors. 'We welcome clarity that the deal includes a single, all-inclusive 15% tariff on EU goods,' Mr Harris said. 'We also now have assurance that this rate will extend to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. 'This provides an important shield to Irish exporters that could have been subject to much larger tariffs pending the outcomes of Section 232 US investigations into these sectors.' Mr Harris said this offered a 'first step' to a more 'comprehensive and formal agreement with the US in the future'. 'Our intention now is to see what other carve outs can be made in areas of interest for Irish exporters.' Irish premier Micheal Martin said the statement brought 'greater clarity and certainty' to what the EU-US agreement would mean in practice. 'This is especially important for enterprises that either import from or export to the US,' he said. 'Given the scale of the pharmaceutical and semiconductor sectors in Ireland, it is important that the Joint Statement confirms that 15% is a ceiling that will apply to EU exports in these areas in all circumstances, including when the current US Section 232 investigations are concluded. 'While I have been clear all along that I do not support tariffs, this is a significant win for the EU. 'Given the significance of the airline sector to Ireland, a specific carve-out for aircraft and aircraft parts is also welcome. 'There are areas where further work remains to be done, including a potential carve-out for med-tech products and spirits. 'I hope this will be advanced as quickly as possible. We will continue to advocate for these sectors given their significant importance to our domestic economy.' Paul Sweetman, chief executive of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, welcomed the joint statement as providing 'greater clarity to business on the future of the transatlantic trading partnership, worth over four billion dollars daily'. 'The framework brings more certainty and allows for further work to grow our mutually beneficial economic relationship,' he said. 'In supporting the US-Ireland and US-EU trading relationships into the future, we must also focus on enhancing competitiveness. 'Now is the time to make smart policy and investment decisions to deliver critical infrastructure projects, meet future skills needs, bolster our RD&I ecosystem, and secure Ireland's position as a digital regulatory hub. 'AmCham will continue to work closely with the Irish Government, the US administration and our EU and US partners in growing investment on both sides of the Atlantic.'
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?
