‘Not just a piece of fabric': Push to criminalise burning of Australian flag
'Make it a national law that you cannot burn the Australian flag,' Mr Thompson told Sky News Australia.
'It is not just a piece of fabric, it is something that brings our nation together, it also should unite this country, we should be proud of Australia and what we've achieved."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
6 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What the RBA governor's struggle to get a room to focus on rates says about the economy
Low inflation and official interest rates through the 2010s, then COVID, the post-pandemic inflation explosion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and more recently the war in Gaza all diverted attention away from the productivity slowdown. But with inflation subsiding and Donald Trump upending the global trading order, most governments – including the freshly re-elected administration of Anthony Albanese – are revisiting ways to get their economies back to health. Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who will sit through all roundtable sessions, and whose department will be driving much of the analysis of the various proposals put up by participants, has cautioned that those looking for instant results on Thursday evening will be disappointed. '[The point of] this economic reform roundtable is not to make decisions, it's to inform the government's decisions,' Chalmers told ABC Radio National Breakfast on Wednesday. 'And that's the point that we have made all along.' The roundtable has attracted almost 900 submissions, although some proposals appear dead on arrival. There seems little appetite, for instance, to support the ACTU's ambit claim for a four-day working week without a cut in pay. Loading The Productivity Commission has, through five papers canvassing everything from tax to AI, made more than 40 separate recommendations of its own. The government has held a series of industry-specific roundtables in areas such as mining, agriculture and housing, where a host of ideas have surfaced. Chalmers sat down with business leaders and lobby groups ahead of the roundtable, as have other ministers. 'I think it has been a very worthwhile thing that we are shaking the tree for ideas, and the prime minister and I are aligned in the way we go about that,' Chalmers told Ratio National. The reason for so many ideas bubbling up is twofold. The first is that it has been a long, long time since a government has asked all and sundry to produce a shopping list of suggestions. The second is that there is no single bullet solution to a productivity problem that has afflicted every nation and almost every corner of the economy. In housing, for instance, the average time in Australia to complete a block of apartments has soared since 2008 from around 17 months to 28 months. Building a house has increased from seven months to 10. But in comparison to other countries, the Australian construction sector is almost a beacon of hope. The Productivity Commission found building productivity in Australia is outperforming the US, Britain and Sweden. Explaining its reason for lowering its productivity assumption, the Reserve Bank suggested a number of reasons. They include declining dynamism among businesses and across the labour market, slower rollout of technological breakthroughs, falling competition, regulatory red tape, a slowdown in the growth of skills among workers, and a drop in trade linkages across the world. Even measuring productivity can be difficult. Some pundits have blamed the increase in financial resources and people in the care sectors of the economy (aged care, childcare, health, disability) for the slowdown in productivity. Measuring productivity in these sectors, where relatively low-paid people provide intense services to the frail, sick, old or young, is notoriously difficult. The Productivity Commission this week reported that by a traditional measure of productivity, it had grown at just 0.1 per cent a year across the nation's hospitals between 2008-09 and 2018-19. By contrast, productivity across the entire economy grew by 0.7 per cent per annum. Yet that doesn't consider the huge improvements in the quality of care or patient outcomes. Cancer treatments, the commission said, are far more effective today than they were a few years ago. When you account for quality, healthcare productivity grew at 3 per cent per year through much of the past decade, dwarfing the rest of the economy. 'Simply put, Australians are getting better outcomes, but not necessarily more care services, per dollar spent,' the commission noted. Loading Another issue is that productivity in the mining sector – the nation's most productive based on the value of its outputs – has fallen off a cliff over the past five years. It has tumbled by 20 per cent, largely because miners are now tapping lower-value deposits while facing a string of natural disasters that have flooded coal mines or shut down key production sites. No matter the varied causes, it's clear the government and most participants want to target a productivity bugbear: red tape and bureaucracy. The battle to get bike helmets into the economy is a small-scale example. While the nation's cyclists protect their heads with imported helmets, the safety standards governing the headwear differs. It costs importers about $14 million a year to comply with those different standards. Loading The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission started a process to align the European and American standards governing helmets sold domestically in 2016. It was only completed last year, but it has yet to be signed off by all states and territories. 'The net result is that eight years after realising the value of harmonisation, most Australians are yet to see benefits,' the Productivity Commission reported earlier this month. Productivity is not just red tape or new machines or tax. The skills of the workforce are also a vital component. The Smith Family says there are 3.3 million people living in poverty in Australia, including 761,000 children. Loading It's pinning its hopes on the roundtable coming up with ways to lift school completion rates and overall education outcomes, given their strong connection to improved wages and incomes. 'We know children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more susceptible to falling behind in the classroom, disengaging with school, not finishing year 12 and not being able to fully participate in the workforce,' the charity's chief executive officer, Doug Taylor, says. 'To boost the pool of talent in the nation's workforce, we must plug the holes to stop students experiencing disadvantage from falling through the cracks.' Despite the reticence of the government to deal with the multitude of issues with the nation's tax system, many people believe the purpose of next week is to put tax reform squarely at the centre of Anthony Albanese's second-term agenda. Independent MP Allegra Spender, who has a seat around at the roundtable, is looking for a shift to a dual income tax system. Investors would lose the ability to offset their taxable income through losses on their property holdings, with the revenue used to reduce personal income tax rates. 'You should be rewarded for investing in yourself, not for expanding your property portfolio,' she said. Ben Phillips, from the ANU's Centre for Social Policy Research, has proposed a major simplification of the entire system that includes axing the Medicare levy and the low-income tax offset, removing Family Tax Benefit B (while substantially lifting Family Tax Benefit A), and making changes to JobSeeker and the parenting payment. He says that over the years, the tax and welfare system has been subject to changes that often appear ad hoc, politically motivated or driven by short-term budget goals. 'Many of these changes lack a clear rationale and, arguably, are unnecessary and have themselves added to complexity,' he says. From family payments to suburban housing blocks to helmet standards, productivity – and its slowdown – permeates the economy. Without any concrete proposals out of next week, Michele Bullock will be joined by a prime minister and treasurer with concern etched on their collective faces.
The Age
6 minutes ago
- The Age
What the RBA governor's struggle to get a room to focus on rates says about the economy
Low inflation and official interest rates through the 2010s, then COVID, the post-pandemic inflation explosion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and more recently the war in Gaza all diverted attention away from the productivity slowdown. But with inflation subsiding and Donald Trump upending the global trading order, most governments – including the freshly re-elected administration of Anthony Albanese – are revisiting ways to get their economies back to health. Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who will sit through all roundtable sessions, and whose department will be driving much of the analysis of the various proposals put up by participants, has cautioned that those looking for instant results on Thursday evening will be disappointed. '[The point of] this economic reform roundtable is not to make decisions, it's to inform the government's decisions,' Chalmers told ABC Radio National Breakfast on Wednesday. 'And that's the point that we have made all along.' The roundtable has attracted almost 900 submissions, although some proposals appear dead on arrival. There seems little appetite, for instance, to support the ACTU's ambit claim for a four-day working week without a cut in pay. Loading The Productivity Commission has, through five papers canvassing everything from tax to AI, made more than 40 separate recommendations of its own. The government has held a series of industry-specific roundtables in areas such as mining, agriculture and housing, where a host of ideas have surfaced. Chalmers sat down with business leaders and lobby groups ahead of the roundtable, as have other ministers. 'I think it has been a very worthwhile thing that we are shaking the tree for ideas, and the prime minister and I are aligned in the way we go about that,' Chalmers told Ratio National. The reason for so many ideas bubbling up is twofold. The first is that it has been a long, long time since a government has asked all and sundry to produce a shopping list of suggestions. The second is that there is no single bullet solution to a productivity problem that has afflicted every nation and almost every corner of the economy. In housing, for instance, the average time in Australia to complete a block of apartments has soared since 2008 from around 17 months to 28 months. Building a house has increased from seven months to 10. But in comparison to other countries, the Australian construction sector is almost a beacon of hope. The Productivity Commission found building productivity in Australia is outperforming the US, Britain and Sweden. Explaining its reason for lowering its productivity assumption, the Reserve Bank suggested a number of reasons. They include declining dynamism among businesses and across the labour market, slower rollout of technological breakthroughs, falling competition, regulatory red tape, a slowdown in the growth of skills among workers, and a drop in trade linkages across the world. Even measuring productivity can be difficult. Some pundits have blamed the increase in financial resources and people in the care sectors of the economy (aged care, childcare, health, disability) for the slowdown in productivity. Measuring productivity in these sectors, where relatively low-paid people provide intense services to the frail, sick, old or young, is notoriously difficult. The Productivity Commission this week reported that by a traditional measure of productivity, it had grown at just 0.1 per cent a year across the nation's hospitals between 2008-09 and 2018-19. By contrast, productivity across the entire economy grew by 0.7 per cent per annum. Yet that doesn't consider the huge improvements in the quality of care or patient outcomes. Cancer treatments, the commission said, are far more effective today than they were a few years ago. When you account for quality, healthcare productivity grew at 3 per cent per year through much of the past decade, dwarfing the rest of the economy. 'Simply put, Australians are getting better outcomes, but not necessarily more care services, per dollar spent,' the commission noted. Loading Another issue is that productivity in the mining sector – the nation's most productive based on the value of its outputs – has fallen off a cliff over the past five years. It has tumbled by 20 per cent, largely because miners are now tapping lower-value deposits while facing a string of natural disasters that have flooded coal mines or shut down key production sites. No matter the varied causes, it's clear the government and most participants want to target a productivity bugbear: red tape and bureaucracy. The battle to get bike helmets into the economy is a small-scale example. While the nation's cyclists protect their heads with imported helmets, the safety standards governing the headwear differs. It costs importers about $14 million a year to comply with those different standards. Loading The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission started a process to align the European and American standards governing helmets sold domestically in 2016. It was only completed last year, but it has yet to be signed off by all states and territories. 'The net result is that eight years after realising the value of harmonisation, most Australians are yet to see benefits,' the Productivity Commission reported earlier this month. Productivity is not just red tape or new machines or tax. The skills of the workforce are also a vital component. The Smith Family says there are 3.3 million people living in poverty in Australia, including 761,000 children. Loading It's pinning its hopes on the roundtable coming up with ways to lift school completion rates and overall education outcomes, given their strong connection to improved wages and incomes. 'We know children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more susceptible to falling behind in the classroom, disengaging with school, not finishing year 12 and not being able to fully participate in the workforce,' the charity's chief executive officer, Doug Taylor, says. 'To boost the pool of talent in the nation's workforce, we must plug the holes to stop students experiencing disadvantage from falling through the cracks.' Despite the reticence of the government to deal with the multitude of issues with the nation's tax system, many people believe the purpose of next week is to put tax reform squarely at the centre of Anthony Albanese's second-term agenda. Independent MP Allegra Spender, who has a seat around at the roundtable, is looking for a shift to a dual income tax system. Investors would lose the ability to offset their taxable income through losses on their property holdings, with the revenue used to reduce personal income tax rates. 'You should be rewarded for investing in yourself, not for expanding your property portfolio,' she said. Ben Phillips, from the ANU's Centre for Social Policy Research, has proposed a major simplification of the entire system that includes axing the Medicare levy and the low-income tax offset, removing Family Tax Benefit B (while substantially lifting Family Tax Benefit A), and making changes to JobSeeker and the parenting payment. He says that over the years, the tax and welfare system has been subject to changes that often appear ad hoc, politically motivated or driven by short-term budget goals. 'Many of these changes lack a clear rationale and, arguably, are unnecessary and have themselves added to complexity,' he says. From family payments to suburban housing blocks to helmet standards, productivity – and its slowdown – permeates the economy. Without any concrete proposals out of next week, Michele Bullock will be joined by a prime minister and treasurer with concern etched on their collective faces.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display.
