Labor pushes for government stake in struggling smelters
The future of about a dozen smelters and refineries – covering aluminium, lead, copper, and manganese – is under a cloud, with some already having closed their doors due to soaring power prices and trade distortions caused by Chinese competitors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
6 hours ago
- 7NEWS
The Issue with Tim Lester: 7NEWS sits down with John Powers, former US soldier and Australian citizen
For John Powers, it's a tough conclusion to reach. ' Australia is a strategic liability because of the waning capabilities that we have.' Powers is uniquely placed to comment on Australia's defence relationship with our great security ally, the United States. 'We have not manned and equipped and sustained our military, our ADF, so that it can keep pace materially and capability-wise with the United States,' he told 7NEWS. At first blush, it sounds self-serving, delivered with Powers' thick American accent. It presses the case US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth put to Defence Minister Richard Marles in late May: that Australia needs to increase its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of our gross domestic product, tens of billions of dollars more in military spending every year. In fact, John Powers is a dual citizen now living in Australia. He also brings extraordinary experience to the question of whether his adopted country is a good ally for his old country. Now retired, his experience as a US special forces soldier, brigade task force commander, and military intelligence specialist stretched across four decades — from Grenada in 1983 right up to the first Trump administration. Among his roles, he was a war planner. 'When we would put together plans, we would start with Australia,' he said. 'We'd always start to figure out how can we get the Aussies into the fray because when it comes to just grit and mettle and the intangibles of being a reliable soldier, sailor, airman ... you could not have a better ally.' These days, he's not trying to recruit Australians. He's speaking as one. 'I think we've underspent on defence from the standpoint of we don't have the capabilities that we need to even defend ourselves,' he said. On other issues, John Powers challenges American views. Loading content... He waves off a Chinese -owned company's contentious 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin. 'I don't think it's that big of a deal,' he said. 'This same company owns and operates ports in the United States.' When news of the 2015 agreement broke, he says he saw it as an intelligence opportunity '... to collect on the Chinese ... see how they do business, to be able to cross-pollinate with the Americans.' Powers cautions Australians who say assets like Pine Gap — the joint satellite surveillance base near Alice Springs — make us indispensable for US military intelligence. 'It's more important to the Australians than it is (to) the United States,' he said. 'We have similar bases or similar facilities in England, Turkey, Germany, places like that.' Powers argues 'with technology nowadays, you can … bend pipe that stuff back to Fort Meade, Maryland, and it all can be collected there'. He sees greater value, from the US point of view, in Perth and its 'very significant' future as a rotational base for American submarines. But on the biggest of defence hardware projects, he's a pessimist. 'I'm not an AUKUS fan,' he said. 'I don't think it's a good deal.' He doubts Australia will ever take delivery of the American nuclear-powered submarines promised under AUKUS. 'I'm not confident we'll ever see those three Virginia-class submarines,' he said. Now watching the friction between the Albanese government and the Trump administration, Powers is animated by one other issue: the tenure of Australia's ambassador in Washington. 'Mr Rudd should do the honorable thing and resign,' he said. According to Powers, his contacts back in the US are utterly clear on the issue. The fact Kevin Rudd is a former Prime Minister and respected voice on matters regarding China is beside the point. 'Mr Trump doesn't like him,' he said. 'And as a result of Mr Trump not liking him, nobody else in his administration is going to give him the time of day. That is a disservice to us as Australians.' For John Powers, any issue causing friction between the country he was born in, and the country he says he plans to die in, is a problem worth solving.
The Advertiser
14 hours ago
- The Advertiser
At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive.
Sky News AU
14 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Trump administration pressures Albanese government over defence budget, warning AUKUS goals at risk without 3.5 per cent of GDP
The United States has issued its most forceful warning yet to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, with the Pentagon urging Canberra to significantly increase defence expenditure or risk undermining its AUKUS commitments and overall military readiness. In what shapes as a critical test for the Labor government, senior US defence officials are now calling for Australia to adopt a spending benchmark of 3.5 per cent of GDP, labelled by Washington as the new international norm in the era of strategic competition and rising global instability. 'For Australia in particular, it is vitally important that they are able to raise defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP,' a US Defence official told The Australian. 'That will allow them to generate and field the kind of forces required not just to defend themselves but work together closely with us to maintain deterrence in the region.' The comments come ahead of a demanding period of international diplomacy for Mr Albanese, who is set to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month and is working towards an in-person meeting with US President Donald Trump. There's growing speculation that the planned Quad leaders' summit may be shifted from India to the US to align with the UN gathering. While the AUKUS pact promises to deliver at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia in the 2030s, that arrangement is contingent on US national security assessments and whether the transfer would erode America's own naval capabilities. Washington now signalling frustration at what it sees as underwhelming fiscal commitment from Canberra. 'It is not an abstraction. This is a concrete objective. AUKUS is an expensive thing. Increasing defence spending is going to be vitally important for Australia to achieve its stated objectives under AUKUS while also modernising the rest of the ADF,' the US official continued. 'At a certain point, it's just maths. They need to spend more on defence.' Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers' most recent budget forecasts military spending reaching nearly $59 billion this financial year, equivalent to just over 2 per cent of GDP. However, only about a third of that funding is allocated to acquiring new weaponry and systems. The government's long-term plan includes an increase of $50.3 billion in defence spending over the next 10 years, but the bulk of that funding is deferred until 2028–29 and beyond. 'I think we can say with confidence that if Australia does not raise defence spending it is going to struggle to field the forces required to defend Australia but also to make good on its commitments to others,' the Pentagon official warned. 'But we are hopeful that Australia will be able to lean in and make these decisions - 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence spending; that is the new global standard.' The US call echoes recent developments in NATO, where member states agreed in June to boost collective defence outlays to 5 per cent of GDP. Mr Albanese has expressed reluctance to pad out Australia's defence numbers by including civilian infrastructure, despite some of those investments directly supporting military capability. He has instead highlighted Australia's direct contribution of over $US1 billion to the US submarine industrial base as a clear signal of commitment to the AUKUS framework. The pressure from Washington arrives just as Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby leads a review of the trilateral security pact, with concerns mounting that Australia's budget settings may fall short of what's needed to deliver on the ambitious goals of AUKUS and meet the demands of a changing Indo-Pacific region.
