Government gives $10m to jobseeker platform for struggling sectors
workplace
work
Australia
national
government
Politics CONTACT US
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'Big day for America': US President Donald Trump declares August 1 tariff deadline will not be extended after securing deals with Japan, EU
President Donald Trump has declared his August 1 deadline for the introduction of tariffs will not be extended after the United States secured fresh trade deals with Japan and the European Union. The President's threat of widespread tariffs first emerged in April when the US leader announced a long list of nations would be hit with levies to address perceived trade imbalances. Those measures were subsequently delayed, however, with President Trump ultimately pushing back their introduction until August 1 in order to strike "90 deals in 90 days". Despite the delay, the US is set to fall well short of that target, prompting speculation the President could again push back the deadline. On Wednesday, though, President Trump took to his Truth Social platform to dispel any doubts about when tariffs would come into force. "The August first deadline is the August first deadline - it stands strong, and will not be extended," he wrote. "A big day for America!!!" The declaration is likely to cause concern for a number of Australian businesses, with the Albanese government yet to negotiate a new deal with the Trump administration. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Trade Minister Don Farrell have both cited an existing free trade agreement, as well as Australia's longstanding trade deficit with the US, as reasons the nation should escape tariffs, although neither argument has appeared to resonate. President Trump had singled out Australian biosecurity restrictions on US beef, which the government loosened last week, as an example of unfair trade practices, while pharmaceutical companies are understood to have lobbied his administration over Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. If Australian officials are unsuccessful at allaying those concerns, and others, the nation appears set to face tariffs of at least 10 per cent - although President Trump flagged that number may rise as high as 20 per cent in future. The President's declaration comes on the heels of major new agreements struck with Indonesia, Japan and the EU. All three nations will still face tariffs as part of the deals, although at a lower level than originally threatened when President Trump first announced the measures. President Trump's moves to upend global trade have sparked chaos in world markets and prompted the International Monetary Fund to warn they could impact economic growth in the years ahead. In its July World Economic Outlook Update, the organisation's chief economist, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, warned: "The world economy is still hurting, and it's going to continue hurting with tariffs at that level, even though it's not as bad as it could have been". Mr Gourinchas added tariffs were beginning to impact the US economy, saying the IMF was seeing evidence consumer prices were beginning to edge higher.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Global Aussie company defends 150 job cuts as Australia urged to embrace AI
The former chief executive of software giant Atlassian has defended the company's decision to fire 150 workers, urging Australia to embrace AI technology. Staff at the Australian-American tech company reportedly learnt that their jobs were axed via a prerecorded video from chief executive and co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes. Scott Farquhar, who stepped down as joint chief executive of Atlassian in September 2024, defended the move while speaking at the National Press Club on July 30. "We just can't dig our heels in and say the jobs of today will be the jobs in 20 years," Mr Farquhar said. "Some parts of our economy will grow significantly as AI makes them more productive, and some parts of our economy will shrink as we do that," he said. The Australian billionaire said he felt "privileged and blessed" to live in a country with a strong social safety net. He said Australians had "very strong skilling opportunities" that allowed job seekers to retrain in new areas. "I also think that if we say the burden of retraining sits on the companies that are making those changes, that can put us at a comparative disadvantage to other places in the world," he said. "We're always changing the number of people we have at Atlassian on a regular basis, and so there'll always be jobs we're adding." It comes less than a fortnight after contributing writer Kelli Mara Korducki published an article on Atlassian's Work Life, warning companies against replacing staff with AI. "Leaders should approach AI as a tool to support teams, not a mechanism to replace team members," the article said. "Think about it: You wouldn't expect a hammer to do the job of a carpenter. The same logic applies to transformative tech." Atlassian was contacted for comment. The former chief executive of software giant Atlassian has defended the company's decision to fire 150 workers, urging Australia to embrace AI technology. Staff at the Australian-American tech company reportedly learnt that their jobs were axed via a prerecorded video from chief executive and co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes. Scott Farquhar, who stepped down as joint chief executive of Atlassian in September 2024, defended the move while speaking at the National Press Club on July 30. "We just can't dig our heels in and say the jobs of today will be the jobs in 20 years," Mr Farquhar said. "Some parts of our economy will grow significantly as AI makes them more productive, and some parts of our economy will shrink as we do that," he said. The Australian billionaire said he felt "privileged and blessed" to live in a country with a strong social safety net. He said Australians had "very strong skilling opportunities" that allowed job seekers to retrain in new areas. "I also think that if we say the burden of retraining sits on the companies that are making those changes, that can put us at a comparative disadvantage to other places in the world," he said. "We're always changing the number of people we have at Atlassian on a regular basis, and so there'll always be jobs we're adding." It comes less than a fortnight after contributing writer Kelli Mara Korducki published an article on Atlassian's Work Life, warning companies against replacing staff with AI. "Leaders should approach AI as a tool to support teams, not a mechanism to replace team members," the article said. "Think about it: You wouldn't expect a hammer to do the job of a carpenter. The same logic applies to transformative tech." Atlassian was contacted for comment. The former chief executive of software giant Atlassian has defended the company's decision to fire 150 workers, urging Australia to embrace AI technology. Staff at the Australian-American tech company reportedly learnt that their jobs were axed via a prerecorded video from chief executive and co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes. Scott Farquhar, who stepped down as joint chief executive of Atlassian in September 2024, defended the move while speaking at the National Press Club on July 30. "We just can't dig our heels in and say the jobs of today will be the jobs in 20 years," Mr Farquhar said. "Some parts of our economy will grow significantly as AI makes them more productive, and some parts of our economy will shrink as we do that," he said. The Australian billionaire said he felt "privileged and blessed" to live in a country with a strong social safety net. He said Australians had "very strong skilling opportunities" that allowed job seekers to retrain in new areas. "I also think that if we say the burden of retraining sits on the companies that are making those changes, that can put us at a comparative disadvantage to other places in the world," he said. "We're always changing the number of people we have at Atlassian on a regular basis, and so there'll always be jobs we're adding." It comes less than a fortnight after contributing writer Kelli Mara Korducki published an article on Atlassian's Work Life, warning companies against replacing staff with AI. "Leaders should approach AI as a tool to support teams, not a mechanism to replace team members," the article said. "Think about it: You wouldn't expect a hammer to do the job of a carpenter. The same logic applies to transformative tech." Atlassian was contacted for comment. The former chief executive of software giant Atlassian has defended the company's decision to fire 150 workers, urging Australia to embrace AI technology. Staff at the Australian-American tech company reportedly learnt that their jobs were axed via a prerecorded video from chief executive and co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes. Scott Farquhar, who stepped down as joint chief executive of Atlassian in September 2024, defended the move while speaking at the National Press Club on July 30. "We just can't dig our heels in and say the jobs of today will be the jobs in 20 years," Mr Farquhar said. "Some parts of our economy will grow significantly as AI makes them more productive, and some parts of our economy will shrink as we do that," he said. The Australian billionaire said he felt "privileged and blessed" to live in a country with a strong social safety net. He said Australians had "very strong skilling opportunities" that allowed job seekers to retrain in new areas. "I also think that if we say the burden of retraining sits on the companies that are making those changes, that can put us at a comparative disadvantage to other places in the world," he said. "We're always changing the number of people we have at Atlassian on a regular basis, and so there'll always be jobs we're adding." It comes less than a fortnight after contributing writer Kelli Mara Korducki published an article on Atlassian's Work Life, warning companies against replacing staff with AI. "Leaders should approach AI as a tool to support teams, not a mechanism to replace team members," the article said. "Think about it: You wouldn't expect a hammer to do the job of a carpenter. The same logic applies to transformative tech." Atlassian was contacted for comment.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Can pensioners really be 'wealthy'? One economist reckons they are
The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ...
