Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
a few seconds ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance
Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'
Sydney Morning Herald
a few seconds ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Recognising Palestine won't stop the killing, on either side
Reality is reflected in the mirror of the response issued by the Palestine Action Group, who organised last weekend's Sydney Harbour Bridge march and the Sydney Opera House hate fest in October 2023: 'We must be clear: recognition of a Palestinian state has never been a demand of this movement ... we will take to the streets again … until the Australian government takes real, decisive action to end its complicity.' Hamas has 'applauded' the announcement. Both of these should give the government pause. Loading Australia's white-saviour act at the UN next month won't stop the killing or the associated conflict on our streets. It won't release from hell the Israeli, Thai and Nepalese hostages starved and tortured by Hamas for almost two years now. No pronouncement by any foreign leader will have the slightest impact on peace, security or co-existence for Israelis or Palestinians. Israelis are screaming and IDF generals threatening to resign because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's latest plan for Gaza will prolong both the horror of war for all, and the longevity of his coalition. West Bank Palestinians despise the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has no ability to implement any of the 'commitments' it has made to the international community. I remember a Palestinian academic sneering to our 2023 tour group that the only thing PA leader Mahmoud Abbas could organise was a parade for himself. Hamas still has a stranglehold on Gaza's population, whom it's terrorised for 18 years, using civilians as human shields, stealing food from them, beating and murdering dissenters. Loading Let Palestine be recognised as a state, and held accountable as a state actor, finally. Let the corrupt and complicit UNRWA be shut down because Palestinians won't be refugees any more; they'll have a state to return to. Let there be elections where the PA losers don't get thrown to their deaths off roofs by the Hamas winners, as in 2007. Let them reconcile their contradictory commitments to 'statehood' (the PA) and a global caliphate (Hamas Charter). May our government's great faith not be misplaced. I wish Wong and Albanese had been on the tour I led this May, meeting Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze and Palestinian women who graciously shared with us their intertwined lived experiences. One was the very first non-Jewish person to reach out to me after October 7: a Palestinian friend who lives in East Jerusalem. The sisterhood, mutual empathy and pragmatism of these women in the middle of a war zone stood in stark contrast with the performative sloganeering that fills our social media feeds and shamefully, our Hansards, too. The women we met in May were focused on the future. They look into the faces of their children every day. After WWII, the defeated Germany needed to rebuild its economy and deprogram its people after years of antisemitic indoctrination and warmongering had crippled them. The international community helped them with both, and the result was a spectacular success. Why don't we offer a similar, strength-based approach to Palestine? Let's put people ahead of political posturing and give the faces of both Palestinian and Israeli children something to turn to with hope in their eyes.
The Age
a few seconds ago
- The Age
The problem with taking advice from ‘finfluencers'
For better or worse, now when people go looking for life advice or want to find answers to burning questions, the place we increasingly turn to is social media. And sure, there are a lot of areas in our lives where this can be great. Suggestions on how to use up half a can of chickpeas or learning how to braid your hair is one thing. But when it comes to things like our health and finances, the risks associated with getting advice from unqualified influencers are exponentially higher. That's one of the reasons that I was happy to see that the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions recently took part in a global crackdown on financial influencers, also known as 'finfluencers', along with regulators from the United Kingdom, Italy, Hong Kong, Canada and the United Arab Emirates. Following the crackdown, ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland explained: 'It's important that consumers separate fun from fact when it comes to influencer content. Popularity doesn't equal credibility.' In other words, a finfluencer might have 100,000 people eager to listen to what they have to say, but that doesn't mean they have the qualifications, expertise or a legal right to be saying it in the first place. In the UK alone, the regulator issued 650 requests for content to be removed from social media, 50 takedown requests to websites being operated by influencers, and seven cease and desist letters. The regulators also invited four influencers in for interviews, and made three arrests. In Australia, though, the fallout was much smaller, with ASIC issuing just 18 warning notices to financial influencers suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice and/or unlawfully spruiking high-risk financial products. Loading As tempting as it might be to think that our markedly smaller numbers are a sign of Australian finfluencers being better, more honest people than those in other nations, that's not quite it. The main reason for our A+ performance is a thing called INFO 269, which are guidelines ASIC issued in 2022 specifically outlining the rules and regulations for social media influencers offering financial advice. In addition to breaking down the legal standards influencers are required to meet before discussing or promoting stocks, financial products or investment funds, the guidelines also make the consequences of breaking any rules crystal clear: up to five years in jail, or fines of over $1 million. These threats aren't idle, either. In 2021, ASIC successfully filed a lawsuit against Tyson Scholz, an Australian finfluencer who dubbed himself the 'ASX Wolf'. At the time, Scholz was offering stock tips via paid online subscriber groups to his Instagram followers, which sat at well over 100,000 people. At the time, though, Scholz did not hold a valid financial services licence, meaning his advice specifically on what stocks to buy was against the law. By 2023, he was facing bankruptcy over a $450,000 court-imposed debt from the regulator. And it's not just finance influencers who are being closely watched and regulated, either. In 2022, the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced restrictions on how influencers post about products such as vitamins, protein powders, supplements, sunscreen, medical devices and medicines. These changes mean influencers must clearly disclose if they are in partnership with a brand, and they also cannot share their personal experience with therapeutic products.
