At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
The system for selling property is broken
AI, something's not right Apropos Waleed Aly's article on AI (8/8), yesterday I asked Google for train times from East Malvern to the city and got an AI Overview saying East Malvern is on the Frankston line and takes about 15minutes to travel to the city. Another attempt gave ″you can take a Glen Waverley line train to Caulfield then transfer to a Frankston line train to Flinders Street″. One answer included a link to Rome2Rio which also contains this wrong information. I was asked to rate the first answer and I said it was wrong, so I was then requested to give the correct answer for the purpose of training AI! Does PTV or Metro Trains know prospective passengers are being given wrong information? It's also not my job to train AI. This is preposterous. Don Jordan, Mt Waverley Legislation not needed Surely, mandating working from home with legislation is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Forward-looking employers are already facilitating working from home arrangements. Those who don't, will be judged by the jobs market as inflexible, and will miss out on recruiting the best talent. Legislating work from home is already redundant. Matthew Hamilton, Kew WFH just a useful tool Working from home is not a hill to die on. Before the arguments get too polarised and confrontational, politically, socially or economically, we need to recognise that it's merely a useful tool that can offer greater flexibility to some people and some workplaces, not all. We all look at work-life balance from different angles, and find the best option in any situation needs to be a matter of sensible negotiation not a battleground. The COVID years provided a glimpse of options we hadn't previously had to try; it would be a pity if this led to insistence on legislated rights that undermine the potential benefits of newfound flexibility. Jenifer Nicholls, Windsor Meaningless roundtable Despite continued calls for change, if Anthony Albanese insists there will be no major overhaul of the tax system, just what is the point of the economic reform roundtable? Annie Wilson, Inverloch Learn from history Benjamin Netanyahu is deluding himself in believing that he can defeat Hamas. The full force of the American military battled the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army for 10 years and was defeated. The same will happen in Gaza no matter how much destruction and killing the Israeli Defence Force wreak there. Reg Murray, Glen Iris How high the toll? Gaza. How many more will die? Malcolm McDonald, Burwood A military occupation So it's now official Israeli policy to turn Gaza into a demilitarised zone, except for the Israeli military, of course. David Robertson, Wheatsheaf This is not freedom Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to free the population of Gaza. More likely he'll free Gaza of its population. Richard Wilson, Croydon PM, do something Israel has said the quiet part out loud. It plans to conquer Gaza, fence it in, and decide who can live there and who cannot (″ Israel set on conquering ″ 10/8). After months of bombing, starving, and killing, they call this 'security'. And our government? It nods along with concern written on its face, but its hands stay firmly in its pockets. No sanctions. No arms embargo. Not even the courage to recognise Palestine without strings attached. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong – you know exactly what is happening. You know the siege, the starvation, the expulsions, the massacres, are part of the same story that began in 1948. You know this is the erasure of a people. So what's stopping you? Fear of upsetting Washington? I don't want to hear another word of sympathy from leaders who will not act. Sympathy doesn't feed the starving. It doesn't rebuild the ruins. It doesn't save a single child in Gaza tonight. Lila Malagi, Flinders Premier, do something Thirty years ago, Jeff Kennett sold off government assets to pay down the massive public debt incurred by the Cain and Kirner administrations. We were the rustbucket state going nowhere, largely because the (then) powerful transport unions, supposedly 'supporters″ of Labor, regularly shut down the transport networks. Since then Labor has enthusiastically followed Kennett's playbook, selling off the last remaining government-owned assets. Now Victoria is once again mired in debt but with no 'silver' left to flog to pay it off. Instead of moaning about what the Liberals did a political eon ago, the premier should focus her attention on how she is going to fix the state's dreadful finances. Perhaps she could start by selling off the reconstituted SEC, but would anyone buy it? Greg Hardy, Upper Ferntree Gully A timid country You have to wonder why Anthony Albanese is organising a talkfest about policy when he is spending most of his time ruling policy options out. No increase to GST; no tackling of negative gearing (even for investors with multiple properties); no reforms to capital gains taxes or dividend imputation policies; and importantly no consideration of a carbon tax – the most effective and efficient tool in the fight against climate change. Above all else multinationals continue to exploit our natural resources while paying minimal or no tax. Australia was once a model for reforms – particularly in democratic initiatives – now we are a timid country run by timid people. Noel Turnbull, Port Melbourne
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Premier's big call as state parliament hangs in balance
Tasmania's freshly reinstalled Liberal premier has appointed an independent MP to lead the state parliament's upper house. But fellow politicians have accused the minority government of attempting to "neutralise" the crossbench through the appointment. Jeremy Rockliff appointed the independent member for McIntyre Tania Rattray the leader for the government in the state's upper house, days after he was reinstalled as premier. "While we serve in different Houses, I have always admired Tania's collaborative approach, common sense and commitment to her community," Mr Rockliff said in a post on social media platform X. "I look forward to working with Tania and all Members of Parliament together, to deliver for Tasmania." Ms Rattray, who has held her seat since 2004, said she agreed to take on the role "in the spirit of co-operation" and looks forward to the opportunity while remaining an independent member. "It is clear to me Tasmanians are looking to their elected representatives to show leadership and work collaboratively," she said in a Facebook post. "That's exactly what I'm committed to." Ms Rattray's new role has been celebrated by the state's crossbenchers but has also raised suspicions Mr Rockliff might have an ulterior motive. "This appointment is, however, an effective way for the beleaguered Liberals to neutralise - to a significant extent - an independent vote in the Legislative Council," Greens member for Hobart Cassy O'Connor said. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Ms Rattray's appointment could be short-lived, with a planned motion expressing no confidence in the Liberals and confidence in Labor set to be moved when state parliament returns on August 19. Neither the Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 won the 18 required to control the lower house in their own right after a snap poll produced a hung parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor's Dean Winter have no formal agreements of support with the 11 minor party MPs and independents. Tasmania's freshly reinstalled Liberal premier has appointed an independent MP to lead the state parliament's upper house. But fellow politicians have accused the minority government of attempting to "neutralise" the crossbench through the appointment. Jeremy Rockliff appointed the independent member for McIntyre Tania Rattray the leader for the government in the state's upper house, days after he was reinstalled as premier. "While we serve in different Houses, I have always admired Tania's collaborative approach, common sense and commitment to her community," Mr Rockliff said in a post on social media platform X. "I look forward to working with Tania and all Members of Parliament together, to deliver for Tasmania." Ms Rattray, who has held her seat since 2004, said she agreed to take on the role "in the spirit of co-operation" and looks forward to the opportunity while remaining an independent member. "It is clear to me Tasmanians are looking to their elected representatives to show leadership and work collaboratively," she said in a Facebook post. "That's exactly what I'm committed to." Ms Rattray's new role has been celebrated by the state's crossbenchers but has also raised suspicions Mr Rockliff might have an ulterior motive. "This appointment is, however, an effective way for the beleaguered Liberals to neutralise - to a significant extent - an independent vote in the Legislative Council," Greens member for Hobart Cassy O'Connor said. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Ms Rattray's appointment could be short-lived, with a planned motion expressing no confidence in the Liberals and confidence in Labor set to be moved when state parliament returns on August 19. Neither the Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 won the 18 required to control the lower house in their own right after a snap poll produced a hung parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor's Dean Winter have no formal agreements of support with the 11 minor party MPs and independents. Tasmania's freshly reinstalled Liberal premier has appointed an independent MP to lead the state parliament's upper house. But fellow politicians have accused the minority government of attempting to "neutralise" the crossbench through the appointment. Jeremy Rockliff appointed the independent member for McIntyre Tania Rattray the leader for the government in the state's upper house, days after he was reinstalled as premier. "While we serve in different Houses, I have always admired Tania's collaborative approach, common sense and commitment to her community," Mr Rockliff said in a post on social media platform X. "I look forward to working with Tania and all Members of Parliament together, to deliver for Tasmania." Ms Rattray, who has held her seat since 2004, said she agreed to take on the role "in the spirit of co-operation" and looks forward to the opportunity while remaining an independent member. "It is clear to me Tasmanians are looking to their elected representatives to show leadership and work collaboratively," she said in a Facebook post. "That's exactly what I'm committed to." Ms Rattray's new role has been celebrated by the state's crossbenchers but has also raised suspicions Mr Rockliff might have an ulterior motive. "This appointment is, however, an effective way for the beleaguered Liberals to neutralise - to a significant extent - an independent vote in the Legislative Council," Greens member for Hobart Cassy O'Connor said. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Ms Rattray's appointment could be short-lived, with a planned motion expressing no confidence in the Liberals and confidence in Labor set to be moved when state parliament returns on August 19. Neither the Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 won the 18 required to control the lower house in their own right after a snap poll produced a hung parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor's Dean Winter have no formal agreements of support with the 11 minor party MPs and independents. Tasmania's freshly reinstalled Liberal premier has appointed an independent MP to lead the state parliament's upper house. But fellow politicians have accused the minority government of attempting to "neutralise" the crossbench through the appointment. Jeremy Rockliff appointed the independent member for McIntyre Tania Rattray the leader for the government in the state's upper house, days after he was reinstalled as premier. "While we serve in different Houses, I have always admired Tania's collaborative approach, common sense and commitment to her community," Mr Rockliff said in a post on social media platform X. "I look forward to working with Tania and all Members of Parliament together, to deliver for Tasmania." Ms Rattray, who has held her seat since 2004, said she agreed to take on the role "in the spirit of co-operation" and looks forward to the opportunity while remaining an independent member. "It is clear to me Tasmanians are looking to their elected representatives to show leadership and work collaboratively," she said in a Facebook post. "That's exactly what I'm committed to." Ms Rattray's new role has been celebrated by the state's crossbenchers but has also raised suspicions Mr Rockliff might have an ulterior motive. "This appointment is, however, an effective way for the beleaguered Liberals to neutralise - to a significant extent - an independent vote in the Legislative Council," Greens member for Hobart Cassy O'Connor said. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Ms Rattray's appointment could be short-lived, with a planned motion expressing no confidence in the Liberals and confidence in Labor set to be moved when state parliament returns on August 19. Neither the Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 won the 18 required to control the lower house in their own right after a snap poll produced a hung parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor's Dean Winter have no formal agreements of support with the 11 minor party MPs and independents.
Perth Now
9 hours ago
- Perth Now
Premier's big call as state parliament hangs in balance
Tasmania's freshly reinstalled Liberal premier has appointed an independent MP to lead the state parliament's upper house. But fellow politicians have accused the minority government of attempting to "neutralise" the crossbench through the appointment. Jeremy Rockliff appointed the independent member for McIntyre Tania Rattray the leader for the government in the state's upper house, days after he was reinstalled as premier. "While we serve in different Houses, I have always admired Tania's collaborative approach, common sense and commitment to her community," Mr Rockliff said in a post on social media platform X. "I look forward to working with Tania and all Members of Parliament together, to deliver for Tasmania." Ms Rattray, who has held her seat since 2004, said she agreed to take on the role "in the spirit of co-operation" and looks forward to the opportunity while remaining an independent member. "It is clear to me Tasmanians are looking to their elected representatives to show leadership and work collaboratively," she said in a Facebook post. "That's exactly what I'm committed to." Ms Rattray's new role has been celebrated by the state's crossbenchers but has also raised suspicions Mr Rockliff might have an ulterior motive. "This appointment is, however, an effective way for the beleaguered Liberals to neutralise - to a significant extent - an independent vote in the Legislative Council," Greens member for Hobart Cassy O'Connor said. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Ms Rattray's appointment could be short-lived, with a planned motion expressing no confidence in the Liberals and confidence in Labor set to be moved when state parliament returns on August 19. Neither the Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 won the 18 required to control the lower house in their own right after a snap poll produced a hung parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor's Dean Winter have no formal agreements of support with the 11 minor party MPs and independents.
