Latest news with #LaborParty
The Advertiser
a day ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
You know who could fix our housing crisis? The Albanese from 30 years ago
With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Times
‘It's nuclear meltdown': Re-elected Australian leader Albanese powers ahead as opposition tears itself apart
The old saying that you should never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake has morphed over the centuries. Having once referred to war, it now finds greater use in the context of politics. But Australia's ruling Labor Party, which won 94 of the parliament's 150 lower house seats in the May 3rd election , cannot help but try to give the opposition Liberal-National coalition a helping hand in the latter's seeming quest to reach rock bottom. 'This is a nuclear meltdown, and the coalition now is nothing more than a smoking ruin,' treasurer Jim Chalmers said of the conservative alliance. The coalition parties, following their worst result of 43 seats (they may win one more on a recount), immediately began an internecine war, with re-elected senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price at the centre of much of it. READ MORE First, she switched her allegiance from the Nationals to the Liberals. Then she backed the wrong horse, Angus Taylor, in his bid to become the new Liberal leader in the expectation that she would become his deputy. When Taylor lost to Sussan Ley, Price declined to stand for deputy. This was a sideshow to the main event, which saw the coalition split for about a week, then get back together just in time for the baubles and higher pay of shadow cabinet positions to be handed out. Price was dumped from the shadow cabinet, which she did not take well. 'There are probably some appointments that have not been predicated on experience or merit,' she said to Sky News. Chalmers said the opposition was 'completely and entirely focused on themselves. They tried to divide the Australian community in the election campaign, and they ended up dividing themselves'. Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese , who was regularly criticised for being too timid over the past three years, is showing signs of a more ambitious policy agenda after being re-elected in a landslide in which the Liberal and Greens leaders lost their seats. Speaking after the recent devastating floods in northern New South Wales (NSW) that left five people dead and about 800 homes uninhabitable, Albanese said: 'The science told us that [extreme weather events] would be more frequent and they would be more intense. And that's precisely what, tragically, is playing out.' Though acknowledging climate change's role in the tragedy seems the least any responsible politician should do, many Liberal-National coalition MPs still regularly say there is no connection, that each new disaster is a 'once-in-a-100-years' occurrence. At the time of the last major flooding in the region in 2022, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce went even further, saying: 'This is a one-in-3,500-year event.' When catastrophes supposed to happen centuries or millenniums apart are happening every two or three years, it might be time to take climate change seriously. It scarcely matters to sceptics such as Joyce though. The people most likely to be affected by weather disasters are also most likely to vote for politicians unwilling to do anything about it beyond sending help afterwards and offering 'thoughts and prayers'. Not that Labor has a free pass on its own response to the climate emergency, having just extended the life of Australia's largest mainland gas facility until 2070. Amanda McKenzie of Australia's Climate Council said: 'Communities in NSW are starting the clean-up after record-breaking floods. It is shocking that at the same time the Albanese government has approved this massive climate bomb as the first act of this term of government. They've just opened the floodgates on over four billion tonnes of climate pollution.' Albanese may be on safer ground, though, in unequivocally condemning the Israeli government over its war on Gaza . 'Israel's actions are completely unacceptable,' he said. 'It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza.' Albanese met Israeli president Yitzhak Herzog in Rome when they were there for Pope Leo XIV's inauguration mass. 'I made it very clear that Australia finds these actions completely unacceptable and we find Israel's excuses and explanations completely untenable and without credibility,' he said. His forceful language is a marked change given the regular claims from Australia's conservative press and broadcasters that any criticism of Israel's actions is anti-Semitic. Not that the Rupert Murdoch -owned newspapers, websites and Sky News have lessened their attacks on Labor. Their latest target is the proposed changes to how compulsory pension savings (which sees 11.5 per cent of a person's salary going to a superannuation fund most people cannot access until they are at least 60) are taxed. The change will see those with more than $3 million Australian dollars (€1.7 million) in their superannuation savings pay 30 per cent tax on earnings above that figure, rather than 15 per cent as is stands. It will affect just the richest 0.5 per cent of people with such accounts. That hasn't stopped a scare campaign claiming that eventually everyone will have to pay this tax. Albanese's government just has to convince people that if they had $3 million Australian dollars in savings then they probably could afford to pay more tax.
The Australian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Australian
Pauline Hanson's One Nation claims fourth Senate seat in surprise election victory
Pauline Hanson has nabbed another Senate seat in NSW, taking One Nation's total to four senators – the highest since 2016 when the party won four seats in the Senate. Former hostage negotiator for the British Army, Warwick Stacey won the sixth Senate seat in NSW, as confirmed by the Australian Electoral Commission on Friday, after the Coalition failed to win enough votes to secure a third seat. The remaining five seats were won by Labor's Tony Sheldon and Tim Ayres, Liberal senators Andrew Bragg and Jess Collins and Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi. Senator-elect Stacey ran on policies calling for the end of 'out-of-control immigration' and the scrapping of net-zero targets. His win follows the surprise election of One Nation's Tyron Whitten in Western Australia, and the re-election of Malcolm Roberts in Queensland. The election result means the party has doubled its Senate representation from two to four, the same number of Senate seats held by the Nationals. The last time since One Nation had a record four seats in the Senate was following the 2016 double-dissolution election. Party leader Senator Hanson said May's poll was the best federal election result since the party's the 1998 election, following the party's formation in 1997. 'We actually were, I think, the only party that increased our vote in this last election right across the country, and it's about the best result that we've had since probably 1998, in votes,' she said. She credited One Nation's performance to its 'good common sense policies' and ability to hold the government to account. One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson said the party's May election performance had nabbed a 'historic' result. NewsWire / Martin Ollman However she said claims that One Nation are an 'extreme' party were 'ridiculous,' adding that unlike the Coalition, One Nation were able to push back against Labor on issues like migration and net zero. 'We're more of a centrist party than an extreme right. If you look at our policies. So it's about, you know, standing up for the Australian values … looking after the farming sector, industry, manufacturing, (a) cut back on immigration which is destroying home ownership in Australia,' she said. 'The trouble with the Coalition was they never pushed back. They couldn't state their case. They couldn't debate the issues with the Labor Party and their lies.' The final makeup of the 76-seat Senate has also revealed that Labor will hold a total of 28 positions, meaning that if the government can't achieve bipartisan support on Bills, it only needs the Greens to help pass legislation. In the last parliament Labor needed the support of both the Greens plus three cross benchers. The Coalition have won 26 seats, with the remaining six-member cross bench to be composed of David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrrell, Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Payman and Ralph Babet. Jessica Wang NewsWire Federal Politics Reporter Jessica Wang is a federal politics reporter for NewsWire based in the Canberra Press Gallery. She previously covered NSW state politics for the Wire and has also worked at and Mamamia covering breaking news, entertainment, and lifestyle. @imjesswang_ Jessica Wang
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Australian Labor considers new tax measures affecting many citizens
A Labor MP has issued a call for a new tax on sugary drinks such as Coke, fruit juices and sports drinks - a year after a controversial national inquiry into the diabetes epidemic recommended the levy. Dr Mike Freelander, MP for the federal seat of Macarthur on Sydney's south-western edge, told Daily Mail Australia this week that he supports a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. Dr Freelander, a medically-trained doctor, called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a proposal, pushed by a parliamentary inquiry he chaired, to force beverage producers to make healthier drinks. The 20 per cent tax would also raise an additional $1.4billion of government revenue over four years - coming at a time where tobacco excise collection dropped almost $5billion this financial year. 'The levy is a way to encourage manufacturers to reduce sugar content in their products and there is increasing global evidence of the benefits on community health and wellbeing,' said Dr Freelander, a backbencher. Sugar-sweetened beverages are defined as water-based drinks with added caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, or fruit juice concentrate. The tax would include soft drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks, cordials and drinks made with added fruit juice concentrate. A number of Coalition members of the diabetes inquiry committee opposed the introduction of a levy in the final report. Deputy chair of the committee Julian Leeser (pictured), Liberal MP for Berowra, said the tax would disproportionately fall upon Australia's lowest earners. 'People are doing it tough and struggling to pay bills and put food on the table,' he told the Sydney Morning Herald last year. 'There's also a real issue about whether a sugar tax would change behaviour.' Dr Freelander's (pictured)comments come as a new study showed public support for a sugar tax. The study was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health on Wednesday and led by professor Caroline Miller, president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA). More than half (56 per cent) of the study's 1800 respondents supported a health levy tax on sugary drinks in line earlier research from 2017. Dr Miller said sugary drinks were a significant contributor to obesity - a disease which has overtaken cancer as the leading cause of Australia's preventable disease burden. She said Australia is facing a serious public health issue, one that warrants a policy approach defined by 'strong leadership'. Critics of the sugar tax claim dietary choices should be left to the individual and that lower-earning Australians would be hardest hit by the levy. The Australian Beverages Council has led the opposition against the sugary drinks tax - claiming declining consumption rates suggested something else was to blame. 'The tax is a misguided attempt to address a complex problem like obesity that lacks real world evidence it has any discernible impact on weight,' Geoff Parker, chief executive of the Council said in a statement last year. 'Consumption of sugar from drinks in Australia has decreased significantly over the last 20 years at the same time overweight, obesity and diabetes rates have continued to rise. Clearly soft drinks aren't driving the nation's expanding waistline which makes this call for a tax illogical and clearly just a revenue raiser for public health groups.' Sugar taxes are already in place in a number of European and American countries including the UK, France, Norway, Mexico and Chile. One study suggested the daily sugar intake of UK children fell by five grams within a year of the tax being introduced in 2018, while adults cut their intake by 11 grams. But chief executive of the PHAA Terry Slevin said the study proved there was 'genuine community concern about unhealthy drinks'. 'Health Minister Mark Butler and the Albanese government have implemented strong and effective measures to curb smoking and vaping, we believe similarly decisive action is needed to tackle obesity. 'We know what needs to be done, now is the time to do it.' The Australian Medical Association, the peak representative body for doctors in Australia, advocates for a tax of $0.40 per 100 grams of sugar.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
First we had Trump's 'Liberation Day' - we may have just seen Albo's: PETER VAN ONSELEN on big decision that sums up PM's new approach
Has Anthony Albanese been liberated from his dependence on the left wingers around him? The decision to approve a 45 year extension of the North West Shelf, a mega gas project in WA, over the howls of the teals and Greens, suggests that, yes, he has - at least on matters of the environment. The Greens aren't too happy about the gas project approval. New leader Larissa Waters has said 'this approval will mean supercharged floods, fires and species extinctions'. She added that the decision 'totally undermines the government's commitment to net zero by 2050'. Maybe, maybe not. But either way what it does tell us is that Albo now feels confident in his election victory to stand up to his left flank, when it suits him. You see, our Prime Minister has always been part of the Labor left, but environmentalism has never really been his calling. Social justice issues were what inspired Albo into politics, especially insofar as they intersect with economic policies. Which helps explain his preparedness to target superannuation accounts with new taxes on unrealised gains, Labor's changes to stage three tax cuts to spread the tax cut around to lower income earners - and of course Albo's 20 per cent forgiveness of HECS debts. It also explains his foray into Indigenous rights by holding the Voice referendum in his first term. It may also therefore he a sign of his likely return to Indigenous issues during this term, as close mate Penny Wong flagged days before the election, and as former senator Pat Dodson hopefully flagged today. But when it comes to the environment, Albo won't let the left dictate terms to him on major projects that provide the funding he needs to pay for his social left agenda. That's also why he was quick to shift his frenemy Tanya Plibersek out of that portfolio when reshuffling his cabinet. Plibersek may well have blocked the extension of North West Shelf operations - if only to irritate Albo! New environment minister Murray Watt was never going to do that. To says he's a vehicle for carrying out his PM's wishes would be to understate his willingness to oblige. With a lower house team of 94 and no need to acquiesce to teals or Greens or anyone else in the lower house of parliament, Albo is free to stand up to the left when it suits him. But he'll need to find ways to get the Greens back on side whenever he hopes to pass new laws. The fact remains that the Greens do now control the balance of power in the Senate. So when Labor needs legislation to pass through the parliament it will need to go cap in hand to the Greens for support, unless the Coalition already are on board of course. The unknown is whether or not the Greens catch on to such trickery by Albo and decide to assert themselves in the Senate as a form of payback for other decisions taken against their wishes they have little control over. The North West Shelf is a classic example. Albo surely knows that to stay in favour with the mainstream who took a punt on him for a second term he needs to avoid playing to his base too much or too often. That includes the broader left and the environmental left in particular. Certainly when doing so threatens jobs and the economy, as was the case regarding this Woodside decision. So Albo is liberated, at least for now before parliament returns - and the Greens take up their new balance of power position in the senate.
