Antisemitism definition's lead drafter has a message for Australia
Opponents of the definition, outlined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), say it would prevent legitimate criticisms of Israel and suppress free speech.
Among the critics is the lead drafter of this very definition, Kenneth Stern, who says the definition has now been weaponised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
China sees Australia as the Western partner worth resetting with and Anthony Albanese made it happen
It's increasingly clear that Chinese President Xi Jinping's preferred Western leader is Anthony Albanese. The evidence? A six-day trip across China. A private lunch with Xi. The decision to prioritise Albanese over the foreign ministers of India and Russia, and more than 4 minutes of prime-time coverage of his visit on the 7pm CCTV news — China's most influential and tightly controlled state media news bulletin. In Chinese political theatre, every action is deliberate. There's no doubt that the message now filtering through every level of the Chinese political system is this: a re-elected Australian prime minister is friendly to China, and the Communist Party chief wants the country to do business with him. The fact this message is being actively broadcast across such a complex and opaque system is telling. Xi rarely engages Western democracies on equal footing. But Albanese's trip showed something different: respect, caution and optimism. The two leaders made it clear that mutual respect is now the foundation for deeper engagement, at least for the second decade of a comprehensive strategic partnership. That's no small thing when you're talking about Xi Jinping, one of the most powerful men in the world. If there's one thing other countries can learn from Albanese's China approach, it's the line he has used repeatedly since taking office: It's more than a slogan — it's a carefully balanced playbook for all sides. For those in Canberra wary of Beijing's intentions, it says: we won't be naive. For those in Beijing who remember the volatility of previous Australian governments, it says: we're here to talk, not to fight. This is what made Albanese's message land. Chinese leadership values consistency. Saying this out loud to Xi Jinping, on Chinese soil, was a display of diplomatic maturity. Few Western leaders manage that. Some hedge, others grandstand. Albanese was direct and it worked. Why was it effective? Because the message echoes a phrase by Zhou Enlai, China's first premier, who in 1955 at the Bandung Conference, said: "Seek common ground while reserving differences." It became a cornerstone of China's diplomatic approach to both enemies and neighbours. Albanese's message, though delivered in democratic terms, resonates with that same logic. In China's political structure, Xi is the only real decision-maker. When he chose to host Albanese and his fiancee, Jodie Haydon, personally, bypassing the traditional role of the premier, it wasn't just a three-course meal. It was a display of serious personal and political investment. That gave Albanese a rare opening, a chance to raise hard issues directly with the one man who can actually deliver. No filters. No bureaucratic hedging. That kind of access is hard-won and Australia shouldn't underestimate its significance. It also signals something else: Xi values the connection. He's looking to build rapport. This is how top-down trust works in China. When Xi wants progress, the system follows. In Canberra, trust flows from the public, through lobbying, into Parliament, then to the top. Both governments now face the challenge of reconciling these different systems in discussions on trade, diplomacy, tourism, education, climate change and more. But while Beijing may have reset with Albanese, the Australian public hasn't necessarily followed. According to a new Pew Research Center report, only 23 per cent of Australians hold favourable views of China, rising from 14 per cent since last year. Pew's findings underscore the challenge ahead — public sentiment will take far longer to repair than diplomatic channels. Despite warm smiles and shared meals, Australians remain deeply sceptical of Beijing's long-term intentions. That's the tightrope Albanese is walking — between Chinese favour and domestic suspicion. Whether this reset holds will depend not just on diplomacy, but on results. One certain outcome of Albanese's grand trip is that Chinese tour groups are coming back. Visa waivers for Australians remain in place. But for Australians to feel safe in China again, especially in remote western regions, one unresolved issue looms large: the fate of Australian citizen Dr Yang Hengjun, who is currently under a suspended death sentence. His continued detention undermines the softening tone of the visit. For Canberra, it remains a test of good faith. If China wants to shift Australian public opinion — especially among families considering study, travel or investment — this must be resolved, no matter how polished the propaganda. There was, however, a notable moment of inclusion. In his remarks to Premier Li Qiang, Albanese highlighted the 1.4 million Australians of Chinese descent: "That is a benefit to both of our countries because they provide a very real personal link between us," he said. It was a reminder that the relationship wasn't just bilateral, it was human. But trust, again, must go both ways. For Beijing, trust is top-down. For Australia, it must embrace its own Chinese Australian citizens, many of whom still face suspicion and political scrutiny in both countries. If Canberra wants to rebuild ties with China, it must also build trust with Chinese communities at home. They are not a liability. They are a strength that helps the Australian society to understand China. There's no doubt that Beijing wants an independent Canberra that doesn't echo Washington. One thing is also clear in Xi's message — Australia doesn't need to choose between China and the US. It needs to engage with clarity, consistency and confidence. Australia's ability to engage China confidently depends on its internal capacity and right now, that's underdeveloped. Many of Australia's public institutions, especially in the security and intelligence sectors, still rely heavily on American frameworks and analysis when it comes to understanding China. This dependence has left Australia with only a narrow space for independent expertise and at times, a lack of clarity in forming its own China policy. At the same time, academic and policy research into China faces chronic funding shortages, political pressure, and limited freedom to explore complex or sensitive issues. Scholars say they are often sidelined or silenced, creating a knowledge vacuum at a time when understanding China has never been more urgent. If Australia wants to chart its own path between Washington and Beijing, it must invest in its own capacity — not just in diplomacy and defence, but in language, history, politics and society. Without that, Australia risks being reactive rather than strategic. It was Gough Whitlam, after all, who recognised Beijing before Richard Nixon. That legacy shows where Australia once stood in the race — not where it is now.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Tax reform talk heats up after Treasury FOI error, and that might just suit Jim Chalmers nicely
"Tax should be raised as part of broader tax reform." It's the kind of headline that typically has treasurers ducking and weaving. It certainly had the opposition salivating over an early opportunity to draw some political blood after its own crushing election defeat. "What Mr Albanese needs to explain to the Australian people is what those higher taxes are," Liberal Leader Sussan Ley opined. But, confronted with the accidental release of typically confidential parts of his department's Incoming Government Brief, the treasurer didn't flinch. "I'm pretty relaxed about it, to be honest," was Jim Chalmers' response. No denial, and not even really any concerted attempt to distance the government from what is as close to independent as Treasury advice ever gets (although the treasurer is decamping this week to the G20 meetings in South Africa). Chalmers instead chose to own the leaked advice on tax reform. "We have made it clear that we need to build on the progress we've made in repairing the budget so that we can make the budget even more sustainable," he told reporters. "So, the priorities which are being reported today are the sorts of things that I have mentioned before, including at the National Press Club." For those who missed it, having emerged from an election campaign where Labor played small target and saw its political rivals decimated across the country, the treasurer stood up in a room full of journalists saying he was "personally willing to grasp the nettle". "No sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform." The treasurer sounded like he could have been reading straight from his department's brief. A happy accident for Chalmers? With the rebadged Economic Reform Roundtable just a month away, confirmation that Treasury would like to see both the tax take rise and spending fall to finally fix a long-term structural hole in the budget adds further urgency to the task. Economist Nicki Hutley believes the treasurer will not only be relaxed, but even "happy" that the headings around tax reform got out into the public domain. "It helps to promote the conversation ahead of what is a very important round table," she told me. "And the more those issues, particularly challenging ones like tax reform, are aired prior to the round table, the better it is." So, what did we learn about Treasury's views on tax reform? Probably not a huge amount that we couldn't guess. It thinks we need to raise more revenue and spend less. It also thinks those tax increases shouldn't come from workers or businesses, which are already carrying too much of the burden. Although, on the latter point, it seems the nation's biggest company disagrees, breaking ranks with virtually every business lobby group. "We do not believe that lowering the company tax rate should be a priority, provided there is no change to Australia's imputation credit regime," the Commonwealth Bank noted in an official corporate submission to the government's Productivity Commission. "While we, and no doubt other large companies, would welcome a lower company tax rate, we believe there are other priorities which should lead the productivity reform agenda." Regardless of whether income and corporate taxes go down or stay the same, that really leaves those sitting on wealth as the prime targets for more taxation — whether that's through their superannuation, trusts, housing or consumption. The two big hints in the leaked headings are "building on your reforms to superannuation tax" and "reforming the indirect tax system to support budget repair and the fiscal sustainability of Commonwealth and state governments". CBA backs 'superannuation cap' As much as those who hold large superannuation balances, and those who profit from managing them, decry the frequently changing rules around the sector, while it remains an attractive tax shelter for the very wealthy super will continue to be an obvious target for reform. As my colleague Ian Verrender eloquently pointed out, the Albanese government's current proposal to up the tax paid on income from balances above $3 million goes only a little way towards evening the ledger with the wage slaves who still work for a living. In another statement sure to ruffle feathers across the top end of town, CBA put forward a far more radical proposal in its Productivity Commission submission. "Uncapped superannuation concessions appear to be unsustainable," the Commonwealth Bank noted. "We would support a superannuation cap, set at a level that encourages aspiration, and set well above the level where there is dependence on the state for support in retirement." So forget taxing earnings on super balances above $3 million at a mere 30 per cent. What CBA is proposing is that you simply won't be allowed to hold a huge amount inside super, and presumably, earnings on any wealth you hold above that super cap will be taxed at your marginal tax rate. The level of assets at which the part pension cuts out for a single non-home owner is currently $962,500, so let's say the super cap was set at $2 million, more than double that. Such a change might see a person with $4 million in super savings, currently complaining about paying perhaps $15,000 a year extra in tax under Labor's existing proposal, paying an extra $26,000 with part of their earnings likely subject to the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent. As with all these things, there's no complete absence of self-interest here. The big four banks have all reduced their exposure to superannuation and wealth management after a series of scandals, although CBA does still own a sizeable chunk of Colonial First State. And the tax-advantaged super system is siphoning money away from the place most retirees in my grandparents' generation stuck their savings — the bank, where interest earnings are taxed like income from wages. Capping super balances may shift some of the savings from the wealthy back into the banking system, expanding the pool of cheaper deposit funding for the banks. Nonetheless, it is surprising to see Australia's biggest bank voluntarily weigh into the tax debate. "The Henry Review remains the most comprehensive assessment and blueprint for tax reform in Australia," CBA observed. "It is a sensible starting point from which to launch a national conversation." A starting point we've now been stuck at for more than 15 years. Will Chalmers dare look at the GST or land taxes? Treasury's call for "reforming the indirect tax system" is one area where there's a bit more ambiguity as to exactly what it might be recommending. An obvious, although controversial, target would be raising the rate of the GST or broadening the base of goods and services the tax applies to. While excluded from Ken Henry's otherwise comprehensive tax review due to instructions from then-treasurer (and Chalmers' former boss) Wayne Swan, most economists have long argued that the exclusions from the GST negotiated by John Howard to get it past the Australian Democrats in the Senate should generally be ditched. That would, they argue, not only raise more revenue but reduce the economic distortions caused by the tax and also make compliance much easier for businesses. Pradeep Philip from Deloitte Access Economics says the extra revenue could, as was promised when the GST was first introduced, also be used to eliminate a range of other inefficient state taxes. "We know that while the GST is a highly regressive tax, it is also an incredibly efficient tax," he told The Business. "What's really important in this tax reform debate is to not have piecemeal tax changes, but to have true reform. "And if reforming the GST could see us get rid of inefficient taxes, particularly at the state and territory level, then that could be a really good boost for the Australian economy." The other area few are mentioning is land tax. It's the economists' holy grail, one of the few things that almost all economists, from the most progressive to conservative and in-between, can agree on as a good idea. Land can't be moved or hidden and, thanks to land title registries, we know exactly who owns it. It's easy to confiscate and sell if the tax isn't paid. And taxing it doesn't reduce the supply of it — if anything, it pushes people to sell land they aren't using efficiently. But, despite the economic consensus, the general feeling is that Australians won't stomach a land tax, even though we already effectively pay one via council rates and even if it was set at a level to simply replace the revenue collected by economically destructive stamp duties on real estate transactions. In his Press Club speech, Jim Chalmers said, "this is about testing the country's reform appetite". A proposal to tax all land, including the family home, would certainly reveal just how hungry Australians are for serious productivity-enhancing economic reform. Read the headings of Treasury's policy advice on tax and productivity in full
SBS Australia
5 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'Back on track': China hails Anthony Albanese's 'personal efforts' to restore ties
Relations between China and Australia reached a "low point" but are back on track under Anthony Albanese's leadership, Chinese premier Li Qiang says. On Tuesday, the prime minister wrapped up a day of high-level talks in Beijing when he met with Li at the Great Hall of the People. China's premier congratulated Albanese on his re-election and for his "personal efforts" to stabilise the China-Australia relationship, which soured under the former Liberal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. "China-Australia relations have moved beyond a low point and returned to the right track of stability and development," Li said. Since the pair last met in October last year, "a lot has happened in the world", Li said, and there was growing instability and uncertainty in the global economy. "The development of all countries is faced with new challenges. Given such circumstances, China and Australia as important trade partners, should strengthen dialogue and co-operation," he said. Albanese said he looked forward to the two nations exploring new opportunities in trade, climate change, tourism and culture. "We'll also have an opportunity to have a frank and open dialogue that enables us to navigate issues that need to be discussed," he said. The live firing exercise in international waters near Australia in February forced commercial flights overhead to divert. Speaking after Tuesday's meeting, Albanese said he had secured a commitment for China to better inform Australia on military drills in the region. The prime minister noted the drills being in international waters did not contravene international law, "but that we were concerned about the notice and the way that it happened, including the live fire exercises". Australia's position on there being no unilateral change to the status quo over Taiwan was also conveyed to the president, he said. "We want peace and security in the region, that is in the interests of both Australia and China," Albanese replied when asked whether he had raised China's unprecedented military build-up. Australian and China would be able to have "a frank and open dialogue", Anthony Albanese said. Source: AAP Xi didn't raise reports that the United States had asked Australia to commit to teaming up during a potential conflict with China over Taiwan, nor Labor's commitment to terminate a Chinese company's lease of the Port of Darwin , Albanese added. Yang was given a suspended death sentence in China on secretive national security charges that Australia rejects. "I raised the case, you wouldn't expect there to be an immediate outcome and that is not the way things work," Albanese told reporters. In a pointed prod at US isolationism under Donald Trump, Xi said countries should work together to "support multilateralism and free trade, defend the UN-centred international system and the international order". The Chinese readout noted the prime minister "reaffirmed Australia's commitment to the one-China policy and its opposition to 'Taiwan independence'". The bilateral meetings with Xi, Li and Communist Party Chairman Zhao Leji — the three highest-ranking members of China's ruling committee — mark the centrepiece of Albanese's six-day tour of the Middle Kingdom. In his meeting with Zhao, the chairman noted Albanese's visit so soon after his re-election showed the importance of the Sino-Australian relationship. Earlier on Tuesday, Chinese security officials tried to stop Australian journalists, who were travelling with the prime minister's delegation, from leaving a tourist attraction in Beijing after filming in the area. The group of reporters had permission to film at the location, but were stopped by security officials and were told to hand over footage before police arrived. The journalists were able to leave the site with the footage, despite being followed by security.
