‘Under the socialism umbrella': Labor torched over ‘pie in the sky' super reform
The proposed legislation will apply a 30 per cent tax rate to super balances of more than $3 million, including unrealised capital gains.
Sky News First Edition host Peter Stefanovic pressed the Labor MP on the policy and said it seemed 'unreasonable' and 'totally bizarre' to tax an unrealised gain.
'Essentially, it's an equality argument. We're saying that people shouldn't be able to shift income into superannuation to avoid paying their fair share,' Mr Thistlethwaite told Sky News Australia.
'Now, if you don't tax it in that manner, then it means that people will simply shift all of their assets into property.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
Ross Garnaut was once Labor's go-to expert on climate change. His landmark reviews under the Rudd and Gillard governments framed emissions reduction as a moral imperative. Now he's warning that the Albanese government's plans are not just off track but wildly detached from reality. Speaking to the Clean Energy Council this week, Mr Garnaut declared that Australia will miss its target of 82 per cent carbon-free electricity by 2030 'not by a little, but by a big margin'. It was a sober, data-driven indictment that few in the energy sector would seriously contest. The scale of the shortfall is hard to ignore. The rapid deployment of wind and solar the target demands has simply not materialised. Hundreds of renewable projects remain 'in the pipeline,' as Energy Minister Chris Bowen likes to point out. But very few are crossing the line into financial commitment. Most of those that do are now propped up by taxpayers via the Capacity Investment Scheme or other forms of implicit subsidy. It's a long way from the rosy optimism of December 2021, when Mr Bowen and Anthony Albanese unveiled their plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by the end of the decade. Mr Bowen described it as 'ambitious but achievable,', insisting it wasn't a vague aspiration but 'a target with teeth.' Yet the numbers tell another story. According to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australia's emissions were 24.7 per cent below 2005 levels in December 2022. By December last year, they'd improved only marginally, sitting at 27 per cent. To hit the 2030 target, emissions would need to fall by another 16 percentage points, more than three points per year. That would require a pace of change Australia has never achieved, particularly given the backlog of delays in generation, transmission, and storage. Flagship projects like Snowy Hydro are years behind schedule and blowing out budgets. Transmission infrastructure is not keeping up. Mr Bowen's hopes were pinned partly on green hydrogen, which almost no serious analyst considers technologically or economically viable at scale in this decade. He could have done without the reminder this week from the UN's climate tsar, Simon Stiell, that Australia's 2035 targets are due by September under the Paris timetable. In a rational policy environment, such headwinds would prompt a reassessment. Realistically, that would mean recalibrating the 2030 target and attaching heavy caveats to any post-2030 pledges. But climate politics rarely allows for realism. For a party of the progressive left, targets are not tools, they are moral declarations. Practical obstacles are downplayed, achieving them is merely a matter of political will. Those who dominate the climate debate rarely come from sectors responsible for delivering emissions cuts - energy, agriculture, transport, industry. Instead, they are diplomats, bureaucrats, or climate advocates like Mr Stiell, whose job is to rally nations around the IPCC's global ambitions. He called on Australia this week to 'demonstrate what ambition looks like' and to accelerate its departure from fossil fuels. 'The science is calling for a collective effort for all countries to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2035,' he said. Mr Bowen's response carried a hint of irritation: 'Targets are easier set than met,' he noted. 'We will set a target informed by expert advice in the national interest.' Mr Stiell's authority as a scientific voice is undermined by the apocalyptic tone of his rhetoric. In London last year, he warned that humanity had just two years left to 'save the world.' This week in Sydney, he predicted 'mega-droughts' that would make 'fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat.' Such claims are not supported by the IPCC's own findings, which express 'low confidence' in any global trend in drought since the mid-20th century. The evidence for widespread climate-driven crop failures is similarly thin. Agricultural yields have surged globally despite warming. In 2022, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported record global grain output. The uncertainty is no surprise. As physicist and former Obama science adviser Steven Koonin notes in ' Unsettled' , precipitation data is highly variable and difficult to synthesise. 'There is no easy way to combine precipitation data from scattered weather stations to get at the bigger picture,' he writes. Mr Koonin's verdict? Predictions of climate-induced food collapse are 'yet another apocalypse that ain't.' Mr Stiell also warned that Australia could suffer an $8 trillion GDP loss by 2050 - another figure divorced from mainstream analysis. The IPCC's own modelling projects average global economic growth of two per cent annually through the century, with climate impacts reducing this to 1.96 per cent - a barely perceptible change. In a functional policy process, those numbers would matter. They would be weighed soberly, and targets set accordingly - with engineering, economics, and institutional capacity in mind. Instead, they are shouting from the sidelines - while the government clings to a plan that increasingly looks like a triumph of political symbolism over practical delivery. Nick Cater is senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia Originally published as Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Signs are already not good for Chalmers' productivity testament
This week, the festival of productivity kicked off in Canberra. The quasi-religious ritual will culminate in a productivity roundtable, at which an anointed few will gather to chant the catechism of economic reform. Policy festivus is celebrated in Australia when a political party is ascendent but its courage is in retrograde. This cargo cult-style ceremony mimics the Accord, a revered moment in Australian political lore when the Hawke-Keating government brought together the heads of the unions and business to reach a groundbreaking arrangement which, it is widely agreed, set Australia on the path of prosperity. The Albanese government has shown itself to be a great devotee of the Cult of the Accord. In its first term, it held the Jobs and Skills Summit, which lined up all the key players and ideas to simulate the process. Thanks to meticulous planning, the Rites of Full Employment performed at the summit confirmed the government in its conviction that it is the key player in creating jobs. Those who lack faith say that it is doubtful that the summit has led to actual employment outcomes. Aglow from its success, Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched his next project, ' Measuring What Matters', or the wellbeing budget. But Measuring What Matters had a problematic feature: it opened a window into a deeper theology. Namely, the question of what exactly wellbeing might be. If there is one thing the Albanese government, dominated by Labor Left, will not tolerate, it is the idea that there might be different conceptions of wellbeing than the one which it preaches. By the October 2022 out-of-cycle budget, wellbeing had been reduced to a tiny addendum. The following May, it was gone entirely, and the addendum from October had been scrubbed from the previous year's budget papers online. In July 2023, Treasury put the completed paper up online without fanfare. Measuring What Matters was shrunk and sunk. Not to be deterred – and it is quite refreshing to see a politician doggedly attempt to do his actual job rather than just play politics – Chalmers requested that the Productivity Commission produce a set of proposals for improving Australia's prosperity. This week the first of these dropped, marking the official start of the festival of productivity. Loading It's a doozy. The interim report on ' Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy' is brief (under 100 pages), simple and bold. It proposes lowering the tax on companies with revenue below $1 billion from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, replacing the resulting decrease in tax take with a 5 per cent tax on cashflow. Companies with a turnover above $1 billion would continue on the 30 per cent tax rate, as well as paying the cashflow tax. Regardless of size, all companies could immediately deduct capital investment – for instance in equipment needed to grow the business – against the cashflow tax. The genius of the cashflow tax, which would be the first of its kind in the world, is that it would encourage companies to buy what they need in Australia, creating a further benefit to the economy. In particular, overseas companies with revenue over $1 billion – those that could undertake their procurement anywhere in the world – would have an incentive to make their acquisitions in Australia in order to reduce their tax bills.
