Latest news with #Labor
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Automotive
- Japan Today
19 killed in road collision in Egypt's Nile Delta region
This is a locator map for Egypt with its capital, Cairo. (AP Photo) A truck and a microbus collided on a road in Egypt on Friday, killing 19 people, officials said. The microbus was carrying workers on a regional road in the city of Ashmoun, in the Nile Delta province of Menoufia, as they were heading to work, according to a statement by the Labor Ministry. Three people survived the crash. The victims, including the injured, were transferred to General Ashmoun hospital, according to local media reports. Labor Minister Mohamed Gebran ordered authorities to take the necessary measures to disburse compensation to victims' families, sending up to 200,000 Egyptian pounds (about $4,000) to the families of those deceased and 20,000 Egyptian pounds ($400) to each injured person. Menoufia's governor, Ibrahim Abu Leimon, said the cause of the crash would be urgently investigated, and he called on the transportation ministry to reassess safety measures on the regional road, according to the local media outlet Al-Masry Al-Youm. Deadly traffic accidents claim thousands of lives every year in Egypt, which has a poor transportation safety record. Speeding, bad roads and poor enforcement of traffic laws are the main reasons behind most of the crashes. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Arbitrarily increasing defence spending would be a tremendous waste of money. Here's why
The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Days left for millions of Aussies to claim $20,000 tax benefit before it 'effectively disappears'
There are only a few days left before the $20,000 instant asset write-off scheme is massively reduced. The policy was extended last year and is legislated to end on June 30. Labor promised to pass another extension of the tax benefit used by small businesses and tradies across the country, but that has not yet come to fruition. So failing any last-minute extension, the maximum you can instantly write off from July 1 will only be $1,000. "You must act... as assets need to be installed or ready to use before the new financial year starts," Alex Molloy, co-founder of Valiant Finance, said. "Double-check eligibility with your accountant and consider the long-term return on investment of any major investment. This could slash your taxable income and improve cash flow heading into financial year 2025-26." ATO $1,519 cash boost heading for Aussies in weeks Centrelink payment alert for 58,000 Aussies in caravans Young Aussie reveals $390,000 property regret after falling into common trap In its current form, businesses are allowed to claim an immediate tax deduction for the cost of a work-related asset in the year it's first used or installed and ready for use. This allows business owners to get the deduction instantly, rather than claim their depreciating cost over several years. The $20,000 threshold applies to businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million. It is also applied on a per-asset basis, meaning you can instantly write off multiple valued at $20,000 or more can continue to be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year, and 30 per cent each income year after that. Tradies have used it to buy tools, and small businesses have used it to buy large or expensive equipment that they might need for the upcoming year. Moneytech's head of group sales and distribution, Reece Ketu, said the scheme has been vital for those planning ahead. 'Whether it's replacing underperforming equipment, expanding your fleet, or improving productivity through new technology, asset finance can be a powerful tool when used proactively," he said. 'Time is running out to take advantage of this generous write-off before it effectively disappears. 'For many small and medium-sized enterprises, this may be the last chance to maximise tax outcomes while upgrading essential assets.' The government hasn't revealed when the policy will get another lease of life. It was mysteriously missing from Treasurer Jim Chalmers' budget this year, however, it was included as part of Labor's election campaign. Then-opposition leader Peter Dutton proposed to not only extend the scheme, but boost it to $30,000. When approached for comment by Yahoo Finance, Chalmers' office pointed us to the April announcement that it would be extended to 30 June, 2026. But the spokesperson stopped short of revealing when the extension would be legislated. Industry groups have called for the instant asset write-off scheme to be made permanent, rather than go through year-by-year extensions. 'Long-term certainty is crucial for businesses, and the full potential of this policy to support smaller businesses will never be realised if it remains an annual measure,' CPA Australia business investment lead Gavan Ord said. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Andrew McKallar said Labor needs to be more upfront about the future of the scheme. 'Treating a measure which dictates how small business makes decisions to invest in capital as a year-to-year proposition just doesn't measure up,' he said. 'The benefits of the write-off have been demonstrated in recent years, but the farce of year-by-year chaotic renewals needs to be replaced by a system that builds certainty and confidence.'Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘A kind of monster': Why does everyone hate universities?
In the lead-up to the federal election, university administrators were chilled by the messages they were hearing from the conservative side of politics: that research was an indulgence, that academics should just focus on teaching, and – a comment said to have been addressed to post-doctoral candidates – that a PhD didn't necessarily confer expertise. 'The hostility was so great,' said one senior administrator. But if they had hoped for a warm embrace from Labor, they haven't got it. The much-hyped University Accord has fizzled. The hikes to humanities fees have not been rolled back. The main funders of research, international students, have been in the government's sights. 'Labor in the last term of government was hostile, too,' said the administrator. 'Not as hostile as the Coalition, but they were hostile.' Universities, it seems, have no friends. Not the government, which sees no votes in tertiary education and seems unwilling to waste political capital on serious reform. Not the Coalition, which uses them as fuel for its culture wars, dismisses their management as overpaid fat cats, and, during the Morrison-Dutton era, seemed to confect a Marx-style class war between the 'quiet [presumably uneducated] Australians' and the intellectual 'elites'. But universities' traditional friends have turned on them too. Tertiary unions are furious about chronic staff underpayment. Academics are leaving, exhausted by stifling workloads and casualised jobs. Students are unhappy; they're paying through the nose for an insipid version of the rich experience their parents enjoyed. Loading We're so busy beating up universities that we forget what a disastrous own goal we're kicking as we do it. The accord was plain about what will happen if Australia doesn't have a healthy tertiary education system – we will not have the skills we need, our economy will suffer, and we will stifle the potential of our children. We need high-quality research too, to keep up with the rest of the world and to protect our sovereign interest. The unis don't deserve all that hate. While they are certainly not helping themselves, they're not the ones who caused the mess, and they're going to need some friends, somewhere, to help them out of it. Emeritus Professor Graeme Turner, who drove the development of cultural and media studies in Australia, has laid out the dire state of the sector in his new book, Broken: Universities, Politics and the Public Good (to be released on Tuesday). 'I think it is reaching crisis point,' he said. 'It's really affecting the knowledge infrastructure that's available in this country.'
The Age
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Age
‘A kind of monster': Why does everyone hate universities?
In the lead-up to the federal election, university administrators were chilled by the messages they were hearing from the conservative side of politics: that research was an indulgence, that academics should just focus on teaching, and – a comment said to have been addressed to post-doctoral candidates – that a PhD didn't necessarily confer expertise. 'The hostility was so great,' said one senior administrator. But if they had hoped for a warm embrace from Labor, they haven't got it. The much-hyped University Accord has fizzled. The hikes to humanities fees have not been rolled back. The main funders of research, international students, have been in the government's sights. 'Labor in the last term of government was hostile, too,' said the administrator. 'Not as hostile as the Coalition, but they were hostile.' Universities, it seems, have no friends. Not the government, which sees no votes in tertiary education and seems unwilling to waste political capital on serious reform. Not the Coalition, which uses them as fuel for its culture wars, dismisses their management as overpaid fat cats, and, during the Morrison-Dutton era, seemed to confect a Marx-style class war between the 'quiet [presumably uneducated] Australians' and the intellectual 'elites'. But universities' traditional friends have turned on them too. Tertiary unions are furious about chronic staff underpayment. Academics are leaving, exhausted by stifling workloads and casualised jobs. Students are unhappy; they're paying through the nose for an insipid version of the rich experience their parents enjoyed. Loading We're so busy beating up universities that we forget what a disastrous own goal we're kicking as we do it. The accord was plain about what will happen if Australia doesn't have a healthy tertiary education system – we will not have the skills we need, our economy will suffer, and we will stifle the potential of our children. We need high-quality research too, to keep up with the rest of the world and to protect our sovereign interest. The unis don't deserve all that hate. While they are certainly not helping themselves, they're not the ones who caused the mess, and they're going to need some friends, somewhere, to help them out of it. Emeritus Professor Graeme Turner, who drove the development of cultural and media studies in Australia, has laid out the dire state of the sector in his new book, Broken: Universities, Politics and the Public Good (to be released on Tuesday). 'I think it is reaching crisis point,' he said. 'It's really affecting the knowledge infrastructure that's available in this country.'
