Australian Politics
Two "Teals" have just self-destructed
"Teals" are allegedly middle-of-the-roaders, Green but not too Green. Similar to Britain's Liberal party. Two of them have however shown themselves as extremists. They are so far out of line with the country that they will go down in a heap next election.
Scamps was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has qualified as a doctor. Tink is a PR guru and has been prominent in leading charity organizations
Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel has added her voice to growing condemnation of teal MPs Kylea Tink and Sophie Scamps, saying she disagrees “emphatically” with her teal parliamentary colleague’s support of the Greens.
Ms Daniel suggested the Greens amendment to Labor's motion on Israel – which sought to accuse the Jewish homeland of war crimes – inappropriately sought to remove support for Israel's right to self-defence.
“I disagree emphatically with those who supported the amendment,” Ms Daniel told The Australian. “I was elected by the Goldstein community to represent their interests and in doing so I unreservedly voted for the bipartisan resolution and spoke in its favour unconditionally.
“Among other things, the effect of the amendment would have been to remove support for Israel’s right to self defence.
“As I said in the chamber yesterday Israel has a right to self defence in line with the rules of war, which would include protection of civilians in Gaza, reiterating what I have said publicly, repeatedly and emphatically.”
*********************************************************
Superannuation: New and costly bureaucratic horror coming up
Recently releasing the draft legislation to double the tax rate on higher-balance superannuation accounts, Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the change as a ‘modest adjustment… (that) will affect only a handful of people’. This is far from the case and unfortunately, this change will have significant implications and is far from ‘modest’.
In legislating to double the tax rate on superannuants with a balance greater than $3 million, the government has been at pains to emphasise that this change would affect only affect 0.5 per cent of people with super. This will not be the case. The cost of complying with this tax change will impact all superannuation funds and accounts (industry, retail and self-managed) and consequentially all superannuants irrespective of their account balance.
That loud noise heard when Treasurer Jim Chalmers originally announced this proposal was not the sound of jaws dropping but rather the sound of champagne corks popping in the offices of accountants, lawyers, consultants and service providers who will be tasked with implementing this change. To effect the necessary changes, the Australian Taxation Office, Apra and superannuation funds will need to develop new systems, technologies, policies and processes, and they will need to engage armies of advisors and consultants at great expense.
A key virtue of a flat 15-per-cent superannuation tax rate is its administrative simplicity. To implement a second tax rate tier based not on income but instead on wealth (in superannuation) will result in significant and costly changes to the way all superannuation is administered and taxed. This includes increasingly frequent asset revaluations, identifying superannuants with multiple accounts across funds, and changed liquidity management strategies to ensure sufficient funds are available to meet tax liabilities. (As an aside, if there is to be a discussion on productivity-enhancing tax reform, consideration should be also given to implementing a flat income tax rate.)
Despite claims to the contrary, it is not just the large-balance self-managed superannuation funds who will feel the costly administrative sting. Even the largest industry super funds will need to develop systems to satisfy themselves that this regulatory risk is effectively managed, just in case a single member has a high balance or potentially a high balance across multiple accounts. Despite the Treasurer’s claims, all superannuants, large- and small-balance, will pay in some way to implement and support this change. And these costs will constantly compound to eat away at retirement resources.
Treasury has estimated that some $30 billion of fees were extracted from superannuants in 2020 alone. When Australia’s superannuation system is described as the envy of the world, perhaps this is because it is envied by the card-carrying members of the International Association of Ticket Clippers who covet the rivers of administration fee gold that flow from it. Yet while government frequently highlights the high cost of administering superannuation, it conveniently ignores the administrative costs it imposes through burdensome and constantly changing regulation.
Constant regulatory changes only increase administration cost and complexity, and unfortunately, in the halls of government, the direct and indirect costs of regulation and regulatory changes are seldom considered. Regulation imposes two significant but under-appreciated costs. The first is the direct cost of implementing and complying with regulation, including the cost of regulators and compliance officials. The second is the productivity loss when ever more resources are transferred from production into government and quasi-government activity. This does not mean there should be zero regulation, but until the total costs of regulation are traded off against the benefits of regulation, economic and productivity damage will continue.
When the US government was implementing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca), the claimed purpose was to ‘better combat cross-border tax avoidance’ and it was expected to generate an additional US$8.5 billion of tax over ten years. The Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, however, estimated that the global cost to implement Fatca, including for Australian banks, would be well in excess of US$500 billion with ongoing annual costs of US$10-30 billion. This sadly did not stop the US government imposing compliance costs on banks, and ultimately bank customers, including Australians.
Earlier this year, following the release of his Monthly essay, Treasurer Chalmers said, ‘If I had a little more room, I could have done more on competition because I do believe that competition is a progressive force in our economy’. On the virtues of competition, Chalmers is of course correct.
Treasury and the Productivity Commission have commented that a lack of competition contributes to higher administration fees. But it is government policy, implemented through Apra, to reduce competition and create an oligopolistic industry structure by forcing superannuation funds to merge so to create a system with just a few mega-funds. Fund mergers have significant transaction costs themselves and are borne by superannuants.
It is also unclear whether forced fund mergers will deliver better returns to superannuants, but it will undoubtedly simplify the lives of Apra officials.
There is also a regulatory interplay between Asic and Apra. For example, Asic through its regulatory guide, defines performance fees as an administrative cost. That means that if a superannuation fund makes a well-judged and risk-managed investment that outperforms, then Apra uses the higher performance fee to bludgeon the fund trustee for having too high costs. This despite the net investment return being strong. Such adverse regulatory outcomes reduce accountability and incentivise performance mediocrity.
When it comes to financing retirement, the essential objective is to optimise a retiree’s purchasing power when they cease working. This is a function of the pension safety net and the amount of (compulsory and voluntary) savings, but also, the net investment return on savings. The cost of regulation and compliance is just another tax which reduces investment returns, a tax on all superannuants and not just high balance ones.
If the government were genuinely concerned about optimising the retirement savings and the general economic welfare of all Australians, it would give serious consideration to undertaking a broad program of regulatory reform to address costs it imposes. After all, a dignified retirement is owed to all Australians and not just the members of the administration and regulation industrial complex.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/10/nothing-modest-about-chalmers-changes/
********************************************************Queensland teachers quitting in droves
Will the government ever walk back the wishy-washy discipline policies that are driving them away?
The number of new teachers and teacher aides starting at Queensland schools is barely bridging the gap left by the thousands who are deserting classrooms, despite Education Queensland's celebration of “exceeding” recruitment targets.
In 2½ years, the state school system has hired more than 6600 new teachers and teacher aides. But in the past 18 months, more than 5700 have left the workforce.
There are about 55,000 teachers and almost 19,000 teacher aides employed across the state, which means it lost 7.2 per cent of its teacher workforce in 18 months, and 9.2 per cent of its overall teacher aide numbers.
The Courier-Mail obtained a region-by-region breakdown from the Education Department that showed South East Queensland was topping the teacher and teacher aide losses.
Further afield, Central Queensland and the Darling Downs also recorded comparatively high turnover, while the Sunshine Coast and Mackay-Whitsunday regions were comparatively low.
The new data comes after an alarming two-year surge in the rate of overall Education Department staff packing in their jobs, reaching a five-year peak of 6.61 per cent.
The department’s 2023 annual report said the state government was on track to meet its 2020 election promise to recruit more than 6100 new teachers and more than 1100 new teacher aides in 2021-24.
About 1000 unqualified university students will have taught in Queensland classrooms by the end of this year, recruited before graduating to help desperate principals unable to fill vacancies with qualified staff.
Ms Grace said Queensland was below the 9.5 per cent national education staff turnover rate, and teaching vacancies in the state remained steady at about 2 per cent.
“With a workforce of around 97,000 people, there will always be people leaving and joining, but I am proud of our 95 per cent retention rate among our teachers – one of the highest in Australia and higher than the workforce more generally,” she said.
“There’s nearly 6000 more teachers and 1500 more teacher aides since we came to government in 2015.
“And even as enrolments have fallen through the last few atypical years, our teacher numbers have gone up, meaning our ratios continue to improve.
“But we will never rest on our laurels – we want more of the brightest and best coming to work in our classrooms and staying there.
“That’s why our excellent EBAs, nation-leading programs like Turn to Teaching and Trade to Teach, our new supported pathway for teacher aides, and support for our staff including our new Education Futures Institute, are so important.”
Opposition education spokesman Dr Christian Rowan said Queensland students were falling short of key targets and the state government was failing to deliver teachers to turn this around.
“The government promised 6190 additional teachers and 1139 teacher aides at the last election, but three years on, they’ve delivered less than 10 per cent of what they promised,” he said.
“The latest Queensland Workforce Profile figures from March 2023 revealed there has been an increase of only 578 teachers since September 2020.”
Queensland Teachers’ Union president Cresta Richardson said addressing the current teacher shortage would take time, but the union would continue to work with all levels of government.
“Attraction and retention of teachers to the profession hinges on providing adequate resourcing to state schools along with a focus on the reduction of teacher and school leader workload and student engagement,” she said.
“Quality internships also play an important role and the QTU calls on the state government to expand the Turn to Teach and Trade to Teach programs and to consider a range of other multifaceted solutions.”
The $19.8m Turn to Teaching program – providing aspiring teachers with financial support, paid internships, and a guaranteed permanent role in a state school – had 39 interns in schools in 2023, and a second cohort of 99 due to do their internships next year.
The $9.88m Trade to Teach program – aiming to boost technology teachers by turning tradies into teachers – has 38 registered participants at the University of Southern Queensland or Central Queensland University due to start their internships next year.
****************************************************
Corporate heads must roll over reckless voice advocacy
Whether you were a Yes or No voter, this referendum has been so divisive and bitter that it must not be allowed to pass into history without learning its lessons.
The next few weeks and months will allow much of the necessary analysis to be done. However, there is no time like the present for key players in this dismal affair to take accountability and begin reform.
There is white-hot anger directed towards some of our big corporate entities – BHP, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, the big four banks and others – which, without consultation or consent from their shareholders, dived into the middle of a bitterly contested political dispute and poured millions of dollars of their shareholders’ money into partisan warfare.
It is bad enough that millions of dollars were wasted on a flawed campaign and misconceived voice model that was grossly unpopular with the overwhelming majority of Australians.
The participation of these big corporations was a significant factor in ensuring the Yes campaign was a resounding failure – voters hate being lectured at. That this money was effectively an appropriation of shareholders’ money in pursuit of the private political views of some dominant company directors is also aggravating in the extreme. This aggravation is compounded by the fact the big end of town has been completely outplayed by the government and its union paymasters in the policy areas they do have a legitimate interest in, especially industrial relations.
Worst of all, though, was the sheer negligence and incompetence of these big companies and their boards. This is what demands accountability – meaning heads should roll – and reform for the future.
As long ago as January 2021, Rio Tinto and BHP signalled their support for the voice. “A referendum not only demands political courage, it demands courage from all of us,” BHP’s Mike Henry said. Courage? What about due diligence?
By May 2021 more companies and professional services firms had put their names to advertisements in national newspapers stridently committing themselves to supporting the voice. Almost two dozen chief executives and chairmen from investment banks and super funds including John Wylie, Hamish Douglass, Geoff Wilson, Ben Gray and Ian Silk got on board early, too.
Not one of these very smart people had any idea at that point what model the voice would take. Eighteen of the nation’s leading law firms, including my old law firm Freehills, jumped aboard the voice train. Again, well before there were any actual words for them to interpret by applying their brilliant legal skills.
And that was the problem with all these firms, companies, chief executives and chairmen – they were signing on entirely blind to the final proposed wording to the Constitution. What on earth were these corporate masters of the universe thinking? Is this how they evaluate proposals in their day job? Is this how lawyers practised law at the office?
At that time there was no indication from the then federal government about the intended legal form of the voice, let alone its powers, composition, procedures, term, resources, intended outcomes or objectives or any relevant limitations.
All of these companies, firms and other entities had signed up to the voice on the basis of emotion and the vibe. They had done no due diligence and got no expert advice on any aspect of the voice for the simple reason that at that time not even the slightest details or even conceptual framework of the voice was known. It was the ultimate pig in a poke. Yet these corporations had signed up to it – whatever it turned out to be.
This was not only a dereliction of directors’ fiduciary duties of care and skill (how can directors sign blank cheques in advance for unknown entities with unknown powers?) but would prove to be a disastrous contributor to the form of ridiculously overreaching model of the voice that was put to the referendum.
The Albanese government knew, even before releasing wording, that it had corporate Australia in its pocket. These companies had abdicated the ability to influence the design of the voice in any way. They had in effect told the activists who would ultimately draft the language of the constitutional amendment: “Go your hardest, we will support whatever you come up with.”
This folly was exactly the same as the blunder committed by Julian Leeser and Greg Craven. Leeser and Craven were the self-styled “constitutional conservatives” who helped come up with the idea of the voice and allowed themselves to be used by the activists who would dictate the final form of the constitutional amendment.
Leeser and Craven were ultimately critical of the final form of the amendment – Craven in particularly colourful language. But both swallowed their pride and the flawed words, and still supported the Yes side, with Leeser walking the streets drumming up support for Yes23.
The surrender by Leeser and Craven, and by the corporations and law firms that signed on to the voice before words were settled, meant any chance of negotiating a more moderate form of proposed amendment was lost.
There would be no compromise by having a non-justiciability clause or removing the reference to executive government or narrowing the remit of the voice to matters affecting Indigenous persons only or any of the large number of ways in which the ultimately proposed constitutional language could have been made more palatable. The possibility for any reasonable compromise of any kind went out the window as far back as 2021.
To be clear, these “fixes” would not have made the voice acceptable in principle. I would still have opposed it and believe it would still have failed because it violated the principle of equal civic rights in the Constitution.
However, adopting a process that ensured the proposed amendment would be the most absurdly overreaching possibility available certainly made referendum success impossible and made the whole campaign much more divisive than it needed to be.
The Albanese government and its departmental advisers were every bit as supine in negotiating reasonable wording as the alleged constitutional conservatives and the corporations, but the lessons for the government must await another day. Others too are on remand, awaiting judgment for another day.
Right now, corporate Australia is in the dock. What form of accountability should await the boards of our big companies?
They deserve to be on the wrong end of class-action lawsuits for negligence and breach of duty but, sadly, the legal industry was so complicit in their failures this is unlikely.
However, there should be significant board resignations to atone for the diversion of shareholder funds to personal political objectives and for rampant negligence.
Boards should be prepared to forgo directors’ fees until shareholders are compensated for the loss of funds wasted by directors tilting at their personal political windmills. In an ideal world shareholders would enforce that result but, again, the big union-controlled industry fund shareholders are likely to have been so complicit in directors’ actions this is unlikely.
Ultimately there needs to be a sea change in the level of politicisation of our big companies. This should be started by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, which is effectively the standard setter for company directors. That, too, faces barriers as the AICD itself has become significantly politicised and its own board was a prominent and one-sided supporter of the voice. However, one can only live in hope.
If the board of the AICD collectively fell on its sword and brought in some change agents to depoliticise it, this might be the catalyst, and the example, that returns Australian corporations to a focus on shareholder interests and genuine corporate purpose rather than personal political goals.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment