Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Taxation

    Home Policy Spotlight Taxation Page 2

    The Tax Power

    By
    Adam Craig
    -
    0

    The Commissioner of Taxation has too much power. 

    Libertarians consider tax to be either theft or, at best, should be low and flat to cover bare necessities. It certainly shouldn’t be as complex as it is or run to thousands of pages. 

    Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity and likely raise the overall tax burden. Libertarians rightly oppose those ideas as they come. 

    However, there is an easy win that ought to be important to libertarians: we need to limit the Commissioner of Taxation’s powers. It’s not exciting work, like developing new systems, but it is significant. 

    First, the Commissioner has too much power to amend assessments. 

    Australia has a self-assessment tax system. That means we declare income and allowable deductions, which the Commissioner accepts but can then amend if he considers the taxpayer was wrong. 

    Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner. 

    For individuals the Commissioner can amend an assessment within two years. For businesses, it is usually four years. 

    However, the relevant section of the law for income tax – leaving aside equivalent sections for other taxes – is around 3000 words– because it contains “ifs” and “buts” to protect the Commissioner. 

    For example, if the Commissioner makes a tax avoidance determination, he can have four years instead of two years to change an assessment. If the Commissioner believes there has been fraud or evasion, he has an unlimited amendment period. If the Commissioner believes a particular section of the tax law relating to trusts applies, he again has an unlimited amendment period.  

    These powers predate most of this century’s technological advances, which enable the Commissioner to work more efficiently and collect more data. Also, many amendments to the tax law in recent years have made it easier for the Commissioner to apply the law, including changes to avoidance laws favouring the Commissioner.

    It must be a libertarian position to reduce amendment periods. 

    Second, the Commissioner does not need to prove anything in litigation. The starkest example of this rule operating unjustly is when the Commissioner has amended a taxpayer’s assessment because he believes fraud or evasion has occurred. 

    The Commissioner need only believe there has been fraud or evasion. 

    He can form this opinion about any year – 2003, for example. And if he goes back to 2003, he will likely repeat that for many subsequent years, and he will apply penalties and interest. 

    Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity

    Suppose the matter is in the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court of Australia. The Commissioner will not need to prove the truth of his opinion. Also, it doesn’t matter if the taxpayer proves the Commissioner’s opinion was wrong. The taxpayer’s task, two decades later, is to show that its accounting was correct. Not surprisingly, most people do not have records that go back that far. 

    It must be a libertarian position to oppose the power to simply deem fraud, and to demand a time limit on the exercise of the fraud or evasion power. The Commissioner should have an obligation to prove fraud or evasion has occurred before the taxpayer must prove its accounts. 

    Third, the Commissioner is emboldened to use his amendment powers through funding. The Commissioner receives substantial funding to run the Australian Taxation Office. 

    Libertarians would rightly want that funding limited. 

    However, there is also a perpetual cycle of giving the Commissioner additional funding to use his amendment powers, particularly under the auspices of tax avoidance.   

    Join Mailing List

    Libertarians would want that funding limited because it encourages the Commissioner to use his firmest amendment powers. It also raises questions about the management of public finances – should the Commissioner be “rewarded” with additional funding for things he should already be doing? 

    Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner. 

    It would be hard to think that most taxpayers would not be libertarians regarding these issues.

    Too Much Government

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Expectations of the role of the government have been rising steadily over the last decade. They rose substantially during the eastern states’ bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020, and again in response to the floods that followed in NSW and Queensland. And they reached stratospheric levels during the Covid panic.

    Judged by the number of lives lost, those bushfires were far from the worst on record. Nonetheless, they were characterised as ‘unprecedented’ and prompted a chorus of demands for the Prime Minister to get involved. When it was discovered he had gone to Hawaii for a holiday with his family, he was accused of being negligent for leaving the country at such a time. 

    The Prime Minister did not leave the country when NSW and Queensland were hit by floods, but the opprobrium he attracted could hardly have been worse if he did. The floods were again described as unprecedented amid a chorus of claims the government should have acted sooner and done more. 

    The Covid schemozzle was obviously unprecedented and nobody could go anywhere. Once again, the Prime Minister and federal government were blamed – there were insufficient vaccines, the border should have been closed sooner, hotel quarantine was a failure, lockdowns were inadequate, plus a multitude of other perceived failures. All this despite the worst harm being done by state governments. 

    Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world.

    Perhaps it is not surprising that many people think of the Prime Minister and the federal government when they think of ‘the government’. Federal politics tends to dominate the news, while the public’s understanding of our system of government is pretty dismal. Much of the media is pretty ignorant too, although hostility to Liberal leaders is also a factor.  

    But what these narratives reveal is that the expectations now placed on governments, of any kind, are higher than they have ever been. Whether it is floods, fires, droughts, earthquakes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, there is a popular and growing view that the government should not only be there to pick up the pieces, but should have anticipated the calamity and done everything possible to head it off. 

    By any standard this is both ridiculous and contradictory. Government is, after all, made up of politicians and public sector bureaucrats. Neither are experts at how the real world works so cannot possibly know what to do.

    Most people readily acknowledge that governments are inefficient, bureaucratic and slow, yet somehow cling to the belief that next time will be different and more government will get it right. 

    In fact, Australia’s problem is too much government. From petty, intrusive local councils to authoritarian state governments and over-taxing, over-spending, ‘more money will fix it’ federal government, there is just too much of it. 

    The problem with this is obvious. The world is complex and changing – in social attitudes, world economics, geo-politics and of course technology. There is no way that politicians, public sector bureaucrats or regulators can hope to supervise or manage it. They are also often remote from the problems – how, for example, can a bureaucrat in Canberra possibly know enough to make a decision about a cyclone in Broome? 

    The famous economist Friedrich Hayek noted how difficult it was for people to fathom that local decision making leads to more efficient outcomes than central planning by politicians and public sector bureaucrats.

    “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

    To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions.”

    Expectations of the role of government have been rising steadily over the last decade. 

    There was a time, not that long ago, when Australia was a proud volunteer society. Moreover, almost everything was local.

    Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world. Volunteer fire fighters saved whole communities. Dozens of charities, not just the Salvation Army and Red Cross, all volunteers, provided help and hope to those in need. 

    Indeed, prior to the emergence of the welfare state in the second half of the twentieth century, volunteer charities were involved in health care, childcare, education, unemployment and disability support. In the nineteenth century you would have been considered weird if you had predicted that most of these would end up being run by governments. These days you’d be called weird for suggesting volunteers might do them better. 

    Volunteers are still the first responders in many fire and flood emergencies as families, neighbours and friends rally around. Next are typically agencies such the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service in NSW, and their equivalents in the other states. Both are still volunteer based, although increasingly under the control of full-time public servants and subject to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. In Victoria, the sad decline of the CFA at the hands of the unions is an example of that.  

    A tragic example of the harm being done to our volunteer society was seen during the Covid pandemic when many volunteers were required to be fully vaccinated. Unvaccinated volunteers were turned away and not permitted to fight fires or rescue flood victims, even when working outside where infection was rare.  

    Join Mailing List

    Even after it became obvious that Covid vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, the obligation to be fully vaccinated was retained. This was not only unscientific but also destructive. It seriously undermined the capacity of those organisations to help people. In NSW, RFS volunteers on the Central Coast fell by about 50% and in other areas SES volunteers left and some SES stations closed.

    It also led to increasing demands for the federal government to bring in the ADF. Obviously ADF members are not volunteers, but they are also not intended to be used as emergency workers. Indeed, using the ADF for anything other than the defence of the country undermines its purpose and reduces its capabilities. 

    While we sometimes hear governments claiming to honour volunteers, the trend is downhill. The more red tape, bureaucratic oversight and regulation imposed, the more volunteers bail out.

    The Rise of Citizen Journalism and Independent Media

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    0

    Shortly after 4pm on the 27th of March, the X account @churPanic commenced a live broadcast on a mobile phone from the streets of Gisborne, New Zealand. 

    Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed. Residents of this small North Island town were protesting at the repainting of it in the colours of the Rainbow flag. There was a heavy police presence manhandling the demonstrators and making arrests.

    Minutes earlier the livestream on Facebook from one of the protest groups had gone dark when police arrested the cameraman. It didn’t take long for the internet to discover the small @churPanic account on another platform: a link to his broadcast was rapidly shared and reshared, and hundreds of people tuned in. Two hours later tens of thousands had watched the footage. Shortly after midnight photojournalist Chris De Bruyne in Sydney published a subtitled remix of a clip someone else had cut from the original as a service to the deaf community. 75,000 people viewed De Bruyne’s version. It was one of many.

    Within a day hundreds of thousands – if not millions – had watched the footage in one form or another, most with no idea of  its origin. This is raw news, proliferating through the democratising process of the internet. 

    And it’s killing mainstream media.   

    4pm is too late in the day for the story to make the 6 o’clock news on TV channels. The first mainstream coverage was at 9 pm in online newspapers and late evening broadcasts. By the time the creaking legacy media fabricated a narrative fitting their editorial slant for consumption by a domestic New Zealand audience, the entire world had already seen @churPanic’s footage in one form or another and formulated their own interpretations. 

    Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models.

    Blatant biases aside, the reason for the demise of the legacy media is their slavish devotion to antiquated businesses models that stymie innovation. In failing to evolve, audiences have abandoned them for more reliable sources elsewhere, and advertisers have shifted with them. 

    The legacy media isn’t going down without a fight though, and its death throes are interesting to observe. Far from reviewing their own approach, the legacy media have declared war on everyone else: social media corporations, independents, imagined disinformation programmes by shadowy international organisations, even their own audiences.

    The reality the legacy media refuses to accept is that We, The People, Are The Media Now. Where once it was said to be unwise to “quarrel with a man who buys his ink by the barrel”, the reality is that every person today has a video camera in their pocket with social media providing the capability to reach millions with the click of a button. In seeking out alternative information sources, the people changed the channel.

    Back to Chris De Bruyne. It’s mid-afternoon on the 24th of March and British author Douglas Murray is speaking in Sydney. Murray’s presence attracts a pro-Palestine demonstration, one of whom assaults a pro-Israel counter-demonstrator in full view of NSW police, who don’t intervene. The incident is caught in De Bruyne’s livestream which, as an experienced independent, he broadcasts with an embedded watermark. Realising the newsworthiness, he offers to sell the footage to the major Australian news agencies, all of whom decline. 

    Citizen journalists and independents are, after all, objects of derision amongst the great and good of legacy news desks. They are qualified to arbitrate content to the public while De Bruyne, in their opinion, is not. But they rip off his footage anyway. 

    At 9pm Rita Panahi introduces the story on Sky News with the watermarked livefeed, scraped from De Bruyne’s social media account. She’s doing him a favour; other channels broadcast his material with the watermark blurred out. 

    Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed. 

    Paying compensation for copyright infringement is relatively inexpensive on the rare occasions an independent has the financial means to sustain litigation. As a bonus, legacy media can avoid the operational costs of employing cameramen in the field while there is content to be misappropriated and independents who can be exploited.

    It happens to De Bruyne so regularly he keeps a spreadsheet.

    Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models. Utilising their incestuous relationships with predominantly left-wing political parties, they’re forcing those platforms to pay compensation for disseminating local news content. In Australia it’s called the News Media Bargaining Code and in New Zealand, the Fair Digital News Media Bargaining Bill. 

    The irony of demanding fees to redistribute their content whilst they themselves habitually infringe the copyright of independent producers is lost on the legacy media. But the deliciousness of the irony is that it isn’t the social media platforms that are their enemy. Rather, it’s the people who utilise them. While legacy media are distracted by a war they cannot win with social media corporations, Chris in Sydney and some bloke who goes by the handle “@churPanic” in Gisborne are the people on the ground, reshaping the media landscape by delivering unvarnished news and enabling audiences to reach their own conclusions. 

    And they are one component of a much broader trend. Traditionally trained journalists such as Chris Lynch Media in Christchurch are increasingly going independent. Blogs such as The BFD in Auckland are evolving into fully-fledged media operations. Writers publish to their subscribers on sites such as Substack in the first instance and take offers from legacy media to republish. 

    Join Mailing List

    Desperate to navigate the new realities of a dying industry, NZME appointed a blogger  to head their NewstalkZB+ division. Alternative media operators have emerged with innovative business models as varied as The Platform, financed by old money, and RCR, with support from their audience. The Underground Daily provide platforms to deliver services enabling new talent. 

    Collectively these individuals and organisations comprise the new media landscape.  Legacy media no longer controls the medium. It is the independents that create the message because content is king and they produce it. Time will tell, and the market will decide, if these new players can develop revenue streams beyond advertising to sustain themselves. 

    But one thing is certain: the media landscape belongs to them and its future is theirs to determine.

    Free Markets Work Better for Energy

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    Energy is again front and centre in the news with the debate over the merits of nuclear energy becoming mainstream. But then last week the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to subsidise the manufacture of solar panels in Australia. One wonders whether this is to support industry or just to close down a debating point against solar – that only 1% of the hardware used in Australia is manufactured locally. 

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.  

    The truth is that free markets are more effective at capital allocation and problem solving than governments (assuming you accept there is a problem that needs solving). Free markets operate on profit incentives, driving businesses and individuals to invest resources where they are most efficiently used and valued, leading to innovation and optimal distribution of goods and services.

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.

    Australia’s existing solar energy subsidies are an obvious illustration of the misaligned priorities and inefficiencies that can arise from government intervention. The Albanese government’s commitment to injecting $1 billion into domestic solar panel manufacturing, including in coal-rich areas like the Hunter Valley, is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.  

    Australia’s history is littered with government involvement in business sectors that wasted tax payer money through inefficiencies.   The proof of free market superiority was demonstrated when entities like the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was privatised (under Paul Keating), as was Telstra (under John Howard), and Qantas Airways (under Bob Hawke). Each became far more efficient and successful post-privatisation. 

    A particularly significant example is the case of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, privatised under Paul Keating. Originally government-owned, CSL was started in 1916 to “serve the health needs of a country isolated by war”.  Fair enough perhaps.  

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn. 

    CSL was privatised in 1994 and has since been transformed into a global biotechnology powerhouse. Post-privatisation, CSL significantly increased its operational efficiency, innovation capacity, and market reach, becoming a leading provider of vaccines and plasma products worldwide. CSL’s journey from a national vaccine manufacturer to a global biotech leader underscores the difference between how governments lose and free markets win.

    Albanese ought to learn lessons from Keating and Hawke on the superiority of private capital at solving public problems (banking, telecoms and aviation). Is energy so different?  And what does the Albanese government think it is going to achieve anyway with this $1bn investment?  How will Australian ventures compete with global giants, especially Chinese manufacturers which benefit from (ironically) cheaper electricity, lower labour costs, and economies of scale?

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.   Funded in part (and thus enabled) by federal taxpayers, it is now being dismantled after just seven years, highlighting the precarious financial underpinnings of these subsidised solar ventures. This project, once a beacon for renewable energy in remote mining operations, became a financial quagmire, with the cost per tonne of avoided greenhouse gas exceeding market rates for carbon credits.  

    Join Mailing List

    The DeGrussa project serves as a cautionary tale.  There is a broader trend of hasty government interventions in the solar energy sector, driven by politics motives rather than economics. 

    While the drive towards renewable energy may be commendable (let’s buy into that for the sake of argument), the path to achieving it must be paved with prudent financial decisions and strategic planning – best executed by the free market. 

    None of your Business

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    Housing affordability is a perennial issue that seems to be spilling over into the political domain in a way that is more divisive and acute than ever. And as usual, the political class is more interested in sounding like they are engaging with the issue than actually addressing it.

    Oddly enough it is the left side of politics that has shown the most interest in the critical supply side of the equation. The Liberals on the other hand appear poised to double down on demand-side solutions by rehashing their ‘super for homes’ policy – as if there wasn’t already enough money flowing into property! Meanwhile everyone else on the right merely points to immigration.  

    There is no question that the heart of this issue is the fact that there is not enough housing being built to keep supply in step with demand – I previously hypothesised that more atomised living arrangements could be at least partly to blame, Bob Day suggested land supply was responsible.

    Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention.

    There are other problems too – government intervention during Covid brought forward demand and deferred builder collapses, aggravated by inflation of material and labour costs. The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes. 

    There has also been a long history of demand-side grants, subsidies, policies and exemptions that have aimed to increase affordability while also maintaining high prices. That’s before we even talk about how much state and local governments rely on higher house prices, particularly via stamp duty and council rates.  

    But there is something more fundamental at the heart of the property market – the extent to which government intervention directs investment away from more productive investment involving genuine innovation. Australia is anti-business, and Labor’s changes to stage 3 tax cuts indicate the punitive attitude government takes towards higher income earners. 

    Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention. People respond to incentives – and there is very little incentive to invest in innovation and business, but plenty to invest in property – notwithstanding the current constraints.

    The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes. 

    Would you start a small business and deal with endless red or green tape, the highest nominal minimum wage in the world, the above median corporate tax rate, and spiralling energy costs? 

    Given the government’s policy settings you’d be more likely to buy an investment property, write off the interest payments against your taxable income, and claim a capital gains discount if you decide to flip it or sell up later. Perhaps you’d even build a property portfolio by leveraging equity along the way. 

    You’d benefit from the legislative protection of inflated prices that has resulted from real estate becoming such a large pool of private wealth and key source of state and local government revenue. You’d bank on local council opposition to new development, and large public infrastructure projects tying up resources to halt new housing supply coming to market amidst ever growing demand. 

    Join Mailing List

    Australian property has become such a safe bet that it is now even a well-known vehicle for international money-laundering! 

    Talk of new housing supply, development, upzoning or adjusting the rules around capital gains tax and negative gearing won’t change the fundamentals. Australia is anti-business and anti-innovation. Housing is the only way to get ahead in the lucky country.

    The Everyday Libertarian

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?  

    I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.

    I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”.  When I say this, libertarians “get it”.  But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.

    Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power

    How about a more congenial conversational pivot:  “That’s why we need smaller government.”

    Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.

    Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:

    1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way? 

    2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.

    3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.

    4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.

    Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market

    5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.

    6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.

    Join Mailing List

    I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation.  Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.

    By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.

    The Missing Ingredient – Assimilation

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    When Al Grassby was Immigration Minister in the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, he announced that multiculturalism was to be Australia’s future policy. Assimilation was over. 

    There was a time when Australia actively promoted assimilation. It was the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries  and applied to Aborigines, varied by state and location, involved the removal of vulnerable children from families, included an obligation to learn English, discouraged speaking local languages, and prohibited certain customary practices – particularly those involving violence. 

    But Grassby was not referring here to Aborigines or to policies from the distant past. Nor was it a reference to the White Australia policy, which the Whitlam government had officially ended. His comment was about new immigrants and implied that they had been subject to a policy of assimilation. 

    In the generally accepted meaning of the word, this was complete nonsense. What Australia had was a policy of promoting integration. And, as history shows, it had been remarkably successful. 

    The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.

    Mostly European and British, Australia’s post-war immigrants were referred to as “New Australians”. Although encouraged to learn English, they were never asked to disown their origins. There were free English classes for adults, and parents were required to send their children to school, like everyone else, where lessons were conducted in English. The kids often became interpreters for their parents. 

    Most immigrants became Australian citizens relatively quickly, the only negative being they had to renounce the citizenship of their original country; Australia did not permit dual citizenship until 2000. 

    If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second. Immigrants married other immigrants, their children married other immigrant children, and many went on to be highly successful. 

    The Whitlam government also began to admit significant numbers of people from Asia, initially Vietnam and Cambodia. And while there were pockets of resistance to this, with Whitlam himself wary of accepting anti-communist Vietnamese refugees, these also integrated well. Later waves from places such as Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Malaysia and India were equally successful. 

    But then something changed. Certain immigrants began to form enclaves and avoid contact with other Australians They also made minimal effort to learn English. The men often went back to their country of origin to find a wife, even if they were born in Australia, refusing to contemplate finding one locally. 

    Most importantly, they became contemptuous of Australian culture and values while demanding respect for their own. This was not about football, music or food, but core aspects of liberal democracy: equality before the law, presumption of innocence, respect, democracy, free speech, economic opportunity, and tolerance. This was accompanied by a major upsurge in violent crime and welfare fraud. 

    While it obviously reflects a failure to integrate, this is nonetheless multiculturalism. The culture of these people is maintained in parallel with Australia’s traditional culture. 

    If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second.

    After several decades of this, Australia’s laidback ‘live and let live’ culture is now under serious challenge. 

    In a number of countries in Europe, the same issue has arisen. Several are now abandoning multiculturalism in favour of active integration. Perhaps it could even be called assimilation. 

    The Netherlands, for example, now requires most immigrants (including asylum seekers) to undertake a “civic integration” examination within three years of arrival. The examination tests knowledge of the Dutch language and society, and a pass is required to obtain permanent residence and citizenship. Certain classes of prospective immigrants must also pass a test even before they first enter the country. The pass mark is being steadily raised. 

    It is obvious that Al Grassby’s policy is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. Liberal democratic values are jeopardised when authoritarian, doctrinaire or anti-liberal cultures are given equal standing. The presumption of innocence took a major hit in the Higgins case, for example; equality before the law came under threat with the Voice referendum; freedom of speech faces yet more limits with the Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation bill; and economic opportunity is being squeezed by excessive taxation and red tape. Meanwhile, tolerance is challenged by cancel culture and antisemitism.

    None of these is directly attributable to a failure of immigrants to integrate, but they indicate a lack of national commitment. If traditional values are not defended, alternative values will inevitably gain a foothold. 

    Join Mailing List

    There are multiple ways to rectify this problem. Australia already has an integration test for citizenship, for example, but it could be made more like that of the Dutch. There are many sources of potential immigrants, so we could select those most likely to integrate (most of those refusing to integrate come from the Middle East). And we could also make it abundantly clear to prospective immigrants that they are expected to adapt to Australian culture, not vice versa.  

    The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.

    Forum Shopping for Native Title rights

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    The Rolling Stones were wrong: you can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.  And if you forum shop. 

    So it was with a recent native title ‘victory’ at the High Court of Australia. The Court overturned a decision of the full court of the Federal Court of Australia.

    Native title holders at the Macarthur River in the Northern Territory wanted a say over a new tailings dam associated with the mining and transhipment of zinc-lead-silver ore. Fair enough. The McArthur River Project ore concentrate must travel 120 kilometres by road to the “Bing Bong” loading facility located on the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is loaded onto a bulk-carrier vessel for transhipment to larger ocean-going ships. 

    This part of the Gulf is shallow, and the bulk carrier must use a navigation channel, which needs to be maintained by regular dredging. The resulting dredged sediment is pumped onshore to a Dredge Spoil Emplacement Area, which has been filling up. In 2013, Mt Isa Mines applied for a new mineral lease under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) to construct a new area on a pastoral lease near the Bing Bong loading facility.

    This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. 

    The Northern Land Council sought to prevent the issue of the minerals lease and a declaration that the proposed grant of the lease was invalid because the procedures under their preferred section of the Native Title Act had not been followed.

    The High Court ordered that the Northern Territory Minister be restrained from deciding the application for the future act until the completion of the procedures under the Native Title Act. The High Court had to decide whether, besides freeholder rights, the native title claimants had a right to object under native title. It seems they did. 

    Imagine fighting all the way to the High Court of Australia: first the Federal Court, then appealing to a full bench of the Federal Court, and then to the High Court. The time and cost to Australian taxpayers are enormous. And for what?

    The victory was that the High Court resolved differing interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility… associated with mining” in the context of the 633-page Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

    The key was whether native title holders had access to one ‘notification, objection and consultation procedure’ under the Native Title Act, or to another procedure under the same Act. It was either the same procedural rights as the holders of ‘ordinary title’ land or additional procedural rights to object to the future act and have those objections heard by an ‘independent person’. 

    If that wasn’t sufficiently indulgent, the applicants were entitled to processes under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT), a right to negotiate procedure, and a right to be heard at the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or have an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Indeed, an ILUA was commenced in 2021 before the appeal to the full court of the Federal Court.

    You can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.

    The decision by the High Court relates to one set of facts about what constitutes a mining operation. This may or may not provide a guide to any other disputes between native title holders and miners. At the outset there were six families involved in discussions on the mine. Three families were not directly affected but have now been drawn into the ILUA. The context is important; there are no other major economic bases in the region; the mine and associated works are it. Twenty three per cent of the workforce are Aboriginal.

    This matter started in 2013. The mine and its associated infrastructure began in 1992. The original applicant for the objection died before the courts resolved the matter. For whom is this a victory? 

    The Northern Land Council hoped this decision would prompt the mining company to ‘engage proactively and in good faith with the native title holders, through their … legal representatives, to obtain free, prior and informed consent before further disturbing their native title.’ There is no evidence it did not, but it probably spoke to the native title holders in preference to the NLC and its lawyers. 

    Join Mailing List

    The term ‘free, prior and informed’ is taken from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. If Aborigines keep playing this rent-seeker game, they will never escape poverty, and the culture that holds them in a state of dependence on public servants and land councils will remain.

    Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research

    The New UAE Corporate Tax

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax rate for all but a very few exempted industries.

    The implementation of a corporate tax is not because the UAE needs the money to build new roads, hospitals, schools or public facilities. The UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world. None of it required tax revenues. Nor was it all paid for with money from oil revenues.

    Similarly, the UAE is not implementing a tax regime to fund public services such as policing, rubbish collection, healthcare or education. Again, the UAE embarrasses high-tax countries when it comes to public safety, maintenance of public spaces, healthcare and education. People in the UAE cannot even conceive of being robbed, let alone mugged; or even seeing a homeless drug addict. The unparalleled safety and cleanliness of the UAE has not required tax revenues; nor was it all funded by oil revenues.

    The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The UAE is also not implementing a tax regime to fund a social welfare program. 89% of the UAE’s 9 million residents are expatriates. They must support their residency through work sponsorship or business profits, or else they have to leave. Technically, there is limited assistance available to the 11% minority of native emirate citizens. In reality, there is an unspoken positive discrimination applied to emirate citizens for various job positions. So taxes are not needed for welfare.

    The UAE is also not implementing a corporate tax to cover a ballooning government bureaucracy and out-of-control public indebtedness, like that seen throughout the “developed” Western nations, such as Australia. The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The idea that Governments need an instrument as crude as tax to monetise a national economy is as archaic as it is absurd. We live in a world in which some of the largest and most successful companies lose money on their core business in order to drive greater profits from tangential sources. Airlines, for example, knowingly lose money from the business of flying planes, because greater profits come from the financialisation of their frequent flyer programs. Google and Facebook also stand out as companies whose revenues exceed the GDP of entire countries despite their ‘core products’ being ostensibly given away for “free”.

    The UAE has attracted literally trillions of dollars of foreign investment, hundreds of thousands of companies, millions of residents, tens-of-millions of visitors each year, and built some of the most incredible cities on earth in scarcely a few decades; primarily, arguably, as a result of eschewing taxation. So why would the UAE change direction after achieving such success following a far more sophisticated business model?

    UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world.

    The reason the UAE is sacrificing the zero-tax brand it worked so hard to build, is due to political pressure from socialist, globalist, kleptocratic politicians in high-tax, western nations. That is, the same politicians responsible for the terminal decline and humiliation of the West – the exponentially increasing debt, monetary debasement, deindustrialisation, illegal migration, growing homelessness, increasing crime, energy shortages, insane ‘woke’ politics, military weakness, civil unrest etc etc etc – are demanding that other nations, like the UAE, follow their lead.

    Unfortunately, the last time the UAE ignored the bullying of Western politicians they were placed on a so-called international ‘grey list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FTAF) for not doing “enough” to “fight money laundering”. Compared to the money laundering taking place in the US, the volume going through the UAE is a pittance. But the issue was never about money laundering; it was demonstrating fealty to the Western political cabal. The ‘grey-listing’ was to embarrass the UAE rulers. The practical effect was simply to increase the paperwork burden placed on UAE banks moving money to and from overseas. That burden has made routine banking more difficult and expensive for legitimate SMEs, while having virtually no impact on companies and individuals transacting large sums. 

    Join Mailing List

    So the embarrassingly incompetent boobs overseeing the decline of the world’s richest countries have finally forced the UAE to start penalising businesses for being successful. The question now is: what is the likely impact going to be? 

    In 2018, the UAE was similarly pressured into implementing a goods and services tax (VAT) that included precious metals. The new 5% tax caused a 75% reduction in precious metal trade. Just 6 months later the Government exempted precious metals from the tax, restoring trade to previous levels.

    So it will be very interesting to see what comes of the new UAE tax.

    The Misguided Quest for “Fair Share”

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    “Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts.  And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief. 

    In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks. 

    Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.

    Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).

    Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold. 

    Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity. 

    As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.

    But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation. 

    Join Mailing List

    In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.

    1234Page 2 of 4
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv