ACTU boss Sally McManus has responded to the Australian’s report that the Coalition will reinstate the activity test in order for parents to access subsidised child care:

The Coalition’s only real policy for women so far is to take away guaranteed subsidised childcare from them.
In addition, they are scrapping free TAFE, which is essential for workers in the early childhood sector.
This decision will not only have a big financial impact on the care workforce, it will also make accessing childcare harder for all families, as centres will struggle to employ qualified workers.
Bringing back the activity test for parents is poor policy and will hurt parents by cutting this important cost-of-living relief measure.
The Coalition’s approach to taking this away will hurt thousands of women – because the reality is that women still shoulder most of the caregiving load while families seek more flexible work arrangements.
Peter Dutton owns three childcare centres. He wanted to keep those who work in them on extremely low pay as he opposed the long overdue pay rises for early educators, calling it ‘a sugar hit.’

Now he wants to stop childcare fee relief from reaching families.”

It is that time in the election cycle where journalists pretend they understand minority government.

Take this example from the Nine Network this morning:

Host: Just finally, despite repeatedly denying a deal with the Greens, Albo is preferencing them in his own seat. This Greens candidate in Grayndler claims Israel is guilty of genocide. Do you know anything about that preferencing? Do you have a problem with it? Do you think that’s a good look? Especially given how many times he said that he won’t do a deal with the Greens.
 
Richard Marles: Well, we’re not doing a deal with the Greens. And what we’re encouraging Australians to do is to put one next to the Labor box. And in that event, you know, wherever we’re preferencing won’t be relevant. But we are definitely not doing a deal with the Greens and the Prime Minister–
 
Host : It’s relevant. If you’re saying vote Greens second, it’s hardly saying let’s not do a deal with the Greens ever.
 
Marles: Karl, I am very, very confident that in the seat of Grayndler, the Prime Minister’s preferences will not be distributed.
 
Host: That’s probably right.
 
Marles: What will happen there is that people will be voting one for Anthony Albanese–
 
Host: It’s the principle though!
 
Marles: There is not going to be a deal with the Greens–
 
Host: It’s about the optics.
 
Marles: Okay, well, here’s the principle. No deal, no deal with the Greens. No deal with the Greens. No deal with the Greens. No ifs, no buts and Anthony could not have been clearer. And I could not be any clearer right now.

What ‘deal’ are they talking about? What do they think happens? Do we talk about doing a ‘deal’ when governments fall short in the senate (which is most of the time?)

No. We don’t.

The government will be the party with the most seats who can negotiate among the crossbench support for legislation. No one will stand in the way of supply – that’s an understanding, but it is a case by case basis for legislation. In terms of confidence – will that is only an issue if someone brings a no confidence motion in the government, which is supported by most of the chamber. That again is a hypothetical.

There is a minority government in NSW right now. The NSW Labor government, has the confidence of three crossbenchers, which is how it holds the lower house. And then it negotiates on legislation.

Defence minister Richard Marles responded to the Coalition’s $21bn over five years defence spending boost on Sky News this mornign:

I just don’t think you can trust anything that the Liberals put forward. And I think Australians have an absolute right to look at this with a great degree of scepticism. I mean, this is coming from the people who gave you $42 billion worth of announcements without putting a single dollar behind them- a full quarter of what defence was expected to procure under the Liberals, there was literally no money for.

And when they did spend money, we saw 28 different projects running a combined 97 years over time. Now, what we’ve seen reported in the papers today is thin at best. There is no explanation of how the money is being raised.

There’s no explanation of where the money is being spent. Some reports describe this as a target. I mean, that just doesn’t pass muster. At the end of the day, what we’ve engaged in is the biggest increase in peacetime defence spending in our nation’s history.

That is in the budget. It is money accounted for. We know exactly where it’s going, what capability we’re spending it on, and that is a total difference to the kind of vaudeville act that you see on the part of the Coalition.

This interview with Liberal Kooyong candidate, Amelia Harmer is noteworthy for two reasons – she chose to be interviewed with her former boss, Jane Hume ready to jump in (and ended up asking Hume to do just that) and also she already has not answering questions down pat.

The circular argument here is that the polls are wrong because they are small samples “like a thumb in the wind” Sharri Markson says. But she says they are wrong because the Coalition’s internal polling is showing something different.

So how is the internal polling, which uses the same methodology, different to being a ‘thumb in the wind? Is it a middle finger in the wind?

Polls show you the vibe. And yes, in 2019, the polls were wrong in terms of 2PP – but they were right on the primary vote. That was an election where the expectation was that Labor would win, but the primary vote showed that was a pipe dream. And Bill Shorten was an unpopular leader – which was also reflected in the polls.
Since then, there has been a lot of work done on polling and reputable pollsters publish their methodology through the Australian Polling Council. You can see how they poll, the questions they ask and whether there was any potential leading questions.

The most likely outcome at this point shows that a Labor led minority government is still the most likely outcome. But ultimately, it is up to you.

One of the biggest reasons for Australia’s low tax revenue is that the government provides many tax concessions that benefit the wealthy.
The top 6 tax concessions for super cost the government $58.5 billion, just short of the $62.0 billion in income support for seniors.
The two biggest of these are:
The lower rate of tax charged on contributions, which is a flat 15% for most taxpayers. A 30% tax rate applies for individuals whose combined income and super contributions is more than $250,000 per year.
Earnings in the ‘accumulation’ phase are taxed at a flat rate of 15%.

These two give around $22bn in tax breaks to the richest 10 per cent of Australians.

This makes no sense given the only reason for these tax breaks is to encourage people to put money into super so they will not be reliant on the age pension.

But those in the top 10% were never going to be eligible for the pension – so the government is spending $22bn a year for no reason at all.
The government attempted to reign in some of this by reducing the tax break for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million in assets. Treasury estimated 80,000 people or 0.5% of people with superannuation accounts would be affected.

The proposal was controversial in that it would have included capital gains on an accruals basis for the additional 15% tax to the extent that capital gains increased the total super balance above $3 million. In the first full year of receipts it was expected to raise $2.3 billion. The adverse reaction to that feature of the proposal ignored Ken Henry’s tax report that had recommended that capital gains should be treated as income for tax purposes.

Even if something like the lapsed legislation eventually passes it will still fall a long way short of addressing the rorts in the super system which has become a popular vehicle for tax avoidance and estate planning, but it is a vital start.

The Australian has reported that the Coalition wants to reinstate the activity test for child care – the activity test has been found to be one of the more regressive policies for parents trying to access care for their children. To qualify for the subsidy, you have to prove your ‘activity’ – work or volunteering – which can be severely limiting for parents and carers looking after younger children or babies while wanting care for their children. It can be particularly limiting for people with health challenges or who are unemployed and unable to access subsidised care to either help them have a break, or find the space to re-enter the workforce, if that is what they wish.

It has been raised time and time again as one of the biggest barriers for women and serves no purpose other than to punish parents and carers by not valuing care responsibilities or the labour involved in child raising.

Labor finally announced it would scrap it as part of its childcare reforms, but according to the Australian, the Coalition wants to bring it back:

Peter Dutton would reinstate the activity test for parents wishing to access childcare if he wins the election, reversing Labor’s decision to give parents the ability to access taxpayer-funded subsidies for three days of care a week regardless of whether they are seeking employment, working or studying.

The Australian can reveal an elected Coalition government would not scrap the $1bn Building Early Education Fund announced by Anthony Albanese last year to set up more than 160 new childcare centres, instead committing to keep the fund in place to “be invested into early childhood education around Australia”.

As part of its childcare policy platform, announced a week before the election, the Coalition will set up a $100m grant program to be offered to providers setting up “flexible and innovative alternatives” to the long daycare model. This could include the ­delivery of mobile daycare, ­employer-supported models of care or bush kindy, delivered outdoors and in nature.

The United States is disappearing down an authoritarian rabbit hole and Australian leaders are struggling to respond.

On this crossover episode of After America and Follow the Money, Ebony Bennett and Dr Emma Shortis discuss the US administration’s mass deportations, the scandals surrounding the Departments of Defense and State, and why Australian democratic institutions are worth defending.

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of liquified natural gas (LNG), but little public revenue is raised from the gas industry. Australia exports a similar volume of gas to Qatar, yet Qatar raises six times more revenue from its industry. Reforming the royalty and tax systems could raise significant revenue for and assist with climate action.

Reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax

No gas export project has ever paid the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT). Despite gas corporations earning tens of billions from LNG exports each year, PRRT rarely raises much more than $1 billion per year, all of which is paid by domestic-oriented oil and gas producers.

So bad is the situation that even while gas companies are enjoying a boom in prices Australian beer drinkers pay more in tax than do gas companies in the PRRT

Heck some of the biggest producers of LNG pay NO PRRT

Treasury has estimated the revenue that could be raised from various reforms, such as to transfer pricing (the price that companies “sell” the gas to themselves for tax purposes), and capping the PRRT deductions by gas companies each year. Three options are summarised in the table below:

It’s time Australians got a fair share for our gas and stop gas companies taking the piss.

With less than two weeks to go in the election campaign, both major parties have done little to address the deficiencies in our tax system, which distort the housing market, worsen inequality, promote the use of fossil fuels and encourage damaging behavior.

Australia is a low tax nation, and this has left Australians with higher rates of poverty, poorer services and crumbling infrastructure.

If the government raised as much revenue as the average tax take of advanced nations in the OECD, it would have an extra $135 billion a year.

That could be used to improve infrastructure, deliver better education and health services and fast-track the shift to a low-emissions economy.

The Australia Institute proposes a range of changes to the tax system that are already at the centre of policy debate. Some are supported by current members of parliament, while others have been major party policy in the past. They are well-known by policy practitioners and popular with voters.

Such changes would not mean higher taxes for the vast majority of Australians, but would instead be done in ways which will make Australia fairer and safer.

We could:

• Cut fossil fuel subsidies and end the gas industry’s free ride.
• Reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.
• Close the tax loopholes for superannuation and luxury utes.

Such reforms to the tax system could raise between $12 billion and $63 billion a year:

• $12 billion could fund 70,000 extra jobs to improve education, health and a host of other public services.
• $63 billion would enable the government to raise support payments above the poverty line and double spending on education and housing.

“A proud nation requires policies that promote a better and fairer Australia,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Elections are an opportunity to take bold, popular reforms to the people.

“Not only would that improve their chances in the election, it would give them a mandate to make the country a better place.

“Instead, we get not just small targets, but tiny targets from Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton.

“For three years, the opposition has gone on and on and on about the Prime Minister’s pledge to cut power bills at the last election.

“Now, both leaders are so terrified of promising reforms they can’t deliver, they just tinker around the edges. It’s a massive missed opportunity.”