A thought-provoking dilemma awaits any passionate writer delving into the realms of politics and societal issues. It’s a recurring challenge that surfaces after completing an article: what comes next? Typically, the author finds themselves staring at a stark, empty page, a sense of uncertainty looming like fog. Yet, beneath the surface, a rich tapestry of ideas and inspiration lies ready to be woven into their next piece. The abundance of material is not just accessible; it’s pulsating with potential, just waiting to be unlocked and explored.
We have just emerged from a tumultuous election cycle that has produced an unprecedented outcome – a result that will be etched in the annals of political history. Yet, the narrative is far from over. The looming questions now are as intriguing as the results themselves: Will the LNP manage to navigate the stormy seas ahead? Will Labor seize the golden opportunity that has been handed to them on a silver platter? And what of the Greens – will they venture into uncharted territory reminiscent of the Democrats’ past missteps, forging their own path into nowhere?
The Prime Minister must be keenly aware that the most formidable challenges often arise not from a well-equipped Opposition brimming with innovative policies and compelling visions but from within the ranks of his own party. Internal strife can brew like a tempest, driven by factions hungry for power, while the whispers of unions seeking recompense for past alliances can add to the turmoil. Additionally, as a government nears the end of its term, the air grows thick with an unsettling stagnation that threatens to suffocate progress.
In stark contrast to the tumultuous leadership styles of Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison, or Dutton, Albanese stands poised with a rare mandate in hand – like a double-edged sword that requires deft handling. To ignore its potential would be a grave misstep. This is a precious gift, one that progressive leaders seldom encounter, and the weight of responsibility that comes with it is both exhilarating and daunting.
We dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can make permanent that which makes us feel secure. Yet change is, in fact, part of the very fabric of our existence.
1. In the crucial early days of his second term, the Prime Minister must demonstrate a profound understanding of the significance of this gift and its far-reaching implications. It’s essential that he doesn’t merely acknowledge its value but also articulates a vision that resonates with the public. People need to feel reassured about the changes on the horizon and understand how those shifts will impact their lives. Their acceptance hinges on his ability to communicate these transformations in a way that inspires confidence and sparks hope for the future.
2. One striking illustration of this issue is the suggested overhaul of superannuation. Who, in a state of rational thought, would consider it justifiable for affluent individuals to amass fortunes of hundreds of millions within their super accounts while only contributing a mere 15% in taxes? The Government, with its authoritative mandate, is now advocating for a substantial increase to 30%. In light of their position, who could possibly stand in opposition?
“When he announced the change, Chalmers said one account held more than $400 million in superannuation, a scheme originally designed for people to have a comfortable retirement. He said 17 people had more than $100 million in their account and while the average balance of accounts over $3 million was close to $6 million, the average super balance had just $150,000.”
Jim Chalmers will need to make substantial changes to the proposal:
“The deputy Liberal leader, Ted O’Brien, suggested talks this week as part of efforts to help address the structural budget deficit but insisted the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, would have to radically change the proposal, including ending moves to tax unrealised gains.”
Fair dinkum, they still think they’re running the show.
The Prime Minister is poised to unveil his bold tax initiative, a powerful tool in his arsenal, to support Sussan Ley’s ambitious commitment to fostering a more cooperative Coalition. This new approach aims to replace the persistent negativity with a proactive stance that prioritises the needs and well-being of Australians, ensuring that their interests take centre stage in the political landscape.
Never in the history of this nation have the rich and the privileged been so openly brazen.
3. What motivates a woman to step into the leadership of a political party that has long been entrenched in anti-women sentiments? A party adrift, lacking a firm grasp on its core values and purpose. A party that has lost its once confident economic standing is now floundering in the tides of public opinion. A party bereft of meaningful policies, with its few remaining ideas rejected by the very voters it seeks to represent. What drives her to embrace this challenge in such a turbulent political landscape?
The common good should be at the centre of any political philosophy. However, it is more likely to be found on the left than the right.
4. Despite Labor’s resounding triumph in the lower House, where their numbers paint an unmistakable picture of dominance, it is the Upper House that holds the ultimate power to decide. Yet, as they approach their considerations, they must be acutely aware of the monumental significance of Labor’s victory – a watershed moment that echoes through the halls of governance and reflects the voices of a determined electorate. A mandate that must be respected.
5. In just over six months, Australia’s social media ban for users under 16 is set to take effect. But a trial underway to test how it will actually work is experiencing significant problems.
6. Will the Government bring about a change in rules that will make Question Time a place for genuine debate?
It is painfully clear that Question Time in the Australian Parliament has become little more than a stage for individuals of mediocre intellect, who resort to petty squabbles rather than engaging in meaningful debate infused with charm or wit. Their behaviour is not only deplorable but also serves to tarnish the dignity of the parliament itself, revealing them as nothing more than farcical caricatures of immaturity. This crucial time in the proceedings should be a grand showcase of democracy in action; instead, it calls for reform, including the appointment of an independent speaker to restore order and elevate the discourse to a level worthy of the institution.
Yes, there is much to write about for those who have the will to do so.
My thought for the day
Commitment to the use of critical reasoning, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, is the best way to provide solutions to human problems.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
There is a confected rage coming from the usual suspects over the government’s changes to superannuation.
The concessionary 15% on earnings was intended to be an incentive to encourage savings towards retirement but as noted, some super schemes are seen as a harbour for tax minimisation with balances way beyond the needs on an intending retiree.
So the government are saying that people with superannuation funds of more than $3 million will face an additional 15 per cent tax on investment returns (including interest, dividends or capital gains) they earn on the amount above this threshold.
What this means in practice is that someone with a $3.5 million super balance will continue to be taxed the discounted rate of 15 per cent on everything they earn on the first $3 millions of their balance. Investment returns on the additional $500,000 will be taxed at 30 per cent.
Not such a big deal to most of us and it will only affect 0.50% of superannuation accounts; from the ruckus at News Corp and SKY we must assume that these folk will be impacted and will have to find an alternative vehicle for their funds over $3 million – perhaps building houses to rent may be the way to go as that will launch them on another tax lurk through negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.
Terry, if only those media outlets showed the same level of rage over pensioners and income support recipients living below the poverty line.