Back in the 90's I was a Republican. Not the American kind but the Australian kind that wanted a head of state who was Australian. I have to admit that the choice was based on a few factors. One, was the 1975 Dismissal, which left a very bitter legacy in our polity. Another, was the fact that the Queen - with all her trappings and achievements - seemed not just an anachronism but an out-and-out irrelevance. This led me to think the Republican cause in Australia was progressive. The last factor was how Paul Keating as Prime Minister argued the case for a Republic, which was very persuasive.
Of course we know how that ended. At the time, the debates came down to Tony Abbott on the side the monarchists, and Malcolm Turnbull on the side of the Republicans. It didn't matter that Tony Abbott was largely incoherent in his logic, and that Malcolm Turnbull was persuasive; John Howard had managed to split the Republican vote between those who wanted a direct election of a President and those who wanted minimal change in the structure of the government.
More importantly, we find that Turnbull is not so bullish on the moment today. That stands in stark contrast to the new Australian of the Year who wants to push the issue.
I think about that today and a number of striking things pop out. First, there is the obvious strangeness of seeing Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull continue to tussle in the public eye; this, despite being on the same party. Tony Abbott went on to do in Malcolm Turnbull as Opposition Leader back in 2010, and it took until late last year for Malcolm Turnbull to wrest back the leadership role with the Liberals. The rancour remains; Abbott will contest the seat of Warringah and will remain the thorn in Turnbull's side. Another words, the tussle between these two men is likely to continue a little bit longer.
The second, is the persistence of the idea that Australia should become a Republic, and that this symbolic change is somehow vital to our national identity. Thus, notwithstanding the loss, the Republicans aren't going to let it go. Naturally, the Monarchists won't either. But on a long enough time line, the Republicans may well get their way; and once they do, it's hard to conceive of a way back to a constitutional monarchy.
In the mean time, there's research to show that the younger generation are eminently okay with the Monarchy. Those who did not witness the Dismissal simply don't care. The people most wedded to the idea of the Republic are the people who came of age in the Whitlam era. That tells you something about the years since, and how they have slowly obscured the anger, obfuscated the problematic, and hung a veil over the ugliness that was palpable to those present in 1975. Maybe the Republic is not as inevitable as it seems.
Is The Property Bubble Finally Popping?
This is the question.
First off, Sydney house prices dropped 3.1% in the last quarter.
Rising mortgage rates, restrictions placed on investor lending, a surge of new apartments and a slowdown of Chinese buyers in the Sydney market were all behind the sluggish result, AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver said.
“The December quarter was a bit unusual in that a lot of negative things came together in a perfect storm,” Dr Oliver said.
But this fall “exaggerates the weakness in the market” as it has to be viewed in the context of the huge growth Sydney already experienced, he said.
Over the past three years, Sydney house prices are up 52.6 per cent or $349,183, Domain data shows, with house prices up 14.8 per cent over 2015.
So there's that account. Of the factors cited, the most ominous might be the retreat of Chinese investors, as it signals some kind of link to the collapse in Chinese economic sentiment. Of course, the Chinese share market is known not to be connected to much, but all the same, nobody believes the official account that the Chinese economy is growing at a 7% clip.
Apart from which, the Chinese markets themselves have popped. Who is doing the lending now to enable Chinese investment in to Australian real estate? That being the case, you have to wonder if the drop in Chinese buyers was a little hesitant drop or a tap turning off.
The Pot Calls
Rupert Murdoch is a funny tweeter. Rupert seems to think Google needs to pay more tax. The problem with Rupert taking such a position is, that his own companies also need to pay more tax.
Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp paid no UK net tax at all between 1987 and 1999, attacked Google parent's tax deal with the UK.
"Google et al broke no tax laws,'' Murdoch wrote on Twitter. "Now paying token amounts for p r purposes. Won't work. Need strong new laws to pay like the rest of us.''What can you say to that kind of brazen hypocrisy? It's sort of funny he thinks there's a tax paying "us" that brackets him with the run of the mill taxpayer who can only dream of a holiday in the Barbados, let alone 23 subsidiaries in tax havens.
He was referring to Alphabet's agreement to pay £130 million pounds in taxes dating back to 2005.
Murdoch's attitude to low tax rates in 2016 put contrasts with data on his company's behavior in the past.
A 1999 report by The Economist showed Murdoch's own company, News Corp, had paid a tax rate of 6 percent over the previous four years.
In the UK, it had paid no net tax at all on £1.4 billion of profits made since 1987.
Fairfax Media reported earlier this month that eight of the 10 media companies that paid no income tax in Australia are linked to the Murdoch family.
Well, here's to you Rupert.
No comments:
Post a Comment