Australia Institute Live: Jacqui Lambie slams goverment for prioritising 'a stinky little fish' over cost of living, as the government gears up to hand down the budget. As it happened.

Given that we have a huge few weeks ahead of us – budget week officially starts tomorrow and then we will be in the official election campaign, we are going to take a small early mark today and start getting ready for what is coming.

We will have the blog open tomorrow from 7ish and run it throughout the parliamentary day, and we will re-start it from when the budget goes live in the evening. So strap in for that!

Thank you to everyone who joined us today – we hope you’ll be back tomorrow as we continue to iron out the bugs in this little project. It has been humbling to see how many of you have come along for the ride. We are working on a few more things – like the ability to comment – but if you have any comments, just send me an email – amy.remeikis@australiainstitute.org.au and I’ll put up what I can, as well as answer any questions.

Hopefully we will see you back here tomorrow – come along for my descent into the existential abyss!

Until then – do good, and take care of you

Labor has held its caucus meeting and the briefing has been given (this is where a party MP reads out the minute notes from the meeting to journalists in a formal briefing, but it is all off the record.

MPs tell me that the caucus has agreed to pass Labor’s proposed legislation which will gut existing environmental laws, and limit what third party civil society groups (like the Australia Institute) can do to support community groups protesting nature-destroying projects.

But MPs were also speaking about the government working to strengthen environmental laws in a second term.

These two positions do not make sense, unless you consider that this is all about the government trying to shore up support in outer-suburban seats by sacrificing any sort of ‘green’ credentials it might still have. So being seen as anti-Greens in those seats is a risk Labor is willing to take, if it means fighting back the Liberals. Which is insane. Because we know that if both parties look the same, it’s not exactly inspiring anyone to vote for them, but is doing damage in other areas.

But this is the strategy.

Greens senator Barbara Pocock says the government has not done enough to transparently show what it is spending on consultants, with the consultant spend tied in with external contractors. The Greens want Labor to “reduce spending on consultants across all departments and agencies by a minimum of 15% each year for 5 years”.

Pocock said:

“We know that outsourcing public service work to the private sector costs three-times as much as hiring public servants to do the work, so reducing the spend on consultants and other contractors is a no brainer.

“What we are seeing is Labor fiddling at the edges. They say they want to eliminate wasteful outsourcing but there is no firm commitment to the kind of long-term reduction needed to bring down Scott Morrison’s record breaking spend of $20.8 billion on private contracting.

“The Australian Greens have recommended a 15% reduction in spending on consultants every year over five years. Labor is yet to respond.”

Further to that campaign, here is some of what David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie had to say, as reported by AAP:

Senator Pocock said Australia didn’t have a gas supply shortage, but a gas export problem with 80 per cent being sent abroad.

“This is a problem that can be solved,” he said on Monday.

“What we haven’t seen is the political will from the major parties who actually say Australians should benefit from Australian gas first before we export.”

Senator Lambie said the nation needed a gas reserve policy of 15 per cent.

“This is not about digging up more gas. This is not about ‘drill, baby drill’. This is about prioritising where our gas goes,” she said.

“The first thing you (government) could be … doing this week, is putting through a gas reserve policy for this country to make energy prices reduced.

“Stop this rubbish of not doing means testing and giving people like me $150 off my electricity bill.”

Senators Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock have called out multinational gas companies for pillaging Australia’s gas and pushing prices up for local households and businesses.

The Australia Institute has launched a new campaign, highlighting the fact that these companies take Australia’s gas, export 80% of it at huge profit (which goes overseas), pay no royalties then claim there’s a domestic shortage … which sends prices through the roof in Australia.

Australia does not have a gas crisis. We have a greed crisis and an integrity crisis. But we have more than enough gas to supply all our needs over and over.

As our politicians return to the big house for budget week – and the final sitting days before the election – we’ve taken our campaign direct to Parliament.

The time for subtlety has passed … big gas companies have screwed Australians for too long.

For those catching up on the salmon laws, Tasmanian director at the Australia Institute, Eloise Carr can catch you up:

Jacqui Lambie was among the independents who has spoken out against the Labor government’s proposed legislation which would not only protect the foreign-owned salmon industry in Tasmania from adhering to existing environmental laws, it would also limit third party civil society groups (like the Australia Institute) from helping community groups in their environmental challenges.

All in all, it would not only gut environmental protections, it would also limit community group’s ability to challenge nature-damaging projects. So not exactly democratic either, is it.

Lambie is not happy, telling an earlier press conference she was furious the government was prioritising “a stinking little fish” over cost of living issues:

“The mining industry would never get away with the exemption of what the salmon [industry] is asking for tomorrow. Apparently, that is what your government is prioritising tomorrow, talking about salmon, instead of reducing energy bills in this country. That’s what we’re talking about, a stinky little fish!”

We have said this before – Albanese’s intervention in the salmon issue in Tasmania is not about the salmon industry, or even winning seats in the election. It’s a signal to the bigger polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, that the government is on their side and won’t let environmental laws stand in the way of big projects. That’s what it’s about – power giving a nod and a wink to mining interests that they’ll be protected.

Meanwhile, after the backlash to the ALP’s latest merch drop, it seems the party has now scrubbed all reference to it:

We can no longer find it on Insta or TikTok, (it was never on the ALP’s shop) so it seems that the party has had second thoughts. Understandably – because what the actual.

Speaking of election campaigns, the fight is happening across all platforms;

Anthony Albanese is making the most of the non-sitting day – he is now in Melbourne where he will hold another press conference.

Anyone could think there is an election underway!

Fremantle community independent Kate Hulett has announced she will be running in the federal election against Labor’s Josh Wilson.

Hulett came within 400 votes of winning the state seat from Simone McGurk, a WA Labor minister who saw a 26% swing against her. That took the formally safe seat to a 1% margin – which is a stark reminder that there are NO SAFE SEATS.

The Fremantle Shipping News reported Hulett as saying:

I have had literally hundreds of people contact me in recent days asking me to maintain this extraordinary momentum to keep challenging the major parties and provide proper representation for Fremantle in government,” Ms Hulett said.

What the community is telling me is no surprise. They feel that both major parties are completely ineffective and out of step with them on the important issues impacting us all – like AUKUS, gas exports, housing, the cost of living, taking care of our city – and as a community, we are demanding an alternative.”

Wilson holds the seat with a 16.9% margin (2PP) and is considered one of the most popular Labor MPs in WA, but an independent challenger who already has some name recognition because of the state election will be interesting.

There is talk that the Liberals are looking to do a preference deal with Labor, in that they preference Labor in Fremantle, so Labor preferences them in Curtin (where the Liberals are trying to win back the seat from independent Kate Chaney) and while preference deals are just suggestions of how a political party would like you to vote, rusted on major party supporters are more likely to follow how to vote cards, than not.

So keep an eye on WA.

Tomorrow, the Queensland LNP will announce where the Brisbane Olympic venues will be built. There has been a lot of political brouhaha over the location of the 2032 Olympics, which bamboozled the former Labor government and now is the LNP’s headache (although to be fair, the LNP did their fair share in making it a headache).

There is also the issue of funding and how that is all going to work.

David Crisafulli said he and the prime minister have worked some things over…cannolis. As you do:

Crisafulli: “I reckon we’ve spoken a lot about it, but we’ve negotiated well together. I think that’s fair. We’ve worked together well and that’s always my style. I’m on Team Queensland. Of course, there’s been some strong negotiations. Two people of Italian descent, you’d expect that. But there’s nothing that can’t be solved over a bit of common sense and a cannoli. Two cannolis, and I bought both of them.”
 
PM:: And I can confirm that the Premier has, on two occasions, given me cannolis and I haven’t declared them. So, I declare them now just in case I get into some trouble.
 
Crisafulli: They were good cannolis.
 
PM: We regard that as a cultural thing rather than anything else. And they’re fine cannolis, I’ve got to say.

Crisafulli is of the north Queensland Italians, where coffee and cannolis are basically life.

Today the Financial Review is reporting that major private health insurance funds including Bupa, Medibank, HCF and NIB are hiking premiums by 7% to 9.4% on their “gold” and “silver” policies. That is well above the average increase of 3.7% allowed by the Minister, Mark Butler, on 26 February.

Customers have also been faced with phoenix practices whereby insurers scrap existing products and replace them with near identical products with a new name and higher premiums.

The chief executive of the Australian Private Hospitals Association,  Brett Heffernan, is reported as saying “If 8-9 per cent is the reality from the big end of town, it’s a massive gouge no one, including the minister, should be tolerating”.

The private health insurers do not need to rip off Australian customers anymore. Our earlier analysis showed the large for-profit companies, especially Bupa, Medibank and NIB are hugely profitable with pre-tax profits of $1.7 billion in 2023-24. 

Apart from plain rip offs, there is also the suggestion that insurers are making the best cover unaffordable so that customers are forced away from policies that cover expensive care such as “obstetrics, psychiatry, joint replacement surgery, and weight loss surgery”.

If people cannot afford cover for the most expensive health contingencies it raises legitimate questions about the very role of private health insurance including its discrimination against women and those most in need of health care.  

Katy Gallagher was also asked about the independent’s push for a bigger domestic gas reserve (gas prices are linked to the international market which is why they are so expensive) and said:

We’ve been clear that gas is an essential fuel to manage the transition to a renewable energy future. So, Madeleine King and our colleagues when we first came to government, we had to make sure very quickly as gas prices were going up that we had enough supply and that we
were managing some of the pressures in that area. That will continue. It is an
essential component of this energy transition. We need gas.

Many Independents have kind of tried to demonise gas and other fossil fuels in the
transition to renewable energy future. We’ve been clear from the beginning that we need gas. We need to make sure there’s enough supply for Australians to support that energy transition, and you’ll see that continue

Which is not an answer.

AAP has reported on Canada’s snap election which has been called for April 28 (their election was not due until October, but they will now vote before we do) and the story includes some interesting observations from one pollster:

Mark Carney, a former two-time central banker with no previous political or election campaign experience, captured the Liberal leadership two weeks ago by persuading party members he was the best person to tackle Trump.

Now he has five weeks to win over Canadians. On Sunday, Carney proposed cutting the lowest income tax bracket by one percentage point.

Polls suggest the Liberals, who have been in power since 2015 and badly trailed the official opposition Conservatives at the start of the year, are now slightly ahead of their rivals.

“We moved from an election where people wanted change to an election that’s really much more about leadership,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs.

“The ability of the Conservatives to attack the Liberals has been greatly diminished, because people are focused on the here and now and the near-term future, not on what happened over the last 10 years,” he said by phone.

It is interesting because we are starting to see the same theme emerge here – and populist nationalists, like Pauline Hanson and Peter Dutton are struggling to respond to it. Not that Labor has taken the line that the Canadian Liberals have under Carney, but it will be very interesting seeing how Australian politicians respond to the very real threat Trump presents to the world.

Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne has responded to the Queensland education funding deal – and she is not happy. From her release:

More public school funding is always a good thing, but this agreement leaves public schools underfunded for another decade.

Labor’s plan ensures that it will be a quarter of a century before Gonski is delivered and every Australian public school receives its bare minimum funding. That means kids currently in school are going to finish year 12 never having experienced the fully resourced education they deserve. That means not enough teachers, not enough in-class supports, inadequate facilities, and parents and teachers dipping into their own pockets to make up the shortfall.

Budgets are about priorities, and if public schools were a priority for this Government they would fully fund public schools this year.”

Still on the gas industry, executive director of the Australia Institute Richard Denniss is in Newcastle today for an event with the founder of Punter’s Politics Konrad Benjamin, where he will be talking all things gas – mostly how YOU will have paid more tax than the gas exporters:

If you’ve paid any tax at all in the last decade, you’ve paid more than the global gas giants exporting eastern Australia’s gas have ever paid in company tax.

These corporations export two thirds of the gas produced in eastern Australia, selling it for tens of billions of dollars annually. They use more gas just running their export terminals than we use electricity, yet apparently NSW now has to import gas!

Gas exports have led to a tripling of wholesale gas and electricity prices since LNG exports began in 2015. LNG companies deliberately exposed Australians to global prices, which is driving up YOUR energy bills.

You may have noticed this campaign from the Australia Institute start to take hold – we’ll bring you more on the research behind the message a little later today, but it is worth remembering as both major parties push gas as the answer to rising energy costs.

The Coalition is going particularly hard on it, pretending it is the answer to lowering energy prices, despite the fact that gas is exposed to the international market and therefore is a more expensive form of energy. But hey! This is Auspol! Why let facts get in the way of pretend policy answers?

Parliament doesn’t sit today – the last sitting will begin tomorrow when the budget is handed down – but that doesn’t mean that there is no politics.

This week, Labor is attempting to ram through laws which will further weaken Australia’s environmental laws. It is under the guise of protecting the foreign-owned salmon industry in Tasmania, by essentially creating carve outs where it wouldn’t have existing environmental laws apply to it.

But it looks like the government wants to go even further and cut out the ability for third party civil society groups – like the Australia Institute and Environmental Defenders Office – from being able to assist community groups in their challenges of nature-destroying projects. The legislation the government wants to pass this week – with the Coalition – would mean third party civil society groups could not provide research or expert opinion to the groups, leaving them at the mercy of fighting challenges against multi-million dollar consultants hired by industry.

“Weakening environmental laws doesn’t help the Australian community or the Australian economy. It simply boosts the profits of salmon corporations, coal companies and other corporate interests,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director of The Australia Institute.

“Any change that makes it harder for community groups to use Australia’s environment laws is, by definition, anti-democratic.”

So keep an eye on that this week.

The Greens senator Nick McKim will hold a press conference on the issue later today.

It’s that time of the election campaign where political parties start pushing merch on people.

This from Labor has gone over like a lead balloon.

The text on the shirt says:

‘This is Australia. We eat meat. We drink beer. And we love Medicare.’

It’s a rift on a conservative US slogan (since co-opted by the far right):

“This is America. We eat meat, we drink beer, we own guns, we speak English. If you don’t like it, leave.”

The Labor version is being slammed online and for good reason.

The last question in the prime minister’s press conference was what the Australian government was doing to pressure Israel into following humanitarian law, now it has (officially) broken the ceasefire.

Early estimates are that 50,000 Palestinians have been killed in the days since Israel restarted its relentless bombing campaign of heavily populated civilian areas, including the largest massacre of children in one day (on top of the thousands of children who have already been killed by Israel’s military.)

The Gazan population is starving, with Israel having formally blocked food, water, petrol and medicine from entering the strip for three weeks ahead of its bombing campaign, for a population which was already on the brink of starvation given Israel’s previous blockades on basic supplies during its assault on the Palestinian population.

Australian doctor, Dr Mohammed Mustafa who is volunteering in Gaza, has pleaded with the Albanese government to take action.

Albanese did not offer anything new:

“We have maintained our same position, which is to – we want to see the ceasefire be continued. We want an end to hostilities. We want to see hostages released. We want to see peace and security in the Middle East. It’s something that my government is very focused on. We will remain focused on but we’re not major players in the Middle East that’s just the truth of the matter. So, we remain incredibly concerned about the innocent loss of life that we’ve seen since October 7, whether that be in Israel or whether it be in Gaza.

Surely people have a look at that innocent loss of life, including children and people who have done nothing wrong but be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They deserve protection and I want to see that occur, as I’m sure most people who have a look at what is occurring, whether they be people in Gaza, or indeed, people in Israel, who are saying that as well.”

There is a theme that has emerged this year as we get closer to the inevitable election, where Peter Dutton and the Coalition trash every Labor policy – and then immediately adopt it.

Dutton called the energy rebate a “ponzi scheme” on Sunday – but the Coalition has also said it will support it. So now it is in the position of supporting something it is slamming as a ‘ponzi scheme’ (which makes no sense even on the face of it – Dutton’s complaint is that the government is using tax payer money to pay for the rebates, which using that logic makes everything governments do a ‘ponzi scheme’. I mean just wait when he learns about fossil fuel subsidies!

Dutton’s answer by the way, for lowering power costs is to bring more gas into the system. Which is also laughable, given the cost of has has TREBLED. Why is it three times the cost? Because we made the stupid decision to export most of it, which means the cost of gas has now based on the international market, which is terminally volatile.

If you need any further indication of where the entire gallery’s brain is at, at the moment, here is one of the questions and answers from this morning’s press conference with the prime minister, where he and Queensland premier David Crisafulli were announcing a new school funding deal:

Q: Some believe that you have a sense of momentum and you might call the election as soon as you can after the sitting period is over and people want to head back to their electorates quickly. Do you want to seize the moment call the election as soon as you can after Thursday. And you’ve had time to speak to Peter Dutton now that you’re in the job. Do you have any more confidence in the nuclear plan now that you’ve had a chance to look at it?

Albanese:

“On the first, I’m told by my office that when we called the press conference, some thought that we were about to call the election the day before the budget!

So I say consistently, as I have said privately and publicly, three years is too short. I can now confirm the election will be in May. I’ve been saying that for a year. I was advised this time last year in order to stop tax cuts going forward, that we should call an election. And I ignored that call by Mr Dutton, and I continued to govern. We’ve got a budget to hand down tomorrow night. It’s an important budget that will set Australia up on the path to a better future. And I look forward to that.

I look forward to some policy besides the three that have been announced – nuclear plans, the $20,000 lunches and the cuts that we don’t know about, coming out sometime between now and May. But we’re very clear about our agenda and it’s one of governing. And what I’m doing today is governing – putting in place these important reforms.”

Tanya Plibersek suffered through her weekly humiliation of having to ‘debate’ Barnaby Joyce on national television this morning, but first we were gifted this little gem.

The Seven network producers had the hosts likening the Coalition’s bitch and fold policy of adopting everyone of Labor’s policy announcement, even when they don’t like them to the ‘I’ll have what she’s having’ line in when Harry Met Sally.

Joyce says he has never seen the movie.

“Well, I have to admit I’ve had a deprived childhood. I haven’t seen When Harry Met Sally.”

Joyce was 22 when the movie came out. Which says a lot about what Joyce considers his ‘childhood’ and maybe explains why the former deputy prime minister never appears to have grown up.

If you are looking for a break from all the budget news and horrors, there is this from Josh Black on Arts funding – and why it is so important to defend it.

“Blue Poles changed a nation because it embroiled political leaders in an argument about Australia’s commitment to the arts and cultural sector.” Here’s my take on Pollock, Blue Poles and arts policy today @australiainstitute.org.au @theconversation.com theconversation.com/blue-poles-a…

[image or embed]— Joshua Black (@joshuablackjb.bsky.social) March 24, 2025 at 8:44 AM

Anthony Albanese is announcing that Queensland has signed up to the school funding deal – Queensland premier David Crisafulli is in Canberra for the announcement, so both are feeling pretty chuffed with themselves.

The agreement means (per the release)

As part of the Heads of Agreement signed today, the Commonwealth will provide an additional 5 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) to Queensland.
 
This will lift the Commonwealth’s contribution from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the SRS by 2034.
 
This will see an estimated $2.8 billion in additional Commonwealth funding to Queensland state schools over the next 10 years.

This agreement will see the biggest injection of funding ever delivered for Queensland state schools.
 
As part of the Agreement, Queensland will remove the provision allowing them to claim 4 per cent of state school funding for indirect school costs such as capital depreciation and replace it with 4 per cent of recurrent funding on eligible expenses.

So what does Queensland have to do?

The Agreement signed today will be followed by a Queensland Bilateral Agreement, which will tie funding to reforms that will help students catch up, keep up and finish school, such as: 

• Year 1 phonics and early years of schooling numeracy checks to identify students in the early years of school who need additional help.
• evidence-based teaching and targeted and intensive supports such as small-group or catch-up tutoring to help students who fall behind.
• initiatives that support wellbeing for learning – including greater access to health professionals.
• access to high-quality and evidence-based professional learning, and
• initiatives that improve the attraction and retention of teachers and reduce teacher and school leader workload.

Ahead of this budget being delivered, it pays to remember that every decision the government makes is a choice.

Always remember – budgets are about choices www.theguardian.com/business/gro…

[image or embed]— Greg Jericho (@grogsgamut.bsky.social) March 20, 2025 at 10:19 AM

The decision to fund something or not comes down to priorities. And governments tell us what their priorities are in every budget they hand down.

Asked why the government is focusing on extending the energy rebate for everyone, rather than raising welfare for the most financially vulnerable, Katy Gallagher told RN Breakfast:

The budget has to do a lot of things, and you’ve seen payments on Jobseeker increase in every budget that we have handed down, including additional payments on top of indexation.

We’ve increased single parenting payment and eligibility for that. We’ve made sure that bulk billing is funded properly, including for concession card holders.

So we’ve had to come at this cost of living challenges from a number of different ways, but one of them has been to make sure that we are supporting households who rely on income support, essentially, to get through.

But the budget is under pressure, and I don’t think the treasurer and I have ever pretended otherwise we’ve got a lot of calls on the budget, a lot of pressures on the budget from various areas, whether it be defense or health or aged care or NDIS or the debt that we’ve managed to get down, or the interest payments on that debt that we’ve managed to lower.

And so, you know, when you see a budget, a budget is, you know, hundreds and hundreds of decisions that are layered upon each other and certainly responding to people who are on income support payments has been a feature of this government.”

The vast majority of the increases to welfare has been the automatic increase to payments as a result of indexation to CPI. So high inflation means higher indexation. It has not been through a mechanism or decision of government (other than it didn’t stand in the way of the indexation).

This is not very well understood – even by some journalists. At one point, someone was running the line that lower inflation wouldn’t be good news for people on welfare, as it would mean lower indexation for the payments. Often, you can tell who has once had to rely on these payments for survival, and who hasn’t, just by how they report on them.

Finance minister Katy Gallagher has been doing the rounds this morning – she spoke to RN where she was asked about the size of the public service:

I think what we’ve tried to do is look at the public service and say, what is the right size for the public service to be to deliver the outcomes that we want, and that is better outcomes for veterans, better outcomes for people engaging with Services Australia, better outcomes for people processing their Medicare claims.

And we’ve been through a pretty methodical process in this, in each budget, we’ve kind of tried to deal with various departments. And so I think the public service is roughly the right size.

A snap election has been called for Canada – the Canuck’s will go to the polls on 28 April.

Unlike Australia, Canada has a first past the post voting system (as opposed to preferential voting) which means that Mark Carney, who is the (new) leader of the governing Liberal party, has made up ground against the Conservative’s Pierre Poilievre who until recently was the shoo-in – but it is still neck and neck.

Donald Trump’s threats are proving key in this election – voters are looking to who will stand up to Trump the most. Elbow’s up, which is a hockey term, has become a rallying cry for Canadians preparing to fight.

Anthony Albanese has called a press conference for 8.30am.

It’s in the fancy press conference location – the PM’s courtyard, which means it is a fancy press conference.

The budget sell and pre election blitz is officially underway.

Given that we will be hearing a lot about the size of the public service this election (because the Coalition is set on slashing it again) it might be worth having a look at the actual numbers. (Again)

This table is from the Australian Public Service Commission

You may notice that as a percentage of population, even with the increased hirings (to replace the ‘shadow’ public service the Morrison government hired through the private sector), the public service is still lower than it was in June 2008 and June 2012.

Cutting the public service to “save money” is like me saying I’m going to save money by cutting my grocery spend, and then dining out for every meal. So yeah, I am only spending $50 a week at the supermarket, but I’m spending $400 a week eating out.

Cutting the public service only benefits the private sector.

Jane Hume, who would be the finance minister in a future Coalition government, was asked about the 36,000 public servants the Coalition has all but pledged to cut.

She didn’t commit to a number, but said the Coalition would focus on ‘wasteful spending’.

What does that mean?

We have said from the very beginning that we will make sure that we guarantee essential services, that we guarantee those frontline workers*.

But let’s face it, there has been such an extraordinary growth, an extraordinary bloat in the
public service under this government that something has got to give because it is continually costing more and more.

On top of that, they’ve paid these new public servants and the existing ones an 11% pay rise. Now that is entirely unsustainable, that’s not even accounted for appropriately in the Budget. The Budget shows that, the MYEFO Budget shows that public sector wages are flat lining**.

But here’s the deal. This growth in the public service hasn’t actually corresponded with better
public services. So, for instance, the size of the Health Department has grown around 40%, yet bulk billing rates have collapsed***.

The size of the Energy and Environment portfolio has nearly doubled and yet emissions have gone up and environmental approval times have blown out****.

Services Australia…has seen a massive increase and yet we have seen a blow-out in the time it takes to get an aged pension five times as long to get a low income card. If you ring the Parenting and Families helpline you spend an hour on hold*****.

*Frontline services don’t work without people in the back end doing the work

**Could that be because of the freezes the Coalition had on the public service for almost a decade taking more than three years to address?

***The public service does not set bulk billing rates. This point makes exactly zero sense.

****The public service does not set energy policy. The public service only enacts the policies set by the government/parliament.

*****Do you think that maybe the answer then, would be MORE people to deal with the increased demand? Given that earlier Hume said that economics was still ‘supply and demand’ perhaps if the demand is growing, then maybe the answer is MORE people to address it?

The Coalition’s Jane Hume has already said the opposition won’t oppose the extension of the energy relief package, but also doesn’t support the policy.

So that’s a great line to take. It’s the next level ‘bitch and fold’ (where a political party bitches about a policy and talks it down, but then folds and supports it in the parliament), as Hume unsuccessfully tries to walk the line between ‘we support this’ and ‘we wish we didn’t have to support this’.

She told Sky News on Sunday:

The Coalition will not stand in the way of much needed relief from these high electricity prices, high gas prices that are caused by Labor’s failed policies. You know, there’s over 130,000 Australians now on financial hardship packages with their energy companies. But let’s face it, this is now what was supposed to be a temporary feature of Labor’s budget has now turned into a permanent feature of Labor budgets because of their failed energy policies. Australians have paid the price for these.

So what is the Coalition’s plan?

We’ve said that we will immediately fast track more gas into the system. Now it’s going to take at
least a year to get that through because as we know, power prices are forecast to increase over the next 12 months. That’s why we won’t stand in the way of Labor’s subsidy for their failed policies, because it’s going to take some time to get coalition policies working into the system. We’ll get gas immediately into the system as fast as we can to bring down prices sustainably.

But economics hasn’t changed. It’s still a function of demand and supply. We need to make sure that we get more supply of gas into the system to bring prices down, but in the long term, we need to stabilise our grid, make sure that we have a clean energy system and when coal fired power stations retire, that’s when we’ll replace them with zero emissions nuclear energy.

Labor has also committed to gas (the major parties are hand in hand when it comes to that) but while Labor is on the renewables track, the Coalition is holding on to the fantasy that it will bring nuclear energy to Australia. Which is not a plan, it is a distraction to keep fossil fuels in the grid for longer.

So far, we know that there are forecast deficits for the foreseeable future, and that is where most of the focus has been.

That’s for a variety of reasons – Australia’s largest population group (until millennials), baby boomers, is beginning to transition into the next season of life, which will require more care. Demand for the NDIS is also forecast to grow and then there are things like AUKUS, which is hundreds of billions of dollars for…maybe the use of a submarine or two. At least at this stage. It’s a great deal for the US – Australia pays to help build American shipyards to build the submarines, but as we know, even before the Trump administration and Trump’s recent comments about “pared down submarines” for “allies” that “might not always be allies”, America is behind in it’s own submarine builds. And anyone with two brain cells rubbing together could tell you that if America has to choose between its own capability and another nation’s, it is choosing itself. Every. Single. Time. No matter who is in charge.

It is part of the reason we should be having a massive rethink of the whole strategic relationship. But so far, neither major party is willing to stand up (although the Coalition is promising to kowtow further than Labor, with Dutton pledging to head to the States to meet Trump as one of his first priorities if he wins government.)

We also know there is going to be an extension of the energy rebate – $150 divided across the final two quarters of 2025 (it was due to expire at the end of the financial year).

Beyond that, expect infrastructure spending targeted at individual electorates and a hell of a lot of ‘decisions taken, but not yet announced’ which is a fancy way of saying ‘election war chest’.

Hello and welcome back to Australia Institute Live.

We are running this little blog ahead of the parliament session tomorrow – when the budget will also be handed down – to help work out any further bugs, but also because we are bracing for a lot of political news.

Both Labor and the Coalition see this as their last chance to make an impact ahead of the election campaign. Anthony Albanese is expected to head to Govermment House this weekend to ask for the 47th parliament to be dissolved and an election called, which means it is all systems go.

But before then, we have a little pesky annual event called the budget to be delivered. Jim Chalmers did his annual pre-budget interviews yesterday at the same time the budget was being printed (every major media outlet is offered a few minutes with the treasurer, but the questions all tend to be the same and Chalmers is an absolute expert at sticking to a line, so don’t expect too much variation in the stories) which is why everyone is talking about the deficit.

As previewed for the last couple of years – going back to the Morrison government – the budget will be in the red for some time to come. Given how much political parties worry about deficits (they aren’t necessarily bad, if it means governments are spending money on YOU), you could wonder about it sparking a rethink on AUKUS. Particularly in this climate. But no. No, we are baked in to that relationship apparently, because everyone is too afraid to take a stand.

We’ll cover all the pre-budget news off as the day unfolds, as long as point you in the direction of some research and facts. Thank you for coming along for the ride. I’ve got the second coffee on and a piece of banana cake for breakfast.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.