The Point Live: National cabinet called to discuss fuel crisis, as Iran rejects Trump's 'wrap up' plan. As it happened.

The MPs are starting to eye off the exits which usually means the day is starting to wind down. Which is compounded by the fact that it has started pouring down in Canberra, which usually has people feeling more like Doldrums Dan than usual.

Including your blog author. We will wrap up – it is a short week next week (ahead of easter) and then there are no sitting weeks until May, when we will be deep into the budget.

A very big thank you to every single one of you – I can’t believe how many of you are coming back day after day – and thank you for sharing the news. It means the world to us.

Take some time to disconnect if you can. There is a bit going on and having a break and resting is necessary to keep pushing for a better world.

In the mean time, take care of you, and those around you. Ax

And Mike Bowers, because he was bored, caught Albanese in his standard QT attack mode (if the cranky and annoyed button was pushed, which doesn’t tend to take much)

The Japanese Ambassador is out and about “warning” Australia not to tax gas exports. This has been happening for several years now.

But why Japan in particular? Why aren’t the ambassadors of Korea, China, and other gas importers all on the same page?

Perhaps because these countries understand that the tax would reduce gas company profits rather than increase prices for their consumers.

But there’s another possible reason – the Japanese Government directly owns a big stake in key gas company, INPEX. Here’s the company’s annual tax report:

Yep, the Japanese Government owns a quarter of the gas industry’s champion non-payer of tax, INPEX.

Big gas is taking the piss in Australia and the Japanese Government is a part of that.

Here is how Bowers saw QT:

As the federal budget announcements loom, the government’s expenditure review committee is looking at ways to cut National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) spending by between five and six per cent.  The cost, which is up 7.6% is, apparently, “ballooning“.

But if 7.6% is ballooning, the 9.4% increase in fossil fuel subsidies is rocketing.  

Apparently we’re OK with spending billions on handouts to mining giants like Clive Palmer and Rio Tinto, but investing in the care of vulnerable Australians is a problem. 

Australia Institute research shows that Australian fossil fuel subsidies are growing faster than the NDIS. Last year, fossil fuel subsidies cost Australian governments more than $16 billion. 

While fraud can be a problem, the NDIS funds essential support that lets people with disabilities participate in everyday life. 

Fossil fuel subsidies, by contrast, prop up highly profitable industries that have an enormous environmental cost and public health costs.

 And yet they continue, even during a war that could see the introduction of fuel rationing. The fuel tax credit scheme costs Australian tax payers over $10b a year, but about a month ago resources minister Madeleine King told Sky News that the government was not considering changing it. But that was last month, and a few things have happened since then… 

If billions can be found each year to underwrite fossil fuel extraction, it is difficult to swallow the argument that supporting people with disability with social and community activities—including walks, movies and haircuts—is the real budget problem.  

The question, then, is not whether Australia can afford the NDIS, but why fossil fuel subsidies aren’t scrutinised the same way. 

So the Coalition still don’t know what its personality is, or what direction to go in, or how to actually persecute actual issues.

Stunts like forcing legislation to be voted on and then not voting for that legislation (and abstaining) is student politics behaviour, which might actually be an insult to student politics (something I didn’t think possible)

Independent Fowler MP Dai Le asks:

Prime Minister, constituents have told me today that fuel is now $3.15 in Fowler, Southwest, southwest of Sydney, since my question to the Treasurer on Tuesday, when he failed to answer, will you follow Italy’s Prime Minister and cut fuel excise temporarily to provide immediate relief at the bowser

Albanese:

I thank the member for Fowler for her question, and it goes to the pressures that people are under when costs rise. And I’d say to your constituents in Fowler, two things. The first is, yes, the war in the Middle East is having an impact right around the world, whether it be in Fowler, in Grayndler whether it be in Europe, in Asia, in North America, South America, everywhere, nowhere is immune from the impact that this Middle East war is having, and that flows down to from an impact on the national economy right through to an impact on individual, on individuals.

And so our job, our job is to do what we can to shield people such as her constituent, from the worst impacts of what is a global event, not one that we chose, not one that we’re participating in, but one which impacts us.

And that’s why, as well as the Treasurer and assistant Treasurer have just said the tax cuts that have gone to every single worker in your electorate will make a difference. Some 65,000 taxpayers in your electorate alone getting an average tax cut of more than $2,000 every year.

That’s why, as well, the student debt relief that helped 23,000 of your constituents will make a difference as well. The $15.7 million that’s been saved on 3 million scripts in Fowler will make a difference for those constituents, as well as the 15,600 people who’ve gone to the Liverpool Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has made a difference as well. In addition to that…

Le gets up with a point of order, but Albanese decides he has completed his question.

Tony Pasin has managed to refrain from yelling this question time, which is how you know he has a question coming up and yup – here we are:

Mary Morris, a fourth generation farmer from udundan, needs fuel today for her tractors, for a spray unit to seed her crop, not to mention for her truck and her Utes. Mary’s been told that despite her business being categorized, re categorized as critical and ordering her fuel on the fourth of March, the earliest she can expect her fuel is the first of April.

Minister, why is Mary having to wait four weeks for the fuel she needs to farm?

Chris Bowen:

Well, firstly, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable Member for the question, and if the Honorable Member wants to give me Mary’s details, as other honorable members have been to see me in my office and raise cases on behalf of their constituents, I will take it up and see what can be done, talking to suppliers. Mr. Speaker, because I understand the pressure that Mary is under, and have done that on multiple occasions for members opposite Mr. Speaker, more broadly, more broadly, I will say I told the House earlier, for example, that Ampols supplier to regional South Australia is up 44% .

I’m now in a position to share on behalf of the figures of BP, the other refiner. The deputy prime ministers and the member for greengrammar are very proud of our Geelong refinery as we are, Mr. Speaker, their supply to regional Australia year on year, 43% up in New South Wales, 22% up in Queensland, 14% up in South Australia, and 8% up in Western Australia.

If you take Ampol and BP together, they are supplying a lot more petrol and diesel to regional Australia now than they were a year ago. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, that is catching up with that massive increase in demand that we saw in the days following the 28th of February. Mr. Speaker, so that is showing progress in a difficult circumstance. Mr. Speaker, and again, this government is working across the board with industry, with states, with peat groups, with farming groups, the National Farmers Federation, I want to give a particular mention to their constructive approach with me and the Minister for Agriculture and others, and across the board and across with the treasurer and all of us, been working very constructively with us in this because they recognise this is an internationally very difficult circumstance, and it’s time for people of goodwill to come together, and that’s what adults in the room do.

The petrol price figures from yesterday now show that unleaded prices have risen 31% since the Iran War began – up some 59.5 cent per litre!

Earlier last week Dave Richardson calculated the impact of petrol price rises compared to the cost of a 25 basis points interest rate rise. Last Friday we estimated it at roughly the same cost.

Now the increase in petrol prices is costing Australians around $784m – ie that’s how much extra we’re paying for fuel. By comparison the cost of a rate rise is just $495m

So the cost of the petrol price rises so far is equivalent to 1.6 times the rate rise or a 40 basis points rates rise.

Combined with the 50 basis points rise in February and March in less than 2 months households are paying the equivalent of a 90 basis point rise in interest rates.

That. Is. Brutal.

Jim Chalmers takes a dixer just so he can say:

We are doing what we can to ensure that the war is no excuse to rip people off at the bowser and that’s why the increases to the penalties that passed the House today and hopefully the Senate.

The changes are so important Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Australian motorists aren’t being treated as mugs.

Now that legislation passed the House earlier today, despite the bizarre efforts that we saw from the opposition. They came in here this morning. They suspended standing orders. They demanded that it be considered immediately, and then they voted against it, Mr. Speaker, then they voted against it. They gave angry speeches about how urgent it was, how urgent it was, and then they voted to delay it, Mr. Speaker, and it gets worse when it came time for the final vote, when it came time to support the farmers and drivers of this country, they literally scurried outside the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, and doesn’t that say at all now? Mr. Speaker today is not the first time that the member for Hume has voted against the interests of Australians under pressure.

As it turns out, Mr. Speaker today is the one year anniversary of the member for Hume getting all of those colleagues to vote against tax cuts for 14 million Australian workers, and one year ago tomorrow, one year ago tomorrow, he promised that if he was the treasurer of this country, that he would repeal those tax cuts for 14 million Australians.

He took to the election a policy of higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. If he had his way, Australians would be worse off and the budget would be weaker. And we know they haven’t learned a thing from the last election.

We know they haven’t changed a bit because they then went and made him the leader of the opposition, but his successor as Shadow Treasurer is no better. The Shadow Treasurer has spent recent weeks betting against Australia on the share market, getting the fuel excise wrong and behaving in here like some kind of karaoke clown, Mr. Speaker, that we have been dealing with these serious issues in a serious way. The tax cuts are part of that. Our efforts in fuel markets are part of that, and our efforts to get a decent pay rise award workers are as well.

Independent MP Andrew Gee asks Anthony Albanese:

Prime Minister, our communities are being throttled by the twin crises of the fuel supply emergency and the indefinite closure of the Great Western highway caused by the failure of a breach built by a convict chain gang in 1832 one, will you now support my fair fuel price bill that would bring in federal government fuel price controls and stop the rip offs? Two, Will your Government slash the fuel excise tax? And three, will you and the New South Wales government deliver a support package for our local businesses being smashed up by this highway closure?

Albanese:

I thank the member for Calare for his question, and thank him as well for the courtesy of raising it with me in a meeting that we held earlier this morning.

I’m always happy to meet with members of parliament, regardless of where they sit, particularly about issues relating to their local electorates.

And the member for Calare is, of course, concerned about the impact that the closure of the Great Western highway has on his electorate, because that’s essentially the entry from Sydney and the Blue Mountains through to the greater west, including Lithgow and Bathurst and Orange and all of those people are dependent upon this road.

Specialist engineers have advised the road is not safe, and it obviously can’t reopen until it is safe. The member also has advised that some of the alternative routes that there are safety issues with regard to them, and I’ve undertaken, I’ll be raising that with the New South Wales minister as well to make sure that those issues are dealt with.

It’s a serious situation. It’s not a quick or a simple repair. CDB and cracking and movement have been detected in the sub structure of as the Member has said, it’s 194 years old, Mitchell’s Causeway, also known as the convict bridge, because literally, that was when it was built.

And the truth is that all governments, state and federal, probably should have done something about this quite clearly before, and the fact that it has had such an impact is indeed of real concern.

On the 19th of March, the New South Wales Government announced the establishment of the Great Western highway community coordination Task Force. This is designed to streamline support to those impacted by the prolonged closure of the Great Western highway.

So member has raised the issue of businesses in that area that will go through that that that particular task force as well. And I’ll speak with the New South Wales Government about these issues. New South Wales Government has announced that $50 million for the detour routes, and my office is in ongoing contact with Minister Aitchison’s office. We will continue to engage. I understand that your office has been offered a briefing by Minister Aitchison’s office on the situation. If that is not the case, certainly I’ll undertake to take that up with Jenny. She’s an effective minister, and I’m sure that she will be concerned about the impact, which is there.

As Dave Richardson reported earlier the latest national wealth figures are out.

The figures give breakdowns of household wealth – things like land, dwellings, superannuation and even the amount of money you have in the bank.

Land makes up about 40% of all the wealth in Australia – and when you add dwellings it rises to 53%.

But when you look at what has increased wealth over the past 5 years, land and dwellings makes up 62% of it.

In essence Australia’s wealth over the past 5 years has gone more to those who already had it.

And when you look at the second biggest wealth growth area it’s superannuation.

And what two areas do we currently have massive tax breaks that favour the wealthiest in Australia? Yep land and superannuation.

It’s almost like allowing the wealthy to get wealthier is not an accident, but a policy choice.

Removing the capital gains tax discount and reducing the super tax breaks would help end this ever widening chasm between those who have wealth and those who don’t.

There is another question about why won’t Chris Bowen commit to giving daily petrol outages updates, which has already been answered (as Michael in the comments points out, it is the new $275 energy price question) and while Bowen answers it pretty much the same way he has previously, Doldrums Dan gets up to say that it was a “very simple question” and adds bit to it in the point of order that were not a part of the original question.

original question:

Given the minister’s advice today that more than 500 petrol stations are without at least one type of fuel across Australia, can the minister guarantee that Australians planning to travel to the regions to see their families over Easter will be able to fill up their cars to come home? And why won’t the Minister commit to daily updates of individual service stations that run out of fuel?

Doldrums Dan Tehan’s take:

Yeah, it’s a very specific question. It asks for a guarantee and whether you will provide public data about individual service stations. Why the needless secrecy?

Milton Dick tells him to respect the standing orders and stop making points of order that narrow/change the question. Bowen was asked about easter and was talking about easter. To then interject on relevance seems to be making Dick’s eye twitch.

Doldrums Dan will not be stopped by anyone though, so expect more of this. Without it, he wouldn’t have any personality at all.

Tony Burke takes a dixer from Gabriel Ng, the member for Menzies on Iranian visa approvals, which is how you know the government is feeling a bit of heat about this from their base. (The Coalition support it so they will never ask about it, and the independents-Greens are overwhelmed with issues to ask about as the de-facto opposition here)

Q: Can the Minister provide clarity about the arrival control determination regarding Iranian visitor visas, who is affected and who is not affected and who will be shown compassion in sympathetic cases?

Tony Burke:

I thank the member for Menzies for the question, and want to acknowledge the extraordinary work he’s been doing with the Iranian Australian community in his electorate, and acknowledge the consultation that both the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Immigration have been doing, as well as myself with the community in the lead up to making the determination, which I signed off on yesterday. It’s very important for us to understand what this determination is, who it affects, who it doesn’t, and why the government has put it in place.

It is always the case when temporary visas are issued that one of the things that my officials weigh up is how likely is it that someone will seek to continue to stay beyond the length of the visa.

And what that means is, when you get a sudden conflict like has happened with Iran, you have a large number of people who’ve been issued visas who, if they applied now, would, in fact, not be eligible for for those visas. And until these determinations were possible.

We could only go through that case by case.

And this is the first time that I know of, for a long time where the number of visas that were already issued was was as large as this, in the order of more than 7000 temporary visas that had already been issued, all of them issued properly, but in a circumstance which no longer applied.

And the government has a very clear view that decisions about permanent stays in Australia should be a deliberate decision of the government, not a random consequence of who was planning to book a holiday here in terms of who was affected, the order only applies to people with visitor visas. We have not applied it to any other form of temporary visa.

It does not apply to the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of an Australian citizen. It does not apply to somebody who holds a permanent visa. It does not apply to anybody who is already here.

It does not apply to the parent of a child who is under 18. And in Australia, it does not apply to somebody who has what we call a permitted travel certificate. Now these travel certificates because there will be members of parliament who are approached and asked to bring these cases forward, and I just want to explain what they are.

The department is still able where there are compelling circumstances to say that individual should be able to come on the visit of visa. But those decisions are made case by case by the department. I have directed the Department as a result of the consultation that I referred to before, including some specific advocacy that came from the member for Menzies, the member for Deakin and the member for Bennelong, to specifically ask my officials to show sympathetic consideration for any cases that involve the parents of Australian citizens, regardless of the age of the Australian citizens. But obviously the compassionate circumstances will be broader than that, but it’s just very important. I wanted to have the chance, just and grateful for the chance of the member for Menzies to explain who it applies to, who it doesn’t, and what the pathway is for sympathetic consideration.

As has become a common occurrence in the Labor benches (no shame – people have to work and balance early childhood anyway they can!) there is a baby in the chamber.

Alicia Payne’s son Joesph got the star treatment this afternoon:

We get a question from Dan Tehan which is always a bit of a downer. If I ever meet any of the Four Horseman, I imagine they’ll feel very familiar after covering parliament for so long.

Tehan:

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, how many service stations in Australia are currently out of fuel, and Will the Minister commit to publicly releasing daily updates of individual service stations that have run out of fuel? And if not, why not to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

Chris Bowen:

In New South Wales today, 178 with no diesel, 48 with no stock…In Queensland there are 55 with no diesel, 33 with no regular unleaded. In Victoria, 45 with no diesel, that’s down 20 and 72 with no unleaded. That’s down from 70. In South Australia, nine with no diesel, 10 with no unleaded.

Western Australia, 40 with no diesel, 14 with no unleaded.

Tasmania, five with no diesel, nine with some sort of outage, no outages in the Northern Territory that are attributable to a lack of fuel supply and the ACT currently two with no diesel and one with no unleaded but as I said yesterday, I’m advised that these shortages in the ACT are typically dealt with within the hour.

Now. Mr. Speaker, I will continue as appropriate, to be giving the Australian people updates, as I have done for the last month, Mr. Speaker, as well as do state premiers, as it is through the states that this data is collected.

Catherine King takes a dixer on what the government is doing for truck drivers and the transport industry and says:

On Monday, we said we would move quickly to introduce changes to the house to the Fair Work Act to ensure that our truck drivers and our logistics companies can quickly renegotiate their rates with Australia’s major retailers. And today, we moved to do just that, because our freight industry cannot bear the cost of increased fuel prices alone. Because a strong transport sector, it ensures our food moves from our farms to our tables, goods from warehouses to our shop fronts and fuel from our refineries to our petrol valves.

And to ensure that the transport industry remains strong, they need to have the levers to adjust quickly to what we know is a changing environment. And our amendments have been welcomed by the Australian tracking Association, National Road freighters Association, Road Transport Association, and the TWU.

They told us they were vital and urgent, but we know who didn’t seem to welcome the urgency of these amendments. It was those opposite when this was brought up for debate today, their argument was that they couldn’t possibly support a quicker contract train order because we were moving too fast.

The member for Cook said that he’d spoken to a couple of trucking companies who were worried about going insolvent, and then he and his Liberal colleagues literally, again, scuttled out of this chamber instead of voting for these changes that the trucking industry have called as being urgent.

The leader of the opposition, who’s busy there interjecting, couldn’t even be bothered to turn up for the debate at all.

Our parliament has been asked to act to support the trucking industry. They might have a lot of people with leader in their title over there opposite, but they are surely lacking in leadership when it comes to what is an important issue for our truck industry.

Henry Pike gets booted for interjecting 13 times in four minutes.

He’s so full of his own importance, it’s actually surprising it was only 13 times.

Barnaby Joyce gets the call:

Despite the answer from the Minister for energy from funeral homes, we’ve actually been contacted now by funeral homes that can’t get fuels and certainly farmers. So does the Minister for Agriculture see any impediments for the production, processing and transport of crucial food, crucial groceries to Metropolitan supermarkets, and if you do see any problems, what is your contingency plan?

Julie Collins:

I want to thank the member opposite. I also want to thank all of my colleagues behind me who have been representing farmers and primary producers and talking to me about some of the challenges that they have been hearing in their electorate, because we do acknowledge that there are challenges, particularly for our farmers, our fishers and our primary producers, which is why I’m meeting with them on a regular basis to hear directly from them about what is happening on the ground And so that we can address the challenges that they are experiencing.

As I have said, in this place, we are working with them in terms of fertilizer. We’ve also, as you would be well aware, we can produce enough food in this country to more than feed the Australian people, which is why we currently export around 80% of our primary produce in terms of value.

So the member opposite shouldn’t be panicking people when it comes to food supply in this country, we will continue to work with our farmers in relation to fuel and fertilizer. Our government has already taken action, as the minister and the Prime Minister has outlined.

She then finishes her answer.

Today the ABS has released the latest quarterly detail labour force figures.

These are important because they give us the breakdown of how many people are employed in ever industry and sub-industry.

It lets us push back on the claim by gas companies and their boosters that they employ 80,000 or supports “215,000” jobs across the country (according to Liberal MP Rick Wilson).

The true figure in February was 24,900.

If that sounds like not many out of a labour force of 14.8m, you’re right.

For context here’s oil and gas compared to some other industries:

Oil and gas employs roughly the same amount of those working in “Polymer Product and Rubber Product Manufacturing”, which rather does not get quite the same access to politicians and media organisations. It employees less than work in “Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Support Services”, yet I have never heard that industry described as being vital to the nation.

How important is the oil and gas industry for workers? Well, it employs less than quarter of the people who work in McDonalds.

When you look at these numbers you quickly realise that we have stuck ourselves in a horrible place where we actually value industries not by how many people who work in them, but how big their profits are.

Anthony Albanese takes a dixer on petrol where he called for calm:

We also act transparently. On Sunday, the minister reported that six out of the 81 ships which were due in April, had been canceled. I can confirm that the House of those six canceled ships all have been replaced, and suppliers continue securing more cargoes. That’s what we’re doing, actually getting things done while those opposite behave as if they’re unaware that there is a war in the Middle East and can’t believe there are consequences of it.

Monday, we’ll convene the national cabinet to ensure as well that we get that coordination across the levels of government.

Now my message to Australians remains, do not take more fuel than you need.

As a government, we are prepared so we can shield Australians from the worst of global uncertainty. The best way to do that is for all of us to keep working together in the national interest, and will continue to do that with industry, with international partners, with state and territory governments, even if those opposite want to not be a part of that coordinated action.

He repeats many of those points in response to a question based on a talk back caller from his electorate worried about finding fuel.

The comments from Anna in Croydon Park, of course, are real, because people out there are facing a difficult circumstance.

The government acknowledges that we don’t come in here and say there’s not a war.

We don’t come in here and say there aren’t issues of distribution.

What we do is come in here and put forward practical plans to make a difference.

And that is the responsible thing to do. And that is what the then Morrison government did during the difficulties of covid, backed by the then opposition, backed by the then opposition, at a time where there are international factors that have an impact, then it is a responsible thing to do to work together as we are with industry, as we are with state and territory governments.

And indeed, the comments of those opposite are whether it be Senator Canavan, the latest leader of the Nationals, ‘obviously, our prices will be impacted by the world price’.

…The idea that the context doesn’t matter, that we can just wish away the impact that this is having right around the world is, of course, absurd, and that is what has been recognised across the board by members of the member for Lyon’s own party, the Member for Page said, I’d stress to people not necessarily to do that panic buy.

We obviously have reserved supplies. Is what he went on to say. We’re all hoping for an early conclusion to this conflict.

That is what the Member for Page had to say, and he was right. The one of the many former members of the national leaders of the National Party over there also said the big message for every Australian is, don’t panic.

The suppliers are there. We all have a role to play in that stick to our normal daily operations and schedules, and don’t think that we have to always keep topping up the fuel is coming.

That was a responsible former, former leader, once removed, of the National Party, the former National Party leader, twice removed, said a similar thing when he said, people just need to calm themselves down. This government will continue to operate in an orderly way, because that’s how you get things done.

The Australian Council of Social Service has welcomed the Guardian’s report that Andrew Hastie would be open to a 25% export tax on gas:

ACOSS welcomes the support of a 25 per cent gas export levy from Andrew Hastie MP and urges parliamentarians from all sides to work together to deliver this long-overdue reform.

“People on low and modest incomes are already doing it tough. They’re facing the potential of further rises in fuel, energy bills, rents, and intense cost-of-living pressures driven by economic uncertainty as a result of global conflict. They’re desperate and terrified that things are only going to get worse,” said ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie.

“Meanwhile, multi-national gas corporations continue to make enormous profits from exporting our natural resources while paying little tax. Australia and Qatar exported similar volumes of LNG in 2023 and Qatar saw $56 billion in tax revenue compared to Australia’s $11 billion. More and more people can see that big gas corporations are taking Australia for a ride. 

“ACOSS is encouraged by reports that the Federal Government  is considering putting the needs of people above gas companies who are further profiting from war. We are heartened to see politicians from all sides of parliament, including Mr Hastie, joining calls for this common sense reform.

“We need a 25 per cent levy on gas exports, not a temporary windfall profit tax, to guarantee fair public returns now and into the future. It would generate up to $17 billion per year to invest in energy affordability and renewables, adequate income support payments, health, housing and community services. It’s time for gas companies to pay their fair share and use the funds to help the people doing it toughest.

“We urge all parliamentarians to listen to the people of Australia and back a 25% levy on gas exports.”

Angus Taylor gets the first one. Half-off Howard has his Big Boy Pants voice on, so you know he is SERIOUS SERIOUS.

And the question seems like it was written by AI, so you KNOW they are looking for a hit here.

Prime Minister, Australians are hurting. Fuel prices are up by over 50% service stations are running dry. Farmers can’t farm, truckees can’t truck, miners can’t mine. The cost of food is set to rise. Vital health services are at risk. When is the prime minister finally going to show leadership and fix this national crisis?

How lucky are we though, that politicians can still politick?

Albanese is not mad at this question – it gives him an opportunity to do a dixer answer:

Indeed, the government not only accepts responsibility, we’re taking action earlier today, those opposite said that we should bring on legislation for a vote, and then when we did, they voted against it.

Then when we did, tget voted against it. Sound familiar?

It’s exactly what they did between December and January. What we’ve done is introduced new laws to double penalties for Patrick petrol companies for price gouging. We’ve convened the national left we’ve appointed a national fuel supply task coordinator.

We’ve begun release of the 20% of Australia’s fuel reserves. We’ve changed petrol standards to get more fuel flowing. We’ve changed diesel standards so Australian refineries can supply more diesel. We’ve tasked the acccc to ramp up fuel price monitoring and issue on the spot fines. We’ve engaged with international partners to keep supply flowing.

We’ve engaged with the states and territories on supply and distribution, including we’ve held one meeting in the national cabinet. There’ll be another one on Monday, holding a special energy ministers meeting.

We activated the national coordination mechanism, which has met twice. We’ve convened the national oil supplies Emergency Committee six times.

We’ve unlocked money for financial counseling, funding for impacted farmers.

We’ve changed the law to make it easier for Australia’s refineries to access government funding when they run at a loss, and ensure that the two refineries that remained after their period in office can keep going into the future.

We’ve fixed the fuel security services payment to make it easier for Australia’s refineries to access government funding, we’ve changed the law so the Fair Work Commission can demand companies that pay truck is fairly when fuel prices spike, as as people have said, those opposite have said.

The Shadow Treasurer said, there are a lot of events outside of our control, recognition that there’s this world conflict going on that is having an impact here.

Now don’t come in here and pretend that that doesn’t exist. We understand. We understand that it’s real, and we understand that it makes a difference. And coming in here and pretending that this conflict, which which, we do not know when it will end, we hope it ends soon, is not having an impact right around the globe is, frankly, just treating people like mugs.

We know it’s having an impact. We know it’s having an impact, and others have said that as well, with maybe they could take the advice of the former leader of the National Party. People just need to calm themselves down, is what he said.

Maybe he’s talking about his colleagues

‘Gaslighting’ is the word of the day for the Coalition.

Most of the 90-second statements the LNP have made have made use of this term, which means they have finally caught up to 2022 when it was the word of the year.

The Coalition though, is taking no responsibility for the last 20 years of gaslighting on climate and energy. Or for giving massive tax breaks to people buying giant dumb utes while refusing to legislate vehicle emission standards or encouraging any sort of EV use.

No one is blameless here, but if we are looking at the scale of ‘we are all looking for the guys who did this’ it would be weighed pretty heavily in the Coalition’s direction.

LNP MP Phil Thompson says Australia is seeing “Mad Max levels” of chaos because of the fuel affordability issues. He then accuses the government of ‘gaslighting”

Either Thompson hasn’t seen Mad Max, or he is being ironic, because I haven’t seen any evidence of marauding murderous gangs roaming around fighting for water, but apparently Thompson is seeing something different.

Or he is exaggerating. In politics?! How groundbreaking.

For those who don’t know, or have a lift, before question time each day, there is the 90 second members statements. This can be anything from – here is what is wrong/dangerous/ignored in my community to here is a fete/local organisation/person in my electorate to here are all my complaints about politics.

For the major parties (are we still calling the Coalition that?) it tends to just be performative bitching. Today is no different.

Speaking of a gas tax, Andrew Hastie has told the Guardian’s Australian Politics podcast he would be open to it. That’s a pretty major break and indicative that this issue, is now mainstream. The government has asked for information about it from its department, so it is on the table. Let’s see if the Liberals follow suit en masse (probably not tho)

You can read about that, here.

A 25% gas export tax would drive down gas prices for Australians and collect billions of dollars that can be used to provide better, cheaper health and education services. 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Rod Campbell and Ebony Bennett discuss the case for a 25% gas export tax and the New South Wales government’s ban on new coal mines.

News has come out today that the government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission for the annual wage review will recommend an “economically sustainable real wage increase” for the National Minimum Wage and the Modern Awards.

The government doesn’t put for a number it thinks it should go up, but given the RBA estimated in February that by September, inflation will be a touch above 3.5% (and remember that prediction was made before the Iran War) that suggests they basically agree with the ACTU’s call for a 5% increase.

Business groups like ACCI instead are calling for a 3.5% rise, which would at best keep the real min wage steady, and at worst (and more likely given what we now know will happen to inflation) send the value backwards.

This is not a shock, to be honest. Today I have released my updated annual research on the link between the minimum wage and inflation. You can read the report here.

One of the things I looked at is what ACCI has proposed each year and compared it to what the FWC decided. It shows that had the business group had its way, those on the minimum wage would be much worse off

And of course business groups are already out there suggesting if the minimum wage goes up by more than inflation it will send businesses to the wall and cause a wage-price spiral (they say this every year by the way).

But here’s the thing about the Minimum Wage and the awards wages – they don’t have any real link to inflation. I charted 30 years of the rises in the minimum wage with the inflation over the following year. And well there was no link at all

The minimum wage and award wages are vital bulwarks against poverty. Forcing Australia’s lowest paid to take a real wage pay cut just because Israel hates Iran and has caused oil prices and inflation to rise would be pathetically cruel.

The government is right to call for a real wage rise, and the ACTU’s 5% is very reasonable.

One of the best journalists in the country when it comes to national security and anti-civil rights legislation (a tautology really) is Paul Gregoire who writes for Sydney Criminal Lawyers.

Gregoire has written a really good explainer on the compulsory questioning powers legislation which is currently in the senate, which among other things, allows ASIO to question children as young as 14. The government is trying to make these powers permanent, after fighting them in opposition in 2003.

Which included Anthony Albanese saying:

“This latest assault provides ASIO with the power to arrest, detain and use coercion against people… without legal representation and without access or information provided to family members,” then Labor MP Anthony Albanese told parliament in relation to the ASIO compulsory questions laws, when they were before parliament in March 2003.

“This draconian measure even applies to those not even suspected of any offence. In other words, a person may be detained and questioned by ASIO simply because of the activities of a family friend or a university group of which they were once a member.”

Now Albanese is trying to make those laws even more draconian.

Gregoire lays it all out better than I ever could – so go and read his explainer, here.

Earlier we wrote about today’s inquiry into Health impacts of alcohol and other drugs in Australia. The committee might want to take a leaf out of Norway’s book and broaden its scope to include junk food. To tackle rising obesity rates, Norway has banned marketing of unhealthy food and drinks to children. They join a growing list of countries, including the UK, Chile, Portugal and Quebec, that have similar bans in place.

Obesity is linked with a range of non-communicable diseases including type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, depression and some types of cancer.

Early evidence suggests that banning ads for junk food reduces calorie intake and household purchases of high fat, sugar and salt products. It also suggests that industry responds by reducing the amount of these ingredients in their products. According to a 2022 review, the relationship between obesity and exposure to food advertising is very likely causal. It also found that children from socio-economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds are exposed to a greater amount of unhealthy food advertisements, that statutory regulation is a cost-effective policy option because it helps reduce future healthcare spending, and that that industry self-regulation is ineffective.

Australia is among the most obese countries in the OECD (chart).

Here, interventions such as a tax on sugary drinks have been proposed, and have the backing of the Australian Medical Association, but nothing has eventuated. Australia Institute polling shows that 66% of Australians agree that junk food ads during children’s viewing hours should be banned, compared to 12% who disagree. Recent research suggested that a 20% tax on unhealthy foods, combined with a fruit and vegetable subsidy, could avert about 250,000 premature deaths and lower health-care costs by about AU$16 billion over the lifetime of the 2019 Australian adult population.

So that’s the evidence, now all we need is the policy…

The House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability is holding an inquiry into the health impacts of alcohol. They’ll be hearing from experts and the public on how alcohol affects Australian families, their health and the healthcare system, including through advertising.

Alcohol marketing doesn’t just influence which brand people choose to drink, but when they start drinking and how much they consume. For years, alcohol advertising has been a protected species in Australian media, thanks to a self-regulated system that experts argue is full of holes. The alcohol industry spends upwards of $100 million per year on ads alone.

We love our sport, but Australians are tired of the booze-soaked broadcasts. Australian Institute polling shows the public has had enough. The majority (51%) of Australians support a total ban on alcohol advertising on TV. Only 19% disagree.

We’ve banned tobacco ads because of their harmful effects, yet we allow alcohol brands to sponsor Australian sporting heroes, effectively training the next generation to associate peak physical performance with a cold beer.

If we want to reduce the $75 billion annual cost of alcohol harm in Australia, stopping the 24/7 glamorisation of drinking would be a good start.

I know everyone is feeling a bit worried about how Santos and Woodside are going. The news that Trump might do a deal and get the Strait of Hormuz open has meant oil prices have stopped rising (they’re still high)

And oil prices not going up is bad news for Santos and Woodside because as we know oil and gas prices are closely linked.

This has meant that Santos and Woodside’s share prices have fallen a bit this week. And I know that will make you all a bit sad. So let me bring some joy to you: Santos’ share price is still up 14.9% since the UYSA and Israel started murdering civilians in Iran and Lebanon. Woodside is still up a pretty stunning 21.7%.

The other big companies in Australia, however, are not doing so well. It’s almost like those companies are not in an industry that is really profiting off the human misery being currently inflicted in the Middel East.

The nature of wealth and its inequality in Australia have raised many concerns about how the wealth of a few contrasts with the lack of wealth by the many. There is also an important intergenerational context which is especially apparent in the home ownership differences between the generations.

Today’s figures from the ABS on finance and wealth in Australia make interesting reading. We find that in the December quarter alone, net worth of Australian households increased by $452.7 billion and for the year to the December quarter, net worth increased by 9.1% or $1,564.3 billion. Almost all of this reflected untaxed capital gains.

This means wealth is increasing much faster than almost any other measure of the Australian economy, hence the old saying   “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” originally attributed to Shelley.

Australia has a capital gains tax that taxes half the gain on assets when they are sold. There is no tax on assets held forever and passed on generation to generation. That is why people, including the Australia Institute’s Matt Grudnoff, call for a wealth tax and inheritance taxes.

According to the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) the current energy crisis is worse than the 1970s’ oil shocks combined. The conflict in the Middle East is already taking millions of barrels of oil out of the market, this will lead to higher prices globally, including in Australia.

Australia is far more vulnerable to this crisis than it should be. Decades of failing to transition to clean energy has kept the economy heavily reliant on oil, according to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, oil accounted for about 41% of Australia’s primary energy mix in 2023-24.

Government policies have reinforced this dependency. Fuel tax in Australia is lower than in many comparable economies and to make matters worse fuel tax is refunded (in whole or part) to major consumers of diesel such as the mining industry, in what is called the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS). The FTCS costs about $10 billion each year, its cumulative cost since 2012 is over $100 billion.

Given these tax settings, as well as other policies that encourage the growth of diesel guzzling vehicles like big utes, Australia’s uptake of electric vehicles also remains low. As such, it’s unsurprising that diesel consumption has surged in recent years, more than outweighing a decline in the consumption of petrol.

The best time to transition Australia from fossil fuels would have been several decades ago. However, absent a time-machine, the best time to start is now.

Scott Bucholz, the Member for Wright has been invoked by his colleagues in the House of Reps several times this morning as the only former truck driver on the hill. Why, Liberal MPs have been asking, haven’t the Labor Party asked him how best to address the fuel crisis? 

He reckons he can fix the crisis because he has experience getting things from A to B and says the solution is to talk about cutting the fuel excise. 

But Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff and Chief Economist Greg Jericho have calculated that the real benefits from the policy would smaller than those previously touted by the Opposition. 

Cutting the fuel excise would also help truckies less because they get more than a third of the fuel excise refunded through the fuel tax credit scheme. Since they already pay less fuel excise than regular motorists, cutting it gives them a much smaller benefit.

The government would be better off targeting support at vulnerable Australians that are going to struggle the most with rising prices.

Today, as Amy has already reported, Deputy RBA governor, Christopher Kent has given a speech to the KangaNews Debt Capital Market Summit on “Reassessing Australian Financial Conditions”

Now sure that might be the most dull sentence I have ever written, but within the speech, which is mostly focussed on what is referred to as the “neutral interest rate”, are a few things that had me screaming in pain and punching my computer screen.

Just as an aside, the neutral rate is this concept that there is some magical interest rate point where it is neither stimulating the economy nor causing it to slow, and so unemployment remains at the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”.

Now I don’t want to get too bolshie and say the concept is utter bollocks, but I’m not going to not say that either.

It’s a concept that essentially decided the economy should be best for businesses and so we need to do all we can to keep wage rises low because, god help us that wage-price spiral is just a few weeks away (never to arrives, but don’t let that get in the way of our belief).

The important thing for us is that if the RBA believe the cash rate is above the neutral rate it means it is slowing the economy. Rather conveniently it also thinks the neutral rates can move around so that sometimes a cash rate of 4.1% could be slowing the economy and then sometimes it could be speeding it up!

But apart from the pretty nerdy econo-talk about the natural rate, Kent also made some comments about the state of the economy.

He suggested that

“From around September 2025, however, the weight of evidence began to shift, suggesting that financial conditions were no longer restrictive enough to return inflation to target in a reasonable time. Against that backdrop – and the broader signs of rising inflationary pressures – policy was tightened in February and March to help bring down inflation.”

Well now, let us look at that, because always remember when the RBA says something like “financial conditions were no longer restrictive enough” what they are really saying is too many people are being hired and they would very much prefer more people to be unemployed. And why? Well because they think wages are rising too fast.

So what was happening to wages at the end of 2025? They rose by LESS than inflation:

It doesn’t take advance mathematics to know if wages are rising by less than inflation, they can’t be causing inflation.

Ok, this is bad enough, but now let’s look at what he says about the future and the “neutral rate”:

“The effects of the sharp reduction in the global supply of oil, natural gas and other commodities are apparent across financial markets. These changes – and heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty globally – have led to some tightening in financial conditions. All else equal, that implies a decline in short-run neutral rates here and offshore – that is, a tighter stance of monetary policy for a given cash rate.

However, the supply shock also poses a risk to inflation and longer term inflation expectations at a time when there are ongoing capacity pressures in Australia and several other advanced economies. This could both push short-run neutral rates higher and necessitate a more restrictive stance of policy.”

This is where I started screaming.

He’s basically saying that because things like oil prices are going up that will slow the economy (because we have less money to spend on things because petrol prices etc are rising). As a result, this might mean that they don’t need to raise rates.

This is good and obvious (or it should be). As we have pointed out the impact of the petrol prices is already more than that of an interest rate rise.

But then he goes on to say… yeah but we all might start thinking inflation is going up, so we’ll have to raise rates by more than before because… well “inflation”.

Never mind that raising rates won’t lower world oil prices or undo the supply shock other than to put more people out of work even though there are no wage pressures.

The RBA has only one tool and it always thinks that tool solves every problem – and that causing a recession is not a problem.

It is a little slow today – so apologies for that – but everyone is needing a little break from the crazy I think.

Also there is a lot going on in the background regarding fuel and diplomacy.

It is not just the domestic issues to work out – as the states fight out who gets the coming fuel and how – it is also finding other sources.

While there are a few in Asia, the big dog in this space is China. Doesn’t seem like they are quite ready to go there yet, but it is ‘on the table’ as a possibility

Back in the house and debate has resumed over the government legislation to increase the penalties the ACCC can apply to price gouging. Which, cool. Great.

Except, as Matt Grudnoff pointed out yesterday, price gouging isn’t illegal. Collusion is. So if a bunch of companies all just decide to raise prices over and above costs, but didn’t sit down and plan to do it together, that’s just fine. Nothing anyone can do.

So penalties are great, but only if you can apply them. Which, in this environment, you very rarely actually can.

The Iran war could push up the “neutral” interest rate level, requiring even more rate rises to get inflation under control, a Reserve Bank official says.

As the conflict in the Middle East sent oil prices and economic uncertainty sky-high, the RBA must keep a lid on inflation expectations, assistant governor Christopher Kent said in an address on Thursday.

Inflation data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics a day earlier confirmed the central bank’s assessment that domestic conditions were already too tight, even before the outbreak of war.

Although headline inflation eased from 3.8 to 3.7 per cent in February, economists predict the consumer price index could surpass five per cent by June as the second-order effects of higher oil costs flow through the broader economy.

Markets expect the RBA to respond by lifting interest rates at least two more times, after hikes announced by governor Michele Bullock in February and March.

But how high the bank needs to lift the cash rate depends on the so-called neutral rate – the theoretical interest rate at which inflation will remain steady.

Dr Kent said the turmoil in commodity and other markets had led to tightening in financial conditions which, all else being equal, implied a decline in short-term neutral rates, meaning interest rates would not have to be raised as high to have the same effect.

“However, the supply shock also poses a risk to inflation and longer-term inflation expectations at a time when there are ongoing capacity pressures in Australia and several other advanced economies,” he told the KangaNews Debt Capital Market Summit in Sydney.

“This could both push short-run neutral rates higher and necessitate a more restrictive stance of policy.”

The longer the war dragged on, the larger the economic impact would be and the greater the risk of a market sell-off, he said.

Dr Kent reaffirmed the bank’s commitment to getting inflation under control, even though the energy crisis risks tanking the economy and higher interest rates could further exacerbate a downturn.

“A negative supply shock pushes up prices and leads to weaker economic activity, making us all poorer,” he said.

“Central banks cannot change that. But they can ensure that the initial rise in prices does not lead to a rise in longer-term inflationary expectations and extended inflationary pressures.”

The government is also trying to grapple with the impact of a prolonged war on Australia’s economy.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Wednesday said Treasury had modelled two scenarios for the economy, based on oil prices staying at $US100 a barrel for a short time or rising to $US120 a barrel for a longer time, both of which looked “pretty conservative now”.

The benchmark Brent crude price was just under $US100 a barrel on Wednesday amid conflicting claims of peace talks between the US and Iran.

Treasury was working on “some more challenging circumstances”, but modelling had yet to be completed, Dr Chalmers said.

This past week, the Wall Street Journal turned attention to the decision-making process at the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). As James Glynn noted, “What sets the Reserve Bank of Australia apart from counterparts including the [United States] Federal Reserve and Bank of Japan is that it doesn’t attach names to individual votes”.

This is especially interesting given the most recent vote to raise interest rates went through with five votes to four.

There has been plenty of criticism for the RBA’s latest decisions, including from Australia Institute Chief Economist Greg Jericho who notes that the decision shows the RBA has misread the economy.

Here is another example of Australia’s instinct for secrecy, which is out of step with the rest of the world. 

David Richardson

A new American study shows that fostering competition in the procurement of medical equipment by public provider, Medicare, had the effect of driving out legitimate suppliers in favour of fraudulent businesses.

“Fraudulent firms have lower effective costs for various reasons: they bill for equipment that never gets delivered, inflate claims through upcoding, avoid expenditures related to compliance, and provide substandard equipment.” 

Hence fraudulent firms have a competitive advantage in procurement auctions given their artificially low expenses. Competitive bidding favoured low-cost suppliers, and fraudulent firms have disproportionately lower costs. Competitive bidding also increased the market share of fraudulent firms by driving out legitimate suppliers that could not match their crooked rivals’ artificially low costs.

This type of behaviour was discussed in the Australia Institute’s submission to the Senate Committee on Productivity in its present inquiry. The Australia Institute’s submission is number 135 here. In that submission we pointed to problems with programs like the NDIS and said:
“it is not unreasonable to expect that after 30 years of failed experiments with privatisation, its proponents would become a bit more curious about when privatisation might work or, at minimum, how to minimise the waste, fraud and inefficiency in the systems they have or are planning to privatise.”

Many privatisations have been followed up with Royal Commissions into subsequent disasters. In some areas the market solution continues to fail. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety reported on what we knew years before when the kerosine bath scandal in nursing homes damaged Coalition Minister, Bronwyn Bishop, in the 1990s.

Letting the market rip in banking resulted in the Hayne Royal Commission which found fraud was a feature of the wealth management services offered by banks.

The American study said that when quality is difficult to monitor, and fraud leads to lower costs, competition favours the firms most willing to cut corners and provide substandard care. The Australia Institute pointed out that this, perfect information about product attributes, is one of the conditions that, if not met, render market solutions undesirable. The submission discusses this and a number of other conditions that have to be met before public policy can rely on the market.

Bill Browne
Director, Democracy & Accountability Program

Liberal Senator for South Australia Andrew McLachlan has distinguished himself from his Coalition colleagues twice in the past month.

As the Liberal representative on the inquiry into climate integrity, he joined Labor and Greens senators to write the majority report warning about misinformation – while Nationals leader Matt Canavan dissented. In fact, Senator McLachlan went further even than the Labor senators did, putting a joint call for truth in political advertising laws out with independent Senator David Pocock.

Truth in political advertising laws are Labor Party policy, but it has fallen to Greens, independents and now Liberals to push for them.

Senator McLachlan also broke party lines to call for “mercy” towards the 23 children of the Australian citizen wives and widows of ISIS fighters who are stranded in a Syrian camp.

By contrast, Liberal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor suggested the children are “ISIS sympathisers”.

In his speech, Senator McLachlan said:

“I’m going to inject one concept that has not been spoken about, and that’s mercy for the children.”

Public dissent is rare in Australian politics

Labor parliamentarians have “grumbled” about the Australian Government’s responsibilities towards women and children citizens stranded overseas, but on condition of anonymity.

Similarly, The Guardian reports that there are Labor MPs “silently alarmed” about Labor’s unreserved support for the “legally questionable” US–Israel bombing of Iran. 

Since its creation in the 1890s, the Labor Party has required “caucus solidarity” – that MPs do not “cross the floor”, that is vote against their colleagues’ agreed position. But the party has historically always had parliamentarians who publicly spoke out and expressed their concerns. Much of that culture is gone, even in the party’s internal meetings. A notable exception is MP Ed Husic, who this month called for further consideration of a tax on gas exports.

Liberal parliamentarians were also once more willing to defy their own colleagues, including by crossing the floor, which served to moderate the party. The few who keep this tradition alive, like Senator McLachlan and former Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer, are notable because they are rare.

As Richard Denniss explained recently, Australia’s strict party discipline is not found in most other Western democracies. With independent-minded candidates winning formerly safe major party seats, perhaps Australia’s political parties will consider the benefits of allowing MPs to speak, or even vote, according to their conscience.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has met with Richard Marles, and was welcomed with a smoking ceremony.

Bowers says Pistorius greeted Marles with “you look like you just came from holidays” which amused a lot of the people there, but not Marles’ staff.

Their conversation focused around Ukraine. Shockingly.

A lifestyle article in this week’s Sydney Morning Herald takes a mindful look at the latest trends in activewear.  Apparently “trend forecasters” are cottoning on to the reality that all those stretchy leotards are made out of plastic, which is made out of petroleum.

In fact, more than half of the clothes sold in Australia come from petroleum, but an Australia Institute poll shows that less than a third of Australians know it.

With the war in the Middle East sending oil prices for a HIIT class, the price of looking good for yoga might be about to increase. But it’s the other end of the supply chain that we should really be sweating. Australians throws away over 300,000 tonnes of clothing every. single. year. About 200,000 tonnes of that ends up in Australia’s landfills, which are busting at the seams. The rest is exported from Australia, and a lot of that ends up as waste in developing nations. At least, that was what happened until the war began.

More than half of Australia’s textile waste exports go the United Arab Emirates, but shipments have already been turned back, which means an extra 45,000 tonnes might now be headed to domestic landfills. These are used clothes that can’t be resold in Australia (which makes you wonder what happens to them once they get to the UAE). Despite all the buzz around the idea of a ‘circular economy’, less than five percent of textiles are recycled in Australia (and most of that is old carpet). The NSW Government wants to burn Sydney’s ever-growing pile of rubbish, but that could end up incentivising the creation of even more waste.

Maybe, rather than shipping our sweat-stained plastic pants to poorer countries, we could stop buying so much single-use wearable plastic in the first place? Australians buy an average of 53 new items of clothing a year, which makes us the equal biggest consumers of textiles in the world. That’s a lot of new outfits for the gym.

Greg Jericho

My column today over at Guardian Australia – read it here has a bit of a review of yesterday’s inflation figures and also an outlook for what investors think the RBA will do with interest rates.

It’s all pretty fluid – as you can see at the end of last week that market was fully pricing in rate rises all the way to 4.85%.

That’s calmed down a bit, but what the RBA is finding out is that when you say you are prepared to put the country in a recession if that’s what it takes, then people will begin to assume that you will actually send the economy into a recession.

The column is a bit of a summary as well of some of the disparate things you may have read here over the past week, so give it a read!

We mentioned a little while ago about the peak groups joining together to improve the Closing the Gap target which focuses on the number of Indigenous children in out of home care.

Here is a bit more on that from the statement which has just been released:

Progress on Closing the Gap Target 12 has stalled nationally, with outcomes worsening in some jurisdictions.

Target 12 of Closing the Gap has the goal of reducing the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care by 45 per cent by 2031.

Today, there are approximately 23,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children currently living in out-of-home care, and First Nations children are 10 times more likely to be in care than non-Indigenous children.

More than half of these children are placed with non-Indigenous mainstream organisations despite evidence showing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children see better outcomes when connected to family, kin and community.

Transition involves the staged transfer of responsibility, resources and decision-making to Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), enabling more children to be safely supported by community.

Together, Allies for Children represent around 15 per cent of child and family services nationally and are collectively responsible for the care of approximately 1,900 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

As a collective, and in partnership with ACCOs, they are working together to return children to family, kin and community and strengthen connection to culture. This includes shifting resources and responsibility from mainstream services to ACCOs, so they can better support their communities.

This is a shared, national effort — one voice made up of many — grounded in First Nations leadership and focused on practical, system-level change.

The event also calls on other mainstream organisations delivering out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to join the movement and make commitments that contribute to achieving Target 12.

The Allies for Children partnership works alongside the First Nations NGO Alliance and SNAICC to drive reform by:

• Helping children return safely to their families and kin
• Supporting transitions and enhancing support of ACCOs
• Strengthening children’s connection to family, culture, community and Country
• Committing leadership, resources and operational change within mainstream systems

Today, SNAICC – National Voice for our Children also release their Transformation Principles to support mainstream organisations to shift child protection services to ACCOs, strengthen community-controlled capacity, and align systems with Closing the Gap commitments.

This is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-informed resource that SNAICC is providing to the sector with encouragement to start the journey.

In the house, Amanda Rishworth is introducing the fairer fuel work (gotta love these titles) which is an amendment to the fair work act, making it easier for transport workers to recoup fuel costs.

You can find the details, here.

School lunchbox staples are becoming increasingly expensive for families, with a basket of common items varying significantly between supermarket giants as cost-of-living pressures bite.

A trolley of 17 popular school lunchbox items, including yoghurt pouches, cheese slices, Vegemite and multi-pack chips, is most expensive at IGA, costing $100, according to consumer advocacy group CHOICE.

Coles and Woolworths followed closely behind, with baskets priced at about $90, while the best value was found at Aldi at $75.

That is a difference of $15 between the supermarket giants, without factoring in any sales or promotions.

“When including specials, Aldi was still the most cost-effective option, with their full basket costing exactly the same at $75.98,” CHOICE Editorial Director Mark Serrels said.

“Woolworths again came in second, with a basket costing $89.08. At Coles, the basket with specials cost $90.09, and at IGA the basket came in at $99.10.”

The consumer group also calculated the cost of a smaller shop containing only school lunch products, again finding Aldi to be the cheapest at $41.

Items included baby cucumbers, blueberries, ham, tinned tuna and sultana packs.

Cost-of-living pressures are continuing to hit families hard, with one in three Australian students going to school each day without lunch, according to charity Eat Up.

That figure surged by 24 per cent in the past year, with many children relying on the charity for regular meals at school each week.

According to CHOICE, the average cost of a basic basket shop, which included bananas, strawberries, apples, carrots, milk, chicken and Weetbix, rose by seven per cent between March and December 2025.

Strawberries have seen the most price volatility across the year.

Milk, chicken and carrots had the smallest increase in price and apples rose the most, increasing 47 per cent between first and fourth quarterly surveys.

Skye Predavec

Following on from yesterday’s post on arts funding and philanthropy, it’s not just a question of the amount but also the type of work that gets funded by donations. 

Encouraging philanthropy more would have an impact on inequality. Take tax deductibility for gifts and donations: it benefits the rich more than anyone else. 

The top 10% of income earners get over 80% of the benefit from tax-deductible gifts and donations. And almost 70% of the benefit goes to those earning more than $1 million in taxable income per year. 

Australian arts and culture should be accessible and available for everyone, not just the top 0.1% of income earners. But relying on philanthropy, which is mostly dished out by the uber-wealthy, has a profound impact on what gets funded, and how.  

Philanthropy from the uber-rich is often directed towards the more prestigious forms of art. A study examining US$36 billion in American donations to the arts found that donors usually fund institutions close to home, that they’ve donated to before, and that the more prestigious the art form, the more money it’s likely to get. 

Australia’s national ballet company “only exists … because of generous donors”. At the same time, organisations like Melbourne’s Blak Dot Gallery are mostly funded by government grants. 

Depending on philanthropy also hinders artists who want to comment on political issues. In a 2025 column, Louise Adler, the former CEO of Melbourne University Publishing and director of Adelaide Writers’ Week, said increased reliance on philanthropic funding creates a hostile environment for art that provokes controversy or challenges the viewer. 

Philanthropy is a minor funding source for the arts. Policies to encourage it will always help the people who need financial support the least. Not only that, but institutions that over-rely on philanthropy risk compromising artists doing safe work instead of really creative work.   

Full submission to the Commonwealth Inquiry into arts and cultural philanthropy here.

Need a straight to the point explainer on some of the questions around the impact of the gas tax?

Head here.

Angus Taylor is continuing to live up to expectations, by running around yelling about the fuel crisis while also seemingly incapable of actually coming up with any sort of answer. Or indeed, even support, which in times of crisis, is usually seen as the smart move, because it keeps the country calm.

While energy minister, Taylor had the great idea to shore up Australia’s fuel reserve in…Texas and Louisiana. This was in 2020, in the midst of covid, when global supply shocks became a reality. You only move fuel by ship and America’s south is a good 40 days away, in ship travel time. You know, because it is on the other side of the world.

This is what he had to say about that agreement in March 2020:

This landmark Australia-US Arrangement represents our joint commitment to maintaining fuel security and improving Australia’s resilience, as well as strengthening the close bonds between our two great nations.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the world’s biggest emergency stockpile of oil. The US is a trusted ally which has been essential for global oil security and we are glad to be building on our strong, longstanding relationship, while ensuring Australia is best prepared to act during a global oil disruption.”

So that is part of the reason he is about as effective as a handbrake on a canoe.

Here is his interview on the Nine network this morning:

Q: Well, I guess the other issue that we’re facing as well Angus, is that there seems to be no consensus, right? And no bipartisanship. It has to be said, either the public’s hurting, there are solutions that the government can utilise with your support. So why wouldn’t you just try and find some common ground here? Because everyone is feeling this. There’s no one immune.

Taylor:

I absolutely agree everyone is feeling it, and that’s why there’s a common sense solution that we will agree with the government on. Sarah, the stocks are there. That’s what they keep telling us. They told us that again yesterday. So move the stocks to the sold out servos, pick up the phone, speak to the companies, tell them to move the fuel to where the servos are sold out. And the problem is the government sold out. It’s not doing its job. 

Host: What do you mean by that, though? Angus, because distribution has been an issue for all the states as well.

Taylor:

Well, the fuel stocks are up. They’ve told us that. They said that yesterday. Fuel stock levels are up. So move it to the sold out servos. There’s over 500 servos that haven’t got fuel, the fuel stocks are there, pick up the phone and tell the companies to move the stocks. It’s simple. This is what we did during the Ad Blue crisis. We’ve done it before. We’ll work with the government to make sure that’s a success. Chris Bowen is asleep at the wheel. The government sold out on this. They need to do the job. 

Q: Well, the issue is getting it to these places in time, right? But this is something that’s not going away anytime soon. So despite their shoring up some other supplies, we know, cheaper fuel and so on, weaker fuel and so on. But what about the other measures that you could potentially look at? You know, we’re looking at something like South Korea, for example. That’s changing the way people are living. They’re asking them to curb their petrol car use. They’re riding bicycles, taking shorter showers, using less power at home. Would any of that work?

Taylor:

Well, they’re apparently talking about rationing and all these sorts of things. But if we’ve got the fuel stocks and the fuels arriving, the problem seems to be pretty simple. It’s how to move it to those sold out surveys, particularly in New South Wales. We know that’s the worst of it was as much as one in 10 surveys. So move the move to fuel and what has to happen here is the Minister and the Prime Minister get on the phone to the companies and tell them to shift those stocks to the surveys that are sold out, and they need to do it pronto.

Q: But, but how does that solve our long term solution? Angus,

Taylor:

Well, the longer term solution, clearly, is we’re going to see higher prices over the coming weeks and potentially many months, and we’ve got to keep the fuel moving. And the key to both is the government doing its job. We have a budget coming up, and we need to see downward pressure on inflation. This is hurting all Australians. It’s hurting every Australian small business, every Australian household. We see more inflation data yesterday. There’s no end in sight.

Earlier this month, hundreds of text messages between Woodside executives and senior federal bureaucrats were released under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. In the texts, Woodside and public servants from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DECCEEW) discuss conditions for the extension of the North West Shelf gas project.

In May last year, Environment Minister Murray Watt approved the extension, but the texts detail the subsequent discussions over conditions.

Woodside’s gas export project is one of Australia’s largest and most emissions-intensive developments. To make matters worse, it’s located on the Murujuga cultural landscape, which is home to a unique 40,000-year-old collection of rock engravings, which are facing destruction from acid rain caused by nearby gas processing.

Last year, information from a different FOI request raised serious questions about interference in a scientific report about the impacts of gas mining on the rock art.

The disclosure underscore the importance of FOI laws to democracy. Without FOI, we might never know just how close the relationship between Woodside and supposedly independent public servants is. Last year the Albanese Government  tried to make it harder for people to use the FOI system, but the laws should instead be protected and strengthened.

Doctors for the Environment Australia, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action and Parents for Climate are joining together to back the calls for a 25% export tax on gas, asking that the revenue be directed to communities “on the frontline of climate-fuelled disasters, relief for households facing soaring energy and insurance costs, and accelerating Australia’s transition away from the volatile, polluting fossil fuel dependence driving the current crisis”.

From their joint-statement:

Kate Wylie, Doctors for the Environment Australia said:

“The catastrophe in the Middle East is a health and human rights disaster, and our hearts go out to all who are suffering. Here in Australia, we are seeing the economic shockwaves of our dangerous dependence on global oil and gas: food prices are rising, fuel costs are soaring, and the mental health and financial strain are landing hardest on everyday communities. 

“As doctors, we see this harm directly. It is not fair that our communities bear this burden while gas corporations pocket immense profits and pay little to no tax on the gas they export. Making them pay their fair share – and using that money to ease cost of living pressures and move Australia toward genuine energy independence – is not just good economics, it’s the ethical thing to do.”

With around 20% of global gas supply disrupted by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Australian LNG exporters are reaping sustained windfall profits. Despite this, many gas corporations continue to pay little or no tax, with Santos recording ten consecutive years of zero corporate tax payments up to 2024–25 despite $47 billion in sales.

Serena Joyner, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action said:

“Australians are losing homes, livelihoods and loved ones to the worsening disasters that are being driven by the pollution from gas and coal corporations. We have watched these corporations take our resources for next to nothing, post record profits while communities like ours are left to pick up the pieces, with little or no support. Enough is enough. It’s time they paid their fair share, and it’s time that money went back to our communities to help pay for the damage and the much needed investment into being better prepared for climate disasters.”

Australian communities are bearing the compounding costs of the crisis, with energy bills surging alongside rising insurance premiums and the ongoing financial aftermath of climate-fuelled disasters. Advocates say revenue from a 25% gas exports tax should deliver immediate relief to households struggling with energy costs, while funding the much needed investment in making our homes and communities more resilient to future climate and energy shocks.

Nic Seton, Parents for Climate said: 

“Parents across Australia are struggling with soaring energy bills while gas corporations pocket billions. Our kids are already living in a more dangerous world because of climate pollution from the fossil fuel industry. Gas companies should pay their fair share of tax on these enormous profits, and that money should be used to help families with energy bills now and to build the clean, affordable, Australian-made energy system that will protect our kids’ future.”

Late yesterday the government announced it would ban people who already hold valid Australian visas from travelling to Iran to Australia. It’s part of the government’s new strategy of stopping people from making legal protection visa claims once in Australia, if they are from an area where there is conflict, or the possibility of conflict.

This has been put in place after the Iranian women’s football team made claims for protection (most returned to Iran) and the feel good photo shoot Tony Burke held with the women, which gained international attention and praise.

As Greens senator David Shoebridge says:

The Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No 1) Bill 2026, which was supported by One Nation and the Liberals, gave the Minister of Home Affairs the power to block people with a valid temporary visa from travelling to Australia. This power has now been exercised by the Minister of Home Affairs to target Iranians to prevent them from seeking asylum in Australia. 

The restriction will initially apply to any Iranians holding a subclass 600 visitor visa. We know from evidence given by Home Affairs in answer to questions from Senator Shoebridge that there are currently around 7,200 Iranians who hold temporary visas but have not yet arrived in Australia. 

The vast majority of people seeking asylum from authoritarian countries do so by securing a visa and then applying for asylum upon arrival. There are vanishingly small numbers of offshore humanitarian visas provided to people in Iran, because doing so would clearly identify them as a target from the Iranian government. 

So Australia supported this war and then banned anyone from seeking protection from it. That’s where we are at.

A quiet but significant reform is moving through Parliament: a legal ban on life insurers using genetic test results.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 would prohibit insurers from accessing or using predictive genetic information when setting premiums or deciding coverage. Until now, this has been governed by a voluntary industry moratorium.

The policy logic is simple.

Without protection, people may avoid genetic testing even when it could identify health risks early for fear it will make insurance unaffordable or unavailable. With protection, that barrier is removed. Preventative medicine and research wins.

But how much information should markets be allowed to use?

Insurance pricing is, in theory, about precision. The more you know about risk, the more accurately you can price it. Genetic data is an extension of that logic.

This bill draws a clear line. Some information, even if highly predictive, is simply off-limits.

That tension between the free market and social fairness is a familiar one.

The failures of Australia’s residential aged care market – resulting in harm to the elderly and their carers – exposed by the 2021 Royal Commission is a good example.

The genetics bill shows that the Australia Government is not willing to tolerate this form of risk stratification because it undermines broader social goals.

In an era of rapidly expanding data – from genomics to AI-driven profiling – this sets an important precedent.

Allies for Children, the First Nations NGO Alliance and SNAICC – National Voice for our Children are uniting to drive reform on the 12th Closing the Gap target – reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in care, with just five years left to meet the target goals.

Forming minister Linda Burney will host the event, which will be held at parliament later this morning.

The groups are coming together to advise on actual reforms that will help communities and children, stay together.

Bill Browne
Director, Democracy & Accountability Program

The South Australian election last weekend was the first test of [australiainstitute.org.au/report/south-australian-political-finance-changes/]the dramatic changes that the Malinauskas Government made to democracy in the state.

One Nation’s spectacular rise means the minor party will be a major beneficiary of the changes.

In total, One Nation will likely be entitled to between $6 and $7 million in public funding over the next term of parliament – most of which would not have been available under the old system.

Under Labor’s electoral changes, to compensate for the ban on most private political donations, established political parties and sitting MPs receive generous taxpayer funding from South Australians (freeing those private donations to go to federal campaigns instead).

Admin funding

A political party with 10 or more MPs receives $1.6 million per year to spend on party administration. At the time of writing, One Nation is on track for seven seats (four in the lower house and three in the upper house), entitling them to $1.0 million per year – or $4.2 million over the four-year electoral cycle.

On 11 seats, the Liberals scrape through to the full $1.6 million entitlement – but a split in the party (as floated by Liberal senator Alex Antic) or a couple of defections would cost them money.

Campaign funding

The Labor Government also dramatically increased taxpayer support for the election campaigns of parties and candidates. This funding is calculated on a per-vote received basis.

One Nation will receive over $2 million in campaign funding for the next South Australian election.

One Nation spent just $3.3 million nationally in the 2024–25 federal election year. Come the next state election, they will be able to spend about that much in South Australia alone.

The Liberal Party will struggle, with about $2.3 million in campaign funding. Labor will receive the maximum entitlement of $4.0 million.

Normally, a party can turn to private funding to make up the difference – but South Australia’s new donation ban closes off that avenue.

There was no inquiry into these undemocratic laws

South Australia’s new laws are generous towards sitting MPs and established parties, but miserly towards independent candidates and new entrants. A party that does badly at one election is starved of funds for the next, creating a vicious cycle. The money allocated for party administration bears no relationship to how much it actually costs to administer a party.

The Parliament of South Australia should hold a multiparty inquiry into the new donation ban and public funding laws to test them against the principles of fair political finance reform.

I predict they would find the laws badly wanting.

So yesterday we had the latest inflation figures, which as I reported yesterday showed inflation fell form 3.8% to 3.7%.

As we also noted, if you removed the distortions of the electricity rebates annual inflation would have fallen from 3.3% to 3.1%.

Add into the mix that the underlying inflation (which strips out the biggest falls and rises, and is used to get a sense of are things getting worse once you ignore the one off monthly things) remained steady at 3.3% – ie just a tad above the RBA’s target ceiling of 3%.

So all in all pretty good news. Yes these measured the month before we saw the big petrol increased due to the USA and Iran’s illegal and cruelly stupid war on Iran, but it shows that the actual state of affairs before things well outside our control were pretty good.

But guess what, prior to the figures the market was pricing in the chance of a rate rise in May at 55%. So with lower inflation and generally good news, surely that number would fall – after all there is nothing here that suggests the RBA needs to raise rates. Nope it rose to 57%

Basically, the speculators looked at these figures and decided, meh, who cares. They have decided that inflation will be going up because of Iran and even though interest rates won’t affect world oil prices one jot, and the rise in inflation is not due to domestic pressures from wages, they believe the RBA will still raise rates because they get the real sense that the RBA wants to raise rates even if there is no real reason to, and even if it means causing unnecessary unemployment.

And to be honest, the speculators are probably right to think that of the RBA.

Hello and welcome to Parliament Friday (Thursday). We have made it to the end of the week (just) and we are exactly where we were at the beginning of the week – talking about fuel.

We’ll be doing that for some time. Because while we have the immediate future sort of sorted, we don’t have a long term solution for what happens if America drags this out. America and Israel started a war with Iran with no real objectives, or exit strategy and that is becoming clearer and clearer every moment America tries to explain what it’s doing.

The civilian deaths and displacement caused by this decision is the primary concern and it’s led to the UN warning of the world facing a wider war if an end can not be negotiated soon. Globally, the economy is now feeling the impacts, and that’s before you get to whatever escalation Trump’s administration means when it says it is prepared to “unleash hell”. We’re used to this administration lying, but it is also a very emotional and unregulated administration – it makes decisions based on image and feelings. That’s not good for anyone.

Australia looks like it is regretting its instant support for this. Penny Wong is now cautioning Israel against settling southern Lebanon, which is not very strong language, but for Wong, who has mostly greeted Israel’s trampling of international and humanitarian law with ‘concern’, it’s a step up. Australia is still a participant in that it has provided intelligence and moved a small group of troops to the UAE, but it continues to say no to further requests.

The domestic impacts have been a fuel affordability crisis which is most likely going to roll into a supply shortage. National cabinet is being recalled to talk about that and work out where the fuel we have, goes.

And in all of this – a budget is being put together. Which looks like cuts, cuts, cuts. Fantastic that we have a submarine deal with the US, which doesn’t even involve us actually getting the submarines if they don’t want to give them to us. Massive claps all round.

You have a tired and cranky Amy Remeikis and her two coffees this morning to guide you through it. There will be more coffee.

Ready? Me either. But alas, let’s do it anyway.