The Point Live: Farrer fall out for Coalition, while Labor sets out to address 'intergenerational inequality' in its budget: as it happened.

We have allowed ourselves a bit of a gentle day today, because tomorrow is going to be batshit insane. And you have to pace yourself.

I hope you have been doing that as well. We will be back full force with eyes and ears everywhere tomorrow as is more usual. The blog will be open at sparrows and take you through to QT – after which we’ll wait for the lock up to open and then get back into it. It is going to be a long and stupid day (timeless statement) so make sure you try and do something fun for yourself tonight.

For me, that will be staring at a wall.

Sending all the love – and take cares of you in the meantime

Ax

Anara Watson

We’ve just concluded our webinar Phasing out fossil fuels: what role for Australia and the Pacific?

Louise Morris, Advocate at the Australia Institute, spoke about her time at the First Conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels late last month. The conference brought together 57 governments, academics, civil society groups, Indigenous leaders, trade unions and scientists, to do something the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has conspicuously failed to do: talk seriously about actually ending oil, gas and coal production. 

Australia has purportedly committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, and yet, unlike the countries like the Netherlands, we sent no ministers or members of parliament to the Conference – only a public servant from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. How embarrassing. 

Despite its commitments, the Australian Government continues to approve new coal and gas projects and to spend billions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies. Fergus Green, Associate Professor at University College London and Writer in Residence at the Australia Institute, stressed that those fossil fuel subsidies are essentially paying polluters for their pollution – an incentive. 

With Tuvalu agreeing to host the next conference, that contradiction will come under increasing pressure. 

And while it is true that Australia accepts climate science, agreeing that climate change is real isn’t enough. As Richard Denniss, co-CEO of the Australia Institute, put it: “It’s like agreeing that gravity is a thing but being surprised when things fall out of the sky and hit you in the head.”

If you didn’t make it, you can watch the recording here.

It is getting to the pointy end of the pre-budget day – which means that things are being put in place for the photo ops that go along with this circus – there will be a whole bunch of photos of the PM, Treasurer and Finance Minister looking at the budget books and pointing at things and nodding sagely.

Which you know – shows how much of a performance so much of this is.

There didn’t alway used to be a budget lock up and much of the ‘market sensitivity’ they talk about with it is no longer an issue because the market has models which predict most of the economic outcomes anyway and the government of the day tends to leak out most things before budget day.

This is the last opportunity governments have to completely control a narrative and an information drop – and they are not giving that up.

Former Labor strategist turned pollster Kos Samaras has written about the Farrer byelection on his substack:

For commentators looking at Farrer and projecting wave-like uniformity across the country: read the data and its people. The wave breaks where the wall begins. Regional Anglo Australia is realigning toward One Nation. Multicultural, younger, urban Australia is consolidating against it. The two movements are not in tension with each other. They are the same movement, viewed from opposite sides of the same demographic divide.

The Liberal Party has spent the last two years trying to find a strategic answer that addresses both flanks simultaneously. There is no such answer. The bloc politics will not permit it. Which is why, on current trajectories, the answer the electorate is going to deliver is the one nobody in the party has been willing to say out loud: relegation.

Farrer was not the beginning of a uniform national wave. It was the beginning of two diverging ones and the wall between them is the most important line on the Australian political map.”

Tom Wark, AAP

Health officials are preparing to put an end to a viral nightmare experienced by multiple Australian cruise ship passengers.

A government-supported charter flight will carry four Australian citizens, one permanent resident and a New Zealand citizen to Australia from Tenerife, in the Canary Islands, after their voyage was marred by a deadly virus outbreak.

The MV Hondius ship docked in Tenerife on Sunday, after three people died and five others were confirmed to have tested positive to hantavirus, which is contracted through contact with infected rodents.

The Australian citizens and permanent resident live in NSW and Queensland.

NSW Premier Chris Minns said state health officials, who coordinate quarantine arrangements, had been working with their federal counterparts to be prepared for the travellers’ arrival.

“The risk of transmission is relatively low at this stage, certainly not comparable to the coronavirus,” Mr Minns said on Monday.

“Those individuals, two from NSW, will be required to quarantine when they come back to the country, but … it’s important we don’t exaggerate the risk.”

Queensland Attorney-General Deb Frecklington also confirmed her state was ready to isolate the returnees and said reports from the ship had been distressing.

“Queensland Health will be working with the federal government in relation to the repatriation and the quarantining,” she said.

Consular officers on the ground in Tenerife and Canberra have been closely coordinating their response efforts, a federal government spokesperson said.

The Australians onboard are expected to be some of the last passengers to disembark, with the repatriation flight likely to leave the island about 5pm local time on Monday and arrive in Perth on Tuesday.

None of the passengers being brought to Australia are believed to be displaying signs of the virus.

Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt said quarantine arrangements for the arriving passengers were still being finalised.

“It’s a terrible situation that these people are in, going on a cruise expecting to have a nice holiday and finding themselves in this situation,” Senator Watt told ABC TV.

“We have agreed to repatriate a small number of Australians … arrangements are being made with the states and territories around the quarantining of these people.”

Medical personnel will be onboard the repatriation flight to monitor passengers throughout their journey home and secure transportation to quarantine facilities will be in place for their arrival.

The government was focused on ensuring every Australian received the care they need, Senator Watt said.

“This is not a situation that people have walked into deliberately, and I think all Australians would want to see each other looked after in this sort of situation,” he said.

There is a report out today from Jim Chalmers saying the revenue for the PRRT will be revised up. 

All I can say is, big deal. 

The revenue of the PRRT is linked to the oil price (because LNG and oil prices are so linked)

The way Treasury does it does it is look at the recent average of oil prices and uses those in the budget. 

In last year’s budget the Treasury dept made its revenue forecasts based on oil being US$81per barrel

By December oil prices had fallen and so for the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) Treasury was using US$66bbl as the price and unsurprisingly the PRRT estimates fell:

Now the price of oil has gone up (due to Israel and Trump bombing Iran)

My guess is Treasury will estimate an oil price of $100bbl.

What will that mean for PRRT? Well, a really rough back of the envelope estimate just taking into account the change in oil prices would have maybe PRRT in this current year being closer to $2.5bn than the $1.5bn estimate in December. 

But just remember to get above the beer excise it would need to rise to $2.72bn.

I wonder if the government might have been a bit annoyed by the Beer excise is bigger than PRRT lines and so might tweak the figures to undo that? (Am I being too cynical?)

But just remember that the excise on Spirits is $3.27bn…. 

Mike Bowers has also shared that Nationals leader Matt Canavan brought a swag to the press conference he held about everything being fine, despite the Farrer by-election result – to show he’s super country. So not only did he wear a flano to a press conference (not his usual attire – let’s all remember he is an economist by trade) he also brought the swag, which he says he slept in while campaigning in Farrer.

This is getting very, very sad. Who is the audience for this? Whose mind is this changing?

With the caveat that voters will always decide and you can not predict nevers in politics – the likelihood of the Coalition winning government with One Nation support is very, very unlikely.

Now that doesn’t mean there is not some sort of new centre right party that emerges from all of this – but what we are seeing at the moment is a re-ordering of the right. One Nation’s latest rise has come at the same time as the Coalition’s collapse. That doesn’t mean Labor is immune, but it does mean that at the present moment, the Coalition is more vulnerable to One Nation candidates.

That being the case, how does One Nation and the Coalition form government when it is mostly swapping Coalition seats for One Nation seats. Government is a game of numbers – and it is unlikely, given the Coalition has done nothing to win back inner city voters, that One Nation will win those seats off independents – so where is the path to government?

If One Nation takes more seats off the Coalition, that isn’t a net positive in terms of numbers in the house for the Coalition – it takes them backwards. And One Nation might have more seats, but still no where near enough to form government.

Even in the current parliament, the Coalition and One Nation would need to hold everything they currently have and win almost another 30 seats at the next election in order to win government. At current polling, the Coalition is going backwards – and looks like losing more seats.

Labor certainly is of the mindset that the Coalition vote hasn’t finished bottoming out and has at least five target seats on its list already, including La Trobe and Forrest.

So while there is a lot of hype over the thrup-olition, keep in mind the numbers – and right now, they aren’t there.

(I have some thoughts on this narrative which will follow in the next post)

Pauline Hanson is open to forming a political alliance with the Liberals and Nationals, but opposition MPs have rejected a coalition with One Nation.

David Farley will head to Canberra after the One Nation candidate scored a thumping victory in the southern NSW seat of Farrer on Saturday.

His win over community independent Michelle Milthorpe snapped 77 years of coalition rule in the electorate and marked the first time his party has won a federal lower house seat.

The victory has raised the prospect of One Nation taking other regional seats and targeting outer suburban electorates, which could force the already decimated coalition to seek the support of Senator Hanson’s party.

While the One Nation leader said she would work with Liberals and Nationals to form a government, Senator Hanson said her party would not be in a formal coalition.

“I will give them supply and confidence … they can form a government with my numbers, I’m quite happy to do that,” she told Sydney radio station 2GB on Monday.

“I don’t want ministerial positions, because I’m not going to be the tail on the dog … because (the Liberals) have done that with the National Party.”

Senator Hanson said she felt vindicated by the Farrer by-election result.

“I’ve been pillaged and ridiculed and put down, and you know, everything thrown at me,” she said.

The Liberal primary vote tanked to 12.4 per cent, more than 30 percentage points down on the share secured a year earlier by Sussan Ley before her ousting as party leader and subsequent resignation.

But senior Liberals have rejected calls to enter into a coalition with One Nation to ensure their party’s longevity.

Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson on Sunday did not rule out a possible coalition with One Nation, saying it was “up to the Australian people to decide who they want to vote for”.

But the following day, he said he had never supported the idea.

“The reality is, the leader of that party has already declared that she won’t form a coalition with us and I have no interest in forming a coalition with them,” he told reporters in Canberra.

Deputy Liberal leader Jane Hume described a possible future union as a “massive hypothetical”.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce said the party was looking to replicate its success in western Sydney and was already speaking to potential candidates.

“What they’ve seen is that the polling is not an aberration,” he told Seven’s Sunrise program.

“It’s now been validated by both South Australia and Farrer. There is a strong following out there.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the coalition’s loss in Farrer was not surprising.

“It’s pretty clear that the traditional coalition parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party, don’t really stand for anything anymore,” he told Cairns radio station 4CA.

“I’m not sure that One Nation’s appeal will go beyond the sort of seat that we’ve seen and where they traditionally have done OK.”

But the result in Farrer could be replicated in certain outer-suburban seats, not just regional ones, former Labor strategist turned leading pollster Kos Samaras said.

“Seats like Lindsay (in Sydney’s west), I could see that seat could definitely become an interesting contest,” the RedBridge director told AAP.

“Every regional electorate that the Nats and the Liberal party hold is on the block.”

Bill Browne

Three elections ago, the ABC was explaining that “only a few seats really matter” for deciding an election – because most seats are “safe” and it is marginal seats that change hands.

Two elections ago, the Australia Institute warned that the days of safe seats “are almost over”.

The success of the community independents, building on Zali Steggall and Helen Haines’s wins in 2019, made the point – as did Australia Institute research showing that independents and minor parties win more “safe” seats than they do marginal ones.  

Last year, journalists were describing “no safe seats” as an “old cliché”.

From unthinkable to old cliché in just two elections: evidence of how quickly the political landscape has changed in Australia.

It is still changing, as the Farrer by-election on the weekend showed.

For the first time in the post-World War 2 era, the final two in a federal seat race were not from the major parties.

One Nation’s David Farley won, with independent Michelle Milthorpe in second place. Farley is the first One Nation MP ever elected to the House of Representatives (Pauline Hanson was elected as a disendorsed Liberal).

In Farrer, the Liberal and National candidates couldn’t manage even a quarter of the vote between them – in a seat where the Liberals won 43% of first preferences a year ago. 

And while the Liberals and Nationals recommending preferences for One Nation over a moderate independent helped legitimise the minor party, those preferences didn’t even decide the winner.

Farrer was a “fairly safe” seat just last year, thanks to Milthorpe’s earlier run securing a 10% swing away from the Liberal Party. Before that, it had been a solidly safe seat for almost four decades.

And if Farrer could fall to One Nation, there are many other Liberal and National seats just as vulnerable. Nor can the Labor Government afford to be complacent despite its landslide win. 

There’s no such thing as a safe seat anymore.

Matt Canavan is really leaning into city dweller goes country (yes I know he lives in Rockhampton, but this is not a person who has made a habit of wearing flanos to parliament before, even when it’s not sitting. Next he’ll be talking about how his automatic ute gets a bit ‘stally’.

Mike Bowers caught him talking about how everything is just fine:

Endeavour Foundation, which is one of the nation’s largest disability service providers, has released a statement ahead of the budget being handed down, urging the government to rethink some of its NDIS ‘reforms’.

CEO Andrew Chesterman said Endeavour “supports moves to return the NDIS to its original focus as announced by Minister Butler in his recent National Press Club address, it appears that many people with complex disabilities who Endeavour Foundation supports may miss out”.

The model as it stands, does not adequately fund us for much of the support we provide

We feel we cannot abandon our clients with the greatest needs, who need the most support, just because their NDIS plans are inadequate.

We will continue to do our best for all our clients, but these challenges are exactly why so many charities are going broke. People with complex disabilities need complex support.”

That includes 24 hour, seven day a week care. Endeavour says more than 10 per cent of those complex needs clients are “being provided with unfunded supports to ensure their safety and wellbeing.”

If changes aren’t made to NDIS funding models in the Federal Budget, the burden will be on charities like ours to ensure people with significant disabilities have adequate supports – and not-for-profit disability support providers will struggle to survive.”

The Budget is going to finally undo the damage of the Howard-Costello changes to Capital Gains Tax (CGT). 

First let’s have a recap. Capital gains are essentially the profits made from investments – things like shares but very much also property. 

Keating and Hawke introduced a tax on capital gains in the mid-1980s as part of a big tax reform package that saw the company tax rate slashed from 49% to 39% and the introduction of dividend imputation. 

The capital gains were taxed by taking into account inflation for the period you had held the asset. 

Let’s say you bought a property for $200,000 and sold it 5 years later $300,000. That is a $100,000 gain (or 50%). But if in that time inflation had gone up 15% in real terms you would have only made a $70,000 gain (or 35%) [I know maths etc is annoying, but think of it as the 50% gain minus 15% inflation = 35%).

So in this example the person would have had to pay tax as though they had earned $70,000.

John Howard hated capital gains tax. HATED it.

In 1990 he was still campaigning to “get rid of it”

But by the time he got into power in 1996, CGT was untouchable. So, he just undermined the hell out of it.

Instead of taxing the inflation adjusted gains in 1999 he changed it so they would get a 50% tax free discount if an investment was held from more than a year. 

So in the above example rather than paying tax on $70,000, suddenly they were only paying tax on $50,000. Sweet eh!

It made investing in housing a very good bet – and even better when you combined it with negative gearing, because now the hurdle you needed to clear to make an after tax profit was much lower (especially if inflation was below 3%).

And unsurprisingly house prices took off. 

26 years before the 1999 change the average dwelling price in Australia was 9.3 times average annual household disposable income. That is the average dwelling cost 9.3 years of average household income. In December 1999 it was up to 9.4 years.

Now 26 years later it is 16.9 years

What does that mean in real dollars? 

Well if the a dwelling price was still 9.4 times average annual household income then the average dwelling price in Australia would be $596,522.

That is almost half the actual average price of $1,074,700.

In the Budget the government is expected to go back to the pre-199 method. 

The capital gains tax discount was not the only reason for the boom in prices, and changing it back won’t magically fix everything (we have 26 years of damage to undo). But it is a necessary start.

Richard Denniss has written on some of the missing narrative around One Nation’s electoral rise for The Point:

Ever since the Liberals and Nationals split and reunited twice, the combined vote for the Coalition parties has collapsed, and support for One Nation has surged. Pauline Hanson’s decisive defeat of the Coalition in the weekend’s Farrer by-election is just the latest example of the fact that there are no longer any ‘safe seats’ in Australia.

The combined Liberal and National Party primary vote on Saturday, in a seat the Coalition has held since its creation in 1949, was just 22 per cent, well below Independent Michelle Milthorpe’s 28 per cent and One Nation’s 39 per cent. But, it’s not just the Coalition whose once safe seats are no longer safe.

Well before the surge in support for One Nation that followed the Coalition’s self-immolation, Labor’s once safe inner-city seats were in grave danger. Labor has held the seat of Fremantle since John Curtin won it in 1934, and while it’s been held by former luminaries like Kim Beazley and Carmen Lawrence, its incumbent, Josh Wilson, shed 3684 votes during the Albanese Government’s first term to pip independent Kate Hullett by just 1400 votes. Another term like Albo’s first, and Fremantle will likely fall.

The Canberra-based seat of Bean is even more marginal. Labor’s David Smith beat Independent Jessie Price by just 700 votes, making what was once one of Labor’s safest seats nationwide now its most vulnerable seat in the country.

Significantly, the seat of Melbourne went the other way for Labor, with the Greens Adam Bandt losing to Labor’s Sarah Witty. Labor is, no doubt, pleased with the result, but for all the talk about how Labor will defend outer suburban seats from a surging One Nation, there is far less discussion, publicly at least, about how Labor might try to hang on to seats like Melbourne, Bean and Fremantle.

Given we know that budgets are about choices, it’s always interesting to note what the government is not talking about. 

Once again, Jobseeker is not to be heard anywhere. It’s just taken as given that those on Jobseeker should live in poverty.

Currently a single person on Jobseeker is around $291 a week below the poverty line 

That puts them around 42% below poverty – a level worse than anything experienced by unemployed people before 2007

I guess there must be some joy for Labor MPs and Senators to know that they are delivering a worse life for unemployed people than John Howard did… 

Incidentally, to get Jobseeker equal to the poverty line wound cost a touch over $11bn a year (ie rather less than the $17bn the gas export tax would raise).

That, tbh is unlikely. But how about just getting it back to where it was at the end of the Keating government? That was 25% below poverty and would be raising the rate from $408.75pw (including the energy supplement) to $525pw.

That would cost $4.58bn a year. That would leave $12.4bn a year left form a gas export tax to spend on many, many other things (say double the govt spending on public schools…)

Choices. Budgets are about choices. 

Bill Browne

Today, an open letter in The Age calls on the Victorian Parliament to prioritise transparency, fairness and freedom when legislating new political donation and election campaigning laws.

Last month the High Court threw out Victoria’s donation laws for being unconstitutional, specifically for favouring the major parties.

With the Victorian state election due in November, there are fears that Parliament will rush through new laws as early as this week – with the same or worse defects as the old laws.

The thirty-seven signatories, including the Australian Democracy Network, Accountability Round Table, Transparency International Australia and the Australia Institute and Victorian environmental, justice, climate change and arts groups, ask the Parliament to prioritise five principles in its new laws:

1. Transparency and disclosure
2. Independent and public consultation processes
3. Level playing field
4. System fairness
5. Freedom of choice and expression.

Read the full open letter and see all 37 signatories here. 

The High Court’s decision gives the Victorian Parliament a chance to go back to the drawing board, consult with voters and design a fair political finance system – one where taxpayer funding supports new entrants and challengers as well as major parties and incumbents.

But that will never happen if Parliament passes rushed, self-interested and unfair laws this week.

Josh Sunman, an associate lecturer in public policy at Flinders University has published a piece in The Conversation looking at One Nation in the context of the coming Victorian election:

With the Farrer by-election, One Nation has won its first seat in the federal House of Representatives. The Coalition had held Farrer comfortably since its creation in 1949, with long serving members such as former Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals Leader Tim Fischer, and most recently former Liberal leader Sussan Ley who had held the seat since 2001.

Neither of the Coalition parties made the final count on Saturday, falling to 3rd and 4th place respectively. This result will lead to much soul searching in the Coalition, and could signal the same level of threat the Wentworth 2018 and Aston 2023 by-elections did for the parties urban moderate wing. This time repeated in its remaining rural and regional bases.

On the back of Farrer, the South Australian State election, the Nepean by-election and continued strong polling results – One Nation is in the strongest national position it has ever been. The next test for the party is the Victorian State Election, where it has stated its aim is to defeat the Allan Government.

This creates a massive strategic dilemma for the Coalition. Will One Nation cannibalize Coalition support and make things easier for Labor? Will the Coalition do preference deals or agree to work with One Nation in forming a government?

When I said that Anthony Albanese was out there delivering the lines of the day – I meant it. Here he is speaking to Cairns radio 4CA this morning about the Farrer by-election result:

I wasn’t really that surprised because it’s pretty clear that the traditional Coalition parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party, don’t really stand for anything anymore. They don’t give people a reason to vote for them. And the removal of Sussan Ley in the brutal way that it happened, you know – we’ve got a Budget this week, of course, tomorrow night, and then a Budget Reply that the Opposition Leader gets to give. And Sussan Ley didn’t even get to give an Opposition Leader’s reply to the Budget before she was taken out in such a brutal way by Angus Taylor, who didn’t really give her a crack. Both Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie were out there undermining her from day one. And given she’d been a loyal local member for 25 years, then that made an enormous difference, I think. Particularly in the regions, having a local member who represents a community can go beyond party politics as well. I think Matt Smith is doing an amazing job. And before him, of course, Warren Entsch. Different side of politics, but same commitment to their local community. And that makes a big difference. And so, I think also, when they made a decision to give One Nation preferences they were really saying it’s okay to vote for One Nation.

(Which you may notice is very similar to what he said on the ABC radio RN Breakfast a little earlier)

His team have been WORKING to keep him on message, so congrats I guess!

The Financial Review has had this tortuous semantic discussion about when reform is real of not. Today they quote approvingly from economist Richard Holden who says “to really be called reform, Chalmers’ tax package needs to change incentives in a way that boosts productivity and economic growth, making it easier to invest in physical and human capital.”

He says changing the treatment of capital gains tax “is just a different way of doing things” and not real reform. So what is true reform? Holden says, “Raising the GST and slashing [the] top two marginal income tax rates – that’s an example of meaningful, courageous, bold reform.”

So there we have it, true reform according to the “Fin” and Richard Holden is something that takes from the poor and gives to the rich. 

Most of what we hear from the financial press and their hand-picked economists is more cautious and only gives hints that they want to bias the system in favour of the rich.  Normally the aim is to disguise their real intentions by talking about growth, productivity, incentives and the like. At least the Fin and Richard Holden are explicit this time about what reform is to them.  

This is definitely the face of someone who thinks everything is fine. Everything is totally fine, and there is no existential panic within the Liberal party or Coalition more broadly.

Mike Bowers caught Tim Wilson’s press conference this morning, along with what looks like to be the Eye of Sauron.

The crux of the press conference was the government is breaking a promise if it changes the tax settings around negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, which – I’m not sure if Wilson has been paying attention, or perhaps he is in a tax bracket that doesn’t have to care about these things – but people who don’t have anything to conserve don’t particularly care about conserving the wealth of other people. Which is to say – a broken promise isn’t an issue if it makes things a bit more equitable. This is not a ‘relaxed and comfortable’ nation any longer where that stuff just works because someone said it.

We have taken a slower pace this morning because this week is going to be an overwhelm of information, and you know what – you deserve some quiet now.

But I would point you in the direction of McKell Institute chief economist Alison Pennington’s latest op-ed in the SMH. Pennington highlights one of the missing elements of all the budget chattering – people need the government to step in in more areas than just housing:

Proposed changes to CGT, negative gearing and trust taxation in the federal budget will make the tax system fairer, but let’s also be honest: the door to home ownership has already slammed shut on a whole generation of young people. If the government is serious about reopening it, it knows the path it must tread.

At the crux of intergenerational inequality is a decoupling of work incomes from wealth generation. Asset prices, capital returns and inherited wealth have grown significantly faster than wages for more than a decade. Arithmetically, young people are on the front line of that. Half the workforce is under 40 and most rely on work incomes to build a life. They’re scrambling to keep pace, with multiple job-holding near record highs.

…So for young people to have a chance again, the solution is simple: wages need to buy more. That means ensuring that pay packets grow with the cost of living. But with inflation surging again, it is also critical that government gets more control over high prices hitting workers’ incomes. It can do this by directly funding and delivering high-cost items such as housing, childcare and electricity, and curtailing excessive corporate power through price regulation and stronger taxation.

The Museum of Modern Democracy at Old Parliament House is reopening the old press gallery – not all of it, and it is not as it originally looked, as half of it was dismantled when the museum opened.

So what they have done is create snapshot of the eras the press gallery existed in the building. It’s the 125th anniversary of the opening of parliament (Albanese did a speech in Melbourne, where it was first held on the weekend) so there will be lots of little celebrations going on)

Mike Bowers was there for some behind the scenes of the opening (along with some of his colleagues in the visual journalism/photography section of the gallery – recreating a photo from 1982 in the same spot)

Greenpeace is calling bupkis on a report released to some media today, claiming Woodside’s Browse offshore gas project won’t have any impact on WA’s net-zero targets, because the state is nowhere close to meeting them anyway.

Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

Woodside’s report is so ludicrous it reads like satire. It is nothing but the self-serving tosh expected from a multinational gas corporation exploiting the global energy crisis to drill for more expensive, volatile and polluting gas to export for profit. 

Claiming a massive carbon bomb would somehow help the net zero transition is delusional. If Woodside’s reckless Browse gas project went ahead, it would be one of the most polluting projects in the country and turn one of Australia’s last pristine oceanic reef systems, Scott Reef, into an industrial gas zone.

The WA EPA already made an initial finding that Woodside’s plan to drill at least 50 wells near Scott Reef, home to nesting sea turtles, endangered pygmy blue whales and other endangered species, posed unacceptable risks to the environment. 

Most recently, independent scientific experts demonstrated that Woodside’s amended plans do nothing for the survival of these key threatened species found at Scott Reef but just tinker around the edges. For Woodside to flaunt these plans as a win for net zero, is flabbergasting and frankly insulting.

Woodside continuously fails to deliver gas to West Australians. According to the DomGas Alliance less than 4% of gas from Woodside’s Pluto facility has been supplied to the local market — far short of the 15% requirement. 

The global energy crisis has laid bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence. WA has access to world-class renewable energy resources, which modelling shows could power the state’s homes, hospitals and key industries with clean, cheap and affordable energy. WA has a choice: displace gas with renewables, or displace renewables with gas.

Environment Minister Murray Watt has a responsibility to protect the environment and put an end to this dangerous project once and for all. Minister Watt and the Albanese government’s environmental credentials ride on protecting Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas for good.

Greenpeace is calling for Murray Watt to listen to the half a million Australians that have asked him to stop this nature and climate-wrecking project and protect Scott Reef for generations to come.”

Earlier today AAP reported on local councils struggling to cope with unhoused people in their area. Last week ABC quoted head of Homelessness Australia Kate Colvin who said that she wants to see a doubling of the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to support a lot more social housing. 

Doubling that HAFF would mean the Government needs to find an extra $10 billion. But where could it come from?

You only have to look at the Australia Institute’s Gas Giveaway ticker to get one idea of where the Government could find the money to pay to keep people off the streets and in safe and secure housing. 

AAP has reported on local councils and homelessness following a recent study:

Local councils are struggling to cope with a homelessness crisis that has spread well beyond inner-city streets.

Two-thirds of Australian councils consider homelessness a significant or acute issue in their communities, up from about 10 per cent in the 2010s. 

The finding comes from a recent University of New South Wales study, which said councils had been left ill-equipped and on the front lines of a post-pandemic housing crisis.

Published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues, the study surveyed 167 councils and included case studies across metro, regional and coastal areas.

Lead researcher Andrew Clarke, from UNSW’s School of Social Sciences and City Futures Research Centre, said the geography of homelessness had changed dramatically. 

“Homelessness is no longer an issue faced by a handful of inner-city councils, it’s become a widespread challenge across Australia,” Dr Clarke said.

“The post-pandemic housing crisis has pushed homelessness into communities that haven’t historically dealt with it.”

Councils were increasingly expected to act despite having no formal responsibility for homelessness policy or service delivery, the study found. 

More than three-quarters of councils said concerns from residents, businesses and community groups were the main trigger for action.

“As homelessness has become more visible in public spaces, councils – responsible for parks, libraries and streets – are effectively on the frontline of the crisis,” Dr Clarke said. 

Among councils that considered homelessness a significant issue, 95 per cent said it had worsened over the past five years. 

About two-thirds described the increase as “substantial”. 

Regional cities reported the highest concern levels, with 88 per cent identifying homelessness as significant, acute or very acute. 

The study found councils were increasingly acting as the “eyes and ears” of local homelessness systems, with many identifying rough sleepers and linking them to support services. 

Others co-ordinated charities and agencies or helped facilitate temporary accommodation and affordable housing projects. 

Researchers said councils were also shifting away from punitive responses, such as moving homeless people on from public spaces. 

“There’s been a real cultural shift, councils want to prioritise care and co-ordination rather than compliance,” Dr Clarke said. 

But these efforts were being undermined by severe shortages of affordable and social housing, the report said.

Nearly 80 per cent of councils surveyed cited financial pressures as a major barrier, while many also pointed to staff shortages and limited legal powers. 

Local governments can play an important role in responding to homelessness, Dr Clarke said.

But lasting change would require major investment in social housing and stronger co-ordination between all levels of government.

“The takeaway is clear: councils are part of the solution, but they can’t do it without the resources and housing supply needed to back them up,” he said.

There is a lot of talk about Joyce’s former Coalition colleagues coming out and joining him. Tim Wilson didn’t rule out the Thrup-olition – the Coalition and One Nation joining together and the LNP’s Col Boyce is again making noises about joining One Nation (timeless statement)

Joyce is enjoying having some power and relevancy again and he’s not afraid to use it.

To his former colleagues thinking of jumping ship and joining him, Joyce says:

Well, that’s a question for them, and it’s there’s two parts of that – [them] with their desire to join and our desire to have them. It’s not, it’s not just because you jump doesn’t mean we catch you.

…It’s not an open door that anybody who wishes just walks into One Nation, just like anybody who wishes just can’t walk into the Labor Party, Liberal Party, or I imagine the National party. I mean, obviously [the Coalition] political party really do have to do some soul searching after the weekend that was catastrophic.

That is almost, that’s almost a signal that things might be over.

So, so yeah, let’s, let’s see.

Joyce is asked by the ABC’s Sally Sara about comments on the weekend that Western Sydney was next for One Nation (which the seat of Lindsay, which is held by the Liberal’s Melissa McIntosh is one which could be impacted, but there are a lot of seats where Pauline Hanson’s ‘no such thing as a good Muslim’ abhorrent comments are going to be remembered.

Joyce (again – this is how he is speaking this morning):

How often have we had people say, does One Nation…do people, are people over, especially in the media, saying there’s One Nation realistically, and that just belies the fact that the polls, multiple polls, have now been corroborated by an election in South Australia, now at a federal election in New South Wales.

It’s a choice of the people as to who the government of Australia is. And what we do see is major parties, they can’t think of any other reason why they should be getting rid of One Nation, but sort of conceited statement, oh, you’re not a party of government. Well, let’s finish that with a rejoinder. Yet.

How far does Joyce see One Nation’s potential as going?

Joyce:

It is far as the Australian people want it to go, I suspect. And you know, as things evolve over time, the book, the base broadens, and the skill sets, by reason of your numbers coming in, also increase. And therefore it is up to One Nation, and it’s up to the deliberations and the views of the Australian people as to where they end up.

And his message to the major parties? (It seems to be, be more like Singapore)

Democracy is alive and well and dynamic, and people will make choices. And if you do not ever up and start asking yourself this question, why is it that there is an island off the Malaysian peninsula with no coal, no oil, no gas, no cattle, no irrigation, no uranium. And it has an economy, and it’s called Singapore, has an economy about a quarter to a third of the size of Australia. And the difference between their future and they have got three distinct ethnic groups, and they manage to keep them together, the difference between them and us is called management. And unless you get the management right, then the future and the potential of Australia is is lost.

And his message to Albanese?

Same thing. Don’t think if people say, Oh, this is just something you know, like, you know John the Baptist, the voice cries out in the wilderness, you’re wrong. This is a dynamic change. And talking to people last night in the western suburbs of Sydney, last night, they’re quite at home, the idea of One Nation being a dominant force in Western Sydney, absolutely 100% on board with the idea.

Barnaby Joyce is up next and he is asked about what is the wider message of the Farrer by-election for the major parties, including his former party, the Nationals.

Joyce will be joined as a One Nation MP in the House by David Farley who romped it in at the Farrer by-election on the weekend.

Joyce is in a good mood:

The message is a more sort of pragmatic approach to economics, more realistic approach to immigration, and understanding that the Australian nation has to come first. And let’s go through a couple of policy reasons that sit behind that the climate change department has not changed the climate it has brought about and been part of record insolvencies in small business. There are massive savings to be made by removing climate change department, removing climate change policy. We have to be pragmatic. We have to be adults. We have to move back to what we can actually do, which is coal fire power. We have to understand that without cheap energy, you just do not have the capacity to succeed in business and this eternal promise that things will get better in the future. Just hang around and wait for it.

People are over that, just like they’ve changed their votes in other areas…such as immigration, you’re against immigration, but there has to be a pragmatism about this, the idea that you can have a complete change in the social construct of Australia without creating heat, without creating disunity, without making life difficult for our children and our grandchildren now and into the future, is is foolishness, and it was proved foolishness in the tragic circumstances of such places as Bondi. These are decisions some people may find unpalatable, but we’ll see that as finally, they are getting the alternative for people to tell you as it is, and in the background, people say, my life just hasn’t got better under either the Labor Party or do I believe it will get better under the coalition?

(That’s not a garbled transcription – this is how he is speaking this morning)

Anthony Albanese is then asked about this incident (as reported in The New Daily):

…[A] 42-year-old woman is accused of making antisemitic comments during a junior game between Saints Netball Club and Maccabi Netball Club, a Jewish community club.

She was issued a move-on direction at the game and on Sunday was charged by police with using offensive language in a public place.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $660 fine or a community corrections order.

Netball NSW confirmed the woman had been banned from attending or participating in any netball activities while the matter is investigated.

Albanese:

Look it’s a major challenge here and around the world. I think one of the things that is happening is that people say extraordinary things in social media and online, and it’s a short step between reading that and it being normalised. And then to use the allegation, I understand there are charges here, so I won’t go into the specific but the idea that anyone would go to a children’s sporting event and say anything that is hateful, let alone anything which is hateful on the basis of race or faith, is just beyond belief.

Frankly, and I think that we as a society need to come to terms with that. We need to be better. We need to have the discussion, which is a good thing that that is occurring, and it’s good that this was called out.

As for UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s future (it looks like he is about to be dumped as Labour leader after the disastrous UK council elections, which saw Reform pick up about 1200 wards and the UK Greens win a Labour mayoral seat for the first time in Wales) Albanese says he hopes he will stay (very unlikely)

Albanese:

He is a friend of mine, and I hope that Keir Starmer continues to serve as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was elected a relatively short period of time I’ve dealt with four prime ministers of Great Britain since I was elected as prime minister, and the revolving door of leaders does not lead to stability we’ve had in in Australia, of course, we had four elected Prime Ministers removed in a relatively short period of time.

One of the things that I think assists my government is the fact that we have had one prime minister, one treasurer, one finance minister, one defence minister, one energy minister, one foreign minister, in a period of time now for almost four years.

So that brings stability, and means you can get things done. And I think that is important, and I don’t want to see the UK go down the road that Australia went in, and then the UK followed for a period of time

Asked who is more ambitious in this budget, him or the treasurer, Albanese says:

We’re in sync, as we always are. My government is a government that works through issues collectively. We’re a proper cabinet government that go through proper cabinet processes and get the right outcomes as a result of that.

So does having 94 seats make him feel like he can do whatever he wants (paraphrased)

Albanese:

I made it very clear when I went to the National Press Club, that we were determined to deliver on the commitments that we’d made, and to do that quickly. Last year has been a year of delivery, but we also said that wasn’t the limit of our ambition. There’s a range of measures that we’ve had to take to respond to… you’d recall we didn’t, certainly didn’t say that we would cut fuel taxes, but we’ve done that. In response to the circumstances which are there, we’ll respond.

So how are circumstances different now to the election, Albanese is asked:

How they are different is that they continue to be entrenched without reform, and that’s the point for a long period of time, young people have tried to save for a home. Another year has passed since the election, and not enough has changed, and so many people have had another year of missing out at auctions, of renting and paying someone else’s mortgage, and too many young people are close to giving up on the opportunity of owning their own home.

The question is repeated:

Well, government is about making the right decisions for the right reasons, for the times that you are in, and that is what we’re driven by, by the best outcome for the nation. And if we do change our position on any policy, we will explain why it is that that is occurring. We know that a big priority of my government has been since 2022 has been housing. We’ve had the housing Australia Future Fund. We’ve had the Shared Equity scheme. We’ve had the environmental changes to fast track housing approvals. We’ve had the National Housing accord. We’ve had all of these measures in place. We do need to do more and use every lever at our disposal.

A lot of the media are very focused on whether changing negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount is a “broken promise”.

There is a lot in this, and most of it dates back to Howard, who made a very big thing about ‘broken promises’ while also setting up ‘core and non-core promises’ (which included the GST). The thing is, it only ever seems to be a ‘broken promise’ when it comes to doing something around equality or social equity. The same media scrutiny is not applied to fossil fuel decisions, or defence decisions, or any other major reform the government does – but the moment it comes to distributing wealth a little more equally, suddenly it’s ‘a broken promise’.

There was the same outrage from sections of the media over the changes to stage three tax cuts – in fact, pre-empting the change as ‘IT WILL BE A BROKEN PROMISE’ was the debate before the government even did anything.

It’s all a bit exhausting. Governments should be able to react to changing circumstances and people’s needs, and create policy that works, rather than stick to something that isn’t working.

End rant.

Asked about changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount which is expected in the coming budget, and whether that is a broken promise, Albanese says:

Well, I’ll make two points. Firstly, tomorrow, we’ll deliver a budget that is focused on relief for working people, on resilience, for our economy and for reform. And my top priority is looking after Australians today, but how do we set Australia up for a secure future? And we know people are under pressure, and the easy path is to say, ‘Oh, well, we’ll just sit back and watch that occur’.

The difficult decision, but the right decision is to do the right thing with the right policies to deliver. And clearly, people are frustrated issues like intergenerational equity.

People are worried that younger Australians are never going to get a crack at home ownership. And that’s not just the young people themselves, of course, that’s their parents and their grandparents. And any responsible government like ours has to take these issues seriously. We want to meet our 1.2 million new homes target. We want to use every lever possible. We know the key to all of this is supply, and that’s why, even today, you’ve got an announcement with half a billion dollars, it’ll be in tomorrow night’s budget to implement the historic environmental reforms to get housing built quicker.

The prime minister is doing his morning rounds – usually this would be the job of a backbencher, but given the budget is out tomorrow and the Liberals are suffering even more, Albanese is getting out and about with the morning lines.

His team have done a lot of work in getting him to narrow down lines, and getting him to stick to them.

He’s speaking to ABC radio RN this morning, where the conversation starts on Farrer:

I think the Liberal Party and National party made a big mistake legitimising One Nation, and saying, in adopting many of their policies, but a lighter version of them, and then following that up by giving them preferences, they were saying, effectively, that it was okay to vote for One Nation rather than the traditional conservative party.

So I think also, there’s been a great deal of disappointment with the breakup of the Coalition, not once, but twice, the removal of a leader who had represented, of course, that seat in Sussan Ley for 25 years, but who was removed without even being given the opportunity to do a single Budget reply.

And the way that that was done, having these meetings on the day of the funeral of one of their former colleagues, I think, left an extraordinary legacy of betrayal for people who had supported Sussan Ley for a long period of time, and also, quite clearly, there’s a lot of people under financial pressure who feel like the system isn’t working for them, and that’s a message for all political parties in the system

…I respect people’s right to vote, whatever way they determine. But One Nation, of course, is not a party of government. They are a political party led by someone who’s promoted grievance rather than solutions. And I understand, though a protest vote will be will be cast – in this case, it was a devastating result, I think, for Angus Taylor and the Liberal Party,

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live. There is no parliament today, but there is a lot of politics, as the Coalition starts to panic about what One Nation’s raging success in Farrer looks like for its future (nothing good) and Labor tries to get as much positive attention on its coming budget as possible.

So even though there is no sitting, there will be plenty of pleading. And explaining. And, from what seems to be about so far, a nice dose of delusion as well. Good times.

You’ve got Amy Remeikis with you for most of the day, and I have had two coffees so far, while my cats have had two breakfasts (it is still not enough apparently). It’s going to be a bit of a busy day, but we’ll also bring you fact checks and some explainers – send me your questions and I’ll get them answered.

Ready? Let’s get into it.