Australia Institute Live: Anthony Albanese makes case for re-election in one of the last QTs of the 47th parliament. As it happened.

And on that note, we are going to shut down Australia Institute Live’s trial run and let it get some sleep.

Thank you to the thousands who came and had a look – and stuck around – and please send through your thoughts as users (amy.remeikis@australiainstitute.org.au) (and yes, we are working on commenting options, because I miss your views on a blog too!).

We will be running this during parliament, the election and special events, so thanks for coming along as we build this together. You are a huge part of what we are doing and we truly appreciate you spending some time with us, and engaging with your democracy.

We’ll see you back here soon – until then, do good and take care of you. Amy x

In other news, a record number of journalists were killed in 2024, according to a report by US non-profit organisation Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), reports AAP:

At least 124 journalists and media workers were killed, with nearly two-thirds of them Palestinians killed in Israel’s war in Gaza, the CPJ said.

“The toll of conflict on the press is most glaring in the unprecedented number of journalists and media workers killed in the Israel-Gaza war, 85 in 2024, and 78 in 2023.”

The CPJ said the number of conflicts globally – whether political, criminal or military in nature – had doubled in the past five years.

“All of the 2024 killings point to the increased dangers facing reporters and media workers – and the threat that poses to the flow of information worldwide.”

Outside of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, CPJ documented the killing of 39 other journalists and media workers in 16 nations, with the deadliest being Sudan, Pakistan, Mexico, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq and Haiti.

It is the highest toll since the CPJ began collecting data more than three decades ago. The previous record was 113 journalists killed in 2007, during the Iraq War.

“Conditions can grow more lethal for the press when those who kill journalists are not held to account. And fewer journalists means less information for citizens seeking the truth,” the CPJ warned.

Forty-three of those killed in 2024 were freelancers, “another grim new record for self-employed members of the press who often face the most danger because they have the fewest resources,” the CPJ said.

Under international humanitarian law, journalists are considered civilians and targeting them in a conflict is a war crime.

Thirty-one of those freelancers were killed in Gaza, more than double the 14 killed in 2023.

The Greens are also jumping on the ‘this is what we have done’ bandwagon as everyone hedges bets around whether this is the last parliament or not.

The three ‘Greens win in parliament to Dutton-proof our future’ are listed as:

Subsidised childcare now, not after the election – Early Childhood Education & Care (3 day guarantee)

Backing Clean energy in law until 2030 – Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. 

No future for fossil fuels or uranium under Future Made in Australia 

So not a bad fortnight’s work.

Anthony Albanese sticks around after QT to hear Bob Katter’s statement on indulgence about helps for the floods and better road infrastructure in north Queensland and to respond. He makes a point of saying how well the federal government has been working with the state LNP Queensland government to respond to the floods disaster.

That’s because a) that’s what you would expect from governments during a climate disaster where lives and livelihoods are on the line and b) well David Crisafulli and Peter Dutton aren’t exactly best friends.

Looking back at question time, which, given we are in the pointy end of the election cycle could be the last one (although Labor peeps are still pointing to May, at least privately – but honestly, who the hell knows and ultimately, it truly doesn’t matter) you could see two things at play:

The Coalition continuing to push what it could out of the anti-Semitic allegations

The Coalition trying to make a point of Labor’s term as ‘1,000 days in power’ (the language being a deliberate choice because it makes it seem like it has been a lot longer than almost three years) and the failures it sees from what was promised to what was delivered (housing, energy prices etc) and Labor seeking to cement its record against the Coalition – while reminding everyone that Peter Dutton has been in parliament for a long, long time and a major part of the former ten years of Coalition governments.

And this is what you are going to see in the election campaign proper. Day in, day out.

Anthony Albanese ends with this:

We have an economy that is growing. We have inflation which is down to a 4-year low. We have wages that are up, pay packets growing at the fastest pace since 2012, unemployment on average is at the lowest it has been under any government in 50 years. The context of a global economic crisis. 1.1 million jobs created – more than two-thirds of them have been full-time. We had the smallest gender pay gap on record. Fewer days lost to industrial disputes, a record number of small businesses and record business investment. We have delivered tax cuts for every single taxpayer, cost of living support rollout, energy bill relief, Cheaper Child Care Bill, cheaper medicines, extra GPs, extra GP appointments and fee-free-TAFE – the largest increase in Rent Assistance of 45% over two increases in 30 years. Student debt relief for 3 million Australians with more to come.

The first back-to-back surpluses in two decades. Less debts to the tune of $200 billion saved as a result of the hard work that we have done.

I am asked about alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition was a senior Minister for everyday of the former government. Every day. Every Australian will remember all too well what he means when he speaks about going back, back to rising inflation, back to wages being kept deliberately low, back to aged care in crisis, bulk billing in freefall, childcare being out of reach, back to chasing manufacturing offshore, back to Australia being completely isolated on the world stage, back to secret ministries and robodebt, back to wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of community car Parkes that were not anywhere near train station.

At the beginning of the show, he was appointed Health Minister, he was so bad that he was dumped by Tony Abbott but you know what was worse? He was replaced by Sussan Ley.

And then question time ends.

Anthony Albanese seems to be winding up for the big finish here with this dixer.

This answer smells like the last QT of this session (and maybe the parliament) is done.

Back to the non-government questions and one which actually matters to people, Andrew Wilkie asks:

In 2023, National Cabinet agreed on nine reforms under a better deal for renters. Both National Shelter and the tenants union note that in Tasmania the state government is not pursuing six of the nine reforms so why is the Tasmanian Government allowed to slow walk these reforms and will the federal government inject some urgency into nationally consistent protections for renters?

Housing minister Clare O’Neil:

I want to thank the Member for Clark for his question about a subject that we have a really shared passion for and that is the situation faced by renters across our country right now.

I know that the member will be meeting with his constituents, as I do, not necessarily young renters, but renters who are middle aged, have children of their own and are living in that precarious situation where they get move from property to property and sometimes have to move their kids from school to school.

This is something I don’t want to see and people sometimes asked me in this job “What gets me out of bed in the morning” and one of them is this.

If we go back to the year I was born, 60% of low income people owned their own home. Today it is 20%. This tells us we have not only a long-term issue with housing in our country but because just because of housing the experience of low income people is different to what it was 40 years ago. Implicit in the member’s question is an acknowledgement that these really important issues of the rights of renters sit at the state level.

Almost all previous governments have said ‘we want nothing to do with this problem” but that does not been the case with this government. The Prime Minister has placed housing at the heart of our government’s agenda and instead of ignoring this problem has sat down with the states, made an agreement, the National Housing Accord, and part of that is asking the states to sign up to these things like banning competitive rent increases and minimum standards for rental accommodation. The member asked about the performance of the Tasmanian Government. Each of the states reports to me in their progress and the last report I received was December 2024.

Tasmania reported that they are complete on seven of nine of their requirements and two of mine are in progress, so I see you shaking your head there. The National Shelter numbers are from earlier and I think that explains the discrepancy but if the member does not mind I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with him and go through the report and I am happy to sit down with him and push the government to move faster. No-one wants the states to move faster on this than me. It is an important part of the Government’s aged housing agenda and I thank him for his question.

Jason Clare received a dixer so he could take some shots at the Coalition’s tax breaks for schnitties and steaks policy and show why he remains the government’s best communicator when it comes to delivering the lines:

Just over an hour ago we passed laws through this place that will help more kids get a great start in life. That will help kids get ready to start school, that will guarantee their mums and dads get access to government supported early education and care and if you ever need an example of the difference between us and them, between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, this is it because they voted against it.

They voted against legislation to help some of the most disadvantaged kids and this country to get the early education that they need to start school ready to learn, it is a real-life example of opening the doors of opportunity for our kids and they voted to slam it shut. And here is the kicker, the argument that they use is that we cannot afford it.

But apparently we can afford billions of dollars for bosses to have lunch on the taxpayer. There is the difference. A three day guarantee for our kids and the Labor or make a free cause guarantee for bosses under the Liberal Party and this is not the only place where the difference is clear. We are fixing the funding of our schools and tying that funding to the sort of things that will help children who fall behind in school to catch up through things like free tutoring. If they went, that all goes.

Free tutoring replaced by free lunches again, leaving our kids [behind]. If we win the election, we will also do something else, we will cut student debt of three million Australians by 20 per cent. If they win, that will not happen either because they opposing that as well.

Mr Speaker, this was the press release from the shadow treasurer on 3 November on the day they said they were opposed to cutting student debt by 20 per cent and I promise you I’m not making this up. Their argument for opposing is this,’ there are no free lunches in economics. ‘ It turns out that there is. But only for the bosses. A bit of taxpayer funded chicken stuffed in a duck stuffed in a turkey which is a perfect analogy for this policy because I think most Australians will think it is stuffed.

Just returning to the Coalition’s attack against the Greens from earlier in question time.

A lot of the criticism against the Greens has been because of the party’s criticism against Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the West Bank. It has argued against genocide and pushed for Australia to stand up for international law and human rights. The Greens are not alone – the ICC has an arrest warrant out for Israel’s leader. Multiple human rights agencies have called what has happened in Gaza a genocide. Israel was found to be using starvation as a tool of war – against human right laws (and humanity) by Human Rights Watch. The actions of a nation state are not beyond criticism.

But as we have seen during the testimony from former senior ABC managers in the Antoinette Lattouf case in the federal court, and has we have seen multiple times since Israel entered Gaza in its latest (and deadliest) military campaign, criticism of Israel, has, in a lot of cases, become conflated with anti-Semitism.

As the Jewish Council of Australia has made clear on multiple occasions, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the state of Israel’s actions and conflating the two does not make Jewish people safer.

But the Coalition, aided in a lot of cases by a media scared of having to defend itself from anti-Semitic allegations and a government desperately trying to keep its head down on the issue, often conflates criticism of a nation state’s military actions and plans, which are in conflict with international law, with being anti-Semitic and run with it.

Anti-Semitism is real and terrifying. Everyone deserves to be safe and feel safe. It is a horror that so many people don’t feel safe in Australia – and that should be addressed across the board, not just when it is politically expedient.

Here is some of what the chamber looks like thanks to Mike Bowers’ social media:

And then the Liberal MP for Flinders, Zoe McKenzie asks the exact same question in a different way:

Tomorrow will be 1000 days since the election of the Albanese Labor Government. The Prime Minister promised he would halve migration numbers. Instead, he is bringing 1.8 million more people to Australia over five years during a housing crisis with higher rents and fewer homes being built. Why won’t the Prime Minister apologised for his week leadership and wrong priorities?

Albanese:

“I think that Member for her congratulation on our 1000 days in office. (INTERJECTIONS) those opposite want to present themselves as a fresh new phase during the campaign over coming months now, just like his predecessor Scott Morrison dead but the truth is he was a part of it all. 1000 days ago tomorrow, we did inherit a fair bit.“

Albanese then goes through what he sees the government as ‘inheriting’.

The Liberal MP for Cook Simon Kennedy (yes, I had to look up his name because I forgot) asks the same question:

Tomorrow it will be 1000 days since the election where the Prime Minister promised life would be cheaper under him. Instead, food is up 12%, gas, 34%, rent is up 17% and Australian families have paid $50,000 more on atypical mortgage. Why won’t the Prime Minister apologised to Australians for his weak leadership, bad decisions and wrong priorities?

Same answer, different bucket.

The LNP MP for Forde, Bert van Manen asks:

Tomorrow will be 1000 days since the introduction of the Albanese Government. You promised 275 delicate on power bills and that things would be cheaper under Labor. Cost of living has increased by nearly 20% and people are suffering nearly the longest recession on record. Why won’t this Prime Minister apologised to Australians for his week and poor decisions and his bad priorities?

You know the answer to this – you have heard it all week. But Bert seems happy to get a look in.

Labor MP for Moreton gets thrown out of the chamber for old time’s sake. It will be one of the last times he hears that from Milton Dick – we are sure he is cherishing it.

Wow. Still recovering from that.

The chamber moves on to a dixer from Brian Mitchell who is retiring from federal politics and the seat of Lyons (Rebecca White has been preselected to run in his place and yesterday resigned from the Tasmanian state parliament to concentrate on her federal tilt).

Mitchell says “my last question in this place is to the minister for health” which is doing nothing to calm the farms of the the election speculation scarecrows.

Anthony Albanese:

“I will make four points. You’re quite right that within this chamber, leaders and ministers cannot be asked about their decisions to be made by political parties.

The question clearly went to that and are refer to previous answers made by prime ministers, ministers, leaders of political parties that those decisions are matters for the political party. That is the first point that I make.

The second point is I just refer to your comments about the consent about the leverage in the question to say that. I will just referred to the director-general of ASIO about turning the heat down where possible. We have a responsibility to do that and it is in Australia’s interest that occur and I say that consistently.

The third issue that I will say is that the reasons why there are four current members of the Greens political party in the House of Representatives, all four of them are there and in the Member for Melbourne’s seat was because a political party gave preferences to Adam Bandt which saw upon Lindsay Tanner retirement as Member of Melbourne saw Adam Bandt elected and he has continued to serve.

As for the other three, the Queensland LNP made a decision to put the Queensland Greens into the Queensland by giving them preferences and getting them elected so that is the third point that I make.

The fourth point that I make is that I joined at a very young age a major political party that sought to be a party of government, the Australian Labor Party, a party that I have supported since I came out of the womb, Mr Speaker, and a party that seeks to make a difference because, like many of us on this side of the house, we were raised in families in which being Labor and making a difference and standing up for fairness and equity was something we were raised with from a very early age, whether it be from our parent or from the Josephite nuns”

Wow.

OK. Now the Liberal party are just going there.

Julian Leeser:

The Greens party is a racist anti-Semitic party. Will the Prime Minister join with the leader of the opposition in continuing to put the Greens last at the coming election?

The chamber erupts and Adam Bandt is immediately on his feet:

“It is a clear reflection on members and a disorderly statement and a request to have it withdrawn.

The chamber is still in disarray and a short back and forth over whether it is in order.

Dick:

I just ask the Member for Berowra to make sure his language is in line with standing orders. This is a very sensitive and hot topic, I understand that, but inflammatory language does not assist the chamber. I am not going to ask him to withdraw, but I remind all members, because it was not directed to an individual – as it was, as has happened before, I would ask the member to withdraw – but I just ask moving forward that we use language that everyone can live with.

Zali Steggall who was the centre of a firestorm when she accused the Coalition and Peter Dutton of being racist not so long ago (which the Coalition DEMANDED she withdraw) stands up:

“Just for clarification and consistency, because my understanding from the standing orders is it is a reflection on – the question included a reference to a party, completely separate to me, but it is a reflection on its members…No. I was required to withdraw when it was a reflection on policy and yet here it is a reflection on a party, the members of a party, and that is not contrary to the standing orders. So, for consistency, which I am sure everyone in this place would appreciate, I would submit respectfully that there is a discrepancy there.

There is a back and forth about precedence going back to Sneddon, with the ruling that it was ok for a collective group of people but not individuals and Steggall had mentioned Dutton specifically.

Anthony Albanese then answers the question.

After a fight with my computer we are back with question time where Julian Leeser asks the question we all knew was coming:

Under this Prime Minister, thugs were allowed to chant anti-Semitic hate speech on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. The Prime Minister refused to start a taskforce and Jewish homes have been threatened and vandalised. The Prime Minister promised Australians that social cohesion was his priority. With anti-Semitism getting worse, not better, what has our country become under your government?

Anthony Albanese‘s team also obviously expected this question as he has a whole timeline:

I have been opposed to racism in all its forms my entire life, including anti-Semitism.

And indeed, on the day or indeed the morning after the terrorist attack on 7 October, I was on Insiders condemning it unequivocally.

The next morning on the Today Show, I said this in response to the demonstration that took place that night – “There is nothing to celebrate by the murder of innocent civilians going about their day. Some of those who had been captured are young children enjoying life, enjoying each other’s company.

Word got out about the Opera House rally that was due.

I spoke before the rally on 2GB – “So, you on Prime Minister believe this march should not go ahead?” I was asked. I said this – “I absolutely believe it should not.”

I said there was nothing that could be achieved apart from creating a climate that is not conducive to peace. The day after those rallies, I went on to say, and in Sky News, 2GB and Sky News, so it should be familiar, went on to say – “We need to lower the temperature. I don’t want to see conflict in Australia and I don’t want to see the sort of things I saw last night. One of the reasons why I believe it was inappropriate to go ahead last night.”

I did a press conference in Port Lincoln in South Australia that day, of October. I said there again “I think there is nothing to celebrate here.”

I went on to speak about the rallies and said the actions we saw on the weekend need to be unequivocally condemned. I did that consistently at every single opportunity – every opportunity. I have continued to do that.

I note the comments of those, for reasons beyond my comprehension, who have argued that that was not the case. It is up to them to explain why that is not the case.

Why they suggest that rather than look for the absolute maximum of unity, some have sought a different road. In this parliament, we carried a resolution as well and there were some fine speeches that day. Anti-Semitism is a scourge. It is opposed by anyone who is decent.

What we saw in the videos yesterday is abhorrent. I have spoken today with premier Minns. He talked about the health minister travelling to Bankstown Hospital to make it very clear that the actions of these two reprehensible people in showing their hatred for people because they are Jewish, there anti-Semitism there for all to see without any shame or without any embarrassment, is overwhelmingly why people go into the help profession.

What I have sought and will continue to speak and I asked my friend here to join me with it because we have been on unity tickets before to join at every single opportunity to look for social cohesion and to look to bring people together rather than any suggestion that anything other than total condemnation of anti-Semitism is precisely what every person in my government has done – not just since 7 October, but our entire political lives, as one of the reasons why people join the Labor Party – because they believe in cohesion in our society, they believe in inclusion, they believe in diversity, because they believe and respect for people regardless of their faith or their origins.

If you want to see just how bad Australia’s protesting crack down has become, you can take a look at this research: it’s actually cheaper to pay to play with your MPs

The Greens are attempting to draw attention to the erosion of the right to protest in Australia, with a new bill enshrining that right.

David Shoebridge said:

“As one of many protesters around the country who has been arrested under these harsh laws I have seen their unfairness up close. 

“Governments are preparing for the inevitable public backlash against their continued inaction on climate change, inequality, and human rights. Rather than addressing these crises, they are seeking to criminalise those who expose them.

“Protest is a tactic used by those who can’t buy political parties or the decisions they want, by those who don’t control the media. 

“Rio Tinto doesn’t need to protest, but Traditional Owners of lands that are slated for destruction by their open cut mines often do. 

“Rupert Murdoch doesn’t need to march in the streets, but those demanding climate action from recalcitrant Governments do and are. 

“Importantly, this bill ensures that excessive penalties—such as lengthy prison sentences and exorbitant fines—are unlawful limitations on the right to protest. 

“Despite what Labor and Liberal Governments will say, Australia’s international obligations do not allow for restricting these fundamental freedoms solely to protect corporate profits or business convenience. 

“We need to resist this creeping authoritarianism and assert not just the right to protest but the right to disrupt until those in power listen.

We are about 20 minutes away from the final question time of the sitting.
And if you believe some of the election obsessives, of this parliament.

We don’t know when the election will be called. And ultimately, it doesn’t matter because government’s call it when they think it is most advantageous, and constant speculation about WHEN THAT MIGHT BE isn’t going to change that.

So go take a break and prepare for a mess.

And then this morning, as part of his weekly love in with Sydney radio station 2GB (a day early for Valentine’s Day, what a shame!) Peter Dutton then whirred up the citizenship debate again.

It was in the context of the Sydney nurses who have been stood down but it very quickly went to stripping people of Australian citizenship.

This is something Peter Dutton tried to do during the Malcolm Turnbull years, but lost that battle to then Attorney-general George Brandis, who despite his faults, is a student of law and was steadfast in how attempts to do what Dutton wanted were ILLEGAL.

A law was put in place for dual citizens. The high court had some things to say about that, so in 2023 Labor passed a new law that allowed for the people aged 14 or older to be stripped of citizenship “if the serious convictions “demonstrate that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia”. This includes cases of terrorism, espionage, advocating mutiny, foreign interference, and offences related to the use of explosives or lethal devices”.

Now Australia has just passed hate speech laws which make the line of what a ‘serious offence’ is very blurry. And Dutton is indicating he wants to see dual citizens stripped of their citizenship in cases like this. And he wants to make it an election issue:

As I say, I think it’s a conversation for our country at some point, maybe sooner than later, about how we can say to these people, ‘if you don’t share our values, if you’re here and you’re enjoying the welfare system and you’re enjoying free health and free education, then at the same time you hate our country, well, I don’t think you’ve got a place here’. So, I think there is a time for a public debate about the inadequacies of the system that we’ve got at the moment and how we can address it. “

We are on a very slippery slope here.

LNP senator Paul Scarr, who spoke after Peter Whish-Wilson immediately jumped to the defence of both Advance, and the Atlas Network:

What an extraordinary spray that was! My goodness. I’ve just gone onto the website of Atlas Network, and this is their vision; I’ll quote it for the record:
‘The Atlas Network vision is of a free, prosperous, and peaceful world where the principles of individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and free markets are secured by the rule of law’.
What an outrageous proposition, Senator Whish-Wilson!

As part of the general blurb you gave there, can I just say to my friends at the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies: what you’re doing must be working. It must be working if you have a Greens senator getting up in this place and giving you such a spray.

Keep doing what you’re doing.

When the people of Australia go to vote at the next federal election, they have every right
to know the detail of the radical, extreme Greens’ economic and social policies, because they’d have a devastating impact upon the Australian people. So more strength to your arm, I say.

Peter Whish-Wilson finished with:

Advance and a proliferation of other dodgy groups have campaigned against offshore wind farms, supposedly saying they kill whales, an entirely false claim that has been at the centre of exactly the same campaign against clean energy mounted by—guess who?—Atlas units in the United States like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is funded by fossil fuel interests and climate denial specialists
the Heartland Institute, which is, once again, funded by big oil.

This is particularly acute and relevant to us now, and I ask people who are interested in this subject to go onto the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee’s public page for its inquiry into offshore wind, where there is some very telling evidence from Dr Jeremy Walker about how this all works and the extraordinary efforts and resources that have been committed in the United States and here in Australia to undermine the offshore rollout of wind and other renewable energies. The entire pro-nuclear campaign that is now dominating the headlines is also linked to Advance and to the Atlas Network.

I want to talk a little bit more about the news today. It was reported that Advance is now under investigation by the Victorian Electoral Commission for potential violations of campaign finance law after receiving half a million dollars from the Cormack Foundation, the same funding entity that donated a million dollars to the Victorian Liberal Party in 2023-24.

The elite billionaire rich-listers backing Advance play as dirty as the coal they so desperately want
to keep digging out of the ground. These people have no interest in progressing policy that would materially benefit working Australians, bring down the cost of living or make people’s lives easier. Advance is not a mainstream voice for Australians; it is a Liberal Party aligned campaign group funded by coal barons and multimillionaire investment managers. It is using the divisive language and campaign strategies perfected by conservative American think tanks to do the Liberal Party’s dirty work.

Have no doubt: Advance wants to turn Australia into America. Is that what we want?

Advance are terrified because analysts are predicting a shared-power parliamentary arrangement after the next election, where the Greens will push to put dental and mental health into Medicare, build more affordable homes and stop new coal and gas projects paid for by Advance’s billionaire donors. This election, the Greens are within reach of winning seats across the country, and Advance are desperately trying to stop that. We wear that as a badge of honour. But we know that, when the Atlas Network and Advance’s mask is ripped off, people will see right through them and their wealthy elites and the way the LNP couples themselves to them and their donors.

What is astroturfing? Peter Whish-Wilson told the Senate:

Astroturfing is the intentional creation and fostering of ostensibly grassroots political action groups by strategic communications experts. The far right uses this tactic to build superficial authenticity in what are in fact highly elaborate, professional, socially and environmentally damaging PR and disinformation campaigns. Advance launders far-right ideology through fake grassroots organisations and Facebook pages, and Advance has no problems using its resources and millionaires’ money to sow division and doubt.

We saw this firsthand during the Voice; we are seeing it manifesting itself in many other ways now. Many Australians don’t know it, but this Voice campaign wasn’t led by Peter Dutton; the Voice campaign was led by two individuals who had their entire political careers generated from the Australian arm of the global Atlas Network of so-called free market think tanks and their spin-off campaign units.

Little information or media attention was ever provided to the Australian people or voters on the organisation Advance—who they were, who they represented and who was paying for it. To better understand Advance, we need to understand where Advance comes from. We need to understand who is behind Advance’s mission to destroy climate action, stop progressive social policy and line the pockets of billionaires and multinational fossil fuel corporations at the expense of working Australians. Advance was spun out of two existing Atlas think tanks in Australia: the Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs. Its donors include Sam Kennard, a multimillionaire on the board of the Centre for Independent Studies, Simon Fenwick, another multimillionaire on the board of the Institute of Public Affairs, Brian Macfie, a life member of the institute of Public Affairs, and a coal baron made rich by the privatisation of New South Wales coal assets, Trevor St Baker.

Peter Whish-Wilson then went through the Australian connection:

As was once declared on the website of the US based Atlas Network, the Australian Atlas
partners include the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance in Sydney, the Australian Institute for Progress in Brisbane—which, in the last Queensland election, was funded directly by coal mining—and the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation in Perth, which trains interns for so-called scholarships working on political campaigns all around the world.

We all remember the cynical and dishonest recent campaign against the Voice to Parliament in Australia. Professor Marcia Langton recently described this campaign as ‘vicious disinformation’. Evidence is emerging of the role played by third-party think tanks in this travesty, all affiliated with the Atlas Network, such as the Institute of Public Affairs, the Centre for Independent Studies, fossil fuel interests and, of course, the astroturfing group Advance.

Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson has become the latest Greens senator (after David Shoebridge) to mention the Atlas Network in the Australian parliament:

On Tuesday night, Whish-Wilson said:

I wish to shine a light on and warn the Australian people of the international Atlas Network, a little-
known but powerful global network of political actors operating in Australia, the United States, New Zealand and, indeed, 100 other countries. It is producing disinformation on a vast scale through its 580 partner organisations and working to infiltrate and take key roles in public institutions to achieve discipline and control over government policy, legislation, the media, the courts and the public service. It is a many-headed hydra, constantly changing its shape.

Its tentacles firmly clutch Australia.
The forces at work creating this torrent of divisive, dishonest and dangerous politics are indeed deep, dangerous and murky, and you won’t see them by looking at the surface. Staying afloat against such a toxic tide firstly requires a much better understanding of the forces shaping these dangerous undercurrents and where they want to lead us.
We need to see with clear eyes what we are truly up against. The election and brazen madness of this Trump administration and the ascension of Mr Dutton in the polls didn’t happen overnight. This happened over many, many decades

Look at that – normal weather means better than predicted financial results for insurance companies. Because as they say – even if you don’t believe in climate change, your insurance company does.

As AAP reports:

Insurance Australia Group shares have plunged to a more than two-month low after the insurance giant reported better-than-expected profit but an underwhelming payout to shareholders.

IAG on Thursday said its net profit after tax for the six months to December 31 was up 91.2 per cent to $778 million, thanks in part to favourable weather that meant fewer natural disaster claims.

IAG said it made an insurance profit of $857 million, as its natural peril claims, which have been elevated over the past four years, came in $215 million below allowance. 

“Our results reflect the volatility of our sector and the fact we’re often subject to factors outside our control,” said chief executive Nick Hawkins.

“The good years help us weather the bad and be well-positioned to pay future customer claims.”

The recent storms, floods and the Los Angeles wildfires were a stark reminder of the need to be a well-prepared nation, Mr Hawkins added.

The company behind the brands NRMA Insurance, SGIO, SGIC and CGU paid out $5.2 billion in claims during the half-year.

IAG said it would pay a 12 cents per share interim dividend, up from 10 cents from a year ago, but under analysts’ predictions.

In mid-morning trading, IAG was the worst-performing ASX200 component, down 9.3 per cent to $8.095.

Last night, Liberal Senator Jane Hume announced they’d done a deal with the Albanese Labor Government on electoral laws – and some twelve hours later, it became law, having been rushed through both houses of parliament.

Labor’s compromises with the Coalition have worsened the bill even further:

• Instead of a disclosure threshold of $1,000, which would have revealed cash-for-access payments from lobbyists and corporate interests, the threshold has been raised to $5,000. Since the Albanese Government normally charges between $1,500 and $5,000 for privileged access, expect to see a lot of $4,999 fundraisers in the future. A lobbyist would have to be a repeat customer to have their cash-for-access payments revealed under the higher threshold.
• The Government’s rhetoric of keeping millionaire influence out of politics is looking thin with the increased donation cap of $50,000 (up from $20,000). Since the major parties have nine branches, and they can take four donations per donor every three years, that means a single person or company could give $1.8 million to a major party every election cycle.
• A carve-out for peak bodies means the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and other lobby groups for vested interests can take up to $250,000 from each member, five times the $50,000 that actual Australian voters are capped at.

It has been a rushed, secretive and dismissive process to pass the laws through Parliament. Last night, the Senate was expected to debate the bill without even seeing what amendments Labor and Liberal had prepared. The biggest changes to election laws in 40 years should have faced proper scrutiny by a multi-party parliamentary inquiry. 

Fortunately, the laws do not come into effect until the election after next, around 2028. That means there is still a chance for the next parliament to address the transparency gaps, major party loopholes and unfair treatment of independents and new entrants.

Just returning to my favourite thing to happen today – Ted O’Brien and the Coalition admitting that yes, nuclear power would take a shit tonne of extra water to run by pretending it is the same thing as environmental buy backs from the Murray Darling scheme, Ted O’Brien and the Coalition have also admitted there that they have no idea what they are actually even proposing.

Incredible areas, 10/10.

“Given the nuclear technology for Australia is yet to be selected, this claim by Labor is completely flawed,” O’Brien says in his statement.

So what are those costings the Coalition is using to claim it won’t actually cost $500bn to get this plan up and running (not that it intends on making nuclear a reality but still – this is their argument).

So what did Frontier Economics cost then (the costings the Coalition are using) and if the nuclear technology for Australia is yet to be selected, how can the Coalition argue that it WON’T cost another $500bn?

God I love this job sometimes.

In perhaps the most lol-worthy event this week, the Coalition has responded to Tanya Plibersek’s ‘where is the water coming from for the Coalition’s ‘nuclear plants’ by…admitting that if they ever were to exist they would take a shit tonne of water to run (turns out you have to cool nuclear reactors, who knew?) and then comparing it to the Labor government’s buy back scheme for the Murray Darling River.

The government is buying back water from Murray Darling licence holders for the environment. It is literally for the health of the river, especially downstream in South Australia, where the water removal was having a massive impact on the viability of the river eco-system.

This is apparently the same as using a shit tonne of water to cool nuclear reactors (or, in Australian water measurement terms ‘finding an additional Sydney Harbour of water every year’.

At least according to the Coalition’s Perin Davey and Ted O’Brien:

Tanya Plibersek needs to answer her own questions with regards to water buybacks and how their plans to purchase more than 500GL water from the Murray Darling Basin will impact communities and farmers,” Shadow Water Minister, Perin Davey said.

“How can Minister Plibersek’s supposed concerns be taken seriously when she has no concern about taking water away from other water users herself.”

Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O’Brien said the figures being pushed by Labor have zero credibility and is a pathetic attempt to deflect from new reports on their failed all-eggs-in-one-0basket ‘renewables-only’ policy.

“Modern nuclear plants have different cooling systems including wet systems which use water, dry systems which don’t use water, along with other emerging designs which use other innovative systems,” Mr O’Brien said.

“Given the nuclear technology for Australia is yet to be selected, this claim by Labor is completely flawed.”

“The Coalition has been clear that water security for communities and food production will be a priority in the comprehensive site characterisation studies at each location.”

Sure babes. Sure. Nice try.

Origin today announced an interim profit for the half year to 31 December 2024.

Its preferred measure – its “underlying profit” (which excludes things like currency fluctuations) increased by 24% to $924 million from $747 million in the same period last year.

Its statutory profit (the one calculated according to the rules) was $1,143 million or $243 for every customer.

Annualising the profit figure and comparing with the equity in the company gives a pre-tax yield of 22%. Not bad for a utility with a near certain cash flow.

AGL released its results yesterday and showed a large fall in profits due to some one-offs. Nevertheless AGL broke down some of their customer figures and showed large businesses paid $192.3/MWh (Megawatt hour) compared with $359.9/MWh for consumer customers.

So ordinary consumers paid a premium of 87% compared with business customers. We cannot get similar figures from Origin’s half-year report.

For gas, AGL charged large business $12.4/GJ (gigajoule) and consumer customers $38.8/GJ – pretty amazing hey?

Further to that statement Phillip Boulten SC has said:

‘Australia cannot remain silent in the face of President Trump’s aggressive sanctions on the International Criminal Court which potentially target Australian human rights workers and their families.

‘These extensive financial and travel sanctions aim to cripple a key international law institution which counts Australia as a leading supporter and contributor since 2002.

‘The ICC, with the International Court of Justice and the Genocide Convention, sits at the heart of Australia’s and Labor’s advocacy for human rights and international law. 

‘Labor Friends of Palestine calls on the Federal Government to join 79 member States including the UK and Canada that have declared unwavering support for the independence, impartiality and integrity of the ICC.

‘Australia should clarify the Government’s response should the Trump Administration target Australians working with the ICC.

‘The Federal Government should make clear to the US that any move to punish Australians for their human rights work is completely unacceptable and will be strongly opposed.

‘Australia should put measures in place to reassure and protect Australians who potentially face severe consequences under the Trump sanctions.

Labor Friends of Palestine has urged the Federal Government to “publicly oppose Trump Administration sanctions that could apply asset freezes and travel bans on Australians and their families working with the International Criminal Court (ICC)”.

From the statement:

The Government should clarify its intended response and any protections that Australia will provide to Australian nationals sanctioned by the US.

The sweeping Executive Order signed by President Trump on 6 February, 2025, targets any ‘foreign person’ engaged in or supporting certain ICC investigations and prosecutions. 

The Executive Order authorises extensive ‘blocking’ of property and assets held in the US and travel sanctions including against family members.

All Australians working for or with the ICC face potentially severe consequences under the US sanctions. 

These include special advisors appointed to the ICC Prosecutor, young professionals working under the ICC Junior Professional Officer Programme, Australians working with the ICC in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Australians employed in other ICC roles.

Australia is one of 125 State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC since 2002 and one of the Court’s top financial contributors.

The ICC is a key component of the international law structure which Australia has vocally supported throughout the current crisis in Gaza and the Middle East.

The ICC has called on its State Parties to stand against the sanctions which the ICC said ‘harm its independent and impartial judicial work’.

Australia did not sign a public statement supporting the ICC issued on 7 February by 79 member States including the UK and Canada.

How will Trump’s 25 per cent steel and aluminium tariffs actually work?

On the latest episode of Follow the Money, Australia Institute Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff explains tariffs, trade deficits, and how big a deal this will be for Australia.

Part of the additional response between the Queensland and federal governments to the flood disaster is the impact it will have on primary producers – and the agriculture sector.

Jenny McAllister said:

In terms of the Queensland grants, can I say that the Australian Government is concerned about our primary producers and farmers in a small businesses in Queensland which is why we are stepping up as soon as we have been asked by the Queensland Government to support these grants. As the minister said, over $100 million, $72 million for primary producers for the recovery phase, up to $25,000 in grants, $25 million in grants for small businesses and not for profits. Again, after $25,000 for those who are eligible. Of course the emergency support to eligible primary producers as well as the rural landholder grants of up to $10,000. This money will be critical to primary producers in Queensland as they recover from these floods. We know that particularly sugarcane and bananas may be impacted. But we are waiting for our primary producers and farmers to get better access on the ground to tell us just how big an impact this has had. I want to say two Queenslanders and our farmers in Queensland that we are there with you, we are supporting you and we are working with other tiers of government on the ground to do everything we can do to support you in this very difficult time.

It is not exactly what consumer groups wanted – banks having to take responsibility if their customers fall for scams, but there is movement in that direction.

Stephen Jones and Michelle Rowland have announced a new scams prevention framework:

Initially, the Government will designate banks, telcos, and social media companies under the Framework. These businesses will be subject to comprehensive and enforceable sector-specific rules for what they must do to protect Australians.

For example, the rules may include:

• Social media companies being required to verify advertisers on their platforms – a critical step to ridding their pages of fake scam ads
• Banks being required to confirm the identity of payees – so people know exactly where their money is going 
• Telecommunications companies being required to detect and disrupt scam numbers sending texts and calls to innocent Australians

Businesses will have substantial incentive to have ironclad scams defences, with fines of up to $50 million applied on those who fail to meet their obligations.

Victims will have clear pathways to compensation if the business fails to meet robust standards.

The Government has invested over $180 million to fight scams including establishing the National Anti-Scams Centre and funding ASIC to bust fake investment websites that promote scams.

Independent MP Zali Steggall wants everyone in parliament to commit to a code and promise not to publish ads that are deceptive, or misleading.

“One of the points that the Australian Institute is calling for is truth in political advertising and I’ve certainly been calling for it in the absence of political will by the government and the opposition,” she said.

“(The Ethical Political Advertising Code, which is a pledge by me, will carry that mark on my advertising that my claims will be and the code principles that the claims will be accurate, not misleading or deceptive.

“They will be precise and substantiated (and) all claims must be supported by valid, reliable and precise evidence, and three that they be credible.

“Advertised ads must only use genuine and accurate endorsements and will not use deepfakes or AI.”

Ms Steggall said she will be writing to her colleagues in parliament,  the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Greens and her colleagues on the crossbench to commit to this code, because “the Australian public should know the absence of commitment to this code means they want to keep open the loophole to lie to you.”

Telling the truth in your political ads. What a concept. Will be very interesting to see who decides to not back this idea.

It’s been happening a bit away from the fray, but the government did a deal with the big banks to ensure they keep banking services open in regional Australia.

The deal lasts until 2027, so it gets the government across the line for this coming election (that, along with the contingency plan to buy Rex airlines if a private buyer isn’t found – the regions are quite popular at the moment!)

Bob Katter has welcomed that announcement, but he wants to see a long term solution:

I’ve got to pay credit to the government here; they’ve moved against going cashless and they’ve moved against the closure of regional banks.”

Though there’s probably been more closures in the outer suburbs than the towns and regions. People think this is an issue for the bush, but the outer suburbs have done worse off than us.

So yes, we have to praise the government for this initiative. As well as all those who rose up in righteous anger over the closures – just as they did for the cashless proposals.”

But, while this provides temporary relief, it is not enough. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road. We need bold action to secure regional banking services for the future.”

Origin have just put out their earnings, as AAP reports:

Energy retailer and gas giant Origin Energy has reported a “strong” interim profit on lower taxes and improved gas earnings.

Origin, a major supplier to the east coast domestic gas market, on Thursday reported a statutory profit of $1.017 billion for the six months to December 31, up from $995 million a year earlier.

Underlying profit rose by almost a quarter to $924 million on improved earnings from gas and lower tax expenses, the company said.

Origin remains “well-placed” to benefit from the energy transition with its leading customer position in Australia and access to international growth through Octopus Energy in the United Kingdom,” chief executive Frank Calabria said.

Output from the aging Eraring coal-fired power station, set to keep running until 2027 under a deal struck with the NSW government, was “relatively stable”, the company said.

One of the “big three” electricity retailers in Australia, competing with AGL Energy and Energy Australia, Origin said it was making progress on building more renewable energy and storage assets.

“Good cash generation from our businesses and a strong balance sheet enabled Origin to increase returns to shareholders and invest in the energy transition,” Mr Calabria said.

More funding has been made available for those impacted by the north Queensland floods:

The Albanese Government is extending financial assistance to more communities in North Queensland affected by flooding and heavy rainfall through the Disaster Recovery Allowance (DRA).

From 2pm local time on Thursday 13 February 2025, the DRA will be extended to the Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Carpentaria, Cook, Croydon, Douglas, Flinders and Wujal Wujal.

DRA is available to individuals who live or work in the declared LGAs and have lost some or all of their income due to the disaster. To be eligible for DRA, a person’s income must have fallen below the average Australian weekly income as a result of the floods.

As at 11 February 2025, Services Australia has paid out more than $2 million in Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP) and DRA support to affected people in North Queensland.

Anthony Albanese spoke at a breakfast this morning commemorating the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generation (the one Peter Dutton boycotted).

Here is some of his speech:

The Apology was never intended as the end of the story, rather – as Prime Minister Rudd said – the beginning of a new chapter.
 
We put behind us the old chapter that took from you the most profound of rights: to grow up safely in your own family.
 
And together we write a chapter of self-determination.
 
The new chapter must be an Australia in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the same choices as non-Indigenous Australians.
 
An Australia in which the Government works carefully with you towards a future in which Indigenous Australians have the economic security of a job and a home.  
 
What guides my Government every day is the instinct to ensure all Australians get the same chance in life.
 
To work towards the reality in which all Australians have power over their destiny.
 
And this all began when you – and all survivors – through patience, persistence and grace at last found your nation was ready to hear your hard truths.
 

Which are lovely words, but it is also worth pointing out that since the referendum loss the government has done nothing to forward a truth-telling commission, or treaty.

While we are looking at electoral funding and how it works, ABC Wimmera has an interesting story about some of the ‘rules’ for MP’s funding – after Nationals MP Anne Webster used taxpayer funds set aside for a satellite office (MPs with big electorates are granted additional funding for smaller offices) on billboard style advertising on an empty shop front.

Webster has told the ABC she has done nothing wrong. You can read the story, here (It is also an excellent example of the work regional and rural ABC journalists do, everyday)

There is more coming from the Climate Integrity Summit as well – but yesterday revealed some hidden truths

Over in the house, the senate has returned the amendments it passed on the government’s electoral spending change legislation and the government has put those up for a vote lickety split – it of course, passes.

The bill will go for royal assent and then be in place in 2026 for the election after this coming one.

The parliament sitting day is under way – first up in the house, Labor MP Susan Templeman will table the report from the inquiry into family violence orders.

Expect a bit of gamemanship today – even if parliament sits as scheduled in March, there are not that many sitting days left for Labor to clear its agenda before the election.

Crossbench MPs will join the Institute’s Bill Browne at parliament this morning in launching a new range of measures the parliament could adopt to improve transparency.

The Australia Institute’s Democracy Agenda for the 48th Parliament proposed reforms include:

• Adopting Senate Innovations: Reforming the House of Representatives by introducing measures such as private members’ motions, simpler suspension of standing orders, and reforms to Question Time.
• Independent Staffing Allowances: Ensuring equitable staffing resources for crossbench and opposition members to improve the legislative process.
• Fixed three-year terms: Committing to full three-year terms to allow better planning of legislation and inquiries.
• Integrity and Open Government: Protecting integrity agencies such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission, strengthening whistleblower laws, and improving transparency in lobbying and political advertising.
• Political Finance Reform: Enhancing the transparency of political donations, including through real-time donations.

It is ‘Science meets Parliament’ day, when scientists and researchers from all over the nation come to Canberra to talk to MPs about their work and the importance of research fields.

How hard is it to get MPs to speak with people who know what they are talking about?

Ed Husic tells the ABC:

That is a really good question. When you look at what prompted Science Meets Parliament, it was a predecessor of mine, Barry Jones, telling scientists that they need to step up and need to, you know, advocate their case and talk about the value of their work because we do need to – I think us backing and investing in our own ideas matters. I think a lot of Australians get that, and the things that our minds have come up with here in Australia have changed lives literally, and scientists are at the – and researchers are at the forefront of that.

On criticisms of his electoral spending changes, particularly that independent candidates are capped while political parties have another pool of money they can spend in an electorate on top of their candidate cap (the senate spend) Don Farrell says:

“Can I say that they are completely wrong about that?“

I mean, sure, he can say it. But he would be wrong.

Farrell continues:

That [way things are] at the moment, there is no cap at all on how much candidates or parties can spend.

The major parties, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, have voluntarily capped the amount of money that they can spend on an election, so that in fact, it’s the opposite of the criticism that is being made about this legislation, we’re actually reducing the amount of money that major political parties can spend on an election, and that is to the benefit of all candidates.

And can I say this – we’ve kept the amount of money you can spend on a single electorate at $800,000 if you can’t get your message out to the Australian people with a spend of $800,000 then there’s something wrong with with your campaigning

This is going to get tiring very fast, but Farrell is deliberately ignoring that political parties CAN spend more in an electorate under these changes. While independents are limited to $800,000 an electorate, political parties can spend that, and then on top of that, they are allowed a $200,000 spend for senate candidates in every electorate a state has. Which means you can just send out a bunch of general party advertising and say its for the senate in the authorisation – while you outspend a community independent.

This doesn’t make it impossible for an independent to be elected – Dai Le did it against Kristina Keneally with just $80,000 in donations. But it’s not exactly an even playing field now is it?

Over on ABC radio RN Breakfast, trade minister Don Farrell is asked about Donald Trump’s top trade advisor Peter Navarro‘s claim that Australia broke a verbal agreement to limit aluminum shipments to the US after it was made exempt from the first round of Trump tariffs, made during the Turnbull/Morrison years.

The notes app version is in 2018, Australia received an exemption from tariffs under the Trump administration. But from 2019/2020, there was an increase (what the US now says is a ‘surge’) in Australian aluminum imports, which was largely under the Biden administration. Biden officials were not upset, but Trump officials, now back in office, are (the implication being that Australia should have stuck to whatever deal the Trump administration throught it had forever, even when Trump wasn’t in office).

It takes Farrell awhile to get there, but after some good, focused questioning from Sally Sara, he says:

I understand that there’s a ceiling to how much we we export to the United States. Of course, in the middle of all of this, you had the Russia, Ukraine war. And I understand that because of difficulties in arrangements between getting Russian aluminum into the United States, we increased the amount of aluminum that we supplied into the into the American market, but all of that was done with the full knowledge of the American government. We haven’t done at any stage, anything that the American government has not been comfortable with.

So the answer is – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine set off supply chain issues and Australia increased its shipments of aluminum to the States to fill the gap, and that was done with the full knowledge of the then-US administration.

Today is the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations (the one Peter Dutton boycotted).

There is a commemorative breakfast at parliament house which Anthony Albanese will address.

Ahead of today, The Healing Foundation released its report ‘Are you waiting for us to die?’ which looks at the Bringing Them Home report’s recommendations to government on how to support Stolen Generations and their families.

Handed down almost 28 years ago, only 6% of the recommendations have been fully implemented.

The National Indigenous Times reports:

The Healing Foundation’s chief executive Shannan Dodson said with survivor numbers declining every year, an urgent response was required from all sides of politics, all levels of government, police, churches and others with responsibilities to support the Stolen Generations.

We have already lost too many survivors, even in the last few weeks. Immediate and prioritised action is needed to provide equitable redress for all survivors, rectify issues preventing survivors from accessing their own family records, offer ongoing support for Stolen Generations organisations and ensure there are culturally safe, trauma informed aged care and health services for survivors,” Ms Dodson said.

Tanya Plibersek is also speaking to the modelling showing that Peter Dutton’s ‘proposed’ (the Coalition are not actually intending on making any of this a reality, but it’s working a treat to muddy the renewable energy transition – which was the point) nuclear plants would use three times as much water as a coal-fired power station.

You can read more on that, here

Plibersek says Australia is a “thirsty country” with “regular droughts” and there is already “a lot of contest about how we use water” so questions what the plan is here.

“What this analysis shows is to produce the same amount of electricity as coal, you need 40% more water. But Peter Dutton is saying that he wants to produce more electricity, and he wants to do it on existing coal-fired power stations and use the water that’s being used to produce coal to produce nuclear. Well, you’d actually need three times as much water as is currently being used on those coal-fired power stations to produce the amount of water that Peter Dutton’s talking about,” she said.

Ok, but what is that in the standard Australian measurement of water?

Plibersek:

“It’s about an extra Sydney Harbour’s worth of water that we would have to find every year.

Thank you.

Plibersek continues:

We’ve seen already overseas – in Europe, for example – in hot, dry years, nuclear reactors having to be shut down or reduce their production capacity ’cause the water isn’t there. When the water is used in those nuclear reactors, it’s released into the environment warm – warmer than it normally would be – and that obviously has environmental impacts all of its own. So, this is just one more question for Peter Dutton about his very vague nuclear plans. Where is the water coming from? Will it come from agriculture? Will it come from industry? Will it come from drinking water? Will it come from the environment? Where is the water coming from? I think it’s important that Peter Dutton is actually held to account for some of these details.

Very few details about nuclear energy. I think most serious analysis would say this is just an excuse to keep coal going longer*. That’s an extra 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution into our atmosphere by 2050 on Peter Dutton’s plans. The other thing I think it’s really important to say is we have already put more renewable energy into our grid than Peter Dutton is claiming will go in with nuclear energy some time in the 2040s. We’ve already added that in terms of extra renewable energy. Renewable energy is happening now. I’ve approved 72 renewable energy projects – enough to power 8 million homes. This transition is happening now, and the biggest risk to this transition to produce cheaper, cleaner renewable energy is this nuclear fantasy that delays action.

*I mean, yes.

Tanya Plibersek has been sent out this morning to ride the media carousel and sell the government’s message. She is asked about the electoral spending changes on ABC News Breakfast and says:

Well, the rules apply equally to any candidate, and they say that we don’t want billionaires running our electoral system. The reforms have come after a great deal of consultation. Many parliamentary reports, community consultation, and work with other parties and the crossbench. We see what happens if big money runs our elections. People remember Clive Palmer and his extraordinary spending to get himself in his candidates elected. It’s not a healthy thing for our democracy if you can have big money like that influencing the outcome of elections. And we certainly see, for example, the US has a wonderful democracy but one of the things you would change if you possibly could is how much it costs to run for parliament, to run for a seat in the United States. You see how much effort people have to put into fundraising – it’s a full-time job. We simply don’t want that in the Australian electoral system. So, limiting donations, limiting spending, real-time disclosure – these are things that will make our democracy stronger.

Hello and welcome to the last day of the first parliament sitting – we did it, Joe.

It’s up in the air as to whether parliament will return following its adjournment this evening given we are in election mode, but right now the cards are pointing to a May election, which means we will likely be back in March.

There is also additional estimates scheduled for the end of this month. The RBA will meet on Tuesday to decide on whether or not to cut rates and the market, leading economists and most senior political figures think they will. That will release some of the tension the Albanese government is holding over the economy. And there is still the question of whether Donald Trump will grant Australia an exemption from the steel and aluminium tariffs he has announced will start in March.

Point being, there is a bit going on outside of election speculation, but all of it is adding to the election speculation. Which does nothing to serve you, really, because we all know an election is going to happen. But Australia is facing some pretty giant questions at the moment and they should be examined on their own merit, not just how they play into the election cycle.

One of those questions is how Australians will react to the major parties circling the wagons against challenges to the two-party system through the electoral ‘reform’ legislation.

After some final shenanigans, the Coalition came on board to pass the legislation in the senate late last night following a shortened debate and forced vote.

Greens senator Larissa Waters, who has taken to calling the major parties under one moniker, ‘LibLab’ described the deal the government struck with the opposition and the bill’s passage “an affront to democracy”.

“….debating a 400 page bill rushed through without an inquiry and with complex amendments only circulated moments before being voted upon. This is the worst process I’ve seen in my time in Parliament.“

The laws favour incumbent MPs and will make it harder for independents and minor party candidates outside the parliament to compete with the major parties on electoral spend.

As Bill Browne and Josh Black explain:

The caps on political donations are per “party” (or per independent candidate) but what Australians think of as political parties – like the Liberal, Labor, Greens and National parties – are actually groups of parties, each party in the group being able to receive donations up to the cap. This would limit the ability of independent candidates, new political parties, and political campaigners to fundraise, while leaving established parties much less constrained.

In exchange for having their fundraising limited, established parties and incumbent MPs would receive tens of millions of dollars more in public funding; in some cases, far more than the political donations that they are missing out on. Independent candidates, new parties, their candidates and political campaigners would receive nothing to compensate them for lost revenue. The bill would also limit spending on election campaigns. In practice, independent candidates will be far more limited in their spending than party candidates.

The limit on election spending is because while candidate expenditure is limited, political parties can still access the $200,000 for senate candidates for each federal electorate their state has(something independents won’t have) to flood electorates with general party branded advertising. The money is per state, meaning it is at the party’s discretion (ie: targeted seats) where it spends that money.

So major parties can spend up to $90m nationally, while independents are limited to the electoral cap of $800,000.

Waters:

“The bill was supposed to cap donations from peak bodies like the Business Council and Minerals Council at $20,000, but now big mining companies could donate $250,000 each in membership fees, allowing them to spend up to $11.5 million on electoral campaigning. That doesn’t get big money out of politics, it just gives big corporations a back door.

“This deal is a complete joke—lobbyists run this place, and Ministers jump straight into industry jobs without any accountability. This bill does nothing to address that revolving door.

Oh, and there is still no truth in political advertising laws.

Every crossbencher voted against the legislation, but with the government and the Coalition on board, the deal was done.

We’ll cover the fall out, bring you more from the Climate Integrity Summit and everything else happening in the building (and beyond). You have Amy Remeikis flopping to the line with you. It’s a four coffee day. At least. And a matcha.

Ready? Let’s get into it.