Australia Institute Live: Donald Trump applies steel and aluminium tariffs to all nations; "no exceptions" - but Australia exemption still under consideration. As it happened.

And on that note, we are going to bid you adieu because honestly who can take any more of today?

The worst news? We have two more days of this. (Runs screaming into a wall)

Other than the Trump stuff that will be picked apart FOR DAYS because that is how media works, the electoral donation changes are something you should be keeping an eye on, and that is something which will most likely pop up tomorrow.

Also interesting from today – what happens when the Coalition have to respond to something it is not prepared for. There isn’t a lot of strategy with this Coalition (which is obvious to any observer) other than to attack and divide and deflect as much as possible (Dutton and the Coalition are great at DARVO). It was obvious the Coalition had a plan today to attack the Labor government over Trump as much as possible – including past comments, Kevin Rudd as ambassador and the inability of Anthony Albanese to reach Trump when needed. Except – Albanese did reach Trump. And Trump did confirm he was considering Australia being exempt from his tariffs. And that’s with Rudd as ambassador. Putting aside the craven belief that Australia must kowtow to Trump (and the US) with ‘favourable’ ambassadors, rather than ones Australia believe will defend its own interests (oh no, Trump doesn’t like Australia’s representative, get a new one mum!), the opposition has not been reading the tea leaves on this at all.

Trump. Doesn’t. Care. And. He’ll. Never. Love. You. Back.

Trump is going to do what works for Trump. Not even America. Trump is for Trump and that is where it starts and ends. Which is something Dutton should understand, because Dutton is for Dutton.

Dutton’s transparent attempts to remind the US president of previous critical comments Albanese and Rudd have made about Trump, while claiming unity with the Albanese government in supporting the tariff push back were laughable, because even while claiming bipartisanship, he has to play the politics.

He then walked into the house of representatives and spoke about civility in politics. It’s just another reminder that it doesn’t matter what you do, Dutton is going to Dutton. Just as Trump is going to Trump.

We’ll hopefully see you tomorrow (and yes, we are working on comments). So until then, rest, recharge and find some joy. And as always, take care of you. Amy x

Q: I want to pursue whether there’s a difference between how steel and aluminium might be treated. The White House reed out said, “Australia has disregarded its verbal commitment to voluntarily restrain its aluminium exports to a reasonable level.” That’s from the White House today. Is there an issue going on with aluminium that they’re identifying and do we have to address it?

Husic:

We have worked with previous Administrations, stressing the desirability of Australian aluminium above other markets. We think that through the course of the negotiations it will be pointed out that there are only a few, as I indicated, with you a few moments ago, that make and export aluminium and make good aluminium.

Q: They obviously see aluminium and steel as different. Do you think it might be different treatment in tempts of exemptions?

Husic:

We’re working through that. In terms of steel I think we produce off the top of my head 5,000 tonnes, a lot is for domestic consumption, terrific quality steel. But I don’t want to get too ahead of ourselves because we have to work this stuff through, and I think it’s early timing in terms of the days.

Does Ed Husic think the tariffs will hit Australia before any exemption would be put in place?

Husic:

Our intention is to lift the uncertainty as quickly as we can and work with our friends in the US on that. Sometimes it takes a bit of time. If you note, the last time this occurred, Prime Minister Turnbull, with others, worked to get us those exemptions and it took a bit of time to secure that. And so – you know, while we are focused on trying to get that done as soon as possible f you look at the history it’s not always that easy. We just hope that we can make new history this time, get it sorted out quickly, provide the certainty people need.

Industry minister is speaking to the ABC where he is doing his best to remind US embassy staff who will be clipping this up and sending it through their diplomatic channels to Trump’s White House that Australia is totally cool friends with the US.

On the possibility of an exemption from the trade tariffs, Husic says:

We would want this as soon as possible. Removing the uncertainty, I think, would be welcomed here. I think the points that have been stressed by the Prime Minister but I might add there have been a number of people within government, across government that, have been making the points. We have a trade surplus with the US. We are long-standing allies. We have a lot of things that we’re working on together. Australian aluminium in particular, while we do make a bit of money exporting it, it makes up a very small part of the total number of imports that are coming in to the US in terms of aluminium. And the aluminium – there is a requirement by the US, they need aluminium. We’re a reliable supplier of it and there are only a few countries in the world that do supply – Russia, China, the Middle East, Canada, Australia – that are producing and exporting aluminium and we think as an ally we’re in a strong position to support that and we would think those arguments would be pretty powerful and taken into account by the Administration.

The house is hearing the valedictory speech from Labor’s Stephen Jones.

His family is also in the chamber for this farewell. Mike Bowers was there to capture the moment:

Question time ends.

Did we learn anything?

No.

It seems like the Coalition had been planning a ‘Albanese is to blame for Australian steel and aluminum products getting Trump tariffs’ question time attack, but when Trump specifically said Australia was under consideration for a rare exemption and Albanese was a “fine man” then that question time pack had to go out the window.

So instead we had a mishmash of issues with no real point.

Angus Taylor has the next non-government question:

Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister ruled out any changes to the superannuation. Why is the Treasurer persisting for the first time in our history to tax unrealised capital gains on superannuation assets?

Jim Chalmers:

It’s becoming clearer and clearer to us that they had a very different Question Time pack in mind for today and so they’ve gone back to the reserve pack and all of the old chestnuts, Mr Speaker, all of the questions that we’ve answered before in this place and outside this place as well.

Which I’m happy to repeat for him, Mr Speaker. What we are proposing to do is for people with balances more than $3 million in superannuation to make a very modest change to turn very concessional tax arrangements into concessional tax arrangements for people with the biggest balances, Mr Speaker. And we announced this policy more than two years ago, Mr Speaker.

Chalmers goes on taunting Taylor, but it has to be said, if everyone is so worried about farmers who have put their farms into their superannuation, then maybe don’t put your farm into your superannuation in order to pay less tax?

And as Greg Jericho has just reminded me, According to the ATO, in 2020-21, 178 Australians under 30 years of age had more than $2m in their super – but also had a taxable income of less than $18,200.”

So somehow, 178 Australians under 30 (at that time) had managed to put at least $2m, despite earning less (for tax purposes) less than minimum wage.

Make it make sense.

Just stepping out of politics for a moment: former ABC managing chair Ita Buttrose is giving evidence in the Antoinette Lattouf wrongful dismissal case against the ABC.

You can follow live, here

A reminder that back in July last year, Lattouf offered to settle for $85,000, an apology and her final two shifts and the ABC refused. Knowing what lawyers charge, the ABC would not be getting much change from $850,000 right now. AT LEAST.

Photographer at large Mike Bowers is in the house today it seems.

When Mark Butler asked his question about why was bulk billing in such bad shape in Australia, this was the response (they are pointing at Peter Dutton)

We love a blog reader who knows their history (Sukkar topped the list for MPs booted under 94A last year. He has to behave now he has a serious chamber job, although at times it seemed he was booted because it was less painful then remaining in the house)

Good Dolly the chamber is rowdy today. And not in the good way. The Coalition are trying to make an issue over bulk billing rates, which are not great, but the government has actually put some money into improving bulk billing, whereas the Coalition don’t exactly have a stellar record on this.

LNP MP Terry Young asks Mark Butler:

GP bulk billing rates in my electorate of Longman were at 93% in 2019 before COVID. Under the Albanese Labor Government, they’ve fallen to as low as 79%. Australian families are already facing a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis and an energy bill crisis. Why are my constituents now having to endure a bulk billing crisis under this minister?

Butler:

“Why is there a bulk billing crisis in Australia? Hmm. Hmm. (INTERJECTIONS) Who said there are too many free Medicare services in this country? Who tried to abolish bulk billing altogether? (INTERJECTIONS) And who, when he couldn’t get that GP tax through, froze the Medicare rebate? For six long years…

Liberal MP Kevin Hogan stands up:

“The point of order is on hubris…”

Milton Dick boots him out for disrespecting the chamber and anyone watching question time.

Butler continues:

As I said yesterday, I think in response to the member for Longman, when we came to government, the college of doctors said that bulk billing was in free fall and the general practice was at a tipping point and it was very clear why that was – because the Medicare rebate had been frozen for six years and as I said, I think in response to the former member, six years of freezing a GP’s income while their costs continue to increase is going to have a pretty obvious result. Bulk billing was under enormous pressure. We’ve done a range of things about that. But I did want to talk about something the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday – and he’s been interjecting across the table again, as is his wont, to the member for Sydney, he’s tried to draw some sort of equivalence between a measure in the 2013 Budget to realign Medicare indexation with the financial year – a measure which in the Budget papers that he referred to selectively yesterday…

Young goes to stand up on a point of order and Dick, who is absolutely Dugald Dick today, warns him it better not be on relevance, because Butler is being relevant and it was a very broad question.

Young says it is on relevance.

Young says why and Dick is having none of it and boots him out as well.

Michael Sukkar has issues with Dick removing Young for ‘exercising his right’ to raise a point of order, but Dick came with RECEIPTS today.

(It’s like Kendrick v Drake, but with standing orders.)

Dicks:

I was anticipating this, so I have followed previous Speaker Smith’s example who did exactly the same thing on 29 July 2019, when he refused a point of order for exactly the same manner. On 19 August 2019 when the then Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure was being questioned and, indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business at the time was treated the same way. So the consistency is there. So if people want to take points of order, they were given that. Now, yourself and the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy leader, the Leader of The Nationals get certain allowances for the seniority you have. But to simply disrupt Question Time when I made it clear to the House that the minister was being directly relevant because he was asked such a broad question, is entirely what has happened before and will continue in that manner. The Minister for Health in continuation and I’m going to ask him to be directly relevant.

Wop wop wop

Greg Jericho has the answer to Jenny Ware’s question on GP numbers:

Figures out today on changes of GPs July 2022 to June 2024 (this counts both closures and entries.)

Independent MP Kate Chaney asks Jim Chalmers:

Governments from both sides rely on bracket creep caused by inflation to increase tax over time and surreptitiously fund their additional spending. Do you agree that indexing tax brackets like 17 other OECD countries have done would stop us sleep-walking into greater reliance on income taxes and provide greater transparency for taxpayers about new spending?

Would you look at that? An actual question that matters.

Chalmers responds:

“Obviously, I’m aware that there are a range of suggestions around about the next steps in income tax reform. While our focus has been delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, I do know that about half the OECD is taking the course that you’re suggesting.

That means about half of the OECD is isn’t and countries make their own decisions about these sorts of things. For us, really, one of the defining purposes of this Prime Minister and his Government is to help people earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The most important part of that, the fundamental part of that is about getting wages growing again, real wages growing again for consecutive quarters but also the tax cuts are playing a meaningful role as well.

There are more or less, to oversimplify, three different ways that you can return bracket creep. There’s the way that member for Curtin is proposing.

There’s the way pose opposite were proposing, which is to just return bracket creep to people who are already on the highest incomes, or it’s the Labor way, the way that we have chosen to return bracket creep and as the Treasury analysis makes clear that we released a little over a year ago now, when we made the changes to the tax cuts, the way that we chose has positive benefits for workforce participation and other benefits as well.

And so I do acknowledge that governments have choices to make when it comes to returning bracket creep. We’re proud of the way they’ve gone about it. Instead of giving a tax cut to some taxpayers, as those opposite proposed, we’re giving a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer and they are rolling out right now and helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures which are enduring.

The final point I would make is this – and again I make this point respectfully. I listened to the member for Curtin and her colleagues on all of these issues in a genuine and respectful way, but the difference between the ideas which are offered up from the crossbench and the ideas we’re able to pick up and run with in a Government is we have to make it all add up. We have to make sure that tax reform priorities are balanced with priorities when it comes to public investment, to make sure that all of those things are calibrated, but having said that, Mr Speaker, I say again I thank the member for Curtin for her question, for her interest, along with other crossbench colleagues, in genuine tax reform and I note the genuine tax reform that’s being rolled out right now in the economy.”

Liberal MP Jenny Ware has a question for Mark Butler:

Under the Albanese Labor Government, 27,000 small businesses have collapsed since the last election. Minister, how many GP clinics have closed since the election of the Albanese Labor Government?

Butler says he will take that on notice.

He continues to talk about how terrible the Coalition were on bulkbilling and then has to return to the question, which we already know he is taking on notice.

Ok, after being largely absent in QT yesterday (except to turbo charge the Mark Dreyfus ridiculousness and claim moral injury over something it is patently obvious the Coalition is doing – politicising anti-Semitism) Peter Dutton is back with the first question today:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains treatment on property during his time as Prime Minister?

Anthony Albanese seems energised by this question: (not sure why, it is not as if he has an answer for it)

I mean really. They’ve had a long time to work out questions in this place. You know what our housing policy is. Our housing policy is $32 billion of a homes for Australia plan. That’s our plan. That’s our plan. Not changes to negative gearing. Or other things. We actually are a political party that is saying what we are doing. Now, I know that’s unfamiliar. Unfamiliar to those opposite because after three years in the job…

Dutton has many thoughts in this point of order which is not a point of order.

Albanese:

The same person who said civility is a sign of weakness. But anyway, we’ll deal with that. After three years in the job, this bloke has had three ideas.

One – $10 billion to fund long lunches for business.

Two – $600 billion to pay for nuclear reactors.

And three – cuts to everything else to pay for them.

They’re the only three ideas that he has had. And then he comes along here and says, “Tell us what you won’t do.” He doesn’t come along here and ask about what we are doing on housing, about the build-to-rent scheme, where I note in my own electorate yesterday, Chris Minns was there, 500 news homes. In Camperdown, just down the road from where I grew up, Pyrmont Bridge Road and Parramatta Road, affordable housing for essential workers.

No doubt taking advantage of the build-to-rent scheme that was passed by the Senate last December. Just like he doesn’t ask about the Housing Australia Future Fund.

That’s so important, building social and affordable homes for people, providing additional housing for women and children escaping domestic violence, providing additional housing for Indigenous communities, just like he doesn’t ask us about help-to-buy or about all those tens of thousands of Australians who have been helped in to home ownership as a result of what we have put in place. Well, the help-to-buy scheme is something that is seen hostile by those opposite.

They know what they’re against. They don’t know what they’re for and that is why they’ll be rejected. That is why they are floundering as not an alternative government, but as just this thought bubble that have got to find $600 billion to pay for their nuclear reactors.

Question time has begun, but the questions are delayed for a condolence motion for the former Howard/Abbott government minister, Kevin Andrews.

His family is in the house of representatives for the motion.

Ok, we are about 15 minutes or so from question time, which is going to be a lot. It always is, but today has been particularly *deep breath*.

So get what you need to get through it. We have previously suggested a lobotomy but that might get you a seat in parliament, so if you have access to it, we hear micro-dosing can be pleasant.

Now given a deal has been done between the Coalition and Labor to pass Labor’s donation changes (which was always going to be the outcome, because neither major party wanted the independents and Greens to be able to negotiate for actual reform here) let’s take a moment to look at what that deal means.

Yes, it is a terrible deal for independent and minority party candidates. Yes, it is an unfair playing field and yes, it does nothing to actually improve transparency around donations and big money in politics.

BUT.

It also is a gift to the independent and minor party candidates who can very loudly campaign on how the major parties will continue to run a protection racket for the two-party system. When push comes to shove, the major parties will back each other to circle the wagons and keep out actual change.

If there was ever an argument for the power of independent and minor parties to actually make change in a minority government, this is it. So yes, it’s a terrible ‘reform’ and yes, the major parties think they have sewn this up.

But if you are someone who voted for change at the last election, all you are seeing is the same old, same old from the major parties. So why would you be inspired to vote for a major party this time around if this transparency matters to you?

I’d be pretty nervous if I was a moderate Liberal trying to win or hold on to inner city seats where this has rated as an issue. And I’d be nervous in the future if I was an inner-city Labor MP, because this wave will be coming for them as well.

That’s what I would be campaigning on, in response to this deal, if I were an independent or minor party candidate.

Greens senator Larissa Waters has responded to to Labor and the Coalition having come to an agreement on the electoral changes.

Waters, like all independents and minor party MPs (and some major party MPs) who understand this legislation, thinks it is a terrible idea:

“The long-rumoured fix is in. Rather than improve their policies to improve their falling popularity, Labor and the Coalition are agreeing on rigging the system to lock out their competitors.  Labor and the Coalition have teamed up to do a dirty deal to benefit themselves and lock out smaller parties, independents and new entrants. From the outset, the lack of genuine engagement with the Greens and crossbench indicated the government was always seeking a stitch up with the LNP on the most consequential reforms to our democracy in decades.“

Waters says the bill won’t do anything to get big money out of politics, or improve transparency:

“We repeatedly told the government that we were ready to pass the transparency and truth aspects of this legislation, but that there needed to be scrutiny through a Senate inquiry about the real effect of the funding aspects of the bills.

Labor and Liberal voted against an inquiry last week – they just want to ram through this stitch up for the two big parties, and hamper everyone else while allowing unfettered access to their own warchests using ‘nominated entities’.

Reports that part of the deal with the Coalition is to increase the proposed disclosure threshold for donations, and to increase the amount of donations able to be received, shows that Labor are prepared to walk away from their own party policy in desperation to stymie their competitors.“

It’s been a biggie.

Anthony Albanese spoke to Donald Trump on the phone ahead of his daily Hunger Games, also called executive order signings and received confirmation on an “agreed form of words” that Australia’s exemption from coming tariffs on steel and aluminium was “under consideration”.

Donald Trump signed his executive order to put 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports which he said was for “all countries, no exceptions” but then a White House reporter thought to ask about Australia and Trump said because of “all the airplanes” Australia takes from the US and the trade surplus Australia has with the US and Trump confirmed Australia may be exempted.

Peter Dutton then held a press conference to tell the Trump administration there was bipartisan support for Australia being exempt from the tariffs, and that to put tariffs on Australia may ‘damage the relationship’ and on this, he was behind Albanese all the way. Dutton then reminded everyone of previous comments made by Albanese and Labor current and former MPs (including ambassador Kevin Rudd) as just ‘statements of fact’ while trying to tell everyone he was very united with Albanese and the government on this.

Dutton doubled down on trying to silence Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in question time yesterday, after Dreyfus made the reasonable observation, which has been echoed by members of the Jewish community (of which Dreyfus is part) that Dutton and the Coalition have been politicising anti-Semitism for its own political game. Dutton then attempted to lecture Dreyfus (a Jewish man, who was raised by Holocaust survivors) on how the Jewish community were feeling and how Dreyfus (again, a Jewish man) should be reacting. Dutton then claimed Dreyfus had been ‘largely absent’ for ’15 months’ on the issue, which is a) not true and b) is insensitive on a human level seeing as Dreyfus’s wife passed away 15 months ago.

Looks like Labor and the Coalition have come to a deal on the electoral changes, which is not a great piece of legislation for democracy, given the impact on independents and minor parties.

Dutton still refuses to give any policy detail or costings. This is apparently, fine and normal.

Mark Dreyfus has taken the rare step of responding to a Peter Dutton press conference; Dutton had claimed Dreyfus had apologised to the prime minister for accusing the opposition of politicising anti-Semitism in question time yesterday, once he sat back down on the frontbench. Dreyfus says:

Peter Dutton’s claims are a complete fabrication.

I never thought I’d see the day when a Liberal leader would try to silence a Jew for speaking about antisemitism in the Australian Parliament.

I stand by everything I said yesterday.

We need to put an end to the wave of antisemitism in this country which is exactly what the Government I am a part of has worked tirelessly to do. The only way that will happen is if there is unity and bipartisanship.

God Dolly. The parliament is only just sitting now, but we have already lived three lifetimes this morning.

There are also reports a deal has been done on Labor’s electoral reforms, between the government and the opposition (no surprises there, because it largely disadvantages independents and minority parties) so we will bring you more on that very soon.

For a refresh on why these changes (to call them reforms would imply they are good) are not great for democracy, here are some of the concerns with the bill as it was presented:

Among the concerns with the bill are:

• The extreme haste shown by the government in introducing and trying to pass the bill. Four in five Australians (81%) agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party committee, which has not happened.
• 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.
• The nominated entity exception to donation caps intended for the major parties may in practice allow a billionaire-funded minor party to escape spending limits.
• 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 Australia Institute’s Director of Climate & Energy Program, Polly Hemming, has backed calls from the private sector to end fossil fuels and implement policies that will drive investment in decarbonisation.

“A critical mass of Australian businesses have declared their support for or signed voluntary climate commitments aligned with 1.5 degrees of global warming. It is welcome to see the private sector actually start to align their advocacy with these existing commitments,” Ms Hemming said.

“To have any chance of staying within the liveable bounds of climate change, we must all be as ambitious as we say we are. ‘Real Zero’ must be the aspiration. ‘Real Zero’ must be the goal.”

The calls for real zero come on the eve of this year’s Climate Integrity Summit at Parliament House tomorrow.

As we reported earlier, prominent business leaders, investors and community members have added their name to an open letter to Members of Parliament calling on them to stop undermining decarbonisation efforts with fossil fuel subsidies and carbon offsets.

They warn Australian businesses are falling behind, and have urged the government to stop favouring fossil fuel companies and create policy that will channel investment into renewable energy and decarbonisation.

Signatories include Fortescue Chair Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, Simon Sheikh CEO, Future Super, Dino Otranto CEO, Fortescue Metals, Nick J. Fairfax Managing Director and Co-CIO, Marinya Capital, Ian Melrose Co-Owner, Optical Superstore, Mark Barnaba Chairman, Greatland Gold PLC, Former Board Member of the Reserve Bank of Australia

The ABS has just released the 5 yearly Index of Household Advantage and Disadvantage. The latest data covers 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/index-household-advantage-and-disadvantage/2021

This measures a range of indicators to indicate whether a household is living in a situation of advantage or disadvantage

For example things that indicate advantage:

• Households with three of more cars
• Households with four or more bedrooms
• Households with high annual equivalised income (greater than $90,999)
• Owning a home outright
• Households where the person with the highest educational attainment has a Bachelor Degree or above
• Households where the highest skilled employed adult works in a skill level 1 occupation
• Households with mortgage repayments are greater than or equal to $2,900 per month

On the other side, indicators of disadvantage are:

• Households being rented from a state or territory housing authority, or a housing co-operative/community/church group
• Households where rent payments are less than $250 per week
• Households with low annual equivalised income (less than $25,999)
• Households where the person with the highest educational attainment left school at year 10 or below
• Households with no car
• Households with a person aged 65 years and over who does not own the home
• Households where more than 50% of people need assistance with core activities
• Households where all people aged 15 years and over are unemployed
• Households with children aged under 15 years and parent(s) not employed (disadvantage)

So what did the ABS find? Well not surprisingly those areas in NT and Qld with high numbers of Indigenous Australians are the most disadvantaged:

Six of the top ten areas with the highest proportion of relatively disadvantaged households are in Queensland; the other four are in the Northern Territory

At the State and Territory level, the Northern Territory has the highest proportion of people living in relatively disadvantaged households (30.3%).  The Australian Capital Territory has the lowest proportion (9.8%)

The list of most disadvantaged area are:

Aurukun (93.0% of households were in the most disadvantage group) – QLD

Palm Island (91.6%) – QLD

Torres Strait Islands (88.7%) – QLD

Yarrabah (88.0%) – QLD

Kowanyama–Pormpuraaw (85.5%) – QLD

Tiwi Islands (83.9%) – NT

Thamarrurr (82.5%)- NT

West Arnhem (81.2%) – NT

Northern Peninsula (80.6%) – QLD

East Arnhem (79.7%) – NT

Coming a day after the update on the Closing the Gap report, that makes for pretty damning reading.

At the other end of the scale these are the most advantaged areas:

Throsby (65.0% of household sin the most advantaged group) – ACT

Schofields (West) – Colebee (64.9%) – NSW

Forde (64.9%) – ACT

Fig Tree Pocket (64.0%) – QLD

Denman Prospect (63.9%) – ACT

Box Hill – Nelson (63.8%) – NSW

Googong (62.7%) – NSW

Marsden Park – Shanes Park (62.2%) – NSW

North Kellyville (61.8%) – NSW

Castle Hill – West (61.6%) – NSW

Peter Dutton once again refused to put out policy detail, or costings, but says he’ll be saving Australia.

OK then. We’ll treat that with the respect it deserves. Comments as follows:

Back to tariffs – how is it sending a message of unity on the tariffs, to also remind people (including the Trump administration, to who Dutton directed his opening remarks at the press conference) of previous comments against Trump?

Dutton:

It’s a statement of fact. You can’t just brush over the history of the judgements the prime minister has made. He’s made shocking judgements as prime minister. Also as opposition leader and before that as a minister. There are consequences for that. I can’t apologise for comments the Prime Minister has previously made to now damage the relationship, that’s an issue for the Prime Minister to address. That’s a question you can ask him.

…What I do know is Donald Trump is hearing those messages and I don’t think it is productive to the dynamic in the relationship.

Again, Anthony Albanese has refused to criticise Trump, even when other world leaders have, including most recently on Trump’s horrendous and illegal plans for Gaza. Australia didn’t sign the letter including other allies of backing the International Criminal Court following Trump’s attacks on it. Trump himself just literally called Albanese a “very fine man”.

None of this is to defend Albanese for his appeasement policy with Trump, but Dutton is trying to claim that Trump won’t talk to him because of previous comments, when it is very obvious that Trump is talking to him.

Ok, the press conference moves on to vehicle emission standards and Peter Dutton blames the lack of falling emissions on Labor not including hybrids (which muddy emission data and still largely use fossil fuel) in their tax breaks for a) not bringing down emissions (hybrids would not have a material impact on that) and b) stopping young Australians from buying Ford Rangers and Toyota Hiluxes (which is still happening)

Dutton:

This (vehicle emissions standard, which makes less efficient vehicles more expensive) was to please inner city green seats and and that’s what the Albanese government has been about which is why the Albanese government has done so much damage to families living in the suburbs.

Now the Government is talking about a tax that will make it go up and it will make it harder for families in a cost of living crisis to find the money to buy a vehicle. Long before young people talk about buying a house, they talk about a vehicle purchase, young tradesmen and others who want an affordable vehicle. The Government approach on the energy question extends to hating and now taxing hybrids. That hybrid vehicles are not acceptable even though the emissions are much lower than other vehicles. I don’t think this is sustainable.

The fuel emissions standard makes vehicles that are more efficient, less expensive. This isn’t hard.

Peter Dutton is asked whether it was a mistake to try and shut down Mark Dreyfus, the son and grandson of Holocaust survivors in question time yesterday.

Dutton says:

“He was closed down because he made a suggestion that we were politicising anit-Semitism, he was completely out of order and if he had the decency that you would expect from the first Law Officer he should have withdrawn that without us requesting him to do so.

It was a [slur], it was misplaced, he apologised to the Prime Minister* on the front bench afterwards, and so he should.

Mark Dreyfus has largely been missing for 15 months**. I think if you speak to people within the Jewish community, there are a lot of people who would be that commentary of the contribution or lack thereof made by the Attorney-General given the rise and flourish of anti-Semitic conduct we have seen***. It is appropriate and the right response for somebody regardless of who they are who, seeks to say that we are politicising what I think is an incredibly important issue and made that point felt.”

*We are seeking confirmation of this – but I didn’t see any of that on the broadcast.

**Oh wow, this is low. Dreyfus’s wife of 44 years, Deborah Chemke, passed away in November 2023, which is 15 months ago. This was after a long and difficult cancer battle. Anyone who has lost someone knows how much it takes from you, and I do not have personal insight into how Dreyfus has been coping, but I do know that everyone in the parliament knows what he is going through. So for Dutton to then accuse him of ‘largely been missing’ for 15 months, and dress it up as concern from the Jewish community is a low, low act. Even for Dutton.

***Mark Dreyfus is a Jewish man. Who lost family in the Holocaust and was raised by survivors of the Holocaust. Dreyfus is very involved in the Australian Jewish community who is now being lectured by Dutton on how the Jewish community feel during this period, while claiming it is outrageous to suggest that he (Dutton) is politicising this issue.

Q: Do you think, Donald Trump is a dealmaker, do you think Australia will have to do anything in exchange for getting this? And did your Manager of Opposition Business go too far during Question Time yesterday?

Peter Dutton:

I’ll deal with the last part first. The claim yesterday by somebody who has been largely absent from the public debate on anti-Semitism over the last 15 months but somehow the Coalition is politicising the issue of anti-Semitism is a disgraceful slur.

The speaker before he was monstered by the Prime Minister and Tony Burke asked for that to be withdrawn* and it should have been because it was outrageous. It is completely without foundation.

I think that is important point and as a result of that it would require a response that was entirely appropriate and proportionate. I won’t stand being accused of that, we supported the Jewish community, have sent you before I have the same stance in relation to any other element of society is being targeted in the way the Jewish community is. I don’t tolerate racism or that intolerance on any basis*, not on religion or somebody’s background, not on the heritage. On no basis whatsoever.

* Milton Dick misunderstood what the Coalition were asking for at first, and thought Mark Dreyfus had made an unparliamentary remark across the chamber. There was also confusion over whether or not it was the term ‘disgusting’ that the Coalition wanted withdrawn (it wasn’t). In the end Dreyfus was not asked to withdraw the claim, which Labor MPs and some within the Jewish community have repeatedly made – that the Coalition is politicising anti-Semitism for its own political gain.

**Accused refugees of ‘trying on’ rape allegations in order to receive abortion health care in Australia. Claimed people in Melbourne were afraid to go out to restaurants because of ‘African gangs’. Wanted a special visa for white south African farmers. Claimed Palestinians fleeing Israel’s invasion of Gaza who applied for Australian visas were “a national security risk”. Boycotted the National Apology to the Stolen Generations.

Q: What do you think the Prime Minister and his governments next move should be in negotiations?

Dutton:

“It should be continued dialogue and we should be doing everything we can through the relationships we have into the administration to try and see a reversal in the executive order, we should be talking to those with expertise in the relationship and those who understand the Trump Administration well. I think the Prime Minister deserves support in whatever measure is reasonably being taken to see a reversal in the tariff and we would support those measures.“

Never one to let a political moment go by, the Temu Trump, Peter Dutton then links trade with the US to his nuclear ridiculousness:

“There is an incredible opportunity for us to do a lot more work with the United States in the trade space and I think there’s an enormous for us in AUKUS but pillar one and two which was negotiated by the Coalition government. There is enormous opportunity for us in the nuclear civil industry as we grow that here in Australia. That is a huge trading opportunity with the United States and I’m sure the administration would embrace those opportunities and that’s a big part of the reason as to why we don’t want tariffs put in place against Australia.“

Oh no, wait, Peter Dutton can’t help himself but bring in some domestic politics. While still saying he is right behind the prime minister in this.

I think the statement of fact is the Prime Minister has made the relationship more difficult through his previous comments, the comments of Penny Wong and Ambassador Rudd which were deeply personal in nature.

The president will have noticed those comments and I think it’s… difficult when that’s the starting point in relationship.

But what’s important now is the Trump Administration hear, there is a bipartisan position in Australia to stand up for our national interest and that national interest is best served by a removal of the tariff as it applies to Australia. And if it stays in place I think it damages the relationship and I’ve been clear about that.

For the record, Trump just called Anthony Albanese a “very fine man”.

Peter Dutton has found an issue he doesn’t want to divide on.

The love in with the United States.

He has called a press conference to speak to Donald Trump, which is the political version of standing outside a window with a boom box

It’s important for the US and the Trump administration to hear there is a bipartisan position in relation to the prime minister’s call to remove the tariff from a very close and dear friend, the US, I want there to be very clear message to the Trump Administration that we don’t believe this tariff should be put in place and if it remains in place and I believe it would damage the relationship between the United States and Australia.

We have an incredible relationship with the United States. It is long-standing. We’ve fought for over 100 years side-by-side with the US, they are part of a five eyes compact. There is clearly a very important people to people link that spans generations through different arrangements we’ve had in the trade space, in science, in many areas of mutual endeavours – we’ve done a lot of work with the US clearly to try and provide support

The USA has ALWAYS had a trade surplus with Australia and it is bigger now than in the past!

In 2023 the 5 biggest items we imported from the USA were

• Gold – $2.4bn
• Goods vehicles – $2.2bn
• Civil engineering equipment & parts – $2.1bn
• Aircraft, spacecraft & parts – $2.1bn
• Passenger motor vehicles – $2.1bn
• Pharmaceutical products – $1.9bn
• Telecommunications equipment & parts – $1.6bn

Peter Dutton has called another Canberra press conference – must be close to election time!

Dutton is not a fan of Canberra press conferences, so he rarely holds them. This is the second one this sitting (he also held one last week) which makes it a doubly rare occurrence.

We will hear from him soon.

In this press conference, Donald Trump is also laying out terms for the Hamas-Israel ceasefire deal.

There is no acknowledgement of the fact Israel blocked food and water (and medicine and bandages and practically everything else) from entering Gaza, which led to mass food shortages for EVERYONE including Israeli hostages, as Trump says he expects all remaining hostages held by Hamas to be handed over or “all hell will break out”.

Trump:

I would say this and this is Israel’s decision but as far as I’m concerned if all the hostages are not returned by Saturday at 12 o’clock I think it’s an appropriate time, I would say cancel it and all bets are off and let held breakout. I said they ought to be returned by 12 o’clock on Saturday and if thou not returned, all of them, not in drips and drabs, not two and one and three and four and two, Saturday at 12 o’clock and after that I would say, all hell is going to break out. I don’t think they will do it. I think a lot of them are dead, I think a lot of the hostages are dead. It’s a great human tragedy, what has happened. … I would say Saturday at 12 o’clock we want them all back, and speaking for myself, but from myself at 12 o’clock if they are not here, all hell is going to break out.”

He won’t say what he means by “all hell” just to “you’ll find out and they’ll find out”.

Donald Trump insists that foreign companies will be moving their steelworks to the USA. That is not going to happen.

Asked about his phone call with Anthony Albanese, Trump says:

I just spoke to him. Very fine man. He has a surplus. We have a surplus with Australia. One of the few. And the reason is they buy a lot of airplanes. They’re rather far away and they need lots of airplanes. We actually have a surplus. It’s one of the only countries which we do. And I told him that that’s something that we’ll give great consideration to.

…We have a huge deficit with the UK. Big difference.

…We have a deficit with – a little deficit with Argentina. But Australia because of the airplanes, they buy a lot of airplanes, there’s a little bit of a surplus.

You can hear the whiplash in the PMO, followed by the sigh of relief at Trump’s answer from the moon.

Donald Trump speaks more on the executive order on the tariffs for steel and aluminium imports:

This is another way of saying we’re doing a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium.

So the failed American trade policies have led our once incredible United States steel and aluminium industries, once incredible, it’s once incredible, they’re not now, but they’re not bad.

I saved them because of my first term, I totally saved them.

If I don’t do what I did, I put massive tariffs, not the highest level but pretty massive tariffs, we took in a lot of money and we took in a lot of jobs.

But we were being pummelled by both friend and foe alike. Our nation requires steel and aluminium to be made in America, not in foreign lands.

We need to create in order to protect our country’s future. With the resurgence of US manufacturing and production, the likes of which has not been seen for many decades. It’s time for our great industries to come back to America, I want them back to America.

This is the first of many. You know what I mean by that, we’re going to be doing others on other subjects, topics.

Protecting our steel and aluminium industries is a must and today I’m simplifying our tariffs on steel and aluminium so everyone can understand exactly what it means.

It’s 25% without exemptions or exceptions. That’s all countries, no matter where it comes from, all countries, if made in the United States, however, the United States of America, there is no tariff, zero. So if it’s made in the United States, there’s no tariff.

All you have to do is in make it in the United States. We don’t need it from another country. As an example, Canada, if we make it in the United States, we don’t need it to be made in Canada. We’ll have the jobs. That’s why Canada should be our 51st state.

We’ll bring back industries, we’ll bring back our jobs and make America industry great again. So essentially we’re putting on a 25% tariff without exception on all aluminium and all steel, and it’s going to mean a lot of businesses will be opening in the United States.

Donald Trump has signed his executive order for 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium for all countries.

Trump:

Do you understand what means? It’s a big deal. It’s a big deal. This is the beginning of making America rich again.

He has done it at the same time as he has outlawed paper straws for government agencies;

We’re going back to plastic straws. These things don’t work. On occasion they break, they explode, if something is hot, they don’t last very long like a matter of minutes. Sometimes a matter of seconds. It’s ridiculous situation. So we’re going back to plastic straws. I think it’s OK. I don’t think … plastic is going to affect a shark, as they’re munching their way through the ocean.

Remember what Steve Bannon said about flooding the zone with shit? This is it. Trump signs executive orders for everything from pardons for officials convicted of public corruption, changing how Americans can be prosecuted for illegal business dealings overseas, tariffs and paper straws all at the same time.

Late last week, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles met with newly confirmed US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He told Secretary Hegseth that Australia welcomes “a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent”, and handed over AU$798 million to the US naval shipbuilding industry.

On Monday, we got our reward – on AirForce One on the way to the Superbowl, Trump announced new blanket 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. No mention of a special carve out for Australia.  

This morning, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had what he described as a “very constructive” conversation with the US President that resulted in…an exemption for Australia being “under consideration”.

Great work, everybody. 

This is how Trump’s America treats its allies. Our Free Trade Agreement with the United States clearly isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, so why would we think the Aukus deal is worth any more? The rule of law – at home and internationally – means nothing to Trump. It’s time we thought about what that means for us and our long-term security. 

Certain people within the Coalition are going balls to the wall fighting against wind power, with Dan Tehan the latest to suddenly develop an interest in ‘the environment’ as cover for wanting fossil fuels to continue to dominate in Australia.

Right wing advocacy group Advance (Advance Australia) is right behind this ‘fight’, involved not only in the protests, but in following the lead of similar groups in the United States and Canada, which turned their attention to renewables, particularly windfarming some years ago (we are always about five years behind the US culture wars, but that doesn’t mean the seeds for the bullshit aren’t planted at the same time).

Wind farms are the next step in the far right hijack of conspiracy issues. You can draw a line from lockdowns, to vaccines, to the Voice – to windfarms and transmission lines.

Now in a lot of cases, governments (state and federal) didn’t help themselves, because the roll out at the beginning wasn’t exactly great. Local councils and authorities not being consulted with, communities feeling ignored, concerns dismissed instead of talked through – even cases of contractors not testing out local roads to see if the infrastructure could handle the heavy loads and then causing chaos – all of this could have been foreseen and addressed.

Since then, the guidelines on how to engage with the community have been issued and there are real attempts to talk though potential issues with people. But that hasn’t stopped the right from hijacking the issue and it now looks like shaping up as one of the undercurrents to the coming election, particularly in regional communities where the Nationals are fighting off community independents who are more sympathetic to the renewables transition.

You can add Tehan to that list. He has started a big campaign against the Southern Ocean offshore wind zone, which the Coalition have said they would scrap if they won government.

Tehan of course, is new to this bandwagon. It wasn’t that long ago he was supporting wind power in the parliament and was smashing the government for not supporting locally made wind turbine manufacturers.

Bowen was asked about Tehan’s about face this morning on ABC radio Southwest Victoria and said:

I was disappointed to see Dan Tehan’s comments last week because it’s a very big change in position from him. When he was in government he supported offshore wind and gave a speech in parliament talking about how important it would be for the Portland aluminium smelter. So, you know, if someone’s consistent in their views I respect that, but when they change them for political reasons I am a lot more suspicious.

But, look, in terms of consultation – and let’s just reminder our listeners of where we are and how we got here, and this is consultation that has worked as it should – we started with an area of more than 5000 square kilometres and asked people what they think. We got 3285 submissions right across the community from a range of people. I listened, reduced the area down to 1000 square kilometres, and now have issued a preliminary licence to one applicant which covers 265 kilometres – square kilometres. So, you know, we’ve really worked through the issues that have been raised. And that 265 square kilometre-zone, even though it’s quite small, would produce 1.2 gigawatts of electricity. That’s enough to provide 650,000 Victorian homes and, of course, importantly, work with the Portland aluminium smelter to give it options for renewable energy. Because I’m absolutely committed to the jobs at Portland, and it’s pretty disappointing Dan Tehan isn’t.

Trump’s proposal for the US to “own” Gaza and force out the Palestinian population would make it American policy to support “a crime against humanity”, says US foreign policy expert, Matt Duss.

On this episode of After America, Matt Duss, Executive Vice-President at the Washington DC-based Center for International Policy, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Trump’s Gaza announcement, the freeze on US development funding, and the new Cabinet’s approach to China.

Find it the full discussion via the link or wherever you get your podcasts.

The federal government is being urged to adopt ‘real zero’ emissions targets instead of net zero frameworks that allow accounting tricks and increased fossil fuels. 

Prominent business leaders, investors and community members have added their name to an open letter to Members of Parliament calling on them to stop undermining decarbonisation efforts with fossil fuel subsidies and carbon offsets.

They warn Australian businesses are falling behind, and have urged the government to stop favouring fossil fuel companies and create policy that will channel investment into renewable energy and decarbonisation.

Signatories include Fortescue Chair Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, Simon Sheikh CEO, Future Super, Dino Otranto CEO, Fortescue Metals, Nick J. Fairfax Managing Director and Co-CIO, Marinya Capital, Ian Melrose Co-Owner, Optical Superstore, Mark Barnaba Chairman, Greatland Gold PLC, Former Board Member of the Reserve Bank of Australia

And no, it doesn’t seem that Donald Trump’s horrendous comments on ‘taking over’ Gaza (and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people by the forced removal to surrounding states) came up in the Albanese-Trump phone call.

Albanese:

I’ve outlined very clearly, we haven’t changed our position. I’ll speak about what Australia’s position is. We support two states, the right of Palestinians and Israelis, to both live in peace and security with prosperity.

Anthony Albanese is in a good mood at this press conference, which means that he thinks the phone call did go well.

Albanese:

If you have a look at what we’ve achieved already, it’s been a tremendous start to the relationship. Penny Wong being invited to the inauguration. Richard Marles sitting down with the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, just on the weekend.

This is one of President Trump’s first calls that he’s had with world leaders as well. It was one of the first calls that was had between leaders after his election victory as well. The relationship is in good shape.

But don’t expect much push back against the Trump administration from this government:

The words that I’ve used are the words that I’ll stick to. It’s appropriate, when you’re dealing with the President of the United States, to not speak on his behalf. They are the words that are agreed. They’re the words that I’ll stick to. And I can say, though, that it was a very positive and constructive discussion.

Oh and everyone loves Aukus.

I’ve indicated there’s very positive support for the AUKUS relationship. I have no intention of speaking on behalf of President Trump – that is up to him – but, quite clearly, I’ve indicated there’s strong bipartisan support for AUKUS in Australia and in the United States.

Of course, football was part of the conversation, because this is male-driven politics.

Anthony Albanese:

My government’s got a record of getting things done in Australia’s national interest.

I’ll continue to do so. I’ve made very explicit – I said to President Trump that this was an issue of some media coverage in Australia, and that we therefore agreed on the words that would be used – that it was “under consideration”. That’s what I’ll stick to.

But we’ll continue to engage – quite clearly constructively. But I’ll say this – it was a very constructive and warm discussion, again, with President Trump. We spoke about a range of other things as well, including the fact that Jordan Mailata is a Super Bowl champion, and I did point out that he was a South Sydney junior.

It was very important – and we had – it was very constructive, the discussion.

The prime minister has started his press conference by laying out how much trade occurs between Australia and the United States and says there will be “a summit taking place on the 24th and 25th of February in Washington DC at our Embassy” which Donald Trump has confirmed senior US officials will attend.

On the tariffs, Albanese says he pushed Australia’s position and the pair agreed on a “form of words” – that exemptions are “under consideration” for Australia.

Albanese:

The US has a trade surplus with Australia, that it’s had since the Truman administration. It’s about 2/1 when it comes to trade between our two countries. The US is an important investor, of course, here in Australia as well. When you look at the imports of these products into the US, it’s about 1% of imports of steel, 2% of aluminium. Our steel is an important input for US manufacturing. BlueScope is the US’s fifth-largest steelmaker. They’ve invested $5 billion in the US across a range of states. I think there’s more than 30 different investments there. Of course, the major export is Colorbond there for roofs in California on the West Coast and at places at ports. Our aluminium is a critical input for manufacturing in the United States.

Our steel and aluminium are both key inputs for the US-Australia defence industries in both of our countries.

I presented Australia’s case for an exemption, and we agreed on wording to say publicly, which is that the US President agreed that an exemption was under consideration in the interests of both of our countries.

Anthony Albanese is due to step up in the prime minister’s courtyard any moment now, so we’ll be getting some more details on his first official conversation with Trump (he has already done the congrats on the new/old gig call, but this is official, official business)

In shocking news that should shock no-one who has paid attention to how any of these politics operate, the Albanese’s pre-emptive move to review the clinical guidelines around trans and gender healthcare for kids to try and starve off it becoming the political football of the right, has done absolutely nothing to stop vulnerable kids and their families from becoming the political football of the right.

In the senate overnight, Coalition senators, along with other far right senators, voted for Pauline Hanson’s motion for a senate inquiry into medical care for trans kids. So that is a thing that will happen now and will no doubt grab sensationalist headlines and make the mental health of trans children a political point scoring exercise.

Health minister Mark Butler was asked about it this morning on ABC TV and said he had been hoping the review he had ordered would have stopped the issue from becoming an election issue:

I was, because playing politics around the health and the lives – importantly, the mental health – of some of Australia’s most vulnerable young people is, frankly, an appalling thing to do.
We have issued a review by the national health Medical Research Council which has a statutory charter to issue clinical guidelines across the health system. It’s been doing it for decades. It unarguably is the pre-eminent authority to do that. Frankly, anyone who doesn’t accept the role of the NHMRC to do this work – and I thought Peter Dutton and the Shadow Health Minister, Anne Ruston, did – anyone who doesn’t just let them get get along and do their job, frankly, is playing politics on this issue.

Greg Jericho has written on the Trump tariff turmoil for the Guardian, where you’ll find some sense, without the shambles:

At this point I would like to pour out a long one to the USAFTA – that glorious free trade agreement the Howard government signed with the USA, which at the time John Howard said was “an historic agreement” and that “it will add enormous long-term benefits to the Australian economy”.

“Long-term” was less than 20 years.

The Australian government might ponder such things when it rushes to talk up Aukus which the defence minister, Richard Marles, suggests “provides significant, long-term strategic benefits for all three countries”.

If a free-trade agreement is able to be ignored as a mere scrap of paper, how rock solid are agreements to deliver submarines at some vague point in the future and only when the US has decided it does not have any need for them?

The government might also ponder that given in 2023 we exported a touch over $800m in steel and aluminium to the US and last week the defence minister graciously delivered that amount to the US as part of our instalment payment for the $360bn Aukus agreement (only 450 payments to go!).

You can read more, here.

Over on the Nine network, LNP senator Matt Canavan stuck to his peculiar style of communicating, which is half sense and half demented – a sort of verbal Jekyll and Hyde affliction he has just decided to embrace and make his entire personality – when speaking on Trump and the tariffs.

Canavan is a trained economist who loves to cosplay as a miner (although no workplace health and safety officer at a mine would let an employee cover themselves with as much coal dust without some sort of work management plan being put in place). But he isn’t alone there. There are plenty of trained economists who love to cosplay as political and social commentators based on their feels that businesses would never exploit workers and how dare you suggest such a thing! (Guys: the market will never love you back).

But back to this particular cosplaying economist.

Asked about the Trump tariffs and the Trump/Albanese phone call, Canavan said:

Look, obviously it’s important. It is a mess of the Prime Minister’s own making here. He appointed Kevin Rudd after Kevin had made the injudicious comments about Donald Trump. And having dug that hole, he needs to dig us out of it here. It’s up to him now. The test is on him.

But we shouldn’t also panic either.

As you say, they’re not our biggest market for these products. We saw China impose trade bans on us a few years ago on our coal and our barley. We got through that because we’ve got a very good product. We can sell it to other countries.

OK, some politics and some sense, What’s the problem, Amy?

He went on to say:

What we should be focused on too is our own internal tariffs. We, we put a carbon tax on all of these factories, we put a carbon tax on aluminium smelters, we put a carbon tax on steel mills thanks to this government.

Ahhh, there you go. Canavan is gonna Canavan. This is afterall, the man who when he resigned from the cabinet after the whole section 44 debacle (it was a whole thing – after dual citizenship became a constitutional issue, Canavan’s mum told him she had registered him as an ‘Italian citizen abroad’ without his knowledge which put him in the section 44 il fango as it were. He resigned from cabinet, but not the senate and later the high court found he wasn’t in breach because he didn’t know about it and his political career went on) wrote a whole post about what an honour it had been representing the mining industry.

So let’s have a look at the Australia Institute’s coal mine tracker since the Albanese government came to power:

There can be no new coal mines if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.

Yet, since May 2022, the Federal Environment Minister has approved 10 new coal mines or expansions with 2,449 million tonnes of lifetime emissions.

Approved Projects – 10

Total Coal – 864 million tonnes

Total emissions – 2,449 million tonnes

Australia is the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Instead of closing coal mines, the Federal Government is looking to open more.

There are 22 additional proposals for new or expanded coal mines currently waiting for Federal Government approval. Approving 10 new coal mines goes against our climate goals. Approving 32 new coal mines, and the 13.1 billion tonnes of emissions they would cause, is incompatible with limiting dangerous climate change.

But emissions are going up under the Albanese government, as they have continued to go up under every Australian government, because they won’t let go of coal or gas.

Madeleine King is obviously uncomfortable being asked these questions and says:

Well the report, you know, it says what it says, what I am assured of, and I know and we voted on, is that we know government has done more for climate than the Australian government under Anthony Albanese.

So we will continue to push lower emissions down.

We’ve got the safeguard mechanism in that is pushing down emissions. When there’s high demand for power and energy use, and indeed, the critical minerals I spoke of earlier we’ll need some of these energy sources to make the green energy transition happen.

So you know, we have to work within our own emission standards within our own goals, but also help the region achieve those goals.

But the data shows what is happening is not enough. Does Australia need to revise it’s targets (the truth is yes, yes we do).

King falls back on the same old lines – including cookies for industry (which is the main job of the resources minister):

I’m going to leave that for Minister Bowen to talk about more widely, that’s his portfolio. But the truth is, we are working hard to drive down emissions, and so is industry.

We can’t do these things overnight, and we might want to, and I accept these reports exist around the emission levels, but people have to have confidence that they will be able to have energy as well.

So we need to work together to make sure the pathway is achievable. We have ambitious goals on the climate. We’ve been put back 10 years by the former government. We’ve taken action in a pretty efficient manner in three years.

Resources minister Madeleine King has spoken to ABC RN Breakfast, where she gave the lines on Anthony Albanese’s upcoming phone call with Donald Trump and her regular defence of Australia’s mining industry.

Faced with the reality that the world is exceeding the global warming threshold of 1.5 degrees (and remember – that was just where the world was trying to stop it – warming was happening and with it mass loss and a change to life as we know it, the whole point of the Paris Agreement was to try and limit how much warming happened) King falls back on the old lines:

No Australian government has done more to act on climate change than the Albanese Labor government. (emissions have gone up.)

We’ve introduced legislation – there has to be a pathway to net zero.

And the quickest way to, you know, lose confidence in the transition among the wider community is to make sure people you know, lack energy or can’t, you know, get hold of the power they need to manufacture things.

So we have to be really sensible in how we do have that pathway to net zero.

Right. So burning planet aside, Australia has to be ‘sensible’. So what about the coal and gas that Australia exports?

But we also need the region to decarbonise, and each country has a pathway for that, including Japan and China and South Korea and Singapore, and part of their plans involve our gas.

That’s absolutely right, but they’re displacing coal with gas, which is lower emission. And that’s not the choice we may have made in Australia. We’ve got other options. We can turn to renewables, and we are. We’re investing in renewables.

Greens leader Adam Bandt has been on the morning television carousel ahead of the Tuesday parliament sitting.

He was asked on ABC TV Breakfast about Australia’s relationship with the United States and said:

I’m very concerned about the impacts of Donald Trump being president. Donald Trump is dangerous – dangerous for climate, dangerous for peace, and dangerous for democracy. Today, it’s steel and aluminium, and who knows what it’s going to be tomorrow?

As Malcolm Turnbull said, you’ve got to take on the bullies – if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

But also, I think this shows this is the wrong time for Australian to be joined at the hip to a country being led by Donald Trump at the moment.

Australia just handed over the best part of $1 billion as part of the AUKUS deal, and there’s more to come. And whatever you think about the AUKUS – and I’m very concerned about deal and don’t support it, but whatever you think about it, it does beggar belief that Australia is handing over billions of dollars of public money to the United States and then facing potential threats of tariffs on our products. It does suggest that it really is time for Australia to chart its own way and start to have a relationship that’s start to have a relationship that’s based on our own best interests, rather than one that simply says, “We’ll do whatever Donald Trump,as head of the United States, wants.”

The Greens will introduce a bill into the senate today, which would ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

The way to do that?

Have the area nominated for consideration as a World Heritage Site. There are currently no active licences for gas and oil exploration in the Bight, which Sarah Hanson-Young says makes it the best time to do it.

“World Heritage Protection is a priority for South Australia and the Greens will push for it in a hung parliament.

“The Albanese Government has dragged its feet when it comes to supporting a World Heritage nomination, despite the pleas of community, industry, and Traditional Owners. The Greens are acting now to force action before it’s too late. 

“The Great Australian Bight is an SA icon and is home to a vast array of unique marine life. 85 per cent of the species that live in the Bight are found nowhere else on Earth. It is an essential calving sanctuary for southern right whales, and a feeding ground for endangered sea lions, sharks, tuna and migratory sperm whales.

“An oil spill or drilling disaster would not only be an environmental catastrophe but with ten thousand fishing and tourism jobs reliant on the Bight, it would be an economic disaster too.”

The assistant minister for trade, Tim Ayres spoke to ABC radio AM this morning where he was asked about the Trump tariffs and said:

Well, it’s not a surprise that that this announcement that was made yesterday, but there’s there’s a long way to go to understand the parameters of what this announcement that was, you know, reported from a conversation on an airplane yesterday.

There is a long way to go advocating for Australia’s interest in a calm and effective way. And and you cite the precedent of the last time this occurred.

I mean, I think that is a useful precedent. It took a significant amount of time. It took coordination across government, engagement at ministerial and official ambassadorial level. And, you know, it took 12 months to work those issues through with our American partners.

We are going to approach this in a calm and consistent way, focused on the national interest, not megaphone diplomacy, not responding to every development, or commentating on every development, but really in a disciplined way, focused on the Australian interest.

I think that’s what Australians have come to expect from the Albanese government on these trade questions, and that’s the approach that the Prime Minister will take today, and that trade minister Don Farrell will take, and everybody else engaged in this work will take, we won’t be taking, you know, pot shots at, in domestic politics we will be focused on the national interest.

Meanwhile, the Greens are also in election mode (everyone is, it’s exhausting) and have released its latest plan to tax billionaires to pay for health, dental and public transport for Australians.

The Robin Hood measures have been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and would see Australia’s 150 billionaires “pay an annual 10% tax on their net wealth with a 10% limit on capital flight in any year”.

The plan is expected to raise $23 billion over the forward estimates and $50 billion over the decade the Greens say.

The Greens say that during the 2010 minority government, the Greens won dental into Medicare for kids and in 2025, cost of living measures are the plan.

Adam Bandt says:

“With a minority Government, the Greens can keep Peter Dutton out and tax billionaires to fund dental into Medicare, seeing the GP for free and real action on the housing and climate crisis.

“The Greens will keep Peter Dutton out and get Labor to act.

While Nick McKim says there is no reason not to:

Gina Rinehart should not have $40.6 billion while people in this country are sleeping in tents and cars. That’s the economic system that Labor and the Liberals are defending.

The Greens’ plan will force billionaires to start giving back.

The federal government has had a win with its Future Made in Australia package, getting through the production tax credits through the senate, with the help of the Greens and some independents. That just means – reduced tax per kilogram of critical minerals and green hydrogen produced in Australia. But not uranium. The Greens won that as part of its negotiations.

The tax credits only happen after production has happened in Australia, so there is no way for companies to get around manufacturing in Australia, if they want the tax break.

The Greens negotiated with Labor to get the bill over the line after the Coalition opposed it, and you may have enjoyed some of Michaelia Cash’s surprise and verbal meltdown in the chamber yesterday when it became obvious Labor had the numbers and was bringing the bill on for debate and a vote.

Cash’s main problem was that fossil fuel mining companies weren’t involved, so had anyone thought of them?

Hello and welcome to another day of sitting and Australia Institute Live.

Australia has found a defender in the US Congress, with Representative Joe Courtney (a Democrat, of course) speaking out against Donald Trump’s planned 25% tariff on steel and aluminium, which at this point includes “everyone”, including Australia.

The ABC reports Rep Courtney believed that to be “completely needless’ and “almost an insult” to Australia, given the relationship between the two countries and Australia’s strategic position in the Pacific.

The ABC quotes Courtney as saying:

“Australia is a key strategic ally for our country. They are positioned in the Indo-Pacific at a place where, again, tensions are sky high and we need their input, their help in terms of making sure that we are going to rebalance that security environment and protect the rule of law and the Indo-Pacific.

“Instead, what we’re seeing is a completely needless, almost insult to the people of Australia by raising tariffs of Australian products coming into this country.”

Anthony Albanese had a previously scheduled phone call with Trump, where he will raise the tariffs, yesterday taking to floor of question time to say he will “always stand up for Australia”.

Cool beans. Now, a reminder that it is the importer who pays the tariffs, not Australia. And it’s another example of what Dr Emma Shortis has been saying about for sometime – that the ‘relationship’ with the US is not what Australia thinks it is.

Malcolm Turnbull said the same thing, telling the ABC’s 7.30 program:

“Do not be misled by the idea that there’s any altruism in Washington towards Australia. Australians love to delude themselves to this.

“If we want to be respected, we have to stand up. The United States government, especially with Donald Trump, acts in the national interest of the United States.”

You may remember the leaked transcript of the phone call between Turnbull and Trump the first time Trump was in the White House. This isn’t a new line from Turnbull.

We’ll cover all the day’s events as more of the mess unfolds – you have Amy Remeikis with you for most of the day. I am fumbling with my third coffee.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.