Wed 5 Nov
This blog is now closed.
Also – thank you to Glenn for taking us through the last hour and the first bit of question time. Sometimes your chief blogger just can’t balance all those balls.
It does mean that Glenn doesn’t have to sit through this Bob Katter question though, so that is probably thanks enough.
The next question is pretty much the same as we have been hearing (just Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese having fun with the sacrificial Coalition backbenchers) so let’s see what Bowers has been up to:
It’s pretty clear that this QT has lost the plot, so enter Michael McCormack to just really drive that point home:
I refer to Labor’s disastrous solar sharer program. Senior energy analyst Michael Wu has slammed Labor thought bubble is another fully thought through market intervention and warned the widow of electricity during the day would have to be offset by higher prices at other times to cover the fixed costs. By how much would other electricity users have to pay to subsidise this folly?
I mean, yes let’s all be shocked that the energy industry that loves high profits isn’t happy with having to give some people free power (this is a plan that is already offered by some retailers by the way) and that someone who works at the CIS is also shocked by this.
Chris Bowen:
I think I do need to advise the honorable member, my friend that he could have found a better expert than that individual…not sure he is the sort of person I would be quoting. Maybe you could have quoted the Chief Executive of the climate of energy finance and who said ‘this is excellent’.
It doesn’t take much to trigger them, does it, Mr Speaker? Imagine clean energy and away they go. Yesterday we mentioned the Business Council of Australia and that set them off. You cannot win.
Bran Black, the chief executive of the business council of Australia…is not credible, and now I quote the chief executive of climate energy finance who said ‘this is excellent, this means many more consumers will benefit from free power at zero cost to the market and that will massively incentivise demand while shifting to the middle of the day’.
Or Stephanie Basheer from Nexa Advisory, an advisory company who said that ‘this policy will incentivise consumers to be the energy consumption at the cheaper times of the day and that is good for their bills and good for the network, crucially it will force the energy to innovate’
He goes on listing people who agree with him.
Things got heated in Question Time with Treasurer Jim Chalmers accusing Sussan Ley of an “egregious lie that was being pushed around the gallery this morning by media by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition said completely untruthfully, dishonestly, that the Reserve Bank yesterday called out the government’s spending when it came to the decision that they took independently at the board level.”
He was referencing a quote Ley made on ABC Breakfast this morning where she said “I’ve talked already about how we would manage the budget responsibly, take a clear eyed look at industrial relations which is a massive drag on productivity and how we would describe how we care about a fairer future for Gen Zs and millennials who right now, and this was backed in by the RBA yesterday are finding it even harder to buy a home of their own.”
The problem, as Chalmers was quick to point out, is the RBA did not do anything of the sort.
The RBA’s Statement on Monetary Policy noted:
“The boost to growth from the easing in financial conditions is expected to offset the diminishing boost to growth from the earlier rise in real incomes and the expected moderation in public demand growth.” (ie govt spending is falling, not rising).
The RBA did reference productivity but said nothing about industrial relations.
This is why Chalmers told parliament that “If they were honest, Mr Speaker, they would say that the Reserve Bank Governor drew no link whatsoever between the government budget position and the decision that they took yesterday”, and to be honest he is spot on.
It’s blowing up big time, with practically everyone calling everyone else a liar.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Manager of Opposition Business Alex Hawke have both withdrawn their accusations.
Speaker Milton Dick pointed out that Chalmers was referring to a lie being peddled in the press gallery generally, while Hawke was on his feet, pointing fingers, shouting “you are a liar”.
Hawke is lucky to still be in the chamber.
It’s all gone to pot just two questions in …
Shadow Treasurer Ted O’Brien has been warned after putting a question to Treasurer Jim Chalmers then interjecting before he’d even started answering.
To which the Treasurer responded “Sit down, pal”.
For the record, here’s the question and answer.
Ted O’Brien:
Given the RBA’s decision to keep rates on hold, millions of Australian mortgage holders will start wondering if interest rates are as low as they will ever go under this government. The Treasurer spending spree is at the heart of the problem. Government spending is running four times faster than the economy. Given that repeatedly, the Treasurer refuses to take responsibility for this. Prime Minister, will you take responsibility?
The speaker gives the call to Treasurer, Jim Chalmers:
Thank you Mr Speaker and I’m pleased that the member for Fairfax has taken a brief break from undermining his own leader. To ask me a question about the budget and about yesterday’s decision by the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates on hold. Partly because it gives me a welcome opportunity to point out and egregious lie that was being pushed around the gallery this morning by media by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition said completely untruthfully, dishonestly, that the Reserve Bank yesterday called out the government’s spending when it came to the decision that they took independently at the board level. That never happened, Mr Speaker. In fact, government spending was not mentioned by the Reserve Bank Governor yesterday, it was not mentioned in the board statement. And the only mention, the only mention and the detailed forecast which were released which were downgraded their assumptions about government spending going forward. From time to time, reluctantly, it is on us to point out the egregious lies being told by those opposite about our economy. If they were honest, Mr Speaker, they would say that the Reserve Bank Governor drew no link whatsoever between the government budget position and the decision that they took yesterday, Mr Speaker. The governor has said on earlier occasions has made this point about the government ‘s budget. We have got relatively low debt compared to the other countries, relatively low debt to GDP ratio is, our deficits as well have had a couple of surpluses and the most recent deficit in fact as quite small as well.
Embattled Opposition Leader Sussan Ley starts QT with a question for the PM about the number of Australians experiencing food insecurity.
Sussan Ley:
Are you taking responsibly the fact that under your watch, millions of Australians cannot afford food?
Anthony Albanese:
Our economy is continuing to grow. Inflation is half of what we inherited. Real wages have increased. Interest rates have started to fall but we understand that the work of good government and the work of addressing cost-of-living pressures is never done. That is why we continue to act on cost-of-living measures. We understand that people are under pressure. They would have been under more pressure had they are not got an income tax cut that was opposed by those opposite except for of course, at the higher end. They would have been under more pressure if inflation still had a six in front of it which is what we inherited. They would have been under more pressure if the more than 1 million jobs that have been created on our watch had not have occurred. Women in particular would have been under more pressure if the gender pay gap was not the lowest it has ever been. Workers in aged care would have been under more pressure had they are not got the substantial pay increases that were funded by the government. Workers in child care would have been under more pressure had they are not got the pay increases that childcare workers have now got in order to be sustained. Workers would have been under more pressure had the four increases in the minimum wage not been advocated by this government and the Fair Work Commission had not listened to this government. The easy task is to identify a problem. The difficult task is delivering a solution. My government is committed to delivering solutions.
In a recent meeting reported in The Australian, the ANU’s Vice-Chancellor Rebekah Brown said students were finding it “really hard to challenge ideas without fear of judgment;” because of “cancel culture.”
But, Western Sydney University Vice Chancellor George Williams observes that “culture wars have long been a hallmark of education systems around the world.” He gives a thoughtful assessment of this, and the other challenges facing Australia’s universities, in his new essay ‘Aiming Higher’.
Williams affirms that “Universities should be places of disagreement and challenge at the vanguard of societal battles over freedom of speech, while ensuring zero tolerance for anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate speech”.
This echoes Prof. Brown’s assessment that “while respectful contestation should be a great strength of our academic institution, it’s actually one of the greatest challenges that we need to be thinking about”.
In other words, rigorous debate over ideas should be welcome in universities. An idea that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny should be discredited. If, for instance, somebody claims that colonialism in Australia was a benign project, but fails to account for the well-documented massacres by the colonists, that claim should be countered with the evidence. That’s the point of university learning.
The New York Times is reporting that with 85% of votes counted, Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani has won the New York Mayoral Election, with 50.5% of the vote.
Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace after multiple (multiple!) sexual harassment claims were made against him (which he denies), got 41.4% of the vote and the Republican Curtis Sliwa picked up a mere 7.3%.
It’s a thumping win for Mamdani, the self-proclaimed socialist who has absolutely shaken up the party establishment. He also becomes the first Muslim to hold the office.
He is promising a big shakeup – free transport and very much targeting wealth. He for example has criticised subsidies given to big companies like Tesla.
Donald Trump has said he said he would cut of federal funding to NYC is Mamdani won. This oddly did not make him less popular in a very Democratic state. Trump came out in support of Cuomo in the last days of the campaign, while Cuomo was running some utterly racist AI created videos.
So it’s a very good win to celebrate.
I’ve just returned from the Stronger Charities Alliance barbeque at Parliament House.
The Stronger Charities Alliance was founded as Hands Off Our Charities back when the Morrison Government was undermining charity rights. The renaming reflects optimism that the charities sector can grow and thrive, not just fight off threats. The Alliance unites over 170 charities, many of whom were there today.
Historically, charities and not-for-profits have been quiet relative to their size and economic importance. The charity sector is about as large as the entire Australian retail sector or the education and training sector – but you wouldn’t know it from how fiercely the retailers, university VCs and private schools lobby for their interests. Charities speak out often, but for the benefit of the voiceless rather than the ongoing health of the sector.
That’s why the Stronger Charities Alliance and today’s engagement with politicians are so important. The sector is flexing its muscles.
Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh spoke, reminding those attending that the Albanese Government has not undermined charities as previous Coalition Governments had, and that there have been some reforms. But he couldn’t provide an update on the Stronger Charities Alliance’s three big reform requests, which are backed by the government’s own panel of independent experts:
Dr Leigh made special mention of the work of Saffron Zomer and Stronger Charities Alliance in training representatives of charities in how to advocate to politicians – ensuring that beyond the lobbyists for powerful corporations, Parliament House also hears from “voices speaking out for the voiceless”.
After all, the not-for-profit sector is a large employer, provides vital services and support and enjoys tremendous goodwill from Australians. Service providers hear directly from those affected by government decisions and economic priorities. Why should charities receive less care and attention than noisy for-profit industries that employ far fewer Australians?