The Point Live: RBA raises rates to 3.85%, Liberals, Nationals abort leadership moves amid talent deficit. As it happened.

We kept the blog open in case there was anything of interest….there was not. So we are going to wrap it up and then come back to you tomorrow morning – just before 7am if I manage to get more than three hours sleep tonight!

Thank you to everyone who followed along today – it is so lovely to see so many of you here! And we love to hear from you, so thank you for starting the conversations. We will be back tomorrow to answer your questions -remember that it is not just me reading the comments, but a lot of the contributors do as well. So make sure you keep those questions coming (it stops them from trolling me)

So until tomorrow – take care of you Ax

Today not only did the RBA make its announcement but it also released the latest Statement on Monetary Policy.

This contains all its forecasts for the next couple years. The big change is they see inflation staying above 3% for 6 months longer than they thought back in November

But also, they have different predictions for wages – they expect wage growth to be very slightly higher than they though in November:

The upshot of all that it that real wages are barely expected to grow at all, and by the middle of 2028, the value of real wages will be about what they were in 2010 – ie in 18 years thee will have been no change in how much you can buy with your wage. Not great

Just a reminder we live in the worse timeline – here is Services Australia using Valentine’s Day to remind people living below the poverty line to report if they are living with their partner so they can live even further behind on the poverty line.

Here is how Bowers saw the chamber during question time (or in this case, how he saw Jim Chalmers)

He did the Mash.

He did the Monster Mash

It was a graveyard smash

He did the mash

Ok, whipping through the information here – the board did not discuss a .50pt increase (which meant they were only ever considering a .25% one).

A May interest rate rise is not set in stone. (The market looks a few months in advance)

Bullock says the board will be ‘cautious’ (which is an evergreen statement)

On the possibility of a another hike in six weeks time, at the next meeting, Bullock says:

The two – the two numbers that we have seen for September and December are too high quarterly numbers. 1 and 0.9. You can’t have those sort of quarterly numbers if you’re going to have back in the band.

There’s some temporary numbers that are going to basically sort of come down and that’s going to help and then hopefully a little bit of tightening in financial conditions will also help.

But reading the technical assumption as path of interest rates, I guess I’m discouraging people from doing that because we have to make those sorts of assumptions because we have to have forecasts, but we know that the forecasts are very uncertain the further out we get.

So could we do a lot of rate rises and bring inflation back down very quickly? Possibly I don’t know. But it might have big implications for the unemployment rate and the economy. And the bottom line – the strategy really hasn’t changed here.

We are still trying to bring inflation down and keep employment as strong as we can, as close to sustainable full employment as we can.

In my previous post, I outlined that the Government is reviewing tax concessions for electric cars amid high and rising transport emissions and government policies encouraging exploding numbers of big cars and utes.

But the story doesn’t stop there; Australia also has an abundance of polluting diesel-powered heavy vehicles, things like trucks and buses, as well as special-purpose vehicles like mobile cranes. Australia is currently spending billions in tax concessions on the diesel these vehicles use, creating a significant barrier to transitioning to lower or zero-emission alternatives.

How does this work?

Australia’s Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS) refunds the fuel tax paid by certain commercial users. Some lobbyists claim this is because “fuel tax funds roads and these vehicles don’t use public roads”, but this doesn’t stack up. Firstly, the vast majority of fuel tax does not flow to roads; it goes into general revenue that the Government can spend on anything. Secondly, vehicles that do use public roads (such as freight trucks and coaches) also get a partial fuel tax credit. The FTCS is one of the Commonwealth Government’s most expensive programs, costing over $10 billion a year, more than spending on air force capabilities. The mining industry gets nearly half of this, while the transportation sector gets over $1 billion, helping keep Australia reliant on big polluting vehicles. The Scheme is recognised as a fossil fuel subsidy by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation Development, the International Energy Agency and others. Thankfully, reporting suggests the Labor Environment Acton Network is pushing to reform this Scheme, as is the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Doing so would save billions that could be invested in projects to actually transition Australia off fossil fuels.

Bullock was asked if Ted O’Brien was right that government spending is fuelling demand and forcing up inflation.

Bullock says that :

first point to make here is that we base our forecasts on total demand, which is public and private. As I said, that over the last six month or so is that private demand has turned out to be much stronger than we had been forecasting and that, together with what we think is a bit of a weakness in supply, is meaning that we think that there is – whereas we thought we might have been at balance, we don’t think that we are now. We think there’s excess demand. I’m not going to comment on fiscal policy because it’s an independent policy.

Ok a couple things about that. Yes, private sector demand rose by a fair bit in the most recent data, and why? Data centres!

So great, we’re getting a rate rise because of datacentres pumping out AI Slop and plagiarism.

But let’s look at public demand. IN the September quarter (the most recent figures), the public sector only contributes 0.4%pts to annual growth of the economy. That is way below average. Suggesting public spending is fuelling inflation is absurd:

The RBA governor is up and talking the decision of the board. After a very brief opening statement, which mirrors the statement the board released (you can read that here) she throws it open to questions.

First up:

Ted O’Brien put forward today that Government spending was partly to blame for rising inflation. What do you think of that? And has the RBA raised any concerns directly with the Treasurer about the Government’s level of spending over the past inflation cycle?

Bullock:

So, the first point to make here is that we base our forecasts on total demand, which is public and private.

As I said, what’s over the last six month os so is that private demand has turned out to be much stronger than we had been forecasting and that, together with what we think is a bit of a weakness in supply, is meaning that we think that there is – whereas we thought we might have been at balance, we don’t think that we are now. We think there’s excess demand. I’m not going to comment on fiscal policy because it’s an independent policy. The Government has its – governments, I should say, because there’s state and federal government here – governments have to supply services, this every to supply goods to people, they have to build infrastructure, they have to make those policy decisions.

We take that as given and together with private demand, look at whether or not it means that inflation is going to be under pressure – upward pressure or not. That’s our focus.

The independent MP for Bradfield, Nicolette Boele asks Anthony Albanese:

Parliament has passed laws to combat anti-semitism, hate and extremism but legislative leaders are one of a myriad of responses required to prevent terror attack of the type we saw in Bondi.

You have called for a royal commission. But what are the other steps to address the underlying cultural, social and economic factors which contribute to extremism? Will you commit to adequately resourcing the implementation of a National Anti-Racism Framework, a comprehensive strategy, commissioned by your government and released in November 2024?

Albanese:

Indeed, we do need to deal with a comprehensive response not just to anti-semitism, but to building social cohesion as well.

I think the attack that we saw in Perth is an example of something that the authorities are dealing with. I’ll be meeting with the WA Commissioner who was in the chamber earlier today along with the AFP Commissioner to be briefed on that at a later time. Because that was a very serious incident that is being looked at, being designated to be an act of terrorism, and the authorities are looking at that indeed, and having been received a preliminary briefing, I think it is quite extraordinary that there wasn’t a much more serious consequences of what occurred there in Perth.

Anti-semitism requires constant vigilance, it requires us to – we brought forward the legislation, of course, before the Parliament and it is a fact there was a considerable advance through legislating not just on guns, but on hate speech.

It didn’t go as far as the envoy on anti-semitism’s report recommended, but nonetheless, it did – it was a significant advance forward. I thank all those who voted for that legislation in both the House and the Senate.

We’ll continue to engage across the board on these issues. We have the member refers to extremism and to issues breaking down, social cohesion.

We have had incidents as well of sovereign citizens being or so-called sovereign citizens being involved in the murder of police officers in Victoria and Queensland.

There are a range of threats that are very real including, of course, a number of incidents that have been publicised before the court involving myself and members of Parliament indeed.

I think we need a broader conversation as a society as well about the impact of polarisation, the impact, as I have said, about social media pushing people towards more and more extremes, down these rabbit holes. The fact, as well, click bait.

Boele then asks about the specific question on resources, but Albanese has concluded his answer.

Alex Hawke after health minister refers to Angus Taylor as “the pretender to the throne” and Milton Dick agrees with him and says yes, just titles.

But also Taylor isn’t a pretender to the throne, he’s more like the  last Habsburg son – heir to a monarchy that no longer exists.

The Sussan Ley pretends that because the treasurer appointed the Treasury Secretary Jenny Wilkinson, who sits on the RBA board, and Wilkinson voted to increase interest rates (because it was unanimous) that he is somehow responsible for the rate rise.

Now this is just stupid and desperate on a lot of levels. One, treasurers always pick the treasury secretary. That is how it works. And they also pick the board. And the board is independent. And you are supposed to let them be independent. And if he was to direct the Treasury Secretary on how to vote, that would be a massive scandal.

Ley knows what she is doing when she asks this question. Her base political instinct is always to attack and always overegg that attack – which is why she is never actually taken seriously. Ley isn’t being hampered by the glass cliff – she is being hampered by having terrible political instincts, putting her own political survival above any principles she might have and a complete and utter lack of personality.

Today – the Prime Minister’s hand-picked Secretary of the Treasury, Jenny Wilkinson, joined every other RBA board member in voting to raise interest rates. When Labor spends, Australians pay. 

Prime Minister – what does it say about Labor’s economic incompetence when its own treasury secretary is voting to lift rates?

Chalmers takes this one:

I think it reflects a level of desperation on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition that she would go after a wonderful public servant in the way she just has. The Treasury Secretary governments of both political persuasions attends these board meetings as a representative of the Treasury, not the Treasurer, not the Government, and they play an important and meaningful role.

They did when you were in office – when they were in office, Mr Speaker, and they do now. I think it is entirely inappropriate – entirely inappropriate – for those opposite to try to drag in to this one of the finest public servants that this country has ever seen.H

And I think especially to do it on the day, Mr Speaker, when we have appointed Sarah Court to be the chair of ASIC which means that government, this Prime Minister and this Cabinet, for the first time in the history of four major economic institutions in this country are led by women. The Treasury for the first time in our history. ASIC for the first time in our history. Productivity Commission for the first time in our history. The Reserve Bank for the first time in our history. We are proud of the appointments that we have made and the progress that we have made and those opposite shouldn’t try to diminish as they just have a very fine public servant.

Andrew Wilkie:

“Prime Minister, it is well established that the Opposition is the party, or group, which has the most non-government Members in the House of Representatives.Seeing as the crossbench is now as big as the Liberal Party and likely to soon exceed them with more defections, on what basis are the Libs still regarded as the Opposition, and enjoying the perks that go with it?”

As Grogs has said – we have all been worried about a minority government before, now we just have a minority opposition!

Anthony Albanese enjoys answering this:

I thank the member for Clark for his question and, indeed, we have noticed the changes that have occurred in this chamber and what has been going on over recent weeks while we have been rolling out the cost-of-living measures and doing deals with states and territories to improve hospital funding and going to South Australia for the first of the new housing agreements, helping 17,000 new homes be built, 7,000 of which are reserved for first home buyers.

Those opposite have been solely focused on themselves. Now, I used to get admonished sometimes by the Speaker by using the term “no-alition.” I meant it as a joke. 

But they regarded it as a mission statement. A mission statement, those opposite, as they go through. They’re fighting each other with the same sort of energy that they used to reserve for fighting our cost-of-living measures, Mr Speaker. 

Now, we will continue to focus on Government with regard to the issues that he raised. I’ll wait and see what happens. I have said I’ll have respectful discussions including respectful discussions with the Leader of the Opposition because I think that’s appropriate. I am a very much a traditionalist when it comes to…OK, you won’t come to the meeting. Don’t bring him!

But when it comes to the tradition of this chamber…..I will – perhaps the leader of the Nats shouldn’t bring the member for Gippsland either because the fact is that there are representations being made to me about a range of issues. 

I will treat those representations respectfully because I think it’s important that this Parliament is able to function in an appropriate way.

Anika Wells is pretty happy with this dixer on the impact of the social media ban and gives the numbers of deactivations:

Nonetheless we can’t catch them all but we will keep working on this because implementation we know will not be perfect that it will be really important. Every social media accounts we deactivate as an extra opportunity for young Australians to make a connection in real life, to play sport, listen to music, learn an instrument or read a book from the library. They can discover and learn who they are before the social media platforms assume. And they get a bit of a report free from the algorithms, endless scroll, constant notifications and pressure of catching likes. 

Guess he assumes it comes from osmosis or something. He has people in his office who think they are the grand poo pahs of economics, and I guess it is catching.

Anyways, he is still no good at listening because he asks the same question that other guy just asked. (All beige men look the same to me)

Super Ted:

Scores of economists have linked higher inflation and interest rates to this government’s spending spree. Former Treasury Assistant Secretary David Pearl said the Treasurer is squarely to blame for the invasion mess we are in. IFM  investors Chief Economist Alex Joyner said the fiscal guardrails have come off. Treasurer, as mortgage holders are hit with their 13th interest rate rise under Labor, will you now finally take responsibility?

Chalmers jumps up like he is suddenly ten years younger – he just loves showing how surface level Super Ted really is.

I thank the shadow treasurer who is also the shadow Assistant Treasurer. They found the only bloke who would work with him and they are still not convinced there won’t be leaking of private conversations.

There is so much laughter at this that Super Ted has to pretend he has not been mortally wounded and he also laughs. You know he’ll be talking to himself in the mirror later telling his reflection ‘we’ll show them!’ while wiping the fog from his glasses.

Chalmers continues:

As I said a moment ago to his colleague, as I said a moment ago to his colleague, there are a number economists who have pointed out, as of the Reserve Bank today in coming to their decision, that the uptick in inflation, the pressure outlook is coming from demand.

…There are a number of economists who have pointed out, as have the Reserve Bank today, that what has happened with the is an upside surprises in private demand, not public spending. The shadow treasurer and shadow Assistant Treasurer should also know that now the statement has been out for half an hour that the Reserve Bank Board itself has said the pressure is coming from private demand.

A bit like his friend earlier, I encourage him to read the Reserve Bank statement that they put out, similarly the statement of monetary policy makes it clear that the pressure is coming from private demand, not public demand.

On the last part of his question…On the last part of his question, responsibility, I think in the first answer today I made really clear.

I take responsibility for all parts of my job. I take responsibility for playing a helpful role in this fight against inflation. And I remind the house that one of those things I take responsibility for this cleaning up the mess that was left to us by those opposite who had inflation higher than 6% and absolutely roaring. The same who had bigger deficits, never delivered a surplus, didn’t show spending restraint, took to the election a policy for higher income taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. Although all of the people that I would take a lecture from an responsible economic management, not one of the three far right parties over there would be on the list.

Jason Clare takes a dixer just so he can say:

Unlike those other side, who are are focused on how much they hate each other. They make the Beckhams look like a happy family.

JUSTICE FOR POSH

Kevin Hogan gets a question as the deputy Nationals leader, which I honestly forgot he was. It’s like being the assistant to the assistant regional manager.

Anyways.

I’m assuming you can hear me. My question is to the Treasurer. AMP’s chief economist, Shane Oliver, and many other economists have warned that record government spending is adding to inflationary pressures and keeping prices higher Treasurer, why is it making Australians pay more mortgages, groceries, fuel and electricity.

Chalmers has no time for this today:

To deal with those parts of the question in reverse order, the inflation was running higher than we was in government than under us but the substantive part of the question…I’m asked about the views of economists, about what’s contributing to the inflation pressures which are in our economy. Let me read you three examples of economists who have pointed out, as has the Reserve Bank today, that the pressure on the economy, the upward revision, is because of faster than expected private demand at the same time as public demand is taking a back seat, actually retreating.

So Diana Messina from AMP said, “Government spending has peaked the growth in that will add less to inflation.” Belinda Allan from the Commonwealth Bank, “The public sector’s contribution to growth has eased significantly.” Lucy Ellis from Westpac, “Public sector demand growth is slowing and indeed was negative over the first half of 2025.”

Now, Mr Speaker, if the honourable member doesn’t want to take those economists’ word for it, I acknowledge there are, as always in the economists’ profession, contested views about these sorts of things. I encourage him to read the Reserve Bank’s statement today.

I encourage him to read the Reserve Bank statement today. Because what that makes clear is that the pressure on inflation is coming from private demand and I know that terribly embarrassing for the member who wrote this question before the statement came out, but the statement has made it really clear where the pressure is coming and sob does the statement on monetary policy. I encourage him to check that out. He should have read that before he asked the question but in the absence of that, now is as good a time as any. Economists have a range of views about what’s contributing to inflation but the Reserve Bank have made their very clear.

(Choosing three women economists to quote was not an accident either)

Sigh. If there is ever a chance for Sussan Ley to engage in hyperbole, she will take it. I find most people lacking personality usually jump to exaggerations in rhetoric to hide how little charm they truly have.

Ley:

The RBA has just confirmed the worst fears* of Australians. Interest rates have risen by 0.25%, meaning the mortgage repayments of millions of Australians The Prime Minister promised that Australia had “turned the corner” on inflation and that his government had it “under control”. The Prime Minister took credit for last year. Will he responsibility for the rate rise?

*It obviously is not great, for anyone with a loan or who rents, but worst fears? Be fr.

Albanese is now in a mood. Probably because he is having flashbacks to two weeks ago when he was asked a dozen times if he was going to ‘finally apologise’ to Jewish Australians for Bondi.

Albanese:

We’ve acknowledged, certainly, that many Australians are doing it tough and that is why we not only have engaged in responsible economic management, turning those massive Budget deficits surpluses and smaller deficits going forward, while we have made sure that we’ve paid off some of that Liberal debt by of debt that is owed. It’s just a fact. $176 billion.

Tim Wilson is booted out. That’s a bright spot we can all hold on to.

Albanese:

That’s why when we went to the election in went to the election promising lower taxes, and lower deficits than opposite, than those opposite. the shadow shadow leader over Now, what we have done is continue to engage during all of that, dealing with those issues, whilst making sewer because we understand that people are doing it tough, it’s to have to do is come up with and that is what we have done. Whether it be a tax cut taxpayer that they opposed. They opposed it at the time, remember? Before they even saw what it was. They said they were against it and they’d reverse it…

Dan Tehan has thoughts about this. Milton Dick tells him no one cares.

Albanese:

The tax that were opposed by including the one that will come in July this year and the one year, the 15% wage increases for aged care and childcare that waste, helping people to and keep more of what they earn. We cut student debt by 20% – hey opposed that as well, making an enormous difference to 3 million Australians, making them $5,500 better off.

The over 70,000 nurses, midwives, social workers and teachers that prac during their placements. The benefited from free TAFE, the 725,000 cheaper medicines, over 200,000 cheaper home batteries that are cutting electricity bills of measures of what Government does make a difference.

He runs out of time.

David Littleproud then gets a question and he falls back to what he knows from the Coalition tactics and asks the most boring question that has been asked a million times before (that I am sure seemed very clever in the Nationals party room)

Treasurer, after today’s interest rate hike, mortgage-holders are paying more because inflation is staying higher for longer. Treasurer, when will you apologise to all mortgage-holders in Australia?

Mate, this was being asked by breakfast TV hosts hours ago. Read a fricking book or something.

Chalmers:

Well, Mr Speaker, I thank the leader of one of the three far-right parties in this country for his question. And I can’t hear you back there. I can’t hear you back there. I can’t hear you back there. I can’t hear you back there.

There are a million interjections and Dugald has to call for calm before Chalmers can continue:

Thank you, Mr Speaker, thank you to the member for his question. As I made clear a moment ago, we know that even though today’s decision was expected, it doesn’t make it any easier people who are already under pressure. I think I’ve made that really clear.

We do know, and we have said repeatedly through the course of today and before now, that we know that Australians are still under pressure, despite all of the progress that we’ve made together in our economy. We know that Australians are still under pressure.

That’s why our cost-of-living relief is so important and that’s why it’s so strange that those opposite oppose that cost-of-living relief. It’s why our Budget repair is so important and why it’s so strange that opposite left us such a mess and now want to give us lectures about the Budget position that we’ve spent 3.5 years cleaning up, Mr Speaker.

Now, as we know, Mr Speaker, as we some of these some of these pressures are temporary.

Some of them are more persistent. All of them are adding to the pressures that people feel in real communities and we don’t acknowledge that, we’re acting on that as a government collectively. 

We’re acting on that with cheaper medicines and tax cuts, more bulk billing, student debt relief and the like.

Now, if those opposite really cared about the pressure on people around this country, they would have supported that cost-of-living help. 

Instead, they opposed that cost-of-living help and, worse than that, Mr Speaker, the same people asking these questions today took to the election a policy for higher income taxes on every single Australian worker, Mr Speaker.

Now, the only thing that they’ve been able to agree on in the course of recent months is they all desperately wanted interest rates to go up today. They all desperately wanted interest rates to go up today. It’s the only thing that they can agree on right now, Mr Speaker. So they should spare us their coneffected outrage. They left us much higher inflation. They left a much weaker Budget. They took to the election a policy to make all that worse, not better.

This side of the House is focused on the cost-of-living challenge. That of the House is focused on who sits where from one week to the next. We won’t be distracted by Opposition parties which are divide, divisive and in disarray.

Ted O’Brien asked a question, but honestly, it’s more entertaining staring at a wall. You’d probably learn more from the wall as well.

Jim Chalmers then takes a dixer in the chamber with his prepared lines:

Today, as expected, the independent Reserve Bank has increased the cash rate by 25 basis points.

Now, this will be difficult news for millions of Australians with a mortgage and we understand the pressure that this puts on Australian families and businesses. 

Now, while today’s decision was widely expected, obviously that doesn’t make it any easier.

We know that many Australians are doing it tough, which is why we continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief, including a further tax cut this year and another one next year, both of them opposed by those opposite.

At the same time, we’re doing what we can to strengthen the Budget and address our long-standing productivity challenge.

Now, our midyear budget update showed the budget is more than $233 billion better than we inherited from those opposite and part of the reason for that is $114 billion in savings since we came to office, including $20 billion in the midyear update, Mr Speaker.

Now, I want to make it really clear to the House and to people watching from home, Mr Speaker, that the statement released by the independent Reserve Bank explaining the decision that they’ve taken today does not mention government spending at all.

It doesn’t mention government spending at all, Mr Speaker. In fact, it makes it very clear that pressure on inflation is coming from demand.

Let me make this really clear – this is the Reserve Bank Board in their statement just released, Mr Speaker. Growth in private demand has strengthened substantially, more.

This is the point that the Reserve Bank has made today. Pressure on inflation, the big contribution to the growth in our economy, is from private demand and not public demand, Mr Speaker, and that is clear.

And in the statement on monetary policy, which the bank has also released today, they said that the upgrade to the mid-term outlook was due to stronger private demand. 

They said revision is driven by private demand and the contribution of public demand to year end has continued to ease in recent quart, as expected, Mr Speaker.

So what we’ve seen in our economy is public demand in retreat over the course of the last year, private demand growing strongly and that explains the additional pressure on inflation, Mr Speaker.

Now, I want to make it clear that even though inflation has moderated substantially since those opposite were in office, it is higher than we would like.

We’ve acknowledged that since the data came out. Some of that is temporary pressures. Some of that is more persistent pressures. All of that is adding to the pressures are feeling around the country and that’s why our cost-of-living relief is so important.

That’s why it’s so important that we’ve got the Budget in better nick than those opposite

So that is not unexpected. But for a $600,000 mortgage, that is about an extra $100 a month.

For the average $700,000 mortgage, your increase is around $105 a month.

For a million dollar loan, you will be looking for an extra $150 a month.

All of that going to the banks in profit.

They took the increase.

Zali Steggall:

In recent times federal governments have called all commissions into veterans also come aged care, anti-Semitism and social cohesion. Last year the Prime Minister said Australia domestic violence [was a] crisis with one woman killed every four days. What will force the government to elevate the safety of women and children to be same level of urgency and attention by calling a royal commission into domestic violence?

Tanya Plibersek takes this one as the minister for women:

I know the member for Warringah and Kooyong have written to be prime minister in similar terms and I understand where they have come from and the intent of their letter and this question. 

The government absolutely agrees with urgency of the issues the member is raising. Domestic violence frontline workers will tell you, they don’t need another Royal Commission to tell us what is happening with the deaths of women in Australia and what we need to do.

Frontline workers have been very clear they don’t want another report, they want the implementation of the work we are doing right now. 

Last year the domestic family and sexual crimes commission annual report to Parliament pointed out we have a thousand recommendations and at least eight major commissions, inquiries and reviews. 

Most recently we had the rapid review the National Cabinet commissioned on the behest of the Prime Minister and the premiers. We are implementing that work right now. We have had the South Australian royal commission most recently, many parliamentary inquiries, the Victorian royal commission, we need to get on with the work implementing recommendations and we are.

Right now there are 583 initiatives happening around the country…they are being reported on publicly. Every family violence peak body in this country released a statement that said while commissions have an important role in the Australian system including gathering evidence when we have no other way to get to the root of a problem.

That is not the situation here, the evidence is clear.

We know what needs to be done to prevent, response and help people steal from family violence. That is why this government has invested four billion dollars and started the initiatives I spoke about a minute ago. It is why we are working so closely with the states and territories responsible for policing and courts and for the justice system and day-to-day operations of domestic violence refuges, and why we are about to start consultation on action plan on the national plan of violence against women and that will be an opportunity to say what comes next in the implementation of these recommendations.

The member for Warringah and other members will have the opportunity of making contributions at that time. 

Frontline workers will be part of designing the second action plan as will victims and survivors of family domestic and sexual violence.

We agree with the member for Warringah and the Members for Kooyong and Mackellar about the urgency of this and I would say every member of Parliament agrees with the urgency but we don’t need more reports, we need to focus on the actions that will make a difference.

Sussan Ley then asks to make a statement on indulgence, but she INSTANTLY makes it political and Dugald Dick is not having it! He tells her to sit down and then lectures her about disrespecting the house.

Here is how that new seating arrangement looks in reality. They have managed to get all the women remaining in the Liberal and National parties crowding around the despatch box, so it still looks like there are more of them then there actually are.

A fun thing to watch out for is how the Nationals handle not being tapped for their question. They’ll now be fighting for the spots with the Teals who understand how this all works a lot better than the Nationals, who have always had staff and others to tell them when to get up (usually the piece of paper with the question is just shoved under their nose just before they stand up).

Now they are competing with women, who not only know how the standing orders work better than they do, individually, they are already used to having to fight men for a speaking slot (that’s life as a woman).

So whether or not the Nats get all their questions depends on how generous the independents want to be in giving them time to work out how to do their job.

Sussan Ley opens with a question on interest rates, which is part of the whole ‘we are focusing on the things that matter’ strategy they are running (ask Alexander Downer how well that went)

Ley:

The average holder is already paying road $21,000 more each year in interest under Labor. Today Australians anxiously await the announcement on interest rates. The Prime Minister promised Australians we had, quote, ‘turned the corner on inflation’ and his government had it quote ‘under control’. Countless economists and all of the big four breaks predict rates will rise even further today and this year. Government spending is fuelling this mortgage payment. When will the the treasurers reckless spending end?

(There is nothing to show this is being driven by government spending, but you know.)

There is back and forth about the length of the question and who called out what.

Albanese:

When we were elected, inflation had a six in front of it. It has now got a three in front of it. We turned budget deficits into budget surpluses and use them to pay down debt. That is just part of what we are doing for responsible economic management. 

…We continue to understand the real cost of living pushes all Australians that why we have implemented a range of cost-of-living measures.

The only cost-of-living issue they are interested in talking about is the cost of living with each other.

Etc, etc, etc.

And under the new standing orders, that is all we will hear from the Liberals until question FIVE.

Dixer, Crossbench, Dixer, Liberal is the coming order.

While I still expect the RBA to increase rates, the fact that the market has not really shifted in the past week makes me wonder if even the speculators know the data really isn’t there to actually justify a rise.

A 72% chance of a rate rise is not really that definitive. In betting parlance that is paying $1.39 – that’s pretty strong given it really is only a two horse race (cut or remain steady), but for reference Australia is paying $1.23 to win its group in the T20 world cup (ie beat Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Oman), so it is not a sure-sure thing.

Similarly, the $A has not kept going up, like it would if speculators were feeling pretty super confident of a rate rise.

So while I still think the RBA will raise rates – because I think the RBA *wants* to raise them. It perhaps should not be as huge of a huge shock if they don’t.

First there is a condolence motion for Nick Bolkus, a former minister in the Hawke/Keating governments, and Labor MP from 1981 to 2005.

And it is all about to get underway – the airing of the grievances is almost done (the 90 second statements) and then it is question time – with the RBA to interrupt at 2.30 with its rates decision.

Go grab yourself a treat. You’ll need it.

In news that will not shock anyone (and was predicted in this blog earlier this morning) the NSW Police Commissioner is extending the protest restrictions for another 14 days.

Which will cover the visit from Israeli president Isaac Herzog next week.

Not that they are admitting it publicly (but we all know)

Mal Lanyon:

The matters I talk to government about and about the Premier are things that should stay between the police and government.

It is entirely my decision under the Act whether or not to declare an area for a public assembly restriction. I have to consider that independently.

I meet with my executive committee. We go through the circumstances that exist and have existed for the past 14 days. In taking that into account, as I said, President Herzog’s visit is a very valid consideration.

For Australians in remote areas, accessing safe and timely abortion care can be challenging.  Services can be few and far between, and if doctors object on moral grounds, women can be forced to travel long distances for care. 

For example, Victoria’s conscientious objection clause, known as Section 8, permits doctors to legally refuse to provide abortion care. Although doctors who object are required to refer patients to someone who will help, in regional areas there might not be alternatives nearby. And one 2019 study found that some doctors were abusing this clause to deny care.

Women in regional Australia can be forced to drive hundreds of kilometres to receive abortion care, which can mean having to pay out-of-pocket expenses for transport, accommodation, and lost wages.

In towns with only one GP, a doctor’s personal ideology could effectively prevent abortion for everyone in that area. In fact, a 2024 investigation found that the lack of abortion services in public hospitals means that most of NSW was effectively an “abortion desert”.

Time can be of the essence for women in need of abortion services. The lack of services, compounded by any potential objections by local doctors, can mean women in remote areas miss the nine-week window for medical abortion (induced by pills), which can mean they are forced into a more complicated and risky surgical abortion. One study found that most women who are forced to seek an abortion outside their local area travel four hours or more for care, and most end up needing a surgical abortion.

Access to safe, timely, and affordable abortion is essential healthcare and should be available to all Australians, no matter their address.

A 2023 Senate inquiry described access to abortion care in Australia as a “lottery”, but all Australians should have access to abortion services, regardless of postcode.

Here is how Mike Bowers saw the new chamber (it will be even more of a mess when question time begins)

Anthony Albanese can not pass a baby without picking it up. He is incapable of it. He gets this face and then immediately ignore the people around him and zeroes in on the baby.

Skye Predavec
Researcher

The latest opinion polls have One Nation higher than the Liberal and National parties put together. With One Nation’s support concentrated in regional and rural Australia, discussion has focused on how the minor party poses an existential threat to the Nationals.

In fact, the Liberals are just as vulnerable as their former Coalition partners.

The Liberal Party is often viewed as the city-based component of the Coalition, but that hasn’t been true for at least seven years.

The Liberals actually hold more seats classified ‘Provincial’ or ‘Rural’ by the AEC than the Nationals do – and very few seats in the cities, which now make up less than a third of their caucus.

Of the Liberals’ 28 seats, 19 are either Provincial (“regional”) or Rural. The Nationals hold 14 seats. Of the nine remaining Liberal seats in the cities, just two are inner-metropolitan, after the party lost most of its ‘blue-ribbon’ seats to independent or Labor candidates in the last two elections.

The chart below shows how many seats of each classification the Liberal Party still holds, and how many it lost.

After its 2019 victory, Liberal Party looked very different: most of its 61-strong caucus represented metropolitan electorates. The two elections that followed have fundamentally reshaped the Liberal caucus.

In the 2022 election the Liberals were reduced to a rump of four electorates in inner-cities and lost five of their 20 outer-metro seats. In 2025, the party lost another two inner-city electorates and eight of its 15 remaining outer-metro seats, including Peter Dutton’s electorate of Dickson.

At this point, the 28 remaining Liberal MPs look more like the Nationals than they do the Liberals that governed under Malcolm Turnbull or Tony Abbott.

That’s a problem if the Liberal Party ever wants to form government again – Australia’s regions have a lot to offer, but not the votes or seats necessary for a majority in Parliament.

After the lols of revealing the new seating plan (which is amazing) there was then a debate about how questions would be handled, given the Nats are no longer in the opposition.

But if they got as many as they wanted, then question time would run FOREVER. So there was a back and forth with One Nation defacto leader Barnaby Joyce, who puts the Barn into Barnson, had the last speaking spot, urging the party he helped destroy to ‘get it together’.

Which made all sides of the house grown.

Here was Barnaby, the arbiter of ‘normal’ lecturing the flaming ruins he left in his wake:

Obviously, at the start, the issue we have is there, there is no Coalition, and just looking at it, Mr. Speaker, if we have, if the Liberal Party have eight [questions] then obviously the cross bench will have to get eight [questions], which means that the government will have to get 16. That’s 32 questions. So we’re looking at it was at about 112 or so minutes, and with the condolences, motions and everything else, that means question time is going every day for around about two hours.

And then after that, you’re going to, after that, you’re going to have the MPI, so you’re starting to tighten things up quite considerably.

I also think, Mr. Speaker, that the one thing you don’t want to draw attention to is is exactly what’s happening and staying here for two hours, with the cameras focusing on what inevitably will be sorted out, but currently is the total fiasco, is probably not the best thing for for the Australian people, is caught. It’s a little bit of an indictment, and I asked that the coalition just get it together and get back and get us back to normal programming.

Anyways, here is how that all ended up:

During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

 (i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and

 (ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.

Now that parliament has started and the new seating plan is in place, Tony Burke got to use the line he has been waiting to use all summer:

We now have the cross, the very cross and the apoplectic benches”

So the crossbench are having a very fun time today – eagerly awaiting question time where the new seating plan will come into play. There are as many crossbenchers as there are Nats which is one of the things which is amusing them, and then the Liberals were unable to replace the Nats because a) lack of talent – it is as shallow as a water drop in there – and b) you don’t want to promote one of the nufties and then de-mote them when the Nats come back for the third time.

This has amused the crossbench greatly, particularly those who have spent their time in parliament being heckled by the Coalition MPs. Sometime karma is a seating plan, you know?

Back in September, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland announced dramatic changes to Australia’s freedom of information (FOI) laws: banning anonymous requests, charging fees on FOI requests and making government documents harder to access. 

In its pursuit of secrecy, the Albanese Government is now actively defying the findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission.

The Australia Institute said from the start that the Government’s claims didn’t add up, and a month later we published detailed research showing how bad FOI has gotten under the Albanese Government.

The Government made sensational claims that criminal gangs and foreign agents could abuse the FOI system, that the eSafety Commission was overwhelmed by FOI requests and that AI bots were generating requests.

My colleague Skye Predavec fact-checked those claims, and found all of them wanting.

But perhaps the Government had evidence that they weren’t sharing. To find out, I put in a freedom of information request about freedom of information.

That was 3 September – over 150 days ago. By law, the Government should answer in 30 days unless they are entitled to an extension. The Department asked the Office of the Australian Information Commission (OAIC)for an extension.

The OAIC refused, and very politely explained that the Department doesn’t understand their own FOI laws – which helps explain why the FOI system has become so expensive and time consuming.

With the extension refused, why did we have to wait so long for these documents?

In short, because there are no penalties for the Department for defying the law, and refusing to publish documents. In cases like these, delay is as good as denial.

And what’s in the documents?

1/ No evidence that FOI has been used by foreign adversaries.

2/ One agency’s guess that half of non-personal matters include AI-generated content (not that the AI bots were generating the claims, as the government said.)

3/ Claims of harassment of staff which, of course, would be unacceptable and should not be tolerated. But also: the documents confirm that the Government is already using the Australian Federal Police and the existing FOI Act to address that. That part of the system is working.

4/ Numbers that show that anonymous requests are rare: 10% for one department, 17% for another, with a third department not bothering to keep track.

In other words – nothing in these documents justifies the Albanese Government’s attempt to limit freedom of information rights in this country. The 150 day delay is proof of how embarrassed the Government is of the flimsy case for its FOI changes.

The economists at the Australia Institute have a fun series they like to call Graph Crimes, where they send around the worst graph crime of the day.

An early runner today is this from the White House:

Pauline Hanson, federal senator, is in Adelaide for the return of parliament (of course) where she is launching Cory Bernardi’s latest political career (after really, really believing in the Liberals, he really, really believed in Australian Conservatives, then he really, really believed in his media commentating career and now he really, really believes in One Nation).

Hanson often misses parliament and her job as a senator (where you know, she is really making a huge difference) but she is very much enjoying being mobbed at airports again. This happened in 1998, then 2016 and now 2026, so you can almost make it a new astrological portent. Forget Saturn Returns – Australians must endure the Hanson return.

(She is a Gemini Sun, Pisces Moon and Scorpio rising, which really explains A LOT (if you know you know)

OK, so this is being reported by others now (I only had one source on it originally and I always like to have it from at least two before hitting go on something) so here is what the latest demands from Ley to Littleproud about the coalition getting back together again.

Sussan Ley has told the party room that she wants a guarantee that Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadall and Susan McDonald all sit on the backbench for at least six months before any return to the ministry. (They were the three that broke shadow cabinet solidarity). And she wants shadow cabinet solidarity to be “reaffirmed” which means if a decision is made, it is made for both parties no matter what the backbench thinks.

This is not what Nationals like Matt Canavan or Bridget McKenzie want. So good luck here!

Patrick Gorman, the assistant minister to the PM and one of the up and coming anointed ones within Labor ended his press conference with a comment on the bomb thrown into a Boorloo Invasion Day rally on January 26 (Perth). A man has been charged. But the first response from police and media was not to treat it as an alleged bombing attempt, or a hate or terror crime. It was not until public outrage showed no signs of slowing down, that further charges beyond ‘intimidation’ were considered.

Gorman was not asked about the attack, so his response here is something he wanted out in the public. Given some of the political undercurrents in WA (including that maybe not everyone is on board with drill baby drill as the WA and federal goverments pretend) this is a very interesting interjection:

I will just say one last thing, if I can, as the Member for Perth. Yesterday, I was briefed by the Australian Federal Police about the incident that occurred on 26th of January, where we saw an explosive device thrown into a crowd of people who were peacefully gathering exercising their democratic rights. This has sent fear into First Nations communities. It has sent fear across my electorate of Perth, and indeed, across Australia. It was an attack on our democracy. It was an attack on people exercising their democratic freedoms. I just want to thank the Australian Federal Police and the WA Police for their ongoing investigations. And of course, we know that this has now been investigated as a potential terrorism incident, that work is ongoing. I’m really grateful for the work the police are doing. 

On Friday, the Albanese government announced a new funding agreement with the states and territories, including a boost to federal funding of public hospitals.

While the exact details of the deal are yet to be released, historically, the lion’s share of funding for public hospitals has gone to hospitals in major cities. This has left hospitals in the bush to scrape by with 90% rural doctors citing the lack of funding as a critical concern.

Public hospitals in small rural towns receive 70% less funding per person than those in the cities.

Committing more funding to rural public hospitals would ensure sufficient staffing, quality equipment, modern facilities, and access to support services like diagnostic imaging and pathology.

It is no surprise, then, that many residents seeking medical treatment travel long distances and face high out-of-pocket expenses.

This funding gap is a matter of life and death. Regional and remote Australians are being admitted to hospital two to three times more often and dying six years younger than their city counterparts.

Until substantial funding is committed to improve public hospital access in regional and remote areas, it’s understandable if Australians in remote areas question whether announcements of “record funding” are just a code for business as usual.

The Government is currently running a review of tax concessions for electric cars. This was announced after a series of media stories, handwringing about the cost of these concessions and how they mostly benefited high-income earners.

While it’s true that there are more progressive ways to decarbonise our transportation system (such as big investments in electric public transport), focusing on EV tax concessions is a strange priority while Australia’s transport emissions are still high and rising, and fossil fuel-guzzling vehicles still receive big tax breaks. According to a recent report from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Australia’s transport sector emissions are actually above their pre-pandemic levels, partly driven by a strong increase in diesel consumption. According to DCCEEW:

The strong increase in diesel consumption since 2009 (Figure 12) is largely driven by … growth in the vehicle fleet due to population growth; increasing popularity of diesel-powered Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs); and increasing demand for freight, which is dominated by diesel-powered light commercial and heavy vehicles.

The number of light commercial vehicles (a category that mostly includes utes) and SUVs has exploded in recent years. While in 1994-95 three-quarters of new vehicles were ordinary cars, such as sedans and hatchbacks, today, this figure is only one in six.

This has been actively encouraged by Australia’s tax settings, which effectively give away public money to subsidise people buying big cars. The luxury car tax includes a loophole that essentially exempts all utes, incentivising people to buy expensive utes (such as the gigantic American RAM1500) rather than smaller vehicles. This loophole cost $250 million in 2023.

Meanwhile, poor enforcement appears to have allowed significant tax dodging of fringe benefits tax on utes.

Other tax incentives include the (currently expired but regularly reintroduced) instant asset write-offs. The Morrison Government temporarily supercharged these tax giveaways during COVID-19 by raising the Instant Asset Write Off to $150,000 and creating the Loss Carry Back tax offset.

I’ll dive into the second part of this, fuel tax credits for heavy vehicles, in part two.

I’ve just returned from the High Court, where two former independent candidates from Victoria are challenging the state’s laws around political donations.

In Victoria, the Labor, Liberal and National parties can ignore the state’s strict $4,900 cap on donations when the payments come from so-called “nominated entities” (the party’s asset-holders and fundraising groups). It’s just one of several party loopholes that the Australia Institute’s research identifies.

Independents Paul Hopper and Melissa Lowe argue that these rules are so unfair that they breach the freedom of political communication that all Australians are entitled to.

Turns out, the Victorian Government agrees.

Last year, the Victorian Government made the highly unusual move of admitting that their own laws are unconstitutional, before the court hearings even began. However, their proposed solution is limited – and there’s no guarantee they can get it through Parliament anyway.  

Now it’s up to the High Court to decide if any part of the nominated entity laws are salvageable.

You may have heard about a similar court case brought by former senator Rex Patrick and former independent MP Zoe Daniel. The cases cover similar topics, but Mr Patrick and Ms Daniel’s case is focused on the unfair and rushed federal laws that Labor and Liberal teamed up to pass last year.

That said, if the Victorian laws are unconstitutional, there is every chance that new federal and South Australian laws are as well. That’s why over 35,000 Australians joined the Australia Institute in calling on governments to do electoral reform properly, with a multi-party inquiry examining the laws for fairness, proportionality and constitutionality. Instead, Labor and Liberal forced the changes through on the last days of Parliament.

The latest release of house price data from Cotality shows for the year to January 2026, dwellings increased by 9.4%. This is far higher than incomes, which means that home ownership is getting further out of reach.

For housing to become more affordable, incomes must increase faster than prices. But wages are increasing at about 3.4% per year, far slower than house prices.

This month the data shows that Perth joined Sydney, Brisbane, and Canberra, with median house prices above $1 million.

The Albanese Government has claimed that it is trying to make housing more affordable, but these figures show that they are failing.

If the government wants to make housing more affordable then it needs to introduce policies that will work. The best of these is to scrap the capital gains tax discount. This will discourage speculation in housing, freeing up homes for people who want to live in them.

This would also raise billions of dollars that could be used to build more public housing that would help make housing even more affordable.

Before things can get better they have to stop getting worse. Month after month we see housing affordability is going in the wrong direction. It’s time we had real action.

Here was Jim Chalmers at a doorstop this morning – where he is obviously getting tired of answering the same questions. Asked if he took responsibility for the predicted interest rate rise this morning, Chalmers said:

I take responsibility for all aspects of my job, including my part in the fight against inflation but more than that, we’re taking action. We know that Australians are under pressure, that’s why we’re making their medicines cheaper, it’s why there’s more bulk billing and Urgent Care Clinics, it’s why we’re providing student debt relief, it’s why we’ve got the budget in much better nick than we inherited from our predecessors. All of that is about managing the budget responsibly in the context of these inflationary pressures.

Now that inflation number last week didn’t come in that much higher than we expected, but it came in higher than we would like. Some of those factors were temporary, like holiday spending, the withdrawal of state energy rebates, but there are some persistent pressures there as well, and that’s our focus.

Each year the Treasury department receives a stack of “pre-budget submissions”. These are essentially wish lists by organisations for what they think should be in the budget. They don’t actually influence the budget because they come far too late in the process, but it makes everyone feel nice that they had a say and it also gives those organisations a chance to give their submission to the media and get stories out of it. (As an aside we at The Australia Institute generally don’t bother doing them because we mostly prefer doing things that have impacts rather than just look like they’re having an impact)

So today the AFR reported that in its pre-budget submission the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has called for government spending to be cut “more than $50 billion a year from the budget to help tackle persistent inflation”. A better way to put it would be to say that “ACCI calls for the government to send the economy into a recession”.

I know it can get a big confusing about what is $50bn of government spending but it is worth around 2% of the entire annual economy of Australia. So what ACCI wants is for the government to in effect cut 2% of GDP in a year. The only way this would not lead to a recession is if the private sector was to fill the gap, which would take some doing.

Cutting the amount ACCI wants would be the biggest cut to government spending, outside of the wind down after the COVID, in the past 35 years:

And look maybe you think the mother of all austerity programs is worth doing right now. If the private sector was pumping along madly, you might have a point. But here’s the thing, the private sector is not doing all that well. The public sector has for the most part of late been keeping the economy growing. In the past year, finally the private sector has got going, and guess what, the public sector has begun to wind back it’s impact.

What ACCI wants is not just for the public sector to further shrink its impact, but to actually start having a negative impact – to start working to make the economy smaller! At a point where the private sector is still pretty weak, that is a nice way to head towards a recession.

What it all really comes down though is to businesses hating public services, and there is a true hatred of the NDIS. ACCI is quoted as saying that getting spending back to 25% of GDP “is consistent with the average level of government spending in the decade pre-COVID”. Well yeah, but pre-COVID we didn’t have the NDIS in any way the size it is now. If you take out spending on disability support, government spending is pretty average:

Ironically of course, the NDIS was designed by the Productivity Commission as a privatisation of the disability service sector because they said it would be more efficient and reduce costs. Who knew that when the private sector takes over public services, profit becomes more important than the service? Oh that’s right, everyone.

Skye Predavec
Researcher

On average, each year of sending a child to high school costs Australian families just under $5,000, almost four times the OECD average. That’s across both public and private schools, with families that send their children to private schools paying even more — fees now reach as high as $55,000 per year.

What’s to blame?

According to new Australia Institute research, it’s the unusually high number of Australian students going to private schools, combined with unusually high private school fees.

Over 40% of Australian high schoolers are privately educated, a number that continues to grow. But in most OECD countries, private schools that receive public funding are not allowed to charge fees; Australia’s system of “double-dipping” is highly unusual.

Unlike many other developed countries, Australian private schools are free to charge any fees they like and choose which students to admit, despite receiving government funding.

It now costs an Australian family over $11,000 per year on average to send their child to a private high school, though fees can reach as high as $55,000.

And these rising costs aren’t leading to better performance. In fact, Australia’s results on the international PISA test have dropped since 2008, especially in private schools.

Put another way, despite Australian private schools sometimes charging fees as high as $55,000 per year, that price tag is not guaranteeing a better education.

Without change, this will only get worse.

Private high schools are continuing to grow, and, if current trends continue, they’ll educate most of Australia’s secondary students by 2055.

Combining this growth with surging fees means Australian education is fast becoming a tale of two systems: private schools, which can afford to spend millions on non-educational facilities like swimming pools and ski lodges, and public schools, which can’t even afford to repair their classrooms.

For the full story about why Australia’s high schools are so expensive, and what it means, read the article here: https://thepoint.com.au/off-the-charts/260203-why-australian-high-schools-cost-families-more-than-anywhere-else-in-the-developed-world-in-3-charts

All the betting is that they will raise rates from 3.6% to 3.85%. For a $600,000 home loan that’s roughly an extra $50 a fortnight in repayments. So that’s nice.

Why is the RBA likely to do it?

Well inflation in December was 3.8% up from 3.4% in November. That’s well away from the 2%-3% target range the RBA’s aims for. And if that was all you were looking at, case closed. Except well.. all of that jump was due to international holidays and domestic holidays. Take that away and inflation remained at 3.4%.

The problem however is there are stonks of economists and commentators around who love the idea of an interest rate rise. They want a tough RBA that is devoted to fighting inflation (do not underestimate the macho testosterone bullshit involved here). The market is pricing in around a 75% chance of it happening. There have been for example columns in The Australian suggesting that the RBA needs to raise rates to restore the RBA’s credibility. They also want Michele Bullock the governor of the RBA to call out Jim Chalmers as being an evil spend thrift who has single handily caused inflation to go up.

It’s a all rather stupid, and as much about the ideology of those who are anti-government spending than anything else.

But being stupid (or ideological) does not mean the RBA won’t follow through.

The easiest thing for the RBA to do is raise rates. If they do that most commentary will be that it was necessary, that it showed the RBA remains committed to bringing down inflation, that the RBA has retained its credibility.

If it doesn’t raise rates it will have to explain it to journalists who have all come to believe that rates not only will go up (because the market has said it will) but that they should go up because, well inflation went up, so isn’t that what the RBA is meant to do??

Here’s the problem. Let’s look at that inflation.

The monthly CPI figures can jump around to all hell. Monthly inflation growth in October was 0%, in November it was 0%, in December it was 1%! If that December figure was to happen every month, annual inflation would be 12%. That just shows you how absurdly erratic it was.  But remember that all of that was due to holiday travel. Take that away and December inflation was …0%, which would mean there had been 3 months in a row of inflation not rising at all.

The RBA looks at annual inflation rather than monthly, but monthly figures do give us some indication of where things are going.

But because CPI can get affected by weird erratic stuff like holidays, the monthly figures are better judged by the underlying inflation – which strips out all the big jumps and falls in any one month and gives a sense of the “core” level.

And when we look at that we see that in December monthly underlying inflation of 0.23% was lower than in any month since June last year:

For annual underlying inflation to be below 3% you want prices on average to not rise by more than 0.25% in a month. They rose by 0.23% in December. Inflation is already heading in the right direction.

Also, crucially last January there was a big jump in underlying inflation – 0.33%. That was the second biggest jump in the past year. But when the next lot of inflation figures come out, that month will no longer be included in the annual figures. This means that if inflation keeps slowing the way it has been for the past 3 months, annual underlying inflation in January will fall. If monthly inflation in January is merely the same as it was in December, then annual underlying inflation will be merely 3.1% – just a touch above the RBA target. Do we really need to raise rates because of that?

The RBA raising rates now would be about it reacting to prices growing last year, not looking at what is happening now.

The RBA should wait. They likely won’t. But if they do keep them on hold, don’t fall for all the shock headlines about the RBA having lost credibility or having given up on fighting inflation. They will actually have just done the smart thing.

Here is how you know Anthony Albanese is in a good mood:

Q:  Do you have any lessons from inside the church, PM?

Albanese:

It was a beautiful service. It’s always a good way to begin the year. And I think the highlight was the junior choir, it was absolutely delightful. And they’re wonderful young people. And whenever I’m with young people, whether it’s from an early learning situation of child care, or in a primary school in particular, what you see is hope for Australia. The diversity that we have in this country, the fact that prejudice is something that quite clearly is learned. Kids just see other kids. They don’t see religion, they don’t see difference, they don’t see race. What they see is other children. And they just get on and I think that is always a lesson I take from engaging with young people.

Q: Prime Minister, interest rates are expected to go up today, how are you planning to help Australia?

Albanese: 

We’ll continue to focus very much on cost of living. That’s been our focus for our entire term. We, of course, inherited an inflation rate with a six in front of it and rising – interest rates began to rise before we came into office. We’ve been very focused on helping people and making a difference. What has been extraordinary over recent weeks, as we’ve seen, is that the Coalition are fighting each other with the same energy they used to reserve for fighting our cost of living measures, fighting against our tax cuts, fighting against our energy rebates, fighting against our health measures and our cost of living measures. What we’ll continue to do is to focus on the needs of Australians. We’ll allow the former Coalition members to continue to focus on each other.

Here is a bit more on Jim Chalmers this morning, ahead of the RBA’s board meeting. Business has been running around like capitalists on a government contract, complaining that government spending is fuelling inflation (they would like no government spending to let the good ole market take care of it, because hasn’t that worked out well) and where the market goes, so to does the RBA (usually)

So there is a lot of breathless commentary that this latest inflation bounce is the fault of government spending (despite the data making it clear it was holiday spending in December – but why should facts matter when the capitalists are upset?!)

Here was Chalmers trying to make that point this morning on the Nine network:

If you look at the most recent inflation data, that was about holiday spending, the tick‑up was about holiday spending and the withdrawal of the energy rebates, some weather issues in fruit and vegetables, some more persistent issues in housing.  Now all of those are serious issues, but some of them are temporary, and they’re not fundamentally about government spending.

If you look at the economy last year, Karl, the big story in the economy was the way that public demand from public spending took a big step back and it was replaced by the private sector. The private sector is driving a lot of demand in our economy. You prefer it that way than the other way, but there are some inflationary pressures that come as a consequence of that. Now in saying that-

Q: So no inflationary pressure from government spending?

Chalmer:

 Well, as I’ve said for some years now, budgets aren’t the primary determinant of prices in our economy. But I also acknowledge at every opportunity that I can that governments can play a helpful role in this fight against inflation. That’s why we found $20 billion in savings in the most recent budget update, it’s why we’ve improved the budget by $233‑odd billion and paid down more than $170 billion of Liberal debt.

This is all about recognising that the Reserve Bank and the Government have got different responsibilities, but we’ve got the same objective, which is to try and get on top of this inflation without seeing a big increase in unemployment. We’ve made a lot of progress the last few years but we know that there’s still pressure there, and that’s why it’s a big focus of the Government.

Our opponents are tearing themselves apart – we’re not distracted by that, we’re focused on the cost of living, we’re focused on housing and the economy more broadly, and that focus won’t change.

That update from Kat Wong at AAP shows just how loose these new laws (particularly NSW’s) are. You don’t need a conviction and have no recourse to prove it is not hate speech, but perhaps criticism of a nation state grounded in evidence, fact and history. And if you work for NSW education, you could now lose your job for advocating against genocide (as the list of ‘banned’ phrases grows on one side of this equation). It is a very, very slippery slope into danger and along with the protest crack down (again, for one side) show just how much freedom of expression and speech is at risk in Australia.

Teachers and principals who engage in hate speech could be fired under new laws strengthening rules for school staff.

All workers at more than 3000 NSW schools will immediately be affected after the state government on Tuesday unveiled changes to explicitly ban hate speech the code of conduct for staff across government, independent and Catholic schools.

It follows cases where prominent teachers or principals have been accused of hate speech but the government has felt it could not take action, Premier Chris Minns said.

“If you participate in hate speech, even if it’s not on the school grounds, then you’re not the kind of person we want shaping young minds,” he told 2GB.

“Young people are vulnerable and they’re vulnerable to a person in authority giving them bigoted information.

“We recognise everyone’s got a responsibility to stamp out hate speech as well as hate preaching in our community.”

The changes build on reforms to state and federal hate speech laws proposed after two gunmen opened fire on a Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach in December, killing 15 people.

NSW has proposed jail time and larger fines for those who publicly display symbols from terrorist groups such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic State, while controversially pushing to ban slogans like “globalise the intifada”.

The slogan has historically been used as a call for increased pressure on Israel to prioritise human rights, with the Arabic word intifada referring to uprisings in Palestine in 1987 and early 2000s.

It has become more popular in rallies in Western capitals as Israel’s military ramped up its bombing and starvation of Gaza in the past two years.

Though the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and others say it means “killing a Jew wherever you find one”, hate speech experts say its meaning is contested and warn quarantining certain words could erode legitimate political expression.

A report released by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network in September analysed the testimonies of 84 respondents to its anti-Palestinian racism in schools and found many already felt silenced and discriminated against for showing solidarity with Gaza.

One teacher reported being called into a principal’s office in 2024 and asked not to wear his keffiyeh during a school-themed day aimed at celebrating multiculturalism.

They had been asked to don the Palestinian cultural scarf on previous occasions.

Other educators cited reported censorship of discussions about Palestine.

Meanwhile, lawyers have said the federal legislation, which allows the government to outlaw groups that promote hatred and refuse or revoke visas of people who hold extremist views, could have unintended consequences on freedom of speech and political criticism.

Nationals leader David Littleproud isn’t putting a timeline on reuniting with the Liberals, which one of his party’s MPs says would require “divine intervention”.

Mr Littleproud met with Liberal leader Sussan Ley on Monday evening, with pressure mounting within the Nationals to end the messy coalition split.

The sit-down was the first formal reconciliation talk between the leaders since the break-up two weeks ago, triggered by a disagreement over hate crimes legislation.

Pressed on the issue on Tuesday morning, Mr Littleproud said there was ongoing work to bring the coalition back together but would not give a timeline.

“My room will make a determination, as we did a couple of weeks ago. There’s no unilateral decisions,” he told reporters outside a church service marking the official start of the parliamentary year.

But Scott Buchholz, a Liberal National Party MP from Queensland, appeared less optimistic about the chances of unity between the former political allies.

“That’s where we need divine intervention,” he said.

The Liberals and Nationals are expected to sit separately in the first question time since the political divorce.

The split was sparked by three Nationals senators voting against the government’s hate crimes laws, despite a shadow cabinet agreement to support the bill.

Mr Littleproud blamed Ms Ley for the break-up, because she accepted the trio’s resignations from the front bench.

All Nationals frontbenchers resigned shortly after, precipitating the dramatic split.

But members of the regional party are now publicly and privately calling for the coalition to get back together, to make it a more effective political force.

Queensland backbencher Colin Boyce failed to secure enough support to formally bring on a vote to spill the Nationals leadership during a partyroom meeting earlier on Monday.

Mr Boyce said the party needed to re-form the coalition, with a majority of MPs backing a separate motion introduced by Victorian MP Darren Chester to reinstate the political alliance.

The opposition leader will also likely face a challenge to her leadership of the Liberals this fortnight by Angus Taylor.

Polling has shown surging support for One Nation surpassing that of the coalition, causing alarm within both the Nationals and Liberals.

Ms Ley had previously handed down a one-week deadline to the Nationals for them to come back into the fold.

The Liberals planned to expand their shadow cabinet if an agreement was not reached by February 9, resulting in their takeover of frontbench roles held by Nationals.

The Nationals party room will hold a second meeting on Tuesday before the chambers sit at midday.

Anthony Albanese has spoken outside the church – and his message of the day?

We’ll continue to very much focus on cost of living. That’s been our focus for our entire term. We, of course, inherited an inflation rate with a 6 in front of it and rising. Interest rates were rising before we came into office. 

We’ve been very focused people and making a difference. 

What has been extraordinary over the weeks, as we’ve seen, is that the Coalition are fighting each other with the same energy they used to reserve for fighting our cost-of-living measures, fighting against our tax cuts, fighting against our energy rebates, fighting against our health measures and our cost-of-living measures. continue to do is to focus on the needs of Australians, while  the former Coalition members to continue to focus on each other.

The parliament sitting won’t actually get underway until noon. There will be more meetings this morning, but you’ll also see a lot of MPs out and about trying to claim the narrative of this week.

In other news, Jim Chalmers has announced a new chair for ASIC. (It’s technically a recommendation, but the Governor-General is not exactly going to say no!)

The Albanese Government will recommend to the Governor-General that Sarah Court be appointed as the next Chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Ms Court has been an excellent Deputy and she’ll be an outstanding Chair. 

She is an experienced litigator and leader, and will make a positive impact on one of our major regulators. 

Ms Court has more than 15 years’ experience in senior statutory positions across various corporate regulators, a strong background in regulation, litigation, and enforcement, and deep expertise in upholding corporate standards and protecting market integrity.

And so on and so on. Court will be the first woman to lead the regulator in it’s 35 year existence.

She now joins Michele Bullock, Jenny Wilkinson and Danielle Wood in leader Australia’s financial and regulation institutions (RBA, Treasury and Productivity Commission)

Joesph Longo will finish his time as chair on 31 May and Court will start her five year term on 1 June.

While we are on ASIC, it is worth pointing out that Chalmers has intervened to give company directors even more privacy. As the AFR reports:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has intervened to urge the corporate regulator to remove the residential addresses of directors from its public-facing database after ASIO raised privacy and security concerns following the Bondi terror attack.

In a letter last week to outgoing Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Joe Longo, the treasurer said there were “longstanding concerns about the availability of directors’ personal
information” through the watchdog’s systems, which are commonly used by the public and journalists to verify corporate information and directorships

Why is that an issue?

(The typo in the headline is intentional. It is an infamous tattoo mistake I have seen more than once because I grew up on the Gold Coast)

Here is what David Littleproud looked like as he answered questions on how the meeting to re-unite the Coalition after the Nationals latest tantrum causing the most recent split, looked like. (Spoiler – NOT WELL)

“We’ll keep working through it, but that’s the determination our party room will get to,”

And another close up:

Here is what the church service looked like this morning. Smiles all round (on one side of the room)

Ley who?

With each passing day, the Make America Great Again movement is becoming more battle-hardened and less likely to disappear once Trump leaves office (whenever that may be).

On this episode of After America, author and former speechwriter Don Watson joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the trajectory of the Trump administration, why Australia can’t avoid the rupture being brought about by the MAGA movement, and where Democratic leadership might come from in a “woefully” split party.

OK, so all the MPs are at St Pauls to hear about love and compassion and belonging.

Lots of awkwardness in those first few rows of the church (where the party leaders sit) – and that is while they are on their best behaviour. This does not bode well for the coming weeks.

There is talk, yet again, of rolling Sussan Ley for the leadership of the Liberal Party in favour of Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor. While Ley has been in the role less than a year, she is still the second-most senior Liberal Opposition Leader in the country.

The most senior Opposition Leaders in the country are Labor’s Steven Miles (in Queensland) and Selena Uibo (NT), both of whom took on the role after their party lost government in 2024.

There are six Liberal Opposition Leaders, all of whom started last year.

The longest serving is Basil Zempilas, who became Opposition Leader of Western Australia after Labor won another decisive victory in March. Mr Zempilas is the most senior Liberal Opposition Leader with 10 months on the job.

Having been in her position nine months makes embattled federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley the second-most senior. Ms Ley replaced Peter Dutton following the federal election in May.

The remaining four came to power in quick succession in November and December after leadership challenges: Mark Parton in the ACT, Jess Wilson in Victoria, Kellie Sloane in NSW and most recently Ashton Hurn in South Australia.

Labor also changed Tasmanian Opposition Leader in 2025, with Josh Willie replacing Dean Winter after Mr Winter forced an election in which his own party went backwards.

Of course, an Opposition Leader can do well despite having had the job only a short time. Bob Hawke had been Opposition Leader just five weeks when he won the 1983 election.  

The newest Opposition Leader, Ms Hurn, is the first to face election. South Australians go to the polls in March.

Labor is in government in five of the eight states and territories and at the federal level. In part, this is because the Liberal–National Coalition has recently struggled to hold government when it has won it, with four governments losing an election after just one term.

Changing leaders is not the cause of the Liberals’ electoral woes, but it may well be a symptom.

Thanks to Dr Kevin Bonham who first observed that being Opposition Leader for just 17 months makes Ms Uibo the most senior Opposition Leader in the country.

Red indicates Labor, blue indicates Liberal.

Jim Chalmers is up early this morning, pre-emptively preparing people for the likely outcome of a rate rise at the conclusion of the RBA board meeting today.

Asked if his government would accept responsibility for a rate rise he told ABC News Breakfast:

Well first of all, I’m not going to a prediction about Bank will decide, independently, today. No doubt, they’ll discuss that through the course of today and afternoon. I take responsibility for of my job, including playing a helpful role in the fight against inflation.

You know, in  December, Katy Gallagher and I found (it bounces up) every year But we know it’s more persistent than we would like.

And further:

First of all, the tick-up in the most recent data was not government spending, it was about holiday spending, the withdrawal of housing. Some of it temporary, some of it more persistent than anyone would like. Now, spending, really the main story of the economy last year was public demand. It was around, I think, less third of what it was the before, and private demand really gathered pace. And so when we’re seeing economy, and inflationary economy, that is the commentary, the commentary is motivated by politics and that we’ve got make to helping get spending has not been determinant, certainly in recent inflation data that we saw last (week)

Hello and welcome back to parliament – and the official start of the 2026 sitting year.

Being the first official sitting, the parliamentarians will be off to church first off. This year, the Ecumenical service will be hosted at an Anglican church (they like to show it around) and you’ll most likely get more looks from Sussan Ley like this, as she considers every life choice which has brought her to this moment.

The politics is supposed to be left at the curb, but you can almost bet the chamber on the Ley starting some sort of political attack before she even reaches the curb. The RBA is tipped to raise interest rates today, and the Liberal party launched some ‘cutting regulation’ BS yesterday in an attempt to become somewhat relevant (it’s Abundance Bros, the sequel) but no one cares. But if the RBA DOES raise rates later this afternoon, then the Liberal party gets a breather.

Although that won’t last long with the Nationals still in meltdown mode themselves and Barnson doing all they can to stir the pot (Barnaby and Hanson for new readers). The Nationals held a secret ballot on whether or not they should hold a leadership ballot on Monday (fun fact, Australia invented the secret ballot) and no one bit. So there was no spill. The Liberals are still just as split as they were when they elected Ley (Angus Taylor just fell short then too) but also, no one really wants to push before the Coalition election review and all that mess is handled. Meanwhile Barnson was running around talking about another imminent defection. It was Cory Bernardi. You know, the guy who waited until he got his six year preselection for the SA Liberal senate ticket before going independent and then launching his own ill-fated party before learning that he wasn’t actually popular enough to be elected on his own steam? Who then tried a media career and largely disappeared because it turned out people don’t actually want to listen to him either? Yeah, him. Famously a team player too. Sure that’s going to go brilliantly.

We will cover all of that off and more as the day unfolds. You’ll have me, Amy Remeikis with you, and we have access to some of Mike Bowers’ genius as well. You’ll also get factchecks and some tidbits and explainers thrown in for good measure.

You can comment now a lot easier, and if you have something you’d like us to explain to you, hit me up at liveblog@thepoint.com.au. We love hearing from you.

Coffee number three is not too far away. Hope your morning has been a bit smoother. But ready for the mess?

Let’s get into it.