The Point Live: Coalition clash on net zero all but guaranteed - as it happened.

We’re back on cost of living questions, so we all know how this will go.

Why are things so bad under you?

Why didn’t you support any of our cost of living measures?

Melissa McIntosh, Shadow Communications Minister:

The western Sydney suburbs of Campbelltown, Mt Druitt and Liverpool have two things in common: one, more than 90 per cent of mortgage holders are struggling to pay their mortgage; two, they’re represented by Labor MPs. Prime Minister, why do Australian households have to suffer because this government can’t control its reckless spending and inflation? Does the Prime Minister have any plan to address mortgage stress in these Western Sydney suburbs?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

Since we have come to office, inflation is half of what we inherited. Interest rates have gone down three times this year. They started to rise under those opposite. We went to an election promising much lower spending than those opposite which is why they had two higher deficits going forward. 

What we have done is increased real wages, quarter after quarter after quarter after quarter. We have increased real wages opposed by those opposite. They opposed all of our industrial relations measures.

We have created 1.1 million jobs, three in five of them have been full-time. Under this government the gap between women’s wages and male wages is the lowest it’s ever been. We have record women’s workforce participation as well and we have produced tax cuts for every single taxpayer and there’s two more rounds to come. We want people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. 

We’ll continue to rollout cost of living support, and I’d ask the member for Lindsay to think about supporting some of it some time. 

Since the federal election, fought on who could make housing more affordable, housing has become less affordable.

You might think this would push the government to act, but they continue to rule out cracking down on generous tax concessions that are making housing more expensive affordable.

Latest data from Cotality shows house prices went up 1.1% for October and 6.1% for the year. When prices rise faster than incomes, housing is becoming less affordable.

So, incomes would need to rise by at least 6.1%. They didn’t. In the last year incomes rose only 3.4% as measured by the wage price index (WPI).

This is not surprising. There has been 3 interest rate cuts this year. Also adding fuel to the house price fire is the government’s scheme to allow first home buyers to get in with just a 5% deposit. Ironically, this has been sold as a policy to make housing more affordable.

Despite what we were told at the last election, we seem to be getting the opposite of what we were promised.

The federal government continues to claim that the only solution is to increase housing supply. Increasing supply will help make housing more affordable, but it is the slowest and most expensive way to do it.

Housing supply is also a state and local government issue. The only thing the federal government can really do to stimulate supply is to give money to state governments. When the federal government says supply is the only solution, they’re really saying it’s not our problem.

But not everywhere is doom and gloom when it comes to housing affordability. Melbourne continues to defy the trend, with prices increasing only 3.3% for the year. This means Melbourne has continued to become more affordable.

Five years ago, just before the pandemic, Melbourne’s median property prices were the second highest among capital cities, behind only Sydney. Today they are sixth, with only Hobart and Darwin being cheaper.

This is largely the work of good policy from the Victorian Government. They increased taxes on property investors. This made speculating on residential property less attractive in Victoria. The result is less investors showing up to auctions and more first home buyers getting into the market at a more affordable price.

The federal government could achieve this same result nationally. By scrapping the capital gains tax discount and limiting negative gearing they will reduce investor demand for housing. House price growth will slow, allowing more first home buyers into the market.

Negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount are costing the budget $13 billion per year. Cutting back on these tax loopholes will not only make housing more affordable but could also raise billions of dollars for more public housing.

Public anger at the housing crisis will only grow, particularly as things get worse. After promising affordable housing the Albanese Government is going to have to do something that meaningfully changes the situation.

Reform to the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing is something that they can do that will make a real difference.

The Coalition is embroiled in another battle of the never-ending climate wars, this time infighting over its commitment to the net zero emissions target. In Canberra, the political stakes might be high, but for Australia’s neighbours in the Pacific, climate change is literally an existential threat.

The Australia Institute documentary Save Tuvalu, Save the World, details the struggle against sea level rise in the world’s most vulnerable nation to the climate crisis. The human cost of climate change is already here, and already more severe than many may be aware. And if Australia doesn’t take seriously the concerns of its neighbours, why should they take Australia seriously when Canberra asks them refrain from signing a policing deal with from China?

Australia’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the highest in the world, more than the petrostate of Russia. It is also responsible for exporting coal and gas that goes on to emit 1.15 billion tonnes ofCO2  (2023 figures). That’s over three times the emissions from Australia’s domestic consumption.

All of this exacerbates rising global temperature and sea levels. Countries like Tuvalu are already seeing their lands eroded away by the waves.

In other words, Australia has been allowing fossil fuel companies to rake in profits at the expense of its Pacific neighbours.

If a future Coalition government were to abandon “net zero”, it would signal the nation’s utter disregard for the survival of its “Pacific family”. This is something which must remain at the forefront of any debate (as if there’s more of it to be had) about the urgency of climate change action from Australia.

My colleague Morgan has just drawn attention to the problems the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme poses for Australia’s relationship with other countries in the Pacific. The NSW Anti-slavery Commission and the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery have both expressed concerns that the scheme, as Australia currently conducts it, puts people at risk of modern slavery.

If your neighbour is demonstrably willing to drown you for a few quick bucks, or put your people at risk of modern slavery, while insisting on calling himself your “family”, would you want them to be in the family?

Ted O’Brien, Shadow Treasurer:

While the Prime Minister was overseas, inflation hit its highest level in 2.5 years, flashing through the top of the RBA’s target band. Now the Prime Minister has returned home, will he again pull his Treasurer into line to stop his spending free? Taking pressure off mortgage holders paying $1,800 more every single month on interest than compared to when the coalition left office?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Miniser:

I’m pleased to get a question from someone, who of course, is now Shadow Treasurer, who was promoted into the position of Shadow Treasurer after going to an election with a $600 billion plan for nuclear power. He has a hide to come here and ask a question that speaks about spending sprees when he had a $600 billion plan. And the previous question … was about cost of living measures. Where we know that if you combine – if you listen between the lines there, to that question, what they’re saying is they would rip and cut everything that we are doing when it comes to cost of living measures to assist people. That is what we know that they would do because it is in their DNA.

Hopefully, Ted O’Brien is reading this, so he can see the full answer to his question. He was booted from the chamber half way through.

The week’s first crossbench question comes from the Member for Warringah.

Zali Steggall:

There is a woman in the film industry with over 25 years experience. She wrote to me. ‘I have reached the point where working in my industry is unsustainable. The situation has taken a huge toll on me and my family.’ This is happening all over the country. We need local content quotas but we needed them five years ago. It was a promise that Labor took to the election. For many of us it’s almost too late. Will the government make good on its repeated promises to legislate content for local streamers and save their jobs?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

Just briefly before I hand to the Arts Minister, Mr Speaker, we very much support the local content in the Australian rafts sector right across the board. Whether it be people who are involved in drama and production in that area, whether it be music and Missy Higgin was good enough to come here to support Australian music today. Whether it be all of the creative sector. We are really proud of what our government has done and we’ll continue to engage so that Australian voices are heard.

Tony Burke, Arts Minister:

The policy of the government hasn’t changed. And the principle that we’re working towards is really simple if you pick up your remote control at home and you go to the ABC or SBS, you’re guaranteed Australian content. You go to the commercial TV stations there’s still some level of Australian content guaranteed. If you go to Foxtel there’s still Australian content. And yet sitting there with the same remote control flicking to any of the streaming services, there’s currently no guarantee of Australian content. This is something where people are aware of some of the different negotiations that the government’s been doing but effectively the objective is simple. No matter which remote control you’re holding, Australian content should be at your fingertips. And the methods that we have used previously for other forms of Australian content don’t match with the streaming service was. So for example what we do on free to air TV where you have particular times of day and guarantees don’t work when dealing with an on demand service. Similarly the guaranteed funding that happens to SBS or the ABC doesn’t work for a commercial streaming service. So the methods have to be different and that means we need to work through a series of different trade obligations but in doing so the government’s objective which we previously stated remains completely on foot and hope to continue to be able to report more to the house.

Aaron Violi, opposition whip:

Research conducted by the St Vincent de Paul society shows Australian families are still confronting cost of living turmoil. 32 per cent have skipped meals or gone without food to cover essentials, 36 per cent of Australian families are concerned about going without food. 62 per cent said that cost of living pressures are making difficulty difficult to plan for Christmas this year. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said no Australian would be left behind?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

Cost of living pressures are real and that is why we are acting on them in a real way. We have, since 1 July, delivered a pay rise for all minimum and award wage workers. Taking the total increase under this government to over $9,000. Number of times that the coalition, in government or in Opposition, has made a submission or a fair work case supporting an increase in real wages, zero. Zero. Zero. Now, we know they don’t support net zero but we know also they are net zero when it comes to increases in real wages. Superannuation guarantee, increased to 12 per cent, paid parental leave extended to 24 weeks and super now being paid on paid parental leave. More energy bill relief opposed by those opposite each and every time. $10,000 bonus for housing apprentices on top of their wages, opposed by those opposite. The batteries program that has seep more than 100,000, I haven’t caught up with the latest figure but I’m sure you’ll hear it later in question time. I’m sure it’s coming, I’m confident of that. through those doors. Making an enormous difference. Urgent care clinics that we’re opening up as well, another 50. We have cut student debt by 20 per cent, something that we announced exactly one year ago, and remarkably, remarkably, was opposed by those opposite. By those opposite, and they took that to an election as a saving for them. What we did was do a saving for students and graduates of an average of $5,500 each time. Making a difference to all of these measures. The $20,000 instant asset write-off extended for another year, more choice, lower cost in high-quality care for Australian women as well and, of course, importantly, we have frozen draft beer excise for two years. Making a difference as well. We will continue to engage in all of these measures, including cheaper medicines, there’s one thing they have in common, though. Every single measure by the government, before the last election and since, has been opposed by those opposite.

The first of the September quarter figures that will feed into the GDP figures were released today.

The monthly household spending data out today also included the quarterly volume figures. And the figures are not great.

After some good growth in the first 2 quarter of this year, in July, August and September, total household spending was just 0.2% more than it was in April, May and June. That is well down on the long-term pre-pandemic average of 0.55%.

But the total is being dragged down a fair bit by the collapse in spending on tobacco and alcohol, which was down 7% in the quarter alone (compared to a long-terms average of -0.5%). This reflects the large increases in tobacco excise and in realty the switch of people buying it legally and instead buying black market cigarettes. That means spending on tobacco might not actually not be down that much, it is just that legal spending is down.  So I am focussing for the moment on total spending excluding tobacco and alcohol, because that gives us a better sense of what overall spending is really doing. That was up 0.5%, which is better. But even that is below the long-term average of 0.65%.

The main problem though is that spending is being driven by health care costs and food. These are “non-discretionary” items – things you can’t do without. The drop in spending on Dining out (restaurant and take away) and recreation and culture suggests household cutting back on spending.

It is not a terrible state of affairs given the recent solid growth, but in a world where unemployment is rising, this reflects why  – households are cutting back spending on luxuries and instead devoting more of their weekly budgets to necessities.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is back in the hot seat after last week’s visit to Malaysia for the ASEAN leaders meeting and South Korea for APEC.

Before hostilities begin, the speaker of the New Zealand parliament Gerry Brownlee has been welcomed to the floor of the house, a rare honor apparently.

And the Prime Minister gets the first question, from Opposition Leader Sussan Ley.

Sussan Ley:

Under Labor we have rising inflation and rising unemployment. Prime Minister, households are stretched to the limit. When will prices come down for Australian families?

Anthony Albanese:

As everyone in this Parliament knows, Australians know as well, inflation had a six in front of it when we came to office. And it now has a three in front of it. Yes, there was a rise in the latest figures but that was after a number of falls and indeed with interest rates that the member referred to as well commencing to fall under us. They started to rise under the former government, as the member knows well. On unemployment, unemployment has a four in front of it as well. We have seen employment continue to grow, more than a million jobs being created on our watch. And indeed the average lowest unemployment of any government in five decades. We are very proud of our record when it comes to the economy, whether it be the fact that for the first time in decades this Treasurer produced two budget surpluses in a row. And have also produced, of course, lower deficits than what they went to the election on. At the election just held six months ago today, Mr Speaker, since the Australian people had their verdict on the choices that were before them.

A reader of the blog has asked: how many more seats would the Coalition lose if an election were held today (based on the latest Newspoll)?

On Sunday night, the latest Newspoll showed a new record low for the Liberal–National  Coalition, but – if repeated in an election – how would that shape up in terms of seats? And is that even the right question?

The poll reported Labor has 36% of the primary vote, the Coalition 24%, Greens 11%, One Nation 15%, and other candidates (including independents) 14% collectively. On two-party preferred, Labor leads 57% to 43% (up just shy of two points from the election in May).

The traditional model for Australian elections is the Mackerras Pendulum, which places all seats on a list according to the margin they’re held by. If the pendulum swings in Labor’s direction, marginal Coalition seats fall, but if it swings the other way, Labor loses its marginal seats.

Assuming the swings in this poll apply to all seats:

·       Labor would win 97 seats, up three from the election

·       The Coalition would win 40 seats, down three

But this approach is limited, to say the least.

Australia Institute research has found that the Pendulum only correctly predicts the winner in a third of seats. The national vote total does not determine the results in individual seats, and that’s further complicated by the rise of non-major parties and independents.

To the right candidate, with the right campaign, no seat is safe – regardless of the national numbers.

Take the Greens in the last election, for example. Despite recording a swing of only 0.05% against them, the party lost three of its four seats to Labor because of drastic changes in where their vote came from. So, while the latest Newspoll poll implies the party would lose its remaining seat of Ryan to Labor, that’s far from certain.

Similarly, applying the Newspoll primary vote swing to One Nation to this year’s election results suggests they will pick up one seat – Wright – and independent Zoe Daniel would re-take Goldstein. But just as the Pendulum could not predict the independent surge in 2022, it cannot predict how voters will respond to candidates who have not yet decided to run, let alone announced their candidacy. Trying to project the outcome of an election in three years’ time from a single poll is a fraught exercise at best, especially when it misses the real story: Labor and the Coalition are together polling just 60% of the primary vote, a record low for the major parties and down 6 percentage points from the election.

Westpac has today announced a full-year profit of $10 billion before tax for the financial year ending on 30 September, 2025.

Westpac is one of Australia’s “big four” banks, which together control 72% of all loans to Australian residents.

By market capitalisation, Westpac ranks as Australia’s fifth largest listed company and third largest bank. Westpac alone holds 19% of all loans and 21% of all housing loans in the country.

Australia Institute research shows the big four banks make $213,480 profit over the 30-year life of an average size mortgage for a first-home buyer.

“Australia Institute figures don’t even include the extra profit banks make on any other savings or credit card accounts, transaction fees, kickbacks on insurance they sell your or the ridiculous prices they charge to get a bank cheque,” said Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute.

“The lack of competition among the big banks has come at the cost of home owners, and their massive profits from home loans far exceeds the level of risk the banks undertake.

“The Albanese Government has huge majority in Parliament, and huge opportunity to help take the burden off the people who need help the most.

“A small super profits tax, raising just over $1.7 billion in 2024-25, was imposed by the Coalition Government back in 2017 – that has clearly done little to dent the profits, or the market share of the big bank.

“Increasing it to $5 billion – or more – would take an extra few billion of the banks and give it to the battlers.”