Governor’s language shifts on future hikes – as it happened

Chalmers says Labor will bring ‘level head’ to Asia-Pacific challenges

Jim Chalmers has told ABC Melbourne that the government will be approaching challenges faced in the Asia-Pacific region with a “level head”.

The treasurer responded diplomatically when asked about a story published by Nine newspapers that said Australia faced a “real prospect of war” with China.

Chalmers said Australia’s best interests were served by a “peaceful, prosperous, secure and stable region, and that’s objective in our foreign policy”.

We’ve got an opportunity with a new government to try and stabilise that relationship.

But we do that recognising it’s a complex and difficult relationship to manage.

My job is to do what I can working with [foreign minister] Penny Wong, [defence minister] Richard Miles, [prime minister] Anthony Albanese, [trade minister] Don Farrell and others to try and make their relationship with China the best that it can be.

It’s important to our economy, it’s important to our society, it’s important to our region.

Rate rise to ‘unleash enormous financial pain’, says community housing group

The head of Community Housing Industry Association NSW has said the interest rate rise announced today will “unleash enormous financial pain” among people feeling housing distress across NSW.

CHIA NSW chief executive, Mark Degotardi, said that the RBA’s decision to lift interest rates for the 10th consecutive time was going to punish renters and that the major political parties were “tinkering around the edges” of the state’s housing emergency.

There are almost 58,000 families and individuals on social housing waitlist in NSW. These are real people struggling to stay afloat. The rate rises are compounded by record low vacancy rates, which make it very difficult for renters to afford a place to stay.

Research released today shows less than 5% of Sydney homes are listed at under $400 a week.

It is less than three weeks before the state election. We know the housing crisis is at the top of voters’ minds, and yet our political leaders are not treating this problem with the urgency it deserves. We have politicians paying lip service but neither party has stepped up and made clear commitments to confront the crisis.

Attorney general asks Coalition to ‘keep an open mind and an open heart’ on voice referendum

Mark Dreyfus has urged the opposition to get behind the Indigenous voice referendum, pleading that “there’s still time” for the other major party to back the change.

Dreyfus blasted the opposition for not supporting the Referendum Machinery Act changes in the lower house today. The Coalition voted against the second reading of the bill, but did not oppose the third reading.

“It is disappointing that the opposition is refusing to support this bill – a bill it claims to largely support,” Dreyfus said.

He called the government’s agreement to reinstate the official information pamphlet (which they initially wanted to scrap) “a show of good faith” - but noted the Coalition hadn’t moved amendments to the bill.

“The opposition no longer appears to object to any provision in the bill – the opposition has not moved a single amendment,” Dreyfus said.

“The opposition’s only remaining objection is that the government is not proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on official ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns. That is a position the Liberal party can continue to prosecute without opposing this bill.”

As reported earlier, the government has a few minor technical amendments to propose in the Senate, but will face other amendments from the Greens and crossbench about real-time donation disclosures and fact-checking the pamphlet.

Dreyfus urged the opposition to get on board.

I say to the Liberal party – There is still time to support constitutional recognition. Still time to support the voice.

I urge members of the opposition to keep an open mind and an open heart, when it comes to this referendum.

Victorian Coalition bill aims to implement Ibac recommendations

The Victorian opposition has introduced a bill to parliament, which acts on the findings of a recent anti-corruption watchdog investigation into former government minister Theo Theophanous.

Liberal MP, David Davis, on Tuesday announced the introduction of the Public Administration and Planning Legislation Amendment (Control of Lobbyists) Bill 2023 to parliament’s upper house on Wednesday.

The bill, if passed, implements the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s (Ibac) four recommendations from Operation Clara, which highlighted key weaknesses in the lobbyist register maintained by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Victoria and on governance arrangements at the Victorian Planning Authority.

It will prohibit individuals from exploiting their position on a board of governance, failing to declare conflicts of interest, failing to make proper lobbyist declarations and soliciting donations through the exploitation of a government funded position.

Operation Clara, tabled in parliament last month, found Theophanous improperly lobbied in favour of a $31bn proposal by the Australian Education City (AEC) consortium to develop a large education, residential and employment district in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

Ibac’s three-year investigation did not identify any direct financial payments from AEC to Theophanous for his work but there were “other arrangements that provided financial and in-kind benefit to people associated with [him]”.

“In particular the 2018 campaign for the seat of Northcote, which was contested by Mr Theophanous’ daughter,” the report said.

Ibac did not find any evidence to suggest Northcote MP Kat Theophanous was aware of her father’s relationship with AEC. Theo Theophanous has rejected the findings of the report.

In a statement, Davis said:

Labor has been in power for 20 of the past 24 years allowing shocking conflicts of interest and unacceptable practices to flourish.

Instead of dragging his heels and protecting Labor mates, Daniel Andrews needs to listen to and act on Ibac’s recommendations.

Albanese to attend fourth cricket Test in India with Modi

PM Anthony Albanese is heading to India tomorrow for meetings with Narendra Modi, including a visit to the fourth cricket Test between the two countries.

The ground staff at the aptly named Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad (which, Wikipedia tells me, is apparently “the largest stadium in the world, with a seating capacity of 132,000 spectators”) are already excited about the twin leader visit, according to Peter Lalor, cricket writer at The Australian:

At Labor’s partyroom meeting this morning, Albanese and the sports minister, Anika Wells, bantered back and forth about whether the Australian PM also should get a stadium named after him. It’s probably unlikely his South Sydney Rabbitohs will rename one of the gleaming Sydney footy grounds after him, while the Newtown Jets surely couldn’t change the name of their famous Henson Park.

Albanese may have to settle for having a line of beers named in his honour.

Good afternoon, Mostafa Rachwani with you for the rest of the day’s news.

I am going to hand you over to Mostafa Rachwani for the rest of the evening, but I will be back with all your political news from sparrow’s tomorrow morning.

The prime minister will be on his way to India, so we will have the acting prime minister, Richard Marles, on Wednesday and Thursday, and we also have the RBA governor, Dr Phil Lowe, at the AFR Business Summit, which we will cover for you.

So another big day.

Stay with Mostafa to hear about what else is happening today and thank you to everyone who came along with us today – we truly appreciate it.

Take care of you.

Sally McManus has responded to today’s rate rise:

The RBA concedes that inflation has peaked, the economy is slowing, unemployment is rising and household consumption has slowed. Yet it is still forcing more pain on working people. It’s time it stopped. And it is time big business in our country stopped price gouging.

Real wages are going backwards dramatically, unemployment is rising and what savings people had have been eaten up by price gouging and interest rate rises. This means people are skipping meals, avoiding going to the doctor and are dreading the next bill. Real people are behind the statistics and they are hurting.

Working people are being punished for a problem they did not cause. Big business needs to remember they are a part of Team Australia and reduce their prices. Everyone can see too many big businesses have increased prices more than they need to. Every profit announcement reinforces what everyone suspects – price gouging. Angering customers is not good for business in the medium and long term.

Between the RBA and big companies, the average Australian is bearing all the pain of a situation they did not cause and have little control over.”

CFMEU weighs in on interest rates

Unions are becoming increasingly vocal about interest rate rises. Secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, has been pointing to the need for a better way to deal with inflation for some time. The CFMEU is also asking for some different solutions.

Incoming national secretary Zach Smith said:

The RBA’s model is broken and we need to do more than tinker with its charter — we need a complete refresh. Greedy corporations caused this inflation crisis by jacking up prices and trousering massive profits. And how does the RBA respond? By belting ordinary working people who did nothing to create the problem.

How about we dial up the pressure on corporations instead of on ordinary families? How about we capture some of the windfall profits that banks and energy companies and supermarkets are generating off the back of their high prices?

These rate rises are causing unbelievable pain to blue-collar workers and their families. I know these workers live a long way from Martin Place, but the RBA needs to consider what their day to day realities look like.

People who wake up early and work hard are now struggling to pay for the basic necessities like food, shelter, and electricity. That’s an absolutely disgraceful situation for a wealthy nation to have created.

Polls reveals Canberrans’ stance on carbon emission policies

The Australia Institute has polled Canberrans about their thoughts on carbon credit offsets, as independent senator David Pocock continues his negotiations with the government on the safeguard mechanism.

What did they find? The good burghers of Canberra (I will use Ken Behrens when hell freezes over) want more action:

• 82% of Canberrans believe polluting projects should not be able to offset 100% of their emissions via carbon offsets, only 9% believe in 100% carbon offsets for projects

• 56% believe polluting projects should have to directly reduce their emissions, not use carbon offsets

• 26% believe projects should be able to offset some but not all emissions

• 85% believe the Senate should improve legislation; 7% believe Senate should pass legislation “as is”

• 61% believe it would be better for the Senate to improve climate legislation even if takes longer, while 30% believe climate law should be passed as is so it comes into operation sooner

• 63% agree that the commonwealth government should stop new gas & coal projects, 28% believe new projects should be allowed to go ahead, 8% are unsure

• 40% believe the government should stop new gas & coal projects and start to phase down production from existing projects

• 23% believe the government should stop new projects, but allow existing projects to continue operating as is

• 8.4% Unsure / don’t know

Australia’s first Ambassador for First Nations People named

Penny Wong, Linda Burney and Pat Dodson have released a joint statement naming Justin Mohamed as the first Ambassador for First Nations People.

Mr Mohamed will lead the Office of First Nations Engagement in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Together they will work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to progress Indigenous rights globally, and help grow First Nations trade and investment.

Elevating the perspectives of First Nations people – this land’s first diplomats – enables deeper engagement with many of our closest partners including the Pacific family.

his new position ensures, for the first time, that Australia will have dedicated Indigenous representation in our international engagement.

Mr Mohamed is a Gooreng Gooreng man from Bundaberg, Queensland and brings a strong connection to community.

Mohamed is currently the deputy secretary of Aboriginal Justice in the Victorian government and was previously the chief executive officer for Reconciliation Australia.

He starts as ambassador in April.

Mohamed said in a statement:

I am honoured to be appointed as the inaugural Ambassador for First Nations People and excited about the opportunities ahead to embed First Nations voices and knowledge into Australia’s foreign policies and trade.

I am looking forward to sitting down and listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country, as we develop foreign policies that have First Nations People’s knowledges, voice and connection to country front and centre.

Melbourne aircraft refuellers to go on strike

Workers at an aircraft refuelling company relied on by Qantas and some international airlines and freight companies are set to strike on Wednesday as they seek better pay in the face of record airline profits.

From 4am on Wednesday, Melbourne airport employees of Rivet, which provides refuelling services to airlines including Qantas, plan to strike for 24 hours, unless Rivet and Qantas agree to an urgent meeting to finalise a new pay package.

In a statement, the Transport Workers Union said Qantas accounted for at least 60% of Rivet’s work, and as such a major client, “has the ability and responsibility to dictate through its contracts with labour providers that workers refuelling its planes are receiving fair pay and safe working conditions”. The TWU notes Qantas record $1.43bn half-year profit announced late last month.

TWU Vic/Tas assistant branch secretary, Mem Suleyman, said “Rivet should act responsibly and respond to workers’ reasonable requests for recognition and solutions to high work volumes to avoid disruption to flights out of Melbourne airport”.

For a year, Rivet refuellers have tried to reach a fair agreement but have instead been faced with base wage freezes which impact their pay now and long into the future. In the current cost-of-living crisis it is unacceptable to expect workers to pick up extra responsibilities and work harder, faster and longer to make ends meet.

These are workers in one of the most dangerous jobs in the airport, yet they are being pushed to the limit while pay and conditions fail to attract more workers to share the load... Although protected industrial action is always a last resort, these workers know it is the only option left to bring the company to a fair agreement.

The 24-hour strike at Melbourne airport on Wednesday will commence at 4am and affect mostly Qantas, as well as freight companies Australia Air Express and DHL and some international carriers.

The softer tone in the RBA’s comments today will make some wonder why governor Philip Lowe and his board bothered to scare everyone last month about the need for more rate rises “in coming months”.

Anyway, Gareth Aird, head of Australian economics at Commonwealth Bank Australia, reckons the central bank has one more 25 basis-point rate rise to go, and that will come on 4 April.

The budgets of many home borrowers will be under considerable strain over the coming year

The CBA is sticking with its forecast of 50bp of rate cuts in the December quarter of 2023 and a further 50bp of easing in the first half of 2024.

Unlike last month, when Lowe didn’t speak publicly about the February rate rise until eight days after the decision, we’ll get some more insight into his thinking tomorrow.

Lowe is due to front up at an AFR summit in Sydney tomorrow morning from just before 9am AEDT. You’ll be able to follow along at home here.

Nine has issued a strong defence of its journalists, after the former Labor prime minister Paul Keating criticised today’s “Red Alert” coverage warning of the risk of war with China within three years.

Tory Maguire, the executive editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Brisbane Times and WAToday, said in an emailed statement a short time ago:

Mr Keating has indulged in personal slurs against the journalists at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age instead of engaging in the substance of their reporting.
It’s not a useful contribution from someone well placed to have a meaningful impact on the conversation about our readiness to protect and defend Australia.
Peter Hartcher and Matthew Knott are two of the country’s most highly respected journalists and we stand by their reporting and the expertise of the contributors to the challenging and thought-provoking Red Alert series.
We note he had nothing to say when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Sky News Australia also recently examined the threat of conflict with China and our nation’s preparedness.

Angus Taylor just doubles down on misleading on super and I am too tired for all of this.

The important point here is when you invest in superannuation you get access to that money in it in, 20, 30, 40, 50 years’ time. It is the nature of superannuation. Maybe the Labor party thinks that… maybe they think it is their money, I do not know.

But you do not get access before that. Those timeframes are real and to be 20 times that, stop list misleading the Australian people. Tell the truth upfront how many people are your taxes going to impact?

SIGH.

The Treasury modelling was for 30 years time. That means no changes, at all, on super, for three decades. Treasury is also notorious for over-estimating wage growth (it kept saying it would grow, when it didn’t move for about a decade) and it’s using wage growth predictions and no changes to say that in 30 years time, there is potential for one in 10 Australians to have more than $3m in their super account.

You still get a concession (under these changes). The concession just isn’t as high. You get taxed at a maximum of 15% for all earnings on your principle up to $3m and if you have more than $3m than those earnings would be taxed at 30% from 1 July 2025, IF Labor wins the next election.

I don’t know why parliamentarians treat voters with such contempt at times, but there are a lot who seem to think that people don’t know how to think for themselves.

Angus Taylor is responding to the interest rate increase and uses it as an opportunity to criticise the government over its super tax concession legislation.

But he doesn’t finish the sentence here:

We have seen in recent days Labor break a promise on superannuation taxes. We first heard that only a small number of Australians were going to be impacted but we had yesterday that 10% of Australians are going to be hit by those increased taxes. 20 times more than the initial numbers (IN THIRTY YEARS is what is missing there)

Just following on from my previous post regarding Facebook’s loss in the high court, the office of the Australian Information Commissioner says the case will now return to the federal court, and the Cambridge Analytica case will get under way.

Commissioner Angelene Falk:

Today’s decision is an important step in ensuring that global digital platforms can be held to account when handling the personal information of Australians.

Entities operating in Australia are accountable for breaches of Australian privacy law, and must ensure that their operations in Australia comply with that law.

The deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, has been asked about a report on Sky News that Scott Morrison may quit parliament to take up a consulting position overseas.

Ley told Sky News “no I haven’t” heard whether this is Morrison’s plan for the future. She said he had been a friend “for many years”.

She said:

He will make a decision in the best interests of himself and family and the people of Cook.”

Guardian Australia has contacted Morrison’s office for comment.

High court rules against Meta’s claim it can’t be taken to court over Cambridge Analytica case

Meta’s attempt to claim that the privacy commissioner cannot take the social media giant to court over the Cambridge Analytica case has been squashed by the high court.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner took the company then known as Facebook to court in 2018 over the data harvesting scandal, claiming the privacy of up to 300,000 Australians had been compromised through data collected via a personality quiz on the site.

Meta had long fought the case being heard at all, arguing it did not conduct business in Australia at that time - something that has since changed.

After a short hearing in the high court on Tuesday, the case was dismissed. The court found that the changes to the Privacy Act passed by the Albanese government in December last year removed the section of the Act that Meta had been relying on, and while the law did not apply retrospectively, it did not prevent the OAIC from re-serving Meta again using the new law.

Speculation Scott Morrison may soon retire from politics

Sky News is reporting speculation that Scott Morrison may be considering retirement from federal politics by the end of the year.

Andrew Clennell says he has been informed that Morrison may retire for an overseas consulting job.

Morrison told Clennell that if there was something to say, he would say it and if there was a statement to make, he would make it.

So nothing but speculation at the moment – which can be added to the speculation which has been running rampant since he lost the prime ministership and moved to the backbench.

We have also gone to Morrison for comment, but imagine we will receive much the same response.

The public hearings for the robodebt royal commission finish on Friday.

For those who missed it, this was what Bill Shorten had to say about the robodebt royal commission, today:

The robodebt royal commission has provided Australians who are the victims of robodebt with a chance to tell their stories. These were stories which weren’t heard for four and a half years while the unlawful scheme was being run. One case study, and I quote: “When I found out I had a panic attack and cried. This alleged debt was the third time they had given me a debt and the other two turned out to be invalid as well. At this point, I live in permanent fear. I’m chronically ill and on disability. All doctors tell me to avoid stress. But there was no avoiding the stress Centrelink caused me. Last year I ended up in a psych ward feeling as though I should just give up and die.”

Another statement: “I received a request from Centrelink 18 months ago for me to prove I had not been overpaid by them for what was deemed to be approximately $6,000. I’ve had severe headaches, I’m in constant body pain from my surgery and arthritis. I’ve had suicidal thoughts due to this supposed debt with my anxiety up, my body pains up. Some days I can’t even get out of bed.”

Another story. Jenny was pursued by Centrelink for a Robodebt. It had been alleged she’d been overpaid approximately $3,000 over a period of time over seven years ago. Jenny was employed during the overpayment period, but she could not prove her earnings to Centrelink as her former employer paid her in cash and did not issue payslips during the claimed overpayment period. Jenny’s daughter took her own life. Jenny found it hard to provide instructions during that period of time. She has a diagnosis of PTSD.

We’ve heard from the workers who were working at Centrelink. One worker said: “I wanted to kill myself with a letter to tell the public what is happening. I still cry every day. I feel responsible for the deaths of others. I cannot get some phone calls out of my head.

Another worker said “the impact on my personal life was enormous. I took three months’ long service leave. I ended up in the outpatient services of a psychiatric unit.”

The third worker said “I remember talking to a client whose debt was $5,000. He was telling me the best thing to do would be to go on to the train tracks and lay down. It was very distressing to hear him and all the other customers on the brink of suicide.”

This is why the royal commission is occurring. But at the end of Question Time yesterday, the member for Fadden gave a personal explanation to the House. He said he stopped robodebt. There was no acknowledgement of anyone else. He says he took action.

He sought legal advice on the 4th of July 2019 because he had substantial misgivings. Leaving aside, this recollection has been contested in the royal commission, just think for a moment about the member for Fadden’s version of events.

He waited 155 days.

If you have substantial misgivings, no matter what minister you are, do you wait 155 days? I wonder how many thousands of debts were issued in the period of substantial misgivings.

I remind the member for Fadden and Coalition you are not the victims here.

Mercifully, question time, ends.

Anthony Albanese will now prepare to leave for India. Which means we are a couple of hours closer to acting prime minister, Richard Marles.

And they say politics isn’t exciting!

Question time ends after this speech (in response to a dixer) from Anthony Albanese:

We know there is more to do. We know that families are feeling under pressure.

But those opposite just say no to everything that is put forward. They said no to the housing Australia Future Fund.

They said no to manufacturing jobs. They say no to power price relief for households.

They say no to making super stronger for the future.

They say no to even their own policy, their own policy on climate change the safeguard mechanism.

They don’t put forward amendments, they don’t put forward of improvements.

They don’t try to engage in serious policy debate.

They just say no, they just say no.

It’s no wonder that the leader of the opposition has not appeared with the New South Wales premier since last October.

There’s a forcefield around the New South Wales premier. He’s happy to appear with me, Mr Speaker, very happy to appear with me. As is the Tasmanian Liberal premier, because when we are getting constructive measures done, that is what we have done.

I say this to the leader of the opposition – don’t miss out this Sunday. He missed out on the Victorian Liberal party campaign – don’t make the same mistake twice. Get out there and back in the Liberal party campaign launch, and I encourage the Leader of the opposition to attend on Sunday, to introduce premier Perrottet.

So I’m sure that will be a very successful thing and on that note, Mr Speaker, I ask further questions, be placed on the notice paper.

How high will the RBA go and how soon will they start cutting interest rates will likely emerge as the main speculation points after today’s rate hike.

Sean Langcake, head of macroeconomic forecasting for BIS Oxford Economics, says today’s statement was “slightly more dovish than last month, and leaves open the possibility that there may only be one more rate rise in this cycle”.

Pradeep Philip, head of Deloitte Access Economics, is more concerned that the RBA’s rate rise today puts the central bank closer to stalling the economy.

“Despite acknowledging that inflation has peaked, that the economy is slowing, and wages aren’t the threat they thought they would be, the RBA board has decided to lift interest rates by 25 basis points,” Philip says.

“The RBA should pause rate hikes, or it will overshoot and cruel the economy.”

The Greens’ economic justice spokesperson, Nick McKim, goes further, saying the RBA was “out of control and needs to be reined in.

“The RBA’s response to a problem it doesn’t understand with a solution that doesn’t suit is a form of institutional madness,” Senator McKim said.

“The government needs to wake up and take action to save renters and mortgage holders from being smashed by the RBA’s dogmatic interest rate rises.”

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, though, pointed out in question time that the RBA remains independent.

He will get a chance to put his mark on the central bank soon - he is due to receive the results of the review into the RBA later this month, and he’ll presumably have a say about whether Lowe gets an extended stint when his term of governor wraps up in mid-September.

PM defends Labor’s record as Coalition labels him ‘out of touch’

I missed who asked this, but it was a non-government question:

My question is to the prime minister: Before the election, the prime minister promised a $275 drop in power bills. That didn’t work. So he passed laws that on 12 December 2022, he promised will actually be deflationary by reducing people’s power bills next year. Where are the Australians who have had a reduction in their power bills? Doesn’t this show just how out of touch the prime minister is with ordinary Australians?

OK, just some context.

The $275 drop in power bills was based on modelling and related to 2025. The December energy intervention was never going to mean lower energy bills, but it did mean that power prices wouldn’t be as high as they might have been. The states are still working out their rebates which are the second part of the policy.

Anthony Albanese:

I’m asked about the promises that we made before the election. And can I say this, that we did promise to create more fee-free Tafe places and we delivered. We promised a national anti-corruption commission and we delivered. We promised 10 days’ paid leave to family and domestic violence leave and we delivered. We promised to legislate for net zero and we delivered. We promised to establish a robodebt royal commission and we just heard from the minister a powerful reading into Hansard all the very real evidence of people who were the victims of robodebt.

Now I acknowledge that people are doing it tough. Global inflation means that it has an impact on people, particularly more impact the less income and funds that you have. And so that’s why the government has put in place measures including cheaper medicines, cheaper childcare, fee-free Tafe. That’s why we’ve put in energy price relief.

That’s why we’re taking the action that we are. That’s why we have a responsible budget policy of relief, repair and restraint … because we want to take the pressure off inflation. But those opposite stand in the way of all of the measures that we are putting in place.

There is an attempt at an interjection, but Albanese has decided he has finished his answer.

Monash University latest to adopt controversial definition of antisemitism

Monash University has become the latest tertiary education institution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism policy following a push from parliamentary MPs that has been criticised as an “outright attack on academic freedom”.

On 25 January the University of Melbourne became the first institution to publicly announce it would adopt the definition as part of its own anti-racism commitment, leading to backlash from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, which said it had been denied repeated requests for consultation.

It came after the Parliamentary Friends of IHRA sent an open letter to vice-chancellors in November, urging them to formally adopt the IHRA definition and requesting a response by the end of January.

The Zionist Federation of Australia’s president, Jeremy Leibler, welcomed the decision as an “important milestone” for the safety of Jewish students on campus.

We thank ... the Monash leadership for listening to the concerns of Jewish students and the community leadership, and for acting to help stem the rising tide of antisemitism on campuses. We call on other universities to follow their lead.

This decision by another Group of Eight university, following Melbourne University’s adoption of the definition last month, is a rebuke to those carrying out a shameful and dishonest campaign against widespread adoption of the definition.

The IHRA has faced global backlash among Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of antisemitism, which includes “targeting the state of Israel”, could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK.

Ahhhh “tricky prime minister” has been dumped in favour of “out of touch prime minister”, which is a rehashing of what Labor used to call Scott Morrison.

I think there are about two ideas in politics when it comes to question time tactics and they are recycled over and over again. They could probably give our plastic recycling industry some tips on how to actually properly recycle something, given how often it occurs.

Did someone say election?

Bill Shorten delivered another speech on the robodebt royal commission – I’ll bring you that when I have a moment to correctly transcribe it.

Best way to deal with rent crisis is to build more properties, treasurer says

The Greens MP for Griffith, Max Chandler-Mather:

Recent analysis shows renters will pay an extra $10bn to their landlords this year in rent hikes and reports today show the proportion of rental properties below $400 a week has more than halved in the last year.

Given the government was willing to work with the states to cap energy prices, will the government finally agreed to do the same for rents and put a freeze on rent increases on the national cabinet agenda, as well as doubling rent assistance in the upcoming budget to help stop this mounting crisis?

Jim Chalmers answers:

I don’t think it’s any secret to anyone in this place, Mr Speaker, that we don’t have enough rental properties in this country.

Vacancy rates are incredibly low. Rents are far too high. And the best response to that combination of challenges is to do what we can to build more stock.

And I pay tribute to the housing minister for all of her work, trying to make sure that we can build more housing stock in this country.

There’s an important opportunity for this parliament to vote for more social and affordable housing, which is part of the solution here.

Now we recognise when there are labour shortages when there are pressures on costs of building materials and other pressures, that it is a difficult time to be building more properties. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be putting in place the kinds of funds that are before the parliament.

The kinds of arrangements that I’ve been talking about minister for housing has been talking about when it comes to housing supply and the housing accord. We recognise that Australians are under the pump. We recognise that Australian renters are particularly doing it tough in the context of low vacancy rates and unacceptably high rents. The best way to deal with that is to build more properties and that’s what we intend to do.

Coalition MP Angie Bell questions PM over cost of living

The LNP MP Angie Bell has a question for the prime minister:

On the first of May 2022, the prime minister promised at Labor’s campaign launch that Labour has real lasting plans for cheaper electricity, cheaper mortgages, but the Courier Mail reports that this cost-of-living crisis is forcing Queensland families to pay an extra $1,100 a month on food, groceries, energy bills and mortgages. Isn’t this just another broken promise from this out-of-touch prime minister?

There are a lot of heckles about how $1,100 a month is a lot of money. Which it is. It is also about four nights’ travel allowance for MPs to stay in Canberra, which is on top of their base salary of just over $200,000.

Anthony Albanese:

I thank the member for her question which goes to inflation. And it is true that inflation is a global phenomenon that has arisen because of supply chain issues that occurred during the global pandemic. And then were exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The previous question that I just got asked, which was a mature question from the member for Curtin seeking to contribute to the policy debate, was about the Inflation Reduction Act.

It’s called the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States because there’s higher inflation than there was before the pandemic.

And I must say then there is here as well in Australia. In a global economy we are not immune from the global impact of inflation.

Now for those opposite, who like to profess themselves as free market capitalists, to not understand that is quite extraordinary.

Perhaps they’re arguing that we should have a completely closed economy, Soviet style, that doesn’t link up with global markets and global economic trends, because that is essentially the assumption behind the direction of the questions in which they are going.

Fortunately, in Australia, we have some structures, thanks in part to the reforms of the Hawke and Keating government, that do ensure that we’re connected with the global economy and the RBA governor had this to say: ‘Most advanced economies are in a similar position to Australia and have responded with higher interest rates in some cases to a level substantially higher than that in Australia. Our assessment is that inflation is likely to have peaked around the end of 2022. And will now start declining.’

And you don’t have to even believe the Reserve Bank governor, who are against him, apparently, those opposite these days, but they perhaps can listen to the leader of the opposition.

He said this in 2022: ‘Nobody wants to see interest rates go up, but it’s a reality of a world where there’s inflation.’ You know, that term, a world where there’s inflation. Australia lives in that world.

Investors reckon the RBA has eased its hawkish rates stance

As mentioned, it seems notable that the Reserve Bank is no longer referring to multiple rate rises “in coming months”.

Investors have pounced on the news to send the Australian dollar lower against the US dollar as they trim their expectations of how high the RBA will go. The dollar lost about one-fifth of a US cent to trade at 67.20 US cents, give or take.

Similarly, shares got a boost higher because there’s an inverse relationship between borrowing costs and profits. One goes up, the other goes down, typically. Anyway, the ASX200 benchmark share index of 200 stocks went from flat for the day to being up 0.5%. Not huge, but a notable shift.

Expect the big banks to recalibrate how high they expect the RBA to go, and by when (and how soon they expect the RBA to start cutting).

It comes down to whether the RBA thinks the economy needs much more of a rate rise hit to take out excessive debt. As the governor, Philip Lowe, said today, “the monthly CPI indicator suggests that inflation has peaked in Australia”.

We captured some of that flavour here just last week:

Crossbencher Kate Chaney asks if Australia could have a US-style Inflation Reduction Act

The independent MP for Curtin, Kate Chaney, has the next crossbench question. I am live transcribing, so I miss the entire question, but it is on the US Inflation Reduction Act and why can’t Australia do something similar.

Anthony Albanese:

She is quite right to identify the Inflation Reduction Act as not only the most significant act ever passed by the United States to do with the challenge of climate change.

It will also have an impact around the world and it’s something that the minister for energy is very conscious of as well, because there are such strong incentives to attract capital to the United States to build manufacturing, including in solar panels and batteries and other necessary infrastructure which is required.

It will, in a global economic environment, mean that it is harder, or it means that we’re competing to attract that capital here in Australia. And that’s one of the reasons why the government is responding as we are with the safeguard mechanism to provide that certainty for business to invest going forward.

Albanese also mentions the national reconstruction fund and the climate change authority, and says the government is working on doing what it can, including in rare minerals, to position Australia for the renewable energy market.

PM bats away Coalition question linking rate rises and super changes

OK, heading back into the chamber now.

Angus Taylor has a question for … Anthony Albanese (there are the usual groans that it is not to Jim Chalmers):

Under the Albanese government interest rates have now gone up nine months in a row. Economists and the RBA say there are more rate rises to come. Westpac chief executive Bill Evans says it’s going to be a very tough time. There’s lots of pain out there. Why when Australians are already doing it tough is the prime minister’s only answer to break promises and raise taxes.

You may notice that “tricky prime minister” is no longer being used in every question – must not have done so well in the focus groups.

Albanese:

The shadow treasurer who refuses to ask the question of the treasurer, even in the context of Reserve Bank making the decision independently that they did, exposes the disingenuous nature of the question by refusing to acknowledge that interest rates began to rise on their watch, on their watch, and talk about the rate that’s now 3.6%.

But it was 6.75% when this bloke was the assistant treasurer of Australia – was 6.75%. 6.75% – more or less than 3.6?

So disingenuous.

The shadow treasurer who asks a question said as recently as last September: ‘It is very clear. It is very clear the world has changed dramatically even in the last few months, we’ve seen a rapid shift to an inflationary environment, interest rates, bucking decades and downward trends.’ That’s what he used to say. That’s what he had to say.

This shadow treasurer was asked repeatedly by David Speers on Insiders to say that it was a bad policy, and he couldn’t bring himself to do one because this precisely the policy that he backed, that he backed [previously].

… Those opposite helped create problems with supply chains that have fed into the inflation.

The Reserve Bank governor has said that up to two-thirds of the inflationary pressures in our economy are about supply chains.

Those opposite coming in here and voting against the national reconstruction fund, which will assist with the supply chain issues that we’re confronting.

They also came in here and voted against the relief that was provided for in December, that one and a half billion dollars of energy relief.

They oppose the measures that we put in place … for childcare reform that we put in place on July, but what they did the last time they had an opportunity to have a budget, what they did was poured a massive amount of money into the system [increasing inflation issues].

Treasurer Jim Chalmers concedes latest rate rise will make life harder for many

Jim Chalmers is addressing that decision in parliament.

This will make life harder for many Australians who are already under the pump. This was expected, it was flagged, the markets anticipated it, but it will still sting, these interest rate rises which began before the election. The cumulative impact of those on someone for every half a million dollars owed now faces about $1,000 a month more in interest payments. That’s the cumulative impact of these rate rises, which began before the election. Last week’s national accounts showed that Australian households spend about $20bn in mortgage interest payments in the December quarter compared to about $11bn in the same period a year earlier.

As I said, the worst quarter for inflation was the March quarter last year before government changed hands and that’s when rates started rising. The Reserve Bank takes its decisions independently, and that independence is an important feature of our system.

The government’s job is to take responsibility for those things we have an influence over.

Australians understand that a lot of this inflation is coming at us from around the world and they understand that broken supply chains here in Australia have been part of the problem as well.

And so we take responsibility for working through this inflation issue in a responsible and a methodical way to address inflation in the ways that we can.

And our three-point strategy is all about, as we’ve said before, cost of living relief, prepare supply chains and [spending] restraint in the budget.

Now as the Reserve Bank governor’s statement says today, it makes clear, we do expect that inflation has peaked, but it will be higher than we’d like for longer than we’d like.

That’s why our cost of living relief is targeted and responsible so that we make life a little bit easier for people but don’t add to inflation, making early childhood education cheaper, making medicines cheaper and building more affordable housing, providing help with energy bills and getting wages moving again. Now, Mr Speaker, when Australians are doing it tough. And there is a trillion dollars in Liberal party debt left to Australians.

Our highest priority is cost of living relief, responsibly. When Australians are under the pump and interest rates are rising, the highest priority of those opposite is borrowing more so that ordinary people can subsidise bigger tax breaks for people who already have tens of millions of dollars in super.

OK, now the RBA decision is just a few minutes away, so I am going to just divert for a moment, to bring you what the outcome of the latest board meeting was.

It is expected interest rates will be raised for the 10th time in a row.

Zoe Daniel asks if the government will ban gambling ads on TV and online

Zoe Daniel has the first crossbench question:

AFL fans and several players have declared they want gambling ads banned from screens. Ex-Collingwood great Nathan Buckley has challenged the government to lead, comparing today’s gambling industry to the tobacco industry of old. With teenagers gambling online, knowing more about multis than the sport they’re watching, will you read the play and ban gambling ads on TV and online?

(That’s after a report on the ABC’s 7.30 yesterday.)

Michelle Rowland gets the question (and has to face some heckles from having accepted hospitality and donations from gambling giant Sportsbet):

Mr Speaker, the government recognises the importance of gambling promotions being presented in a responsible manner. Whilst the commonwealth’s responsibility in this sector is shared between myself and the minister for social services, it is the communications portfolio which regulates the types of online gambling services that can be provided to Australians, and for overseeing the advertising rules for the broadcasting sector.

For the benefit of members, Mr Speaker, the current rules relating to the scheduling and content of advertisements on TV are contained in the Co-regulatory Broadcasting Codes of Practice, developed under the Services Act in consultation with the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Generally, the codes prohibit advertising during programs that are principally directed at children and they limit when advertisements can be shown during live sporting events.

The content of gambling advertisements is further governed by the self-regulatory codes of practice developed by the Australian Association of National Advertisers, and that includes its Wagering Code. Mr Speaker, this government is committed to ensuring harm minimisation operates within a robust legislative framework, with strong consumer protections, including through the continued implementation of the National Consumer Protection Framework.

A key part of the framework is consistent gambling messaging, which requires stronger messaging about the risks and potential harm of gambling in all advertisements. These new tag lines will actually be implemented across all platforms by 30 March. Mr Speaker, the government recognises there is ongoing community concern about the harms associated with online gambling.

It is timely that this parliament should consider what more can be done to address this issue, and that’s why we have established an inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, which is being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.

The committee is considering, amongst other things, the effectiveness of the current gambling advertising restrictions, on children’s exposure to gambling products and services, amongst a range of other issues. I can assure the house that the government will fully consider the committee’s recommendations when it releases its final report.

I have had variations of “what’s parliament got to do with it” running in my head all question time.

Back to the questions.

Sussan Ley explains why she donned Tina Turner getup in parliament

Back to the deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, donning a Tina Turner getup in parliament – she says it was part of “a dare” that saw $200,000 raised for cancer care in the bush.

The Speaker of the house, Milton Dick, introduced Ley “with some nervousness” as she came to the dispatch box in a frizzy-haired wig and a black dress, just before question time today. Ley described her attire as “a dare for a very worthwhile cause”, introducing herself as “my alter ego – Tina (Leyna) Turner”.

Ley, the member for Farrer in southern NSW, said she had been challenged to don the costume by a local radio announcer at a cancer support fundraiser in Griffith last week that aimed to raise $100,000.

Ley said:

As any country MP will tell you, cancer can be a tougher curse through the tyranny of distance.

There is always more needed for patient care, medical costs and equipment.

She said the donation goal was reached, and then doubled by an extra $100,000 donation from the chair of the Cancer Care Foundation, Dr Tony Noun, and his family.

I want to thank the incredible generosity of the Griffith and Leeton communities who made this night such an awesome success.

She noted Dick had also donated to the fundraiser.

Normally, props are banned on the chamber floor, but we reckon the Speaker gave her a special exemption, for a good cause.

Question time gets fiery over superannuation changes

OK. Bear with me – there are more interjections in this question and answer than words dedicated to the question.

Sussan Ley (who is back in her usual clothes. More 80s dress in parliament, I say):

My question is to the prime minister: Did the prime minister promise the Australian people on 2 May 2022, ‘We have no intention to make any super changes’?

Anthony Albanese:

I thank the member for her question. The member would be aware that the super changes that we have announced do not take effect until 2025. That is after the next election. After the next election. But I do thank the deputy leader for the opportunity to speak about the promises that we made at the election and what we’ve delivered.

The member for Fisher, Ted O’Brien, is interjecting so loud he’s told to can it by the Speaker.

Albanese:

Just yesterday, we delivered on another commitment of an improvement in paid parental.

Promised and leave delivered.

Cheaper medicines promised and delivered ...

Ley has a point of order:

On relevance – the question just could not have been any tighter. There was no scope for preamble. Did the prime minister say those words or not? And we seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on bringing the prime minister back to the question.

Milton Dick:

The prime minister has been going for less than a minute. He’s entitled to a preamble. The question was about a quote that he made. I’ll bring him back to that question and ask him to return.

Albanese:

Thanks, Mr Speaker. We’ve made our priority clear on superannuation, which is what the question is about.

Did you make ...?

(interjections)

Our priority ...

(interjections; “just answer the question”)

(more interjections)

Albanese:

So much anger. So much vitriol.

Dick tells Albanese to respond to the question and he says he is responding to the interjections.

Albanese:

It’s hard to ... respond when someone is just yelling nonstop from go to woe.

… I tell you what we won’t do. We’ve said what we will do on super – something that will impact one half of one per cent. One half of one per cent. That’s supported not just by those opposite ...

Ted O’Brien is made to withdraw a comment (which I didn’t hear). He does.

Albanese:

We’re a government for all Australians. They are a government for one half of one per cent of Australians. And I encourage them, I encourage them to go to the wall for that one half of one per cent. I encourage the leader of the opposition to go to the Liberal party launch on Sunday and to stand up and introduce Dominic Perrottet as the premier of New South Wales, and say that this is the hill they’re going to die on, this is the hill they’re going to die on.

There is a moment of bipartisanship over the prime minister’s trip to India with a trade delegation (he will leave a little later today), which Peter Dutton agrees is important.

Moving on.

OK, we are just a few minutes out from QT. Grab what you need – it looks like being a wild one. But hopefully one that ends around the hour mark – yesterday’s 1.45hr session was an invitation for madness.

The deputy federal Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, has issued an extraordinary serve at a group of senior party powerbrokers over their refusal to appear at a NSW parliamentary inquiry examining allegations of impropriety at a Sydney council, labelling it “unacceptable” and calling for one of the members to be expelled.

In an interview on Sydney radio station 2GB on Tuesday, Ley took aim at the former NSW Liberal party state executive member Christian Ellis over allegations he attempted to orchestrate a branch-stacking exercise to unseat her in the seat of Farrer prior to the federal election last year.

In an extraordinary spray against her Liberal colleagues, Ley labelled the allegations against Ellis “disgraceful”, said that she didn’t “see an alternative” other than expelling him from the party, and accused “factional bully boys” of putting Premier Dominic Perrottet’s re-election chances at risk.

The branch stacking, the factional skullduggery, all these schemes and plots, they have absolutely no place in any political party.

The premier is trying with us to win this state election [and] these factional bully boys are just making it tougher for him, they’re slowing the boat down they’re not making it any faster.

The parliamentary inquiry had been examining alleged links between property developers and Liberal members of the Hills shire council in north-west Sydney.

Handed down last week, it took was severely critical in its assessment of a series of party power-brokers – including two of Perrottet’s brothers and Ellis – for their refusal to appear to give evidence.

But the inquiry also heard evidence from the Liberal party member Shirlee Burge, a councillor in southern NSW, that Ellis had made Ley the target of a branch-stacking operation prior to the last election.

Ley said the behaviour – including their refusal to appear at the inquiry – was “unacceptable”.

This behaviour has been unacceptable, the actions have been unacceptable, the flagrant disregard for a parliamentary inquiry [and] that summons, the flagrant disregard for proper process and the lack of respect [for the] people from Deniliquin.

A brief history of Australian politics and Married at First Sight

Seems there is quite the crossover between Married at First Sight fans and Australian politics. I have been informed multiple times that there are 15 mentions of MAFS in the Australian hansard (most of it not very flattering).

The former Labor senator Sam Dastyari had the first mention (of course)

Last night, I saw the light – to be more specific, I saw episode 6, season 4, of Married At First Sight. It highlighted for me the glory and sanctity of marriage in Australia. I now realise why the government does not want to support gay and lesbian couples getting married.

Notable inclusions are Kate Chaney in February:

How could something be successful if you haven’t done the work to truly listen to and understand each other and work out together what it is you want to achieve? It’s as ridiculous as Married at First Sight.

Catherine King, March 2022:

I understand that Married at First Sight actually rated higher than the Treasurer’s budget, but I was here listening to the Treasurer as, I’m sure, were many Australians.

Andrew Leigh in June 2020:

In reality, this government is more like Married At First Sight: a train wreck Australians can’t look away from.

Tanya Plibersek in March 2018:

The promise that they’ve given is about as convincing as the commitments contestants make on Married at First Sight.

Thank you to Nick Miller (one of the blog overseers) and the many parliamentary secret squirrels who rushed to find hansard MAFS mentions. You have done your country proud.

Yes, we will work on bringing you pictures.

Sussan Ley has appeared in the chamber dressed as 80s Sussan Ley

I think?

The deputy Liberal leader appeared in a crimped mullet wig, pearls and camisole as a dare for charity.

University of Melbourne endorses yes campaign on voice referendum

The University of Melbourne has become the latest institution to come out in formal support of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament ahead of the referendum.

On Tuesday afternoon, the university released a statement affirming the council and the executive endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the yes position on the referendum:

Freedom of enquiry and the free expression of ideas are fundamental to the mission of the University of Melbourne. All members of our community are entitled to engage in robust, evidence-based and respectful expression of their views and the university provides a safe place for expressing differing opinions. The University will continue to contribute to the referendum process by actively facilitating informed public debate. Not everyone will vote ‘yes’ and we fully respect that.

Notwithstanding this, the Council and the Executive of the University of Melbourne affirm their support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the ‘yes’ position in the referendum, and look forward to the parliamentary process that would follow such an outcome.

It followed a suggestion by the shadow minister for education, Sarah Henderson, likening support of the voice to parliament in schools to “indoctrination”.

UNSW, the University of Wollongong, the University of Swinburne and Curtin University have all pledged support of the voice.

Zaneta Mascarenhas highlights third-culture Australians (and Married at First Sight)

As we roll a little bit closer to question time, I was reminded of this 90-second statement the Labor member for Swan Zaneta Mascarenhas delivered yesterday.

Is this the first time MAFS has ended up in the hansard? Possibly not, but it’s not a speech we would have heard in the last parliament, that is for sure:

I’d like to highlight a fabulous woman called Sandy from Married at First Sight. There are thousands of women across Australia who have wanted to give love a chance but who have been too scared to try. Sandy has been courageous to allow us to walk with her. In fact, Sandy has inspired a whole generation. Australia is made up of many third-culture kids.

We take our parents’ culture and we blend it with Australian culture to create a cool hybrid culture. When I watched Sandy’s wedding, I saw the way she skilfully did this.

Sandy used her wicked sense of humour to disarm people to help them see the real her: smart, fierce, sassy and funny. It sucks, but, for women, it’s often hard for the first, whether it be the first female prime minister or the first woman in a migrant family to have a mixed-race relationship.

It was tough when my Aunty Julie wanted to marry Uncle Jason in the 1960s. My dad smashed a fish tank when he first heard. By the time I got married, my dad embraced my husband. In my home of Swan, there are many mixed-race couples of different generations, and it’s easier when the person you’re dating has multicultural friends and a genuine curiosity to explore cultures.

I sense that Sandy will go through a period of healing, but know that we are so proud. I am certain that Sandy will find someone as fabulous as she is, because she doesn’t deserve anything less.

Labor adds four minor amendments to Referendum Machinery Act

The government has proposed four new minor amendments to the Referendum Machinery Act when it hits the Senate this week, but at this stage are not entertaining proposals from the vital crossbench senators about real-time donation disclosures or fact-checking of the information pamphlet.

As we reported earlier, the special minister of state, Don Farrell, brought new amendments to the Machinery Act (the rules governing referendums) to the government party room this morning, which were all approved. We can now reveal what those were.

On top of keeping the information pamphlets, which the government had initially planned to abolish, Labor will propose a few relatively minor changes. Those include:

• Increasing the number of scrutineers for referendum votes.

• Extending the mobile polling period for remote areas from 12 days to 19 days before the vote, allowing the Electoral Commission more time to visit areas affected by natural disasters.

• Freezing the threshold for disclosing donations at $15,200, and not raising it further.

• Extending a broadcasting “blackout” period, restricting TV advertisements about the vote, to 3 days before voting day.

The bill, currently before the House of Representatives, is expected to pass the lower house today or tomorrow, then go to the Senate. The Coalition has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government sets up and funds official campaign bodies.

You may note that the government amendments do not propose to do that.

The Greens and David Pocock have called for real-time donation disclosures, lowering the disclosure threshold, and new mechanisms for fact-checking the pamphlet such as truth in advertising laws.

You may note that the government amendments do not propose to do that, either.

Pocock and the Greens are likely to propose Senate amendments. It’s not clear whether the government will oppose those, but Guardian Australia understands the government is less inclined to move on changes to donations until after a joint standing committee on electoral matters inquiry reports back later in the year.

Australia’s agriculture industry looks set to record a $90bn production year. So when should we start planning for drought, Gabrielle Chan asks?

The answer – now, when rain isn’t an issue.

The parliament has received a fairly significant gift (historically speaking):

The bible will be added to the parliament art collection.

Greens: FOI commission’s resignation a sign of a threat to democracy and transparency

The Greens senator David Shoebridge has some thoughts about the resignation of Leo Hardiman KC, the FOI commissioner, just one year into his five year term.

Hardiman cited his powers not being sufficient to actually overhaul how freedom of information requests are treated. Feeling ineffectual, he resigned.

Shoebridge said the Coalition government had deliberately undermined FOI and now it was up to the Labor government to fix it:

This resignation is a public indictment of the current system, highlighting the urgent need for an immediate funding injection to deal with the problems allowed to build up under the former Coalition government.

I asked about the impossible backlog on FOI in estimates in February and was told there are thousands of outstanding reviews, many going back at least 5 years. It has got so bad that people applying for review now are being told there’s no point with a wait this long.

There are more than 200 outstanding FOI reviews dating back to 2019. This delay destroys the utility of the information that was requested in the first place.

If a decision on FOI is wrong, waiting 5 years to force the release of the right information is far, far too long.

There is a huge threat to democracy and transparency when there are thousands of outstanding FOI review requests and 5 year delays on accountability.

Instead of Freedom of Information laws we have Freedom from Information, which means whether you’re a journalist or a citizen, it’s next to impossible to hold those in power to account.

Ley on super changes: ‘This is a dishonest prime minister’

The deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley has had many things to say on Sydney radio 2GB while speaking with Ray Hadley.

Hadley is concerned over the Treasury modelling which Katy Gallagher spoke about in Senate question time, which said that one in 10 Australians could be impacted by the super concession changes in 30 years’ times. That is assuming that there are no changes to any legislation surrounding super for three decades.

It’s incredible areas, really – let’s get upset about something that won’t matter because there are TEN WHOLE ELECTION CYCLES between now and then. You have to hand it to political debate in this country. It is poster mentality made media.

Ley:

Anyway, this is a dishonest prime minister. He’s deceived the Australian people day in and day out, you’ve exposed it on your program. I mean, how many times did we hear him say ‘we’re making it clear the change we’re proposing will impact half a per cent of Australians, 99.5% won’t be impacted at all’.

Now he’s breaking promises, in fact he is breaking promises he made hundreds of times before the last election, and he’s ramming policies through the parliament that he didn’t even mention once.

This is a perfect example … if you’re 37 years old, and you’re looking at investing more in your super, in 30 years’ time you’ve basically been told that what is described as $3m dollars today has shrunk to about $1m. Now, we have enough trouble convincing young people to invest in super and now they see this changing of the goalposts.

But remember that people trusted this prime minister, and he has just broken promise after promise. Power bills, cheaper mortgages, lower inflation, every promise broken. A plan to bring down the cost of living, promise broken and a huge one, no changes to super, promise broken. And again, this morning franking credits won’t be touched, that is another promise broken.

I mean, this is a shambles of a government, also we can’t forget the fumbling, stumbling deputy prime minister. I expect he didn’t explain it because that he actually knew that the whole thing was built on a lie.

Kathryn Campbell tells robodebt commission she did not consider ‘fairness’ until one and a half years after scheme began

The former department of human services secretary, Kathryn Campbell, has told a royal commission she didn’t consider the fairness of the robodebt scheme until one and a half years after it was introduced.

Campbell, appearing at the royal commission for a third and final time on Tuesday, has been facing questions about her involvement developing the proposal at the request of the then social services minister Scott Morrison.

Campbell accepted that the 2015 robodebt proposal included a retrospective change to the way a person’s entitlement to income support was calculated. Even though they declared on a fortnightly basis, it used annual tax office data to check their eligibility to payments.

Campbell was asked by senior counsel assisting, Justin Greggery KC: “Did you consider the question of fairness involved in the changing the question of entitlement retrospectively?”

Campbell replied: “No.”

Campbell said she did not consider this until robodebt exploded into controversy in January 2017. The scheme had already been operating for a year and a half.

She said in 2017 the government announced changes that meant the “income averaging” method central to the scheme would only be used after two attempts had been made to contact the welfare recipient.

The commissioner, Catherine Holmes AC SC, put to Campbell: “And if they didn’t contact, it served them right, did it?”

Campbell replied: “No.”

Campbell said by this stage she was relying on legal advice from the department of social services that suggested income averaging could be used as a “last resort”.

Holmes asked: “You didn’t have to worry about fairness because you thought it was legal?

Campbell said: “No.”

Campbell said she thought the system from August 2017 onwards provided procedural fairness to welfare recipients.

Asked what consideration she had given how the scheme might affect hundreds of thousands of her department’s customers, Campbell noted they were the department of social services’ customers, too.

Her evidence continues.

So now that the party room meetings are done and dusted, it’s down to the business of the parliament.

You won’t see government bills listed in the Senate for debate unless Labor is confident it has the numbers to pass them. Just an FYI for those looking for the safeguard mechanism.

Sally Rugg releases statement on not being able to keep her job with Monique Ryan

Paul reported a little earlier on the federal court decision regarding Sally Rugg’s interlocutory application to keep her job while the court considers her case.

Rugg’s lawyers have released a statement:

Sally Rugg is disappointed that the court did not grant her interlocutory application to allow her to keep her job noting her relationship with Dr Ryan is unrecoverable. Nevertheless, the case is at an early stage. As Justice Mortimer observed in her judgment, ‘Ms Rugg’s arguments at trial about contraventions of the FWA may well succeed’.

The focus will now turn to preparing the case for trial which will consider whether 70-hour working weeks, almost twice the ordinary working week of 38 hours, is unlawful under the FWA. It will also determine Ms Rugg’s allegations of unlawful adverse action.

In 2021, Kate Jenkins of the Australian Human Rights Commission handed down set the standard: report on the independent review into commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (2021). The report was welcomed by the parliament and a process of reform to make parliament a safer workplace has unfolded. One of the risk factors compromising workplace safety and highlighted in that report was the long working hours of parliamentary staffers.

The issues to be considered at trial could have far-reaching ramifications for all Australians who work in industries where long hours are expected and normalised.

Coalition party room meets

The Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, said the gloss was coming off the government, and life was getting “harder, not easier” for Australians. Dutton referred to his time as assistant treasurer in the Howard government, sharing advice from John Howard that super must be stable and reliable, over decades.

Dutton referred to revelations that it isn’t just 0.5% of super account holders affected, but in 30 years one in 10 people retiring will be affected because they will have a balance of $3m or more. He accused Labor of approaching the question from a “wealth distribution” perspective (quel horreur!), in breach of its election commitment not to change super.

The shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, spoke on the government’s treasury bill, which makes changes to franking credits for capital raising and off market buybacks. He cited repeated promises before the election that Labor would not touch franking credits, arguing the bill was “another attack on dividend imputation and another broken promise”.

The Coalition will also oppose Labor’s bill to use a lottery system to allocate 3,000 visas to Pacific neighbours, because it is “arbitrary”.

The Coalition has asked for three amendments to the referendum machinery bill (pamphlets, an official yes and no campaign, with public funding), but will oppose the bill in the House of Representatives. Labor has not agreed to public funding, so parties expect they’ll need the Greens, not the Coalition to pass this in the Senate.

Victoria records death from encephalitis

And Victoria has recorded a death from encephalitis. From the Victoria Health release:

Victoria has recorded two further confirmed cases of Murray Valley encephalitis virus and one death.

One of these cases is a woman in her 60s who passed away in February. She was most likely exposed to infected mosquitoes in Greater Bendigo, but also spent time in Swan Hill during her acquisition period.

The other new case – a man in his 70s – is currently being treated in hospital. He was potentially exposed to infected mosquitoes in the Shire of Campaspe.

The two additional cases bring the number of confirmed Murray Valley encephalitis cases in Victoria to three this mosquito season, with two deaths. There has been one confirmed case of Japanese encephalitis virus in Victoria this season. The Department of Health is investigating a number of other suspected cases of these infections.

Victoria’s chief health officer, Prof Brett Sutton:

These additional cases show mosquito-borne viruses are continuing to circulate, especially in northern Victoria. We’ve seen cases of mosquito-borne viruses this season in people visiting the Murray Valley, so we’re taking this opportunity to remind everyone of the importance of protecting themselves from mosquito bites.

People can do this by wearing long, loose-fitting, light-coloured clothing, using insect repellents, removing stagnant water around homes or properties, and avoiding the outdoors when mosquitoes are observed, especially at dusk and dawn.

Sea World helicopter pilots don’t recall hearing taxiing call before crash

Breaking into politics for a moment – AAP have reported on the preliminary report into the helicopter crash near Sea World in January:

A pilot “did not recall” his fellow pilot making a standard taxiing call to say he was taking off before their helicopters collided and crashed, killing four people and injuring nine others on the Gold Coast.

Air crash investigators say pilot Michael James told them he saw five passengers boarding the second helicopter at a helipad near Sea World as he was coming in to land his aircraft with six passengers at another helipad nearby on 2 January.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says the pilot thought the second helicopter would pass behind his aircraft and he doesn’t remember the other pilot radioing him to say he was taking off.

The ATSB’s preliminary report into the crash said:

They did not recall the pilot of XKQ making a standard ‘taxiing’ call announcing their intention to depart.

A third helicopter pilot in the area at the time recalled hearing James’ inbound call, but did not recall hearing a taxi call from the other pilot taking off.

A fourth helicopter pilot could not recall hearing calls from either of the two pilots involved in the crash before their aircraft collided.

However, the ATSB commissioner, Angus Mitchell, says that evidence “did not necessarily mean that a taxiing call was not made” by the pilot taking off and investigators would probe the radio calls in the lead-up to the crash.

Bob Katter pushes for bone marrow kits at universities

The Kennedy MP, Bob Katter, wants the government to fund sending bone marrow swab kits to universities.

Katter has spoken to families who are waiting on a bone marrow match to save their loved ones. Since then, it has been one of the issues he has consistently advocated on. Mark Butler answered a question on it in question time last month and said it was something he was working on, acknowledging Australia was behind.

Katter went to the University of Queensland’s St Leo’s college and swapped students with the assistance of the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry – now he wants to send kits to universities around the country.

We have 100,000 people, I’m informed, on the [bone marrow donor] register. To be in line with other countries, we should have 200,000. I can’t see any reason why we can’t get to 1m,” Katter said.

When I heard about this, my mind went straight back to my university college days. I was president of the university college, and we were approached about blood donations.

I couldn’t see anyone in the college objecting to it. We put it to the college council, everyone agreed and nobody disagreed. It was that simple to get blood donations from 200 university students.

But [ABMDR chief executive] Lisa Smith has got to approach some 300 or 400 university colleges in Australia, and she needs personnel to do this. She also has to pay for the swabs, and they may come in at $50 a swab by the time you get them processed and everything else. She needs money.

He wants the government to provide it. Stay tuned.

All the political parties have finished up with their parliament sitting meetings and the MPs are now freely roaming the building again.

Tuesday mornings are always a little quieter because they are usually locked up in their party rooms.

For those wondering, Peter Dutton will be addressing the AFR Business summit tomorrow.

So you’ll see him in question time.

The Labor senator Jenny McAllister was sent out this morning to do doors, which is where MPs can send out the government’s message for the day.

And today, it’s on the safeguard mechanism:

We have a choice. We have a choice before us to end the uncertainty, the climate wars that has been produced by this chaotic period of Coalition government and move on. There are real opportunities for Australians. Jobs, jobs in our regions and a more certain energy future, playing a constructive role in the international community to put downward pressure on prices and downward pressure on emissions. This is the opportunity before the parliament. It’s a real opportunity, it’s an important opportunity. We are working with parliamentarians across the divide, those who will work with us, and we’re determined to get it done.

DHS official raised legal concerns about robodebt in early 2017

A former senior Department of Human Services official has told the robodebt royal commission he informed his boss, Kathryn Campbell, about legal concerns connected to the program at the height of the scandal.

The inquiry has heard Barry Jackson, who was acting secretary while Campbell was on leave in early 2017, requested his officials investigate the legal basis for the robodebt scheme.

The commission has been told the legal branch prepared questions for the Australian government solicitor to check the legality of the program after forming the view its legal basis was weak, but the instructions were never sent.

Jackson told the inquiry he requested the advice after being told by department officials that debt recovery had “always” been done “that way”, which he said was a “red flag” that prompted him to ask questions.

Jackson told the commission he never received a formal response to his legal request. He said no one within the department had the authority to “withdraw” that request while he was acting secretary, and thought it was likely only Campbell had the authority to do so when she returned to the top job.

Jackson said he conducted a short verbal handover with Campbell when she returned, adding: “I did mention that I had raised a question about the basis for the averaging.”

He said he couldn’t recall further details or the exact words he used.

DHS never sought legal advice on the program while Campbell was secretary. Campbell was involved in the scheme’s development in 2015.

Under cross examination by Campbell’s lawyer, Patrick Flynn SC, Jackson rejected suggestions his memory of the meeting was a “reconstruction” based on what he believed he should have done.

Jackson said the fact he could not remember whether the handover was by phone or in person meant his memory was shaky.

Campbell will give evidence today.

The inquiry continues.

Greens confirm lack of support for safeguard mechanism legislation

The Greens party room has met, reiterating that as it stands the Greens don’t support the safeguard mechanism legislation but negotiations are ongoing.

The government’s public interest immunity claim over safeguards emissions modelling is likely to be rejected by the Senate, as the Greens believe a motion in Sarah Hanson Young’s name has Coalition support. That could set up an awkward standoff whereby if Labor doesn’t hand over the modelling, the Senate could penalise them by refusing to deal with the bill.

The Greens have asked for a number of amendments to the referendum machinery bill including:

• Improvements to first nations voting and enrolment: the option of on-the-day voting; more remote polling; and phone voting

• Lowering the donation disclosure threshold; and

• Truth in political advertising, including in the yes/no case pamphlets

They expect Labor will give ground now the Coalition has said they likely will not support the bill.

The Greens are continuing to push for a ban on fossil fuel, coal and gas projects being supported by the national reconstruction fund.

The RBA decision will come down during question time, so we will interrupt that coverage to bring you what is decided. Jim Chalmers has made a habit of responding to the change during question time, in answer to a dixer.

Nearly half of the businesses polled by the AFR ahead of its summit said they fear a recession.

What does Anthony Albanese have to say in regards to that?

You can never skate through, and that’s part of my message today. You need to actually be active and on the front foot for growth. I’m optimistic, frankly. The kind of person I am, it helps to get up in the morning and be optimistic, but I am. I think that this difficult period we’re going through, of dealing with supply chain shortages, dealing with the transition in energy that we’re seeing across the economy, dealing with the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Dealing with all of this, we have our eye on the immediate challenges, what do we need to do immediately, right now? So last December is the best example of that that you’ve seen with price caps that wouldn’t have been envisaged as being possible, let alone being done in partnership with Liberal state governments such as here in New South Wales. So you deal with the immediate crisis, but you set yourself up for the medium and long term. And I think we can do that. I think business in so many areas has been just ahead of government over a long period of time. On energy, on gender, on growth, on trade, on all of these areas, I genuinely listened to Mike’s speech this morning, there is nothing that Mike Henry said that is different from where the Government positions ourselves. Nothing, not a word.

Labor must make IR system work for businesses and workers: PM

How is Labor handling some of the business jitters about its planned IR changes?

Anthony Albanese:

[By] having a straight conversation, being honest about it, which we’re being. If labour hire is used simply to drive down wages, that’s a bad thing. If labour hire is used for specific purposes, companies need to contract things out, then that is a good thing, that’s a necessary thing.

But when you look at economic insecurity, business has very much an interest in working people having a stake in the system. And if you look at what’s happened, dare I say it in front of the [US] ambassador … some parts of the disenfranchisement that led to a previous election in the United States, I think, was people in industrial areas feeling like they just had been left behind.

And not having a stake in the system, the sort of anger and dysfunction and division, in Australia, we haven’t had that. We haven’t had people, whatever the problems, we haven’t had people storming our parliament house after an election.

We … need to be really cautious about making sure that Australians who are doing it tough are able to see more security in their work, are able to have what they need to be able to save for a home and to plan a family.

And some of the casualisation in the workforce can be a good thing. For many people it’s an option, provides flexibility, good for business, good for individuals. But I do think we need to make sure that the system works for business and works for workers.

And the other thing that I want to see, and I think we’ve seen this since the election, the legislation that passed the parliament last year. I’m not aware of any mass breakout of general strikes in Australia since then. Now that’s something that was predicted by some. It hasn’t happened.

We think that productivity bargaining is really important. I spoke about this before the election at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry speech. There was too much focus on gotchas during that campaign rather than serious speeches and contributions in some of the policy analysis that went on.

But it is important, that issue of secure work is an issue out there. And if you don’t get on top of it, it can get away from you.

Albanese: gas will play a role in renewables

(Sorry for the slight delay – had a small tech issue. All fixed now)

Back into that Q&A, Anthony Albanese was asked about whether his reference to needing gas in the transition was a deliberate move, given the safeguard mechanism negotiations.

He said:

It’s just aimed at where we’re coming from, being straight. And being straight, gas will play a role in renewables. A company … like Rio, what they want to do in Gladstone with their aluminium refinery and other activity. They want to move towards hydrogen, they want to move towards renewables and to power that, they need the firming capacity of gas. And that is the case for so many companies as they move towards net zero where they want to be.

So I think my concern as well, I guess my message is twofold: that a message to the Greens and others that for all of the rhetoric, if it doesn’t stack up, if it has a negative impact, then you’re not actually helping the transition of what you say your objectives are. And to the opposition as well, I mean for goodness sake, this is a safeguard mechanism that was put in place by Tony Abbott. How [can] the Coalition can say they are a credible organisation concerned with business and oppose something that business is crying out for, that certainty[?]

I believe in markets. Government has a role, though, in setting frameworks to facilitate private-sector activity. And this is the perfect example.

The safeguard mechanism is supported universally. I don’t know an opponent in the business community, in the resources sector, in any of these areas that require that certainty going forward. If you have that certainty, you will see the investment flow in, but you need that framework, and gas is a part of that.

The prime minister has done a question and answer session at the AFR business summit which began like this:

Host: Thanks, Prime Minister. My name is Phil Coorey, I’m the political editor of the AFR. And we’ve got time for a quick Q and A with the PM before he has to get back to Parliament. So, again, appreciate your time. This is the first time the summit has overlapped with a sitting day.

Anthony Albanese: I can give you a lift back.

Host: I’ve got to stay for Peter Dutton.

Albanese: The offer stands.

It is party room meeting day – we will bring you what was decided with the Greens, the Coalition and Labor very soon.

Federal court finds it ‘not rational’ that Monique Ryan could resume constructive working relationship with Sally Rugg

We have a bit more detail from the judgment about why Justice Debra Mortimer found it would not be convenient for Sally Rugg to return to work for Monique Ryan.

The judge said there was a “live debate” about whether Ryan had lost trust and confidence in Rugg, about her working hours, and whether community engagement is part of her role.

She said:

It is not rational to contend that Dr Ryan can, or should be able to, put all this to one side and resume a constructive working relationship with Ms Rugg in what is on the evidence a pressured, extremely busy and demanding working atmosphere, at the best of times.”

Justice Mortimer also cited Rugg’s Instagram post to a private account that she was “devastated” to have missed out on the protections of the new code of conduct in parliament.

The judge accepted Ryan’s characterisation that this suggested Rugg was “subject to poor treatment” in her office.

“I do not see how this is the conduct of a person who wishes to return to work closely and professionally with Dr Ryan.”

The judge also cited two tweets that were “antithetical to the position on Covid-19 held by Dr Ryan” and one criticising the teal independents’ position on super tax concessions.

The judge also found that, given Rugg took stress leave in early December, it is likely her health would deteriorate further if she returned to work. Given the “untenable” relationship between Rugg and Ryan, a return to work would also be “likely to have adverse effects” on others in the office, she said.

Oxfam urges government to scrap stage-three tax cuts as cost of living continues to bite

Oxfam Australia is worried about the impact of another rate rise, given the number of people already in financial distress. The interest rate increases mean someone with a $500,000 mortgage is paying close to $1,000 more a month in interest than they were in April last year.

There are not too many average budgets that can stretch much beyond that.

Oxfam Australia’s chief executive, Lyn Morgain, said the organisation is bracing for further distress – and it wants the government to scrap the stage-three tax cuts and start taxing corporations posting large profits:

Oxfam is calling on the Australian government to scrap the inflationary Stage 3 tax cuts and instead to prioritise the funding of public services, such as affordable housing and a strong social safety net, that will lift people out of poverty and tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

We urge the government to overhaul tax laws that allow so many large corporations and high-income earners to avoid paying their fair share of tax, increase taxation of big earners and to introduce a windfall profits tax to stop corporations profiting off crises.

This new revenue would create a significant opportunity to address poverty, support First Nations communities, build our climate leadership, and grow our humanitarian and development assistance to ensure everyone has a chance at a better future without poverty.

How many more rate rises are on the horizon?

Economists and pretty much everyone will be surprised if the Reserve Bank does anything other than lift its cash rate by 25 basis point to 3.6%.

Rather, attention is likely to land on whether this sentence from last month’s rate rise commentary is repeated or modified:

“The Board expects that further increases in interest rates will be needed over the months ahead...”

Will there still be multiple rises to come? Or perhaps there will be a return from previous months of wording along the lines of, “the RBA is not on a preset course”, which would be taken to mean a pause is not far off in rate rises if we continue to see weakening economic data.

As it stands, investors reckon there would be two more quarter-point rises to come after today’s, with the RBA’s job done at about 4.1%.

Another rate rise will of course stir debate about whether there are alternatives to the “blunt tool” of interest rates. We looked at some of the alternatives here:

Anyway, we know you’ll be bolted to the blog for the next four hours or so, but pay close attention at 2.30pm (AEDT) when the RBA decision is scheduled to land.

Is the No campaign calling for public funding?

The Coalition said yesterday they would vote against the Referendum Machinery Act unless the government gives public funding to the official Yes and No organisations - but the leader of the anti-voice campaign has just said he isn’t really calling for public funding.

Warren Mundine, leader of the Recognise A Better Way group, told Radio National this morning that he didn’t necessarily want taxpayer funds for his campaign - but said that if any money was going to one side, then equal cash should go to the other as well.

Jacinta Price, the Nationals senator and another leading voice in the No campaign, said on the ABC yesterday that “the line” for Coalition support for the machinery bill was the government setting up and funding official campaign bodies. The shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, said the Coalition would oppose the bill if those conditions weren’t met.

The Labor government has repeatedly ruled out giving any funding to either side, with the PM Anthony Albanese noting this still washed out to equal funding for the campaigns – of zero dollars for both.

Mundine told RN that the No campaign wasn’t pushing for funding. The shadow special minister of state, Jane Hume, appearing shortly before Mundine on the same radio show, said the Coalition believed the campaigns needed public funding to meet technical and financial requirements of the referendum, such as around disclosing donors.

The machinery bill is likely to pass the House of Representatives today before heading to the Senate, where the government will propose some amendments. It’s understood these amendments will be relatively minor, and are unlikely to include mechanisms for independent fact-checking of the official information pamphlets, as the crossbench has asked for.

Guardian Australia has previously reported the independent ACT sentaor David Pocock wanted some fact-checking element of the pamphlets and real-time disclosure of donations. It’s understood he and the Greens may propose amendments to this effect in the Senate.

The RBA’s governor, Dr Phil Lowe, spoke about future rate rises (plural), and that has had an impact on what the market expects:

Hume: ‘appropriate funding’ not just promotional, involves cybersecurity, regulation and disclosure compliance as well

So what does appropriate funding mean?

Jane Hume:

Funding campaigns is not about giving them money for promotional materials or advertising or to actually campaign – it’s to ensure that both sides of the debate can establish themselves and ensure they comply with, for instance, the disclosure regimes, the regulatory regimes that are imposed upon elections so that they can have appropriate cyber security measures in place and this is really important. Cybersecurity measures should not be underestimated. The director general of Asio told us only two weeks ago that we’re seeing the highest level of foreign interference in Australia’s history.

So these are very simple and practical set of steps that put a structure around a referendum process that help our regulators, that help our security agencies to manage this referendum.

We know that there’s been foreign influence in other countries, for instance, you know, in Canada, their intelligence agencies said that they have uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government, they want that level of disruption and division.

Now a referendum shouldn’t cause disruption and division. We want to make sure that the process is robust as possible.

Yesterday, the Country Liberal senator Jacinta Price said the funding was a “line” the Coalition would vote the machinery legislation down over. Hume does not go as far.

On these grounds alone, I think that it’s a good enough reason to have a very formal structure around your campaigns and at least a nominated official yes and a no campaign as conduits for that cybersecurity, for our agencies to make sure that they can do the regulatory and compliance job that they need to do.

This is the best way to have a robust … referendum and, let’s face it, all Australians deserve a successful referendum. No matter what the question is.

Coalition looking not just at voice referendum but at ‘referenda into the future’

What does the Coalition want in the referendum machinery bill? (That’s the legislation updating how referendums are held.)

Senator Jane Hume told RN Breakfast:

Well, this is a really important to understand because we want people to understand that this is not simply a bill about a voice referendum on a voice to parliament. It’s a bill about referenda into the future.

So when the Coalition looked at it, we said well, if this were a referendum about making Australia a republic, or putting more parliamentarians in parliament house, what would Australia expect from their referendum?

They would expect a pamphlet with a yes and a no case that’s been the case since 1912. They would also expect an official yes campaign, an official no campaign and they would expect those to be appropriately funded.

Now, why is that important? Because the other things that this bill will do is make this referendum look and feel like an election.

And the elections now have things like donation laws, they have foreign donation laws and have foreign interference laws as well. And in an age of disinformation and the highest level of foreign interference in our history, we believe it is fundamentally important that the government takes the lead and provides clear information to Australians and a strong referendum process that Australians can rely upon and trust.

This was the expected outcome on the interim injunction – and this stage, there is still a federal court case on the claims to come.

Coalition accuses Labor’s super changes of ‘relying on retirees’ to fix budget hole

A little earlier this morning, the shadow finance minister, Jane Hume, was asked on ABC Radio RN Breakfast why the Coalition won’t support the super changes, given her concerns about budget management.

Hume says the government is “relying on retirees” to fix its budget mess from what she says was “some of that enormous election wish list that the Labor government came to government with”.

Which is a stretch, given we are not talking a lot of savings with this measure, and it only impacts 88,000 people. So it is not exactly your average “retiree”.

Hume says that because super is compulsory, the contract is that you get a concessional tax rate. But you do still get a concessional rate. 30% on earnings over $3m is still a concessional tax rate. It is not 45%, which is what you’d be paying if it was income.

Albanese heading to India today

Anthony Albanese will be on his way to India a little bit later today. He told the AFR Business Summit:

I’ll be joined on that trip by 25 CEOs and business leaders – in transport, resources, finance, higher education, architecture and energy – one of the biggest and most significant Australian business delegations to ever visit any of our trading partners.

Australia and India are Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad – and I’m looking forward to hosting the Quad leaders’ summit in the middle of the year.

Our two nations share a rich history - bound by our democratic values and enlivened by genuine friendship and fierce sporting rivalry. By any measure, Australia is a better place because of our large, diverse and aspirational Indian-Australian community.

Yet for all of this, in 2021-22, India was only Australia’s sixth-largest goods and services trading partner. We can elevate that - and not just by volume.

Our government is seeking to deepen and diversify Australia’s trade links.
Greater diversity in who we trade with – and greater variety in what we trade, meaning our economy is more resilient and more secure.

Freedom of information commissioner quits, citing lack of powers

AAP has an update on the federal freedom of information commissioner – he’s quit. Just one year into his five year appointment, because, it seems, it is all a bit of a mess.

As AAP reports:

The commonwealth freedom of information commissioner has quit less than a year into a five-year appointment because he says his powers aren’t enough to overhaul a chronically delayed system.

Leo Hardiman KC, a former deputy chief general counsel in the Australian Government Solicitor, announced his resignation on Monday. The experienced legal mind said he had been leading significant changes to the way the federal government’s core FOI regulatory functions were undertaken.

Further changes are, however, necessary in my view to ensure that the timeliness of IC (Information Commissioner) reviews and, consequently, access to government-held information, is increased. The making of those changes is not within the powers conferred on me as FOI commissioner.

I have come to the view that I will not be able, in the absence of those changes, to increase timeliness of IC reviews and access in a way which best promotes the objects of the FOI Act.

I have accordingly decided the most appropriate course is to resign my appointment.

The Centre for Public Integrity in September said FOI requests responded to outside the statutory 30-day period had increased from 11.5% in 2011-12 to 22.5% in 2021-22.

Requests over 90 days late have increased more than 10-fold, now making up one in every eight requests.

Melbourne safe injecting room to be made permanent

Melbourne’s safe-injecting room facility is set to be made permanent, after the Andrews government on Tuesday confirmed that it will introduce legislation to make the facility permanent following an independent review into the site. The government has vowed to take measures to boost safety in the vicinity and increases wraparound service for clients.

Premier Daniel Andrews said the facility had “changed lives and saved lives”:

Stories of people dying in laneways and gutters … meant we needed to do something different, something challenging.

The legislation will be introduced into parliament this week and will likely pass parliament, with an upper house now dominated by progressive parties.

The site that has received backlash from some locals over anti-social behaviour. The independent review that investigated the facility found the service managed almost 6,000 overdoses and saved 63 lives. Another report into a proposed second facility in the CBD is expected to be finalised in the middle of the year, but there is speculation the government may be backing away from the site.

Warren Mundine has been on ABC radio RN Breakfast asking for the ‘no’ campaign to have tax deductible status – but, as Josh Butler reports, they are yet to formally apply:

Zoe Daniel moves amendments to ensure carbon credit integrity

Safeguards seems to be the theme of the day – and it is a busy day for the independent Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel who is also going to move amendments on the safeguard mechanism bill “to ensure Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), that are used under the scheme, have integrity”.

Australia’s response to climate change is vitally important. A lot of public and corporate money will be spent in dealing with it, and as such, we must make sure the response is effective.

Any fudging of Australia’s safeguard mechanism or our carbon credit scheme is a fraud against the taxpayer, the environment and the future of our children. As such, I’ll be moving amendments to the safeguard mechanism bill to strengthen the integrity of the mechanism.

My amendment focuses on the ACCUs that are eligible for use under the safeguard mechanism, blocking credits from projects where there are known integrity problems.

Daniel says there are 37 methods used in Australia to generate carbon credits and that there have been “numerous scientists and researchers” who have raised “material integrity issues with the ACCUs issued under the two most popular methods: human-induced regeneration and landfill gas”.

These two project types account for almost 60% of the ACCUs issued under the scheme – a proportion that is likely to increase over the coming years. Recently, a panel led by Ian Chubb reviewed the integrity of the carbon credit system and made important recommendations to ensure the integrity of ACCUs issued to human-induced regeneration and landfill gas projects.

My amendments will ensure that ACCUs from human-induced regeneration and landfill gas projects can only be used under the safeguard mechanism if the Chubb review’s recommendations are fully and properly implemented.

Why?

We cannot have a scheme that allows emitters to offset their emissions using ACCUs that do not represent real and additional greenhouse gas reductions. The ACCUs that are used under the scheme must have high integrity.

Victorian government says WorkCover is ‘fundamentally broken’

The Andrews government has conceded its strained workers’ compensation scheme is “fundamentally broken” and not fit-for-purpose.

The statement is the strongest indication yet that the government will raise WorkCover premiums for Victorian businesses – a move that will be opposed by employer groups who argue it would make companies in the state less competitive.

In a statement, a Victorian government spokesperson said the scheme no longer met the needs of those it was first designed to assist:

The WorkCover scheme is fundamentally broken. The scheme is no longer fit for purpose.

The Victorian government has vowed to work with businesses and other stakeholders on reform to make WorkSafe sustainable:

Our priority is helping people get back to work after an injury – and ensuring the sustainability of the scheme so every Victorian has the opportunity to return to the workforce after an injury.

A December 2020 report – conducted by consulting firm Finity – found WorkSafe was at a “tipping point in its history” amid increases in mental health claims.

Shorten hopeful this is near the last of the interest rate increases

Bill Shorten was on the Nine network this morning, where he was asked about the possibility of a 10th-in-a-row interest rate rise. The question was: “Is the RBA out of touch?”

No, that would be unfair of me to say that.

I do think inflation is what they call a lag indicator. When you get an inflation number, it describes what happened in the last quarter, whereas rate rises have a future impact. So sometimes, I’ve seen some commentators say that raising rates too far is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse was bolted.

All the experts seem to say there will be an increase today. You have to mind the cure is not worse that the problem you’re solving. We have to tackle inflation, 100%, but fingers crossed this is towards the last of the increases.

Amy’s analysis: what’s Labor putting on the table?

So what is the government giving in these negotiations, given that Chris Bowen is saying no to the Greens’ demands and no to David Pocock (at least based on that interview)?

The mechanism. Chris Bowen appears to be saying: “We have offered you a mechanism to do this and no one else has, so that is what we are putting on the table.”

Will it be enough? Hard to say at this point – there is still quite a bit of time to go in this.

Labor’s safeguard mechanism pitch: we can seize or squander this chance

Chris Bowen finishes with this:

The opportunity for the parliament is to seize or squander this chance to get emissions down by 205 million tonnes.

This is the only only opportunity we have to get emissions down in our largest industrial emitters. The country has been getting emissions down from electricity. We have plans to get it down much further. We have plans on transport. We’re working on agriculture, but this is the big opportunity when it comes to heavy industry which is almost a third of our emissions.

And if we don’t seize this opportunity, we will not be on track to do the sorts of things that we can do as a country and catch up on 10 years of denial and delay.

Climate change minister: many industries cannot comply with emissions reduction without offsets

What about what David Pocock wants – limits on the number of carbon credits big polluters can use? Chris Bowen says:

My position publicly is the same as it is privately – that if you put hard caps on carbon credits when you’re requiring 4.9% emissions reduction each and every year, then that is a problem, because you’ve got industries which won’t be able to comply with that without without accessing [credits].

Now, people say you can’t offset your way to net zero and you can’t offset your way to the 1.5 degrees. And I agree with that.

But I also I also think it is impossible to do it without offsets. I mean, offsets are the net in net zero. I mean, we all talk about net zero technically, it’s the policy of all the parties about the nature of the offsets, but [credits] are the net in net zero.

So let’s be clear about that and they do have a role to play. Now again, if you are going to suggest that you know facilities should be able to use more than x percentage of offsets, then you have to explain with respect how an industry which doesn’t have the technology readily available in in large amounts just yet, whether it be concrete or steel is how many others, would be required to reduce their emissions and with respect, nobody has been able to do that because nobody can.

Bowen: Greens assertion on guaranteed pipeline of approvals not accurate or correct

Chris Bowen continues on why the government isn’t budging on ‘no new coal or gas projects’:

Mr Bandt with respect says ‘well, there’s this pipeline of projects and Labor wants to approve them’, now that is not the case.

What there is, is a register of projects which companies have … filled in and said one day we might want to develop this or we’re interested in developing this … many of them are yet to get environmental approvals, finished final investment, decisions for board approval, insurance, finance, etc.

And, you know, increasingly shareholders, investors, consumers are demanding better companies and that’s a good thing.

So there is this idea that there’s a guaranteed pipeline is not accurate or correct and and … indeed, they have to get environmental approvals and then comply with the safeguards mechanism … if they are large emitters.

Now, in relation to this, we’ve factored into our plans a reserve of 17 million times to cater for the flexibility we need, but also if this reform passes, there’ll be a constraint on carbon of existing facilities and your facilities.

If the this reform does not pass, there’ll be no constraint ... So again, the choice for the parliament is do you want business as usual, which is seeing emissions from these facilities go up … ? Or do you want a constraint in place, which this policy provides, which will see emissions come down?

Labor: ‘irresponsible’ to put blanket ban on coal and gas during energy transition

But why do we need new coal and gas? Why can’t the government just agree to the ban?

There is a lot of back and forth and dancing around the issue and then Chris Bowen says:

It would be irresponsible to put some sort of blanket ban on as we are undertaking this massive transition coming after 10 years of denial and delay starting in 2022 to get a 2030 target.

Translation: we think we are going to need more, at least when it comes to gas, to get through the transition.

Bowen on the safeguard mechanism: ‘stakes are too high’ to squander this opportunity

Chris Bowen is speaking to ABC Radio RN Breakfast about the importance of the safeguard mechanism legislation.

The Liberals have made themselves irrelevant to this process by opposing a policy they themselves promised they would implement a safeguard crediting, but put that to one side because that’s that’s the modus operandi of Peter Dutton.

In relation to the Greens, obviously we’ve had ongoing discussions and we’ll have ongoing discussions, but our position is the same in private as it is in public … our position is we [have a] mandate to implement these reforms.

This is really important and these ongoing discussions are important because the opportunity before the parliament over the coming weeks is either to seize the opportunity to reduce emissions by 205m tonnes or to squander it. That’s what the parliament has the opportunity to decide in coming weeks now.

I’m confident that the parliament will seize that opportunity because the stakes are too high.

The Senate inquiry into the safeguard mechanism is in

The Senate inquiry committee report into the safeguards mechanism was handed down yesterday and in news I am sure will shock all of you, it was split along party lines.

Government senators thought it was great and should be passed, while Coalition senators dissented, as did the Greens senators (although for different reasons).

What does it mean? We are in the same place we were last week. Negotiations are ongoing, but the government is hardening its lines – it is not moving on the Greens’ requests for a ban on future coal and gas projects, and so far hasn’t moved on David Pocock’s requests for changes to the unlimited carbon credit scheme.

Which leaves us at a bit of an impasse.

PM to back gas in comments to business

The prime minister will kick off the morning in Sydney, where he will address the AFR Business Summit.

According to the Fin, which as you would expect received an early copy of the speech (given it is their summit), Anthony Albanese is all about that gas.

From the article:

Everyone recognises that the global transition to net zero will take time. Equally, we understand there is no time to waste.

The work of transition will require massive investment in building new physical assets and modifying existing ones.

This is where gas in particular has a key role to play, as a flexible source of energy – providing peaking power today and continuing to provide firming and back-up power. Helping to smooth the transition to renewables, while guaranteeing energy security both for Australia and for our partners in the region.

Queensland government connecting mining sites to electrical grid via CopperString 2.0

The Queensland government will spend $5bn to build the CopperString 2.0 transmission line to connect mining regions in the state’s north-west to its electrical grid.

Annastacia Palaszczuk is due to make the announcement today, with early works for the 1,100km transmission line between Townsville and Mount Isa to begin later this year.

The government claims the project will support 800 jobs over six years and will “unlock Australia’s largest renewable energy zone” and $500bn in “new critical minerals” used for batteries and other materials.

The premier says:

Unlocking affordable renewable energy and our critical minerals will benefit Townsville, Mount Isa and every town in between.