Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will not be organising a bucks’ night ahead of the coming nuptials of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jodie Haydon.

How do we know this morsel of trivia? The treasurer, appearing on Wednesday breakfast TV to talk up Tuesday’s interest rate cut, was asked about being in charge of arranging the PM’s bucks’ party.

“I’m more of a cup of tea and an early night kind of guy these days. And so I’m sure you can find someone more appropriate to plan the bucks,” Chalmers said, laughing off whatever impatience he may have felt at being taken down this path.

To the dismay of more than a few in Labor circles, a Women’s Weekly interview with the PM and his fiancee dropped into the news cycle just as the government needed all attention on the rate cut.

Given the army of prime ministerial spinners, there was some wonder at this publicity collision.

All leaders do these soft photogenic sessions. But, leaving aside the unfortunate clash, it might be argued this is not the time for the prime ministerial couple to be inviting attention to their post-election marriage. Albanese is not thinking of retiring, but some voters might see a subtle hint of that. As they did when he bought his clifftop house on the central NSW coast.

Chalmers, when asked about the Women’s Weekly piece, was anxious to get across the message that, wedding or not, “I can assure all of your viewers, whether it’s the prime minister or the rest of his government, the main focus is on the cost of living”.

More disappointing for the government than the Women’s Weekly blip was the mixed reception the long-anticipated rate cut received in much of the media.

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock indicated the bank’s decision to cut was a close call. She hosed down expectations of further cuts, which effectively rules out a pre-election move on April Fools’ Day.

It wasn’t an entirely happy week for Bullock, with critics of the cut suggesting she had responded to political pressure. Out in mortgage land, people will be relieved at the slight help, but it only takes away a fraction of their repayment pain.

Meanwhile the work of the cabinet expenditure review committee and the treasury continues apace on what could be a “ghost” March 25 budget – if Albanese aborts it with an April election.

The government insists there is nothing strange about this. If the budget doesn’t eventuate, the measures will be rolled out as election policy, it says. The argument is unconvincing. Preparing a budget and putting together election policy may have some things in common, but they are not the same. A budget is a close-woven tapestry; election policy is open-stitch cloth.

The uncertainty about the election date, while full campaigning is underway, is disruptive for business and the economy (even if, as Chalmers says, it’s now only a matter of weeks either way). It reinforces the argument for fixed federal terms, which work well in the states. But the obstacles are such that that’s not even worth talking about, unfortunately.

In a “no show without Punch” moment this week, Clive Palmer entered the election race with his Trumpet of Patriots party and a promise to spend “whatever is required to be spent”. There’s talk of $90 million being splashed on a “Make Australia Great Again” platform.

It’s hard to get a fix on what impact Palmer will have. He’s competing with Pauline Hanson for votes on the right. Labor fears his advertising on the cost of living will crowd out its messages. He is also targeting Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for not being Trumpian enough. He told Nine media, “As Dutton said, he’s no Donald Trump. I say, what’s wrong with being Donald Trump?”

The answer is, a very great deal. As Trump’s presidency unfolds, its dangers are becoming more obvious than even his harshest critics feared.

Inevitably, the shadow of Trump is hanging increasingly over our election.

With Trump’s win, the Liberals would have thought the latest manifestation of a widespread international swing to the right would put wind in their sails. But the counter-argument has grown – an erratic and autocratic Trump is making some Australian voters feel more unsettled and inclined to stick with the status quo.

Dutton is not a mini-me Trump but shares some of his views on issues such as government spending, bureaucracy and identity politics. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the Australian Financial Review this week that Dutton would sympathise with some of Trump’s objectives but the opposition leader was “not trying to ape” what was going on in the United States.

Trump’s push to end the Russia-Ukraine war has taken Trumpism to a fresh, alarming level, and could inject strains into the Australia-US relationship.

Trump has sidelined Ukraine and is clearly favouring Russia in pursuing a settlement. Now he has launched an extraordinary personal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

On his social media platform Trump lashed Zelensky as a “modestly successful comedian” who had gone “into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start”. Zelensky was a “dictator” who refused to have elections, had done “a terrible job” and was very low in the opinion polls, Trump said.

Ukraine’s cause has been bipartisan in Australia, which has given the country more than $1.5 billion in assistance and now has (belatedly) reopened its embassy there.

To his credit, Dutton immediately condemned Trump’s stand in very forthright terms.

“President Trump has got it wrong in relation to some of the public commentary that I’ve seen him make in relation to President Zelensky and the situation in Ukraine,” he told Sydney radio.

“I think very, very careful thought needs to be given about the steps because if we make Europe less safe, or we provide some sort of support to [Russian president] Putin, deliberately or inadvertently, that is a terrible, terrible outcome.”

Albanese’s initial response was to repeat firmly Australia backing for Ukraine, condemning Russia. He did not comment directly on Trump’s attack. He repeated he was not going to give “ongoing commentary on everything that Donald Trump says”.

The government finds itself caught between the need to strongly reject Trump’s handling of Ukraine, and a desire to tread softly with an administration from whom it desperately wants to win a concession on tariffs. Läs mer…

ASIO chief Mike Burgess has warned that over the next five years Australia’s security environment will become more dynamic, diverse and degraded, with “more security surprises” in the second half of the decade than in the first.

In his Annual Threat Assessment delivered on Wednesday night, Burgess predicted more communal violence attacks and foreshadowed Australia’s defence system would face greater threats from espionage, foreign interference and potentially sabotage.

The situation had prompted him to take the unusual step of declassifying details of the security outlook covering the coming five years.

With an “unprecedented number of challenges, and an unprecedented cumulative level of potential harm, Australia has never faced so many different threats at scale at once,” he said.

“Many of the foundations that have underpinned Australia’s security, prosperity and democracy are being tested: social cohesion is eroding, trust in institutions is declining, intolerance is growing, even truth itself is being undermined by conspiracy, mis-and disinformation.

”Similar trends are playing out across the Western world.

”Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats. Major geopolitical, economic, social and security challenges of the 1930s,
70s and 90s have converged. As one of my analysts put it with an uncharacteristic nod to popular culture: everything, everywhere all at once”.

Burgess said ASIO was empowered to investigate seven heads of security:

espionage
foreign interference
politically motivated violence (which includes terrorism)
the promotion of communal violence
sabotage
attacks on Australia’s defence system, and
serious threats to border integrity.

“Three of our heads of security are already flashing red: espionage, foreign interference and politically motivated violence,” Burgess said.

ASIO expected in the next five years the promotion of communal violence, sabotage and attacks on the defence system could join them.

Burgess did not envisage any immediate raising of the security level, which puts an act of terrorism at “probable”.

But he said “politically motivated violence is raising the temperature of the security environment and making acts of terrorism more likely”.

At the same time, he stressed that none of last year’s incidents in Australia came from an offshore group and “our greatest threat remains a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon”.

“Of all the potential terrorist matters investigated last year, fewer than half were religiously motivated. The majority involved mixed ideologies or nationalist and racist ideologies.

”Almost all the matters involved minors. All were lone actors or small groups. Almost all the individuals were unknown to ASIO or the police and it is fair to say they allegedly moved towards violence more quickly than we have seen before.

”Importantly, none of the attacks or plots appear to be directly inspired by the conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists”.

On the promotion of communal violence, Burgess said “I am concerned these attacks have not yet plateaued”.

Promoting communal violence refers to “activities that are directed to incite violence between different groups in Australia, so as to endanger the peace”.

Burgess anticipated “nationalist and racist violent extremists to continue their efforts to ‘mainstream’ and expand their movement.

”They will undertake provocative, offensive and increasingly high-profile acts to generate publicity and recruit. While these activities will test legal boundaries, the greatest threat of violence comes from individuals on the periphery of these organised groups.

”I remain concerned about young Australians being caught up in webs of hate, both religiously and ideologically motivated.

”In the polarised, grievance-rich environment I’m describing, social cohesion will remain strained and we can expect spikes in communal violence.”

Burgess said the Middle East war “has not yet directly inspired terrorism in Australia, but it is prompting protest, exacerbating division, undermining social cohesion and elevating intolerance. This, in turn, is making acts of politically motivated violence more likely.”

The normalisation of violent protests lowered the threshold for potentially violent acts.

“Narratives originally centred on ‘freeing Palestine’ expanded to include incitements to ‘kill the Jews’. Threats transitioned from harassment and intimidation to specific targeting of Jewish communities, places of worship and prominent figures.

”Looking forward, targets of community violence are likely to be broad, depending on the perceived grievance, and will not be limited to nationality, race, culture, religion or gender.

”A hyper-connected world will allow political tensions or conflicts overseas to resonate quickly in Australia, spread by social media and online echo chambers, inflamed by mis- or disinformation”.

Burgess said more traditional distinctions between extremist motivations were breaking down.

Individuals were cherry-picking ideologies to create hybrid beliefs. For example, ASIO had found one person who was apparently motivated by Islamic State propaganda and neo-Nazi propaganda. Another described himself as a left-wing environmentalist aligned with Adolf Hitler.

Burgess said while he was troubled by the breadth of security threats, he was more concerned about their depth.

“More specifically, the depths some regimes are willing to plumb in pursuit of their strategic interests. This is why we assess the security environment is becoming more degraded.”

“A small number of authoritarian regimes are behaving more aggressively, more recklessly, more dangerously. More willing to engage in what we call ‘high harm’ activities.

”Russia’s brazen acts of sabotage in Europe show authoritarian regimes are willing to use a wider range of tools and tactics to coerce, intimidate and damage
perceived adversaries. As a supporter of and supplier to Ukraine, it is conceivable Russia could also target Australia for sabotage.”

Australia was not immune to hostile states such as Iran undertaking “acts of security concern” in Australia or the near region.

“Whether such acts serve an internal interest, or a form of retaliation against Israel or our allies, we need to remain alert and responsive to these evolution.”

ASIO had identified at least three different countries plotting to harm people living in Australia.

In one case, a foreign intelligence service wanted to silence an Australia-based
human rights activist and tried to trick them into visiting a third country where they would encounter an “accident”. ASIO foiled the plot.

In another case, a different hostile foreign intelligence service wanted to harm and possibly kill one or more
individuals on Australian soil. This too was foiled.

“Beyond those egregious examples, multiple foreign regimes continually attempt to monitor, harass, intimidate and coerce cooperation from Australians and those who call Australia home. This includes trying to strong-arm people to report on
other members of their diaspora community, threatening perceived dissidents and their family members with violence, and coercing people in Australia to return to
the country of their birth to face questioning or charges – or possibly worse.”

On threats to Australia’s defence system, Burgess said multiple countries relentlessly sought information on our military capabilities.

“AUKUS will remain a priority target for intelligence collection, including by countries we consider friendly.

”ASIO has identified foreign services seeking to target AUKUS to position themselves to collect on the capabilities, how Australia intends to use them, and to undermine the confidence of our allies.

”By 2030, as the submarine project matures, intelligence services are more likely to focus on foreign interference to undermine community support for the enterprise and potentially sabotage if regional tensions escalate.” Läs mer…

Housing supply in Australia will be a key battleground in the election campaign. With home ownership more and more out of reach for young and not so young Australians, red tape and low productivity are strangling the builder industry just when it needs to be stepping up.

The productivity Commission, the government’s independent think tank, has a new report report pointing to ways governments need to address the issues. In this podcast we talk to commission chair Danielle Wood about the housing challenge, as well as Australia’s parlous productivity performance generally and her drive to get some fresh ideas on how to improve it.

On one of the report’s main recommendation, cutting red tape for construction approvals, Wood says,

I like to think of regulation as a bit like a hedge. […] There’s almost an unwavering tendency for it to grow over time if you don’t clip it back. And I think in housing that’s particularly true. You have multiple levels of government involved, particularly local governments and state governments. Lots of different policy objectives in play. So obviously, quality and safety being pivotal, local amenity, heritage, traffic, environmental, accessibility.

Lots and lots of decisions are taken, often without considering the trade off. And every time we add new regulations or more complex regulations, that imposes a cost. And ultimately that is a drag on housing, productivity and supply.

So what should be done?

We’ve certainly said we think there should be a good look at the national construction code, which is one source of regulatory burden where we think there’s scope to improve. I would love to see state governments – and I think they are turning their mind to this – to look at this question of just the sheer amount of regulation, the timeframes for approvals and look to ways to streamline the burden and also help develop and builders coordinate their way through that process more smoothly.

On why productivity in construction in particular has fallen so far, Wood explains,

You do not see many sectors go backwards in productivity  over that sort of time horizon. One reason is that our homes are bigger and better quality. So I think that is worth noting. If we adjust for that, productivity has declined, but only by 12% rather than 50%.

We haven’t seen the same sort of innovation in homebuilding that we’ve seen in other parts of the economy. We still essentially build most houses the same way we did 100 years ago so we haven’t had that technological change driver of productivity. It’s an industry that’s characterised by lack of scale.

And then there are workforce challenges as well. And, you know, we all hear a lot about the challenge of attracting and retaining skilled trades workers. You know, that can make it hard, particularly building.

The Productivity Commission asked for submissions from the public on how to improve Australia’s productivity more generally. Wood is happy with how the initiaive is going,

It’s been worth the effort. We’ve actually ended up with more than 500 submissions in the end, And they’re from a mix from individuals, from businesses, from organisations. But for me, the beauty is being able to hear from people that we wouldn’t normally hear from in our reviews and the point is that all of us interact with aspects of government policy every day in our lives and I think we absolutely heard that through the submissions.

There were some fun ones there – high quality Japanese public toilets, more freely available free coffee. But more generally, I mean, we heard from small business owners about impacts of red tape and regulation [and] lots of interest in education policy. Unsurprisingly, again, it touches a lot of our lives, but looking for things like more work experience in schools, trying to build more industry-relevant skills into higher education. Läs mer…

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will finally investigate whether six people referred to it by the royal commission into Robodebt engaged in corrupt conduct.

This follows an independent reconsideration by former High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle, who examined the NACC”s original decision not to pursue the referrals.

That decision was highly controversial, bringing a plethora of complaints, and sharp criticism of NACC chief Paul Brereton.

The NACC’s inspector, Gail Furness, found Brereton had not adequately excused himself when the matter was considered. Brereton had delegated the decision-making because he knew one of the people referred professionally, but the inspector found he was still involved in the process.

In its Tuesday statement the NACC said:“The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether or not any of the 6 referred persons engaged in corrupt conduct”.

The names of those referred to the NACC – contained in a sealed section of the royal commission report – were not made public. The sealed section has not been released.

The NACC statement said: “Consistent with its usual practice, the Commission does not publish reasons for commencing an investigation, as doing so may prejudice the investigations, disclose information which the Commission is required by law to keep confidential, compromise investigative pathways and/or unfairly impact reputations and rights of individuals to impartial adjudication.”

The NACC stressed its arrangements would ensure the investigation was “impartial and fair”. Brereton and those deputy commissioners involved in the original decision not to investigate the referrals won’t be part of the investigation.

Robodebt used a flawed system of income averaging to determine debts. The scheme, later found to be illegal, raised $1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients. But many of the debts were wrong, and eventually the money had to be repaid.

In its findings, the royal commission targeted multiple public officials including ministers who had overseen the scheme (one of them Scott Morrison who as social services minister had been an initiator of it) and public servants.

A number of the bureaucrats who’d been involved with the scheme, including two who had been departmental heads, were later found to have breached the public service code of conduct. Läs mer…

The Reserve Bank has delivered the expected modest rate cut of a quarter of a percentage point, and we’re set for the predictable frenzy of speculation about an April election.

The cut is unlikely to be a major vote changer, after 13 increases. But it was absolutely vital to the government. Labor would have suffered a big knock if Michele Bullock and her board had held out.

The cut underpins the narrative of things improving, and may put voters in a better mood. At least that’s the government’s thinking.

But the bank is highly circumspect in its tone. It warned in its statement:

The forecasts published today suggest that, if monetary policy is eased too much too soon, disinflation could stall, and inflation would settle above the midpoint of the target range. In removing a little of the policy restrictiveness in its decision today, the Board acknowledges that progress has been made but is cautious about the outlook.

Speculation about the election date is a frustrating exercise, given only Anthony Albanese – and perhaps a few closest to him – knows his thinking, which could still be, as he suggested recently, “fluid”. In recent days the PM has played the tease. Periodically he talks about the intense work on budget, set for March 25; if that went ahead, it would mean a May election. But last week, he was also talking about parliament having seen its last day, which pointed to April.

It is hard to see the logic of Albanese launching a campaign before the March 8 Western Australian election, given that would be confusing for both state and federal campaigns and put maximum pressure on Labor’s WA volunteers. If Albanese opts for April 12, he would have to call it immediately after the WA poll.

Many in the business world would like the election done and dusted ASAP, because the pre-election period means a hiatus of sorts.

The opinion polls can be read various ways, but as things stand, they point to a minority government.

This is already putting pressure on crossbenchers, notably the teals, to indicate what factors they’d take into account in deciding who they’d support. The Coalition, if it reached about 72 seats (76 is a majority), would be eyeing off crossbenchers Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie, Allegra Spender and Dai Le as potentials to guarantee them confidence and supply. Of course that would assume they all were re-elected.

But this is putting several carts before the horse. Much will happen in the next few weeks, whether the election is April or May. Current polls that make predictions down to individual seats should be treated with much caution.

While the polls are presently depressing for Labor, this week’s Newspoll had a finding on inflation that might cheer treasurer Jim Chalmers. It found that less than a quarter of people believe inflation would have been lower under a Coalition government. In other words, while high prices are making voters sour, that is not necessarily directly translating into blame for Labor.

When the campaign proper is underway, the smallest things can blow up in leaders’ faces.

Albanese failed to remember key numbers in 2022. He had enough fat so his generally lackluster performance didn’t matter in the end. Dutton is yet to be campaign-tested. Rather disconcertingly for his handlers, in his Sky interview last Sunday he forgot deputy prime minister Richard Marles had just been in Washington.

Meanwhile Dutton is hard at work humanising his image in a series of interviews, and the obligatory 60 Minutes family get together with Karl Stefanovic (who did the Meet the Morrisons – the Duttons-at-home came without a musical performance).

Albanese worked hard at this before the last election, repeating over and over his story of being brought up in council housing, son of a single mother.

Dutton’s more complicated back story involves a stint as a youngster in a butcher’s shop, buying a house at 19, an early divorce, and a failed relationship that produced a baby who became his first child in his second marriage. And of course his career as a policeman.

One can imagine that some of these memories are painful to have to canvas in public, but the campaign’s hard heads say the public want to know all about a potential PM. So it has to be done.

(One Dutton incident is rarely recalled these days, that involved a temporary loss of political nerve. In 2009, after a redistribution made his seat of Dickson notionally Labor, Dutton sought to jump to the Gold Coast seat of McPherson. But he was beaten in a preselection by Karen Andrews, who is retiring at this election. That forced him back to Dickson, which he then held at the 2010 election.)

Albanese does not need to canvass his backstory as much these days but he took advantage of Valentine’s day to put out some sentimental social media fodder.

He and fiancé Jodie (to whom he proposed on Valentine’s day last year) sat, with Toto between them, turning over cards with questions said to be posed by the public. With each question (such as “who said I love you first”) they pointed to each other or themselves.

Opinion was divided about the video. Toto fell into the sceptics’ camp, jumping to the ground before it was finished. Läs mer…

The Reserve Bank has delivered the expected modest rate cut of a quarter of a percentage point, and we’re set for the predictable frenzy of speculation about an April election.

The cut is unlikely to be a major vote changer, after 13 increases. But it was absolutely vital to the government. Labor would have suffered a big knock if Michele Bullock and her board had held out.

The cut underpins the narrative of things improving, and may put voters in a better mood. At least that’s the government’s thinking.

But the bank is highly circumspect in its tone. It warned in its statement:

The forecasts published today suggest that, if monetary policy is eased too much too soon, disinflation could stall, and inflation would settle above the midpoint of the target range. In removing a little of the policy restrictiveness in its decision today, the Board acknowledges that progress has been made but is cautious about the outlook.

Speculation about the election date is a frustrating exercise, given only Anthony Albanese – and perhaps a few closest to him – knows his thinking, which could still be, as he suggested recently, “fluid”. In recent days the PM has played the tease. Periodically he talks about the intense work on budget, set for March 25; if that went ahead, it would mean a May election. But last week, he was also talking about parliament having seen its last day, which pointed to April.

It is hard to see the logic of Albanese launching a campaign before the March 8 Western Australian election, given that would be confusing for both state and federal campaigns and put maximum pressure on Labor’s WA volunteers. If Albanese opts for April 12, he would have to call it immediately after the WA poll.

Many in the business world would like the election done and dusted ASAP, because the pre-election period means a hiatus of sorts.

The opinion polls can be read various ways, but as things stand, they point to a minority government.

This is already putting pressure on crossbenchers, notably the teals, to indicate what factors they’d take into account in deciding who they’d support. The Coalition, if it reached about 72 seats (76 is a majority), would be eyeing off crossbenchers Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie, Allegra Spender and Dai Le as potentials to guarantee them confidence and supply. Of course that would assume they all were re-elected.

But this is putting several carts before the horse. Much will happen in the next few weeks, whether the election is April or May. Current polls that make predictions down to individual seats should be treated with much caution.

While the polls are presently depressing for Labor, this week’s Newspoll had a finding on inflation that might cheer treasurer Jim Chalmers. It found that less than a quarter of people believe inflation would have been lower under a Coalition government. In other words, while high prices are making voters sour, that is not necessarily directly translating into blame for Labor.

When the campaign proper is underway, the smallest things can blow up in leaders’ faces.

Albanese failed to remember key numbers in 2022. He had enough fat so his generally lackluster performance didn’t matter in the end. Dutton is yet to be campaign-tested. Rather disconcertingly for his handlers, in his Sky interview last Sunday he forgot deputy prime minister Richard Marles had just been in Washington.

Meanwhile Dutton is hard at work humanising his image in a series of interviews, and the obligatory 60 Minutes family get together with Karl Stefanovic (who did the Meet the Morrisons – the Duttons-at-home came without an musical performance).

Albanese worked hard at this before the last election, repeating over and over his story of being brought up in council housing, son of a single mother.

Dutton’s more complicated back story involves a stint as a youngster in a butcher’s shop, buying a house at 19, an early divorce, and a failed relationship that produced a baby who became his first child in his second marriage. And of course his career as a policeman.

One can imagine that some of these memories are painful to have to canvas in public, but the campaign’s hard heads say the public want to know all about a potential PM. So it has to be done.

(One Dutton incident is rarely recalled these days, that involved a temporary loss of political nerve. In 2009, after a redistribution made his seat of Dickson notionally Labor, Dutton sought to jump to the Gold Coast seat of McPherson. But he was beaten in a preselection by Karen Andrews, who is retiring at this election. That forced him back to Dickson, which he then held at the 2010 election.)

Albanese does not need to canvass his backstory as much these days but he took advantage of Valentine’s day to put out some sentimental social media fodder.

He and fiancé Jodie (to whom he proposed on Valentine’s day last year) sat, with Toto between them, turning over cards. with questions said to be posed by the public. With each question (such as “who said I love you first”) they pointed to each other or themselves.

Opinion was divided about the video. Toto fell into the sceptics’ camp, jumping to the ground before it was finished. Läs mer…

With the unembarrassed audacity parties show as an election nears, the government has stolen the opposition’s policy to ban foreign investors buying established homes.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O’Neil have announced foreigners won’t be able to purchase established homes from April 1 for at least two years, with a review to determine whether the ban should be extended.

When the opposition announced its policy last year, Labor was dismissive, pointing out the numbers were minuscule. But the idea is popular with the public and the government is anxious to neutralise it.

The turnabout comes immediately ahead of the Reserve Bank’s’s two-day meeting starting Monday, with expectations high that on Tuesday the bank may finally start moving rates down.

A rate cut would increase speculation Anthony Albanese will opt for an April rather than a May election. That would mean cancelling the March 25 budget.

With the election fast approaching and polls suggesting a high prospect of a minority government, attention has turned to how crossbenchers would react in the event of a hung parliament.

Much conjecture is around the “teals” who occupy former Liberal seats but are more progressive than the current Liberal party.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on Sunday: “It would be unusual that if we were able to achieve 72 [a majority is 76] and we were a number of seats ahead of the Labor Party, that there wouldn’t be a guarantee of supply and confidence from the crossbench.

”But some of them will only ever support the Labor Party. I think if they’re into transparency and honesty, they should be transparent and honest with the public before the election about if you vote for Kate Chaney, are you going to get Anthony Albanese or will she support a Coalition government in a minority situation?”

Chaney, one of the teals, holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, which the Liberals believe is a chance for them.

In their statement about foreign investors, Chalmers and O’Neil said the government would also “crack down” on foreign land banking.

The ministers admitted these latest initiatives were small but said they were an important part of the government’s broad housing policy,

“Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study,” they said.

Under the new arrangements, “foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign-owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.”

On landbanking, the ministers said foreign investors are presently subject to developmental conditions requiring they put vacant land to use within a reasonable time.

“The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.”

The Australian Taxation Office and Treasury will be funded for an audit program and to improve compliance.

Dutton hints at action against insurance companies that ‘rip off’ people

While Labor sought to shore up its credentials on housing, Dutton was venturing further down the interventionist road, hinting a Coalition government might use divestiture against recalcitrant insurance companies.

The Coalition has already courted controversy with its threat supermarkets could face divestiture.

Dutton is now looking more widely, after being concerned about how people in areas recently devastated by fires or floods often haven’t insurance because they can’t afford the increasingly high premiums.

Asked on Sky whether the Coalition would reduce the cost of insurance, Dutton said, “We need to make sure that we’re not being ripped off by insurance companies.

”As we’ve done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment if consumers are being ripped off, similarly, in the insurance market, we will intervene to make sure that consumers get a fair go because at the moment people are paying too much for their insurance and what’s resulting is that people aren’t taking out insurance. […] People just simply can’t afford to insure the car or their home at the moment.”

In a wideranging interview, Dutton cast doubt on whether the opposition would support any extension of government relief on power bills.

“If it’s going to be inflationary and it’s going to keep interest rates higher for longer and it’s going to keep grocery prices higher for longer and it’s going to keep electricity prices higher for longer, then no.”

(The relief the government has already provided put downward pressure on inflation.)

The opposition leader criticised the government for not putting enough effort into its handling of the Trump administration.

“Every minister should have been cycling through Washington. I’m not aware that other ministers have been to Washington since Penny Wong was there for the inauguration,” he said.

“If they have, that’s great. But the prime minister probably should have been on a plane to the US, as we’ve seen with other world leaders and there should have been greater engagement with the president earlier on.”

Dutton apparently forgot the visit made by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who was the first defence minister to meet new defence secretary Pete Hegseth.

Reminded of the Marles visit, he immediately criticised him. “Richard Marles is a nice guy, but he’s batting fairly significantly down the list in terms of the government’s key hitters.”

Dutton said Trump had to be seen in a different light to other presidents.

“Donald Trump is different to any of his predecessors, certainly in the modern age. If you look at his background, he’s a businessman, he does deals, he brings parties together, he swaps contracts. That’s been his background, and it’s not a background, probably, that’s been shared by too many of his predecessors. So, I don’t think you’re taking everything he says literally.”

Dutton left his options open when asked whether he would replace Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the United States.

“We have to have an ambassador who is in our country’s best interests. Kevin, obviously, is an accomplished person as prime minister of our country and if he’s the best person for the job, then he should stay in the job.

”If it turns out that he’s had no access to the White House and no real influence in relation to this [tariff] issue or whatever the next issue might be, then you would have to reassess his position. But at the moment, we’re being told that he’s effective in his advocacy in the administration. I suppose time will tell.

”My instinct would be to leave him in the job. But […] if there are insurmountable problems that he has, or that the administration has with him, then that would make it very difficult.” Läs mer…

When parliamentarians left Canberra on Thursday after the fortnight sitting, federal politics had the air of an uneasy waiting game.

Waiting for the election date, although the campaign has been running for months.

Waiting to know whether there will be a budget on March 25.

Waiting for capricious United States President Donald Trump to decide whether to grant Australia that keenly-sought exemption from his new 25% tariff on aluminium and steel imports.

Most immediately, waiting for the Reserve Bank to announce on Tuesday whether interest rates will be cut.

In policy terms, the government could be satisfied with this sitting week. Its Future Made in Australia legislation, with promised tax credits for major projects, passed. So too, did its sweeping new rules to put caps on political donations and spending.

The electoral reform legislation has been an extraordinarily drawn-out saga. Special Minister of State Don Farrell had originally hoped to introduce it by early 2024, with it operating at this election. But the process proved immensely complex, including for constitutional reasons. Finally the bill was introduced late last year, and has passed with virtually no time to spare. The measures won’t operate until the next parliamentary term.

Farrell brought to the task negotiating skills honed in a lifetime as a right wing factional power broker. He always wanted the deal to be done with the Liberals. He knew they would be the easiest dancing partners, because the changes are in the big parties’ mutual interests. But he also believed bipartisanship would reduce the chance of them being unravelled by a subsequent government.

The Coalition came on board – after the government made some concessions on donation and disclosure amounts – in the knowledge the reforms help put a floor under the two-party system. It’s obvious the Liberals want to limit the spread of the teal movement, that Climate 200 has helped finance.

But the potential for the increase in independents is a future danger also for Labor, which at this election is trying to win back Fowler, that fell in 2022 to independent Dai Le.

While the changes will limit the amount of money available to small players, they are a compromise and less unfair than some crossbenchers claim. Of course, judgements on fairness will differ according to where those making them are coming from. But it’s a substantial leap from urging newcomers should be encouraged into the system to believing the system should facilitate a financial auction for a seat.

Independent Member for Warringah Zali Steggall confronts Minister for Trade Don Farrell during a doorstop in the Press Gallery at Parliament House in Canberra.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

As he basks in his victory of the electoral legislation Farrell, who is also trade minister, finds himself in a supporting role in a more immediately high-profile issue: the tariff battle with the US. Farrell is anxious to engage as soon as possible with his US counterpart, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, preferably face-to-face. But he can’t officially do so until Lutnick is confirmed.

The tariff issue is being cast by the opposition as a test of Albanese’s ability to deal successfully with the Trump administration.

It’s an easy test to pose, but the government has done all it can to pursue a positive relationship with the administration. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was in Washington a week ago for talks with new defence secretary Pete Hegseth, armed with a hefty cheque for some A$800 million as part of Australia’s contribution under the AUKUS deal.

The Albanese-Trump call this week, when the PM argued for a tariff exemption, apparently went well. But the outcome is unpredictable, as is the timing of a decision. Trump might have sounded encouraging but, as we’ve been seeing, there’s some strong opposition in the system to giving Australia special treatment.

A win for Australia would be a significant fillip for the PM; a Trump rebuff would be a corresponding blow. Timing is also important: it would not be good for the government if this issue was unresolved through the election campaign (even worse, if there was a bad result then).

The opposition seeks to grab headlines by calling for Albanese to rush to Washington. Even if practical that could be counterproductive; if the mission failed it would be a disaster. Voters wouldn’t give him too many marks for trying.

While Peter Dutton might have thought the arrival of Trump and a more general swing against “wokeism” would be helpful to him at the election, as the US scene becomes more unsettling, the risk for him is that some “soft” voters might decide now is not the time to change.

Though the tariff issue is important, the election contest is mainly on cost of living in all its manifestations.

Trump has the power to inflict a blow on Albanese on the tariffs, but the Reserve Bank is a much bigger player in the government’s thinking.

Expectations remain high of a rate cut next Tuesday. If that didn’t happen, it would be a serious setback for the government. The next chance for a cut would then be April 1.

It’s not that a cut would necessarily directly swing a lot of votes. The electorate’s mood is likely too negative for that. But the absence of the much-anticipated cut would badly mess with the government’s narrative that things are on the right track for people to become better off.

Many political stories have dominated this term. A lot could have been foreseen. One, however, was predicted by no one: the appalling antisemitism crisis that has overtaken us, and reached new lows this week. This crisis is the product of far away events triggering a local malignancy that was lurking largely unrecognised.

A parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism at universities said, in a report tabled this week, that it had found “a disturbing prevalence of antisemitism that has left Jewish students and staff feeling unsafe, hiding their identity on campus and even avoiding campus all together”.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton shakes hands with Labor member for Macnamara Josh Burns after speaking to a Motion on Antisemitism.
Lukas Coch/AAP

On the same day that report was tabled, a horrifying video emerged of two nurses at a Sydney hospital, in an online discussion with Israeli influencer Max Veifer, spewing vile sentiments about killing Israeli patents. One of the two is an Afghan who became an Australian citizen several years ago. Dutton has seized on the video to call for a discussion “about the way in which the whole migration system works”.

Antisemitism has extended beyond being an appalling assault on Jews in our community – it is starting to undermine our institutions and society. Läs mer…

The Albanese government has secured bipartisan support for a major new regime covering political donations and spending, after making significant concessions.

The government agreed to increase the proposed threshold above which donations must be disclosed from $1000 to $5000. The present disclosure threshold is $16,900.

In addition, it has boosted the cap on individual donations to a candidate or party from the earlier proposed $20,000 to $50,000.

The deal was sealed on Wednesday when Special Minister of State Don Farrell had separate meetings on the final package with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton.

The legislation had been expected to pass late last year but negotiations between the government and opposition stalled at the final moment.

The government concessions were to accommodate not just the Coalition but also to respond to a degree to criticism from crossbenchers and some stakeholders outside parliament.

The government needed to get opposition backing to ensure the legislation’s passage before parliament rises this week. If the PM called an April election this would be the last parliamentary sitting.

Also, it wanted to pass the measures with the support of the alternative government so the new regime would not be undone in the future.

The reforms are the most comprehensive changes to the electoral system in four decades. The government says they will stop big money coming to dominate politics. But they have been under attack from teal MPs and other critics, including Simon Holmes à Court from Climate 200, which has funded community independents. The critics say they favour the major parties and disadvantage new and small players.

The new regime will not come into operation until the next parliamentary term and so does not affect this election.

The changes include disclosure of donations in real time or near-real time, and a series of caps on spending, The cap on each candidate in an electorate would be $800,000, while a party’s national spending would also be capped. At the moment there are no spending caps.

The legislation increases public funding for elections from under $3.50 per vote to about $5.

Farrell has not proceeded with a separate measure on truth in advertising, saying there was not enough support for it.

The Greens described the deal as “a fix”. “Labor and the Coalition are agreeing on rigging the system to lock out their competitors.”

Independent Zoe Daniel, a teal, said the legislation “entrenches the dominance of the major parties and locks out independents and new competitors”.

She said it imposed “strict campaign spending caps on Independents while
allowing major parties to exploit loopholes to pour millions into key
electorates.

”Under the new rules, all an independent’s campaign materials – posters, ads, or billboards – would count towards the cap, while major party branding on billboards, leaflets and ads would not. This deliberate imbalance ensures that Labor and the Coalition maintain a financial stranglehold over elections,” Daniel said. Läs mer…

With the election only months away, the Labor government finds itself suddenly battling with the Trump administration for an exemption from new US tariffs on steel and aluminium.

The opposition has supported the effort, but it also claims a Coalition government would be better place to deal with Donald Trump.

Joining us on this podcast, Nationals leader David Littleproud says if Labor fails to get an exemption on the tariffs, a Dutton government would try again:

Of course we will and I think that the relationship that Peter Dutton had and still has in Washington will play very much towards that. In fact, I was in Washington with Peter in July last year and so he can walk the halls of Washington with authority and confidence. And I think it’s important that we want this solved and it doesn’t matter who’s in power. This is team Australia, and we’ve got to have a bipartisan approach and I think Pete has shown that leadership.

On net zero, while Littleproud firmly backs the target as in Australai’s national interest, he also says if the world walked away from it, so would we.

What everyone’s trying to do is protect regional Australia. But, just so everyone appreciates, if we’re not signed up to net zero by 2050, the people are hurt the most are the people in regional Australia, our farmers and our miners, because if we don’t sign up to what the rest of the world has, the world gets to impose on us a border adjustment mechanism. That’s a tariff and that means we get less for what we produce in regional Australia.

Now if the world changes and walks away from net zero, then we walk away with it. But we’re not the United States, we’re not the biggest economy in the world. You got to understand your place in the world, and you’ve got to understand the unintended consequences.

The government this week announced it would be willing to take over Rex Airlines if it can’t be sold. Littleproud is sceptical:

Well, I think we’ve spent over $130 million of Australian taxpayer’s money and don’t have a lot to show for it. I think what we’ve got to also look at is that Rex was a viable regional airline before they had a dalliance into competing with Qantas and Virgin in the golden triangle between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. They couldn’t compete and instead of spending money on that, they should have upgraded their fleet.

The government has wasted enough time. They should open up conversation with the broader regional aviation sector, which they haven’t done, to find a solution, whether that be one in totality of a purchaser for Rex or whether that be a carve out of players and with policy levers is being pulled, rather than the Australian taxpayer having to cut the check in entirety. So I think we haven’t exhausted all the options.

On the coming election campaign, Littleproud stresses the closeness between the Nationals and the Liberals, rather than seeking to emphasise a separate Nationals’ pitch.

Peter and I, I think, have the tightest coalition that we’ve ever had. There’s not a piece of paper between us. We’re literally joined at the hip and our campaigns will complement one another and in fact, they’ll intertwine in many places. I think that’s important that the people of Australia understand that the only coalition that they can trust to form government is the Nationals and Liberals, not Labor, Greens and teals – that that is the only coalition that’ll give them stability, not chaos. Läs mer…