Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

Anthony Albanese has announced an Australian Federal Police Special Operation Taskforce to combat antisemitism, after criticism from within and outside the Jewish community that the government has not done enough to deal with the escalating issue.

Following a meeting of cabinet’s national security committee, the prime minister faced the media on Monday afternoon flanked by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the Attorney- General, Mark Dreyfus, and the Immigration Minister, Tony Burke.

Earlier in the day, Friday’s attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue was formally declared a “likely terrorist incident”. This upgrades the investigation to come under the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, which includes the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and ASIO.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told a Melbourne news conference that while there had not been sufficient evidence on Friday to label the firebombing a terrorist incident, the investigation since had made “significant progress” and had reached the threshold.

The declaration of a terrorist attack was advised by a joint management committee meeting of federal and state police, and ASIO, on Monday morning. The upgrade means the tougher anti-terrorism laws apply, rather than the law covering arson. The anti-terrorism law includes the power of preventative detention.

Albanese, who will visit the Melbourne synagogue this week, said Special Operation Avalite was in response to the Friday attack, that followed the attack on Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns’ office in Melbourne and an incident in Sydney in which a car was set set on fire and other cars were vandalised with anti-Israeli graffiti.

Kershaw said: “Special Operation Avalite will be an agile and experienced squad of counter-terrorism investigators who will focus on threats, violence, and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians.

”In essence, they will be a flying squad to deploy nationally to incidents.

”The Commonwealth offences Special Operation Avalite will investigate will include emerging violence, urging violence against members or groups, advocating terrorism, advocating genocide, using a carriage service to make a threat, and using a carriage service to menace or harass.”

While Patton refused to give details of the synagogue investigation, so as not to compromise it, he indicated the police were looking at three suspects.

Albanese and other politicians had already labelled the incident a terrorist attack, but to be officially declared one, it had to meet certain criteria.

AFP Deputy Commissioner for National Security Krissy Barrett told the Melbourne joint news conference the transition of the attack to come under the Victorian Joint Counter-terrorism team was a “crucial turning point in the investigation”.

“Joint counter-terrorism teams include the best terrorism investigators in the country, and a JCTT investigation unlocks more power, more capability, and more intelligence,” she said.

She said since the attack, the AFP, ASIO, and Victoria Police had been in regular contact, and this meant “that now it has been allocated to the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, we are already well-prepared, well-briefed, and well-progressed”.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan told the news conference her government would immediately seek advice on strengthening the state’s laws to protect people going to their place of worship.

Albanese seemed to brush off a question about whether there should be a national cabinet meeting on antisemitism. “What we want to do is to act. If people want to have a phone hook up, I’m very welcome for that to occur.” Läs mer…

Friday’s attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue has been formally declared a “likely terrorist incident”. This upgrades the investigation to come under the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, which includes the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and ASIO.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told a news conference that while there had not been sufficient evidence on Friday to label the firebombing a terrorist incident, the investigation since had made “significant progress” and had reached the threshold.

The declaration of a terrorist attack was advised by a joint management committee meeting of federal and state police, and ASIO, on Monday morning. The upgrade means the tougher, anti-terrorism laws apply, rather than the law covering arson. This anti-terrorism laws include the power of preventative detention.

While Patton refused to give details of the investigation so far, so as not to compromise it, he indicated the police were looking at three suspects.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other politicians had already labelled the incident a terrorist attack, but to be officially declared one, it had to meet certain criteria.

AFP Deputy Commissioner for National Security Krissy Barrett told the joint news conference the transition of the attack to come under the Victorian Joint Counter-terrorism team was a “crucial turning point in the investigation”.

“Joint counter-terrorism teams include the best terrorism investigators in the country, and a JCTT investigation unlocks more power, more capability, and more intelligence,” she said.

She said since the attack, the AFP, ASIO, and Victoria Police had been in regular contact, and this meant “that now it has been allocated to the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, we are already well-prepared, well-briefed, and well-progressed”.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan told the news conference her government would immediately seek advice on strengthening the state’s laws to protect people going to their place of worship. Läs mer…

In the reactions to incidents of antisemitism, many people observe a contrast between New South Wales Premier Chris Minns and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Over the past year, Minns has seemed quicker off the mark and more on point than Albanese, even when the PM is saying the right words and doing the right things.

Each projects a different vibe. It may seem a small thing in troubled times, but local Jews pick up on it. One (non-Jewish) observer captures it this way: “Minns gives a sense of himself in his condemnation. With Albanese it’s clearly the prime minister talking, not Anthony Albanese.”

The Middle East conflict – one in which Australia has no role or influence – has now finally fractured Israel-Australian relations. It has also led to increasing criticism of the federal government from the local Jewish community.

Last week brought the perfect storm. Australia voted at the United Nations for a motion calling for Israel to end its “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible”. This sparked a sharp reaction from the office of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Then in the early hours of Friday, the firebomb attack on the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne left many Jews terrified and angry. It came after months of ugly antisemitism to which some Jewish leaders argue the federal government has not responded adequately.

The Melbourne attack has not just reverberated domestically but has driven a further wedge into Israeli-Australian relations.

Netanyahu quickly took to social media to claim, “Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israeli position of the Labor government in Australia”.

This included “the scandalous decision” on the UN vote and stopping a former Israeli minister visiting Australia. The latter was a reference to Immigration Minister Tony Burke blocking Ayelet Shaked, who was due to speak at a conference. Burke pointed to her inflammatory anti-Palestinian statements and said she could undermine social cohesion.

Immediately after the Hamas atrocities of October 7 last year, Australia had a more-or-less bipartisan position on Israel, although the opposition criticised Labor Foreign Minister Penny Wong urging restraint as Israel moved to defend itself.

Ever since, however, the two sides of Australian politics have increasingly diverged. Albanese did not visit Israel, Wong did not visit the massacre sites; Peter Dutton did. Labor has been more even-handed in its attitude to the conflict, showing greater concern about the huge number of casualties in Gaza. As Labor has moved away from Israel, the Coalition has dug in ever more strongly behind Israel.

Partly this has been driven by differences of view. Labor itself has long been internally divided over Israel-Palestine issues. Many years ago, Albanese co-chaired the parliamentary friends of Palestine.

Partly the widening partisan gulf has been driven by immediate political concerns and interests. Labor has a very pro-Palestine constituency in some of its western Sydney seats.

Albanese has now called the Melbourne attack a terrorism incident, while pointing out that label is one assigned by the experts.

“If you want my personal view, quite clearly terrorism is something that is aimed at creating fear in the community, and the atrocities that occurred in the synagogue in Melbourne clearly were designed to create fear in the community, and therefore, from my personal perspective, certainly fulfil that definition or terrorism,” he said on Sunday.

Victorian and federal police will discuss the catagorisation on Monday (although they’ve been somewhat pre-empted).

Albanese announced $32.5 million for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to further strengthen security at Jewish Community sites including synogogues and schools.

At his news conference in Perth he also defended the government against those who say it hasn’t done enough, listing measures it has taken against antisemitism, including banning the Nazi salute and symbols, criminalising doxing, and appointing an antisemitism envoy.

Former treasurer Josh Frydenberg has called for a national security taskforce of federal and state police on antisemitism. But Albanese said the police should be left to go about their work and noted there was a joint counter-terrorism taskforce already.

At a state level, Minns, in the wake of a protest outside Sydney’s Great Synogogue last week that had people effectively trapped inside, is examining action to protect people from harassment at places of worship.

Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns, who holds the Victorian seat of Macnamara, with a substantial Jewish population, says that as well as measures to improve safety, antisemitism needs to be better combatted at universities, some of which have seen Jewish students experience vilification, intimidation and racism. Burns is chair of a inquiry into antisemitism on campuses, conducted by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights, which will report in February.

Pressed on Netanyahu’s attack on Australia over the UN vote, Albanese again pointed out 157 countries had supported the resolution including New Zealand, Canada and New Zealand, which are Five Eyes partners.

The split between Australia and Israel won’t be repaired in the foreseeable future without a change of government in one or both countries.

Bipartisanship over foreign policy on the Middle East is gone. But, despite the temptations posed by an approaching election, the parties need to unite behind combatting local antisemitism, before social cohesion is further undermined. Läs mer…

As she reads the economic commentators, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock might, in moments of doubt, wonder whether she’s making a similar mistake to her predecessor Philip Lowe.

Lowe ended up discredited because of some poor calls. He had signalled the bank would hold rates down for longer than turned out to be the case.

Presently, a big debate is underway about whether Bullock and the bank have got it wrong in their stand that rates shouldn’t be cut “in the near term”.

But that’s a debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers, for all his talk this week about Australia’s weak economy in the wake of Wednesday’s national accounts, won’t be drawn into.

It’s no secret the government is impatient for a rate cut, and frustrated we’re not seeing one. But it can’t say so, because that would invite attacks it was pressuring the independent bank.

A few months ago, Chalmers declared high interest rates were “smashing” the economy. Despite the fact he’d previously made the point, it turned into a big headline, feeding a feral news cycle. Chalmers learned a sharp lesson: even saying the obvious can be politically dangerous.

Others are forthright. Pradeep Philip, head of Deloitte Access Economics, says: “The private economy has been clobbered and we’d be in a recession if it wasn’t for government spending. Australia has been in an income per capita recession for some time now. The imperative for fiscal sustainability is stronger than ever and the case for a rate cut is palpable.”

ACTU secretary Sally McManus was blunt this week. “Central banks in almost all advanced economies have already started cutting their official cash rates – and it is time for Australia’s Reserve Bank to do the same.”

There’s no expectation the bank will be sympathetic to calls for a cut when it meets next week. It still argues inflation must fall further before a reduction can safely and sustainably be made. But the bank’s language will be carefully monitored for any sign of softening.

Its critics assert, variously, that the bank’s thinking is flawed – in particular, the belief unemployment needs to climb further to bring inflation to the acceptable level needed for a rate cut – or that it has backed itself into a corner because Bullock earlier flagged there’d be no cut this year.

Weeks ago, expectations about a rate cut were being pushed well into 2025. A government with its back to the wall hopes (but doesn’t necessarily expect) Wednesday’s figures might bring that forward to early next year.

Labor hardheads accept one cut wouldn’t significantly shift the government’s low popularity. But they do think it would show voters there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

Meanwhile, Chalmers was this week forced back onto the argument that, yes, people are hurting, but “Australians would be much worse off and growth in our economy would be even weaker without our responsible and balanced approach to the budget and without our cost-of-living support”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is talking up his second-term agenda but, as it crafts campaign lines, Labor will need to rely heavily on the alleged dangers posed by a Dutton government. Its focus groups are said to show people do think they’d be worse off under Dutton. Voters are disillusioned with the government but don’t assume change is risk-free.

Expect to hear a lot about how Dutton as health minister (way back when) went after Medicare. How he never backs wage rises. How he didn’t support cost-of-living help.

With a sour electorate, the best thing going for Labor may be its negative campaign, however unedifying that might be.

Dutton has so far been successful in his attack lines against Labor, delivered sharply and cleanly, while he’s kept the opposition a relatively small target with just a few popular policy offerings (such as on social media, and gambling reform).

But as he produces more policies, his vulnerability will increase. And as Labor unveils election giveaways, Dutton will be forced into awkward choices.

He’s promised the costing of his nuclear policy before Christmas and this will open him to more criticism over what many experts see as an unrealistic option. Nuclear power, however, is likely to be only a second-order issue, because it’s blue-sky stuff when it comes to Australia’s immediate energy needs. Voters think about their power bills in the next year or two, not decades hence.

Albanese has flagged he has a couple of big policy announcements to make over the summer, starting this month. One is expected to be an expanded child-care policy, with the final shape still being settled. The other remains firmly under wraps.

The Australian Financial Review reported this week the government was “mulling” another round of power bill discounts to take to the election. It would seem an obvious promise, and the Coalition would have to decide how to respond.

The Coalition’s soft underbelly will be its alternative economic policy, given there’s no easy way out of Australia’s malaise.

It argues government spending is too high, and is crowding out the private sector. But when it finally says (and it can’t get away with not saying) what it would cut, that will bring a backlash. Just declaring it would slash the public service won’t wash.

The Coalition says we must boost productivity. But how’s that to be done? If it involves winding back industrial relations changes, that’s risky territory in an election campaign.

On Thursday the Productivity Commission called on “everyday Australians” to come up with ideas on how to boost productivity. “We are looking for practical policy ideas from people in all walks of life on how Australia can work smarter, more efficiently, and more productively,” commission chair Danielle Wood said.

Perhaps people can copy Dutton in on their emails to the commission.

In the bowels of the bureaucracy and the offices of the treasurer and finance minister, they’re already at work on a March 25 budget that, depending on Albanese’s election timing, may never be delivered.

Within Labor, people differ on the pros and cons of launching the campaign off the back of a budget. It enables the government to frame its forward pitch and dominate the start of the campaign. But the debate can bog down in detail, and put the grim numbers up in lights.

Back at the Reserve Bank, Chalmers saw his legislation to set up a new monetary board pass last week, in a deal with the Greens. He intends to transfer all the current board onto the monetary board, except those who opt to be on the bank’s governance board. That will mean he’ll have a couple of vacancies to fill on the monetary board.

The first meeting of the monetary board is scheduled for March 31-April 1. If there’s no rate fall ahead of that, is it possible the new board could, on April Fool’s Day, make its first big decision a rate cut? Läs mer…

Liberal frontbencher Paul Fletcher got a big shock last election in his Sydney seat of Bradfield. Teal candidate Nicolette Boele pushed the result to preferences, leaving her within striking distance for next year’s poll. She has been further helped by the redistribution.

Now the usually mild-mannered Fletcher, a moderate within the Liberal party, has apparently decided no-holds-barred attack is the best form of defence as he and other Liberals fight the teal wave again. But he’s at risk of alienating and insulting the voters he needs to get on side.

In an address to the Sydney Institute on Monday, Fletcher prosecuted two points. He claimed the teals “are a giant green left con job”. And he maintained a minority government would be bad for the country.

There are arguments both ways about minority government. The case Fletcher makes about the teals, however, is hyperbolic.

The teals, he argues, “are very much in the tradition of front groups established by left-wing political operatives which are designed to lure votes away from the Liberal Party by tricking voters about their bona fides”.

The “look and feel” of the campaigns run by teal candidates, including slogans, t-shirts, and videography – “was extremely slick” and “highly consistent across multiple electorates”.

So too were their key campaign issues – “climate change, an anti-corruption commission and the treatment of women in politics.

”Of course it is not an accident that these issues were deployed across multiple campaigns. They were chosen through expensive polling work across the country.”

Fletcher cites as compelling evidence of the teals being a “green left con job” the fact these community movements appeared in Liberal seats, with no sign of them in Labor electorates.

And evidence the teal campaign was designed to “dupe” Liberal voters was that a third of the successful new teal MPs  – that is, two of six – “was the daughter or niece of a long time Liberal MP, with the same name”.

“The strategy was clear: to appeal to traditional Liberal voters who would never vote Labor but who were disenfranchised with the Coalition.”

“The intention was to get people to think, ‘That nice teal candidate could almost be a Liberal. I’ll vote for her.’”

This was “trickery, backed by big money,” according to Fletcher.

Yes, the teals had some big (Climate 200) money, very big, in some instances; yes, they shared some common campaign approaches, and ran on similar issues. And yes, they pitched to disillusioned Liberal voters.

But none of that amounts to “trickery”. The community candidates push in Liberal seats was a loose movement, candidates “networked”, gaining strength from sharing experience and resources. That’s different from a plot or some sort of conspiracy.

The specific teal geography and issues were substantially a reaction against the performance of the Liberal Party and Scott Morrison. This manifestation of the community candidate movement  also grew off the back of the successful push by Cathy McGowan, a regional “community candidate” elected on a different platform, who dislodged an unpopular Liberal in 2013 in Indi.

Fletcher’s reference to the two successful relatives of one-time Liberal MPs just draws attention to the fact that in other days, those women (Allegra Spender, Kate Chaney) might well have been attracted to the Liberal Party. Of course some voters thought they “could almost be a Liberal”.

Fletcher also claims the teals “exploited” the preferential voting system. If we had first past the post voting none of the teals would have won, he said. Indeed. But if we had had first past the post voting, many Liberals would have lost in many elections. Does he want to change the voting system?

He complains the teals were helped by Labor and Greens supporters voting “tactically”. “Left wing voters saw a chance to unseat a Liberal incumbent and voted in large numbers to do so.” No doubt. But if the Liberals had been a more acceptable alternative, they would have had a stronger primary vote and not been so susceptible to being undermined in heartland seats.

Among other lines of attack, Fletcher says the teals have voted with the Greens a lot in parliament. They’ve both “made little difference”, because it’s not a hung parliament, and “made it easier for Labor to govern”, because there are few times when Labor’s majority is on a knife-edge in divisions in parliament.

He says the teals reduce scrutiny of the government because they are allocated question time slots that cut the number of opposition questions, and  shadow ministers have less opportunity for a run of questions. From my observation, the teals’ questions are often sharper than most of those from the opposition.

Fletcher is on stronger, though much-contested, ground on the issue of majority versus minority government.

He argues minority government “leads to chaotic processes” and makes it “virtually impossible to achieve  substantive reform”.

“The stability of the two party system is a good thing.  It has delivered many benefits to Australia.  Stable majority government is a foundational requirement for achieving any serious reform and advancing our nation’s prosperity.”

Anthony Albanese  would agree with him. But critics would counter that minority government can lead to compromise and better outcomes.

“Majority government is at real risk in Australia – in large measure due to the cynical green left con job perpetrated by the political operatives behind the teal movement and their big money backers,” Fletcher says.

Majority government is at “real risk” at this election. The reason is not because all those voters are “conned” but because they have become increasingly fed  up with sub-optimal performances from the major parties.  Läs mer…

Opposition Senate leader and former senior minister in the Coalition government Simon Birmingham has announced he will quit parliament at the election. Birmingham, one of the few remaining moderates in the Liberals’ ranks, is shadow foreign minister. Now , aged 50, he’s defecting to a (yet to be announced) commercial job.

He joins the podcast to talk about the highs and lows of his time in politics and the Liberal Party, as well as to share his biggest regret and a couple of anecdotes.

So why is he going?

I don’t think I have the same partisan fight in me that I probably had in the early days of my career, and so I think there is an element of recognising that perhaps politics, as is, requires and demands people to take on the fight in our system. And the team deserves people who will take on that fight. I’ve always put the team first, as much as I possibly can, and that requires compromise at all times – and in the end, after a while, you start to tire of the compromise.

So all of that together with yes, a great and exciting opportunity that sets my career up for hopefully the next ten, 20 or longer years of work life. […] and still enables my family to stay in Adelaide, where their careers and education are flourishing.

Speaking about regrets, Birmingham highlights climate change:

I wish we had better landed policies and direction around how Australia responds to climate change. It’s been the thread right throughout my career – of division and politicking. I think the biggest missed opportunity was probably the National Energy Guarantee, which Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg came so very close to landing.

It’s actually a mechanism that could have strongly supported a nuclear energy market, for example, as well, and I wish that we had found the way to see that through because I think our policy landscape would be much better today had that been the case.

As a leading moderate within the Liberal Party, Birmingham reflects on the teal movement and where it leaves the moderates:

I think the last election, in particular, not only sent us a clear message of dissatisfaction from more moderately aligned and teal-leaning seats.

But it simultaneously left the party room less well-equipped to respond to those messages because we lost some people who were really about to come into their prime and their own. People like Trent Zimmerman and Tim Wilson and Katie Allen and Dave Sharma [Sharma has since returned to parliament as a senator], they were becoming much stronger and more authoritative voices in the party room, who I have missed greatly in this term and where I think we would have been better placed having them there.

I just hope that coming into the next election where […] we’ve got some great new candidates in different seats who I think are true custodians of the liberal tradition in the Liberal Party, I hope that we can win those seats back and restore some of that balance in the party room.

With the return of Donald Trump, Birmingham recounts his experiences when he was trade minister during the Trump Mark 1 administration:

I remember at [a] dinner with Donald Trump […] we did get into a debate about the trade balance between our countries, and I ultimately reached into some of the documents I had and handed a graph across the table that showed for how long and how significantly the US has had a trade surplus over Australia.

Whilst I don’t think trade relations should be about the binary of surplus v deficit but, in the end, if that’s what’s going to sway his thinking, we’ve got to pitch it in that regard.

He also recalls:

I was scheduled to go from Ottawa through to Washington, DC on my way back to Australia, and Joe Hockey rang me while I was in Ottawa and said, mate your New Zealand counterpart came here on his way to Ottawa and he asked to get the same exemptions to the steel and aluminium tariffs that Australia has got. And Bob Lighthizer, who was Trump’s equivalent of the trade minister, went nuts at the New Zealanders and marched them out of his office saying, ‘you’re not getting it, and Australia never should have either’. And Joe said to me, mate, I think it might be best if you have a family emergency and head back to Australia.  

Lo and behold, I took Joe’s wise advice and counsel, made my way straight back to Australia, making apologies to those in D.C. I was meant to see. Läs mer…

An attempt by the Liberals to insert a potential legal time bomb into the electoral reform legislation and a Labor proposal that would give the ACTU a generous donation cap were main reasons an expected bipartisan deal on the bill imploded at the last moment this week.

Under a “purpose of bill” provision pressed by the Liberals, if there were a successful High Court challenge to part of the legislation, the whole package of reforms would be wiped out.

In the negotiations this week, the Liberals again pushed for the caps on donations and disclosure to be raised.

But more importantly, they had concerns about Labor’s proposed amendment in favour of peak bodies. While more generous caps for these bodies would also apply to the Business Council and similar organisations, the Liberals are particularly focused on the ACTU.

In the talks with the Opposition, the government proposed an amendment that would link the donation caps and the spending caps in the legislation. Special Minister of State Don Farrell has said that a cap on donations without a limit on spending would only benefit the already wealthy. But the government rejected the Liberals’ attempt to have every part of the bill linked.

If different parts of the legislation remain unlinked, a High Court decision striking out the caps could leave intact the measures covering disclosure and transparency – provisions to which some Liberals and Nationals are strongly opposed.

Clive Palmer, who met Farrell this week, has foreshadowed a challenge if the legislation passes. The government has been highly concerned to try to ensure the legislation would not be vulnerable to a court challenge on the ground of restricting freedom of political communication. Even so, some experts believe parts could be vulnerable.

The bill had been expected to be passed this week, but was pulled when agreement could not be reached. Farrell has said he will have further consultations over the summer, with the hope of having the bill agreed to in the scheduled February sitting of Parliament.

It has always been the government’s preference to have a deal with the Liberals, to guarantee the durability of the changes. But there is now also interest from some in the government in exploring the possibility of a deal with the Senate crossbench.

To pass the legislation via the crossbench, the government would need the Greens plus three out of the remaining ten crossbench senators.

The government believes the measures have advantages for the Greens while some of them also fit their policy positions. Among the non-Green crossbenchers there are several firm critics of aspects of the bill, although others have been less hardline in private talks with the government.

The Liberals remain hopeful of a deal.

There would be risks for the Liberals if the government was able to get an agreement with the minor players. That could mean the bill was altered in ways that were less acceptable to the Liberals than the present version. Läs mer…

The just-ended COP-29 in Baku, and the election of Donald Trump, have put the global response to climate change in the spotlight. Meanwhile back home, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen this week reported Australia is on track to meet its 2030 target to reduce emissions as part of the Paris Climate Agreement.

But the government won’t say whether it will reveal its 2035 target before the election. It points out it is awaiting advice from the Climate Change Authority. The head of that authority, former New South Wales Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, joins the podcast to talk about COP, Australia’s energy transition, and the challenge of preparing that advice on the 2035 target.

Kean says COP left him more encouraged than he’d expected:

I arrived at COP incredibly pessimistic. It was on the back of Trump’s election victory where he basically called climate change a hoax. He said his energy policy was going to be “drill, baby, drill”. And it was clear that there was going to be an absence of American leadership in the climate discussion over the next four years. So, I arrived with not high hopes.

But I left optimistic and positive, and the reason for that is that this is the world’s most important climate conference. It’s the world’s biggest climate conference. It brings together people from all over the globe, be it governments at the national level or sub-national level, businesses, private enterprise, NGOs. And the message that I received from all those actors is, yes, there is a setback, but the effort required and the determination to continue the trajectory that we were on was very, very clear.

It’s an opportunity to collaborate and come up with new ways to solve this challenge. I mean, the world coming together in a global effort to limit global warming by 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is one of the great challenges of our times. No country alone is going to solve it, and my message to your listeners is this: the fight for a cleaner, safer and better planet by tackling dangerous climate change is bigger than one election cycle in one country at one point in time.

Australia had hoped to get the nod during COP to host (together with Pacific countries) the 2026 COP but a decision has been deferred until June. Kean describes where things are up to and why it’s an important event not just for Australia’s reputation but also for its economy:

I was led to believe that there was a strong indication that other countries might pull out of the race. But clearly that didn’t happen. We arrived in Baku to hear the president of Turkey making a strong and forceful argument as to why Turkey should be the host of that COP. And I think that caught a few people by surprise, to be honest.

But […] hopefully, Australia will be chosen as the country that can host this world-class huge event which will bring lots of economic benefits.

Over 70,000 people descended on Baku. So, regardless of the importance of bringing people together to collaborate and try and solve this challenge, it is a huge economic boon for the city and the country that hosts it. I mean, I can’t think of many events that could attract 70,000 people to Australian shores.

On the Climate Change Authority’s progress report, released this week, Kean highlights a key opportunity for new renewable energy capacity:

Take, for example, one of the recommendations around using more business rooftops to meet our energy needs. Australia has the potential for an extra 28GW of solar capacity using the commercial and industrial rooftops of Australia. That’s bigger than the size of the New South Wales energy system alone.

[The Australian Energy Market Operator] predicts only 5% of the commercial and industrial customer demand will be met by rooftop solar and batteries and that’s compared to 50% for households. So we’ve got a huge opportunity to install more capacity into the grid, ensure that our system is more reliable and able to manage the exit of these unreliable coal fired power stations without adding a huge cost to consumers.

On when Australians will learn about our 2035 targets, and his authority’s advice on them, Kean says Australia will need to submit its targets before next year’s COP, but is coy about when the authority’s advice will be coming:

Let me firstly say what matters most is the quality of the target and the strength of the evidence and analysis that underpin it. So we want to give the Australian people confidence that Australia’s next target is ambitious, achievable and in our national interest.

As far as we’re aware, all countries intend to submit their next targets before the next climate conference in 2025. We will provide our advice in plenty of time for Australia to submit before then.

I’m not going to be rushed by domestic political timetables. I’m an independent voice in this process and as I said, what matters most is the quality of the target and the strength of the evidence and analysis that underpin it. Läs mer…

In the chaotic dying days of 2024’s final parliamentary sitting, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reverted to a role he played in Julia Gillard’s government.

He personally intervened in the wrangling and deal-making as the government battled to get as much as possible of Labor’s legislation passed.

The end of a parliamentary year is usually a mess. But 2024’s finale was beyond bad. A prime minister who likes to claim he runs an orderly government found himself presiding over a shambles, in which process was thrown to the winds and quick fixes and expedient capitulations became the order of the day.

Senators might have anticipated Wednesday’s suspension of the volcanic Lidia Thorpe, the Indigenous independent who last year defected from the Greens, would remove one distraction in a head-spinning week. Instead, it added a wild element to Thursday, when Thorpe shouted into the chamber from the press gallery: “Free, free Palestine. From the river to the sea”. Extra security guards were deployed to prevent a repeat.

Amid the rush, senators did take time out on Thursday to pay generous tributes to popular Senate opposition leader Simon Birmingham, after his surprise announcement he’ll leave politics at the election for the commercial world.

The week’s political mayhem delivered a big and unexpected win for Treasurer Jim Chalmers, but a major defeat for Special Minister of State Don Farrell.

After the Liberals in September refused to support legislation to split the Reserve Bank board and establish a special board to set interest rates, the plan appeared dead. But a late deal with the Greens has done the trick. Chalmers gets his restructured bank, after giving in to the Greens’ insistence the treasurer retain the current (never used) right to override the bank on rates.

Earlier in the week the Greens had agreed (without securing any concessions) to support Labor’s housing bills. It seems the minor party is putting on some pragmatic clothes ahead of the election.

Farrell unveiled his sweeping electoral reforms, designed to curb “big money”, just before the fortnight sitting.

The man they call the “godfather” thought, as late as Wednesday morning, that he would finally land what seems to have been only an in-principle understanding with the Liberals.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Speaker of the House Milton Dick and Leader Peter Dutton pose for photographs at the wishing tree.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Then on Wednesday afternoon Opposition Leader Peter Dutton sat down with Farrell in the minister’s office. The Liberals wanted higher disclosure and donation limits. There was also argy bargy over the treatment of peak bodies such as the ACTU and the Business Council. Despite Farrell’s willingness to be flexible, the prospective agreement imploded.

On Thursday morning the government had to announce Farrell would continue discussions – which have been going on much of the parliamentary term – over the summer, with the hope of passing the legislation in February.

That’s assuming parliament comes back in February – Albanese said on Thursday night “we fully expect to be sitting in February” – and that the proposals’ critics don’t consolidate an upper hand. Reform of the electoral donations and spending regime has been a major Labor commitment. In the end the legislative push was left too late. A lot will have to go right for the measures (not due to start until mid next term) to be passed before the election.

The bill to ban children under 16 from accessing a range of social media sites, though passed, was also mismanaged. While many people will believe it’s good to have the legislation through, the process was appalling.

The ban is very controversial, with many experts highly critical. That made it all the more necessary for the legislation to have proper parliamentary scrutiny. More than 15,000 submissions were received by the Senate committee that looked at the bill. The committee took just one morning’s evidence on Monday, and on Tuesday tabled its report.

On Thursday, as it tried to accelerate dozens of bills through the Senate, Labor needed to use the guillotine to curb debate. But that plan was initially voted down.

Enter Albanese. In an extraordinary day of wheeling and dealing, Santa came early.

The support of ACT independent David Pocock for the quick passage of bills was secured with various bits and pieces including, the senator said in a press release, two “significant measures that will be announced in coming days”.

The Greens’ mood was lifted at the cost of $500 million for social housing upgrades. There was also an undertaking of “no coal, oil and gas funding in Future Made in Australia”.

Albanese was personally involved in the negotiations with Pocock and the Greens.

Some interpreted the government’s freneticism as indicating a likely March election. But that is an over-reading, even accepting the PM has left himself wriggle room. Clearing the decks (albeit partially) is useful if the PM wanted to call an election for March, but it doesn’t mean he will do so.

A March poll would involve the awkward problem of overlapping with the Western Australian election campaign.

Anything concerning WA is a trigger point for Albanese, who won a batch of seats there in 2022 and can’t afford too many losses in the state next year.

On Monday Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and the Greens reached a deal, reportedly agreed to by the PM, to establish a new environmental watchdog to oversee compliance with environmental laws. On Tuesday Albanese killed the deal.

WA premier Roger Cook – who earlier this month revealed his talk with the prime minister about election dates – explained at a news conference on Wednesday how he’d ensured the bill wouldn’t proceed.

Cook said he’d had a conversation on Tuesday “at the highest level of the federal government”. He had reiterated the WA view that the Nature Positive legislation in the current form should not go ahead. He’d been assured it would not progress this week.

Albanese had his own version on the ABC on Thursday night. The “legislation remains stuck in the Senate”, he said. “We didn’t have the majority for it.”

He added, “I was the negotiator.”

Once again Albanese has delivered a blow to Plibersek, whom he installed in the environment portfolio when she had expected to receive the education post, for which she had been shadow minister. For Plibersek this has been a character-building parliamentary term. Läs mer…

Opposition leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, has announced he will retire from parliament at the election, to take up a “new, commercially oriented” career.

Birmingham, 50, the most senior Liberal moderate and the shadow foreign minister, leaves a hole in the Coalition team only months out from the election.

He has represented South Australia in the Senate since 2007, and served in a number of portfolios including finance, education and trade in the Coalition governments. In 2020 he replaced Mathias Cormann as Senate leader. In elections he often had an important role as campaign spokesperson.

Telling the Senate he had turned 50 this year, he said: “Now is the right time for me, for my family, and for new career pathways”.

“It is always better to go when there are some wishing you to stay, and none of us is irreplaceable.”

He was not specific about what job he will take up, saying just “I’m excited that next year I will step into a new commercially-oriented direction”.

But he gave the assurance: “You can all be relieved to know that it has nothing to do with lobbying, government relations or commentary”.

Senate leader Penny Wong said Birmingham was a “thoroughly decent person” and thanked him for his “constructive engagement”. She referred to how he had shown kindness to her after Labor’s election loss in 2019.

In his speech Birmingham said he was proud of “my small role in securing marriage equality in Australia, having been the first Coalition frontbencher to publicly back marriage reform”.

He also said he did not accept “the perceptions peddled by some in this building of it being a universally toxic workplace. There are many staff and members of parliament of all political persuasions who not only work hard and achieve much but they actually enjoy their time here too”.

He told the Senate he was troubled by “the global rise of populism and divisive tribalism peddled by ideological extremes.

”It risks social cohesion in countries like ours and jeopardises the economic wellbeing of countries like ours. I am confident that Australia is a country whose values sit at the centre and the parties of government forget that at their peril.”

His speech was followed by long applause, reflecting his popularity across the chamber.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Birmo has a young family, and I know he’s going to be looking forward to spending more time with them, and he’s given an enormous amount to our country”.

Birmingham’s place as opposition leader in the Senate will be taken by his deputy Michaelia Cash. Läs mer…