Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

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…

The Albanese government will on Wednesday announce it is willing, as a last resort, to purchase the collapsed Rex Airlines, in its latest bid to prop up aviation services to regional and remote areas.

As the administrators work on the second attempt to sell Rex, the  government will say that, in the first instance, it will work with shortlisted bidders on potential support to maximise the prospects of a sale. The initial attempt to sell Rex failed last year.

What support will be offered  will be conditional on bidders committing to provide an “ongoing, reasonable level of service to regional and remote communities”. Assistance must also represent value for taxpayers’ money and there would have to be assurances from the potential buyer of good governance.

While the government is not a bidder in the sale process now underway and hopes that will be successful, if there is no result, it will go down an alternative route.

“In the event there is no sale, the Albanese government will undertake necessary work, in consultation with relevant state governments, on contingency options, including preparations necessary for potential Commonwealth acquisition.”

The government is also providing an extension to the exemption from the “use it or lose it” test for REX regional flight slots at Sydney airport. This will ensure its access to those slots until October 24 next year.

REX went into voluntary administration last year. An attempt (now abandoned) to compete on capital city routes had proved disastrous for it.

The Federal government has provided it with extensive support to keep it in the air on regional routes while its future is being determined.

This has included $80 million in a loan to the administrator to keep regional flights operating until June 30, as well as a buyout of $50 million debt from its biggest creditor, PAGAC Regulus Holdings Limited. The government is now Rex’s largest creditor.

Prime Minister Albanese said: “We are working collaboratively with the administrators of REX to ensure that regional services continue beyond June 2025, including looking at what support the Commonwealth can provide.

”Regional Australians can be assured that our government will continue to fight to ensure these regional airfare remain available.”

Transport minister Catherine King said: “When markets fail or struggle to deliver for regional communities the government has a role to ensure people do not miss out on opportunities, education and critical connections.”

When speaking about the future of the airline last month, opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie declined to say whether the Coalition would support nationalisation of Rex.

Until the 1990s the federal government owned Qantas and one of the two major domestic airlines. Läs mer…

US President Donald Trump has agreed to “consider” exempting Australia from the 25% tariff he has imposed on imports of steel and aluminium to the US.

Trump gave the undertaking during a wide-ranging 40-minute conversation with Anthony Albanese early Tuesday morning (Australian time). The prime minister, speaking to a news conference soon afterwards, stressed that Trump had agreed on the precise words to be used to describe the outcome.  

“I presented Australia’s case for an exemption and we agreed on wording to say publicly, which is that the US president agreed that an exemption was under consideration in the interests of both of our countries.”

Albanese gave no indication of when he expects a decision.

Meanwhile, Trump has signed the executive orders for the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium without exemptions.

The Australian government might be able to take heart from Trump’s later comments on the discussion.

The president described Albanese as a “very fine man”.

“We have a surplus with Australia, one of the few, and the reason is they buy a lot of airplanes. They’re rather far away and they need lots of airplanes. We actually have a surplus. It’s one of the only countries which we do. I told him that that’s something that we’ll give great consideration to,” he told the media.

Pressed on whether he was confident of an exemption, Albanese would not speculate beyond the agreed words. “The words that I’ve used are the words that I’ll stick to,” he said.

“It’s appropriate when you’re dealing with the president of the United States to not speak on his behalf. And those are the words that were agreed.”

“We’ll continue to engage diplomatically.” Albanese said, “Australia will always stand up for Australia’s interests […] We’ll continue to put the case.”

The prime minister described the call as “constructive and warm” and posted on social media that it was a “great conversation”.

Outlining Australia’s argument for an exemption Albanese said the US had a trade surplus with Australia of about two to one, and steel supplier BlueScope had extensive production in the US.

“When you look at the imports of these products into the US, it’s about 1% of imports of steel, 2% of aluminium,” he told his news conference.

“Our steel is an important input to US manufacturing. BlueScope is the US’s fifth largest steelmaker. They’ve invested $5 billion in the US across a range of states. I think there’s more than 30 different investments there.

”Of course the major export is Colorbond there, for roofs in California on the west coast. And it plays an important role.

”Aluminium is a critical input for manufacturing in the United States and our steel and aluminium are both key inputs for the US-Australian defence industries. in both of our countries.”

Albanese said that in the conversation, “We spoke about a range of other things as well, including the fact that Jordan Mailata is a Super Bowl champion and I did point out that he was a South Sydney junior”.

The call, which was in train before the tariff announcement, also canvassed critical minerals and AUKUS.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton again criticised Albanese over his past comments about Trump. But the opposition leader told a news conference: “What’s important now is the Trump administration hears there is a bipartisan position in Australia to stand up for our national interest and that national interest is best served by a removal of the tariff as it applies to Australia.” Läs mer…

The Albanese government is set to mount a major effort to win an exemption from a proposed 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports to the United States foreshadowed by President Donald Trump.

Assuming Trump follows through on the move, it will put major pressure on the prime minister to match the success of the Turnbull government in 2018 when Trump put a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium in his first administration.

Speaking to reporters travelling on Air Force One, Trump flagged he would make the tariff announcement on Monday (Washington time). He said the tariffs would start “almost immedciately” on all foreign steel and aluminium imports.

The Australian government on Monday was scrambling to put together its response, although government sources insisted it was not surprised and was well prepared.

Cabinet met on Monday morning where the Trump comments were presumably discussed.

Trade Minister Don Farrell said on Monday:

We have consistently made the case for free and fair trade, including access into the US market for Australian steel and aluminium.

Our bilateral economic relationship is mutually beneficial – Australian steel and aluminium is creating thousands of good paying American jobs, and are key for our shared defence interests too.

Sources said the government had been making representations on steel and aluminium for months.

Last week, Farrell said he was seeking talks with incoming US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, but that would have to wait until he was confirmed.

In the lobbying for special treatment, the government will stress that the US has a trade surplus with Australia.

In 2023-24, the US imported about 240,000 tonnes of steel products from Australia, valued at US$250 million (A$400 million).

US imports of Australian aluminium peaked in 2019 at about 270,000 tonnes and declined to around 83,000 in 2024. The three-year average imports from Australia were 167,000 tonnes per year, valued at US$496 million (A$791 million).

Nationals leader David Littleproud said the issue was a test for Anthony Albanese and Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd.

Littleproud said:

When you make disparaging comments about leaders in other parts of the world sometimes it comes back to bite you.

And unfortunately it could be the Australian economy that gets the bite.

This is a test to see whether Anthony Albanese’s previous remarks and Kevin Rudd’s previous remarks about President Trump has done this nation harm.

Littleproud said if Rudd was “not the right person to have these discussions, then we should be mature enough as a country to send someone who can have those discussions to get that carveout”.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has just returned from Washington.

At a news conference there, he was asked whether Australia was concerned about direct reciprocal tariffs or a flow-on effect from them.

Marles said:

We obviously are engaging with the United States in respect of our bilateral relationship in respect to tariffs.

We’ll obviously press Australia’s interest in our case in respect of that. But none of this is a surprise. We know what President Trump’s platform was as he went into the American election.

He’s been very clear about his policy direction. And so I think we all understand that is going to see changes in American policy in relation to this. From an Australian point of view, we will continue to press the Australian case around the question of trade. Läs mer…

The weekend byelection in the outer suburban seat of Werribee saw the widely-anticipated slap-in-the-face to Victorian Labor, which is absolutely on the nose. The question is: to what degree were electors venting against federal Labor too?

With an abundance of caution, the Albanese government would do best to assume it was being given a substantial kick.

Even if the largest slice of the about 10% two-party swing was prompted by state factors, including the sheer arrogance of the byelection  (a state treasurer departing mid-term), we know federal Labor is doing badly in Victoria.

There is certainly enough of a message in the result in Werribee (which on present numbers Labor is expected to just retain) to flag a potential serious erosion of federal seats come the national election.

One challenge for federal Labor is to turn Victorian voters’ attention away from state matters, to focus squarely on the choice between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton.

Labor needs to minimise the extent to which Victorians use the federal election to take out their anger towards the Allan government. So far, only the Werribee voters have had the chance to get some of that frustration out of their systems. The federal opposition will seek to milk feelings about the Allan government.

Regardless of that, we know Dutton has become more acceptable in Victoria than he was a couple of years ago.

As things stand, Labor is set to lose federal seats in this state where the Liberals have struggled, and the state Liberal organisation has been a shambles. It is a matter of how many.

While the Liberals will be delighted with the Werribee result, the hardheads will note that although the Labor primary vote fell nearly 17% the Liberal vote only rose 3.7%. Partly this might reflect the fact that in Labor heartland, the disillusioned voters wanted to protest but not jump the aisle to the Liberals. Nevertheless, there is the message, applicable federally, that the Liberals need to be attracting more primary votes, not just relying on Labor losing them to independents and small parties.

Once again, we see reflected in this byelection the relative collapse of the two party system. Labor polled 28.7% of the primary vote; the Liberals 29%. fewer than six in ten voters supported one of the major parties.

Depending on your viewpoint, you can see the decline of the two party system as a portend of future instability in our politics, or the continued indication of a fresh new direction. Federally, the present money is on minority government.

In Saturday’s other Victorian byelection, the Liberals wrested the inner city seat of Prahran from the Greens. There was no Labor candidate.

The Greens, on 36.2% of the vote, attempt to take comfort that  the swing against them on primary votes was only 0.6%. But a loss is a loss, whatever the margin, and this setback, on top of those in the recent ACT and Queensland elections, must put fears into the party about the fate of the three Queensland federal seats it won in 2022.

With some Labor supporters deeply pessimistic and some Liberals wildly optimistic, both sides are trying to manage expectations  about where the election battle stands nationally.

Labor finds some heart from comparing Newspoll’s now and at comparable points before changes of government.

The Dutton opposition in the first Newspoll of 2025 was on 51% of the two-party vote.

By contrast, in the first Newspoll of 1996, the Howard opposition had a two-party vote of 54%.

Newspoll in August 2007 (about 100 days before  the election)  saw the Rudd opposition on 56%. In  May 2013, with about 100 days to voting, the Abbott opposition was polling 55% in two-party terms. The first Newspoll of 2022 had the Albanese opposition on 56%.

Governor Michele Bullock will deliver the next big marker on the political calendar when the Reserve Bank announces next week whether it will cut interest rates.

If it does, there will be a frenzy of speculation about the election being held in April, which would mean scrapping the scheduled March 25 budget.

Quite how Albanese would explain this, when he and his ministers say every other day how much work is being done on that budget, is unclear. Those in Labor who are in the camp of a May election say the government needs time for an interest rate cut to flow through.

Only one man determines the timing, and he’s on record recently saying the date remained “fluid”. Läs mer…

The battle to contain antisemitism in Australia finds both sides of politics embracing measures they’d otherwise abhor.

Spectacularly, the government capitulated this week to include mandatory minimum sentences of between one and six years in its hate speech legislation that passed the parliament on Thursday.

That flip flop was done in a day. You need a longer memory to recall the Coalition’s insistence that free speech had to be preeminent over dealing with hate speech.

Way back, when Tony Abbott was prime minister, there was a big (ultimately unsuccessful) push against Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This civil law prohibits acts “likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity”. At the very least, libertarian Liberals wanted it reworded to remove “offend” and “insult”.

Before entering parliament, James Paterson worked for the right wing Institute of Public Affairs, which spearheaded attacks on 18C. Even after becoming a senator in 2016, Paterson remained a strong critic of 18C (although he says he always supported laws against incitement to violence).

Now as home affairs spokesman Paterson has been at the forefront of the opposition efforts to make the new hate speech law as strong as possible.

Until mid week the government firmly ruled out giving in to opposition’s demands for mandatory sentences for hate crimes. The government’s resistance was unsurprising. The Labor party platform rules out mandatory sentences.

But then late on Wednesday, leader of the house Tony Burke went into parliament with amendments including mandatory minimum sentences of between one and six years for various crimes under the anti-hate legislation.

Teal MP Zoe Daniel, from the Victorian seat of Goldstein, was among several crossbenchers who voted against that amendment.

She said later she supported the legislation but described the mandatory sentencing as “overreach”. “Community safety is paramount, and so is good policy-making. Mandatory minimum sentences do not reflect good parliamentary practice or good governance. Nor do they respect the sanctity of Australia’s constitution and separation of powers, and the importance of judicial independence.”

The antisemitism crisis is, on a number of fronts, leading to the actual or advocated curtailment of civil liberties. The federal government has outlawed the Nazi salute and hate symbols. The NSW government is to bring in more anti-hate provisions.

There is constant debate about the desirability of curbs of one sort or another on demonstrations. The antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has said, “There should be places designated away from where the Jewish community might venture where people can demonstrate”.

In our history we repeatedly see how government actions to confront perceived emergencies collide with civil liberties.

For example, strong security laws introduced in the wake of September 11 2001 triggered arguments about the extent to which they struck down people’s rights. Going back to the Menzies era, the Communist threat prompted the government to try (and fail) to carry a referendum to ban the Communist Party.

People of good intent will differ about the extent to which particular responses to a crisis are necessary and appropriate, or go too far, either being bad policy or an unjustified curb on civil liberties. Historical judgements may also differ from those made at the time.

This is not to dispute that we should be taking the strongest action against antisemitism. It’s merely to point out that with each particular measure, it’s important to be confident the end justifies the means, taking into account possible unintended or adverse consequences as well as what is to be achieved.

Having had a victory over mandatory minimum sentences, the opposition is pushing for an inquiry into when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was told about the caravan found at Dural, NSW filled with explosives and containing indications Sydney’s Great Synagogue and a Jewish museum could be targets.

The caravan was parked for several weeks on a street before it came to police attention. NSW police alerted Premier Chris Minns the following day. But it is unclear when the prime minister found out.

Albanese has steadfastly refused to say, citing operational reasons. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton suggested (without producing any evidence) the NSW police might have made a deliberate decision not to advise the Commonwealth “so that the prime minister wasn’t advised because they were worried he would leak the information”.

Dutton is calling for an “independent inquiry” into the circumstances by “an eminent Australian from the criminal intelligence and law enforcement intelligence community”.

The inquiry call is politically driven. The government is right in arguing it would have the downside of diverting resources. But nevertheless there are questions that need answering.

There seems no logical reason why the PM cannot reveal when he was first briefed on the caravan, other than to avoid disclosing some embarrassing timing gap. Any explanation around operational reasons would surely not explain why Minns was briefed but Albanese was not. Alternatively, if Albanese was briefed promptly, why doesn’t he say so?

When pressed at a parliamentary committee on Thursday, Australian Federal Police Force Commissioner Reece Kershaw would not be drawn, saying it was not appropriate to provide information about an ongoing investigation at a public hearing.

Later Greens member of the committee, senator David Shoebridge, said: “The AFP telling us when they informed the PM could in no way prejudice any ongoing police investigation. We had half a dozen senior AFP officials [before the committee] including the Commissioner and zero serious answers.

”This whole circus would be shut down by any half competent government by telling us when the PM knew with a simple explanation for any delay. Instead we get these bizarre performances from both the PM and the AFP.”

One question that should be answered by the authorities is why Jewish leaders, including those connected with the synagogue and the museum, were not informed. Though operational reasons might be relevant, surely safety considerations suggest the Jewish leaders should have been told.

The authorities believe the antisemitic attacks are not simply unconnected incidents. They say people are being paid to make them, suggesting some master minding behind them.

Of course that justifies secrecy while investigations proceed, but operational needs should not be a cover for refusing to provide enough information to give the public confidence the various authorities are working effectively together. Läs mer…

The Albanese government is banning DeepSeek – the Chinese artificial intelligence model – from all government systems and devices on national security grounds.

It says this is in line with the actions of a number of other countries and is based on “risk and threat information” from security and intelligence agencies.

The Chinese platform TikTok is already banned from government systems and devices.

Under the decision, announced by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, government bodies must immediately remove all DeepSeek products, applications and services from systems and mobile devices. No new installations are allowed.

But politicians can still have DeepSeek on their personal non-government devices. This presently happens with TikTok – for example opposition leader Peter Dutton has a TikTok account.

While the direction only applies to official systems and devices, the government is also urging all Australians to inform themselves about how their data can be used online and to carefully review a company’s privacy policy on how customer data is managed.

Burke said: “The Albanese government is taking swift and decisive action to protect Australia’s national security and national interest.

”AI is is a technology full of potential and opportunity, but the government will not hesitate to act when our agencies identify a national security risk.

”Our approach is country-agnostic and focused on the risk to the Australian government and our assets.‘

The NSW Department of Customer Service acted late last month to ban DeepSeek from official devices and systems.

The department told Cyber Daily it had ”taken a precautionary approach to restrict corporate access to DeepSeek AI, consistent with the approach taken for many new and emerging applications, systems and services”.

Commenting on the NSW department’s decision Dana Mckay, Senior Lecturer in Innovative Interactive Technologies at RMIT, said: “The reason Chinese-made and-owned tools are being banned is that the data they collect is available to the Chinese government not just when a crime has been committed, but also for economic or social reasons.

”DeepSeek even collects keystroke patterns, which can be used to identify individuals, potentially allowing them to match in-work searches with leisure time searches, potentially leading to national security risks,” she said.

“It is fair to ask whether DeepSeek is more dangerous to Australian national security than, say, OpenAI which collects similar data: the difference is that OpenAI will only give data to government to comply with relevant laws, and this typically means where a crime may have been committed.

”Whether governments should be concerned about the level of data collected by commercial companies, such as OpenAI and Google, is still a significant question, but one that is separate to the national security concerns raised by China’s data sovereignty laws.”

Among those banning Deepseek are the Pentagon, the United States Navy, NASA, Italy and Taiwan. Läs mer…

Independent Allegra Spender spearheaded a condemnation of antisemitism by federal parliament – but the debate was mired in partisanship.

The opposition tried to prevent the government bringing on the Spender motion in the House of Representatives, because it said it wanted something stronger and would not be able to amend the motion.  

Coalition speakers repeatedly used the debate to attack the government for not, in its view, doing enough to combat antisemitism, particularly after the pro-Palestine demonstration at the Opera House in the wake of the Hamas atrocities of October 7 2023.

Eventually the Spender motion was passed without dissent. It said the House:

deplores the appalling and unacceptable rise in antisemitism across Australia – including violent attacks on synagogues, schools, homes, and childcare centres

unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms and

resolves that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said Spender had agreed to delete words in an earlier version that would have condemned “all similar hatred directed to any groups in our community”.

“The member agreed to that form of words being struck out because we don’t think that was necessary. And we also think it is inexplicable to try and mount the argument that this sort of hatred and this sort of racism and this sort of antisemitism is being conveyed against any other pocket of the Australian community.”

Dutton said the opposition had voted against the government bringing on the motion “because it stopped us from moving amendments […] which would have strengthened the motion and provided stronger support to the community.”

Spender said combating antisemitism was not just a matter of laws but also of culture.

“We must lead by example. The message from our parliament today must be unambiguous. We will not stand for hate. We will not stand for abuse.

”We will not abide intimidation. We will not tolerate the terrorising of any part of our community. We are united against antisemitism. Words must be backed by action, but words matter, particularly those of the parliament.”

Spender will seek to strengthen the anti-hate bill currently being considered by the parliament.

The motion was seconded by Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns, who said: “the last six months have been like no other I’ve experienced in this country. And my grandparents came to this country looking for a safe haven for the Jewish people. And over the last six months, we’ve seen cars set alight. We’ve seen synagogues burnt down. We’ve seen Jewish homes and businesses marked. And we have seen childcare centres being burnt down.”

Anthony Albanese said: “We know that antisemitism has given dark shadows across generations. I say to Jewish Australians, live proudly, stand tall, you belong here and Australia stands with you.”

Former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, accused a previous Coalition speaker, Andrew Wallace, who criticised the government, of being “corrosive” on “an issue where we should be coming together”.

In the Senate, crossbencher Jacqui Lambie moved the same motion as Spender. The opposition unsuccessfully tried to amend it to embrace mandatory sentencing. A member from independent Lidia Thorpe was also defeated and the motion was passed on the voices. Läs mer…

As the political debate turns to government spending, the questions loom: is it too high, and will Peter Dutton be able to get away with keeping his proposed cuts mostly under wraps?

On Tuesday the Business Council of Australia will launch its election ambit claims. In the following two days, about 30 CEOs from big companies will descend on Parliament house to argue their case to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, his opposition counterpart Angus Taylor, and some crossbenchers.

The BCA’s “election blueprint” calls for real expenditure growth to be capped at 2% a year, and the tax-to-GDP ratio to be capped at 23.9%.

The December mid-year budget update forecasts expenditure growth of 5.7% in 2024-25, more than 2 percentage points above the rate of inflation, forecast to be 2.75%. For later years it forecasts real expenditure growth in line with or below inflation.

The budget update projected a tax-to-GDP ratio of 23.4% in 2024-25, rising to 23.5 in 2025-26 and staying there for the rest of the forward estimates. The Coalition had a 23.9% cap which was abolished by Chalmers.

On spending the BCA says: “One way to fight inflation is to limit money pushed into our economy. Commonwealth Government spending is expected to increase to 26.5 per cent of GDP in 2024-25 and 27.2 per cent of GDP in 2025-26.

”Outside the pandemic period, this is the highest level of spending as a share of GDP since 1986-87. Having even more dollars chasing a limited supply of goods and services risks prolonging inflation and interest rates staying higher for longer.

”While this is not to suggest that we should not be taking government action to support our most vulnerable, we must have an overall whole-of-government aim to get spending under control.”

Among other “asks” on the BCA wish list are an investment allowance to encourage innovation, various measures to promote deregulation, action to remove bottlenecks for approval processes, and abolition of (or increase in) the R&D expenditure threshold.

Meanwhile Labor is seizing on Peter Dutton’s plans for major cuts to the public service, a familiar target for Coalition oppositions, and other cuts in government “waste”..

Dutton said on Sunday Labor had put 36,000 additional places into the public service. A Coalition government would not allow the public service “to balloon,” although it would protect “frontline” positions, he told the ABC.

Most of the Coalition’s spending cuts, however, would not be announced until after it was in government.

Dutton said he would not have a commission of audit, as the Abbott government did.

“Many of us have sat around the expenditure review committee. We know what we’re doing,” he said. “We’ve worked […] with many of the departmental heads that are there now, and I have no doubt that we’ll be able to find where Labor has put fat into the system that is not helping do anything but drive inflation.”

The Minister for the Public Service, Katy Gallagher, said Dutton was “so arrogant […] that he’s decided he doesn’t have to tell anyone about where [his cuts are] coming from until after the election.

”He has said he will cut 36,000 Canberra-based public servants.[…] We know that will have impacts right around the country,” she said on Monday.

“It will have impacts on anyone who wants to use Centrelink, anyone who wants to get their payments sorted, anyone who’s after compensation – for example, veterans. All of that is at risk under Peter Dutton’s plan. And he’s so arrogant and reckless that he’s openly saying he will do this, but he’s not actually going to tell you how he does it until he’s in government.

”He needs to come clean on that today. He needs to come clean on where these cuts are coming from and how he’s going to do them.” Läs mer…

As Australia gears up for the election, the incoming government’ Labor or Coalition, will face global challenges, geo-political and economic, especially with Donald Trump starting to impose tariffs on selected countries including China,

To discuss where Australia is placed to meet new circumstances we’re joined by two experts.

John Blaxland is Director of the ANU North America Liaison Office, based in Washington, and Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies. Richard Holden is Professor of Economics at UNSW.

Blaxland outlines how Australia should continue to support the current international norms, and how changing norms could spell trouble,

The rules based international order is something that we are going to feel the absence of quite keenly. For small and middle powers like Australia the reliance on that order has obviated the need to spend up a lot on military capabilities and that’s going to shift.

We’ve seen the United States walking away from COP-related agreements but these arrangements still have global momentum and I would contend that Australia has an interest in continuing to support them as best as possible, particularly for the sake of our partners in the Pacific, but also just for our own sake.

On who could deal with Trump better, Blaxland doesn’t think it would make a lot of difference,

I don’t think the United States pays much attention to what happens internally in Australian politics and I think the Albanese government and Penny Wong and Richard Marles and others are wise to present as small a target as possible. The ALP is playing a difficult hand well in bilateral relations with the United States. Broadly it is still strongly in our interests to make that work as best we can.

There’s no question there’s a closer Liberal-Trump alignment, and that may make it easier. But the economic and security relations are key and here it’s important to remember that the United States has a trade surplus with Australia and so that means we’re not in his [Trump’s] crosshairs immediately for having the opposite, and America is the biggest foreign direct investor in Australia by a country mile.

Holden says of the economy internationally,

The global economy is well on the way to recovering from the post-pandemic inflation, the associated increases in most advanced economies and interest rates in most of those jurisdictions, are coming down. In some of those, New Zealand is an example there’s been a real hit to the economy. But it’s generally looking reasonably positive with the one big looming thing, which is what happens to international trade as a result of the Trump tariff threats that are now starting to be put into action.

But Holden is a bit more pessimistic about Australia’s economy,

Not to be too gloomy about things, I think the news is a little less good. So the Prime Minister I heard on your podcast recently and the Treasurer talking about their last two budgets, and while they’re right that there has been two small budget surpluses, that’s really off the back of just an extraordinary windfall in terms of tax revenue.

On debt,

If you look going forward, even so far government decisions have added $78 to $80 billion to that debt and the recent mid-year update, MYEFO reports the cumulative debt for the next four years will be over $140 billion of the increase.

I think there’s a sense that our fiscal house is really being put into really good shape and I don’t think that’s accurate. Läs mer…