Today is the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations (the one Peter Dutton boycotted).

There is a commemorative breakfast at parliament house which Anthony Albanese will address.

Ahead of today, The Healing Foundation released its report ‘Are you waiting for us to die?’ which looks at the Bringing Them Home report’s recommendations to government on how to support Stolen Generations and their families.

Handed down almost 28 years ago, only 6% of the recommendations have been fully implemented.

The National Indigenous Times reports:

The Healing Foundation’s chief executive Shannan Dodson said with survivor numbers declining every year, an urgent response was required from all sides of politics, all levels of government, police, churches and others with responsibilities to support the Stolen Generations.

We have already lost too many survivors, even in the last few weeks. Immediate and prioritised action is needed to provide equitable redress for all survivors, rectify issues preventing survivors from accessing their own family records, offer ongoing support for Stolen Generations organisations and ensure there are culturally safe, trauma informed aged care and health services for survivors,” Ms Dodson said.

Tanya Plibersek is also speaking to the modelling showing that Peter Dutton’s ‘proposed’ (the Coalition are not actually intending on making any of this a reality, but it’s working a treat to muddy the renewable energy transition – which was the point) nuclear plants would use three times as much water as a coal-fired power station.

You can read more on that, here

Plibersek says Australia is a “thirsty country” with “regular droughts” and there is already “a lot of contest about how we use water” so questions what the plan is here.

“What this analysis shows is to produce the same amount of electricity as coal, you need 40% more water. But Peter Dutton is saying that he wants to produce more electricity, and he wants to do it on existing coal-fired power stations and use the water that’s being used to produce coal to produce nuclear. Well, you’d actually need three times as much water as is currently being used on those coal-fired power stations to produce the amount of water that Peter Dutton’s talking about,” she said.

Ok, but what is that in the standard Australian measurement of water?

Plibersek:

“It’s about an extra Sydney Harbour’s worth of water that we would have to find every year.

Thank you.

Plibersek continues:

We’ve seen already overseas – in Europe, for example – in hot, dry years, nuclear reactors having to be shut down or reduce their production capacity ’cause the water isn’t there. When the water is used in those nuclear reactors, it’s released into the environment warm – warmer than it normally would be – and that obviously has environmental impacts all of its own. So, this is just one more question for Peter Dutton about his very vague nuclear plans. Where is the water coming from? Will it come from agriculture? Will it come from industry? Will it come from drinking water? Will it come from the environment? Where is the water coming from? I think it’s important that Peter Dutton is actually held to account for some of these details.

Very few details about nuclear energy. I think most serious analysis would say this is just an excuse to keep coal going longer*. That’s an extra 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution into our atmosphere by 2050 on Peter Dutton’s plans. The other thing I think it’s really important to say is we have already put more renewable energy into our grid than Peter Dutton is claiming will go in with nuclear energy some time in the 2040s. We’ve already added that in terms of extra renewable energy. Renewable energy is happening now. I’ve approved 72 renewable energy projects – enough to power 8 million homes. This transition is happening now, and the biggest risk to this transition to produce cheaper, cleaner renewable energy is this nuclear fantasy that delays action.

*I mean, yes.

Tanya Plibersek has been sent out this morning to ride the media carousel and sell the government’s message. She is asked about the electoral spending changes on ABC News Breakfast and says:

Well, the rules apply equally to any candidate, and they say that we don’t want billionaires running our electoral system. The reforms have come after a great deal of consultation. Many parliamentary reports, community consultation, and work with other parties and the crossbench. We see what happens if big money runs our elections. People remember Clive Palmer and his extraordinary spending to get himself in his candidates elected. It’s not a healthy thing for our democracy if you can have big money like that influencing the outcome of elections. And we certainly see, for example, the US has a wonderful democracy but one of the things you would change if you possibly could is how much it costs to run for parliament, to run for a seat in the United States. You see how much effort people have to put into fundraising – it’s a full-time job. We simply don’t want that in the Australian electoral system. So, limiting donations, limiting spending, real-time disclosure – these are things that will make our democracy stronger.

Hello and welcome to the last day of the first parliament sitting – we did it, Joe.

It’s up in the air as to whether parliament will return following its adjournment this evening given we are in election mode, but right now the cards are pointing to a May election, which means we will likely be back in March.

There is also additional estimates scheduled for the end of this month. The RBA will meet on Tuesday to decide on whether or not to cut rates and the market, leading economists and most senior political figures think they will. That will release some of the tension the Albanese government is holding over the economy. And there is still the question of whether Donald Trump will grant Australia an exemption from the steel and aluminium tariffs he has announced will start in March.

Point being, there is a bit going on outside of election speculation, but all of it is adding to the election speculation. Which does nothing to serve you, really, because we all know an election is going to happen. But Australia is facing some pretty giant questions at the moment and they should be examined on their own merit, not just how they play into the election cycle.

One of those questions is how Australians will react to the major parties circling the wagons against challenges to the two-party system through the electoral ‘reform’ legislation.

After some final shenanigans, the Coalition came on board to pass the legislation in the senate late last night following a shortened debate and forced vote.

Greens senator Larissa Waters, who has taken to calling the major parties under one moniker, ‘LibLab’ described the deal the government struck with the opposition and the bill’s passage “an affront to democracy”.

“….debating a 400 page bill rushed through without an inquiry and with complex amendments only circulated moments before being voted upon. This is the worst process I’ve seen in my time in Parliament.“

The laws favour incumbent MPs and will make it harder for independents and minor party candidates outside the parliament to compete with the major parties on electoral spend.

As Bill Browne and Josh Black explain:

The caps on political donations are per “party” (or per independent candidate) but what Australians think of as political parties – like the Liberal, Labor, Greens and National parties – are actually groups of parties, each party in the group being able to receive donations up to the cap. This would limit the ability of independent candidates, new political parties, and political campaigners to fundraise, while leaving established parties much less constrained.

In exchange for having their fundraising limited, established parties and incumbent MPs would receive tens of millions of dollars more in public funding; in some cases, far more than the political donations that they are missing out on. Independent candidates, new parties, their candidates and political campaigners would receive nothing to compensate them for lost revenue. The bill would also limit spending on election campaigns. In practice, independent candidates will be far more limited in their spending than party candidates.

The limit on election spending is because while candidate expenditure is limited, political parties can still access the $200,000 for senate candidates for each federal electorate their state has(something independents won’t have) to flood electorates with general party branded advertising. The money is per state, meaning it is at the party’s discretion (ie: targeted seats) where it spends that money.

So major parties can spend up to $90m nationally, while independents are limited to the electoral cap of $800,000.

Waters:

“The bill was supposed to cap donations from peak bodies like the Business Council and Minerals Council at $20,000, but now big mining companies could donate $250,000 each in membership fees, allowing them to spend up to $11.5 million on electoral campaigning. That doesn’t get big money out of politics, it just gives big corporations a back door.

“This deal is a complete joke—lobbyists run this place, and Ministers jump straight into industry jobs without any accountability. This bill does nothing to address that revolving door.

Oh, and there is still no truth in political advertising laws.

Every crossbencher voted against the legislation, but with the government and the Coalition on board, the deal was done.

We’ll cover the fall out, bring you more from the Climate Integrity Summit and everything else happening in the building (and beyond). You have Amy Remeikis flopping to the line with you. It’s a four coffee day. At least. And a matcha.

Ready? Let’s get into it.