Mark Dreyfus has taken the rare step of responding to a Peter Dutton press conference; Dutton had claimed Dreyfus had apologised to the prime minister for accusing the opposition of politicising anti-Semitism in question time yesterday, once he sat back down on the frontbench. Dreyfus says:

Peter Dutton’s claims are a complete fabrication.

I never thought I’d see the day when a Liberal leader would try to silence a Jew for speaking about antisemitism in the Australian Parliament.

I stand by everything I said yesterday.

We need to put an end to the wave of antisemitism in this country which is exactly what the Government I am a part of has worked tirelessly to do. The only way that will happen is if there is unity and bipartisanship.

God Dolly. The parliament is only just sitting now, but we have already lived three lifetimes this morning.

There are also reports a deal has been done on Labor’s electoral reforms, between the government and the opposition (no surprises there, because it largely disadvantages independents and minority parties) so we will bring you more on that very soon.

For a refresh on why these changes (to call them reforms would imply they are good) are not great for democracy, here are some of the concerns with the bill as it was presented:

Among the concerns with the bill are:

• The extreme haste shown by the government in introducing and trying to pass the bill. Four in five Australians (81%) agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party committee, which has not happened.
• 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.
• The nominated entity exception to donation caps intended for the major parties may in practice allow a billionaire-funded minor party to escape spending limits.
• 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 Australia Institute’s Director of Climate & Energy Program, Polly Hemming, has backed calls from the private sector to end fossil fuels and implement policies that will drive investment in decarbonisation.

“A critical mass of Australian businesses have declared their support for or signed voluntary climate commitments aligned with 1.5 degrees of global warming. It is welcome to see the private sector actually start to align their advocacy with these existing commitments,” Ms Hemming said.

“To have any chance of staying within the liveable bounds of climate change, we must all be as ambitious as we say we are. ‘Real Zero’ must be the aspiration. ‘Real Zero’ must be the goal.”

The calls for real zero come on the eve of this year’s Climate Integrity Summit at Parliament House tomorrow.

As we reported earlier, prominent business leaders, investors and community members have added their name to an open letter to Members of Parliament calling on them to stop undermining decarbonisation efforts with fossil fuel subsidies and carbon offsets.

They warn Australian businesses are falling behind, and have urged the government to stop favouring fossil fuel companies and create policy that will channel investment into renewable energy and decarbonisation.

Signatories include Fortescue Chair Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, Simon Sheikh CEO, Future Super, Dino Otranto CEO, Fortescue Metals, Nick J. Fairfax Managing Director and Co-CIO, Marinya Capital, Ian Melrose Co-Owner, Optical Superstore, Mark Barnaba Chairman, Greatland Gold PLC, Former Board Member of the Reserve Bank of Australia

The ABS has just released the 5 yearly Index of Household Advantage and Disadvantage. The latest data covers 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/index-household-advantage-and-disadvantage/2021

This measures a range of indicators to indicate whether a household is living in a situation of advantage or disadvantage

For example things that indicate advantage:

• Households with three of more cars
• Households with four or more bedrooms
• Households with high annual equivalised income (greater than $90,999)
• Owning a home outright
• Households where the person with the highest educational attainment has a Bachelor Degree or above
• Households where the highest skilled employed adult works in a skill level 1 occupation
• Households with mortgage repayments are greater than or equal to $2,900 per month

On the other side, indicators of disadvantage are:

• Households being rented from a state or territory housing authority, or a housing co-operative/community/church group
• Households where rent payments are less than $250 per week
• Households with low annual equivalised income (less than $25,999)
• Households where the person with the highest educational attainment left school at year 10 or below
• Households with no car
• Households with a person aged 65 years and over who does not own the home
• Households where more than 50% of people need assistance with core activities
• Households where all people aged 15 years and over are unemployed
• Households with children aged under 15 years and parent(s) not employed (disadvantage)

So what did the ABS find? Well not surprisingly those areas in NT and Qld with high numbers of Indigenous Australians are the most disadvantaged:

Six of the top ten areas with the highest proportion of relatively disadvantaged households are in Queensland; the other four are in the Northern Territory

At the State and Territory level, the Northern Territory has the highest proportion of people living in relatively disadvantaged households (30.3%).  The Australian Capital Territory has the lowest proportion (9.8%)

The list of most disadvantaged area are:

Aurukun (93.0% of households were in the most disadvantage group) – QLD

Palm Island (91.6%) – QLD

Torres Strait Islands (88.7%) – QLD

Yarrabah (88.0%) – QLD

Kowanyama–Pormpuraaw (85.5%) – QLD

Tiwi Islands (83.9%) – NT

Thamarrurr (82.5%)- NT

West Arnhem (81.2%) – NT

Northern Peninsula (80.6%) – QLD

East Arnhem (79.7%) – NT

Coming a day after the update on the Closing the Gap report, that makes for pretty damning reading.

At the other end of the scale these are the most advantaged areas:

Throsby (65.0% of household sin the most advantaged group) – ACT

Schofields (West) – Colebee (64.9%) – NSW

Forde (64.9%) – ACT

Fig Tree Pocket (64.0%) – QLD

Denman Prospect (63.9%) – ACT

Box Hill – Nelson (63.8%) – NSW

Googong (62.7%) – NSW

Marsden Park – Shanes Park (62.2%) – NSW

North Kellyville (61.8%) – NSW

Castle Hill – West (61.6%) – NSW

Peter Dutton once again refused to put out policy detail, or costings, but says he’ll be saving Australia.

OK then. We’ll treat that with the respect it deserves. Comments as follows:

Back to tariffs – how is it sending a message of unity on the tariffs, to also remind people (including the Trump administration, to who Dutton directed his opening remarks at the press conference) of previous comments against Trump?

Dutton:

It’s a statement of fact. You can’t just brush over the history of the judgements the prime minister has made. He’s made shocking judgements as prime minister. Also as opposition leader and before that as a minister. There are consequences for that. I can’t apologise for comments the Prime Minister has previously made to now damage the relationship, that’s an issue for the Prime Minister to address. That’s a question you can ask him.

…What I do know is Donald Trump is hearing those messages and I don’t think it is productive to the dynamic in the relationship.

Again, Anthony Albanese has refused to criticise Trump, even when other world leaders have, including most recently on Trump’s horrendous and illegal plans for Gaza. Australia didn’t sign the letter including other allies of backing the International Criminal Court following Trump’s attacks on it. Trump himself just literally called Albanese a “very fine man”.

None of this is to defend Albanese for his appeasement policy with Trump, but Dutton is trying to claim that Trump won’t talk to him because of previous comments, when it is very obvious that Trump is talking to him.

Ok, the press conference moves on to vehicle emission standards and Peter Dutton blames the lack of falling emissions on Labor not including hybrids (which muddy emission data and still largely use fossil fuel) in their tax breaks for a) not bringing down emissions (hybrids would not have a material impact on that) and b) stopping young Australians from buying Ford Rangers and Toyota Hiluxes (which is still happening)

Dutton:

This (vehicle emissions standard, which makes less efficient vehicles more expensive) was to please inner city green seats and and that’s what the Albanese government has been about which is why the Albanese government has done so much damage to families living in the suburbs.

Now the Government is talking about a tax that will make it go up and it will make it harder for families in a cost of living crisis to find the money to buy a vehicle. Long before young people talk about buying a house, they talk about a vehicle purchase, young tradesmen and others who want an affordable vehicle. The Government approach on the energy question extends to hating and now taxing hybrids. That hybrid vehicles are not acceptable even though the emissions are much lower than other vehicles. I don’t think this is sustainable.

The fuel emissions standard makes vehicles that are more efficient, less expensive. This isn’t hard.

Peter Dutton is asked whether it was a mistake to try and shut down Mark Dreyfus, the son and grandson of Holocaust survivors in question time yesterday.

Dutton says:

“He was closed down because he made a suggestion that we were politicising anit-Semitism, he was completely out of order and if he had the decency that you would expect from the first Law Officer he should have withdrawn that without us requesting him to do so.

It was a [slur], it was misplaced, he apologised to the Prime Minister* on the front bench afterwards, and so he should.

Mark Dreyfus has largely been missing for 15 months**. I think if you speak to people within the Jewish community, there are a lot of people who would be that commentary of the contribution or lack thereof made by the Attorney-General given the rise and flourish of anti-Semitic conduct we have seen***. It is appropriate and the right response for somebody regardless of who they are who, seeks to say that we are politicising what I think is an incredibly important issue and made that point felt.”

*We are seeking confirmation of this – but I didn’t see any of that on the broadcast.

**Oh wow, this is low. Dreyfus’s wife of 44 years, Deborah Chemke, passed away in November 2023, which is 15 months ago. This was after a long and difficult cancer battle. Anyone who has lost someone knows how much it takes from you, and I do not have personal insight into how Dreyfus has been coping, but I do know that everyone in the parliament knows what he is going through. So for Dutton to then accuse him of ‘largely been missing’ for 15 months, and dress it up as concern from the Jewish community is a low, low act. Even for Dutton.

***Mark Dreyfus is a Jewish man. Who lost family in the Holocaust and was raised by survivors of the Holocaust. Dreyfus is very involved in the Australian Jewish community who is now being lectured by Dutton on how the Jewish community feel during this period, while claiming it is outrageous to suggest that he (Dutton) is politicising this issue.

Q: Do you think, Donald Trump is a dealmaker, do you think Australia will have to do anything in exchange for getting this? And did your Manager of Opposition Business go too far during Question Time yesterday?

Peter Dutton:

I’ll deal with the last part first. The claim yesterday by somebody who has been largely absent from the public debate on anti-Semitism over the last 15 months but somehow the Coalition is politicising the issue of anti-Semitism is a disgraceful slur.

The speaker before he was monstered by the Prime Minister and Tony Burke asked for that to be withdrawn* and it should have been because it was outrageous. It is completely without foundation.

I think that is important point and as a result of that it would require a response that was entirely appropriate and proportionate. I won’t stand being accused of that, we supported the Jewish community, have sent you before I have the same stance in relation to any other element of society is being targeted in the way the Jewish community is. I don’t tolerate racism or that intolerance on any basis*, not on religion or somebody’s background, not on the heritage. On no basis whatsoever.

* Milton Dick misunderstood what the Coalition were asking for at first, and thought Mark Dreyfus had made an unparliamentary remark across the chamber. There was also confusion over whether or not it was the term ‘disgusting’ that the Coalition wanted withdrawn (it wasn’t). In the end Dreyfus was not asked to withdraw the claim, which Labor MPs and some within the Jewish community have repeatedly made – that the Coalition is politicising anti-Semitism for its own political gain.

**Accused refugees of ‘trying on’ rape allegations in order to receive abortion health care in Australia. Claimed people in Melbourne were afraid to go out to restaurants because of ‘African gangs’. Wanted a special visa for white south African farmers. Claimed Palestinians fleeing Israel’s invasion of Gaza who applied for Australian visas were “a national security risk”. Boycotted the National Apology to the Stolen Generations.

Q: What do you think the Prime Minister and his governments next move should be in negotiations?

Dutton:

“It should be continued dialogue and we should be doing everything we can through the relationships we have into the administration to try and see a reversal in the executive order, we should be talking to those with expertise in the relationship and those who understand the Trump Administration well. I think the Prime Minister deserves support in whatever measure is reasonably being taken to see a reversal in the tariff and we would support those measures.“

Never one to let a political moment go by, the Temu Trump, Peter Dutton then links trade with the US to his nuclear ridiculousness:

“There is an incredible opportunity for us to do a lot more work with the United States in the trade space and I think there’s an enormous for us in AUKUS but pillar one and two which was negotiated by the Coalition government. There is enormous opportunity for us in the nuclear civil industry as we grow that here in Australia. That is a huge trading opportunity with the United States and I’m sure the administration would embrace those opportunities and that’s a big part of the reason as to why we don’t want tariffs put in place against Australia.“