Well that was a bit of a weird day, which was a bit all over the place wasn’t it?

The Coalition are still struggling to find a narrative (it seems very unlikely the Coalition can find enough momentum to even be competitive this campaign, given what we have seen so far) and Labor is pretty much coasting, taking more risks on winning seats rather than just defending them (Leichhardt).

It wasn’t an accident that Dutton was in Aston today – the Libs think that is a rare win. But if its offset by a loss in Bradfield, than the Liberals are still back at square one. And now the conversation has switched from how many seats can the Coalition win, to how many seats Dutton needs to win to ensure his leadership is safe. That number is about 65 at the moment. And that, on these current vibes, will be tough.

So join us tomorrow as we cover the end of the second week of this campaign – nominations close tomorrow, so whatever candidate the parties have is the candidate on their ballot paper, and I can guarantee you there are people just waiting to dump some shiz on some candidates when those names can’t be replaced.

And for reasons unknown to anyone but the “crack team” at the Liberal campaign HQ, the Liberals have decided to hold their campaign launch on Sunday – the same day as Labor. Which, if you are wanting some clear air is a pretty dumb decision. But hey – what would I know?

But there is still a whole Friday to get through before then – and I hope you will join us.

So thank you to Glen for filling in today and the whole Australia Institute team for fact checking all this guff on the run. But also to you for caring enough about your democracy to be this engaged. It matters and we are grateful.

We’ll be back tomorrow – until then, take care of you. Ax

Independent Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie must be making waves in Tasmania – the state Labor leader Dean Winter has felt compelled to put out a statement defending the foreign-owned salmon industry against Lambie’s calls for a boycott.

To do so, Winter is relying on the old half-truths and lies the salmon industry has convinced people are true – including that it supports “5,000” people. Nope. Sorry. It’s 60. But why let the truth get in the way of some EMOSHUN.

Winter:

Jacqui Lambie’s smear campaign against Tasmanian salmon workers is nothing short of disgraceful.
Her recent attacks are not only reckless, but completely devoid of understanding for the 5,000 hard- working people in the industry.
Senator Lambie is trying to undermine the efforts of thousands who rely on the salmon industry to
support their families, for political purposes during her election campaign. She has effectively attacked the independent scientists who regulate the industry.
It’s clear her words are driven by a desire for headlines.
Tasmanian salmon workers deserve respect, not baseless attacks from a Senator who should know
better.

Asked what the Coalition will be doing for renters this election, (you know, that pesky one-third of us), shadow housing minister Michael Sukkar said…cutting migration:

Well, the centrepiece of our budget in reply was for renters. The centrepiece was a major reduction in migrations to this country. We know whether it’s international students, whether it’s the permanent migration programme, whether it’s other visa classes, bringing more than a million people over the last two years, has driven rents up by nearly 20% at the heart of a reduction to the
big Australia policy that Labor’s trying to progress is ultimately a policy to support renters, because the only way you can help them is to reduce the demand on the rental market. And we’ve been we’ve been in the midst of a perfect labour storm on housing, fewer homes, particularly here in Victoria, fewer rentals available because of the huge taxes that Labor has imposed on
housing.

So we know there are fewer rentals in the market, and then more than a million people in two years who are fighting for a dwindling number of rentals.

So our policy, again, we’ve spoken about it on Sunday, we spoke about it in the budget in reply. Peter Dutton will speak about it between now and Election Day, we have to get our migration programme back to a sustainable level. If we do that, I think one of the biggest beneficiaries will be younger renters

Not sure if I need to tap the sign, but cutting migration is not going to suddenly make rentals affordable.

At Peter Dutton’s press conference at around mid-day, he was asked, “which is more important – preserving Australia’s military history with the US or the economic relationship with China”. We reported his response in a post below.

Dutton gave a rather diplomatic response, talking up both aspects of Australian foreign relations – it is therefore somewhat of a nothing-burger. But it could hardly have been otherwise given the line of questioning. Dutton cannot afford to be seen dismissing the received wisdom about either Australian security or prosperity.

The question makes it as though economic relationship with China is fundamentally at odds with alliance with the US. In truth, the alliance in its current form has its own problems, not least by tying Australia to American military’s ventures around the world, and potentially a large-scale military conflict with China. In that scenario, whether Australia can still make some money from the Chinese would be the least of our problems.

It’s also not clear that China could or would simply turn off Australian exports because they’re unhappy with Australia’s alliance with the US. China needs the raw commodities from Australia to fuel its economy – and before anyone asks, it is always cheaper and more reliable to buy them on the market than trying to conquer and control the resources yourself. It’s no surprise that Australia was still making good profits in its trade with China between 2020 and 2022 despite Beijing’s trade sanctions, and most producers who lost access to China found other markets.

So, we should try to get more interesting stuff from our political leaders on these issues – and better questions help ourselves to think more clearly as well. What do we want from the alliance with the US, and we are getting those results? How can we influence the US to make sure we get those results? How will Australia approach Southeast Asian countries, whose attitudes and policies to both China and the US differ from ours? If we were to diversify away from China, what are the alternative markets which can realistically replace China’s buying power?

Former Tasmanian premier Tony Rundle passed away over the weekend. Ellen Coulter on ABC News has reflected on the Liberal minority government he led from 1996 to 1998.  

After the Port Arthur massacre, “with then-prime minister John Howard, Mr Rundle’s government led the push for tighter gun laws and was instrumental in securing the 1996 National Firearms Agreement.” 

“Homosexual activity was finally decriminalised in Tasmania in 1997, after Mr Rundle granted the Liberals a free vote, and under his leadership in 1997, Tasmania became the first state to make a public apology to the Stolen Generations.” 

Rundle governed with the support of the Tasmanian Greens on the crossbench. A Liberal–Greens minority government is unusual, but minority governments in general are not. Australia has had almost 20 minority governments over the last 20 years, and most states and territories have had at least one in that time.  

In her memoir, former Greens leader Christine Milne recalls that Rundle was “[t]rue to his word” on negotiations over the decriminalisation of homosexuality. The Tasmanian parliament’s apology to the stolen generations was “one of the most dignified and significant” days of her political life. 

This power sharing parliament ended unhappily, with the major parties teaming up to reduce the number of seats in the Tasmanian Parliament and minimise the Greens as a parliamentary force.  

But parliaments should be judged by the reforms they are able to facilitate as much as the manner in which they end. As Milne points out, her political relationship with Rundle was, until the end of the parliamentary term, one of “trust”.  

The announced funds are an exercise in dodgy budgeting and do nothing to properly tax Australia’s mining and gas companies.

Imagine if next week you predicted that you would earn 20% less than your actual salary. When you earned your actual salary, would you have just earned a windfall!? No, but that is what the LNP is saying would be the case with their new funds announced today.

Today, the Liberal and National Party announced that they will set up two news funds that will be part of the Future Fund. They are the “Future Generations Fund and the Regional Australia Future Fund”. It all sounds quite nice – who wouldn’t love future generations and regional Australia! Alas, as with the ALP government’s Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) the best parts of these funds are their names.

These funds, like the HAFF, use meaningless figures to make them sound big, but are purely set up to put off doing things.

Rather than spend money on vital infrastructure, health care, and education services now, these funds instead put money into an account and will only spend money once the funds earn a return on their investments.

But by the time these funds have made a return, the infrastructure needs will be much greater, and Australians will have gone without vital improvements in health, education and other services.

Even worse, both of these funds proposed by the Coalition are based on smoke and mirrors. They propose to funnel revenue windfalls from commodity receipts into the funds. But it is important to note that these are not funds based on the taxation of windfall profits by mining companies, as is the case with the Norway sovereign wealth fund.

This “windfall” revenue that will go into the new funds is just the difference between what the Treasury predicts the government will collect in tax from mining companies and what is actually collected in tax. In essence, the windfall is just the error in the budget. If Treasury were good at these predictions, then there would be no windfalls.

You can read more, here:

Just a reminder of the three reasons that CSIRO recommends against nuclear as a solution for energy production in Australia: [these dot points are a direct quote]

• Nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.
• Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
• While nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.

In other words: it costs more than renewables, it takes ages and the long life of reactors has no special advantages. 

This week Sydney private school Scots College unveiled its $60m castle. Initially costed at $29m, the costs have blown out over the years of construction for the “baronial architecture“.  Go have a look at the photos, it’s Hogwarts meets Bridgerton, suit of armour and all.

As Australia Institute has shown, private schools are eligible for tax concessions on any money donated to their building funds. This means that most of the construction private schools do is tax-deductible – as long as the building can be considered educational. Our polling says Australians wouldn’t mind this so much if those buildings were open for the general community to use. But somehow I don’t see Scots opening up their castle for a local mothers’ group.

The Albanese Government promised earlier this year that all Australian public schools would be fully funded in the next decade, but that doesn’t help much of the current generation of students who will have finished high school by then. 

One way to find more funding for public schools is to stop tax deductibility for private school boondoggles. 

Thank you Glenn for taking over for those hours (and taking the hit that was that debate).

You have Amy Remeikis with you again for what’s left of the day. Which is not a lot.

Thanks everyone. It’s been a blast.

Amy is back from her Hollywood duties and ready to rip back in.