The Head of the RBA Michele Bullock has given a speech today on the topic of “The RBA’s Dual Mandate – Inflation and Employment’

This is important because the RBA is not only about maintaining steady inflation. The functions of the Monetary Policy Board are set out in Section 9B of the RBA Act. They include:

Determining the monetary policy of the RBA, in a manner that it believes best contributes to both price stability and the maintenance of full employment in Australia.

But just what is full employment? The RBA believe that full employment is the level of employment (or conversely unemployment) where inflation is increasing.

Is this govt policy? Sort of.

When the govt did its Employment White Paper it came to the conclusion that “The Government’s objective is sustained and inclusive full employment.”

So what are the difference?

“Sustained full employment is about minimising volatility in economic cycles and keeping employment as close as possible to the current maximum level consistent with low and stable inflation.”

This is effectively the RBA definition.

“Inclusive full employment is about broadening opportunities, lowering barriers to work including discrimination, and reducing structural underutilisation over time to increase the level of employment in our economy.”

So this is a mor elong-term thing.

The problem is the short-term RBA version of full employment is what really affects people right now.

And right now the RBA thinks we are not at full employment – we have too many people employed! We are over-employed!

Michele Bullock makes this clear in her speech where she says:

“Last week brought us the latest labour market data, which confirmed that the unemployment rate increased in the June quarter. Some of the coverage of the latest data suggested this was a shock – but the outcome for the June quarter was in line with the forecast we released in May. That on its own suggests that the labour market moved a little further towards balance, as we were anticipating.” 

“A little further towards balance” is RBA speak for we are getting closer to there being enough people unemployed so that we will be happy.

The coalition makes it three from three on foreign policy.

Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor:

Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting because Australia engages with allies in the South China Sea that the Chinese Communist Party is free to conduct live fire exercises without warnings of the South Coast of New South Wales?

Defence Minister Richard Marles:

I always understood that the maintenance and support of the global rules based order has been a matter of bipartisanship between the parties of government in this country. It underpins our national interest as a global trading nation which relies on things such as the UN Convention on the law of the sea, freedom of navigation on the high seas in international waters as being the basis upon which this country does its exports and imports and bases upon so much of the prosperity of our nation, so much of our national income. By virtue of that the Royal Australian Navy does so much of its work in the South China Sea and East China Sea. It is to assert freedom of navigation the UN Convention on the law of the seas, on the high seas. So those trading routes which are fundamental.

First crossbench question comes from Helen Haines – directed to Defence Minister Richard Marles. After a preamble about transparency, the Member for Indi gets straight to the point.

Helen Haines:

Minister, can you guarantee Australia is not complicit in war crimes in Gaza?

Richard Marles:

I can absolutely guarantee that Australia is not complicit in the way in which you describe. I can also say that Australia is not making weapons in this country and supplying them to Israel. We have made that clear on multiple occasions. I also reject the proposition that we are not transparent in the way in which all of this is reported. I think we have been incredibly transparent in terms of the way in which we engage in all of our controlled exports around the world and the role that our Defence industry plays around the world. We are not making weapons for Israel.

As a little treat, here is some Mike Bowers magic:

I am going to hand you over to Glenn Connley for a little bit while I go to an appointment I couldn’t shift.

Be good and have fun!

There are a million interjections and then Albanese finishes with:

The question they might like to ask themselves is which country has a better arrangement than 10%, which country, because the answer to that – the answer to that is none. Is none.

What they do because people do watch what is going on, the debate within our country is watched outside our country and in most other countries what we are seeing in the UK for example is that both sides of politics are putting the national interest first arguing the case for their nation.

We will continue to put the case but we will also, as I have two president Trump, we will also do so in the full recognition that the America first policy and ideology which has been promoted by the Trump Administration is clear he regards tariffs as the most beautiful word in the English language to quote president Trump.

We have a different position and will continue to put it.

Death to dixers!

Moving on to the next Sussan Ley question which is basically why haven’t we bent down and kissed the ring of Donald Trump yet (it’s implied)

Ley:

The United States is our closest ally and 261 days ago they elected a new president. Over that period the Prime Minister has spent more time making excuses for unacceptable live firing exercises on Australia’s coastline then he has spent in person with the US President. Following the Prime Minister’s recent overseas travels, has he had a conversation with the US President?

Sigh.

Anthony Albanese is in NO mood for this line of questioning, which is fair actually. It is absolutely nuts in this climate to be asking why we haven’t rushed to meet Trump – because as Emma Shortis regularly points out, what will it actually achieve?

Albanese:

Members of this Parliament have a choice sometimes of whether they will back Australia or seek to undermine Australia. A very simple proposition, very simple proposition those opposite have chosen rather than support a position which they did in government to be fair supporting free trade including the free trade agreement with the United States including the free trade agreement that they sign up to with China as well. Those opposite, those opposite have chosen to rather than put the case along with member for the Government that tariffs are a cause of economic self-harm by the United States and that those countries that impose tariffs are imposing a cost on the purchases of goods and services. In this case – in this case they are putting the United States is putting a cost on goods being exported from Australia into the United States.

It is straight into the issue of the day (at least in this place) – the United States.

Sussan Ley:

The Coalition is the proud architect of AUKUS, Landmark national security agreements that will make Australia safer, stronger and more secure. The Coalition cabinet I served in delivered AUKUS because we understand the US is our most important ally. 261 days ago the American people elected a new president. In that same more than 30 world leaders have met with the US President. Why has the Australian Prime Minister failed to meet with the US President?

Albanese:

Last time I looked, just to fact check, AUKUS was not actually delivered during the former government. The concept, to give credit where credit is due, did come from the Morrison government but the AUKUS agreement was signed by myself, president Biden and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. In San Diego. That is a fact. The US President was elected and took office in January. Since then we have had three conversations. They also make the point that there is no country including the announcement today of an arrangement with Japan and the United States in which the previous tariff level of 25% across the board has been reduced to 15% is still higher than the tariff rate of 10% which Australia has. And that Australia has a lower tariff rate or equal to every other country on earth. Australia used to on a bipartisan basis support free and fair trade. Both sides. I find it extraordinary the Coalition seemed to have made a decision that the decision by the US administration to, contrary to our free trade agreement with the United States, apply from across the board a tariff on Australian exports into the United States has brought with it not a criticism of the issue of the imposition of tariffs but a criticism rather than choosing to support Australia has chosen the opposite.

Not sure we should be getting into a p*ssing competition over who actually ‘delivered’ Aukus, given how terrible a deal it is.

The Australia Institute welcomes reports that the New South Wales Court of Appeal has overturned the approval of one of the largest coal mine expansions in the state.

The court found the Independent Planning Commission failed to take into account the impact of all the carbon pollution associated with the project, including pollution from the exported emissions when the coal is sold and burned overseas.

Mach Energy’s Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion near Muswellbrook is one of the most polluting coal projects that was seeking approval in Australia.

The project is so big it covers an area which would almost cover the entire electorates of Sydney and Grayndler.

The decision comes after a challenge from the Denman, Aberdeen, Muswellbrook, Scone Healthy Environment Group.

While this is a welcome result, the NSW Land and Environment Court will have to consider whether conditions can be imposed that would validate the approval, or whether the project must return to the planning commission.

“There are two other coal mines that were granted extension by the federal government in the Hunter Valley,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“While it is welcome news that one may not go ahead, these approvals are inconsistent with Australia’s climate goals and reinforces the country’s reputation as one of the world’s major fossil fuel exporters.

“To approve huge new coal mines while bidding to host COP31 is a slap in the face to our Pacific neighbors, who have clearly and repeatedly requested that Australia stop expanding fossil fuel production.

“Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice has confirmed that states have binding legal obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and protect present and future generations.

“The science is clear – the best way to do this is to stop approving coal and gas mines.”

All the MPs are in the chamber for QT, but the questions won’t start for a bit – there are some condolence motions to get through. The chamber is honouring former Nationals MP for Gippsland, Peter Nixon.