Mon 31 Mar
This blog is now closed.
We are back after a little break – balancing a few balls at the moment.
Anthony Albanese is in Perth, where the big announcement is $200m for the expansion of the St John of God Midland Public Hospital, which is another way Labor wants to be able to spread their health policy message.
Amy earlier showed the graph that was used on Insiders yesterday during the interview with Anthony Albanese of the Budget Deficit.
It was a pretty disingenuous graph that committed a series of graph crimes.
The first was to use nominal dollars, when the most sensible way to look at any budget numbers is to use a percent of GDP – as this shows the size of debt (or anything) compared to the size of the whole economy and accounts for inflation. You could also argue that using blue for surplus and red for deficits made it look like the surpluses were the LNP (blue) and the deficits were ALP (red). This probably was not the intention, but it could have been cleared up with more context.
This is the big issue with the graph – the lack of context. The Insiders graph starts in 2022-23, which was when the budget was in surplus for the first time in 15 years the budget was in surplus. But starting it there makes it looks like that is the norm. A good graph should always provide as much context as is necessary to ensure you are not presenting a biased view. Yes, there are budget deficits forecast, but hardly out of step with what has been the case since 2007.
So even if we were to use nominal dollars, Insiders could have given its audience more information by showing this graph instead. Sure, it would make it less of a gotcha for when interviewing the PM, but surely journalism should be about informing the viewer or reader?
Also in that press conference, Peter Dutton said:
as we have seen in the UK, the US and Canada, there is about almost an 80% transfer of jobs from the coal sector across to the nuclear sector, so our plan underpins the economic success of our country for the next century.
We are looking into that for a factcheck for you, but in the meantime, let’s take a look at timing.
Here is when the coal fired power stations are scheduled to close.
Meanwhile, the earliest the CSIRO anticipates a nuclear plant could open is 2040. So that is not in enough time for those workers. Do they wait hoping that those jobs are on their way?
Sticking with energy prices, Australia Institute research has shown that Australia is subsidising fossil fuels to the tune of $15 billion per year. That might sound like a lot, but this election the Coalition says ‘hold my beer’.
The Coalition’s nuclear plan will take decades to get up and running (if it ever does). This means they will need to run Australia’s old fleet of coal fired power stations for longer. That means burning a lot more coal, and it won’t come cheap. A recent agreement between Origin Energy and the NSW Government could cost as much as $450 million to keep the Eraring Power Station open for just an extra 2 years. The Coalition will need to enter into many more of these kinds of deals to try and keep the coal fired fleet running well into the 2040s.
The Coalition’s gas policy has a ‘drill baby drill’ vibe to it. They’re keen to approve as many new gas fields as possible and pump out as much gas as they can.
It’s not just gas and coal getting lots of love, petrol and diesel are also in the frame. The centrepiece of the Coalition’s election pitch is the slashing of fuel excise. This will not only encourage the use of petrol and diesel, but it will also discourage low emissions alternatives.
This must be one of the biggest pitches to fossil fuels by a major party in recent history. This will rapidly expand fossil fuel subsidies and make it even harder for Australia to reduce its emissions.
Peter Dutton then also pretends nuclear is a financially viable alternative:
That is why our plan is 44% cheaper, and what gives this away is that Labor has never disputed those figures. OK? So Labor has never punched a hole in any of the assumptions in the frontier reporting, they have never suggested the 44% figure is wrong. It is in accordance pretty well with what the Americans have predicted as well. So there are two different ways of achieving an outcome here. One is we can meet our net zero targets by 2050, we can have a stable energy market and we can reduce prices, that is the Coalition offering. So prices will be cheaper under us. Labor’s offering is uncertainty, blackouts, brownouts and much higher electricity and gas prices, and that is not something we are going tolerate
I can hear Greg Jericho yelling “THAT IS BECAUSE THEIR MODELLING IS FOR 45% LESS POWER” which is a fact usually ignored when Dutton starts talking about nuclear.
The Coalition can not say power will be cheaper under their policies. The technology they are speaking about with small modular reactors is not in commercial use, because it is TOO EXPENSIVE to be financially viable.
Just five days after the government rammed through changes to Australia’s environment laws, the amendments are being challenged in court.
The Bob Brown Foundation has this morning applied to the Federal Court, arguing the laws – which were designed to protect commercial salmon farming in Tasmania – should not apply to Macquarie Harbour.
The amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act were rushed through Parliament in the final sitting week before the election, with the support of the coalition.
In its application to the Federal Court, the foundation says the laws apply to fish farms which have been operating in the same way for the previous five years. It argues the salmon farms in Macquarie Harbour have significantly changed the way they operate in that time.
“This rushed bill was intended to protect the three foreign-owned corporations from environmental protections for the Maugean Skate, which is on the edge of extinction, and to try to win Labor the seat of Braddon,” said Alistair Allan, Antarctic and Marine campaigner at the Bob Brown Foundation.
“Albanese’s thinking that the best response to impending extinction is to back the very industry causing it is outrageous. Along with Peter Dutton, his rushing the law change has made it vulnerable to challenge.”
The changes to the EPBC effectively quash a long-awaited review of commercial fish farming in Macquarie Harbour, which Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has been sitting on for months.
“We are telling the court that this industry has, in fact, not been exempted from the EPBC and that the minister should no longer delay her decision on the requests for her to reconsider and halt the Macquarie Harbour fiasco.”
Peter Dutton skirts around the policy and then turns to the government:
At the moment you have a situation where the Government is choking supply so they are stopping gas coming to the system which is what will force up prices and we say to the companies”
Enter Greg Jericho:
This is just talking about the government not approving more gas fields. This has nothing to do with domestic supply of gas. There is no need at all for more gas. Eighty percent of Australia’s gas is exported. The opposition is committed to immediately approving the North West Shelf gas field extension – a project which is for 100% exports of LNG. It will not add anything to domestic gas… but it will add the equivalent of 12 new coal fired power stations worth of emissions over the next 50 years.
Peter Dutton is asked about the gas reservation policy which materialised last week after it became obvious that nuclear was not going to get the Coalition through the election campaign.
Here are some facts on gas:
“Gas prices in eastern Australia have tripled as production has tripled. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.
“It’s ridiculous to try and solve a gas shortage caused by excessive gas exports by approving even more new gas export projects.
“Woodside’s North West Shelf is draining Western Australia’s domestic gas reserves and has tripled wholesale gas prices. Extending it for another 50 years would be a disaster.
“The only way to keep Australia’s gas for Australians is to cut exports.”
Opposition leader Peter Dutton is holding his first press conference of the day. He is in the Hunter region (New South Wales). Labor look like holding the seat of Hunter, but the Coalition wants the nearby seat of Paterson.
Dutton’s message for the campaign is clear:
The point I make is is a choice for Australians to make. It’s about who can better manage the economy, who can better manage the energy system and at the Albanese’s plan is going to see certain increases in power prices. The thing is already in three years electricity is up by 32% and it will go higher.
This is a recipe for higher prices and Australians can’t afford three more years of Albanese government.
The Coalition can’t say how much its energy ‘plan’ will lower prices though, which is one of the sticking points of its message.
We’re going to an election with the Australian Government planning to slightly EXPAND coal exports out to 2030, from the 362 million tonnes in 2024, to 368 million tonnes in 2030:
These forecasts go out to 2030, the year that the Paris Agreement would ideally see the world emitting 43% less than in 2005. Australia apparently supports the Paris Agreement, apparently supports Pacific countries…yet is planning to export more emissions to the world, not less.
The next parliament has a chance to turn this around and begin a responsible phase out of the coal industry, starting by not approving new coal mines.
Loading form…