If you missed this yesterday, the Liberals have sacked the campaign manager for their Bruce candidate – Bruce being one of the seats the Liberals at one point thought they could get.

Liberal party spokesperson, Senator James Paterson, continues to show as much enthusiasm for the job as a turtle returning from a funeral.

He is speaking on the Coalition’s gas policy and repeating that the Coalition could do it with the existing gas wells. Which is true.

We have had more than one reader ask us this question, so we tasked our best minds on it. Here is Greg Jericho with the answer:

Today very much is the day for the Liberal Party throwing around numbers that don’t actually mesh with reality (that’s very polite way of saying they are total crap)

We’ve already dealt with the lie that grocery prices have gone up 30% under the ALP govt (they haven’t – it’s 12% on average), but we also have the line that people are paying $1,300 more for their power bills than they were under the Morrison govt.

This one is a bit tougher to work out because they are not just talking about an increase they are also throwing in some very dodgy maths.

Here’s the Liberal’s Ted O’Brien this morning on ABC:

“Instead, power bills have gone up by $1,300. If you look at the default market offer that comes out each year, what you see is increases since Labor came to office of well over $1,000 and they promised you a reduction of $275. So, what you have, including here, I’m in Sydney today, you have people in Western Sydney paying $1300 more than what Labor had promised them.”

Ok, first off, even under O’Brien’s explanation bills have not gone up by $1,300 at best they have gone up $1,025. And sure that might be $1,300 more than Labor promised, but let’s not pretend that is the same thing.

But let’s be kind and not get too worried about that clear fudging of numbers. Let’s get to the real issue – have power bills gone up by even $1,025 let alone the $1,300 extra if we include the ALPs promise of $275 cheaper bills?

Well to work out, let’s use O’Brien’s measure of “the default market offer” (or DMO)

This comes out each year by the Australian Energy Regulator and is “the maximum price an electricity retailer can charge a standing offer customer each year.”

O’Brien referred specifically to Western Sydney, so let’s just use the DMO for NSW distribution regions.  

We know what the DMO was when Labor came to office because the AER issued its price determination for the DMO in May 2022 – the very same month the ALP won the election.

We also know what the DMO is for this year because in March the AER put out its draft proposal (the final numbers will come out in May/June).

So excellent – we have the 2 numbers, so let’s compare the changes for the three distribution regions in NSW – Ausgrid, Endeavour and Essential.

And we’ll look at the price for residential with and without controlled loading (which is just separately metered tariffs used for appliances such as electric hot water storage systems, pool pumps or underfloor heating). The prices also vary from each other because of different usage levels – but they are unchanged from 2002 to 2025, so we are comparing apples with apples.

As you can see, we are nowhere near $1,000 let alone $1,300 – even if you add in the $275.

But we also can use the ABS’s number from the quarterly inflation figures. Because remember the DMO is just “the maximum price an electricity retailer can charge” that doesn’t mean it is the price you are paying. Many get better deals. Households also get the energy rebate.

So let’s assume in June 2022 your annual electricity bill in Sydney was $1,000, that same amount of electricity on average across Sydney would now cost $1,075. Or $75 more.

Not quite the $1,300 extra that Ted O’Brien is saying.

We have clearly had high inflation over the past three year. Why the Liberal Party feel the need to make up numbers to suggest things are bad is beyond me.

Q: You’ve pushed for negative gearing to be scrapped entirely for a long time. Now you’ve got a more kind of, I guess, moderate proposal compared to that. Are you trying to move away from the image of being the party of activism? Are you concerned that some of your voter base is going to see you as too moderate now?

Bandt:

Thanks for asking about the housing policy. I think. It that might be the first… Thank you. Thank you. (LAUGHTER)

Housing is now such a crucial issue. What we are trying to do is chart a pathway to real change that we think could be achieved that is something that’s been advocated by a number of experts that we know that even the Labor Party was considering changes to negative gearing under pressure from us during the course of the last year, during the housing debate.

Even the Labor Party was looking at some of this. What we’re trying to do is put on the table something that we think that could be implemented by the end of the year. And we think it’s more urgent now with the potential for interest rate cuts, fallout from Trump.

I think people want us to go to parliament to put these ideas on the table, push, get as far as we can and get some real outcomes for people.

And that’s been the history of what we’ve been doing. I notice – that’s the first time someone has made that characterisation, but I think – ’cause we’re putting forward – what we’re putting forward, I think, is actually a common-sense idea. When you ask people the basic question, the basic question is this – “Do you think it is right that Labor will give more money to someone who’s got five homes to buy their sixth than to someone who hasn’t got their first?”

Most people would say that is wrong. Most people would say that is wrong. What we’re saying is – how do we chart a way out of it? I think people will respond well to this.

What we’re tying to do, I guess, is build an understanding – not only are there renters and first-home buyers over here who are locked out, we understand there are currently people in the system for whom this might mean a lot. What’s the pathway that protects everyone? That gets us there? We think it’s a good policy.

And I hope that the others will consider it seriously.

Asked what are his red lines in terms of what he would support in government, Adam Bandt says:

The red line is we won’t support Peter Dutton.

After the laughter dies down he says:

We will go into any discussions with an open mind, but with a clear platform that we’re going to put on the table. And that’s what we’re doing in advance of the election. We’re letting people know that, in this coming minority parliament, we’re saying, if you vote for the Greens, here’s what you’re going to get. Like, you’re going to get a party that is in your corner and that is trying to make the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax to fund things like getting dental and free childcare into Medicare, and ensure we have a roof over our head.

Are we going to get it all in one set of negotiations at the start of the parliament? I don’t know. I don’t know. But we’ve got to try. Nothing changes if nothing changes. These ideas that we’re putting on the table, and these reforms that are going to make people’s lives better, are not things that are being advanced by the two major parties.

If we want some of these changes – and you want to tackle the housing and rental crisis – then you’ve got to have Greens there. Because otherwise, it’s going to be more of the same. Otherwise, it’s just going to be more of the same.

Bandt on the Coalition’s gas policy:

I think Peter Dutton’s made a stunning admission that there’s not a gas shortage in Australia. That’s – this is what people have been saying for a very long time. There is not a gas shortage in Australia. What’s happening is that these big corporations are sending it off overseas together with the profits tax-free and making billions of dollars along the way.

Why I think this is a significant moment is that there is, I think now a growing understanding that Australia is awash with gas, and there are no – there is no shortage. But, when it comes to the solution, you see that, for Peter Dutton, it’s a cover for opening new gas mines, right? It’s just a cover for opening up new gas mines and he’s been explicit about this.

There’s a much simpler thing that we could do. A much simpler thing that we could do. Corporations like Santos at the moment pull more gas out of the domestic market, or pull gas out of the domestic market so that they can send it overseas and then claim that there’s a shortfall.

If we stop the big corporations from plundering the gas from Australian industry and households, and said, “You can’t do that just to send it off overseas to make profits off of it,” we would have more than enough gas in Australia to help us through the transition as the gas use declines and we get to renewables backed by storage, and wouldn’t need to open up any new coal and gas mines. You wouldn’t need to open up any new coal and gas mines.

A stunning admission of reality from Peter Dutton, which I don’t always expect from him, to acknowledge facts – but there you go. Again, as usual, his prescription is just to do what the gas industry wants and fast-track new coal and gas mines.

On that – no, I can’t see us working together

Bandt continues:

We have just said from Day 1 that the people of Palestine and the people of Israel are both entitled to live in a just and lasting peace and have their rights to self-determination recognised under international law.

And we’ve said that – that has to be premised on an ending of the occupation of Palestine.

Because that is the only way that there can be that just and lasting peace. Our position is grounded in humanity. It’s grounded in international law. And what we’ve seen over the course of this year is slowly, organisation after organisation, coming and recognising the tragedy of what is happening.

I suspect that, at this election, there are going to be many people who will be voting on the basis of the Australian government’s backing of this invasion.

There will be many people who are going to change their vote on that. Because there are things that the Australian government could do that would actually make a difference. We did it when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

We not only issued words of condemnation, but we took active steps to say, “This is wrong.” Because the thing about a breach of international law is there’s not some overriding police force that comes in and holds an extremist leader to account. It’s up to other governments to do it. It’s up to other governments to do it.

And so many people have watched on with horror and seen that the Australian government has just done nothing.

Every time a red line was crossed, they’ve done nothing. They’ve continued the 2-way military trade. They’ve refused to even put the most basic of sanctions on someone who was subject to an arrest warrant from the international court.

So, we’re going to keep saying very, very strongly – as we see now the ceasefire failing to hold and we see paramedics killed, we see more invasions, we see more deaths, we’re going to keep saying – the killing’s got to stop. The killing has to stop.

Q: I’ve listened to your speech and I’ve read it now through. Forgive me if I’ve missed it, but it appears to me there’s not a single mention in this speech of the crisis in Gaza. Given how much of the past 18 months has been dominated by that conversation – particularly from your party – that is surprising to me. Is that an example of you softening your position on Gaza, and is it recognition of how much it’s potentially damaged you on the Australian electorate?

(I don’t actually see how the Greens advocating against genocide and calling for lives to be saved has hurt them in the Australian electorate? There has been an increase of support for the Greens in some seats, including in Melbourne.)

Bandt:

I don’t agree with that assessment. When the attacks on October 7 took place and the hostages were taken and the killings happened, we condemned it. We condemned it at the time. We also said that, as an invasion loomed on 2.2 million people walled into an area half the size of Canberra, 40% of whom are under the age of 15, and they’ve got nowhere to go, it was going to be a slaughter.

And we are said that could not be backed.

And so we opposed, in parliament, the Labor and the Liberal backing of that invasion when they brought their motion to parliament. And it gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to see that, in the year plus since then, tragically, so many of the things that we warned about have to come to pass.

You now have tens of thousands of children who have been killed by an army and who have been separated from their parents.

Their healthcare system has been destroyed. People’s homes have been reduced to rubble. Amnesty International says there’s a genocide occurring. We’ve said that. If you don’t necessarily believe us, listen to Amnesty International.

There are now international courts that have issued arrest warrants for the extremist prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Continued in next post

A reporter then reads out a bunch of stuff Bandt’s political opponents have said about the Greens, like it is a shock that opposing politicians say negative stuff about the politicians and party they are opposing. Like, that’s politics babes. What is the point.

The question is whether Bandt and the Greens can work in the parliament as a balance of power given those negative comments.

Again, has anyone seen the senate? They already work together.

UGH

Q: Just quickly on China, the Greens have had issues with China in the past on human rights. Do you think those should now be secondary when we’ve got more in common with China against Donald Trump?

Bandt:

We were the first people, I think, in this parliament – including during the mining boom, when no-one else wanted to raise these issues – we were the ones raising human rights issues.

And we’ve continued to do so. And we’ve continued to do so and continue to say that they’re important. Of course they’re important. And so I don’t agree with the suggestion about downgrading that you’ve said – they’re important, and we should continue to raise them.

But again, I make the point – we were in quite a good position of having strong relationships with both of them, and we should be using that to de-escalate. It’s not about sweeping anything under the corp It’s about saying, in this situation where Trump is a danger to everyone, government needs to – one of the other questions you asked was what the government should do.

The government needs to put up that umbrella across the country to ensure that we are protected from the Trump fallout. I mentioned with housing that there’s a real risk that we could see a spike in house prices unless the government gets in and acts quickly.

So, protect our people – like, now is precisely the right time to be investing in things that make our society more equal and that hold us together, because a more equal society is a more cohesive society, is a more secure society. That is how we avoid going down that US road.