Bill Browne

Joshua Black

Complaints about the brevity of three-year parliamentary terms are common in Australia.

Earlier this year, Business Council of Australia president Geoff Culbert told the AFR that Australia is “permanently in election mode” and our three-year term limits are “too short”. The prime minister and opposition leader both say they support four-year terms, though they’re not willing to chance their arm on a constitutional referendum to make it happen.

In the last 25 years, Australia has had eight (soon to be nine) federal elections. If that sounds like heavy going, spare a thought for generations past. From 1950 to 1975, Australians voted in 15 federal elections, including four separate half-Senate elections.

This is to say nothing of the four separate referendums held between 1950 and 1975, compared with just one in the period from 2000 to 2025.

When Gough Whitlam joked that he was enjoying a rare “non-election year” back in 1985, he had a point.

The Constitution requires elections for the House of Representatives at least every three years, or more specifically, no more than three years after Parliament first meets. By convention, elections are called at a time of the prime minister’s choosing. Strictly speaking, the Constitution actually gives the Governor-General that power, and they need to be persuaded before a prime minister can race off to the polls.

The Senate is a different beast altogether. Inspired by the staggered terms of the US Senate, Australia’s constitutional drafters chose to put only half of the Senate up for election every three years. As a result, senators enjoy six-year terms. This was to give it a more “perpetual existence” than the lower house with its short-term majorities.

Senators’ terms normally begin on 1 July after an election is held. At a double dissolution, when the whole Senate is dissolved alongside the House to solve deadlocks between the two houses, senators’ terms are backdated to 1 July of the previous year. Governors-General rely on careful legal advice before agreeing to double dissolution elections, not least because the Constitution sets careful criteria for when they can and can’t be held.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires House and Senate elections to be ‘in sync’. If a double dissolution is awkwardly timed, it can mean that a half-Senate election is required more than a year earlier than the next House election.

For example, a double dissolution election in April 1951 knocked the two houses off kilter, prompting a half-Senate election before 30 June 1953. An early House of Representatives election in November 1963 did the same. Half-Senate elections in 1953, 1964, 1967 and 1970 seemed to be, in the words of one Governor-General, a “major public opinion poll” on the government of the day.

In 1963 prime minister Robert Menzies asked the Governor-General to dissolve the House roughly eight months early. He offered a combination of strategic and policy justifications (the global fight against Communism was heating up in Asia) and expedient justifications (the previous election had left his government vulnerable in the lower house, and the times now suited him). His decision initiated a decade of un-synchronised elections for the two houses.

There’s no right or wrong answer about how often Australians should vote. But election timing matters. Unlike most of Australia’s states, the federal parliament does not have fixed terms. This means prime ministers get to pick the date that best advantages them. Few of us stop to think how unusual it is that a competitor also enjoys control over the starter’s gun.

Prime ministerial prerogative is also one of the reasons that three-year terms feel so much shorter. Thanks to early elections, the average term is closer to two and a half years rather than three. Journalists play a part by turning the last year of any parliament into an election-predicting contest. The Australia Institute’s Democracy Agenda for the 48th Parliament recommends fixed terms as for election timing. Parliamentarians could start by agreeing at the beginning of the 48th parliament to run full-term. This would remove an unfair incumbency privilege and create a more level playing field for new candidates and parties preparing to contest elections.

Elections are important. Their timing should be fixed. This would make the playing field more level for all candidates. It would also make those three-year terms feel a little less short.

Both major parties are promising more and more gas this election – but a new poll has shown that Australians actually want more renewables.

As AAP reports:

Most Australians would prefer more renewable energy, but the two major parties have made years-long commitments to gas expansion.

About three in five people believe adding renewables – such as wind and solar with battery storage – is a better solution to meet Australia’s energy needs than increased gas production.

More than half believe fracking brings more problems than benefits to local communities, according to a YouGov survey commissioned by environmental financing advocacy group Market Forces.

With Australians set to take to the ballot boxes for the May 3 election, gas could shift votes.

Labor has committed to opening new gas fields as part of Australia’s transition to net-zero emissions, while the coalition has promised to increase gas supply to try to lower energy prices.

Market Forces does not take positions on political parties as it focuses on the private sector, but analyst Kyle Robertson said expanding new gas fields was incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change which Australia has backed.

“We’re still a massive exporter of fossil fuels and both major political parties support that,” he told AAP.

“We need to walk away from our expansion plans, not just domestically, but also for projects that will be exported overseas.”

Australia was the world’s seventh-largest gas producer in 2020, but about 70 per cent was exported in 2019/20, according to government figures.

As a result, a majority of people think expanding gas does not benefit them or the nation, the YouGov survey found.

Fracking in particular is a sore spot for many Australians, with two in three believing it is harmful for the environment and just under half opposing the practice, which is banned in Tasmania, Victoria and 15 countries due to environmental and health risks.

Even those who support the expansion of gas fracking harboured concerns, the survey revealed.

Almost half of them believe expanding renewable energy is a better option, while 42 per cent believe it is harmful for the environment.

This could be because Australia’s industry says there are looming gas shortages that can only be addressed by opening new gas fields.

“In an ideal world, Australians want more renewable energy, but they’ve been sold a narrative by the gas industry that gas is absolutely essential for the energy transition,” Mr Robertson said.

“So, there’s certainly work to do there around public perceptions.”

In March, the Australian Energy Market Operator – which has long predicted gas shortfalls for the southern states – downgraded its forecast as high prices, mild winters and electrification pushed back gas shortages until 2028.

This could indicate electrification through renewables, alongside battery storage, was the “way of the future”, Mr Robertson said.

e

Planning on postal voting this election? The AEC says you need to get a wriggle on:

The AEC is asking anyone who needs a postal vote, but has not yet applied, to do so this week.

The latest urging from the AEC follows earlier advice for people to plan their vote early and, if needed, apply for a postal vote early in the election period.

Australia has some of the best in-person voting options in the world. If a voter can turn up to a voting centre, then that is what they must do.

While the legislated deadline for postal vote applications is next Wednesday 30 April, anyone who leaves it until the final week risks their postal vote pack not arriving in time.

–          People can apply for a postal vote on the AEC website.

Voters who do not receive their postal vote pack by Friday 2 May should, if at all possible, make arrangements to vote in-person on election day. Voters who fail to cast a vote will be contacted by the AEC and asked to explain why they did not vote.

Here is the official government release on the latest tradies announcement:

A re-elected Albanese Labor Government will invest $78 million to fast track the qualification of 6,000 tradies to help build more homes across Australia.

This election commitment will establish the Advanced Entry Trades Training program to help experienced but unqualified workers get the qualifications and recognition they deserve for their work.

The program will assess a participants’ existing skills via a recognition of prior learning process and then fill in any gaps with individualised training delivered by TAFEs and other high quality Registered Training Organisations. Any extra training needed will be free.

It is based on the successful NSW Government Trade Pathways for Experienced Workers program, which has seen more than 1,200 students gain their trade qualification in an average time of 7 months, rather than several years.

Research from Master Builders Australia shows that for every new qualified tradie, an extra 2.4 houses will be built each year.

Recognising the skills of these 6,000 workers and helping them to become qualified tradies will help reach the Albanese Labor Government’s goal to build 1.2 million new homes in 5 years.

We have had some lip service about inequality, poverty, sustainability, health and education challenges., but nothing about how to pay for things – including the opposition $21bn defence policy out today.

The default is always cuts or efficiencies rather than more revenue.

Fortunately, there is wide range of opportunities to raise more revenue in Australia, in ways that will also make the Australian community fairer and safer.

Australia is a low-tax country, raising just 30% in tax revenue as a share of the economy, well below the average of 34.9% across developed countries.

If Australia raise just the average amount of tax in the OECD we would raise around $135bn more a year. That would put us in line with Canada and New Zealand and still below the UK, let alone the Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

But here’s the thing – countries that raise more tax and spend more on public services tend to have communities that are healthier, happier and have higher incomes.

Tax is the price we pay to live in a good society. Currently Australia is underpaying and as a result the country has higher levels of poverty, and insufficient funding for education, healthcare and other services.

Today we will be putting forward the ideas contained in our Raising Revenue Right report. It is a blueprint for ways to raise extra revenue that delivers not just the ability to pay for more and better services and infrastructure and benefits, but also will deliver a fairer society and a cleaner economy.

These sums are not unrealistic. The ideas proposed here are not radical. They are already at the centre of policy debate. Some are supported by current members of parliament, while others have been major party policy. They are well-known by policy practitioners and are popular with voters.

And the benefits are immense. An extra $11.8bn per year could fund over 70,000 extra jobs in education and health, delivering significantly better services to the community.

An extra $62.7bn per year could transform Australia for the better, without increasing the deficit by a dollar. Government payments could be increased above poverty line levels while also doubling spending on education, housing and the ABC.

Dave Richardson had a look at this earlier in the month and found:

The budget papers explain just how much is being spent on both the ongoing military spending, as well as the capital investment.

For the capital investment, the budget papers give both “net capital investment” as well as “purchases of non-financial assets”. The main difference is that the former is adjusted for depreciation and amortisation, while purchases of non-financial assets are not adjusted. There really is no good reason for deducting depreciation and amortisation. They are both rather meaningless concepts when it comes to military assets – is anyone really caring about the decline in the commercial value of the tanks the army has? Moreover, almost all discussions of the budget balance etc are based on cash accounting, which excludes depreciation.

The table above presents the military expenditure and investment.

It clearly shows that total military spending has hit 2.3% of GDP (rounded) in 2024-25, and yet in his Budget speech, the Treasurer said “defence funding will grow beyond 2.3 per cent of GDP by the early 2030s.”

That suggests the Government is using the depreciation adjustment to estimate its spending. In reality, the Treasurer should already be saying that Australia is already at 2.3% of GDP and headed for 2.5%.

Importantly, however, this has all happened with very little debate.

Just a decade ago the 2015 Intergenerational Report mentioned that defence had been 1.6% of GDP in 2012-13 and was expected to be 1.8% of GDP in 2014-15 and, “consistent with government policy, [military spending] is projected to increase gradually to 2 per cent of GDP by 2023-24… [and constant] at 2 per cent of GDP from 2023-24 onwards …”

That goal of reaching 2% has been superseded, and now the discussion seems to be around 2.5 to 3% – all of which has occurred without any real debate with or approval from voters.

We should be clear about what going from 1.6% of GDP to 2.5 to 3% of GDP means. It has already meant that other options for spending around $20 billion in 2025-26 have been ruled out. No increase in Jobseeker, less spending on public schools, and hospitals and vital infrastructure needed to shift Asutralia to a low emissions economy.

Other options will be ruled out in the future.

Even in its own terms, the target of spending 2.5% or even 3% on the military is nonsensical. Obviously, the military bureaucracy will find a way to spend any amount of money. But that is a far cry from asking them to make plans that reflect careful risk management, reflecting clear priorities and taking into account the true opportunity costs of the foregone alternatives.

This election deserves a true debate about how much should be spent on the military.

Labor’s major announcement today is about $80m to ‘fast track’ training building apprentices.

So Labor is focusing on housing (adjacent) policy today, while the Coalition is putting its bets on defence spending.

Australian doctor Mohammed Mustafa has returned from his second volunteer mission in Gaza, where he worked where he could to try and save lives amongst Israel’s bombardment of civilians.

He received a heroes welcome from supporters when he arrived back in Australia and has spent the days since trying to get Australian politicians to act.

He tells the ABC:

There was a particular incident that happened that night. I was covered in blood. We have to carry IDs with us 24 hours, and when I pulled out my Australian passport it was covered in blood and I couldn’t help but remember Zomi [Frankcom], the Australian aid worker who was killed and when they found her, her passport was covered in blood as well.

She hasn’t had any justice for what’s happened to her.

I reached out to her family and they’ve given me their blessing to carry that cross forward and go out there and fight for Zomi and Zomi died trying to feed children in Gaza and not just Gaza. She fed children all around the world and I want to do something in honour of Zomi and I want the government to help me, not just Zomi, but her family, to do something for her and honour her legacy. She died feeding those kids in Gaza and I feel like I let down those kids and I want to do this for her.

Jane Hume also believes that the attitude towards women in the Liberal party is better than ever:

I’ve worked as a member of Parliament under four leaders now, under Anthony… Under Tony Abbott I was pre-selected, a member of Parliament under Malcolm Turnbull, a minister under Scott Morrison and now I’m a shadow cabinet minister under Peter Dutton and under Peter Dutton, I think that the attitude towards women in the Liberal Party has changed so profoundly, so dramatically. He has more women in his shadow cabinet than ever before. His Deputy leader is female. His leader of the Senate and Deputy leader of the Senate are female. In fact, Peter Dutton wants to keep Australians strong and keep Australians safe.

This should be profoundly important to women around the country. We want to see Australian women empowered and given the opportunity to have the best lives they possibly can. You’ll see that in the offering we have at this election.

There are no policies offerings for women under the Coalition this election. It has been notable in its absence and brought up numerous times, just how much the Coalition’s campaign has skewed to men.

That’s because that is Dutton’s biggest voting base is men. And when they have tried to soften his image, he loses the male voters, but doesn’t win women.

How will the Coalition pay for its increase in defence funding?

Or, the better question, what will the Coalition de-prioritise in order to meet its funding priorities?

Hume says that’s coming:

You’ll see the Coalition’s costings prior to the election. They will be released, as they traditionally are, by both sides of government… before the election. You’ll see them in great detail.

This is a very considered approach to doing what is the most important for Australia. We want to make sure that we deliver strong economic management and the IMF have said we need to increase the fiscal buffers, the economic buffers, that is something we are conscious of and will actively do – bring our budget back to structural surplus, inject that objective back into our budgetary system, put guardrails around our budget.

That’s something that Labor have removed. At the same time, we need to understand that we need to invest more in Australia’s national security. When we have Chinese warships off our shores, firing in the vicinity of civilian aircraft, when we have our own service men and women being put at risk by lasers, by sonars, and yet this Prime Minister has done so little. His response has been so weak in the face of that.

Putting aside the Coalition’s continued attack that Albanese is “weak” (which is coming up in focus groups as a line with some cut through) let’s look at Hume’s answer. She is saying that the Coalition will cut – meaning austerity – in order to bring about it’s chosen priorities – in this case, defence.

Hume is saying things like ‘structural surplus’ which is when the structure of the economy itself is such that you are generating more revenue than you are spending. So it is the government taking more money from you, than it is spending on you.

If the Coalition wants to increase defence funding, within an environment where it is generating a structural surplus, than it has to make big cuts elsewhere – unless it is suddenly going to decide to tax fossil fuel companies or billionaires. But in the absence of wealth tax, this plan sounds like a poor tax – where the Coalition will be cutting services and welfare for the lower and middle classes, in order to meet its own priorities.