The culture war has come to the election campaign, with a divisive debate about Welcome-to-Country ceremonies sparked by neo-Nazi booing at Melbourne’s ANZAC Day dawn service.

But the silence on Indigenous policy since the defeat of the Voice Referendum has been deafening. Earlier this week James Patterson said the Liberal Party is focused on “practical” outcomes for Indigenous Australians – and yesterday Prime Minister Albanese said the same for Labor. But this line about ‘practical’ reconciliation seem to be the status quo since the Howard era, during which time inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has only increased.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live approximately 10 years less than non-Indigenous Australians which, to add insult to injury, means many Indigenous people aren’t able to take advantage of their super. And incomes are lower to begin with – 35% of Indigenous people (1 in 3) live in a household in the bottom 20% of incomes. Poverty in Australia is higher among Indigenous people, and current policies aren’t helping. Australia Institute research highlights, for example, the failures and inherent racism of the remote ‘work for the dole’ program (CPD). Although Labor rejigged the scheme last year, a report from the Australian National Audit Office found that it still has serious problems. Meanwhile, Indigenous Australians –  including children – are far more likely to be imprisoned. But Australia Institute research has shown that the majority of Australians support raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14, which would bring it in line with the global median.

If the ever widening gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are to be closed, the policies that the two major parties have announced will need to do a lot… Or maybe it’s time to acknowledge that ‘symbolic’ acts and ‘practical’ outcomes are inseparable.

On Albanese claiming he couldn’t pass legislation for truth in political advertising because of a lack of bipartisanship, Bruce says:

This one is utterly infuriating.
Mate, you are the *Government*!! Your job is to pass legislation based on the fact that you have the numbers! And the cross bench are all on board too (on paper) so anything you put up should just sail through. What other legislation you wanted did you not bother with because the Opposition didn’t want to play?
FFS – the disengenuity of it.

Sue asks:

Why is everyone so sure that the Libs will reclaim Aston, when it is a marginal seat and the wind seems to be with the ALP? No-one seems to have any doubt at all, which is a bit depressing for some Aston residents. Is it because the Libs will pick up a lot of preferences from the bus-load of right-leaning candidates? PS – so enjoying having Amy back blogging, and being able to comment

Well, the ALP think it is gone – I was talking to one of the Victorian lead campaigners just yesterday who said that they don’t think they’ll hold it and the voters who went Labor in a protest vote at the byelection will probably turn back to the Liberals this time round.

On Albanese going on the Kyle and Jackie O show, Daniel says:

Honestly, the fact he went on their show just lowers his standing in my eyes. It’s an awful show and they should’ve lost their jobs years ago.

Very disappointing from a Prime Minister.

and Mark asks:

Do you have any polling data on how Michelle Milthorpe is travelling against Sussan Ley in Farrer?
Love reading your blogs. So insightful. Thanks

I haven’t checked in recently, as I was told there was not a lot of change, but that campaign seems to be one that is a multi-campaign strategy, not just this one. So watch this space! The Tans (regional community independents – Nats backwards – are making inroads in a whole heap of seats, including Farrer, Lyne and Monash)

The Coalition has proposed introducing nuclear power in Australia, but with very little detail, even at this late stage in the campaign. And the detail is important. As Bloomberg NEF’s head of Australia research told ABC late last year:

… the standards, the rules, the regulation, the social licence … the practical things about how thick you have to pour your cement, what materials you’re allowed to use in the plant, what companies are allowed to be involved in the fuel supply chain, where you dispose of your waste, what insurance policies have to look like by regulation and law — [these] do not exist in Australia right now.

The point about insurance is an important one because homeowners’ insurance policies would be void in the event of a nuclear accident. Below is a sample of exemptions for nuclear accidents from seven of the biggest Australian insurers.

Alliance

“Always excluded … nuclear”.

NRMA

“You are not covered under any section of this Policy… for loss, damage, liability, injury or death caused by or arising from any nuclear, radioactive, biological or chemical material or the use, handling, transportation or storage of such material”.

AAMI

“General Exclusions … Nuclear and radioactive materials and contamination”.

Youi

“General exclusions … any radioactivity, nuclear fuel, nuclear waste or other nuclear material, nuclear weapon, or any nuclear detonation or explosion”.

Budget Direct

“You are not covered for loss, damage, or any legal liability you incur because of … radioactivity or the use or escape of any nuclear fuel, material, or waste”.

QBE

“There is no cover under any section of your policy for any claims, loss, cost, damage, injury, death or legal liability, that is caused by, or arises from or in connection with … a nuclear weapon, the use, existence or escape of nuclear fuel, waste, radiation or material, or nuclear fission or fusion”.

GIO

“Things we don’t cover Loss or damage to, or caused by, connected with or arising from, or liability caused by, connected with or arising from radioactivity/nuclear materials”.

In the event of a nuclear disaster, or even a minor mishap, home and contents product disclosure statements outline that the insurers will not cover policy-holders. Such exemptions are not new: Australia Institute research in 2019 described the same phenomenon.

The Coalition’s lack of consideration of households’ insurance indicates a lack of foresight in proper regulation and planning.

A hair less than 800,000 Australians cast their vote yesterday, a slight decline for the second day in a row. Despite a minor slowdown, yesterday still had a record-high number of votes for the Wednesday before the election, and 4.8 million Australians – more than a quarter of voters – have now filled in their ballots. That’s almost a million more votes than at this point last election.

The ABC reported yesterday that the Labor campaign is fearing a last-minute Peter Dutton recovery. While that’s far from impossible, with so many Australians having already cast their ballot it may already be too late for such a surge to make a difference.

Wondering how pre-polling has evolved over time, and what the implications are of so many early votes? You can read more about that here.

As we wait for the LNP to release its costings,  we not that the Financial Review reports that the Coalition’s costings are likely to include the following:

To reduce debt and make savings on interest payments, the Coalition will scrap two major off-budget funds: the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund and the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. It will also not proceed with Labor’s promise to wipe $16 billion in student debt for tertiary graduates.

But as we mentioned last week, abolishing funds probably will cost money, not save it!

It all gets a tad confusing but remember while the funds do cost money because of the money being borrowed, the funds themselves also make money.

The latest figure from the Reserve Banks says the market rate of interest on government 10-year debt was 4.247% – so that’s ho much the debt costs to repay.

But on the other side of the ledger, the Future Fund, which includes the funds the Coalition wants to abolish, has been producing returns of 8.3% over the last 10 years—well above its benchmark 6.9% – and that goes into the government’s coffers.  

So abolishing these funds would save some interest costs but would actually reduce the budget balance by forgoing the high net returns.

Based on the last 10 years, each $1 billion reduction in debt done that way would reduce the budget balance by 8.3% minus 4.247% for each billion dollars, which is $41 million!

So cut $1bn in debt and lose $41m in net revenue! Not so smart.

AAP has the latest YouGov polling:
The final YouGov poll ahead of Saturday’s federal election offers some startling predictions, given most other polls suggest a hung parliament or a narrow Labor majority.

MAIN FORECASTS

* Labor is leading the coalition 52.9 per cent to 47.1 per cent on a two-party preferred basis

* This would give Labor 84 seats in the lower house, well above the 76 needed for a majority

* The coalition could end up with 47 seats, after a net loss of 11, which would be its worst result since 1946

* Under those conditions, Liberal frontbenchers David Coleman (Banks, NSW), Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Vic) and Dan Tehan (Wannon, Vic) could lose their seats, with the first two going to Labor and the third to an independent 

* Independents could also pick up the coalition seats of Cowper, Calare and Bradfield – all in NSW

* YouGov also predicts Labor to pick up Braddon (Tas), Bonner (Qld), Menzies (Vic), Moore (WA) and Sturt (SA) from the coalition

* The Liberals are set to reclaim Aston (Vic) after losing it to Labor in a 2023 by-election

* YouGov also has seat ranges, including 76 to 85 seats for Labor, 45 to 53 for the coalition, two to five for the Greens and 13 to 16 for independents

* But Labor’s primary vote is likely to fall 1.2 percentage points to 31.4 per cent from the 2022 election, with the coalition down 0.3 points to 31.1 per cent

* The Greens’ primary vote appears steady at just over 12 per cent

* One Nation could almost double its vote to more than nine per cent

* YouGov conducted 35,185 voter interviews between April 1 and 29, which it used to model 10,822 respondents to predict the election outcome

Lewis comments:

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m actually really disappointed with how Dutton and the Coalition have performed this election. Even if the polls are off and it’s closer than expected, they’ve been really underwhelming, allowing the ALP to get away with a lot. Not really a great time to be inspired by politics is it.

We may be entering a period of Australian politics where the Coalition loses its party of government relevancy and the Teals and Tans (Nats backwards – community independents in Nationals seats) start to form more of a power bloc. There is no law saying there needs to be a Labor party or a Liberal-Nationals party. It’s up to the major parties how they respond to the changing electoral landscape

Kim by contrast says:

So the alternative PM is good at gymnastics. Whilst pledging to get Australia back on track he’s still busy back tracking and back flipping, as shown through his comments today saying he won’t go after the “woke” ( my summary of his grievances I’d say) curriculum. It’s like hanging on to the stern of the Titanic whilst the Temu Trump deck chairs fly past into the Atlantic.

Mari:

Dutton ragging on the PM for not being able to answer a question at the Press Club when he himself just doesn’t bother to go to the Press Club? Typical.

Simon:

I guess you would have encountered Gary’s Economics. Wealth tax discussions in the UK are getting more realistic with his expertise but the push back from corporate media reveals, yet again, who is (invisibly) behind the economic policy settings

I’m a big fan of Gary’s Economics and how he breaks it down in such simple fashion for people. But yes, power is always going to fight back, but that only works if people are ignorant

And Michael:
Brickwood photo captions

Amelia Hamer – (in a moment of self realisation) What the hell have I got myself into?

Peter Dutton – When can I get out of here (and this campaign).

BTW the stubby holder goes with the corflute issue/strategy at polling booths – advertising will cover for personal appearances & policies.

A rare mention of truth in political advertising policy this question, with the Prime Minister asked why he deprioritised pursue truth in political advertising laws over the last three years in favour of a deal with the Coalition on other electoral changes.

Truth in political advertising laws have overwhelming public support (89% in the Australia Institute’s last set of polling research) and are proven to work in South Australia and now the ACT.

Anthony Albanese replied that he would like to have another crack at truth in politics laws, and “We tried to do a range of legislation which we didn’t have support for from the Coalition.”

It’s a disappointing response. In 2022, Australians didn’t elect a Coalition Government, they elected a Labor Government – and an integrity supermajority in both houses of parliament once minor parties and independents are accounted for. And Peter Dutton didn’t oppose truth in political advertising laws, at least not publicly – he said they are “probably welcome”. 

The Government doesn’t need the Opposition’s permission to bring in popular and proven laws.

Earlier this morning, Anthony Albanese did an interview with Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O and, well, it went places.

You may remember that Albanese went to Kyle’s wedding. But since the latest controversies over the radio show and it’s content, it hasn’t been a favourite of the Labor campaign. Still, Albanese has called in for his chats (it was on Kyle and Jackie O that Dutton said he wanted to live in Kirribilli instead of the Lodge at the beginning of the campaign so both leaders are doing it) and this morning’s…well, here is some of it.

SANDILANDS: That’s a great thing. Now, where do you reckon you guys need to improve? Because this is where, you know, you and I, we’re pretty friendly. In our last election, I did say I was going to vote Liberal, but this time, I spoke to Dutton the other day on the air, asked him about marijuana, and he’s still down that rabbit hole of, “oh, it’s a gateway drug,” when there’s so much evidence that for kids with real issues like ADHD and all these – I’m not joking, Jackie, you laugh. This is a real thing.
 
HENDERSON: I would never put my child on weed if they had ADHD.
 
SANDILANDS: Well, you’ve opened yourself up for a lot of ridicule on social media there.
 
HENDERSON: Go on then. Please enlighten me here because I actually don’t know.
 
SANDILANDS: There are a lot of kids with lots of issues that some of this stuff, I’m not talking smoking joints.
 
HENDERSON: Oh, yeah. Okay, you’re talking about –
 
SANDILANDS: The CBD and THC.
 
HENDERSON: Yeah, okay.
 
SANDILANDS: Because he sort of lost my vote when he went, “nah, we’re never going to look at that.” And I thought, well, how unprogressive.
 
HENDERSON: But you want just outright weed to get high, though.
 
SANDILANDS: I do.
 
HENDERSON: That’s what you’re talking about.
 
SANDILANDS: Yeah, because I want the crime rate to drop. I want us to stop wasting money chasing weed dealers.
 
HENDERSON: What are your thoughts –
 
PRODUCER: But on Kyle’s side, I mean, other countries are doing this, United States.
 
HENDERSON: Yeah, that’s right.
 
SANDILANDS: Even Qatar.
 
HENDERSON: What are your thoughts on that, though? Seriously, Prime Minister, because so many countries have legalised it. What –
 
SANDILANDS: We don’t want to be the last, like the gay marriage. Remember how embarrassing that was? We were the last to let the gays get married. Embarrassing.
 
PRIME MINISTER: We were a bit slow on marriage equality. No question about that. And it’s true what you say about some states in the United States and some countries have done what you’re suggesting. It is up to the states, as I’ve said to you. You’re a mate with Minnsy. So, this is completely –
 
HENDERSON: Oh, that’s right. He keeps deferring back to that.
 
PRIME MINISTER: This is completely a state issue.
 
SANDILANDS: Can’t ask him that –
 
HENDERSON: When do we learn? It was pointless asking him.
 
SANDILANDS: Yeah, because he’s right. He has told us this many times, you’d think we remember.
 
HENDERSON: No, but can’t we just ask for your opinion on it? Just your opinion.
 
SANDILANDS: Would you and I, can you ever imagine you and I blowing a spliff together?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, I can’t imagine that, Kyle.
 
SANDILANDS: Okay.
 
PRIME MINISTER: But I, you know, each to their own, but I can’t imagine –
 
SANDILANDS: See I like that. Yeah but you’re probably more of a bong guy right?
 
PRIME MINISTER: I can’t imagine that. Mate, I’m off the beers at the moment –
 
HOST: Are ya?
 
PRIME MINISTER: I’ve been since 1 January, I have had, I’ll put my hand up and say there have been a few exceptions, you know, birthday. And when I cut, how about this for a policy we did? Freezing the excise payments, the tax essentially on beer for two years. That was pretty popular.
SANDILANDS: It would have been.
 
PRIME MINISTER: I had to have a beer when I was announcing that.
 
HOST: What are your thoughts on the nose beers?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No. No no no –

SANDILANDS: No, that’s never going to get [inaudible]. That’s never going to get a [inaudible].

HENDERSON: I love that he knows what you’re talking about.
 
PRODUCER: He knew what that was.
 
SANDILANDS: He’s no idiot, Jackie. The guy runs the country. He’s not a fool.

And that is it for the major press conferences from the leaders today – start the clock, there is only a handful of these left now.

Angus Taylor and Jane Hume will be announcing the Coalition’s costings a little later today and then it is on to the next seats.