Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Politics

Election Diary: The election’s first debate was disaster-free but passion-free too

Published

on

The election’s first debate, on Sky News on Tuesday night, was disappointingly dull. Viewers who’d been following the campaign would have learned little. There was minimal spontaneity.

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Among the 100 undecided voters in the room, 44 said Anthony Albanese won, 35 thought Peter Dutton came out ahead and 21 were undecided.

Both camps will be satisfied, because each leader’s main aim was to avoid disaster. A bad mistake, an undisciplined moment, can sour the following day.

The Liberals will be especially relieved. After difficult days for Dutton, with Trump wading into the campaign and the fiasco over the work-from-home policy, the opposition leader needed to perform creditably. He did that, with commentators scoring the result variously (in some cases in line with the scorer’s political leaning).

Dutton was under added pressure – just before the two men faced off he learned his father Bruce had been taken to hospital.

Both leaders were well prepared, and carefully polite. Questions canvassed the “Trump pandemic”, education, health, cost of living, immigration, Albanese’s tax cuts, Dutton’s fuel excise promise, and Gaza.

When moderator Kieran Gilbert asked audience members to raise their hands if they were “doing it pretty tough” about half did so.

Albanese seemed to have more material to work with, and made sure he homed in on Dutton’s nuclear policy and his time as health minister.

Naturally, we saw Albanese’s well-worn Medicare card again.

The PM dodged an awkward reference to NSW premier Chris Minns’ returning public servants to the office, pivoting to Dutton’s dumping his working from home policy. “Peter hasn’t been able to stand up for his own policy, so I don’t know how he can stand up for Australia.”

Albanese had a good zinger countering Dutton’s spiel on gas: “The only gas policy that the Coalition have is the gaslighting of the Australia public.”

Dutton had a cut-through point on the PM’s promise to subsidise solar batteries. “He’s asking you to provide a subsidy or to support a subsidy for people on higher incomes like me to buy a battery at a subsidised price and I don’t believe that’s fair.”

Rather bizarrely, the Coalition used the cover of the debate to release its delayed modelling for its gas reservation policy, sending it out just as the debate started, embargoed until its finish.

“Modelling conducted by Frontier Economics has concluded that the Coalition’s National Gas Plan will see a 23% reduction in wholesale gas prices,” the statement said. This would “progressively mean

  • 15% reduction in retail gas bills for industrial customers
  • 7% reduction in retail gas bills for residential customers
  • 8% reduction in wholesale electricity prices
  • 3% reduction in residential electricity prices.”

And do the debates matter anyway?

Australian election debates are punctuation points in the campaign. They don’t necessarily carry much weight, although they can affect a candidate’s immediate momentum.

Ian McAllister, director of the ANU’s Australian Election Study, says fewer and fewer people are watching these debates. In 1993, about seven in ten voters watched; in 2022 only a third did.

McAllister also says our debates are low grade compared to some overseas. For example, in France, the two candidates sit across from each other, with two moderators and “go for it”. In Australia, debates are “stylised” and the candidates rely heavily on prepared answers.

Winning or losing the debates is not necessarily a guide to the election result. As the table shows John Howard performed better in elections than in debates.

NSW Premier Minns defends a back-to-the-office policy

Peter Dutton took a serious fall over his now-abandoned plan to force Canberra public servants back to the office. But Chris Minns already has many state bureaucrats back at their desks, and on Tuesday declared firmly he won’t be for turning.

The Minns policy, announced last year, admittedly has had a bumpy start, including problems with the unions. But Minns’ “sell” is very different from the Coalition’s unsuccessful attempt.

The federal opposition, which often seems obsessed with Canberra public servants, left the impression these bureaucrats working from home were ripping off the system and needed to be brought into line.

Contrast the positive spin from Minns on Tuesday. After noting most NSW public servants can’t work from home – they’re on the front line – for the rest: “We believe it’s the only way of mentoring the next generation of people, to come through offices and ensure that they’ve got good modelled behaviour, a sense of shared mission and an idea of where they’re going collectively together.

“In order for us to fulfil the mission of government and public service, it means that you’ve got to build a team culture. And that can really only be done in the workplace.

“I think our policy is different to Peter Dutton’s, but I just don’t want to mince words. We’ve got to be clear and consistent and we’re not changing our policy.

“I don’t want any ambiguity about our position. We made that call last year. It was the right decision. And in terms of the mentoring role that a senior person plays in a workplace, whether they’re a manager or not, if they’ve got years under their belt and they’ve got experience, it’s amazing the positive impact they will have on a junior recruit that we’ve just got into the public service and that doesn’t happen on zoom and it doesn’t happen on YouTube and it doesn’t happen over the phone.”

Minns has consistently proved himself a strong communicator. He often ran rings around Anthony Albanese in responding to the antisemitism crisis.

Jim Chalmers does the rounds on the tariff crisis

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is making the most of incumbency in the wake of the Trump tariff upheaval, undertaking an intense round of official activity.

Chalmers will convene a meeting on Wednesday of the Council of Financial Regulators to discuss the impact globally and locally. Those attending will include the heads of the Reserve Bank, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Treasury and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

He will also meet the heads of the Future Fund and the ASX. On Thursday, he will have talks with major employers.

Chalmers has already convened and attended a Treasury briefing for the prime minister. He has talked with Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock, and been in touch with the CEOs of the major banks and superannuation funds representatives.

Chalmers is due to debate shadow treasurer Angus Taylor on Wednesday evening.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sussan Ley sacks Jacinta Price after she refuses to declare leadership loyalty

Published

on

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has sacked Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the shadow ministry, citing the senator’s failure to endorse her leadership as well as her refusal to apologise over her comment about Indian immigrants.

The battle with Price came to a head late on Wednesday, after Price declined to express conference in Ley’s leadership when pressed by reporters in Perth. Price said that was “a matter for our party room”.

Ley told a press conference in Hobart: “Today, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price critically failed to provide confidence in my leadership of the Liberal Party. Confidence in the Leader is a requirement for serving in the shadow ministry”.

Ley also said despite being given “the time and space to apologise” for her remarks about Indian immigration, Price “did not offer an apology today – and many Australians, not just of Indian heritage, have been calling for that apology – for remarks that were deeply hurtful”.

Last week Price said the Labor Party encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted for it. She has subiquently walked back her position but steadfastly refused calls from within and outside the Liberal Party to apologise for them.

Ley said: “My team and I have been out listening to Australians of Indian heritage and we have heard their response and the pain and hurt that these remarks provided for them.”

After Ley told her she was out of the shadow ministry, Price said in a statement, “this has been a disappointing episode for the Liberal Party. I will learn from it. I’m sure others will too. No individual is bigger than a party. And I’m sure events of the past week will ultimately make our party stronger.”

Price has been shadow minister for defence industry. She defected from the Nationals to the Liberals after the election, hoping to become deputy opposition leader on a ticket with Angus Taylor. In the event, she did not contest the deputy position after Taylor lost to Ley.

Price’s relegation to the backbench leaves her free to speak out, not just on immigration issues but on many other issues as well, including the party debate on its commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions.

Ley hopes her action against Price will shore up her authority in the party, but it remains to be seen whether it could instead be destabilising for her.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Published

on

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The bipartisanship about the path to a long-term settlement in the Middle East has finally been irrevocably broken.

The shadow cabinet, meeting Tuesday morning, did not just confirm the Coalition’s disagreement with the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It also decided that recognition would be revoked by a Coalition government.

In a statement after the shadow cabinet, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the shadow foreign minister, Michaelia Cash, said: “A Coalition government would only recognise a Palestine state at the conclusion of a proper peace process”.

On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next month. The government is not putting preconditions on recognition, but is relying on assurances the Palestinian Authority has given.

In its statement, the opposition said Albanese had specified recognition was “predicated on there being no role for Hamas; the demilitarisation of Palestine; an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist; free and fair elections in Palestine; and, reform of [Palestinian] governance, financial transparency and the education system, including international oversight to guard against the incitement of violence and hatred”.

But, the Coalition said, “unfortunately the Albanese government has made it clear that they will still recognise a Palestinian state, regardless of whether or not their own conditions are met.”

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that in government, the Coalition had listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “Our Labor successors have regrettably rewarded them through this action.

“I know this is not their intention, but it is the result. The caravan of appeasement is not one we should join”, Morrison said on his website.

While the split in bipartisanship has come to a head this week, it has been in the making for a considerable time.

The Coalition has been steadfastly rusted onto Israel (despite having some members, including Ley, who in the past had expressed support for the Palestinians).

In recent years, Labor has become increasingly divided between those wanting to stick to its traditional alignment with Israel and a growing number of pro-Palestinian supporters, who eventually succeeded in getting recognition of a Palestinian state into the party’s platform.

In the recent election, the Liberals pitched to and attracted many Jewish voters, while Labor was concerned with keeping the support of its Muslim constituency, located especially in western Sydney.

The government’s criticism of Israel’s approach to the war has intensified as the conflict has dragged on with no sign of resolution.

Once the current conflict reached its present impasse, with ever-more graphic footage of the suffering in Gaza, and countries such as France, Britain and Canada signalling Palestinian recognition, it was almost inevitable the Albanese government would follow, and the Coalition would oppose that decision.

The government argues something has to be done. It chooses to believe assurances given by the Palestinian Authority. It speaks as though the intractable players in this Middle East conflict can be influenced, even though the ongoing conflict makes this a heroic assumption.

Albanese undertook a round of Tuesday interviews to defend the government’s decision. Often reluctant to spell out the content of private conversations with overseas counterparts, the prime minister is being expansive about his conversation last Thursday  with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It was a conversation which reflected the conversation that I had with him in 2024. And I expressed to him my concern that he was putting the same argument that he did in 2024, that military action against Hamas would produce an outcome. That hasn’t produced an outcome. What it’s produced is a lot of innocent lives, tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost.

“I expressed my concern about the blocking of aid that occurred  as a conscious decision by the Israeli government  earlier this year,” Albanese said.

“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Published

on

Grattan on Friday: Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been putting it succinctly, declaring it’s a question of when, not if, Australia recognises Palestine as a state.

It’s a line Foreign Minister Penny Wong used more than a year ago. This week Wong was sounding impatient. “The reason for urgency behind recognition is this. There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the world does not act,” she said.

For the government, recognition is as much about domestic politics as foreign policy. Australia has no influence on what’s happening in the Middle East (other than donating aid). But the Australian public is increasingly horrified by the images of the humanitarian crisis.

It’s a reminder of the power of the visual. More than half a century ago, the pictures coming out of Vietnam helped turn the US public against that war.

Right now, however, Australia remains in limbo on its journey towards recognition. The destination might seem clear but the exact arrival date is less so.

Observers are expecting it by the time of the United Nations General Assembly in late September. Anthony Albanese will be there, delivering an address during leaders’ week. The announcement could be made in the run up, or in that week.

France, the United Kingdom and Canada have all flagged recognition, the latter two with varying conditions attached.

Asked in late July about whether Australia would announce recognition at the UN, Albanese said Australia would make a decision “at an appropriate time”.

“We won’t do any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met,” he said. He spelled out a couple of these. “How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel?”

In any likely scenario, there will be no positive answers to those questions in the foreseeable future. Nor does there seem, so far, much chance the Netanyahu government in Israel will take much notice of more countries recognising Palestine. The only country, if any, it appears likely to be influenced by is the United States, and President Donald Trump’s future actions are unpredictable.

But, leaving aside the prime minister’s longstanding personal pro-Palestinian views, Albanese has to be seen to be doing something. Pressure has been long mounting in the Labor base and among the party membership for recognition. The Sydney Harbour Bridge march last weekend, attracting at least some 90,000 people (march organisers estimated many more), reemphasised to Albanese that he needs to be in tune with his base on this issue.

An instructive lesson comes from the situation in which NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns finds himself. Minns and the NSW police opposed the march going over the bridge on the grounds it would be too disruptive – they were overridden by a court decision. But ten of Minns’ caucus members marched, including environment minister Penny Sharpe.

In the federal caucus, Ed Husic, now on the backbench, is out in front on Palestine recognition. But whatever impatience there may be in caucus generally about the government’s perceived slowness, it is so far being contained. Still, Albanese won’t want to lag behind his colleagues on what is an electorally sensitive issue for Labor in some seats.

As the government prepares its timing, Albanese has embarked on a diplomatic round. It was not unexpected that he spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron this week. More surprising was his phone call with the Palestine Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas, who is widely regarded as a discredited figure.

According to the official readout from the Prime Minister’s Office, Albanese “reiterated Australia’s call for the immediate entry of aid to meet needs of people of Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the release of all hostages”.

Albanese “also reinforced Australia’s commitment to a two state solution because a just and lasting peace depends upon it”. Abbas thanked the PM “for Australia’s economic and humanitarian support. The leaders discussed deepening cooperation across a range of areas, and agreed to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.”

If Albanese made the point directly to Abbas that the Palestinian Authority needed to reform itself to have a role in a future Palestinian state, it was not recorded in the readout. But Albanese did tell a news conference on Thursday, “We as well want to see commitments from the Palestinian Authority, commitments of their governance reforms, of reforms in education, reforms across a whole range of issues”.

Before that conversation, Albanese had sought a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Thursday, the call had not yet come.

Israeli authorities can be quick to respond to what they see as anti-Israel events in Australia. There was a social media post from the Israeli foreign minister after the bridge march, urging Australians to “wake up”.

On Thursday, Albanese was asked whether he would talk with Trump before he made the decision about Palestinian recognition. “We’re a sovereign government and Australia makes decisions on behalf of the Australian government,” he said.

Incidentally, while there has been speculation that Albanese will catch up with Trump when he is in the US in September, there don’t seem any locked-in plans.

It’s hard to get the president’s time in Washington when so many leaders are knocking on the White House door in September. And there is no guarantee the president will be in New York during the leaders’ week at the UN, or have an opportunity for a meeting if he is. When the prime minister will catch up with the president continues to be a work in progress.

The opposition, which has remained steadfastly signed up to Israel, strongly opposes Palestinian recognition, saying this would be a win for Hamas. But at least some Liberals are readjusting their rhetoric to take more account of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

If, or when, Labor recognises a Palestinian state, the opposition would condemn the decision. But what would it say about whether a Coalition government would reverse the decision? That might be one for the convenient line, “we’d look at that when we were in office”.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trending Now