Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

Peter Dutton has been receiving a good many political breaks recently – Anthony Albanese’s new house is the latest icing on the cake. Although the Coalition is not expected to win next year’s election, presently it looks placed to do well.

So, as they prepare their campaign, what issue would Liberal strategists be most afraid of? My bet would be the looming battle over industrial relations. This could be more dangerous for Dutton than his risky gamble to promote nuclear energy.

With the election set to be fought largely around the cost of living, the government will reach for workplace issues as a potential lifeline. Industrial relations is made for a ferocious Labor scare campaign that the Coalition will find extremely difficult to counter.

As the opposition keeps saying, the Albanese government has delivered extensively to the union movement’s demands, especially on behalf of low-paid workers.

It has supported wage rises and will itself pay for some (notably for child care staff).

It has legislated to protect the rights of casuals, provide minimum standards for gig workers, and stop employers using labour hire arrangements to undercut wages.

Wage theft has been outlawed; domestic violence leave granted; the “right to disconnect” introduced.

Most importantly, multi-employer bargaining – hated by parts of business – has been facilitated, and this is sure to spread in coming years.

You don’t need much of a head for political tactics to devise Labor’s campaign.

It would go something like this: “The Albanese government has advocated for higher wages and given you all these benefits and protections, that the Liberals will strip back. Remember the Howard government’s WorkChoices.”

This could be potent among the lower-to-middle income workers in the outer suburbs, to whom Dutton is pitching.

As in most areas, the opposition says it will release its industrial relations policy closer to the election.

So far, it has promised to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission (the “cop on the beat”) and the Registered Organisations Commission (a regulatory body governing unions and employer organisations).

It has also said it will repeal the right to disconnect, review the labour hire law, change the definition of casual employment and reduce the regulatory burden on small business.

The Coalition is under pressure from business to agree to a wish list to tilt the playing field back towards employers. For instance this week, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry called for the definition of small businesses to be expanded, so that more firms would benefit from having fewer workplace burdens imposed on them.

The opposition must decide how many of the Labor changes it will pledge to roll back or alter. At the same time, it will have to try to reassure workers it doesn’t have a hidden agenda. Both will be difficult.

On the roll back, employers will be pressing for the Coalition to go further than is politically wise. There are senior voices within the Coalition urging caution. But whatever Dutton says he won’t do is likely to be met with scepticism by a distrustful electorate.

Regardless of the policy it announces, there’ll be no way the Coalition can avoid becoming a big target on industrial relations.

Moreover, its argument that the government’s IR changes are bad for the economy will be hard to prosecute because it will be some time before their full impact can be judged. The government itself has an independent review of its initial measures, due to report in January. That will allow it to either claim everything is hunky dory, or offer some fine-tuning.

Much of the nitty-gritty of the IR contest will be carried by Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt and opposition spokeswoman Michaelia Cash.

Watt, from the left, who recently took over the portfolio from Tony Burke, is an articulate straight-talker. Formerly agriculture minister, he has been one of Albanese’s best-performing ministers.

Cash, who like Watt is in the Senate, has plenty of experience: she was industrial relations minister in the Morrison government. But she often comes across as shrill and reliant on slogans. In this election, the easy IR slogans will be on the government’s side. Cash is also media shy – she hates not knowing what’s coming.

On the ABC on Monday, Watt rehearsed the government’s lines. Declaring IR “a key defining topic and contrast between the two major parties of government”, he said: “What this comes down to is, at a time when Australians are already doing it tough, Peter Dutton and the Coalition will make things harder for Australians. It’s the worst possible time to be cutting pay and conditions.”

While the government is holding the upper hand on the politics of IR, the issue is not without  considerable problems for industrial and political Labor.

Installing an administrator into the crime-riddled CFMEU was a correct and inevitable step. But the action has triggered a reaction among some militants in the union movement who are now splitting from the ACTU.

This week a group from the National Building Industry Group of unions met to discuss tactics.

The rebels, who plan to hold a “Trade Unions for Democracy Summit” in December and are threatening to fund independent candidates (which in practice probably means Greens), hit out at both the government and the ACTU.

“The forced administration [of the CFMEU] driven by Albanese, Murray Watt, and Tony Burke, and supported by the ACTU, has opened the door for a sustained attack on construction workers,” they said in a statement.

The boss of the Electrical Trades Union, Michael Wright,  told The Australian: “There is a deep rupture  across the labour movement.”  He said the consequences were likely to be “far reaching”.

While the rebels are only a sliver of the wider union movement, with the ACTU retaining overwhelming support, the split is disruptive and difficult to handle both within the movement and for the Labor party. The latter will be some millions of dollars short for its campaign, and the Greens’ coffers are likely to be boosted.

Cleaning up the CFMEU – and the construction industry more generally – was not on the government’s “to do” list when it came to power. It was a reaction to revelations in the Nine media of the appalling conduct within this rogue union.

But the government will seek to turn it to its advantage in its IR campaigning, using it as an example of being willing to stand up to thuggery. Läs mer…

The Albanese government is giving 49 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, despite earlier this year apparently playing down the prospect of the donation.

The latest Australian package is worth A$245 million. It brings the total Australian military aid to Ukraine since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 to A$1.3 billion, and overall Australian support to A$1.5 billion.

When asked about a possible gift of the tanks in February, Defence Minister Richard Marles said it was “not on the agenda”.

Government sources say donating the tanks required US approval since Australia had purchased them from Washington, so there had been a process to go through.

Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy, who is on his way to the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels, announced the decision in London. In Brussels, Conroy will meet with the Ukraine defence minister.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea form the “Indo-Pacific Four” group of non-NATO countries attending the meeting.

The 49 tanks are near the end of their life, so a small number will have to be repaired before they are delivered. Alternatively, they could be used as spare parts if Ukraine wants them delivered more quickly. Ukraine will decide which option to pursue.

The Australian army is retaining a handful of the M1A1 Abrams to help the transition to the M1A2 fleet of tanks.

Conroy said: “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine in their fight against Russia’s illegal invasion. These tanks will deliver more firepower and mobility to the Ukrainian armed forces, and complement the support provided by our partners for Ukraine”. Läs mer…

Unless the government pulls up its political socks, Anthony Albanese could find himself spending a good deal of time in his  spectacular new home, with its uninterrupted ocean views, sooner than he wishes.

This week’s Newspoll has the Coalition moving in front on a two-party basis for the first time, with Labor’s primary vote at 31%.

Albanese would hope for another full term as prime minister. But if Labor fell into minority government at next year’s election, there would likely be pressure before too long to replace him. He would not be seen as a good bet for the 2028 election.

If Peter Dutton pulled off a miracle win in a few months, Albanese could be regularly whale watching this time next year.

Since the PM’s purchase of the $4.3 million house at the wonderfully-named Copacabana, was revealed on Tuesday,  two narratives have contended.

Critics denounce Albanese as “tone deaf” in his timing during a housing affordability crisis.

It was more than awkward that just hours after the news broke, Albanese was appearing with minister Clare O’Neil in Queensland to make an announcement about  housing.

from Realestate.com, CC BY

The Copacabana house is a story made for that renter-in-perpetuity, Greens spokesman Max Chandler-Mather.

Dutton, who has bought and sold a few properties in his time, is careful with his words, knowing others will stir the outrage.

The alternative narrative is that Albanese, marrying for a second time next year, is entitled to a private life. This involves reordering his property arrangements ahead of a wedding.

Moreover, some observe, the criticism of him is the “politics of envy” or the “tall poppy syndrome”.

But there’s another narrative. Suddenly, Albanese’s story has become “all about him” again, as it regularly does when he reverts to talking about his humble origins.

Stressed voters could be forgiven for being impatient, or cynical about Albanese’s protestations this week that although he now has a good income, “I also know what it’s like to struggle”.

My mum lived in the one public housing that she was born in for all of her 65 years. And I know what it’s like, which is why I want to help all Australians into a home, whether it be public homes or private rentals or home ownership.

Unfairly or not, the house story will be read by some as a prime minister spending time on his own affairs.

Buying a house is a major and reasonably time-consuming process, unless it was outsourced it to partner, Jodie Haydon. The Central Coast was chosen because her family lives there.

The narrative can also be cast to look like Albanese is preparing for his post-political life while he is still the most important individual in politics.

Whether this is accurate becomes beside the point, in this era when perceptions can be paramount.

from Realestate.com, CC BY

Unsurprisingly, he was asked whether he planned to retire at the house. “I’m planning to be in my current job for a very long period of time,” he said.

In mid-1991 Bob Hawke purchased a property overlooking Sydney Harbour with a jetty and “stunning views”, and a price tag of $1.23 million.

Hawke’s leadership was already on the decline – by year’s end he was replaced by Paul Keating.

Apart from the bad publicity for Albanese, the house affair has taken a good deal of attention from what the government wanted to talk about, notably, what it’s doing to protect consumers and the like.

It has meant his ministerial colleagues are forced to defend him when they are confronted with awkward questions.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen tried to make the best fist of it that he could, when quizzed during an interview.

“Every Australian is entitled to buy and sell property. Now Anthony cops it when he sells the property. He cops it when he provides a rent holiday to his tenants. He cops it when he buys a property,” he said.

“I think most average Australians say, fair enough. You know, this is what aspiration is about, most average Australians say, well, you know, we all buy and sell properties.”

When you are in the public eye it is not, however, such an ordinary story.

By the way, when Albanese goes to the G20 in Rio de Janeiro next month, he can get to see the real Copacabana. Läs mer…

Queenslanders vote on October 26 when, according to the polls, the almost decade-long Labor government is expected to be defeated.

Last year, in a bid to improve its chances, Labor dumped long-time premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in favour of Steven Miles.

Miles has handed out or promised extensive and expensive cost-of-living support, including $1000 rebates on electricity bills, 50-cent fares, and now promising free school lunches.

But even all this seems to have failed to drastically change the mood in the electorate.

To discuss what’s happening on the ground, the potential outcome and what that could mean for the federal Labor government, we’re joined by the ABC’s election specialist, Antony Green and The Australian’s Queensland editor, Michael McKenna.

Green says:

The swing has shifted from being catastrophic to just being very bad.[…] the odds are the government’s going to lose.

All the government’s marginal seats are in the regions, in the regional cities in the north of the state. If it’s a 5 or 6% swing uniform, then all those regional city seats will be knocked out. And once they’ve lost a couple of seats in Brisbane’s belt as well, they’re out of government. So they’re in a very difficult position.

On what a poor result for the Labor party could mean federally, Green says:

Labor won the last federal election without doing well in Queensland – [there] was always a view that they couldn’t win an election without doing well in Queensland. They did well in WA instead. Can Labor do worse in Queensland at the next federal election? Well that’s a tough ask, it’s hard to see how. You would have to be back to the level of the defeat of the Whitlam government or the Keating government to do worse in Queensland, and I’m not sure that it’s that level of disaster for the Labor Party. I think there will be a lot of comment on that. But I mean this is a Queensland election and it’s fought on and very much based around sort of Queensland issues.

Michael McKenna says of the general mood:

I think for the first time in a few years, I’m seeing a real mood for change in government. Labor is seeking a fourth term on the trot. You can see it in the published polling, which for about the last two years has shown that Labor’s support is sliding and the Liberal National Party has the momentum. I think there’s a real ‘it’s time’ factor.

What we’ve seen is that Labor’s brand is still seemingly on the nose, particularly in the regions. And Steven Miles, […] he’s given a red hot go, but so far, I’m not seeing much evidence that he’s going to pull out a miracle win.

McKenna highlights Opposition Leader David Crisafulli’s strategy:

There’s no doubt that he has adopted a small target strategy to, in one way, focus people’s attention on the failings of a government which has a record of ten years, and there’s always going to be failings and things that are going to make people angry. But I would say that this is arguably the smallest of small target strategies that we’ve ever seen.

David Crisafulli really only wants to talk […] about the issues that he wants to talk about, and those are crime, particularly youth crime, cost of living, housing and health. But he doesn’t like to be pushed onto any other issues, and he’s done a good job in one sense in that he’s probably the most disciplined conservative party leader I’ve seen in decades in Queensland. Läs mer…

Hard on the heels of pledging a crackdown on excessive surcharges, the Albanese government has promised legislation to ban unfair trading practices.

The government said this would include specific prohibitions on various “dodgy” practices.

“From concert tickets to hotel rooms to gym memberships, Australians are fed up with businesses using tricky tactics that make it difficult to end subscriptions or add hidden fees to purchases,” the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said in a statement.

“These practices can distort purchasing decisions, or result in additional costs, putting more pressure on the cost of living.”

They said the government would deal with

“subscription traps” that make it difficult to cancel a subscription
“drip pricing” characterised by hidden fees or fees added during the purchase
deceptive and manipulative online practices. These aim to confuse consumers, such as for example by creating a false sense of urgency, warning there is only a limited time to purchase
dynamic pricing, where a price changes during the transaction
requiring a consumer to set up an account and provide unnecessary information for an online purchase
a business making it difficult for a consumer to contact it when they have a problem with the product.

Earlier this week Arts Minister Tony Burke said on the ABC the government was not looking at “dynamic pricing” in the music industry.

Asked on Four Corners whether dynamic pricing should be allowed in Australia, Burke said: “Surge pricing is something that, as consumers, people have always dealt with.

”I don’t love it, but I think we have to be realistic, it’s always been there. It’s not something we’re looking at, at the moment.”

Asked about the discrepancy, a government spokesperson said the Four Corners interview “was recorded a month ago, before this policy existed”.

Treasury will consult on the design of the planned changes. The government on Wednesday will put out a consultation paper on reforms for greater protections for consumers and small businesses under the consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification in the Australian Consumer Law.

The government says it will work with the states to have a final reform proposal in the first half of next year.

There will be penalties for suppliers that refuse to give consumers a remedy such as a replacement product or a refund when legally required.

“Currently, it can be difficult for consumers to obtain a remedy, especially when engaging in the digital economy,” the government statement said.

The reforms would empower the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state and territory agencies to pursue breaches of consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification provisions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said “hidden fees and traps are putting even more pressure on the cost of living and it needs to stop”. Läs mer…

The Albanese government has announced a first step in what it says is a crackdown on excessive card surcharges and threatened a ban on surcharges for debit cards from early 2026.

In the latest of its cost-of-living measures, the government will provide $2.1 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission “to tackle excessive surcharges”.

The government also says it is prepared to ban debit card surcharges from January 1 2026, subject to further work by the Reserve Bank and “safeguards to ensure both small businesses and consumers can benefit from lower costs”.

The government is not considering a ban on credit card surcharges, although the ACCC scrutiny will cover both debit and credit cards.

The bank is reviewing merchant card payment costs and surcharging. Its first consultation paper will be released on Tuesday.

The government said in a statement: “the declining use of cash and the rise of electronic payments means that more Australians are getting slugged by surcharges, even when they use their own money”.

“The RBA’s review is an important step to reduce the costs small businesses face when processing payments. We want to ease costs for consumers without added costs for small businesses, or unintended consequences for the broader economy,” the statement from the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said.

Funding for the ACCC “will enable the consumer watchdog to crack down on illegal and unfair surcharging practices and increase education and compliance activities”.

The Reserve Bank required card providers such as Visa and Mastercard to remove their no‐surcharge rules in 2003 allowing retailers to directly pass on the costs of accepting card payments.

With the spread of payments by card, surcharges have become ubiquitous.

In a parliamentary hearing in August the head of the National Australia Bank Andrew Irvine complained about having to pay a 10% surcharge when he bought a cup of coffee in Sydney.

He told an inquiry it was “outrageous”, saying he didn’t like “the lack of transparency and lack of consistency”.

The ACCC regulates surcharges and can require merchants prove a surcharge is justified. It can take merchants to court to enforce the regulations governing surcharges, and has done so. But many charges are still higher than they are supposed to be.

The European Union bans surcharges.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “Consumers shouldn’t be punished for using cards or digital payments, and at the same time, small businesses shouldn’t have to pay hefty fees just to get paid themselves”.

The total cost to Australian consumers of surcharges is disputed – the RBA review will look at the likely cost. Läs mer…

Angry, accusatory partisan exchanges over the Middle East war have dominated federal politics this week. But for most ordinary voters the issue remains “over there”.

Apart from the minorities for whom it has an immediate impact – Jewish people frightened by antisemitism, the Muslim community, those with families in Lebanon and elsewhere – it’s a tragedy without tangible relevance to their day-to-day lives.

On Thursday however, Treasurer Jim Chalmers warned the foreign crisis could feed directly into the domestic cost-of-living crisis, via the price of oil.

Midway through this week, oil was trading 11% lower than it was a year ago, but 7% higher than a week-and-a-half ago, Chalmers told a news conference.

Treasury estimates that if prices were 10% higher for an entire year, this would reduce Australia’s GDP by 0.1% and increase the consumer price index by 0.4 percentage points.

Nothing is certain about the coming months but the potential implications are obvious. Consumers would feel the effects at the petrol pump of the higher oil prices.

ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and Treasurer Jim Chalmers at a press conference on Thursday.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

The Reserve Bank will also be watching the possible trajectory of oil prices, together with all the other indicators relevant to its decisions on interest rates. This is against the background of the government’s desperation for a rate cut (or two) before the election.

Although an increase in fuel prices (hitting businesses as well as families) would not be the government’s fault, it would be blamed.

According to Labor, at present there’s a disconnect between, on the one hand, the partisan political heat the Middle East war is generating and, on the other, the public’s lack of engagement with the issue.

Voters not concentraing on the Middle East

Labor sources say focus group research this week, done with swinging voters, found most people aren’t closely following Middle East events.

Beyond that, they are generally satisfied with the government’s stand and don’t think the crisis is distracting it from the cost of living (which is separate from how they think the government is handling the cost of living).

This accords with this week’s Essential poll, in which 56% said they were satisfied with the government’s response on the Israel-Gaza war. Another 30% thought the government had been too supportive of Israel; 14% thought it had been too harsh on Israel.

Except among some of those directly invested, the Middle East crisis is not likely to be a vote changer.

In the domestic political battle, Dutton is trying to use the conflict to paint Albanese as weak. That’s a long bow on the issue itself, although more generally the prime minister and his government have come to be seen as having lost their way.

While Dutton is trying to define Albanese negatively, Albanese is attempting to make Dutton a bigger target.

NBN sale a distraction

Thus on Wednesday the prime minister, shortly before he jumped on his plane to attend the ASEAN-Australia summit in Laos, personally introduced legislation that would ensure the NBN remained in public hands.

If the Coalition didn’t vote for the bill, that would show it would sell the NBN, Labor claimed. It was a crude attempt at scare politics, easily seen through. The Coalition is not suggesting it would sell the NBN and if it did, would most people care? Anyway, originally Labor planned for the NBN to be privatised. Dutton ridiculed the tactic.

As we look to election year, the 2025 parliamentary sitting calendar came out this week. It has a fortnight sitting in February and pencils in a budget for March 25, which would set up a May poll. Of course this doesn’t rule out an earlier (March) election although Albanese has said more than once he plans a pre-election budget.

Regardless, we are already in the election campaign. At caucus on Tuesday Albanese was, for the second time recently, talking about the second term agenda.

Announcements like confetti

Announcements are raining down like confetti especially related to cost-of-living issues. Supermarkets are being heavily targeted. Launching his merger reform legislation on Thursday, Chalmers said every supermarket merger would be screened, regardless of whether it fell under the new arrangements.

Present polls are showing the most likely election result, to be delivered by sour voters, is a hung parliament with a minority Labor government.

Albanese told caucus he was focused on winning majority government. Dutton knows that if the Coalition can’t win, the more crossbenchers it can force Labor to need to rely on, the more unstable a second-term Labor government would be.

Both sides have a great deal of bedding-down to do before the actual campaign.

Key items on Labor’s legislative agenda aren’t just not introduced, they are unseen – for instance, on gambling advertising, social media restrictions for young people, electoral funding.

Major bills are stuck in the parliament – notably on housing, where the Greens may eventually do a deal but are stringing out the pain.

On the other side, the Coalition has released minimal policy. On its controversial nuclear power plan, it has put out minimal details, in particular refusing to produce costings. It can’t hold back everything until the last moment.

Will the campaign even matter?

When the formal campaign comes, how much will it matter?

There is the old saying “you can’t fatten the pig on market day”. In other words, the election result may be decided well before the actual campaign.

What do the last three elections (2016, 2019, 2022) tell us about the importance of the formal campaign? In each case, the result was narrow, a matter of a handful of seats.

In 2022, there was probably nothing Morrison could have done in the last weeks to salvage the situation – to use another farm metaphor, his goose was cooked. In the event, he ran a bad campaign.

In 2016 prime minister Malcolm Turnbull just scraped home; Turnbull’s flawed campaigning maximised the number of seats he lost.

In 2019, when it seemed Bill Shorten was almost certain to take Labor to victory, its defeat may have been sealed in the campaign itself, although its heavy policy load always put it in a precarious situation.

In 2022 Albanese was judged a poor campaigner. Aware of this, Labor strategists will be doing everything to make sure he is fully prepared for “gotcha” questions (on which he faltered last time) and the other hazards that can arise spontaneously.

Dutton’s forte is negativity, his natural style is the attack. But in those final weeks, more will be needed.

One challenge in leaving policy releases late is that holes can slip through, inviting slip ups.

Dutton has far from established himself as a rounded alternative prime minister. Indeed his current approach on the Middle East, completely lacking nuance, raises questions about how he would handle the complexities of foreign policy generally. It has not been reassuring. Läs mer…

China has removed the last significant trade barrier it imposed on Australia, with a timetable to resume full lobster imports by the end of the year.

Anthony Albanese announced the breakthrough after a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang in Vientiane, where the prime minister is attending the ASEAN-Australia summit.

Albanese said the end of the barrier would be in time for the Chinese New Year. This would be welcomed by those in the lobster trade in places including Geraldton, Western Australia, and in South Australia and Tasmania, he said.

The lobster decision means the Chinese over the last two years have removed trade barriers of nearly $20 billion slapped on Australia during the time of the former government when relations between the two countries went into a deep freeze. This followed various Australian decisions, including the call for an inquiry into the origins of COVID.

Remaining impediments are now worth less than $500 million, with two red meat establishments still affected.

The lobster trade was worth more than $700 million in 2019.

More than 3000 people are employed in the lobster industry, 2000 of them in WA.

“The reinstatement in normalised trade for all commodities is front and centre of the Government’s engagement strategy with China,” Albanese said.

“It is in the interests of both our countries to continue this path of stabilising our relationship. A resumption in trade for all Australian commodities is an important part of this process.” Läs mer…

Senator Fatima Payman, launching her new political party Australia’s Voice, is pitching strongly at the large number of voters who are disillusioned with the big parties.

“Australians are fed up with the major parties having a duopoly, a stranglehold over our democracy. If we need to drag the two major parties kicking and screaming to do what needs to be done, we will.”

Payman, who stresses she is not forming a Muslim party, quoted both Gough Whitlam and Robert Menzies in introducing the new group.

She said the party was “for the disenfranchised, the unheard, and those yearning for real change”. But she was short on any detail, saying policies and candidates would come later.

Payman quit the Labor party to join the crossbench after disciplinary action that followed her crossing the floor over Gaza. A senator from Western Australia, she doesn’t face the voters until the election after next.

It has previously been flagged the party intends to field Senate candidates as well as run in some lower house seats. Its strategist is so-called preference whisperer Glenn Druery, who works for Payman. Druery had success in promoting micro-party candidates running for upper houses in the past, but tightened federal electoral rules mean it will be an uphill battle to get a senator elected for the new party.Payman told a news conference on Wednesday: “This is more a movement than a party. It’s a movement for a fairer, more inclusive, Australia. Together we will hold our leaders accountable and ensure that your voice – Australia’s Voice – is never silenced.”

Payman invoked “the great Gough Whitlam” when he said, “There are some people who are so frightened to put a foot wrong that they won’t put a foot forward”.

“This comment made in 1985 applies so much to the current Labor Party who has lost its way,” Payman said.

Looking also to the other side of politics she said: “Australia’s Voice believes in a system where people come first, where your concerns are not just heard but acted upon. We reject the status quo that serves the powerful and ignores the rest, the forgotten people as Robert Menzies put it.”

She said after spending countless hours listening to Australians, the message she’d heard had been “a growing frustration”.

“A feeling of being left behind, of shouting into a void, only for their concerns to fall on deaf ears.

”So many of you have told me, with emotion in your hearts. ‘We need something different We need a voice’.

”It is this cry for change that has brought us here today. Because we can no longer sit by while our voices are drowned out by the same old politics. It’s time to stand up, to rise together, and to take control of our future.”

Underlining the party would be inclusive, Payman said, “This is a party for all Australians. We’re going to ensure that everyone is represented, whether it’s the mums and dads who are trying to make ends meet, or the young students out there, or whether it’s the grandparents who want to have dignity and respect as they age.” Läs mer…

The Albanese government on Wednesday will introduce legislation to ensure the NBN remains in government ownership.

The move is designed to set up a test for the Coalition, putting pressure on the opposition ahead of the election to declare whether it would try to privatise the NBN.

The government said in a statement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland: “The Coalition rushed to declare the NBN ‘complete’ so they could put it on the block for sale – selling out Australian consumers and regional communities.

”The Albanese government won’t let that happen. This legislation will ensure the NBN is owned by who it belongs to – the Australian people.”

The upgrades the government had undertaken “are already making a real difference in the lives of Australians through faster, more reliable internet access. Keeping the NBN in public hands will lock in affordable and accessible high speed internet for all Australians for generations to come.”

Albanese said:“The Coalition made a mess of the NBN – my government is getting on with the job of fixing it and making sure it stays in public hands, where it belongs.”

Rowland said: “Australians don’t trust the Coalition not to flog off the NBN just like they did with Telstra, resulting in higher prices and poorer services, especially in the regions.”

Downgraded

The Rudd Labor government announced what was to be a predominantly fibre-to-the-home wholesale network in 2009, promising it would cost $43 billion and later be privatised to claw back the expense.

In 2010 Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said Labor “remained firmly committed to selling its stake in NBN Co after the network was fully built and operational, subject to market conditions and security considerations”.

By 2020 the government was estimated to have spent $51 billion on a scaled-down version of the project completed using a mix of technologies.

In June that year a review by the Parliamentary Budget Office put its fair value at $8.7 billion. Läs mer…