Incoming Feed Items

Well, Dutton’s fear-based politics at least.

For the second election in a row, voters have delivered a progressive super-majority to Parliament and now the only thing standing in the way of Labor implementing its progressive platform is Labor.

Dutton has always been a political hardman. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull once described him as a “thug” unsuited to being prime minister of a multicultural society like Australia.

After leading in the polls for months ahead of the election, Dutton hardly put a foot right during the campaign. Egged on and amplified by the Murdoch press and a host of right-wing lobby groups, Dutton’s instincts to announce Trump-like policies to sack half of Canberra’s federal public service, blame immigrants, delay climate action with his nuclear distraction and lean hard into the culture wars – decrying the need for Welcome to Country at Anzac Day, ‘wokeness’ in school curriculums and universities – led the Coalition to its worst defeat in decades.

Peter Dutton gave a gracious concession speech on election night. Several Liberal politicians remarked that those comments reflected the Peter Dutton they know in real life, with Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie calling Dutton a “good guy”.

On this episode, Maiy Azize joins Paul Barclay to discuss the housing crisis, how the government stopped directly providing housing and started subsidising private investors, why immigration is not to blame, how the housing crisis is an inequality crisis, why ‘supply’ is not the main problem nor main solution, and why Australia needs to massively invest in social housing.

This discussion was recorded on 20 March 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Maiy Azize, national spokesperson, Everybody’s Home and deputy director, Anglicare Australia // @MaiyAzize

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:  

Australia’s sick housing joke, Dollars & Sense (March 2025)

UPDATE 5/11 AT 6:PM: I am closing questions because there are a lot! I’ll post my answers this week. The answers will be open to everyone to read — I don’t paywall in times of peril. But if you’d like to keep this newsletter going, consider becoming a paid subscriber:

I am back from a one-month, nine-city book tour for The Last American Road Trip — and I’m still hungry for questions! Welcome to the return of the monthly Q & A. We’ve got some catching up to do, but first, a few announcements:

I have a lot of writing to get out over the next couple of weeks, especially following up on the Trump Tariff Crisis and the Future of the Dollar. I also need to dig back into the state of play at the Bureau of Fiscal Service. Today however, it's important to document signs of the impact Notes on the Crises is already having. One major sign I’ve had my eye on is the impact of my March 13 piece, published simultaneously in this newsletter and Rolling Stone, on New York City’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over its so-called “clawback” of 80.5 million dollars of congressionally appropriated FEMA funds. 

Mr. President, I rise today to engage in this great debate that is raging across our country. Turn on the TV, read the newspapers, or open your phone and you will be overwhelmed by the back-and-forth over tariffs, trade deficits, prices, and markets. We hear the talking heads say that America simply can’t afford President Trump’s insistence on more favorable trade policies. We hear much less about whether America can afford to continue down the road we have traveled these past 30 years.

That is not a question that people in this city are asking. For many, it is not a question that appears to have occurred to them at all. The debates right now are about the future and how President Trump’s policies will shape it. That is good. These are important debates that we should have. But, today, I rise because I want to speak about the past.

I am speaking as an American but, in particular, as a proud Missourian, a boy from Bridgeton. My folks—they weren’t wealthy. My grandfather was an infantryman in World War II and returned from the war with an eighth-grade education and some money he won playing craps on the Queen Elizabeth on his way home. All of his children worked in his butcher shop growing up. Later, I remember seeing my dad work seven days a week on the midnight shift to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. He worked hard and lived honestly. And, just one generation later, look where we are.

Some, including his pledge to introduce a National Firearms Register, have still not been implemented.

12 days after 35 innocent Australians were massacred, then-Prime Minister Howard announced a National Firearms Agreement. He was lauded for his bravery in standing up to the powerful gun lobby. It was considered one of the finest moments of his time in office and remains a key part of his legacy.

But, almost three decades on, the Howard reforms are not living up to their promise.

• Australia still does not have a National Firearms Register.
• Australia still allows minors to hold some licences and operate firearms.
• Australia’s gun control laws vary from state to state, making them difficult to enforce.
• There are now 800,000 more guns in Australia than after the 1996 gun buyback, which saw 650,000 guns taken out of circulation.

“Australians need gun laws that live up to the Howard Government’s bravery and, right now, Australia does not have them,” said Alice Grundy, Research Manager at The Australia Institute.

“The National Firearms Agreement, announced 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre, was ambitious, politically brave and necessary for public safety.

“However, some of the provisions set out way back in May 1996, and reaffirmed by all Australian governments eight years ago, remain unimplemented.

President Trump’s barrage of tariffs has produced in response a barrage of criticisms. Some take the form of an appeal to expert authority: economists, we are told, agree that tariffs are bad policy, and thus the administration’s recent “Liberation Day” tariffs are prima facie irrational.

Such claims are, of course, exaggerations. At least some economists—even if unorthodox ones—have supported the use of tariffs in certain situations. Indeed, it is hard to see how economists can claim to reject tariffs in principle since they as a class do not reject all government interventions in the market. We rarely hear that economists agree in condemning the income tax or social assistance to the poor even though these policies are market interventions.

Nevertheless, suppose all economists actually agree that tariffs should be rejected in principle. What then? It does not follow that tariffs are necessarily bad public policy. Economists specialize in the conditions that make for an efficient and prosperous economy—but that is not the sole aim of government policy. A strong economy is not the same thing as a strong and secure political community. The latter is the aim of the statesman, who must take a more comprehensive view of things than the scholar who specializes in economics.

The revolutionary online publication in which this note appears calls itself “The American Mind.” That memorable phrase was introduced into the American political tradition 200 years ago today, in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to his Virginia neighbor, Henry Lee, on May 8, 1825.

Jefferson was at the time on the board of visitors of the University of Virginia, which he had founded just a few years earlier. Lee had written as one interested “in the renown of our ancestors, and the history of the Country” to call Jefferson’s attention to certain historical documents in Lee’s possession. “These papers,” Lee wrote, “might have formed the materials, out of which the fine propositions of the Declaration of Independence arose.”

Jefferson was already one of those ancestors in whose renown Lee was interested. He responded with a historic reflection that deserved to be remembered through the ages, explaining the purposes of the Declaration:

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Hayden discuss the election result, Trump’s Hollywood tariffs, and what retail spending figures reveal about the state of economy.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 8 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Hayden Starr, Digital Media Manager, the Australia Institute // @haydenstarr

Show notes:

‘The Reserve Bank played it safe and didn’t cut interest rates in April – and households suffer’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (May 2025)

The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) is urging the government to use its mandate from Saturday’s election to replace climate rhetoric with real climate action.

The network has released its analysis of the election result, concluding that the return of the government “is largely a better outcome than a Dutton-led coalition, where climate change action may have seen significant roll-backs and weakening.”

But the report paints a bleak picture of the Albanese government’s first-term record on climate action.

It highlights the gaping divide between what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said at events like the Pacific Island Forum and what his government actually did to help the “Pacific Family”.

PICAN is urging real action on several key climate areas, including:

Stopping Australia’s expansion of – and reliance on – fossil fuels.

Resolving the significant discrepancies between Australia’s climate commitments and climate actions.

Improving Australia’s grossly inadequate pledges on climate change loss and damage.

Reducing Australia’s reliance on questionable and ineffective carbon offset schemes.

This article expands upon observations the writer, Neil Heller, made on LinkedIn. Click here to view the original post.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Crowd Funding and Mob Rule | The Roundtable Ep. 266

To cap off the first 100 days of his administration, Trump sparred at length with Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press over his record so far—from immigration successes to choppy economic waters. Alarmed by Trump’s use of emergency powers in rolling out this agenda, David Linker at the New York Times draws some loose connections—to say the least—between Trump, Claremont, and Carl Schmitt. Meanwhile, Shiloh Hendricks has raised over $700 thousand from supporters after a video of her using the n-word prompted threats of retaliation. The guys discuss Trump’s first months, midterm prospects, and our climate of race politics. Plus: media recommendations!

Recommended reading:

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

On this episode of The Chris Hedges Report, Chris Hedges speaks with filmmaker Alex Gibney about Gibney’s documentary series The Dark Money Game, which examines the “labyrinth of mirrors” that facilitates untraceable corruption through the American political system. Although both the Democratic and Republican parties have served the interests of the billionaire class since well before the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling in 2010, the removal of restrictions on political spending created a system by which corporations could route millions of dollars in bribes through an intricate, opaque network of nonprofit organizations and super PACs.

This election result was anything but a vote for the foreign-owned commercial salmon industry.

Independent MP for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, attributes Labor’s success in Braddon – where Anne Urquhart won the seat off the Liberals – to “enormous pork-barrelling” by the ALP.

Braddon takes in Macquarie Harbour, where huge commercial salmon farms are putting the world-renowned Maugean Skate at serious risk of extinction.

Intensive salmon farming in the harbour remains under review.

In Franklin, the epicentre of the state’s salmon industry, first-time candidate, Independent Peter George, achieved a swing of around 6 percent against Labor.

Mr George focused strongly on fixing the salmon industry’s problems and – while he did not win the seat – he did win the vast majority of votes at booths immediately adjacent to where the industry operates.

“The fact that an independent got over 20 percent of the primary vote. That was a very strong anti-salmon vote,” said Independent Member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie.

“Around 80% of the salmon industry is in southeast Tasmania. People living along the coast of the Franklin electorate live with the daily impact of this industry, including dead and decaying chunks of fish washing up on their beaches,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania

“That’s where Peter George won the most votes. He also won a 6% swing away from Labor.”

Megyn Kelly recently appealed to conservative men to stop preferring women who will not work. Young conservative men “are telling young, amazing conservative women that they are not attractive if they also work,” she said. We would be losing lots of talent, Kelly continued, if we tell young ladies they are only valuable if they give up work and “go into the home and only raise a family.”

The popular podcaster was thinking about recent polling showing a conservative vibe shift about “traditional gender roles.” Nearly 50% of Republican men and 37% of Republican women think “women should return to their traditional gender roles in society,” a 23% increase among men and a 14% increase among women since 2022. Support for “traditional gender roles” among Democrats unsurprisingly remains very low.

Conservatives should greet the rising popularity of tradmoms as a boon, not a crisis, so long as we avoid too narrow an understanding of tradmoms.

Over the last decade for which data is available, salmon industry revenue has doubled from $543 million in 2013-14 to $1,352 million in 2022-23. Total revenue over the decade was $8,779 million.

Meanwhile, tax paid by the three largest salmon farms has been near-zero. The total combined reported tax payments by Tassal, Huon and SeaLord (owners of Petuna) over this period was $51 million. While obviously tax is paid on profits not revenue, that the total tax paid over 11 years by the salmon industry is just 0.6% of revenue suggests either a deeply unprofitable industry or (more clearly) one where Australians are clearly not getting a fair return.

But wait, there’s less.

As we’ve explained before, the $6m paid since 2019 is all from SeaLord, which also has non-salmon farming activities. Following its takeover of Petuna, SeaLord’s revenue increased, but tax payments decreased. This suggests that Petuna’s salmon operations don’t contribute to SeaLord’s tax payments, but actually reduce them.

To better understand the relationship between privacy and safety in addressing online harms, Digital Rights Watch has commissioned a research report featuring polling conducted by Essential Media. It covers some topical technologies like facial recognition and age assurance tech, client-side scanning in CSAEM detection, and methods of improving safety without impacting privacy.

We do not believe that a safer internet requires giving up our privacy. There is strong support for privacy reforms in Australia, more so than indiscriminately banning children from social media. We are more sceptical about the idea of using AI to police web safety, unconvinced that these techno-centric approaches will create safer online environments.

This polling research should reinforce the need to carefully think through approaches to improving online safety and ensuring that any form of age or identity verification includes appropriate safeguards and protections.

Read the rest of the report below:

Last week, Ronald Dodson wrote in The American Mind that “acceptance of a limited Iranian nuclear capability could, paradoxically, enhance long-term regional stability and better serve the security interests of both the United States and Israel.” Dodson claims he premised this astonishing conclusion on decision theory courses he took while in college. He also supports his conclusion with inaccurate assessments of geopolitics generally—and the Middle East specifically.

Because Dodson favors Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb, he views a military strike as “unnecessary.” He believes military action would fail and would “destabilize” the region. Given his objective, he never discusses non-military alternatives or explains how to induce Iran to “limit” its nuclear capability.

In the context of Dodson’s core thesis and his other writings, the question of whether to attack Iran is a red herring: his goal is not to avoid kinetic action, but to facilitate Iran’s development of a nuclear capability that “restrains” Israel.

In his American Mind essay, Dodson observes that when a state sacrifices stability for “abstract moral clarity or the illusion of control, it erodes its own foundations…. In Iran’s case, only strategic patience—not a theology of war—can cultivate such space.”

We at Per Capita are deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Race Mathews, a dear friend of Per Capita. We offer our heartfelt condolences to Iola and family.  

Race was truly a giant of Australian politics. His contributions to public policy in this country have been enormous, and his wisdom, advice and experience are weaved into the fabric of Per Capita. 

Race was a politician, an academic, an author and a reformer. He served at all three levels of government, including Croydon Shire Council, the Whitlam Government and the Victorian Cain and Kirner Governments. He was a stalwart of the Australian Fabian Society for over four decades.  

His legislative reforms span education, Medicare, gun control, police, disaster management, the arts and child protection. 

Race was driven by a passion for fairness and justice. He was a genuinely inclusive, intelligent, kind and welcoming man; the very best kind of politician that we have ever had in this country. 

On this episode of Follow the Money, Chief Political Analyst Amy Remeikis and Chief Economist Greg Jericho join Ebony Bennett to discuss the election result, the legislative priorities of the new parliament and the future of the conservative side of politics.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 6 May 2025 and things may have changed.

Pre-order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series on the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst, the Australia Institute // @amyremeikis

Guest: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

Host: Ebony Bennet, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

There is no such thing as a safe seat | Fact sheet, the Australia Institute (October 2024)

The first sign of just how revolutionary President Trump’s second term would be actually came two years before his re-election. On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, delivering pro-life conservatives a victory decades in the making—but which, in the end, was only made possible by Donald Trump.

Before Trump’s first term, Republican presidents had displayed a remarkable knack for preserving a pro-Roe majority on the Court: George H.W. Bush more than offset the conservative jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas by appointing Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. And while both of George W. Bush’s appointees voted to reverse Roe, the younger Bush had tried hard to place a family crony, rather than a judicial conservative like Samuel Alito, on the bench.

Would Alberto Gonzales or Harriet Miers, Bush’s preferred choices, have overturned Roe? Would Chief Justice John Roberts have borne the burden of being the man who ended Roe if his had been the deciding vote, rather than just one of a 6-3 supermajority made possible by Trump’s three anti-Roe justices? Mitt Romney was a staunch supporter of Roe—and a financial contributor to Planned Parenthood—until he started running for the Republican presidential nomination. Would a Republican like Romney, or John McCain, or another Bush have dared do what Trump did?