Battleground seats hit by 'false' Labor election ads
AAP FactCheck
has identified thousands of dollars of funding for federal election advertisements in seats including Gorton and Hawke in Melbourne's west and Lyons in Tasmania.
The ads claim that Mr Dutton has cut billions from hospitals, before claiming he has said he'll "cut $350 billion more" over an image of a person lying in a medical crash cart.
Labor said the ads don't claim Mr Dutton will cut billions from hospitals specifically and instead refer to coalition plans to wind back other Labor programs such as free TAFE.
Labor also pointed to various statements Mr Dutton has made about wasteful spending and claims that Labor has lifted spending by nearly $350 billion since coming to power in 2022.
But Mr Dutton has never said the coalition will cut $350 billion.
Mr Dutton has also pledged to match Labor's funding for essential frontline services like hospitals.
Labor aren't the only ones making some false claims ahead of polling day this weekend.
Experts told
AAP FactCheck
Mr Dutton's claim that Labor took $80 billion out of defence is wrong.
Instead, they say, the Albanese government has increased defence spending.
Under Labor defence has delayed, reprioritised and changed some projects to make room for spending on other capabilities like nuclear-powered submarines, experts explained.
But money has not been removed or cut from the defence budget.
Election misinformation also continues to swirl on social media as the campaign draws to a close, including false claims that voting on Saturday is fraud. The false claim leans into several sovereign citizen myths.
An AI deepfake video that purports to show US podcast host Joe Rogan attacking Foreign Minister Penny Wong has also been sharwidely circulated.
CLAIMS REVISITED
AAP FactCheck has been debunking election claims for several weeks. That hasn't stopped some of the key political players from repeating them.
* Mr Dutton repeated a misleading claim in the final debate last Sunday that electricity bills have risen $1300, the figure has been called "very cherrypicked" by a leading expert.
* Mr Albanese repeated a debunked claim in the final debate that the coalition's nuclear plan will cost $600 billion. Experts say no one knows what nuclear power may cost.
* Mr Albanese also repeated a misleading claim that Australians would be $7200 worse off under Mr Dutton, at the National Press Club on Wednesday.
* Mr Dutton on Wedensday repeated false claims that Labor's energy policy is renewables only.
Visit
AAP FactCheck's website
to read all of these checks in full.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear
Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation."
Sky News AU
10 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Albanese government set to overhaul childcare subsidy model
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has revealed the Albanese government may need to completely overhaul its childcare subsidy model. Universal childcare has been the goal for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese since he pledged to work toward it during the election campaign. Speaking to The Australian, The Treasurer says universal care is an ambitious plan which needs to be achieved in an affordable way.
7NEWS
11 hours ago
- 7NEWS
7NEWS The Issue: Why Trump's latest veiled threat could spell trouble for the pride of Australia
It was a telling measure of the value Australians put in the country's 77-year-old Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In mid March, as the Albanese government looked for an issue to give it impetus for a soon-to-be-called election, it turned to the PBS; loved in Australia - and loathed by Pharmaceutical makers abroad - for delivering medicines at little more than one quarter the cost paid by Americans. Prime Minister Albanese announced, if reelected, he'd reduce the scheme's cap on prescriptions, from $31.60 to just $25. Opposition leader Peter Dutton immediately backed the plan. 'We support affordable medicines,' he told radio 2GB. On complaints from US pharmaceutical companies about the PBS, the Prime Minister seized on the chance for a fight. The PBS, he said was 'a monument to the fairness at the heart of Australian life and we don't negotiate our values.' The PBS is political gold. Supporting it is a 'no brainer' for a federal politician. Yet, five months on that threat from the US, has only intensified and it may yet test Australia's love for the scheme. For President Donald Trump, high prescription drug costs in America have become a cause. Loading content... Last month, the White House announced the President had written to 17 drug company CEOs demanding guarantees 'they will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than prices offered in the United States.' According to a Trump White House fact sheet, 'Americans are subsidising drug-manufacturer profits and foreign health systems.' The statement did not mention Australia's PBS, but if the White House staff had wanted an example, it would have been an obvious candidate. 'The PBS is a cornerstone of our Medicare system' according to Medicines Australia CEO, Liz de Somer, though that's where her applause for the scheme ends. Medicines Australia is the industry body representing many of the same pharmaceutical giants now targeted by the Trump White House. According to Liz de Somer 'we're lagging behind other countries in the time it takes to make new medicines available on the PBS.' 'We are now taking an average of 466 days for a new innovative medicine to be listed on the PBS, and that's after it's already been deemed safe and effective by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.' 'We know these drugs are safe, we know they're effective, but the government has not yet decided to purchase them and make them subsidised for patients. They take too long.' Medicines Australia wants the 466 days average drug listing time, reduced dramatically - to just sixty days. That would likely mean dramatically reducing the time taken by the government and companies to negotiate a price for their medicines. The end result could easily be a bigger bill for the Australian taxpayer. Currently, the PBS costs about $14 billion a year to run. Of course, there is a human cost to delaying approval for medicines. Medicines Australia points to the 'many, many cancer medicines that are not available for patients' in Australia. According to Liz de Somer: 'We are getting one in four innovations listed on our PBS at the moment. That's not good enough.' 'We know that people are waiting for these medicines. We know that they can see they're available in other countries, and they don't understand why they're not made available here.' There is an obvious profit motive for pharmaceutical companies in getting listed sooner and selling their product more quickly, but delays in the system have a human cost. The Albanese government is currently considering recommendations to reform the scheme including measures designed to speed the process.
