Tasmanian Labor's Dean Winter boxed in by 'no deal with Greens' stance
Despite leading his party to its worst election result ever, he insists his party is prepared to govern if Jeremy Rockliff can't get the numbers.
And he's not simply sitting on the sidelines watching and waiting to see if Mr Rockliff can get enough crossbenchers onside before taking action.
He has started talking with the four independents who are certain to be elected — Peter George and David O'Byrne in Franklin, Clark's Kristie Johnston and Craig Garland in Braddon — plus Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate Carlo Di Falco, who is currently in front for the final seat in Lyons.
But even if Mr Winter got all of those on side and won in Bass to secure an 11th seat for Labor, his party would still only have 16 MPs on board, short of the 18 seats required to govern.
To get past that threshold, Labor needs the support of the Greens for confidence and supply.
This is where Mr Winter, who has repeatedly insisted he won't do a deal with the Greens, has boxed himself into a corner.
Mr Winter insists his position is clear: Labor will accept the Greens' backing, but won't do a deal.
"We won't be doing deals with the Greens," he said on Monday.
"We don't do deals with the Greens because we will not give up on the things that are so important to the Labor Party.
"We support traditional industries like forestry, mining and aquaculture."
Mr Winter spoke with Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff the day after the election.
But Dr Woodruff had to make the call.
Mr Winter says the conversation was brief, and perfunctory.
"I told Rosalie Woodruff that I wouldn't be doing any deals with the Greens. It was a pretty short conversation," he said on ABC Mornings on Monday.
Mr Winter seems to be expecting support or backing from the Greens, without giving them any policy concessions or perks.
It's a pretty precarious line to walk; to need the Greens, but refuse to negotiate or come to any formal arrangement with them.
How does that arrangement, where there are no guarantees or agreements about what a future government should look like, provide the political stability and certainty that everyone agrees Tasmania needs?
And why would the Greens agree to provide ongoing supply and confidence to a Labor leader who hasn't once picked up the phone and refuses to compromise?
What do they get out of that arrangement?
Perhaps it's enough that the Greens feel like they have more in common with Labor, than Mr Rockliff's Liberals.
But an unqualified offer of supply and confidence is a lot to give up for nothing in return.
Supply and confidence agreements are always important, but this one seems extra crucial.
After three straight early elections — the last one almost three years earlier than scheduled following a successful no-confidence motion in Mr Rockliff — every politician knows that whatever new government is formed now has to last.
And there will be great consequences for whichever political outfit is seen to be responsible for sending Tasmanians to another early poll.
Dr Woodruff was pretty clear on election night she wanted Mr Winter to pick up the phone, and this time consider forming a minority government with the support of the Greens, after rejecting the opportunity to do so just a month earlier.
Will her enthusiasm to work together wane if Mr Winter isn't willing to have more than the most basic conversation?
The other complication for Labor is that their terrible election result means they can't argue they have a mandate to govern, or have received a ringing endorsement from the Tasmanian people.
Mr Winter's first public audition for the top job could hardly have gone worse.
The party received just 25.9 per cent of the primary vote, a fall of 3.1 per cent from last year's election.
And Mr Winter's personal vote wasn't pretty either. He fell short of a quota in Franklin, receiving fewer votes than Peter George and Liberal Eric Abetz.
In Braddon, Mr Rockliff received more than two quotas, his personal vote 2.7 times higher than Mr Winter's.
It's the kind of situation that normally calls for reflection, negotiation and sometimes even consideration of resignation.
But while Mr Winter acknowledges that politicians will need to work together to make the new parliament work, he's so far been unwilling to compromise on policy.
Mr Winter's continual refusal to deal with the Greens means he only has a few paths that can lead him to the premier's office.
He can't act aggressively — he wants the public to see him to be reluctantly accepting the political reality, that Labor needs to accept the support of the Greens to avoid another early election.
He can only act if Mr Rockliff has failed to get a majority of MPs on board — something that Mr Winter keeps positing as highly likely.
"I'm finding it difficult to see how Jeremy Rockliff, if he continues down this same path, can secure the support of those crossbenchers … who voted no confidence in him six weeks ago, people like Craig Garland and Kristie Johnston who were scathing of the government then," Mr Winter said on Monday.
If Mr Rockliff falls short, Labor can come to power a couple of different ways.
One scenario is that the governor can require Mr Rockliff to test his numbers on the floor of parliament, through a vote of confidence.
If he doesn't get the numbers, there can then be a similar vote of confidence in a minority government led by Mr Winter.
The other scenario is that the government re-commissions Mr Rockliff's government, without requiring a confidence vote.
To oust him, there would need to be another no-confidence vote in Mr Rockliff, supported by a majority of MPs, including Labor and the Greens.
From there, Mr Winter would come to power through the same mechanism, a vote of confidence in a minority government led by him.
But Mr Winter doesn't really want to talk about that second scenario, where there would be a second no-confidence motion in a premier inside just a few months.
That hypothetical could become a reality very soon.
And if it does, it will be an acid test of Mr Winter's leadership and ability to negotiate with the crossbench.
And a real test of Labor's tactics of repeatedly belittling and ruling out a deal with the party whose support he needs to come to power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
10 hours ago
- The Age
Premier doubles down on suggestion LNP figures viewed top doc pick unfit
The news Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has defended his government's abandoning of the merit-selected appointment of a new chief health officer and has declared he was trying to respect the doctor's privacy by not giving further detail. But Crisafulli doubled-down on the veiled suggestion the decision to scrap the imminent ascension of Dr Krispin Hajkowicz was because he was deemed unfit by senior LNP government figures, despite a rigorous external recruitment process. And, in his first public comments on the matter, Crisafulli continued to deny suggestions a Save Victoria Park sign displayed at his house, along with the historical display of a Greens election corflute known to some in the LNP, had also played a role. Why it matters Hajkowicz is seeking legal advice after his appointment as Dr John Gerrard's permanent successor was abruptly scuttled by the government, despite his selection through the merit-based process run by recruitment agency HardyGroup. It was not the first time Hajkowicz had been selected as CHO – the former Labor government appointed him to the role in 2021, but he decided not to take up the role just days from his official start date, citing personal reasons. After two days of refusing to answer questions, or even acknowledge the decision, a government spokesperson late on Thursday said Hajkowicz's 2021 withdrawal was the reason this appointment had been vetoed. By whom is still unclear.
Sydney Morning Herald
10 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Premier doubles down on suggestion LNP figures viewed top doc pick unfit
The news Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has defended his government's abandoning of the merit-selected appointment of a new chief health officer and has declared he was trying to respect the doctor's privacy by not giving further detail. But Crisafulli doubled-down on the veiled suggestion the decision to scrap the imminent ascension of Dr Krispin Hajkowicz was because he was deemed unfit by senior LNP government figures, despite a rigorous external recruitment process. And, in his first public comments on the matter, Crisafulli continued to deny suggestions a Save Victoria Park sign displayed at his house, along with the historical display of a Greens election corflute known to some in the LNP, had also played a role. Why it matters Hajkowicz is seeking legal advice after his appointment as Dr John Gerrard's permanent successor was abruptly scuttled by the government, despite his selection through the merit-based process run by recruitment agency HardyGroup. It was not the first time Hajkowicz had been selected as CHO – the former Labor government appointed him to the role in 2021, but he decided not to take up the role just days from his official start date, citing personal reasons. After two days of refusing to answer questions, or even acknowledge the decision, a government spokesperson late on Thursday said Hajkowicz's 2021 withdrawal was the reason this appointment had been vetoed. By whom is still unclear.
The Advertiser
21 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Living in Australia is just less fair than it used to be
Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves."
