Australia election 2025 live: Peter Dutton to pledge big boost to defence; Labor claims Coalition election cash splash over $50bn
Good morning and welcome to our live news blog. I'm Martin Farrer with some of our top overnight stories before I hand the news baton to Krishani Dhanji.
Peter Dutton has blamed poor polling during the election campaign on Labor attack ads rather than his own performance, including two mistakes and ditching a policy to force some public servants to work from their offices. The third debate was a mostly lacklustre affair that livened up when the leaders were asked to name the other's biggest lie. Nine's three-person panel awarded the contest to Dutton by a vote of 2-1.
The opposition leader launches a big defence policy today, with a promise to lift defence spending to 2.5% of the economy. More on this soon.
Amid more turmoil on the world's financial markets thanks to Donald Trump's economic policies, there are concerns that the Australian Treasury has underestimated the threat posed by the US trade war after the International Monetary Fund slashed its outlook for Australia's economic growth in 2025. It forecast annual output will be $13bn lower this year than predicted in January and that real GDP growth will drop to 1.6%, from 2.1%. More coming up.
And in more money matters, we're reporting this morning that Australians would have to wait 70 years for affordable housing if property values follow the 'sustainable growth' path advocated by the two major parties. A leading economist calls the claims a 'con'. Share
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Labour is going to have to leave the ECHR
The Home Secretary's extension of the list of countries covered by the 'deport now, appeal later' scheme for foreign criminals, announced this morning, doesn't actually add to the number of undesirables that we can deport. But it could lubricate the process of getting rid of them. For criminals from the new countries just added, which include a number of African and Asian states, India, Canada and Australia, it means that once the Home Secretary rejects an objection based on human rights grounds, physical removal can be automatic. The deportee can still appeal, but any appeal has to be pursued from abroad. This not only saves us the cost of supporting and detaining them here but reduces the possibility of them either disappearing into the black economy, or arguing that the passage of time has itself created of a link with this country so strong as to make their removal inhuman. This is a step in the right direction. But it is a pretty limited one. There are 700-odd prisoners from the new countries in our jails who will be subject to the new rules; but this is around half the number who come from Albania alone, which tops the list of foreign suppliers of convicts to our penal system and which was already part of the scheme even before its extension. One doubts whether extended human rights claims against removal by, say, unwanted Canadians or Australians are a serious problem. By contrast, we have large numbers of Polish, Romanian, Lithuanian, Jamaican, Pakistani and Somali jailbirds on our hands whom we would love to be summarily rid of, but are still not covered. Tough-sounding measures of this kind are all very well. But they have a history of coming unstuck. We have been here before. Legislation in 2014 would have allowed all deported criminals to be put on the first plane out and then appeal from abroad. Unfortunately this very salutary provision was declared non-human-rights-compliant three years later by a liberal Supreme Court unhappy about the difficulties faced by criminal deportees forced into long-distance litigation. The present scheme aims to sidestep this by requiring provisions for pursuing effective online appeals from abroad: countries are not added unless and until these have been agreed. But it would be foolish to rule out a UK court, or the European Court of Human Rights, saying that an applicant has not had a chance to put his case. We also cannot exclude a court staying physical expulsion on the basis that the trauma of immediate removal, say of a criminal with alleged mental health issues, is itself a breach of human rights. This is, in other words, largely an exercise in tinkering. Furthermore, even if it works it will not make a serious dent in the numbers of foreigners who successfully demand to stay despite having grossly abused our hospitality. To do this, the government knows perfectly well about the migrant elephant in the room. In the last resort something must be done about the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether litigation takes place in the Strand or in the legal ether over a Zoom link from abroad is largely beside the point: even where a person otherwise fulfils the criteria for removal, it always remains open under the Convention to argue that if removed their family life would be destroyed, or that they would face ill-treatment abroad. (Some, indeed, have successfully, if impudently, resisted removal precisely because of the hostility they would face at home as a result of their having committed a heinous crime here.) This cannot go on. I can quite legitimately eject someone from my house who has taken sanctuary there if they start smashing up my furniture, even if I know a baying mob outside will brutalise them as a result. The same should go for a country: the right to refuge, even from those out for blood, should be able to be lost as a result of serious misbehaviour. Unfortunately this is what Strasbourg, with its almost religious view of human rights, will not accept. In the end, there is only one way out. Barring a Damascene conversion of the Strasbourg court, something pretty inconceivable (witness its petulant brush-off three months ago of a suggestion from a number of countries including Denmark, Poland and Italy that it should soften its line on migrants' rights), withdrawal is fast becoming not only an option, but the only option. A number of Red Wall MPs, painfully aware of public opinion, are already making noises along these lines. For the moment this is anathema to Yvette Cooper, and even more so to Keir Starmer and Lord Hermer. But sooner or later Labour, if it wants to avoid electoral irrelevance, will have to think seriously about it.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Which data point may shine light through US jobs fog?
ORLANDO, Florida, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Amid a blizzard of contradictory signals, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get any visibility on the U.S. labor market. But of all the numbers that feed into the all-important unemployment rate, the one worth paying most attention to may be continuing weekly jobless claims. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said that while he and his colleagues look at the "totality" of the data, the best gauge of the health of the labor market is the unemployment rate. That's currently 4.2%, low by historical standards, and consistent with an economy operating at full employment. But it is a lagging indicator, meaning that once it starts to rise sharply, the economy will probably already be in a very precarious position. And it is also being depressed by labor demand and supply factors unique to the U.S.'s current high tariff, low immigration era. Economic growth is slowing. Broadly speaking, it is running at an annual rate of just over 1%, half the pace seen in the last few years. Unsurprisingly, firms' hiring is slowing too. The latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS, showed hiring in June was the weakest in a year, while July's nonfarm payrolls report and previous months' revisions were so disappointing that President Donald Trump fired the head of the agency responsible for collecting the data. But the unemployment rate isn't rising, largely because firms aren't firing workers. Why? Perhaps because they are banking on tariff and inflation uncertainty lifting in the second half of the year. It's also possible that firms are still scared form the post-pandemic labor shortages. Whatever the reason, the pace of layoffs simply has not picked up, the monthly JOLTS surveys show. Layoffs in June totaled 1.6 million, below the averages of the last one, two and three years. Meanwhile, lower immigration, increased deportations, and fewer people re-entering the labor force are offsetting weak hiring, thus keeping a lid on the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate in July was 62.2%, the lowest since November 2022. And what about weekly jobless claims, another key variable in the labor market picture? In previous slowdowns, rising layoffs would be reflected in a spike in the number of people claiming unemployment benefits for the first time. That's not happening either. Last week's 226,000 initial claims were right at the average for the past year, and only a few thousand higher than the averages over the past two and three years. "It's a low fire, low hire economy," notes Oscar Munoz, U.S. rates strategist at TD Securities. One high-frequency number that has gone under the radar, but which merits more attention is continuing jobless claims, which measures the number of workers continuing to file for unemployment benefits after losing their jobs. Rising continued claims suggest people actively looking for a job are struggling to get one, a sign that the labor market could be softening. That figure spiked last week to 1.97 million, the highest since November 2021, which in theory should put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. Using the 'stock' versus 'flow' analogy, continuing claims are the 'stock,' and weekly claims are the 'flow'. Everyone will have their own view on what's more important, but right now initial claims are offering no guidance while continuing claims are pointing to softening in the job market. Fed officials are on alert, but what would move them to cut rates? Munoz and his colleagues at TD Securities estimate that continuing claims of around 2.2 million would be consistent with an unemployment rate of 4.5%, a level of joblessness most economists agree would prompt the Fed to trim rates. That's also the year-end unemployment rate in the Fed's last economic projections from June, a set of forecasts which also penciled in 50 bps of easing by December. An unemployment rate of 4.4% would probably tip the balance on the Federal Open Market Committee, while 4.3% would make it a much closer call, perhaps a coin toss. Further muddying the picture, other indicators suggest the labor market is ticking along nicely. July's payrolls report showed that average hourly earnings last month rose at a 3.9% annual rate, consistent with the level seen in the past year. And the average number of hours worked was 34.3 hours, right at the mean for the past two years. These numbers and the JOLTS data are released monthly, and there will be one more of each before the Fed's September 16-17 policy meeting. But if the increased focus on the unemployment rate means investors want a more regular labor market temperature check, they should keep a close eye on weekly continuing claims. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)
Spectator
9 hours ago
- Spectator
Why Australia is recognising Palestine
In 1968, the American broadcaster Walter Cronkite told his national TV audience the United Stated was losing the war in Vietnam, causing then-president Lyndon Johnson to remark, 'If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America', soon after declaring he would not stand for re-election. As he moves to implement a total occupation of Gaza in his determination to extirpate Hamas and its soldiers of terror, Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, risks a similar realisation. A week after an estimated 90,000 people joined a court-sanctioned pro-Palestine protest march across Sydney's Harbour Bridge, Australia's Labor government announced that it will be voting to recognise a state of Palestine when the United Nations General Assembly meets next month, 'to contribute to international momentum towards a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages'. Australia joins the left-wing governments of France, Britain, and Canada in moving towards recognition, in the face of distressing images of death, suffering and misery in Gaza. New Zealand's centre-right coalition likely will join them in the coming days. In doing so, the Australian government at least had the courtesy of informing Netanyahu and American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, of its intentions. Needless to say, Netanyahu is furious, and the Trump administration so far has been muted in its response. Addressing the media, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese stressed that, in his opinion, recognition is the right thing to do. 'A two-state solution is humanity's best hope to break the cycle of violence in the Middle East and to bring an end to the conflict, suffering and starvation in Gaza', he said. Albanese made clear his mind was made up after speaking to Palestine Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas late last week. According to Albanese, Abbas repeated commitments he made to French president Emmanuel Macron in June. Abbas will recognise Israel as consistent with the 1993 Oslo Accords and also back: 'demilitarisation of any future Palestinian state; the potential role for international forces in security; the reform of governance, including of education as well as a call for elections; the isolation and opposition to Hamas playing any role in a future Palestinian state.' While Albanese affirmed Australia's grave concern for Israeli hostages still suffering at the evil hands of Hamas, and his government's earnest desire for their release and a ceasefire in Gaza, his account of the undertakings he obtained from Abbas did not include ensuring the hostages' freedom, nor the actual eradication of Hamas before recognition takes effect. Instead, Albanese chose to rely on the glib undertakings of an elderly Palestinian Authority leader who is in the third decade of his four-year term of elected office – a leader who has no real power in Gaza. There is no way Australia, or the other recognising governments, can go to the General Assembly next month certain that their preconditions for recognition will even be honoured, let alone ever met. Even if it is well-intended to give hope to the beleaguered people of Gaza, it also gives aid and comfort of a ruthless and unscrupulous Hamas. That Australia's Labor government chose the recognition path is, however, unsurprising. The left wing of the Labor party is stridently pro-Palestine, and Labor's Greens party allies are even more radical and incendiary in their anti-Israel rhetoric. A significant number of Labor constituencies in Sydney and Melbourne contain large Muslim minorities, which has focused the minds of influential Labor MPs in those normally ultra-safe seats. But Albanese also read a shifting public mood. Whatever the actual truth, or the selectivity of what is shown, the incessant mainstream and social media coverage of food aid failures in Gaza, with harrowing images of suffering and desolation, has touched the consciences of many Australians, just as the barbaric atrocities against innocent Israeli men, women and children did almost two years ago. Mass protests like that in Sydney, which saw ordinary people – not just the usual activists – turning out in large numbers will have assured Albanese that, in recognising Palestinian statehood, he is reflecting Australian public opinion. As so often happens in politics, the Australian government's decision today arguably was a case of, 'there go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader'. Meanwhile, Australia's recognition decision sends a message to both Hamas and Israel's government. To Hamas, it is further evidence that western solidarity against them is faltering. For Israel, it is yet another indication that, despite 7 October, the justice of their cause, and the legitimacy of their determination to preserve's Israel's existence, the Netanyahu government is losing hearts and minds across the world. The truth of aid failures and food shortages in Gaza, and just who are responsible for them, has been lost in harrowing images and a morass of mis- and disinformation. In a furious response to Australia and other western nations who are recognising Palestine, Netanyahu told an Australian journalist at a press conference on Sunday, 'I think we're actually applying force judiciously, and [the Australian government] know it. They know what they would do if right next to Melbourne or right next to Sydney you had this horrific attack. I think they would do it.' Netanyahu is absolutely right. But just as Lyndon Johnson was winning his Vietnam war on the ground while losing it in sitting rooms around the world, Netanyahu's determination for Israel to prevail in Gaza and eradicate Hamas solely on its own terms is costing him, and his valiant, embattled nation, dearly in the court of international public opinion.
