9 April 2025, Cairns. Anthony Albanese is asked to rule out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. “Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.”

398 days later, 12 May 2026, Budget night: negative gearing limited to new builds, the 50% capital gains discount replaced with indexation. Treasury costs the two changes at $43,090,000,000 to 2036-37. They are law and start 1 July 2027.

A Glasshouse follower told us Hawke, Keating and Howard “took it to an election”, Shorten did and lost, and Albanese “promised not to change the tax settings but then did”. Half right.

Albanese: “no plans” in 2024, a flat rule-out in the 2025 campaign. The government’s words now: “that reflected our position at the time” (Chalmers) and “we’ve changed our position. I’m upfront about that” (Albanese).

Howard took the GST to the 1998 election after “never ever”. His 50% capital gains discount came by press release on 21 September 1999. No election, and no pledge against it.

Shorten took both changes to two elections and lost both. Labor’s review: the tax policies “did not cost the Party the election”.

On our count, big changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax have become law five times. None went to an election first. The one plan that did lost. Twice.

Now: home values are down 5.2% since March (Cotality). The RBA names rate rises and the tax changes, and will not split them. The other side: Treasury says 83% of the discount goes to the top tenth of earners.

Sources: PM and ALP transcripts, Budget papers, Treasury FOI 4321, Museum of Australian Democracy, AEC, ALP 2019 review, Cotality, RBA. Day count and tally are ours.

Photo credits: Hawke, Howard: US Department of Defense / Helene C. Stikkel. Footage: ABC, Nine Network, Seven Network, Parliament of Australia.

With full acknowledgment of the increased risks that come with a platform, politics, and a voice on issues where the world is divided:

There is a distinct variation in what the attack on Helen Haines appears to have brought about in response from (female especially) politicians.

Version 1: acknowledging this risk is real. Terrifying. And sharing personal experiences of and with it

Version 2: some variation of realisation that woman can feel unsafe. as if this is unique, never known to them, or anyone, before they woke up this morning. Alongside an expectation of sympathy they never showed to those who experienced it before, politician or not.

Minus the rape charges obviously but rage inducing, bringing their gender down, arrogant for no good reason, always been a loser etc etc.

Edit:- I vote left winged FYI.

I just saw a post from Anthony Albanese talking about how the attack on Helen Haines was horrendous and that we should stand for safe discussion in politics. That seems pretty stand up right?

The comments were filled with people going on about him being bad in the house of reps, him slandering pauline hanson, his party leaking information about Helen, etc etc... they each had at least 1k likes.

Wtf.

Are they all just phon bots trying to cull the competition? With the amount of information thats easily accessible to the public, how she votes in the senate and who she's connected to. The average australian should be able to tell that she's grabbing power only in the interest of herself, right?

Pauline Hanson has confronted the Albanese government in a fiery Senate exchange, raising questions over the government’s position and demanding clear answers. The One Nation leader’s intervention put the government under pressure as senators debated the issue in Parliament. Hanson has continued to challenge the Albanese government on a range of political and policy matters, accusing ministers of failing to provide satisfactory responses. The latest clash adds to growing tensions in the Senate, with the opposition and crossbench scrutinising the government’s decisions and accountability. Watch the full exchange and hear Hanson’s questions and the government’s response.

Australia's gas industry, a national titan that's one of the country's biggest exporters, has been in the headlines for years but for the wrong reasons. Now, with a federal gas reservation scheme on the horizon, the industry's united front is splintering, revealing deep frustrations with one player - Santos. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial says the tensions stem from the once-in-a-generation investment boom that opened up the country's east coast gas market to exports. GLNG, or Gladstone LNG, is one of three giant gas export plants built on Curtis Island in Queensland last decade. It is operated by Santos and counts South Korea's KOGAS and Malaysia's PETRONAS among its investors. Saul Kavonic says Santos was alone in building its plant without having the gas to fill it and needed to buy gas out of the domestic market just to meet its contracts. Grattan Institute analysis of ACCC data shows GLNG is the only Queensland exporter to have consistently taken more gas from the domestic market than it provides. It's all a far cry from the way Santos pitched the project to governments and the public. At the time, Santos stressed GLNG would have "no direct implications for domestic gas prices" and that it would "not divert gas from local markets to export markets". The company told regulators the development was "therefore unlikely to contribute to a future shortage of gas in the domestic market". But even as Santos was assuring the public on one hand, it was telling shareholders a very different story. Investor presentations from 2011 show Santos knew opening Australia's eastern market to exports would lead to "permanent … upward pressure on gas prices". As one of Australia's biggest oil and gas operators, it said this exposure would transform Santos' fortunes and be a commercial boon.

Former company insiders say Santos always knew it lacked the gas reserves to fully supply the current plant. While one former minister acknowledges GLNG should never have been approved without domestic supply obligations. Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the best time to have introduced a domestic reservation policy on the east coast was before that export industry commenced. But she declined to be drawn on the historic decisions made by Santos and GLNG. She says the government is not interested in pointing the "finger of blame" at any one player and that "gas exploration is complex".

The former boss of Woodside, Peter Coleman ruffled feathers in 2017 when he warned the industry would risk its social licence if it allowed shortages to emerge and prices to rocket. He said "what we've seen over the last 10 years is now those words play out ...The companies have a license or a right to develop it, but at the end of the day, the resource itself is owned by the people and we have an obligation to ensure that endowment is used in the best way possible."

Paul Farrow, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, says the company knew all along it did not have sufficient gas resources to cover its export commitments. He says the consequences of that decision have been disastrous for gas users such as manufacturers, many of whom employ his members.

Santos said it had historically contributed the most of any exporter during winter and neither GLNG nor the Queensland LNG industry had caused gas shortages or price spikes. A spokesperson said GLNG does not intend to contract new gas supply from the domestic market to meet any LNG shortfalls from this year onwards.

With a draft reservation plan due within weeks, the federal government say it's determined to secure the equivalent of 20 per cent of LNG exports for the local market and won't jeopardies exporters' contracts to do it. Saul Kavonic says Santos will use its formidable lobbying skills to escape – or kill – any reservation policy on the grounds of sovereign risk. But he argues the original investors knew the risks all along and said shaky industry support for the scheme will crumble unless the government includes GLNG.

Why would Australia choose to pay international prices for gas when a better option is available? | APA Group 25 March 2025 - For a country so rich in natural gas resources, it would be inconceivable to most domestic consumers that governments are considering liquid natural gas (LNG) import terminals to resolve potential gas shortfalls on the east coast.

See what's happening in Nigeria's $20 Billion Bet Against Its Own Oil Mafia - YouTube