Albanese and Chalners are the real source of misinformation

Ironic much

Anthony Albanese likes to decry misinformation. But, the irony is that he is actually one its biggest proponents. His rhetoric has become a fascinating exercise in gaslighting, hypocrisy, and obfuscation. Jim Chalmers – a socialist ideologue disingenuously presented as a serious financial economist– is complicit.

Albanese’s broken promises are adding up. It is clear that his word is not to be believed. Even if you like one of his many backflips, do you trust him to pursue the policies you do like?

The absurdity has reached grotesque levels: Albanese keeps breaking promises and speaking mistruths. Ironically, he also promotes a bill to clamp down on misinformation. It’s almost like a Kafka-esque nightmare: Albanese says something blatantly preposterous, then gaslights and attacks people who point out the absurdity.

Let’s look at some clear examples.

Albanese promised – over 100 times – that he would deliver the Stage 3 tax cuts in full. He has broken that promise. He pretended that this was because of changing economic circumstances and cost of living pressures. However, those have existed for over a year, during which time he wasted time and $450 million on a referendum that 60% of Australians rejected and that failed in all states. He said his word was his bond. Now we know his word means nothing. And, he will gaslight us when breaking a promise.

Albanese promised that he would not touch superannuation. Albanese and Chalmers have imposed a superannuation tax grab. They painted this as simply a tax on the wealthy, as has become popular with the left. However, in reality, it is a tax on unrealized capital gains for funds above $3 million. This threshold is not indexed, thereby baking in bracket creep. Further, the tax on unrealized capital gains creates a dangerous precedent in other areas. There is no limiting principle: now that the precedent is set, what is to stop a Labor government from expanding the tax grab.

Jim Chalmers is central to this. Chalmers is complicit in the broken promise. His word also means nothing. Chalmers is presented as an economic expert and a deep thinker. In reality, his background and doctorate are in political science, not in finance or in economics. One need not hold degrees in finance or economics to be an expert, but they are indicia. He has been a member of parliament for over a decade. He has not held a serious position in industry or in academia, for whatever that is worth. It is deeply concerning that he is presented as a serious financial economist when he is a labor ideologue.  

Albanese promised that he would lower power prices. The market is not directly in his control. This promise was always impossible to keep. But, he made it anyway. Further, he has made it worse through a relentless and ideological focus on a narrow set of energy generating plans, refusing to even consider alternatives such as nuclear energy. He refused to extend the fuel excise reduction despite being pressured on this in parliament. If he was about cost-of-living relief, as he pretends to be, he would have taken steps to mitigate such costs.

Albanese spread misinformation about the Voice and about a potential treaty. He stated that a treaty is not on the ballot during the referendum. He pretended that the Uluru statement is only one page. However, the words in that one page are broad and require extraneous material to interpret them. Ergo, the words are not merely those on the one page. The words incorporate their connotations, which are clear form extended background text. This would involve a treaty. This is something the government was already funding work towards. Voice architects specifically said that a Voice would increase the likelihood of a treaty, and with it reparations. This would tautologically involve a financial impact as the money must come from somewhere. Albanese pretended this was scaremongering and misinformation. This was an exercise in gaslighting. Australians saw through it.

Albanese has promulgated a draconian misinformation bill. The bill would effectively deputize social media companies to police so-called misinformation on behalf of the government. The definition of misinformation is broadly construed. The government (but not its detractors) is deemed incapable of misinformation under the bill. The bill would incentivize social media companies to suppress more speech than necessary because there are penalties if they fail to suppress misinformation but no penalties for failing to allow correct speech. The great irony is that Albanese would entrench his ability to spread misinformation while hypocritically accusing his detractors of the same.

Albanese and Chalmers are the true source of misinformation. They are not to be trusted.