“Both Peter Dutton and Michaelia Cash have been very clear they support cuts to penalty rates,” Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt said on April 19, the same day Labor pledged that, if re-elected, it would pass laws to prevent any reductions to workers’ penalty rates.

Dutton rejected the accusation, branding it “yet another stunt” from Labor.

“The independent umpire sets the conditions [for penalty rates]. It’s been abided to by both sides of politics, and we don’t propose any departure from the current arrangements,” the opposition leader said from the Sydney Royal Easter Show.

The Fair Work Commission does indeed set penalty rate rules for about 3 million employees on the basic wages, or awards, for their industries. It is also true that Dutton and the Coalition, including workplace relations spokeswoman Michaelia Cash, oppose Labor’s proposed policy, which would strip the Fair Work Commission’s power to reduce penalty rates if it matches modern conditions or workers benefit from higher pay overall.

The Australian Retail Association has asked the Fair Work Commission to remove penalty rates for retail managers who agree to a deal that would deliver them a 25 per cent increase in their award wages. The association, in a joint statement with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, said Labor’s proposal could reduce some workers’ salaries and force businesses to close down.

Trade unions claim the ARA’s proposal would see workers lose thousands of dollars a year in earnings, while the association claims the opposite.

In 2017, the Fair Work Commission decided to gradually reduce Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for retail, pharmacy, fast food and hospitality award workers in the hopes it would increase trade and employment. Two years after that reduction, research from the University of Wollongong claimed there was no evidence the cut had created more employment.

Is Anthony Albanese lying about the cost of the Coalition’s nuclear plan?

The debate over energy policy has blown up during the election campaign, with both leaders locked in an argument over just one figure – the cost of Dutton’s nuclear scheme.

Dutton claims his energy policy, which hinges on building seven nuclear plants across the country, would cost $331 billion by 2050. Albanese warns the real cost would be $600 billion.

As we consider the merits of each claim, the most important point to note is that it’s a fool’s errand to predict infrastructure bills decades before building is complete. A case in point: the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme. In 2017, it was costed at $2 billion, but the price tag is now $12 billion, while the construction deadline also blew out by seven years.

With that in mind, back to the nuclear price war.

Albanese’s $600 billion claim is drawn from analysis by lobby group the Smart Energy Council, which advocates for renewable energy companies that oppose nuclear energy. The council looked at cost blowouts for nuclear plants being built around the world, including the UK’s Hinkley Point C plant, which was announced in 2007 at a cost of $18 billion and is now set to be completed at a cost of $90 billion (Hinkley’s original 2025 deadline has been scrapped and there is now no completion date listed).

Loading

Dutton labels Albanese’s claim “a complete fabrication”. His $331 billion price tag hinges on building all seven nuclear plants for $10 billion each, with no cost blowouts. This is about how much it costs to build a nuclear plant in South Korea, which has been building nuclear plants for almost five decades.

CSIRO said last year Australia could not match the price of a Korean plant for the first several reactors built locally, finding that the cost would double because of the expense of starting the industry from scratch.

It must also be noted, both Dutton and Albanese’s $331 and $600 billion price tags, respectively, include the cost of building seven nuclear plants as well as expanding other parts of the electricity grid like renewables and transmission lines.

Does Peter Dutton believe climate change is making disasters worse?

“I don’t know because I’m not a scientist,” Dutton said on April 16 in the second leaders’ debate when asked whether he believed climate change was making natural disasters worse. He then had to clarify his position again the next day after being lashed by Albanese for being “worse than [John] Howard” on climate change.

“I believe in climate change, and that is a reality,” Dutton said at a press conference in Maitland, New South Wales, on April 17.

Was Anthony Albanese’s gas price claim full of hot air?

It’s true: gas prices are down compared to when the Coalition was last in government. However, it’s not necessarily thanks to Albanese’s stewardship.

“When it comes to gas, we have intervened into the market. The Coalition opposed that intervention. On the day of the last election, gas prices were $34. Today, it’s $13 – a direct result of the policies that we have put in place, including the domestic gas security mechanism,” Albanese claimed during the third leaders’ debate on April 22.

But Albanese taking credit was stretching the truth: global turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine saw gas prices rise, but they have since fallen due to an easing of demand in the global market.

Where does Bruce MP and ‘genuine local’ Julian Hill live?

Whispers had been following Julian Hill, the member for the outer Melbourne electorate of Bruce, for weeks, with Liberal candidate Zahid Safi’s staffers and voters claiming the Labor MP lives in the city and drives to the electorate.

When questioned, Hill’s campaign confirmed he grew up in Burwood and went to high school in the nearby suburb of Glen Waverley, which was part of his seat of Bruce before its boundaries were redrawn. In 2015, he moved to Notting Hill to campaign for the seat of Bruce. He was elected Bruce’s federal MP in 2016. But, due to shifting boundaries on the electoral map, Notting Hill is no longer in Bruce and in 2018, Hill moved to the suburb of Dandenong, which is in his electorate.

Hill also has a flat in Canberra he stays at when parliament is sitting. And sometimes, depending on his diary, he stays in a home he bought in the inner-city suburb of Port Melbourne, about a 40-minute drive away from his electorate, which he bought in 1997. Notably, that residence is closer to the airport and the CBD.

Loading

“All of this has been publicly declared on Julian’s parliamentary register of interests,” his campaign said in a statement to this masthead.

Safi’s electoral roll details, as of May last year, show the Liberal candidate is registered to an address in Endeavour Hills, which is in Bruce. Before that, he was registered to an address in Clyde, which is outside the seat. However, Safi said he’s lived in Endeavour Hills for two years, and before that, in Narre Warren, which is also in Bruce.

Would Anthony Albanese or Peter Dutton make a deal with the Greens?

Bother leaders say no.

Albanese has been repeatedly questioned about whether he would govern with the help of the Greens, more recently because he has put a Greens candidate second on the how-to-vote card for his inner-Sydney Grayndler seat. Albanese has not rejected the Greens’ support should they choose to provide it, but he has been clear about not doing a deal with the Greens to get it should Labor fail to secure a majority government.

Both Dutton and Albanese said during the third leaders’ debate on April 22 they would not do a deal with the Greens to form government, with Albanese emphasising days earlier in Brisbane: “I rule out negotiating with the Greens … the truth is, we are aiming for a majority government. That’s our objective.”

Greens leader Adam Bandt, meanwhile, spent the week DJing in Melbourne and Brisbane clubs, and preferencing Climate 200 candidates and Fatima Payman’s party over Labor in must-win seats.