Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
We all know that politicians belong to one of the most trustworthy professions in Australia. I mean, how could you possibly lie when you’re constantly under the public spotlight? It doesn’t even seem humanly possible.
So, it comes as a bit of a surprise that One Nation has launched a campaign targeting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called “Fire the Liar”—which, in just two weeks, has managed to rake in over $4.8 million. They claim the PM has lied about everything from immigration levels and ISIS brides to electricity prices and… falling off a stage.
Now, to be fair to Albo, he didn’t fall off the stage. He was simply sitting down and having a rest in an incredibly awkward, floor-dwelling position. Hey, don’t judge—it’s exhausting work being on the campaign trail.
Thankfully, The Guardian was on standby to publish an entire piece explaining the nuanced differences between “falling, stumbling, and stepping off,” just to ensure you plebeians didn’t get the wrong idea.
But leaving aside that hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism, One Nation’s campaign is well underway. The real question is: did the PM honestly lie? (Excuse the oxymoron). Well, you might be surprised to learn that the ABC says: technically, no, he didn’t.
Here’s the article in question: “‘Broken promise’ or not, Anthony Albanese’s tax decision has helped One Nation.” First of all, a quick shout-out and thank you to the viewer who sent this one in. Now, to be entirely fair, this piece was originally published on The Conversation by Michelle Grattan—but nonetheless, the ABC happily chose to run it on their own platform.
The tax changes Michelle Grattan is referring to are, of course, the ones regarding negative gearing and capital gains. Now, what exactly did Albanese say about this before the election? Well, to give you just one example, during a press conference on the campaign trail last year, a journalist asked him directly: “Can you rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax settings if re-elected?” To which he snapped: “Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.”
Now, you would think that flatly ruling it out fifty times in his own words—only to turn around and introduce those exact changes anyway—would be definitive proof that he lied, right?
Well, not according to this ABC article.
Naturally, the article kicks off by focusing on the ABC’s perennial favourite villain, Pauline Hanson, and her “Fire the Liar” campaign. They immediately pivot to casting doubt on the fundraising numbers, noting: “By evening, it claimed to have raised more than $1 million, rising fast. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast doubt on the numbers.”
Because, of course, if there’s anyone whose judgement we should trust on the absolute, unvarnished truth… it’s the guy who just flat-out broke a major election promise. Good to see he’s keeping an eye on everyone else’s integrity.
The article features plenty of creative terms to describe Albanese’s bending of the truth. For instance, it refers to the “budget’s broken promises” before pointedly asking: “Does breaking your word in politics matter?”
It goes on to say: “But by changing the tax arrangements in the budget, he was certainly breaking his word, breaching faith with voters. It doesn’t help that when tackled about this, the prime minister pushed back by endlessly repeating the phrase, ‘We changed our position’.”
Yes, you’ve probably heard that exact phrase about a hundred times by now. Because apparently, in modern political speak, “we changed our position” is the new elegant euphemism for “we completely lied to your face.”
Speaking of lying, does the article actually mention the “L” word? Yes, it does! Buried in the text, they drop this incredible piece of semantic acrobatics:
“We can’t assume Albanese ‘lied’ in the campaign. To lie is, in a dictionary definition, ‘to say […] something that is not true in order to deceive someone’. We don’t know (beyond reasonable doubt) whether, when Albanese before the election flatly ruled out changing negative gearing and capital gains tax, he was saying one thing and intending (if conditions suited) to do another.”
Ah, well, it’s all settled then! If we can’t prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actively plotting to deceive us at the exact moment he said it, then it wasn’t a lie.
Perhaps that kind of elite dictionary-defending flies down at the ABC, but I reckon if you asked most Aussies down at the local pub, they’d call absolute BS on that explanation.
So, what is it? “Fire the person who may have technically changed his position and broken his word”? Or is it “Fire the Liar”?
I’ll let you decide.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
We all know that politicians belong to one of the most trustworthy professions in Australia. I mean, how could you possibly lie when you’re constantly under the public spotlight? It doesn’t even seem humanly possible.
So, it comes as a bit of a surprise that One Nation has launched a campaign targeting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called “Fire the Liar”—which, in just two weeks, has managed to rake in over $4.8 million. They claim the PM has lied about everything from immigration levels and ISIS brides to electricity prices and… falling off a stage.
Now, to be fair to Albo, he didn’t fall off the stage. He was simply sitting down and having a rest in an incredibly awkward, floor-dwelling position. Hey, don’t judge—it’s exhausting work being on the campaign trail.
Thankfully, The Guardian was on standby to publish an entire piece explaining the nuanced differences between “falling, stumbling, and stepping off,” just to ensure you plebeians didn’t get the wrong idea.
But leaving aside that hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism, One Nation’s campaign is well underway. The real question is: did the PM honestly lie? (Excuse the oxymoron). Well, you might be surprised to learn that the ABC says: technically, no, he didn’t.
Here’s the article in question: “‘Broken promise’ or not, Anthony Albanese’s tax decision has helped One Nation.” First of all, a quick shout-out and thank you to the viewer who sent this one in. Now, to be entirely fair, this piece was originally published on The Conversation by Michelle Grattan—but nonetheless, the ABC happily chose to run it on their own platform.
The tax changes Michelle Grattan is referring to are, of course, the ones regarding negative gearing and capital gains. Now, what exactly did Albanese say about this before the election? Well, to give you just one example, during a press conference on the campaign trail last year, a journalist asked him directly: “Can you rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax settings if re-elected?” To which he snapped: “Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.”
Now, you would think that flatly ruling it out fifty times in his own words—only to turn around and introduce those exact changes anyway—would be definitive proof that he lied, right?
Well, not according to this ABC article.
Naturally, the article kicks off by focusing on the ABC’s perennial favourite villain, Pauline Hanson, and her “Fire the Liar” campaign. They immediately pivot to casting doubt on the fundraising numbers, noting: “By evening, it claimed to have raised more than $1 million, rising fast. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast doubt on the numbers.”
Because, of course, if there’s anyone whose judgement we should trust on the absolute, unvarnished truth… it’s the guy who just flat-out broke a major election promise. Good to see he’s keeping an eye on everyone else’s integrity.
The article features plenty of creative terms to describe Albanese’s bending of the truth. For instance, it refers to the “budget’s broken promises” before pointedly asking: “Does breaking your word in politics matter?”
It goes on to say: “But by changing the tax arrangements in the budget, he was certainly breaking his word, breaching faith with voters. It doesn’t help that when tackled about this, the prime minister pushed back by endlessly repeating the phrase, ‘We changed our position’.”
Yes, you’ve probably heard that exact phrase about a hundred times by now. Because apparently, in modern political speak, “we changed our position” is the new elegant euphemism for “we completely lied to your face.”
Speaking of lying, does the article actually mention the “L” word? Yes, it does! Buried in the text, they drop this incredible piece of semantic acrobatics:
“We can’t assume Albanese ‘lied’ in the campaign. To lie is, in a dictionary definition, ‘to say […] something that is not true in order to deceive someone’. We don’t know (beyond reasonable doubt) whether, when Albanese before the election flatly ruled out changing negative gearing and capital gains tax, he was saying one thing and intending (if conditions suited) to do another.”
Ah, well, it’s all settled then! If we can’t prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actively plotting to deceive us at the exact moment he said it, then it wasn’t a lie.
Perhaps that kind of elite dictionary-defending flies down at the ABC, but I reckon if you asked most Aussies down at the local pub, they’d call absolute BS on that explanation.
So, what is it? “Fire the person who may have technically changed his position and broken his word”? Or is it “Fire the Liar”?
I’ll let you decide.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
