The Point Live: AI regulation wish list on the agenda, while industry dictates the gas reservation policy. As it happens.

The first big test of whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can work with new Greens leader David Shoebridge will come this week with the digital duty of care bill. Josh Bornstein has been doing great work with a diverse mix of groups on how these laws need to allow Australians who have been harmed to take action to enforce the duty of care.

Senator Shoebridge plans to challenge the “dead politics” of the major parties while his predecessor, Senator Larissa Waters, was “firm but constructive”. Senator Shoebridge’s approach has been compared to that of Adam Bandt, who led the Greens in Albanese’s first term.

Some commentators suggested that the leadership change will make things harder for Labor, but I’m not convinced. In a piece for The Point over the weekend, I argue:

• The voting patterns under Bandt are very similar to those under Waters, so the negotiating strategy of the Greens’ leader doesn’t seem to block legislation forever.
• On landmark economic reforms – like industrial relations and Stage 3 tax cuts in Albanese’s first term and capital gains tax/negative gearing reforms in his second term – the Greens have been ready allies.
• On truth in political advertising laws, nature positive laws or disclosing political donations, the barrier to Labor reform has been Albanese’s reluctance to work with the Greens (not the other way around).
• Compromise with the Greens could help Labor’s agenda. Public hearings and more independent oversight for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as the Greens were pushing for, could have helped the NACC.

A less conciliatory approach to negotiations may be uncomfortable, but historically it has not stopped collaboration. And if the Greens can use balance of power to strengthen the digital duty of care bill, that will ultimately be a win for the Labor Government’s reform agenda as well.

A new report from Greenpeace and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia, but fears the state government’s blinkered support for gas exports – despite declining demand – could cost the state dearly.

The report finds gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns. Since the war in the Middle East, countries like Japan, South Korea and China have placed a higher priority on renewable and nuclear energy over gas.

Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace:

As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise. The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.

This report clearly shows that the WA government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.

Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory:

Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.

The Australian government has been excruciatingly silent when it comes to standing up for the International Criminal Court and foundations of international law it so loves to talk about.

Guardian Australia journalist Ben Doherty joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Australia’s non-response to the Trump administration’s sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the American military footprint in Australia, and the OpenAI hack of Medicare on this episode of After America.

Interesting exchange in the Senate over last week’s High Court ruling on coal and climate change.

Not only did Senate Leader Penny Wong go out of her way to suggest the court ruling had little impact on the federal government, – wrong – she even hinted at an error in the judgement.

God help us.

Greens Senator Steph Hodgins-May to Senator Wong, representing Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

Last week, the High Court ruled that governments must consider emissions from coal burned overseas when deciding whether to approve a coalmine. For the Mount Pleasant coalmine, those emissions count for 98 per cent of the project’s total emissions. This was a fantastic win for the Hunter Valley community and, of course, for our planet. Minister, does the Prime Minister agree with this community and these science teachers that the coal dug out of the Hunter and exported to the world is causing climate change?

Penny Wong:

In relation to the Mount Pleasant mine, as I understand it, there are three points I’d make. The federal government is not a party to the proceedings, so this is a matter for the New South Wales government. I’m also advised that the High Court did not consider the EPBC Act. The case does not relate to a Commonwealth decision. There are no outstanding applications, as I’m advised, before the Australian government in relation to this project. We’ll obviously work through the judgement carefully and consider any broader findings. Any federal decisions are made in accordance with the national environmental law under the EPBC Act.

Hodgins-May:

So no acknowledgement of climate change. Minister, has the Labor government obtained legal advice on the Hunter Valley court case, and will it make it available to the public so that they can understand the ramifications of the case on any future coal and gas approvals?

Wong:

We are committed to acting on climate and we always have been. And we have worked, when we have been in government both this time and previously, to reform our economy to respond to the challenge of climate change … what we recognise, unlike others, including your party, is that that is a big structural change in our economy that has to be manifested over time.

Greg Jericho

This morning the Great Gas Giveaway tracker ticked over to $78 billion.

If the Albanese government had introduced a 25% tax on gas exports when it first won office back in May 2022, it would now have raised $78 billion in tax.

Instead the PRRT has raised a bit over $6 billion.

I guess the government has decided the gas companies need that money more than does our health system, or schools, or people living in poverty, or disabled, or those dealing with domestic violence, or those with kids in childcare, or parents in aged care, or…

Alice Grundy

There are more headlines on Firmus today. Your take on the failed IPO will vary depending on what you read. The Australian is pushing the line that it’s Australia’s regulation that is to blame ( — a small reminder here that regulation are the guardians on our society.)

They quoted James Packer who apparently thinks:

 “the difference between America and Australia is very noticeable in the way Australia tends to tear down aggressive entrepreneurs and America builds them up.”

But the AFR looks into one of the key players, a San-Francisco based ‘investment giant’ saying that:

“Despite expectations of significant investor interest, prospective Firmus backers ultimately worried about its lack of operational history and the considerable debt it planned to take on to build a portfolio of data centre projects across Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia.” 

So maybe it’s not a question of Australia’s regulation after all.

Big thanks to The Point’s resident editorial cartoonist, Fiona Katauskas, for the literal lol this morning.

Anna Chang

Thank-you to the eagle-eyed reader who has pointed out that actually, one (1) parliamentarian did mention Anti-Poverty Week yesterday.

Some good points made by Greens for Queensland, Senator Penny Allman-Payne, in yesterday’s Senate debate on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026:

Senator Penny Allman-Payne:

This bill is more proof that Australia’s social security system is too complex and often inaccessible. Services Australia can’t seem to grasp social security law—and they’re the ones administering it. 

Every day, people who are sick, working, parenting, elderly, disabled or just trying to live their lives are punished for making minor mistakes.

This government has made the deliberate choice to keep all social security payments below the poverty line. 

It’s Anti-Poverty Week. The fact that we even have to have an anti-poverty week should be a source of shame. It’s the start of Anti-Poverty Week, and instead of ending government induced poverty the Minister for Social Services has announced meagre funding for emergency relief charities that amounts to less than $1 per welfare recipient, while people in this country are dying from poverty.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s latest report on mortality outcomes showed that people accessing the JobSeeker payment are up to 10 times more likely to die than people not on any income support. Almost three in five people aged 22 to 64 who passed away between 2012 and 2022 were accessing income support. 

Social security is supposed to help people. It’s in the name—’security’. But governments, including this one, continue to impose strict conditions policing the ways people can get support and what people must do to get that support. 

It’s gatekeeping, and it’s killing people. Poverty is always a political choice.

Anna Chang

The Antipoverty Centre is hosting an online event at 3:30pm AEDT today featuring the Central Land Council and Single Mother Families Australia to highlight issues compounding poverty that do not get the attention they need or are not well understood. 

The event is open to both media and the public, with community sector workers in particular, encouraged to attend. 

More info, and rego to receive the zoom link here: https://events.humanitix.com/compounding-poverty

Dr Josie Douglas, Central Land Council General Manager said:
Raising the remote area allowance is one compassionate and practical thing politicians can do right now to relieve the extreme cost of living crisis faced by the poorest Australians out bush. The allowance clearly hasn’t kept up with the skyrocketing prices in remote communities for a long time, but people are now at breaking point. We implore anyone who believes in a fair go to support a meaningful increase.

Jay Coonan, Antipoverty Centre Co-coordinator said:
Privatised “job” agencies are designed to deprive people of their rights. People are told that if they do not comply, they will have their Centrelink payment stopped. A rights guide won’t fix the root issue, but it is tool people can use to defend themselves from these parasitic companies who manage the poor. Whether it’s pushing back against being forced into a useless AI course, or being told to travel an hour by train for a 10 minute interrogation – we created the rights guide to help people understand what is and isn’t compulsory and avoid unfair and unlawful penalties. 

Some key stats:

+ Currently, the main unemployment payment is $412 a week – 40% below the poverty line. 

+ More than 1 million people rely on unemployment payments, around 40% of whom are disabled. 

+ 20% of people on the JobSeeker payment is employed, subjected to an effective marginal tax rate of 75% for every dollar of gross income above $128 a week. 

+ People on the two main working age payments (JobSeeker and DSP) make up around a third of all suicide deaths among working age adults. People on JobSeeker represent 20% of all suicide deaths among those aged 15 to 66 years old. 

+ 167,000 people on income support aged between 22 to 64 years old died between 2012 and 2022 – 58.2% of all deaths for people in this age group. Those on JobSeeker aged 35 to 44 are 9.6 times more likely to die than their peers.

Environment minister Murray Watt is speaking to ABC News Breakfast, where he is being asked if the digital duty of care bill is friendless in the senate (the Coalition is just a no, the Greens want more protections and options).

Watt says:

Of course we want to see these laws passed and even this recent example of this execution and the possible streaming of it is an example that we need to strengthen Australia’s laws as it relates to the responsibilities of the tech platforms. You know, we remain open to passing this legislation, either with the Coalition or the Greens, and I know that Minister Wells is in discussions with both sides about that. It’s too important to have this blocked through sort of some sort of politics from either side. We will continue discussing with both the Coalition and the Greens. What their changes are, whether we’re prepared to make them, but we need to put the interests of Australians first on these sorts of things they are concerned about on social media.

On the bipartisan committee looking into AI regulations and the release of their wish list, Watt says:

Well, again, those recommendations have just been received and the Government will certainly give them consideration. It’s good to see some bipartisan work happening in this space and, just to go back to the Digital Duty of Care, we’d like to see that sort of bipartisanship on that as well. I think on the Digital Duty of Care t is a bit of a concern that the remarks we’ve got coming from the Coalition indicate that, yet again, they’re being led to a policy position by One Nation, trying to copy One Nation’s policy and it’s further evidence for what Josh Frydenberg has been out there saying, that the Liberal Party needs to get back to the centre. I mean, the fact that the Liberal Party is now having people outside the Parliament publicly audition for the leadership role shows how lacking in talent they have and, again, I think it’s an admission from Josh Frydenberg that there’s simply no way the Liberals can govern without One Nation. So the more bipartisanship that they can show on these matters, that concern Australians, like AI, it will show they are doing what Josh Frydenberg says, which is get back to the centre and think about the needs of Australians.

Given the amount of natural resources the AI industry requires, Watt should be at all these negotiations. But notice how he switched up to Frydenberg there? That’s how you know how much Labor is enjoying Frydenberg’s latest intervention (five years after he lost his seat and while also refusing to say if he’ll run again – because he can’t say. He will only run if he thinks he is guaranteed a win, so you won’t hear either way until much closer to the election)

So how are the Greens handling the gas reservation policy which the government is already walking back?
Sarah Hanson-Young:

This is an example, actually,week?of what we’ve just been talking about. Labor promised a 20% gas reserve. They’ve now walked that back and watered that down. It feels like every time Labor promises something, they go weak before they’re even in the ring. We need to make sure that, actually, we have policies in this country that deliver for people. We haven’t seen the detail of the legislation yet. We’ll have to look at that.

But let me say – I think Labor’s barking up the wrong tree here. We need a much bigger and much more – and a much simpler plan to tackle the gas industry and to deliver for Australians. And that would be a 25% tax on gas exports. It’s hugely popular, the community wants it. They’re sick of companies making massive profits and not contributing to the national budget. Let’s be bigger and let’s be simpler and let’s put in place a tax instead.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was a guest on ABC TV 7.30 overnight, where she was asked whether the Greens had been too soft in their negotiations with the government. Hanson-Young is the leader of those negotiations in the senate, and the context was whether David Shoebridge, who beat her for the leadership (comprehensively) within the party room was criticising how some of those negotiations had gone.

Hanson-Young:

Look, I don’t believe we’ve been too soft, but I do understand that Australians – particularly those from, um, progressive voters – are frustrated that this government, that the Albanese government, continues to water down their ambition. We want Labor to deliver on what they promised Australians, and we want to make sure that the parliament can deliver for the community. We will hold Labor to account. We will stop the radical right from gaining a further foothold in this country. And we will be there fighting in the corner for regular people. Across the country, no-one can deny that the community is frustrated. They’re looking at politics and thinking, “Hang on. This isn’t working for us.”

Hello and welcome to another day of parliament – and The Point Live. It is party room Tuesday, which means there is going to be a mixed bag of a morning and then a big rush in the middle with parliament sitting from midday.

It’s mostly about AI regulation today. The parliamentary inquiry into AI wants independent safety checks, local computing power for local use and Australia’s security agencies to have early access to new models before they are released. There is also a call for a review of copyright protections, which in Australia are pretty messed up. So yeah – they want oversight, but despite the massive alarms ringing around this issue, there is no ‘we are moving too fast’ or ‘we shouldn’t do this’. As a reminder, a local ‘frontier model’ doesn’t mean Australia owns anything. So yeah, at the moment we are doing exactly what we did with gas and other fossil fuels. Good times.

Oh and we are still talking about whether or not we should ban any footage of any livestreamed execution the Trump administration wants to do – like we could. So that’s fun too.

We’ll cover that and everything else that pops up today, including how many more times Josh Frydenberg can make the Liberal party about him (the limit does not exist).

I am still looking for coffee. Pray for me. Ready? Let’s do this.