The Point Live: Future of Coalition still up in the air, Labor facing internal 'discomfort' over Herzog visit.

Just so you know, Australia is a big part of this. As AAP reports:

US Vice President JD Vance has unveiled plans to marshal allies into a preferential trade bloc for critical minerals as ‍Washington escalates efforts to loosen China’s grip on materials crucial to advanced manufacturing. 

China has wielded its chokehold on the processing of many minerals as geo-economic leverage, at times curbing exports, suppressing prices and undercutting other countries’ ability to diversify sources of the materials used ​to make semiconductors, electric vehicles and advanced weapons.

“We want to eliminate that problem of people flooding into our markets with cheap critical minerals to undercut our domestic manufacturers,” Vance told a gathering of visiting ministers in Washington without mentioning China.

“We will establish reference prices for ⁠critical minerals at each stage of production … and for members of the preferential zone, these reference prices will operate as a floor maintained through adjustable tariffs to uphold pricing integrity,” Vance said.

President Donald Trump’s administration has stepped up efforts to secure US supplies of critical minerals after China rattled senior officials and global markets in 2025 by withholding rare earths required by American automakers and other industrial manufacturers. 

Trump on Monday launched a US strategic stockpile of critical minerals, called Project Vault, backed by $US10 billion ($A14 billion) in seed funding from the US Export-Import Bank and $US2 billion ($A2.9 billion) in private funding.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said 55 countries attended the talks in Washington, among them South Korea, India, Thailand, Japan, Germany, Australia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, all with ‌varying refining or mining capabilities.

The ​minerals are “heavily concentrated in the hands of one country,” Rubio said, without referencing China, adding that the situation had become a “tool of leverage in geopolitics”. 

At the meeting on Wednesday, local time, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced a bilateral ‍plan with Mexico and a trilateral agreement with the European Union and Japan to strengthen critical mineral supply chains and set the stage for a broader agreement with other allies.

The plans aim to explore specific measures such as price supports, market standards, subsidies, and guaranteed purchases to encourage production.

The US, EU, and Japan also said they would pursue other avenues, including discussions within the Group of 7 and the Minerals Security Partnership.

A multi-country effort to establish price floors of critical minerals is the Trump administration’s latest move to exert control over private business. 

The White House has taken stakes in several mineral companies as well as chipmaker Intel and has negotiated deals with drugmakers for lower prices.

By guaranteeing minimum prices through ‌co-ordinated trade rules, Washington hopes to unlock private investment in mining and processing projects that have struggled to compete with cheaper Chinese supply. 

The approach could reshape global ​supply chains for materials essential to electric vehicles, semiconductors and defense systems, while raising costs for manufacturers in the short term and escalating trade tensions with Beijing.

“China has long played an important and constructive role in keeping the global industrial ‍and supply chains of critical minerals safe and stable and is willing to continue to make active efforts in this regard,” China’s embassy in Washington told Reuters when asked about the meeting.

Australia is constantly told there is not a lot we can do to change the world – but you never have to go back far to see how untrue that is.

Albanese, in his speech this morning, showed how untrue the helpful helplessness attitude really is:

Indeed, the reason the UN Charter makes specific mention of sexual discrimination is because of a great Australian, Jessie Street.
 
One of just eight women among 850 delegates in San Francisco in 1945.
 
She told that conference:
 
“Where the rules are silent, women are not usually considered.”
 
This year’s call to “Balance the Scales” reminds us that there are still nations around the world where discrimination against women is written into the law.
 
That was Australia, back when married women were excluded from working in the public service.
 
When only widows were eligible for the single parent payment.
 
When there was no such thing as no-fault divorce, or the Family Court. 
 
Those barriers didn’t fall over on their own.
 
Australian women organised and campaigned to bring them down.
 
Generations of women have made the personal, political – and delivered political change as a result.
 
Yet the wisdom of Jessie Street still holds true, for all of us.
 
Because it is not enough for the rules to be silent.
 
It is not enough to assume that the playing field is level and opportunity is equal, just because there is nothing in writing that says otherwise.
 
It is easy to talk about equality for women in principle.
 
What matters is advancing equality for women in practice.
 

Anthony Albanese has done the annual leaders address to the UN Womens’ Breakfast at parliament house (ahead of international womens’ day).

So far this year, according to Sherele Moody’s Red Heart Movement tracker, 6 women and three children have already lost their lives in Australia, to violence.

On why One Nation is soaring in the polls, McManus says:

I think there is – wherever you got a gap between people’s expectations of how life should be and how it actually it is, so your parents, what they had and then what you see has not been as good. Well, people start looking for answers. 

You know, some people will fill that with things that aren’t true and want to blame people that aren’t to blame for these problems. The why we got housing problems is because of the tax issue and because of the supply, not because of immigrants. And so some people will use the – to blame others for it and that that is part of the reason why, you know, that’s been fuelled in terms of minor parties. But governments still in the end have take action to make the country fairer

Sally McManus said it’s time for the change to CGT to be made to help rebalance the housing market:

I think the Government understands that there’s a deep unfairness, deep unfairness where if you work fulltime that is not getting you to a position where you can ever buy a house. Now, when John Howard brought in capital gains tax [discount] 26 years ago, the average wage of a worker, it would be six times more, like, to buy a house. Now, it’s nearly twice that. It’s 11. So that means that, like, the compact we had or what people could expect in life is that if you work hard, you’ll be able toe afford your housing, your rent, and to be able to buy a house eventually isn’t there. And that it’s 1%, like, 1% of the wealthiest Australians, the ones benefiting from this. I think, like, it as not just us. It’s like across the community, like, people like Allegra Spender, everyone, saying that this needs to change and, like, clearly it does. I do think the Government is listening to that and we’re going to just keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.

And what about what business would say about needing productivity gains?

McManus:

Every time business says that, they are deflecting. Basically, they are the ones that are responsible for productivity increases and they have not been investing in training up workers so skilling up workers, or new equipment and capital which are the things that lead to productivity increases.

They have underinvested in that for a long period of time. And they have basically put short-term profits ahead of doing that.

That’s the reason why we got a productivity problem.

They love to turn around and say, “It’s workers’ problem, we should work harder”, we’re working extremely hard and we are productive. The thing that has changed is them not investing in the things that actually make a difference.

Why are workers more intent on striking now than at other times?

Sally McManus:

Because people’s pressures in terms of cost of living especially around housing, which makes up such a huge amount of your budget is, you know, it each been eaten up by housing costs. People are really in a situation where their only option is to get ahead is wages – is wage increases. Now, if you’re very wealthy, you have got a whole lot of tax breaks that add to your wealth and allow you ahead, not through working hard, but through using those tax breaks.

If you’re a worker, your way of getting ahead is wages and so I’m seeing that young people are saying, “We have had enough of this”, and that really pushing for better deal at work because it’s their way of getting ahead.

The ACTU have a few things they are prioritising as campaigns this year – and a cut to the CGT discount is pretty high up on that list, given how the tax discount has impacted the housing market.

Sally McManus was asked about that this morning on the ABC and said:

Landlords keep putting up rents and inflation there or how much they’re going up is 4% and so your average worker is either a renter or they’re a first home buyer and they’re the ones under the most amount of cost-of-living pressure for a whole lot of reasons, but the rent is a big part of it and takes up most of your wages. In order just to keep up, you need a 4% pay increase. So that’s, you know, people are going to want to get ahead.

That means more than 4% now. Lots of employers are reasonable, but some aren’t and workers are getting together with collective agreements and they are delivering wage increases that are ahead of inflation, but, of course, if employers aren’t reasonable, that’s what workers need to do, you know, there will be strikes.

Defence minister Richard Marles is doing the media rounds this morning to talk about the defence land and site sale which has been two years in the making (it is now reaching its next stage).

But it’s always interesting when Marles is asked something outside of the portfolio he is so slavishly devoted to – as he was on ABC TV News Breakfast just a moment ago. (Interesting = watch him muddle it up)

Q: We know the Government is looking at ways to address the housing shortage. Capital gains tax – can you confirm the Government is looking at potential changes to the discount?

Marles:

You know, what I can say is that our changed and the tax arrangements around our housing policies haven’t changed. We do acknowledge that there is intergenerational challenges in respect of housing, but our strategy in respect of that has been very much focused on the supply side. It has been focused on building more houses and that’s been the case for the last couple of years. That continues to be the case in terms of our strategy forward. So that is where our focus is.

Q: But can you rule it out then? Capital gains tax is off the table?

Marles:

Well, I mean, what I said and what I’ll continue to say and what other ministers have said when asked this question is that in respect of housing policy, our position is clear and there haven’t been changes to that including in the tax arrangements, and our strategy in terms of dealing with the intergenerational challenges, our strategy in terms of dealing with housing affordability is very much on the supply side and seeing more houses built. That will continue to be the case.

Cool, cool, cool – very clear. Snaps all round.

For those confused – like Marles – yes, the government is looking at it.

Australia’s “booming” relationship with Indonesia will take another step forward when the nations’ leaders pen a security agreement.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will travel to the southeast Asian nation on Thursday and meet with Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto to formally sign the deal they negotiated and announced in November.

While the parties have been somewhat coy about what the pact specifically entails, Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Gatra Priyandita said the “umbrella arrangement” would likely codify existing deals to find common strategic vision.

Dr Priyandita added Australia’s PukPuk Treaty signed with Papua New Guinea in October that ensures mutual defence between the nations prompted some suspicion in Indonesia, which would likely be nullified by the new deal.

“Indonesia just seeks clarification, and now both Indonesia and PNG have security treaty level status,” he told AAP.

“It’s an attempt to reassure Indonesia that you’re just as important to us as PNG is, and having more codified engagements also means there are more opportunities to express concerns and policy preferences and so on.”

Australia-Indonesia Centre industry fellow and author Jemma Purdey said the treaty indicated any concerns Indonesia held about the AUKUS arrangement were in the past.

President Prabowo has faced criticism at home for appearing to abandon the nation’s long-held foreign policy of non-alignment.

“There is criticism at home that he is getting too close to the US, in an effort to extract some concession on tariffs,” Dr Purdey told AAP.

“But the fact is that under Prabowo, Indonesia has also done deals to buy defence equipment from Russia – there are lots of indications that he does not discriminate.”

Outside of defence, Dr Purdey said Mr Albanese would use the trip to improve trade relations and help ease access for Australian businesses seeking opportunities in Indonesia.

Dr Priyandita said the relationship could only be viewed as being in a great place.

“Defence and security ties are at their peak, economic ties continue to improve, trade ties are booming, investment ties are booming,” he said.

Mr Albanese, whose first overseas trip after his re-election in 2025 was to Indonesia, told his caucus this week Australia would continue strengthening international ties.

“I’ll be in Indonesia to sign the treaty that we agreed with President Prabowo at the end of last year, again making sure that in this region and in the world that we’re engaged in a way that protects our national interest,” he said.

Politicians have been accused of being the primary drivers of racism while sweeping reform recommendations to address prejudice gather dust.

As Australia grapples with rising anti-immigrant sentiment and the fallout from a deadly terror attack on a Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach, the nation’s leaders have leaned on terms like “social cohesion” in a bid for unity.

But far from alleviating tensions, community groups and Australia’s race discrimination commissioner have pointed the finger back at politicians for making the situation worse.

“It is often politicians themselves who have been the primary drivers of division,” Australian National Imams Council President Shadi Alsuleiman told AAP.

In the lead-up to the federal election, MPs from all sides of the political spectrum were “dehumanising migrants and using inflammatory rhetoric that could lead to racism as a tool for garnering votes,” commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman said.

The federal government has been searching for ways to stymie hate, recently passing controversial laws that experts say could scupper political criticism and free speech.

But the solution has been in front of them the whole time, Mr Sivaraman said.

The Australian Human Rights Commission in November 2024 presented the government with a comprehensive plan to tackle all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, through the National Anti-Racism Framework.

More than 54 organisations including the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service have called for it to be funded and followed.

Though the government received the report more than 430 days ago, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland’s office says it is “carefully considering” the 63 recommendations.

A date for when it will formally respond is unknown.

“The government is taking a multifaceted approach to combating the scourge of racism, with action underway across a range of portfolios,” a spokesperson for the attorney-general said.

This inaction has been frustrating for the race discrimination commissioner.

“Not taking action against racism means harm continues to be suffered across our society … racism can lead to death in a variety of ways,” Mr Sivaraman told AAP.

“There are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are dying from diseases eradicated in the rest of the population 30 years ago … there’s over-representation of communities impacted by racism in our justice system, and deaths in custody continue.”

He said Australians would benefit from a better society if politicians were courageous, honest and transparent about racism.

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, who supports the framework, has said the major parties hide behind terms like “social cohesion” to whitewash issues regarding racism.

“This is not only a distraction but it is dangerous, as it allows hate to fester,” she told AAP.

“Instead of a ridiculous system of envoys, the government should create a standalone anti-racism portfolio and a minister responsible for it.”

The framework proposes reforms across legal, justice, health, education, workplaces, media and arts and data collection.

Husic continued:

A month later, one year after Christchurch, he appeared before Senate estimates, and what happened was instructive.

He was grilled by coalition government senators who were not asking about what ASIO was doing about the threat but, rather, objecting to the label of ‘right-wing extremist’. Let me quote then coalition senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells to Mr Burgess at Senate estimates. She said:

“‘Right’ is associated with conservatism in this country, and there are many people of conservative background who take exception to being tarred with the same brush”.

She went on to tell the director-general:

“So I think the time has come, Director-General, especially from you, to ensure that you are very careful with the terminology that you use …”

Labels sting, huh? Do we think we should be a bit more careful about how we throw labels around, or should we just ‘face uncomfortable truths’?

What happened after this was also instructive because, 12 months after that exchange, under a coalition government, ASIO determined it would no longer refer to right-wing extremism or Islamist terrorism. From that time forth, the terms ‘religiously motivated’ or ‘ideologically motivated’ terrorism would be used. That was under a coalition government, a move overseen by then minister for home affairs Peter Dutton, and former ministers of that government are now telling us to confront uncomfortable truths—members like the member for Canning, who previously declared it was ‘time for the Australian Muslim leadership to systematically and clearly make the case that Islam is a religion of peace’.

So let’s be clear then: when some coalition MPs advise us to face uncomfortable truths, are the only truths we confront the ones conservatives find comfortable to confront?

Not to be outdone, we had but last week coalition senator Andrew Bragg mused;… the Australian Muslim community has to take some responsibility for the behaviours we’ve seen exhibited over the last couple of decades.

He opined:

“The West has probably been too nice for its own good …

Perhaps he should have a chat about whether a Victorian imam and his wife thought it was nice that they were run off the road in Melbourne and attacked and had racist abuse and rubbish hurled at them. Or is it nice for Muslim Australian women to have their hijab torn off or be labelled, with an expletive, ‘terrorists’ or be spat at? Is it nice to see pigs’ heads in Muslim sections of cemeteries or impaled on the fences of places of worship? Maybe we should refer to any of the work undertaken by Action Against Islamophobia or the Islamophobia Register that tracks examples of what ‘nice’ looks like to many Muslim Australians on a near daily basis. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism across the board—all these behaviours should not be tolerated, full stop.

We should be appalled by all of these acts, not selectively concerned or occasionally responsive. Let me go to words expressed in this parliament to underscore that point.

In April 2019, then prime minister Scott Morrison said: “We must strive to see the ‘us’ in our national life and to celebrate it, an Australian ‘us’ of different faiths, of different ethnicities, of different ages, genders and sexualities, an Australian ‘us’ that rejects the hate, the blame and contempt that grip too much of modern debate”.

Those words are those I can stand by.

Disappointingly, those words are a far cry from the Scott Morrison of today, who wants to have practitioners of just one faith be singled out for registration and accreditation and for them to somehow prove their fidelity to our nation because the starting-point assumption is, ‘Until you do this, you might be suspect, deficient, not to be trusted.’

So much for the 2019 call for an Australian us that rejects the ‘blame and contempt’. What’s the end game here?

Once imams are accredited and their loyalty proven, do we get them to wear armbands? Are we more relaxed with that—replicating a more abominable chapter of world history? Once we start down the path of uncomfortable truths, we need to know exactly where we’re headed.

It’s worth noting that not one Australian was required to prove their fidelity to the nation post Christchurch, when a white supremacist Australian slaughtered 51 New Zealanders. No practitioner of the Christian faith was asked to do likewise after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

And here’s the thing: nor should they. It’s a ridiculous and divisive notion, because we do not sheet home blame and responsibility to entire communities for the acts of extremist individuals.

Surely we can agree. Surely we can rally around that compelling logic, because dividing people and shoving them into dark corners to nurse fear and grievance is not the way we build and sustain a strong nation.

This is the crux of my call to parliament. In a time of fear and grief and anger, we all as parliamentarians have a critical role to play. Scapegoating, wielding a broad brush to tar—that stuff’s easy to do. That’s the political equivalent of instant gratification—Red Bull politicking: quick hit then a slump. I come back to the words delivered by a rabbi to me post Bondi: ‘We choose our hard.’

Jacinda Ardern chose her hard and showed the world how to build a better, cohesive, stronger nation in the aftermath of unimaginable grief.

That’s the task before us all—the hard and patient and vital work to bring people together at a time when Australians want and deserve calm, determined leadership from us all.

While Ed Husic is back in the news again for publicly admitting to being uncomfortable with Israeli president Isaac Hertzog’s visit to Australia next week (something he is not alone in within the Labor caucus, but don’t expect too many within the backbench group to publicly stand up on) he also gave a speech in the Federation chamber (the house of reps spill over chamber) where he laid out much of the unchecked Islamphobia and selective calls for facing ‘hard truths’.

I’ll include the speech in its entirety so you can read all of Husic’s words in their entirety:

There’s rightly been a lot of focus in this parliament on the events of 14 December, and there should continue to be. We witnessed 15 of our fellow Australians killed—Jewish Australians targeted because of their faith—a depravity carried out by ISIS inspired terrorists.

Their act has written an incredibly dark chapter into our nation’s history. The grieving will continue for some time, and, while this occurs, we have another task to pursue. We need to have a clear understanding of how this occurred.

What are the lessons we can learn to avoid a repeat of this on Australian soil? This is why I never hesitated in expressing my belief— supporting the member for Macarthur—that a royal commission into this awful, horrific event be undertaken.

Besides getting answers and clarity, it can also play an important role in healing and bringing us together. The growth of extremism needs to be confronted regardless of what corner it emerges from.

I’ve been concerned about this for sometime, but it crystallised further in 2019—the year an Australian white supremacist travelled to Christchurch, New Zealand, and killed 51 people on the basis of their religion. That terrorist’s acts against people of the Islamic faith was livestreamed over social media. His 74-page manifesto was later used to inspire attacks on a synagogue in Poway, California; a supermarket in El Paso, Texas; a mosque in Baerum, Norway; and another synagogue in Halle, Germany. This was a hateful cancer that spread.

When I recently stood on that footbridge at Bondi and looked at the park where Jewish Australians had been celebrating Hanukkah and were targeted for attack, I felt the exact chill I experienced visiting those two mosques in Christchurch. In both cases innocent people were hemmed in, and, with little room for them to escape, tragedy ensued.

Again, I supported a royal commission into the events of Bondi because, as I have said before and restate now, whether it’s an Islamist or a far-right extremist, anyone that poses a threat to the safety of our fellow Australians must be dealt with head-on using every resource we can muster. We must stand up to terrorism, but tough should join with calm—resisting threats while unifying.

Post Christchurch, then New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern was praised for doing whatever she could to comfort and rally New Zealanders. At a time of grief and mourning, she consoled while also being prepared to respond strongly to terror, including setting up a royal commission into the horrors of Christchurch. Notably, she did not beam herself in via Australian media to blame our nation for the terror that occurred on New Zealand soil.

Prime Minister Ardern worked with then prime minister Morrison to set in place laws to prevent social media giants from live-streaming terrorist acts. The response to Christchurch is a salutary example of how societies traumatised by terror can and should rally, comfort and unite.

But, since the terrible events of Bondi, I’ve often reflected on the contrast between 2025 and 2019. I think it’s important we reflect and contrast because, during the last parliamentary sitting, we heard a number of times from the coalition of the need to confront hard truths. In fact, the opposition leader made it a feature of her condolence motion, stating:

‘To do so, we must face uncomfortable truths. Radical Islamist extremism caused this. I repeat: radical Islamist extremism caused this.’

After that, during condolence contributions and debates and via questions on notice, parliamentarians referred to ‘radical Islamists’, ‘radical Islamist extremism’, ‘radical Islamist extremists’, ‘radical Islamist ideology’ and even ‘radical Islam’ nearly 90 times. They didn’t even blink associating ‘radicalism’ with an entire faith. Let’s reflect and contrast. Let’s, as the opposition leader invites us to do, ‘face uncomfortable truths’.

One person that has to do this on a daily basis is the person who heads ASIO, Mike Burgess. In February 2020, nearly a year after Christchurch, Mr Burgess highlighted the growth of right-wing extremism and the threat it poses to Australia. He warned how small cells of right-wing extremists were meeting across the country and saluting Nazi flags in homes nestled in our suburbs, where they hid weapons caches and trained in combat.

(Continued in next post)

Given all the commentary around the economy and the idea that spending money on workers and services is bad, but businesses making increasing profits is fine when it comes to inflation, the Greens are once again trying to draw attention to ‘corporate price gouging’.

Nick McKim said the Greens bill would be debated in the senate later today:

Price gouging is a major driver of inflation, and Australians are copping it every day

When big corporations with market power jack up prices simply because they can, that feeds inflation right through the economy.

Supermarkets are a clear example, but this problem goes far beyond the checkout. Price gouging is happening across the economy, and it’s keeping inflation higher for longer.

The bill would make rising prices just because you can illegal, and give the ACCC powers to investigate and if necessary prosecute companies accused of using their market power to raise prices.

You don’t need to be a savant though, to see where this will go today – Labor won’t support it, and neither will enough in the non-government benches for it to move any further.

You can read some more about the impacts of price gouging on Australians, here.

As always, Niki Savva is well worth reading today.

She has written on the future (such as it is) of the Liberal party – and as always, has the inside track.

Senior Liberals – except Sussan Ley’s numbers man, Alex Hawke – agree she is toast.

If Angus Taylor has the numbers next week, likely boosted by another devastating poll, he will use them. If not, he aims to strike before the budget in May. Like many others, Taylor is in no rush to reform the Coalition. He wants freedom to zero in on the economy – the one issue that can unify the party – without worrying what the Nationals might do.

The right, and certain moderates, hope Taylor can do better than Ley. They stop short of predicting he will succeed. One senior conservative put it this way:“Taylor will be our next opposition leader, but Hastie could be our next prime minister.”

Then there is the election review, which as Savva points out she hasn’t seen but is told mirrors the findings in her book, Earthquake – which I would believe. Savva has the inside track there, and goes back to 2022 when the party refused to examine what had happened to it, pulled along by Peter Dutton who was convinced the force of his personality alone would get the Liberals where they wanted to go.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Hello and welcome to parliament Friday, which is the last day of the sitting week. The MPs will be rushing for the airport by the end of the day, but there is still a mess to sort out.

First up – the Liberal and National party. Will they or won’t they. Is there a rose ceremony? Does it even matter? Would a reality TV version of whatever it is they are doing offer more for the country? Probably.

Secondly, Labor isn’t getting away clean from internal discomfort either. Former minister Ed Husic came out yesterday and admitted he was “very uncomfortable” with the impending visit from Israeli president Isaac Herzog.

I find it hard to reconcile the images I have seen of him signing bombs that were then dropped on Palestinian homes and the fact that the ICJ has called out some of his statements as indicating collective responsibility of Palestinians,” Mr Husic said.

I am concerned that a figure like that does not necessarily enhance social cohesion.”

Husic is not alone in feeling that way within the Labor caucus, but he is one of the only ones brave enough to cross what has been termed by some Labor insiders as the “red line” within the party’s senior leadership with regards to the visit.

Herzog is Israel’s version of Sam Mostyn – president in Israel’s system is mostly a ceremonial role – but he has faced claims following a UN investigation that he “incited the commission of genocide” with some of his comments. He’s denied it, but his visit to Australia (along with the extension of the NSW protest ban to cover his visit) has raised concerns about how it will help ‘social cohesion’ given some of his actions.

Expect more of that to play out today.

You have me, Amy Remeikis with you and I am three coffees deep already. Mike Bowers will be around (yay) and you’ll have a range of expert contributors to ask questions of and fill in some gaps.

So, for the last time this week (before we go into just the house sitting and estimates next week) let’s get into it.