The Point Live: Fair Work Commission raises minimum wage by 4.75%, estimates resumes. As it happens

Thanks for your company today.

Amy returns tomorrow for another big day of economic data, with quarterly GDP figures to be released.

Greg Jericho and the team will be all over it.

See you then.

Ahead of tomorrow’s GDP figures, one thing that appears completely off the table is a rate rise.

The market is not anticipating any chance of the RBA raising rates in a couple of weeks

Also, the market does not even fully price in another rate rise at all. This is rather different to 2 months ago:

Seven House of Reps crossbenchers have thrown their support behind the Public Inquiry into AUKUS, which will be headed by Peter Garrett.

Independent Member for Wentworth Allegra Spender has just raised the issue as a Matter of Public Importance, saying:

The government must be transparent about the risks to the delivery of AUKUS and how Australia’s national and security interests will be protected especially in light of recent changes to contract terms.

• Recent developments are highlighting escalating risks to the delivery of the AUKUS project and Australia’s ability to manage those risks. The USA is continuing to fail to produce submarines at the rate that is required for the President to be able to commit to giving Australia Virginia-class submarines.
• The government has just agreed with the USA that Australia will not get any new Virginia-class submarines, reducing Australia’s capability, with no justification that this is in Australia’s interests. The government has admitted there are changes to the program based on the Colby Review but have not been transparent about what the review said and what changes are coming from it.
• A UK Parliamentary Committee has warned that Britain risks being unable to meet its obligations under AUKUS, putting the SSN-AUKUS boats at risk as well. And the Australian National Audit Office has issued a scathing report on the Collins-class Life-of-Type Extension program which increases the risk that Australia will face a capability gap through the 2030s. 

Monique Ryan, Independent Member for Kooyong:

It’s a national embarrassment that a former Labor minister is crowdfunding for an independent inquiry into AUKUS; it’s only a matter of time before we find ourselves crowdfunding for the submarines themselves.

Kate Chaney, Independent Member for Curtin:

The Government keeps telling us to trust that AUKUS is on track, but trust has to be earned through transparency, not merely asserted. Australians have put billions into this program on the basis of a plan that has now changed again.

Before we go further, the Government needs to level with the parliament and the public: what are the real risks to delivery, what’s the contingency if US production falls short, and what does a fleet of second-hand submarines mean for our long-term capability?

Nicolette Boele, Independent Member for Bradfield:

Defence is too important to get wrong, and even if you back AUKUS, you can’t ignore the enormous risks now staring us in the face — we’ve put all our eggs in one basket, and the contract terms keep shifting under us.

The government owes Australians honesty about whether the AUKUS deal will actually be delivered, and what our alternative capabilities are if it is not. Hoping for the best is not a defence strategy.

Allegra Spender, Independent Member for Wentworth:

Hope is not a strategy. It is clear there are mounting risks to the delivery of the AUKUS program and emerging gaps in capability because of challenges with the Collins-class Life-of-Type Extension program. The government needs to be honest with the Australian public about the risks to the program and develop clear plans to manage the gaps in capability, including through alternative technologies if required. Public confidence cannot be built on optimism alone and reassurances that everything is going to be OK are less and less credible.

Zali Steggall, Independent Member for Warringah:

Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment in decades. We need a credible defence capability, strong alliances and long-term planning.

“Recent changes to the AUKUS pathway raise legitimate questions about cost, capability, delivery risk and whether Australians are receiving what was originally promised.

Sophie Scamps, Independent Member for Mackellar:

It’s critical that Australia is not left vulnerable by being tied into costly agreements that do not deliver. We need certainty that we will have the capacity to defend ourselves, and that we are spending our defence money appropriately. This must be done in a transparent way and not left up to civil society to conduct an inquiry.

Dai Le, Independent Member for Fowler:

I have been calling for an urgent review of AUKUS and its benefits to our national interest since my first term.

Subsequent governments have sent hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars offshore with no clear guarantee of delivery, while raising taxes at home, letting domestic manufacturing collapse, and cutting essential services like the NDIS in the name of financial sustainability.

If the government can scrutinise disability support down to the dollar, it can scrutinise a $368 billion submarine deal.

During QT, the opposition asked a question about  “secret RBA internal note”.

Actually, it was just internal note that was released via FOI.

I mean by that standard, every internal RBA note is secret.

It was released by the RBA on 10 April, but Nine Newspapers wrote about today so I guess it is news.

The question suggests that migration is the big problem.

The important bit in the RBA note is this:

Yes migration is mentioned, because that can influence housing demand – not that is it saying the current migration level is bad.

Importantly though, the first thing mentioned is “tax settings esp tax concessions”, and guess what – they have now been changed!

Very little to get excited about today.

The new Member for Farrer David Farley doesn’t ask a question.

The opposition keeps going on CGT, repeating a bunch of questions from last week.

Some decent crossbench questions about Aged Care (Rebekha Sharkie), engagement on renewables (Helen Haines) and gambling reforms (Allegra Spender) … but the answers were pretty ordinary.

Sometimes I think the crossbench can be too polite, giving ministers heads-up that they’ll ask about a particular issue.

The reason they do this is to give Ministers an opportunity to research their answers and provide specifics.

That may not have been the case today, but I noticed when Anika Wells got to her feet to answer the question about gambling inducements she grabbed her notes and was clearly determined to talk about anything except gambling inducements.

Independent Member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender:

The Reverend Tim Costello today described gambling company inducements, such as bonus bets and boosted odds, as the most evil and predatory feature of the gambling industry. The Murphy Review recommended the immediate banning of all inducements and inducement advertising, but these recommendations are not included in your exposure draft bill. Will the Albanese Government act to outlaw these inducements that drive problem gambling?

Minister for Communications & Sport, Anika Wells:

Our significant reforms will minimise children’s exposure to wagering advertising. They will break the link between sport and gambling, and they will reduce the saturation and the targeting of wagering advertising. The response we tabled was at the first opportunity granted by the parliamentary guidelines. We tabled it through the usual way, and the action we are taking to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of gambling was announced by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club. We will deliver a significant package, which we announced there, with measures that will reduce the harm from gambling. The package has been carefully developed with harm minimisation at front of mind to stop the deluge of gambling advertising.

Spender raises a point of order on relevance, as Wells has made no reference to inducements … but Tony Burke argues the question was broad enough to let the minister dodge it.

It’s actually pretty disrespectful.

You could argue this sort of drivel is fair enough when you get a stupid opposition question that’s been asked a dozen times before .. or one from Bob Katter that makes no sense … but a sensible question on a glaring omission from the government’s gambling reforms deserves better.

To make matters worse, Anika Wells gets back to her feet and keeps droning about other aspects of the bill.

The power of the gambling lobby (with the support of media and sporting outlets) on show for all to see.

Member for Mayo Rebekha Sharkie asks about a constituent with MND who has been assessed as a “medium priority” for an Aged Care support package, meaning he may pass away before he qualifies for support.

Minister, what does it take for a dying person to actually get support at home?

Minister for Aged Care, Sam Rae:

I can assure you that I have the greatest personal sympathy for Greg and other people that are in the circumstances that he faces. That’s why, through this budget, we’ve attributed some additional funding to look at prioritisation and mechanism of the national priority system to ensure that people get the care that they need. We will continue every single day to work hard to make sure that our aged care system is fit for purpose.

Liberal Andrew Wallace has been ejected from the chamber for repeated interjections.

Zoe McKenzie has been told she could be next after abusing standing orders during a question to the Treasurer.

Speaker Milton Dick threatens to stop taking points of order all together.

But this is hardly fiery debate. In fact, it’s all a bit ho-hum.

Housing Minister Clare O’Neil gets a dixer on housing policy and turns it into an attack on the opposition’s claim to be a party of aspiration.

If Robert Menzies were alive today, he would be absolutely horrified with what he sees when we look at the other side of the chamber. Speaker, he started a political party that was all about ordinary Australians having a stake in their own country. Yet in politics today, speaker, it is Labor who is standing up for aspiration. It is Labor who is standing up for ordinary people to have stability and certainty and control in our, in their lives.

Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson pulls a question straight out of last week’s playbook:

Can the Treasurer confirm that working Australians’ tax offset will be chewed up by bracket creep within a year?

Treasurer Jim Chalmers:

Mr. Speaker, if anybody’s looking for evidence that the member for Goldstein is not the sharpest tool in the shed, how about him asking about tax cuts on a day that their party room decided to vote against tax cuts for 13 million Australian workers?

Maybe they could have waited for another day to ask us about bracket creep, when this side of the House this week in the House of Representatives will be returning bracket creep, and that side of the House will be voting to keep bracket creep.

It’s almost as if somebody who writes these questions, Mr. Speaker, is deliberately setting him up.

Independent Member for Indi, Helen Haines:

Regional communities host renewable energy projects critical to our energy transition, and they want better engagement from developers for the vital role they play. The Minister has agreed to a national environmental standard on community engagement as part of reforms to the EPBC Act. It has been six months and we’ve only seen drafts of two of the five standards. Minister, when will the remaining standards be released for public consultation?

Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke:

At the end of last year, we passed consequential changes to environmental law, but behind the environmental law, a series of standards had to be established to effectively create the impact of those reforms. As the question referred to, there are new national environmental standards and supplementary guidelines to get the system up and running. The consultation period on the first standard, which is on matters of national environmental significance, has just closed. That standard goes to the substance of the Samuel review, in that it sets clear objectives and outcomes for protected matters, including prioritizing mitigation. The second standard is the offset standard, that one is still open, but closes soon. The standard that is raised in the question is as well as these standards being out for community consultation. Community consultation itself will have a standard, and I am advised that work I am advised that work on that is well progressed on the standard, and the government anticipates that it will be released for its consultation in the coming weeks.

Angus Taylor has again tried to ask the PM whether Australians will pay $77bn more tax than they’ll get back.

No idea what figures he is using here. What time period is he talking about?

I can’t work it out from the actual figures in the Budget.

Angus Taylor asks exactly the same question as the opener …

Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?

The answer descends into a procedural debate about points of order and relevance, after the PM began with this:

I’ll do my best to answer a question that didn’t really make sense.

Opposition Leader, Angus Taylor, opens the bowling … with an oldie (not really a goodie):

Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, takes two steps down the wicket … and picks up his prepared notes:

Just on the weekend, where in Bexley, a young couple with a baby bought their first home in Bexley on Saturday. All three registered bidders for the auction of the two-bedroom garden villa took part, and all were first home buyers. In Melbourne, in Maribyrnong, Lara Harris from the estate agent said this: “the buyers were a young couple from Southbank, sick of apartment living … the underbidders were also a young first home buyer couple. There’s a lot of first home buyers in the market.

The PM then gets personal, referring to the opposition as “a Tony Abbott cover band”.

Not a bad line, to be fair.

What we saw on the weekend is that they’ve become what Australia doesn’t need, just a cover band, just a cover band. We don’t need a Tony Abbott cover band, a cheaper version. we had the real thing out there on Friday become national president. Then he did seven interviews yesterday, because he knows that this bloke just ain’t up to the job.

It’s not just the Senate that holds Estimates hearings. State and territory parliaments do as well.

The Tasmanian state government has been facing Estimates this week and last.

Some noteworthy things to come out of Tasmanian Estimates are:

Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s department leaked medical information about Ruth Forrest, the independent chair of one of the Estimates committees. The Government has refused to apologise, with Attorney-General Guy Barnett unconvincingly claiming days later that he couldn’t comment since he hadn’t seen the email.

Mr Rockliff also says he will not reintroduce a bill to ban greyhound racing until he is sure it will pass the upper house (the Legislative Council). Labor is opposed to banning greyhound racing. Independents will decide the vote, some of whom have criticised the government’s process and compensation package.  

Mr Rockliff has also been questioned, albeit without giving much up, about the taxpayer covering ministers’ legal fees. It follows the surprise resignation of Arts and Environment Minister Madeleine Ogilvie after she misled parliament about being party to Supreme Court proceedings.

And while Queensland’s Estimates process is still months away, public servants are already using Artificial Intelligence to prepare their briefing notes.

Both Queensland Premier David Crisafulli and Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff have to front up to Estimates, something Prime Minister Anthony Albanese escapes because federal Estimates only happens in the Senate.

Ministers only show up if they’re senators. The Australia Institute has suggested there could be “House Estimates” to go alongside Senate Estimates – which would make the Prime Minister accountable to parliament in much the same way Mr Crisafulli and Mr Rockliff already are.

Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury Andrew Leigh appeared on ABC radio Canberra today.

He says a small dip in property prices in some capitals is neither something to worry about for homeowners nor a sign that the budget measures are already bringing prices down.

He hit back at claims the budget was widely unpopular and drew comparisons to the Hawke/Keating budget of 1987, which introduced the capital gain tax and fridge benefits tax.

Andrew Leigh:

If reform was easy every government would do it. The fact that reform is hard is why some governments have hesitated in making the sorts of important changes we have. But the history of reform is that sometimes governments take a hit in the polls. The Hawke
Government suffered a hit in the polls when it introduced fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax back in 1986. But I don’t think anyone now says that was a mistake to put those tax bases in place.

Question:

But the problem is it’s well and good, but come the next election, you can’t do that while you’re sitting in Opposition?

Andrew Leigh:

Well, the Hawke Government was re-elected resoundingly in 1987 after continuing the conversation with the Australian people about those reforms. We’ll do exactly the same thing this time round. And yes of course, you’ve got fear mongers on our right. You’ve got the three major right wing parties, which are really now three roads to the same destination. Because whether you vote for Liberal, Nationals or One Nation, you will get a Coalition of those parties. Or you’ve got Labor which has put in place sensible reforms to get more young Australians into the housing market after decades in which the home ownership rate had been falling. Someone had to do something about this problem, and we’ve stepped up.

Glenn Connley is going to take you through question time and the afternoon while I finish up another project which has been killing me. Have fun with him and I will see you tomorrow morning for business as usual. And please until then – take care of you Ax

And he looks a little lost. But his colleagues seem very happy to have him there.

Pauline Hanson managed to take time from her busy schedule denigrating entire groups of people – this time young people who she thinks are lazy, having told Sky News a little earlier today that:

“These young ones, they said , they don’t want to work. And then they’re tired by early afternoon or they’re on their phones, or they take days off.”

Which is BOLD considering Hanson skipped out on most of senate estimates last week and instead bragged about socialising and eating cake with Clive Palmer in an entirely different state to her work place. But very standard for Hanson.

Here is how Mike Bowers saw Farley’s entry:

The Greens resources spokesperson, Steph Hodgins-May and Greens MP for Ryan, Elizabeth Watson-Brown who moved the motion calling for a 25% tax on gas exports in the House have made the point that the major parties were in lockstep in saying no.

The Coalition and One Nation (including new MP David Farley) didn’t show up for the vote. Labor voted it down.

Hodgins-May: 

This was Labor’s chance to listen to the Australian people and back a tax on gas exports that would make multinational corporations pay what they owe.

Instead, the major parties have once again joined forces to protect the interests of the gas lobby ahead of ordinary Australians struggling with the cost of living.

It was particularly galling to see One Nation’s newly elected MP campaign as an alternative to politics-as-usual, only to fail to use his first substantive vote to stand up for his constituents when it mattered most.

At a time when Labor, the Liberals and One Nation continue to protect corporate interests, the Greens remain the only party willing to take on the gas giants and fight for ordinary Australians who are sick of billion-dollar corporations avoiding their fair share of tax.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) is disappointed with the decision handed down today by the Fair Work Commission increasing the minimum wage by 6 per cent and 4.75 per cent for award wages. Australia’s largest and most representative business network says the increase will add to cost pressures across the economy at a time when many businesses, particularly small businesses, have very limited capacity to absorb additional costs. Chief of Policy and Advocacy David Alexander says ACCI had pushed for a modest but reasonable rise of 3.5 per cent. “We considered this to be responsible, fair and proportionate,” said Mr Alexander. “Today’s decisions further delink wage outcomes from productivity, and economic activity will suffer as a result. For businesses that are already struggling with interest rate hikes, high inflation and high fuel prices, this decision putting up wage costs will only add to the burden.”

Poor dears. 

A reminder – ACCI wanted to hand Australia’s lowest paid workers a real wage cut. They wanted Awards and the Minimum wage to only go up by 3.5%. That’s a pretty bastard thing to do. 

ACCI always calls for an increase below inflation. If the FWC had followed their advice over the past 12 years, the minimum wage would be worth 20% less in real terms. 

The Greens just put up a motion in the house (the senate isn’t sitting) calling for a 25% tax on gas exports, which is the ACTU policy.

That bit is important, because Labor voted it down, and David Farley, One Nation’s newest MP and the only PHON member ever elected to the house, didn’t show up for the vote.

Hanson is being courted by the gas industry to help dilute public support for a gas tax, but doesn’t want to be seen to be completely against it – because her voters are for it. Instead, she is trying to confuse the issue with her ‘Nordic style’ ownership stake proposal, which she announced at a gas conference.

Which you know, suggests they are not opposed to ‘her’ idea. And you know there would be a reason for that!

The final bit of data out before tomorrow’s GDP is government spending and investment 

This of course always gets attention because the opposition likes to pretend that government spending is fuelling inflation.

Well, they will be hard pressed to make that argument because (a) it’s wrong, because state government spending is often the big increases once you exclude defence, and (b) in March government spending fell 0.2%:

There was bit of an increase in public sector investment, but not a lot. 

All up I estimate the public sector, both in spending and investment will neither ad nor detract from GDP

The latest Balance of Payments figures are out. These measure the amount of stuff we export and import (as well as how much money in investment are going in and out of the country) 

In the March the amount of goods we exported fell 0.8% and the amount of services we exported (mostly education) fell 2%. The amount of goods we imported rose 1.5% and the amount of services we imported rose 3.8%

The big falls in exports were iron ore and coal. The volume of coal exports fell 7% in March. But the drop is not that large in the grand scheme of things

All up this means a big fall in the “balance” of goods and services. We still export more than we import, but the gap is getting a tad small:

It also means that trade will detract from GDP growth in March by around 0.8%pts.

Before we get to this story, it is worth mentioning that a lot of women (especially) are doing lot of work to end the discriminatory gag on NDAs victim-survivors are made to sign, in order to receive any sort of recognition, justice or compensation. It allows the culture to continue – victim-survivors are forced into silence about what they went through, which means nothing really has to change systemically. Julia Delaforce has been fighting this for some time, along with other women including Anna Hough.

Via AAP:

Survivors of sexual violence in the Australian military will be able to discuss their abuse at an upcoming inquiry after the government waived gag orders preventing them giving evidence.

Veterans Minister Matt Keogh has written to victims saying the government will not seek to enforce any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

The move comes after a campaign by those who had suffered abuse, whistleblowers and civil society organisations.

“Veterans who served this country should not have to ask permission to speak about their lived experiences of military sexual violence,” Julia Delaforce, a former RAAF airwoman and whistleblower, said.

“This amnesty is a critical step towards lifting the legal gag on military sexual violence survivors, so they can safely speak to the upcoming inquiry and help expose the institutional systems that failed them.”

Ms Delaforce has led a campaign to ban NDAs after her own terrifying experience in the Australian military, as revealed to Nine in 2025.

After years attempting to seek a resolution after being “trapped in a room with a machete-wielding corporal demanding oral sex”, as Nine reported, instead she signed a settlement with defence which gagged her from speaking about it.

She said the government’s waiving of NDAs would allow the upcoming inquiry to be more truthful and should lead to a permanent ban on the clauses.

“The upcoming Inquiry will only be meaningful if veteran survivors can participate without fear of legal threats, retaliation or being told once again to stay silent,” she said.

Regina Featherstone of the Human Rights Law Centre, which has backed the push, said “the era of cover-up and silencing women must end”.

“We urge the minister to extend these protections with a permanent amnesty for victim-survivors, so the Australian Defence Force can continue to reckon with the problem of sexual violence at the inquiry and beyond,” she said.

The inquiry, due to begin later in 2026, was recommended by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, completed in 2024.

In Mr Keogh’s letter, seen by AAP, the minister says defence no longer issues NDAs arising from sexual harassment and sexual violence matters, which are now the subject of a facilitated “restorative engagement” process. 

The letter also states the government has not waived confidentiality for matters that “do not go to an ADF member’s experience of sexual violence, including … financial settlement details”.

(Full disclosure, Australia Institute co-director Leanne Minshell has been announced as one of the members of the inquiry.)

Peter Garrett will be leading it, and it is an initiative of the Australian Peace and Security Forum, which asked the very reasonable question -why isn’t the parliament looking at this?

Garrett said much the same thing at its launch this morning:

Now, the irony is that we are launching a public inquiry in Parliament House, where there has been no substantive debate about orcas at all, at all, and so it’s consequent upon us and the other commissioners standing with me that we provide that opportunity for Australians to ask the questions to have in a transparent way their concerns or queries noted to hear from experts who can provide us with additional information and material to hear from the government if they so choose to appear before this inquiry and to provide that information to all Australians in a way that is accessible and understandable, and helps inform them about what is happening now and what could happen in the future, because the costs of AUKUS are so great.

The fact that it relies upon the cooperation into the future of two other sovereign governments raises a degree of risk and complexity that is unlike any other decision taken by Australian governments in the defence realm.

Bill Browne

The latest RedBridge opinion poll has One Nation on 31%, a higher first-preference vote than Labor or the Liberal–National Coalition (although the Poll Bludger aggregate still has them a hair behind Labor).

Pauline Hanson told Melbourne radio station 3AW that she is considering running for a seat in the House of Representatives, but even if she doesn’t:

“You can be prime minister from the Senate.”

Is this true?

Pretty much, yes.

The Constitution says nothing about the Prime Minister – even though it always assumed that Australia would have one. The role of Prime Minister (and their counterpart, the Opposition Leader) is decided by convention and law.

One convention is that the Prime Minister and Treasurer always come from the House of Representatives, the lower house in the Australian Parliament. Pauline Hanson is a senator from the upper house.

But these conventions are less strict in other Parliaments. The United Kingdom’s upper house (the House of Lords) used to supply prime ministers, and state governments often have treasurers from their respective upper houses. In the 19th Century, premiers sometimes came from state upper houses too.

Australia has once had a senator as Prime Minister – John Gorton, who won the leadership in 1968 after Harold Holt’s disappearance. However, Senator Gorton quickly quit the Senate and ran in a by-election for the House of Representatives – restoring conventional practice.

I suspect a Prime Minister from the Senate would find the day-to-day practical difficulties challenging. The media is traditionally more interested in the House than the Senate, the government of the day rarely controls the Senate but they usually control the House and the politicians that the government has to keep on side to stay in power are in the House.

A senator as Prime Minister would draw more attention to the Senate, the house of review, at the expense of the House of Representatives. That would not be a bad thing. Because the government of the day usually controls the House, it is in the Senate that the most interesting legislating, policy work and questioning of government takes place. The media misses a trick by focusing on the “bear pit” drama and theatrics in the House instead of the Senate where what becomes law gets decided.

That said, even if a senator can become Prime Minister, the question remains whether One Nation could win enough seats in the House of Representatives to govern, either in its own right or as the senior party in a power-sharing arrangement.

One Nation is polling well, but not (at least for now) well enough for that to be likely. It’s the polling and seat numbers, not convention, that would be the greatest impediment to a Pauline Hanson prime ministership. 

Anara Watson

As mentioned earlier, Australia now has 178 billionaires.

According to a recent Oxfam report, billionaire wealth is now at an all-time-high, with Australian billionaires adding more than $10.5 billion to their fortunes in just 12 months.

But across the globe, one in four people go hungry. 

An Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) report found that more than one in seven Australians (over 3.7 million people) live below the poverty line. That includes the one in six children (15.6%) who live in poverty. 

My colleague Greg Jericho recently wrote a piece on growing inequality, which made the point that obscene wealth and ongoing poverty are not the natural order of things – they are policy choices.

And that same point is echoed in the ACOSS report in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: “The COVID recession at first increased poverty but COVID income supports then reduced it.” Those supplements lifted 650,000 people out of poverty, including 120,000 children. 

But the current gap between unemployment benefits and the poverty line is a policy choice. Australia is a rich country, and it doesn’t have to be like this. 

If governments choose to, they could close the poverty gap for those on unemployment benefits. 

Bit of a brouhaha at the Fair Work Commission

Right now, the Workplace Relation branch of the Dept of Employment and Workplace Relations is going through a complaint a Commissioner of the FWC Jennifer Hunt has made.

Yesterday she put a post on Linkedin:

I call upon Minister Amanda Rishworth MP to release to me the report of the Hon Alan Robertson AM SC, appointed by the Minister to deal with my complaint to the Minister of misbehaviour of Justice Hatcher, President of the Fair Work Commission and Vice President Asbury. The Minister refuses to release the report to me on account of the Privacy Act 1988 despite factual findings having been made by Mr Robertson. I have informed the Minister that her refusal to release the report to me will have me publicly call for it. I do not allege misconduct. I do allege misbehaviour and breaches of the Member Code of Conduct.  

This was looked at a bit earlier, but there’s a fair lack of clarity of what it is all about. The Dept notes they received the complaint “mid-last year”, and they engaged Alan Robertson to investigate the complaint. The report was provided to the Department in January and the minister was briefed and the Minister (Amanda Rishworth)   wrote to the parties “finalising the matter”.

Hunt was appointed in 2015 to the FWC by Michaelia Cash, and she has a background of working with employers – for example as Employee Relations Manager of TNT Express and earlier in her career as Industrial Advocate for the Australian Business Chamber.

Adam Hatcher SC was appointed to the FWC in 2013 by Bill Shorten and then made President of the FWC in 2023 by Tony Burke and one of his earliest jobs was Chief Legal Advisor with the NSW Branch of the Transport Workers’ Union.

So let’s just say they are not from the same side of the political divide.

Just as they do every year the minimum wage increases, the business lobby claims end of days for business.

Business needs to be doing well to afford to pay higher wages, says the lobby, which then blames the Fair Work Commission for undermining productivity in business, because now business has to spend money on wages.

They never seem to consider what happens when their customers don’t have the money to buy their products because of the rising cost of living.

ACTU secretary Sally McManus has welcomed the Fair Work Commission decision, which, as Grogs has reported means the minimum wage – which around 100,000 people are on goes up from $24.95 and hour to $26.44 – a 5.9% increase. 

The award wage has gone up by 4.75%. So it is a bit nuanced (which has been missing from some of the reporting).

McManus says of the decision:

This will allow them to not just pay their bills, but start making up some of what they’ve lost since 2021 One of the good things that the Fair Work Commission said today is that they recognized that previous inflation after COVID left our low-paid workers behind where they were in 2021 and so today they’ve decided not just that people should keep up with cost of living with inflation, but start to continue to get ahead, and that’s really, really welcome. You know, the only spanner in this works, of course, is Donald Trump, and you know, none of us know what he’s going to do.

*With apologies for a former version of this post which listed McManus wrongly as president – entirely my fault – I have had 45 minutes sleep, and appreciate the diligence of our readers!

Bill Browne

If you’re a fiend either for The Point live blog or for Senate Estimates, you might have noticed Parliament didn’t sit yesterday.

The reason is that those of us who live and work here in the ACT had a public holiday, Reconciliation Day, to mark the beginning of National Reconciliation Week.

The ACT is the first Australian state or territory to have a dedicated public holiday to share Indigenous cultures and history, and explore reconciliation in Australia.

It’s one of many progressive, ambitious reforms that started in the ACT but Australia Institute polling research shows would be popular across Australia if brave politicians took them up.  

That said, the ACT has a long way to go. The ACT Reconciliation Council co-chair Selina Walker has resigned, saying:

“I won’t be a yes man, I won’t stand there for the pretty pictures and preach reconciliation if it’s not actually happening.”

She was a founding member of the ACT Reconciliation Council and 2024 ACT Local Hero.

Over at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the $5,000 cap on AlliedHealth claims is still getting a big work out. 

LNP Senator Paul Scarr states that he has “a real problem with the timeliness” of this proposal. And he also wants to know if the department has taken into account the risk that claim times will blowout once the new arrangement is in place (and Veterans will need to apply for more care over $5,000 a year).

The Department Secretary notes that they have because it is basically already what they do – because wait time is a key metric for the Department, and they already have processes in place to limit such things.

It should be noted at this point that the DVA is still recovering from the absolute destruction the public service had under the Morrison government, where cuts to staff were made with bugger all recognition of what it would do to service delivery. That was a big reason why the government increased APS numbers after it was elected in 2022. Taking the DVA average staffing level form 2,728 in 2022-23 to 3,129 in 2023-24 and the 3,528 in 2025-26 (but there will be a cut next year to 3,417).

This increase has been done because wait time for initial claims to be processed was pretty horrific. 

In June 2022, more than 30% of initial claims had a wait time over 601 days. That is now down to 9%

Who knew that cutting public servants affects the quality of public services….?

We saw the AFR update its Rich List last week, with eight of the new entrants to the list coming in as billionaires.

Oxfam has looked at the distribution of wealth in Australia and found another 17 people became billionaires in the last year, meaning Australia now has 178 billionaires with a total wealth of $686 billion. It worked out that wealth increase is about $50,000 a minute.

The richest 20 people in Australia hold more wealth than the bottom 3 million households.

The ABC has done a story on the Oxfam analysis which you can find here.

Senator Anne Ruston asking some elementary – but useful – questions of the ‘algorithm’ that assess requirements of older Australians’ home care packages. The other Committee members are interested in this as well. Given the Robodebt fiasco, scrutiny of such automated processes used on vulnerable people is most welcome. Senator Pockock asking if clinician and statistician input was sought in the development of the tool. The Committee working in the public interest (not partisan political interest) for once.

The first One Nation MP to be elected to the lower house has left the door open to voting against his party if that best represents his constituents, as he prepares to be sworn into parliament.

David Farley also says he plans to attend all parliamentary sittings unless he’s called away with “great urgency”, after questions were raised about One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s lack of attendance at many parliamentary sitting days.

Asked whether he was prepared to vote according with his electorate’s view and personal beliefs, even if that meant disagreeing with Senator Hanson’s position, Mr Farley didn’t rule it out.

“It’ll be rare that we find we find ourselves in disagreement, but then again, I’ve got one job to do – it’s to represent Farrer and represent it the best I can,” he told ABC Radio.

Mr Farley will be sworn in on Tuesday afternoon, but a date is yet to be set for his first speech to parliament.

Pressed on Senator Hanson’s attendance record, which shows she missed 88 per cent of senate estimates hearings since returning to parliament in 2016, Mr Farley said his goal was to be  present for all parliamentary sittings.

“I’ve got a two-year window to be able to report back to the constituency of Farrer and say here was the platform that we went in on … and at the end of that two-year period … show them the scorecard,” he said.

Mr Farley said it was up to Senator Hanson to decide what events to attend and to explain her record.

Liberal frontbencher James Paterson said it was important to shine a spotlight on Senator Hanson’s attendance at parliament.

“If, 88 per cent of the time, Senator Hanson can’t even be bothered showing up to do her job, to advocate for her constituents, I think that reflects badly on her commitment to her job,” he told ABC Radio.

Senator Hanson has previously said she did not want to attend hearings regularly because government officials often did not answer her questions.

The One Nation MP, who won the southern NSW seat of Farrer off the Liberals in a vote triggered by former opposition leader Sussan Ley’s resignation, said recent polls showing a surge in support for One Nation were encouraging but warned against reading too much into the figures.

“It is a poll, it’s not a ballot … polls have got elasticity to them,” he said.

But Mr Farley said economic issues were driving voters from the major parties towards One Nation.

“Australians … are very, very uncomfortable and feeling a lot of personal discomfort, family discomfort and commerce discomfort, just in the policies that are running and driving our country at the moment,” he said.

Here are some more details of the what the Fair Work Commission was thinking.

It noted that 

“The determination of this year’s Review outcome has been particularly challenging because of the unusual degree of complexity in the interaction of the matters we are required to take into account. Until February this year, most elements of economic and business performance in Australia were sound. 

There was healthy economic growth and growth in jobs and hours worked, productivity, and business profits and investment during 2025, while wages growth remained moderate and real unit labour costs did not increase. However, the economy encountered capacity constraints in the latter half of 2025, with the result that the rate of inflation increased by more than forecast, to be well above the Reserve Bank target band. The tightening of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank which followed will undoubtedly slow down the economy in the year ahead. “

The FWC also made a real note about the fall in the value of the Award wage in real terms. This is very significant because it is something the ACTU (and to be honest, myself in my annual report on the impact of the minim wage on inflation) have been focusing on:

A fundamental consideration which must be balanced against these matters is that most modern award-reliant employees are still in the position that their wage rates, in real terms, remain lower than what they were in July 2021, prior to the post-pandemic spike in inflation. The ‘real wage gap’ which has opened between the rate of the CPI and modern award wage rates has particularly affected the living standards of the low paid and their capacity to meet their needs. This is particularly the case when the rate of inflation for non-discretionary essential goods and services is running significantly higher than the headline CPI rate of inflation. “

It seems like they would have liked to close up the gap, but the Iran War and the inflation spike kind of put paid to that, because it would have required an increase on around 5.65% (by my reckoning). Tis is why the ACTU had been calling for a 6% increase. 

“Taking into account all of these matters, we have concluded, regrettably, that it would not be practicable or responsible in the current uncertain circumstances to award a real wage increase for employees reliant on modern award wage rates that would be sufficient to close the real wage gap entirely. 

However, we consider that we should at least ensure that modern award reliant employees generally are not worse off in real terms than they were as at 1 July 2025, and that we should also take additional measures to protect the position of the very lowest-paid workers under modern awards”

This is why they came to the following decision:

                The decision we have made is as follows. First, modern award wage rates shall be increased by 4.75 per cent, effective from 1 July 2026.

And

                The National Minimum Wage, which is aligned to the C13 rate, will be increased to $1004.90 per week, or $26.44 per hour. This will also take effect from 1 July 2026.  

We now look forward to the Retailer sand ACCI and every other employer group telling us this will destroy the economy. (They do this every year) 

Well once again they have split the Minimum Wage from the general Award increases

The minimum wage – which around 100,000 people are on goes up from $24.95 and hour to $26.44 – a 5.9% increase. 

This means these workers get a real boost in real terms (assuming inflation over the next few months stays in line with RBA forecasts) IN real terms I calculate it will be a 1% increase over the current value

The Award wages by comparison will only go up 4.75%. The FWC noted this mean they will remain in real terms lower than they were in 2020-21, but it does at least mean Awards will go up in real terms form last year.

The impact of the past few years has thus meant that people on the award wage has less purchasing power than someone on the Award wage did 5 years ago. But even worse is that Award (and the minimum wage) IS meant to go up by more than inflation. It did before the pandemic at a pretty constant rate. Had that trend continued the real award wage would be around 6.6% higher than it is now. 

Just a reminder – ACCI wanted a 3.5% increase, the ACTU wanted a 6% rise, and the government wanted an increase in real terms. So basically the government got what it wanted. 

The FWC has announced that the Minimum Wage will increase from $24.95 an hour or $948 a week to $26.44p/h  $1,004.90 a week and Award wages will be increased by 4.75% from 1 July 2026, but the lowest paid C13 and C14 wage rates will go up a bit more (this is mostly transitory as they are phasing out the C13 award.

The FWC noted that the raising of interest rates by the RBA will undoubtedly slow the economy, and also we have to deal with the “wild card” of the ongoing Iran War – all of which adds “uncertainty” to the future of the economy. 

The FWC notes that most modern award wages remain in real terms lower than they were in 2020-21 – which has very much affected the ability of low-income earners to meet their costs of living – especially when the increase of non-discretionary items is running faster than other forms (because most of their income is spent on such things). The FWC notes it could not recover all the gap but that they should not go backwards from the past year.

Liberal Senator and shadow health minister Anne Ruston seems fixated on how unspent $500 million allocated to the health, disability and ageing portfolio in the Budget will be spent.

Department officials are trying to explain that this will be spent based on change in need / demand over 2026-27.

For example, a vaccination program that needs to be rolled out at short notice. Health, disability and ageing can be fluid portfolio.

The Senator, who seems a bit grumpy this morning, is having none of it and thinks that every last dollar should be allocated ex ante across this vast portfolio. Tough school!

Over in the Education and Employment estimates the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is currently being asked about its use of AI.

The Department notes it has rolled out the use of Copilot and also uses “Parlihelper” and AI Workbench which summarise Senate Estimates, audit findings, and spot strategic risks.

Copilot came under some fire when people found out that its terms of reference included the line “Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.” Perhaps after seeing the online mocking, Microsoft updated the terms and removed that line. It now instead has “Copilot can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Do not use Copilot as a substitute for professional advice. Always verify the accuracy of information presented by Copilot before you rely on it. We are not responsible for any consequences that arise from your use of or reliance on Copilot.”

The departmental official says that staff in the department are “positive” about the use of it. Even “excited” by the opportunity.

The Department of Veteran’s Affairs is up before Senate Estimates and National’s Senator Ross Cadell is asking about the introduction of a $5,000 Annual Monetary Limit for veterans’ allied health services that was introduced in the Budget. 

The Government says it is doing this to prevent over-servicing “while still supporting veterans whose care needs go beyond the limit where this is clinically indicated” – In essence where some providers were taking advantage of the system to basically just getting veterans to get more care than they needed – especially in things like podiatry and even mental health. The Government says this came out of finding from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide

The Department has told Senator Cadell about 25,000 veterans accessed more than $5,000 in Allied Health in 2024-25. 

The Department tells the committee that up to $5,000 veterans can do whatever they want (and will be easier to access because fees have been increased so it should increase the supply of health providers within Allied Health), but after $5,000 the veteran needs approval from DVA to ensure the care is warranted. This as you can imagine is going to be controversial – especially given the history of DVA (under the previous government) of having a huge backlog of claims needing to be processed). 

The ALP Senator Jenny McAllister notes that there will be consultation with veterans going forward as the policy is implemented and as it only starts 1 July 2027 there is time to do that.

The ACTU had wanted a 6% increase to the minimum wage, arguing anything else would mean workers were going backwards.

In its submission, the ACTU says to address inflation, the Fair Work Commission has to increase the minimum wage by 6% to $26.45 per hour, lifting the weekly rate to $1,004.88, as workers were already 4.5% behind inflation.

Business groups want about half of of that – about 3.5% – arguing that businesses were already at breaking point.

But as costs increase, businesses can make sure they take care of themselves, by increasing prices. Workers don’t have that option.

We’ll find out that decision very soon.

Jim Chalmers has been out and about very early talking about the big economic week:

In the [Fair Work] decision today, we desperately need to see a real wage increase for millions of Australians on awards and on the minimum wage.

Now under this Albanese Labor Government we’ve already seen the minimum wage go up by something like $9,000 a year, and we need to see it go up further today. 

The best way to help working people with the cost of living is with higher wages, lower income taxes, because that’s the best way to ensure that more Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that’s this Government’s reason for being.

So a really important week in the economy: higher wages, lower taxes, a fair go for first home buyers. We’ll also see the national accounts released tomorrow and we don’t want to pre‑empt those numbers. 

In these circumstances anything with a 2 in front of it, annual, would be a good outcome given what’s coming at us from around the world.

These are very uncertainly global economic conditions, but Australia has relatively strong economic foundations. We have our share of challenges in our economy, and we’ve made that clear; the budget’s about addressing those challenges. But we also have sturdy foundations from which to face this very serious global economic uncertainty which is made much worse by the war in the Middle East.

As I’ve said before, Australians didn’t choose the circumstances of this war, but they are paying a hefty price for it. That’s why it’s so important that we see the minimum wage and award wages go up today, it’s why it’s so important that we’re cutting taxes for millions of workers once again, and why it’s so important that we’re making it easier for first home buyers in a difficult housing market.

The prime minister of the Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale is making his first official visit to Australia, where Australia’s treatment of the Islands, and China (although it most likely won’t be directly named) will be the order of the day.

Australia, under the Albanese government has made a point of improving relations with the Pacific, but tensions remain, particularly over Australia’s role of policing China’s soft power in the region – while not always stepping up to fill gaps itself. Given the growing American influence in the region, not everyone is happy and Australia’s role is to play biased adjudicator.

Wale received the full regalia of a welcome as he arrived in Australia with Veronica Ruala Waletofea yesterday evening (as captured here by Mike Bowers) which is how you know the government is taking this visit very, very seriously.

As I reported earlier, we know that the AI boom has come to Australia.

New investment in the IT and technology industry in the March quarter this year was 190% higher than it was in the March 2025 quarter and 195% higher than in the March 2024 quarter. 

And most of that has been in machinery and equipment. Yes, some new building of datacentres, but most of the investment is going on the GPUs etc inside the building, so no, there is no AI building job boom:

But what about the environmental impact?

Ketan Joshi, who is a Research Associate at The Australia Institute has just published a report with Greenpeace looking at this very issue.  

The title, “Energy Vampires: the AI data centres draining Australia” gives away the pretty dire conclusions. 

Here are some of the key points:

• Australia’s biggest proposed data centre, the 1GW Mamre Road Data Centre Campus in Western Sydney, will generate peak annual grid emissions equivalent to that produced by 560,000 petrol cars for a year or all domestic flights within NSW in 2023.   
• Data centres already fail to cover their own emissions with new renewables and their rollout will dramatically hold back Australia’s energy transition. 
• No data centre operator analysed in this report adequately proves their claim of driving Australia’s renewable energy growth. Claims they are doing this through truly “additional” new power purchasing agreements for renewable energy are unsubstantiated.  
• There are early signs of a data centre-fuelled gas boom in Australia, which will come with massive, nationally significant climate costs. For example, the Tamboran proposal for the Northern Territory would effectively double the state’s emissions. In NSW, Cloud Carrier’s proposed gas-fired project would wipe out NSW’s entire projected 2028 emissions cuts.

Essentially datacentres are often built with lines about using renewable energy, but they are so damn energy hungry that they inevitably require more energy. And as we have seen in the USA, that means gas-fired generation. 

This matters because once you take away the dodgy land use, all of the drop in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from the fall in electricity

Almost of all the fall in electricity emissions has been countered by rises in the emissions from stationary energy (mining and LNG), transport and fugitive emissions

There is no way we get to net zero if electricity emissions do not keep falling. 

But datacentres introduce a massive increase in demand of the electricity network and the only way we can still see emissions reduce is if we pretend that renewables will cover that plus the demand that was already there. 

We are already going flat out trying to get more renewables to cover the existing demand for electricity. At best datacentres just increase that demand. At worst they ensure not just the current coal and gas fired power stations continue running longer, but new ones are built to meet the extra demand. 

Not only is AI a plagiarism machine that destroys creativity and devalues original thought and work, it is destroying the planet as well. Cheery days. 

Former Labor minister Peter Garett will be leading the public inquiry into AUKUS. He spoke to ABC Radio RN this morning about it, in an interview you can listen to, here.

Zac de Silva for AAP

Australia has sanctioned Israeli settler farming outposts in the West Bank for the first time in response to escalating violence in the contested Palestinian territory.

The new diplomatic penalties against four settler farming outposts and three individuals, which took effect on Tuesday, are the latest applying to far-right Israeli figures. 

The federal government has previously sanctioned Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who posted a video of himself berating pro-Palestine activists in May.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Israel must uphold its obligations under international law and take urgent action to end settler violence.

“Settler violence is used to displace Palestinians and perpetuate the settlement enterprise, through destruction of property, displacement of families, beatings, sexual assault, and torture, resulting in serious injuries and deaths,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.

“The individuals and entities sanctioned today have undermined Israel’s own security and its standing in the world and harmed the interests of the Israeli people.

“Australia’s imposition of sanctions against them reflects our commitment to Israel and Palestine’s security and future.”

Four settler farming outposts – Moshe’s Farm, Meitarim Farm, Neria’s Farm and Zvi’s farm – which have served as a base for extremist Israelis who’ve attacked Palestinians, are included in the sanctions list.

The sanctions also include Ben Zion Gopstein, the founder of far-right extremist organisation Lehava, which the government says promotes Jewish supremacist ideology.

His organisation has been sanctioned by Australia since 2001.

Extremist settlers Eden Levi and Moshe Sharvit, both of whom Australia says have engaged in attacks and intimidation of Palestinians, have also been sanctioned.

The restrictions mean the men are no longer allowed to enter Australia and it is illegal for an Australian to give them money or assets.

Senator Wong said Australia had coordinated with partners, including New Zealand, in imposing the measures.

Even as the Trump administration facilitates the demise of the international order the United States helped create, the Australian government’s embrace of Aukus ties the two countries ever closer.

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss op-shop submarines, the Democrats’ review of the 2024 election, and Trump’s Iran loop.

A common line I have used in my columns and in podcasts is that “You can’t eat GDP”. This is because GDP, while it might measure everything that involves a dollar value in the economy – whether spending, investment, trade, someone building a house, someone buying a book from overseas, a govt building a road or a company exporting iron ore – it does not necessarily mean much to you and me when it comes to the reality of life. 

Remember if company profits rise, GDP does as well. Does that help you pay your rent? Well maybe… if those company profits are causing greater hiring of workers and better pay. But what if the profits are coming from LNG companies, who employ few people and whose profits mostly end up going offshore?

This is important when looking at the second lot of figures where already have before tomorrow’s GDP – “Private new capital expenditure”. That’s just a very confusing way to say new private sector investment. 

Capital expenditure is the spending that is not on things you want to “consume” but which is used for something – often to make something else. 

Private investment is broken down into two things – Buildings and structures, and equipment, plant and machinery. A good way to think of it is the first would be building a factory and the roads etc around it, the second is for all the stuff that would go inside the factory. 

That’s why the mining investment boom was mostly building and structures – because it was building the mine and all the roads and rail that went with it. It’s also why, as a general rule, in the manufacturing industry the biggest investment is in equipment, plant and machinery rather than building new factories. 

What happened in the March quarter?

Well new investment in building and structures fell 3.8%, but spending on equipment, plant and machinery rose 18%. That 18% increase was the biggest since March 1996 – so yep, 30 years. 

And pretty much all of it was data centres. 

Total new capital expenditure rose $3.2bn, but investment in the “Information technology and telecommunications” industry rose $4.3bn. That means that, if you took away the investment in that one industry, overall investment in the private sector fell $1.1bn.

That is not healthy. 

So when you hear about an AI boom, this is what is looks like in a graph:

As you can see, there’s not much of an increase in building and structures. Most of it is in new equipment and machinery (think GPU processors).

Why is that important? Well investment in new machinery and equipment is helpful for employees to improve productivity – think how much better your job is if you have a computer that doesn’t freeze every time you open a document, but it doesn’t create a lot of new jobs. It might signal some expansion in a factory, but not always. New buildings and structures do that – because someone needs to build the factory, or road or rail or whatever that was not there beforehand. 

Datacentres don’t create many jobs. Yes they create lots of investment and that makes GDP look good. But can you eat that? Does that help you pay the rent? Nope. 

(and that’s before we even get to the environmental impacts…)

The unfortunate thing is we had a big bump in datacentre investment in the September quarter last year, and the Reserve Bank took that as a sign the economy was running hot and so it raised interest rates three times. Let us hope they have got that stupidity out of their system. 

Pauline Hanson says she will represent anyone who assimilates into Australia if she becomes prime minister after One Nation eclipsed Labor in a poll to become the most popular political party in the country.

The proportion of people planning to put One Nation first on their ballot paper has risen four points to 31 per cent, according to a Redbridge Group/Accent Research poll.

Angry voters seeking a candidate who will upset the status quo are turning to Senator Hanson’s populist right-wing movement in large numbers, Redbridge director Tony Barry said.

“There is a very pessimistic outlook amongst voters and that is pushing them towards an anti-establishment candidate or party as their wrecking ball and their truth-teller,” he told AAP.

Labor’s primary vote is at 28 per cent, down three points since the polling firm’s last survey a month ago and the government’s budget released on May 12.

The coalition dropped two points to 20 per cent.

Asked whether she could properly represent all voters given her brand of politics, which has been labelled racist by some, Senator Hanson said she was focused on a unified national identity.

“I can be a prime minister for all those who want to be Australians,” she told Sydney radio station 2GB.

“I expect people, if you’re here in this country and you want to become Australian, then you be Australian and you actually assimilate.”

Labor leads One Nation 51 per cent to 49 on the Redbridge poll’s two-party-preferred basis, calculated by asking respondents how they would direct their preferences.

Senator Hanson said she felt vindicated by the polling but cautioned against drawing too many conclusions until a federal election.

On One Nation’s popularity in migrant communities, Mr Barry said regardless of their background, voters were most concerned about the cost of living and housing availability.

“Her position on immigration is not nearly the most important issue, not by a long way,” he said.

The poll of 1005 voters has a 3.4 per cent margin of error.

It shows Senator Hanson’s net favourability – her approval rating minus her disapproval rating – at zero.

No federal politician in the poll has a positive net favourability rating: the prime minister is on minus 19 while both Liberal leader Angus Taylor and Nationals leader Matt Canavan are on minus four.

Mr Albanese remains the preferred prime minister, with 31 per cent favouring the Labor leader, while Senator Hanson is on 25 per cent and Mr Taylor on 14.

Mr Albanese’s lead on the measure dropped two points and Senator Hanson’s rose by two points while Mr Taylor’s remained unchanged. 

With the RedBridge poll putting the coalition in a distant third, frontbencher Tim Wilson said he was focused on ensuring the opposition remained a party of government with a plan of “confidence and hope” for the future of the country.

“That’s our mission and everything else is a distraction,” he told reporters.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers acknowledged people had genuine concerns about their place in Australia’s economy but said Labor was the best party to deal with those worries.

“The big con on in the three-ringed circus on the right is they want to benefit from people’s legitimate concerns without doing anything about them,” he said.

Andrew Wilkie, David Pocock and Peter Garrett are coming together this morning to announce a public inquiry into AUKUS. The inquiry is unusual in that it has been coordinated outside of parliament – the Australian Peace and Security Forum have put it together, not the parliament.

The Public Inquiry will be taking submissions from the public and subject matter experts and holding public hearings in most capital cities. The Terms of Reference can be found here and the website here. 

Today they will release the data for trade, business profits and wages, and government spending and taxes. When you combine that with last week’s investment figures and the earlier household spending figures you get a real sense of what the GPD growth will be because that essentially covers the majority of things that make up the GDP.

I’ll be back at 11:30 to give you a run down on how the profits and wages are going and how much exports “helped” GDP growth (remember, GDP is an economic thing – profits improve GDP, exports of coal and LNG improve GDP… none of those things might also help our wellbeing or society).

But first let’s look at what we already know.

First up – households. 

The spending by you, me, your neighbour and even your Dad buying something from Bunnings that he doesn’t need, but hey it might come in handy, makes up the biggest chunk of our national economy. Roughly 50-55% of our GDP is household spending. It towers over everything else

This is why during the GFC the catch phrase by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry was “Go early, go hard, go households”, because if household spending tanks, well it doesn’t matter how much government spending you do or how much exports go up, your economy is in trouble. 

And why Marge was right to buy her second-hand Chanel suit:

Every month the ABS puts out the Households Spending Indicator. This replaced the old “Retail Trade” survey, because our spending has come to include a lot more than retail and the new measure counts around 68% off all household spending whereas retail spending is closer to a third. 

It doesn’t line up perfectly, but it gives us a decent indicator of what there will be in the GDP figures:

For the March quarter, the household spending indicator grew 0.7%. That is slower than the December quarter growth of 1.1%, but it is better than the 0.3% growth in the March 2025 quarter. 

And remember in the annual growth figures, the March 2025 figures will be dropped for the March 2026 ones. So that could suggest better annual growth figures. 

The figures show in March there was a big drop in spending on things like furniture and household equipment, and clothing. 

But these figures don’t include purchases of cars, insurance, education expenses and rent. 

Also the March quarter figures won’t really show the full impact of the RBA rate rises – so the likelihood is tomorrow’s figures might be the best for a while. 

This week is a pretty huge one for economics nerds and for anyone existing on an Award wage. 

At 10am today the Fair Work Commission will announce its decision on the Annual Wage Review – which increases the minimum wage and award wage for the next year. 

While the media often talks about the Minimum Wage as though that is the big deal, in reality not a lot of people are on it – it’s often a temporary thing and covers around 1% of all employees at any one time. That’s not to say it is unimportant, but the bigger issue is the decision regarding people on award rates because that covers around 20% of all workers. 

Usually, the FWC lifts both the same amount, but in 2022—23 and 2023-24 it did split the increase. It raised the minimum wage by 5.16% and 8.65% while award wages only rose 4.6% and 5.75% respectively. 

There is an outside chance the FWC will do that again out of fears of a higher wage rise for those on awards fuelling inflation, but I suspect it is unlikely.

Anyway, as I have noted in three papers over the past three years, the increases in the Award/Minimum Wage have no impact on future inflation:

But still the FWC will take this into consideration. 

The entire point of the Minimum Wage and Aawrd system is to protect those whose bargaining power is mostly non-existent. It also provides a safety net for all workers –  in theory you should not be paid less than the award rate for any job you do (and if you are it should be because you get a trade-off in a non-wage area, and that needs to be approved by the FMC as not making you worse off overall.) 

The FWC each June, after hearing from unions and employee groups, decides how much of a pay rise everyone on Awards and the min wage gets. They do this also because what happens is those workers get a wage rise but then inflation eats into the value of it. So for example last year the increase was 3.5%. But inflation by June is expected to have risen 4.8% – so in effect that award wage will be worth around 1.3% less than it was a year ago.

So, the increase tries to catch the wage back up to inflation, and usually give an increase above inflation as well to increase those worker’s living standards. 

This worked ok until the inflation after the pandemic saw the value of award values go backward in real terms:

The ACTU is asking for a 6% rise. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is asking for 3.5%. That means ACCI is asking for the lowest paid workers in Australia to suffer a real wage cut. 

But don’t worry, this is not unusual for them. They do this every time. 

Thank god, the FWC rarely listens to them because if it had since 2014, the minimum wage would not be $20.37 not $24.94 per hour (just a mere 18% lower)

We will be back with the news at 10am. 

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live.

It is going to be a pretty huge week. It’s a big week for economics nerds with some important decisions and data due, but it’s also a big week politically, after the polls showing One Nation is now the most popular party in the country when it comes to the primary vote.

That of course has set all the hounds running, and look – it should. There are some fundamental shifts happening in the electorate which are at risk of becoming permanent if there isn’t some change addressing the grievances. But as the old adage goes, correlation is not always causation and blaming One Nation’s jump on the Labor budget seems a leap. Especially since the public polling on the budget measures show people either welcome the tax changes, or are neutral. But a narrative is taking hold in the media and voters are only hearing about the unstoppable rise of One Nation, helped along by vested industry interests who have identified a new political power to manipulate and support. Industry and big business see Hanson and co as the big power players and most likely opposition, so they are falling in behind her. Power tends to follow power. It’s like a rash that way.

So it’s going to be a mess of a week. We’ll do our best to shepherd you through it – it is going to need all the coffee in the world to manage, so keep the stove hot and the beans roasting.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.