The Point Live: Migration on the agenda, GST fight back on, offset drama heats up for Greens. As it happens.

AAP

A third state-wide public school teacher strike has been called off after unionised educators voted to endorse a sweetened pay and conditions offer.

Unionised teachers and education staff voted in favour of the Victorian government’s offer of a 28.3 per cent to 32.4 per cent pay rise over four years, the Australian Education Union announced on Monday.

The deal brings to a close a year-long industrial dispute and ends the need for a third state-wide strike, which had been scheduled for Wednesday.

“Well done to every AEU member for the pressure you put on the government,” the union’s Victorian branch president Justin Mullaly said in a statement on social media on Monday.

The offer was backed by 79 per cent of union members and will now proceed to a vote of all employees as required under the Fair Work Act.

Public school teachers and other education staff had been locked in a dispute with the Labor state government for more than a year as the union pushed for a 35 per cent pay rise over four years.

Before the deal, Victorian graduate teachers were the worst paid in the country, while experienced teachers earned about $12,000 less per year than those in NSW. 

Educators were also pushing for better working conditions, citing unmanageable workloads, regular unpaid work and poor work-life balance. 

The latest offer, which included a one-off $2000 bonus and a one per cent annual lump sum payment for staff at the top of their pay scales, was put to the union by Education Minister Gabrielle Williams a week earlier.

It also featured a cap on face-to-face teaching hours and maintained a reduction in annual meeting commitments from 80 hours to 40 hours.

The negotiations have boiled over into two strikes, with teachers and staff walking off the job for 24 hours.

An estimated 35,000 protesters marched through Melbourne’s city centre in March, the first action of its kind of 13 years.

It was followed by a second strike in July, which drew an estimated 20,000 protesters into central Melbourne.

The latest offer was the first put to the union since Ms Williams took over as education minister, replacing now-premier Ben Carroll.

Mr Carroll’s previous offer, put to the union in July, was only narrowly shot down after 51 per cent of members voted to reject it.

David Richardson

Today the National Australia Bank announced increases in its net profit up 9% on the same time last year on net interest income up 4% to $4.6 billion.

It is worth comparing the 9% increase in profit with the income changes other groups have experienced over the same period.

Let’s take wages, the ABS figure for all employees average weekly total earnings went up 2.4%; if you had a full-time job your average weekly ordinary time earnings went up 3.7%. Meanwhile general inflation over the same period went up 3.9%.

These figures show that, on average, workers are not keeping up with inflation but NAB’s profit certainly is! And more.

NAB announced an increase in the number of loans it closely watches “reflecting current and potential stress impacting…customers”. That was evident in home lending applications down 15% compared with the previous quarter. New loans may have fallen off but apparently the old outstanding home loans are more than enough to generate ever higher profits.

All in all today’s figures confirm our earlier analysis showing that the big banks are enormously profitable. We estimated that the big four banks make $229,000 in profit on the average 30-year home loan for owner-occupiers. All up profit before tax of all banks in Australia was $58.3 billion in the year to March 2026 based on APRA figures. These profits were produced on total interest paid to banks of $312.6 billion.

While bank profits come at the expense of ordinary Australians their impact on Australian’s living costs is hidden because the official inflation figures do not include mortgage interest rates. Hence we can refer to bank profits as coming from the hidden cost-of-living increases. 

Skye Predavec

As the Senate debates the government’s NDIS cuts, Jordon Steele-John, one of Australia’s few disabled parliamentarians, has told senators who back the bill that “The blood and the lives of those who will suffer and die will be on your hands, and will live in your consciences forever.”

The so-called “securing the NDIS for future generations” bill was introduced by Labor and is backed by the Liberal-National Coalition. If passed, it will cut $36 billion from the NDIS over the next four years. For comparison, a 25% tax on gas exports could raise $68 billion over the same period.

You can read the final part of Jordon Steele-John’s speech in opposition to the bill below:

This is not a joke to the disabled community, this is not a political moment; this is our lives on the line.

These cuts are not needed. They are not needed.

This Parliament, this government, can choose in this moment to turn back, to find courage; To tax the gas exporters and the billionaires, rather than cut the supports needed by a disabled family to live. You can choose to do that.

The community is looking and watching you in this moment.

You can choose to listen and to act.

If you do not, if you decide to complete your betrayal, if the Australian Labor Party decides to have the back of the gas industry and the billionaires instead of the backs of disabled people and our families, then shame on you.

Then shame on you, you betray not only this community, but the national character.

You will be condemned by history.

The blood and the lives of those who will suffer and die will be on your hands, and will live in your consciences forever. And disabled people will not let you forget, any of you.

And come the next election we will consider what to do with our votes, and we will remember who backed us up, who fought in our corner in this moment and who decided to turn away.

And between now and then we will ensure that every single life, every single cooked decision, every single automated nightmare created by this Bill, is laid directly at your door.

You will find no peace from us.

You will understand what is being done to us.

And you will hear our voices grow louder and louder on the streets, in every platform we can gain.

We will not be silent or go back into the dark.

There is a new Liberal senator in the house (well, chamber)

Chris Gatenby has been sworn in. He is replacing Wendy Askew who announced her retirement in June.

Gatenby is a former advisor to Liberal Tasmanian leader, Jeremy Rockcliff.

Everyone is just thrilled.

Jordon Steele-John is trying to suspend standing orders to debate the NDIS cuts (the numbers are not there)

Matt Canavan and Penny Wong are having little side chats:

And Pauline Hanson is having a whinge about something (timeless statement)

AAP

South Australia has refused to join a planned national gun buyback, warning it will not spend state funds on a scheme it says should be paid for entirely by Canberra.

Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says SA is not interested in signing up to a model that relies on state co‑funding rather than being fully funded by the Commonwealth.

South Australia cannot divert money from essential services and cost‑of‑living priorities into a program driven by federal politics, he said.

“We think we’ve got the balance right here in South Australia, but if the Commonwealth government want to embark on a buyback scheme under the same process that John Howard did, they’re more than welcome to,” Mr Koutsantonis told ABC Radio.

“The John Howard buyback was fully funded by the Commonwealth government, so they funded it in its entirety.”

Mr Koutsantonis said all states faced broader funding pressures to keep up with demand for health, disability and other frontline services.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns announced details of the state’s buyback, due to begin in November.

NSW is currently the only jurisdiction participating in the national scheme, which was promised after last December’s Bondi terror attack in which 15 people were killed.

Conservative governments in Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have also declined to sign up to the buyback.

Western Australia has already run its own gun buyback and has no plans for a second scheme linked to the Bondi attack.

In Victoria, regionally based former premier Jacinta Allan had previously baulked at joining the national buyback, denting Canberra’s hopes of broad state participation.

Her resignation and replacement by Ben Carroll has created uncertainty ahead of the November 28 election as the new premier weighs how far to go on firearms.

The stand-off has revived comparisons with former Liberal prime minister John Howard’s 1996 post‑Port Arthur buyback, funded entirely by the Commonwealth through a temporary Medicare levy.

Gun‑rights advocates say Mr Albanese’s approach falls short of that standard and unfairly targets law‑abiding shooters while failing to address extremism and radicalisation.

Sporting shooters are among a broad range of pro‑gun groups attacking the post‑Bondi reforms at federal and state level, alongside the coalition and One Nation.

In regional NSW, independent Barwon MP Roy Butler said the Minns government’s approach unfairly targeted farmers and sporting shooters in his vast western electorate.

“The idea that taking firearms away from law‑abiding people, farmers, sporting shooters, target shooters – that somehow that’s going to stop terrorism or impact terrorism and extremism and radicalisation is just nuts,” Mr Butler told ABC Radio.

Anti‑violence organisations, including the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, have welcomed the NSW buyback and continue to lobby other states to tighten their firearms laws.

Anara Watson

Last week, I wrote about six stories from Australian states that we know thanks to FOI. Here are seven we can thank national FOI laws for:

1. Abbott and Orbán – FOI documents released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show the details of former PM Tony Abbott’s trips to Hungary, for his attendance at the Budapest Demography Summit and CPAC events. Abbott was invited to the Summit under Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán’s signature, and despite the FOI request seeking information on departmental reputational risk assessments, no such documents were provided.
2. VPNs and the social media ban – According to documents obtained by The Guardian, the Australian eSafety Commissioner is investigating whether adult sites allow the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass age verification for the social media ban on under 16s. 
3. Border Force raids on sex workers – Scarlet Alliance, the national peak body for sex worker organisations, obtained data using Freedom of Information laws that showed that Australian Border Force raids conducted on workplaces of migrant sex workers were detecting “very low numbers” of visa non-compliance and “virtually no” incidents of exploitation of workers. That data informed the group’s submission to an inquiry into violence against sex workers in Australia and Thailand held by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
4. One Nation withdrawing funding claims – According to The Guardian, the Australian Electoral Commission questioned $800,000 of One Nation’s claimed electoral expenditure for the last election, and “Documents obtained under freedom of information laws show that the inquiries prompted the party to withdraw more than 140 items as it sought to provide additional information to justify almost 15% of the party’s $6.01m public funding claim.”
5. Media Watch and Four Corners – Media Watch reported that two episodes of ABC Four Corners were pulled after a search conducted in relation to a Freedom of Information application uncovered an email alleging that the reporting may contain “misrepresentations of an anonymous interviewee”. Those findings have prompted an investigation by the ABC’s Ombudsman, and now a third episode has been pulled over similar concerns.
6. Antisemitism definition – Crikey reported that documents released by the Department of Home Affairs under FOI show pre-prepared answers that officials are supposed to use in response to concerns about the government’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of Antisemitism.
7. Artificial Intelligence – Following the release of briefings by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet, the ABC revealed that “Australia’s stability, renewable energy potential and close US ties” makes it attractive to artificial intelligence company Anthropic.

Every day, Australians use FOI laws to learn about the internal dealings of government. In doing so, they strengthen Australian democracy.

The Coalition has joined the push to have veterans’ treated as individuals and humans in their quest for medical care which can assist them in living a normal life. Which should be the base standard. And applied consistently. Across all groups.

The Coalition is also about to join Labor in cutting NDIS supports and access to treatments for people with a disability under the false guise of ‘economic sensibility’.

But we have another very current example of what that does – Four Corners is looking at the systems which decide how much care an elderly person is allowed to continue living at home.

The Greens say its time for a re-think:

Comments Attributable to Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Greens Spokesperson for Older People

The Four Corners investigation is yet another damning indictment of Labor’s reckless aged care reforms. 

Labor’s aged care assessment tool is broken, and the problems go beyond a simple fix. The IAT needs to be scrapped.

This is the same tool that has denied essential funding to older Australians with lifelong degenerative conditions like MND and dementia.

This tool was untested, fatally flawed and implemented with the absolute minimum accountability – all in the name of cutting costs.

Labor must replace the IAT with a new assessment tool that centres the human rights and care needs of older people.

Instead of penny-pinching from older people and withholding essential care, Labor could choose to properly fund aged care by taxing gas corporations and making billionaires and the 1% pay their fair share.”
 

I am not sure how many more examples we need to show that what the government wants to do with NDIS only ever causes more harm. As Grogs said this morning, we will be having a royal commission into the harm in the early 2030s when it becomes obvious what the failures have led to. The Coalition have the power to stop what is happening with the NDIS, for all the same reasons they are pushing to have changes to veterans care reversed.

Well, there are already very well considered and long established mechanisms for people in genuine hardship to access their super early, but for good reason, those arrangements are limited and those arrangements are very focused, and that has been the case for some time now.

Now, preservation in the superannuation system is the absolute key. You know, that’s why we got super to 12%. We’re paying super on paid parental leave, we’re boosting super for low income earners, we’re paying super on payday, because compulsory super, and preservation is an important element of that, they are absolutely key to giving Australian workers the retirement incomes and economic security that they need and deserve after a lifetime of working.

Now, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are all the same when it comes to coming after workers and superannuation, unfortunately, is just their latest attack on the wages and living standards of Australia’s working people.

Jim Chalmers is feeling like there is about to be a fight he can win:

The stakes are high at the next election for a whole range of reasons and one of them now is the future of Australia’s world leading compulsory superannuation system. Last week the Liberals, yesterday One Nation, and again this morning the Liberals via Jane Hume put the future of compulsory super in doubt.

If any coalition or combination of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation win the next election, their policy and their ideology on super would absolutely decimate the economic security and retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers. They share a dangerous and divisive anti-worker, anti-super ideology and if this plays out after the next election, Australian workers will be much worse off.

The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation would end compulsory superannuation as we know it. Jane Hume said this morning that compulsory super was up for grabs. Yesterday, One Nation said that they don’t support a broken system of compulsory super. Last week, Andrew Bragg at the Press Club compared super for younger workers as akin to super for cats and dogs. Their dangerous anti-worker, anti-super agenda would leave millions of Australian workers worse off as a consequence.

Labor built Australia’s superannuation system and we will defend it forever from the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation who want to destroy it. If they win the next election it will be the end of compulsory super as we know it, and Australian workers will be worse off as a consequence.

A new group has had its first launch in Canberra today, uniting around three demands:

Scrap the $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veterans (which was introduced in the May budget)

Restore veterans’ right to choose their own accredited assessment provider

Support an independent inquiry into the DVA claims processing, with a mandate for transparent, binding performance standards.

The Coalition are behind this, despite having dropped the ball while in government (a timeless tale) and Julie-Ann Finney, who helped lead the fight for a royal commission into veterans’ suicide and mental health after the death of her son David, while the Coalition were in government, has also joined this coalition.

AAP

Superannuation is the latest political battleground for Labor to fight One Nation on, as fresh polling shows voter disapproval on the federal government’s handling of immigration.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met with Opposition Leader Angus Taylor as parliament returned after a five-week winter break, in an attempt to make a breakthrough on three key pieces of legislation including reform of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and gambling rules.

The latest Resolve Political Monitor, published in the Nine Newspapers, shows a clear majority agrees the government is managing migration policy in an “unplanned way”.

But it found 60 per cent of participants backed lower house prices, following the government’s change to tax concessions.

Almost twice as many people supported the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing changes.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson reignited the debate surrounding superannuation when she labelled the scheme “broken” on Sunday.

She called for a relaxation of rules that would allow people to withdraw their retirement savings to help them pay off their own homes.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Liberals and One Nation had put the future of compulsory super at doubt but the government would “defend” it against them.

“Their policy and their ideology on super would absolutely decimate the economic security and retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers,” he told reporters on Monday.

“They share a dangerous and divisive anti-worker, anti-super ideology, and if this plays out after the next election, Australian workers will be much worse off.”

Asked about the latest polling, Dr Chalmers said the substantial housing issues had led to the government taking “politically difficult steps” to address those challenges.

Deputy opposition leader Jane Hume said maintaining the nation’s superannuation system was profoundly important.

“We also know that the biggest indicator of economic security in retirement isn’t how much superannuation you have, it’s whether you own a home,” she told News24.

“That’s why it’s so important that we allow Australians the opportunity to get into a home should they want to buy one.”

The recommendations from a Labor-led inquiry into the NDIS reform on Friday urged the immediate passage of the proposed changes despite significant backlash from disability advocates.

The coalition has flagged the need for further measures to crack down on dodgy operators within the scheme, but voiced support for the attempted funding cut of about $38 billion over four years.

All jurisdictions except Queensland have agreed to roll out the first state-based support, Thriving Kids, in October.

Adjustments to the News Bargaining Incentive announced at the end of the last sitting week are due to reach the Senate on Wednesday.

The changes will see major tech companies face an additional tax if they fail to agree to funding agreements with at least eight news companies.

The path of gambling reforms is less clear after reports the coalition is divided over its approach.

Any deal to pass the changes is likely to be announced after a Senate inquiry reports on Monday.

Anara Watson

On Thursday last week, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie introduced the Firearms Legislation Amendment (Repealing Unfair Gun Laws) Bill 2026 to the Senate.

You can probably guess what it’s about.

Senator McKenzie wants to remove every change that was made to Australia’s gun laws in the wake of the Bondi attack. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, she wants to get rid of:

• the National Gun Buyback Scheme;
• expanded background checking arrangements for firearms licensing;
• the new controls on the importation of firearms and related articles; and
• offences relating to the use of a carriage service for firearms and explosives manufacture material.

She also isn’t happy with the amendments made to public safety tests and “the transmission of firearms information and other information to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission”.

When she introduced the Bill, she said that her second reading speech was “excellent reading” – so, let’s have a look.

First, she claims that “On January 20 this year a great injustice was done to Australia’s law-abiding firearm owners.”

Others claim that reform was a reasonable and proportionate response to a horrific attack on the Australian Jewish community.

After outlining the various types of gun-users – the “farmers, sporting shooters, hunters, recreational users, collectors and Olympians” – she says:

“One of the often-used arguments about the Government’s legislation was to get guns “off our streets”.

But the guns that are ‘on the streets’ in the hands of bikie gangs or criminal gangs are the illegal guns.”

Australia Institute research shows that theft of legal guns is now the single biggest source of new guns on the black market in Australia.

Both before and after Bondi, the majority of Australians have supported tighter gun laws. 

Owning a gun in Australia is not a right; it is “a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety”.

Alice Grundy

Last night at the Logies, ABC’s Hannah Story quoted the team from A Country Practice comments on the need for more Australian drama. 

As she wrote, “According to Screen Australia’s latest Drama Report, 7 and 10 made two dramas last year. That’s it. Nothing from 9. It’s a huge decline in investment compared to years past.” 

It’s been a little while since The Australia Institute has done polling on this but in 2021 we found three in five Australians supported a requirement for services like Netflix to spend at least 20% of their revenue on local content. 

Quotas are one way to ensure that Australians get the chance to watch Australian content. 

Barnaby Joyce last week declared One Nation was one of the “gayest” parties in Australia (this from a man who had a child in an extra-marital affair, and voted against marriage equality and all the other things Joyce has done) because Australia is doomed to have the most ridiculous political conversations while the world burns.

This morning he was on the Seven network where he said he would not be going to Mardi Gras, after his party leaders reiterated comments last week that she did not like it, and sexuality should be kept ‘behind closed doors’ (like I said – the most ridiculous conversations).

Joyce said “you can absolutely bet I would not go to the Mardi Gras. But that’s my business, and we just want you to live your own life, but it’s your life. It’s not so much as something that other people have to stop the traffic for.”

Joyce has been part of plenty of convos against climate action, so you know, he’s not against stopping traffic. But not sure why anyone thinks he would be invited to attend Mardi Gras?

Last week Andrew Bragg was talking about cutting government spending and said “Bob Hawke and Peter Walsh managed to cut federal spending from 27.5% to 22.9% in just 5 years. This remains the benchmark.” We can be fairly sure he picked Labor Government years for a purpose! But is that the whole story?

The chart shows the official figures for the period Bragg is talking about. The chart also includes the average unemployment rate in each of the years shown. Unemployment rates give us a bit of a clue about the impact of the state of the economy on government spending.

Bragg has chosen the peak and the trough to illustrate his point. But he has failed to mention the economic context behind the changes in government spending.

In 1983-84 and for a few more years the economy was severely hit as a result of the previous Fraser Coalition Government’s mismanagement of the economy. Unemployment peaked at 11.3% in 1983 as result of the huge appreciation of the Australian dollar and reflected in then Treasury Secretary John Stone telling us we all had to import more.

Much of the increase in spending under the Hawke Government was a Keynesian reaction to mass unemployment which was able to be eased back as the economy recovered (ie when the private sector economy slows, governments need to increase spending to in effect “fill the gap”).  

But part of it was also due to relative decline in GDP which increased the ratio of government spending to GDP – ie the economy actually shrunk (a recession) and govt spending increased so the combination makes government spending as a “percent of GDP” look quite big.

By the end of the 1980s the bust had turned into a boom so automatically reducing the spending to GDP ratio while also reducing spending on the remaining unemployed.

But then in the 1989-90 and on we had a rapid increase in unemployment as the Reserve Bank overreacted to the boom and gave us interest rates in the high teens.

Again, the state of the economy shows up in government spending figures as can be seen in the chart. During this period Finance Minister, Sen Peter Walsh and others were indeed pursuing savings options, partly to finance new initiatives such as the cash boost to families on low incomes. But an inspection of the record would show these were a relatively small part of the reduction in government spending.

Bragg doesn’t exactly say a Coalition Government would repeat that fall in spending but says “This remains the benchmark”. Today a fall of that magnitude, 4.6% of GDP, would imply spending lower by $147 billion. The Australian economy would not handle such a massive austerity program raising the prospect of mass unemployment.

Almost all of the large historic changes in spending to GDP reflect either automatic reactions to the state of the economy or government responses to the state of the economy.

In his speech at the National Press club, Bragg stated:

As someone who was a backbencher in the Morrison government, I am sorry I didn’t do more to stop the madness. …

‍The madness started when Canberra gave up on the Budget.”

Bragg, rather extraordinarily is saying that if the need ever arose for increasing spending to stimulate the economy he would not support that, unlike the Morrison Government during the pandemic.

Madness, indeed.

The new minimum standards for food delivery workers begin today – that will create an ‘earnings floor’ for workers, which is a minimum hourly rate for workers engaged time – from when they accept a delivery and complete the delivery – for pedal/e-bikes that will be $31.30 an hour, for motorcycles, $31.80 an hour and for car deliveries, $32 an hour.

If at the end of a 21-day period, if a worker has been paid (on average) less than the earnings, floor, then the delivery platform has to top up their earnings to meet it.

While delivery workers have to take out their own third party insurance, platforms have to include a ‘reasonable minimum level’ of personal accident cover.

There are also clearer procedure for resolving disputes, a right to unpaid time away from work and clearer access to feedback forums, including where to ask questions.

Q: This interim report from the Productivity Commission it’s found that the the deal has cost the federal budget $23 billion in its first six years, 22 billion of which has flowed to to WA. Where’s the unfairness then?

Mathias Cormann:

Well, we need to unpack a bit what happened here. So, firstly, I mean, the Productivity Commission needs to be much more upfront on what has actually driven the cost blowout, as I call it, and and and what the counterfactual would have been so. I mean, the reason why the arrangement or why the reformed GST distribution arrangements cost more than anticipated back in 2018 is because iron ore, the cost, the price of iron ore remained stronger for much longer than anticipated at the time. Now there were two impacts of that. Yes, it would have continued to drive WA’s GST relatively down for longer and further, but it also created a very significant revenue windfall for the Commonwealth based on increased personal and personal income tax and company tax receipts.

In fact, the the budget, the fiscal impact on the budget, on the federal budget, was overwhelmingly positive, despite the increased cost. But like, if if if the reforms had not been in place, what happened to iron ore prices since 2018, as I say, would have driven WA’s GST down to below 10 cents in the dollar. And in no federation, nobody can say that that is a fair or sustainable level of equalisation in a in a federation.

…What I’m trying to do is make a contribution to the public policy conversation, and you know, I mean, the Productivity Commission provided a report into horizontal fiscal equalization back in 2019, they actually made the recommendation that reforms should be introduced, no longer equalising to the fiscally stronger state, which is what our reforms did. I mean, we established the floor at 75 cents $1, and with that sort of floor, Western Australia still, you know, currently, you know, at 75 cents, there’s still a very substantial level of equalisation and support to other states that flows from Western Australia in those circumstances.

Also taken out with the trash on Friday was the Productivity Commission report into the GST deal that gave WA all of the lollies. All of them. (Or in this case, a $23bn cost to the federal government, of which $22bn went to WA.

Roger Cook, the WA premier had some words for anyone who wanted to change the deal”

The interim report from the Productivity Commission, released on Friday, found the deal had cost the federal budget $23 billion in its first six years, $22 billion of which had flowed to WA, calling it a “costly mistake”.

But West Australian Premier Roger Cook defends the arrangement.

It’s a sign that these East Coast clowns simply do not understand Western Australia.

(Reading from the report) ‘Every state and every territory, with the exception of Western Australia, wants change. It was unfair. It’s made Australia unfairer, and it’s made Western Australia richer. It’s cost a lot more, and it hasn’t delivered the benefits that we thought it might at the time’.

The idea that you would penalise a state for economic success undermines the national economic argument, but also would undermine the national fiscal bottom line too.

The changes they have proposed will rip up to $6 billion out of the Western Australian economy, I assure Western Australians of this: you will get your fair share. Anthony Albanese, who backtracked on negative gearing, who backtracked on capital gains tax. How can any West Australian trust that he is not going to backtrack on what is right for West Australians? I hope he will now have the fortitude to break a promise that he shouldn’t have made to keep shoveling money across the Nullarbor. This interim report is just that-an interim report.

We’ll wait and see what they say at the end of the year.

Cook has a friend in Mathias Cormann who helped put the deal together as a WA senator and Liberal finance minister. He is now secretary-general with the OECD, but put that hat aside to speak to RN Breakfast this morning in a ‘personal capacity’. Asked about the Productivity Report, Cormann said:

Well, I fundamentally disagree with them. I mean, it was a very important reform to federal financial relations, addressing a very significant unfairness for the state of Western Australia, and also a real problem when it comes to the incentive arrangements in our federation, in relation to state economic development, in particular of the resources and mining sector.

I mean, you know, I find it quite surprising that the Productivity Commission, at the same time, acknowledges the deep unfairness that previous arrangements, you know, imposed on Western Australia, with Western Australia’s share of GST down to 30 cents in $1, and under the previous arrangement would have gone below 10 cents in $1.

That is, for every dollar of GST less than 10 cents, would have gone back to Western Australia if reforms hadn’t been applied. So they acknowledge the deep unfairness and the extreme outcomes of the previous arrangements, but then recommend going back to the old system. But based on arguments, quite frankly, that I don’t believe withstand scrutiny.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie is continuing her mis-information campaign around the gun buy backs, after the Nationals led the Coalition split against supporting the legislation.

She was on ABC RN Breakfast earlier continuing with the same misinformation. Asked:

Why were Tim Fisher and John Howard right to back a gun buyback after the Port Arthur massacre, but it’s not right to back one now after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack.

McKenzie:

Well, the nearly a million law-abiding firearm owners who’ve lived under John Howard and Tim Fisher’s National Firearms Agreement for the last 30 years exist under one of the strictest firearm regulation systems in the world, and we all need to be very comfortable and confident in that.

I think what’s disturbing post the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack is that somehow it’s the almost a million law-abiding firearm owners in this country and their families who are the target of the Labor government, rather than the Islamic terrorists themselves, or as the Prime Minister says, getting you know guns off our street. It’s not law-abiding firearm owners that are walking around with firearms on our streets. It’s crime gangs and the criminal elements in our society that need to be focused on. Back in 1996, there was an acceptance that fewer guns in the community was a good thing, and it wasn’t about licensed firearm owners doing the wrong thing. It was about having fewer guns in the community. So I’d argue that there seems to be this assumption that less lawfully purchased, lawfully housed, lawfully used firearms means Australians are safer, and that’s actually a false argument.

Let’s go to the evidence on that shall we?

To get a firearm licence in Australia requires having a “genuine reason” to own a gun. In most jurisdictions, this requirement can be satisfied by being a paid-up member of a sports shooting club. Shooting groups promote this fact, advertising that you can join “from the comfort of home”. This may explain why up to 253,000 NSW firearms licences list shooting sports or recreational hunting as a reason for gun ownership, but fewer than 36,000 people in NSW participated in either activity in 2025.

Ever since the Port Arthur massacre, Australia has been united behind the principle that strict firearm controls are important for public safety. The thin practical requirements for getting a firearm licence are not in the spirit of that principle and allow for a worrying erosion of Australia’s gun control regime.

One of the Bondi shooters had a basic gun licence and was able to legally purchase multiple fire arms. Bridget McKenzie’s argument to that is that they shouldn’t have had the licence or guns. She falls back on the lines the government isn’ targeting suspected terrorists (which they are) and are once again targeting legal gun owners (which one of the Bondi shooters were)

I have for a while been monitoring Australians travel to the USA.

It’s been pretty clear for nearly a year now that Australians have taken a look at what Trump and his ICE goons are doing, and have decided that ain’t the place for them. 

Last Friday the ABS released the latest travel figures for the month of June. And given this included the World Cup I expected there to be a bit of a bump – after all that is what happened when Brazil and Russia hosted the World Cup:

But no. No spike at all. 

Now ok, for some reason fewer Australians every year travel to the USA in June than in May, so maybe this is just a normal thing (aside from the very unnormal World Cup being held), and the figures also count residents returning, so I suspect a few are staying until July.

But if we look at the growth in travel destinations among the top 20 destinations, the USA has suffered the biggest fall (I have used the combined SE and NW Europe categories, because travelers generally visit more than one country when they go to those areas, unlike other nations):

And it is instructive that Canada has seen rather a boom in people travelling from Australia.

Since Trump took office in January 2025, annual travel to the USA has fallen 8%, while visits to Canada are up 9.5%.

It would seem Australians are not against travelling to North America, just that they’re choosing more and more to travel to the USA less and less. 

NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister’s interview on Insiders was a master class example of why political interviews are mostly just an exercise in how well can a politician keep on message, and why voters are sick of such things.

Reality? Pfft. The actual impact of politician’s decisions? lulz. 

David Speers attempted to get McAllister to admit that given the government wants the states to take up large parts of the funding that will cut be the Albanese government if that is not in place, people will be without care . 

He asked:

What supports will be available for those who are kicked off the NDIS? Will you delay removing anyone from the scheme until the states have put these so-called foundational supports in place?

McAllister replied:

So we’ve been really clear that we do want to see alternative supports in place at the same time as we bring access changes into play. We don’t anticipate making any changes to access until 2028.

Speers rightly pointed out that Queensland is not on board, so would she consider delaying until all state funding was in place.

This what we got:

I’m really confident that this is in the interests of Queensland population, and I think the Queensland residents will want to see their government take the next step.

Oh confident. How wonderful. Speers kept pressing. McAllister kept dodging:

I don’t think we need to contemplate delay at this point

And then again after Speers kept going:

I’m not contemplating delay…

And again:

What I’m saying is that I don’t think we need to contemplate delay at this point …

Because, why would you want a Minister to contemplate what the government might have to do should it wishes and hopes not come true?

Speers then asked a very good question about the “Thriving Kids” funding which is notionally meant to replace the funding that is being cut for many neurodivergent kids who will no longer have access to the NDIS. 

The entire exchange is pretty instructive about how rushed and farcical this bill is:

DAVID SPEERS: Thriving Kids is only available for kids up to the age of eight. What happens to a nine-year-old who’s removed from the NDIS?

JENNY MCALLISTER: We will need to work through the additional foundational supports. There’s $10 billion that premiers and the Prime Minister have agreed ought to be applied to standing up foundational supports. We started with children, but we know that we’ll need to stand up additional, make additional arrangements. 

DAVID SPEERS: So, for a nine-year-old though, or a 10-year-old, is it still not clear what supports they’ll get?

JENNY MCALLISTER: A couple of things here, David. We do need to be clear about eligibility for the scheme, and we’ve sought advice from a technical advisory group that includes a whole lot of people that have deep expertise in all sorts of disability, including paediatrics. There. advice will shape what changes we are going to make to access for the scheme, and we haven’t received that yet. But we know that we do want to stand up supports outside the scheme that will likely include supports for children as well. 

Later in the interview Speers asked her about the impact of the cuts to the Community and Social Participation program. 

DAVID SPEERS: Should families, parents in particular, expect to do more unpaid caring as a result of those cuts?

JENNY MCALLISTER: We think that these supports can be managed safely for people who use them, and I’ll give you this example. Our proposal, under our proposal, we would see average expenditure reduced from what it is at the moment, which is around $31,000 a year, to around $26,000 a year. So it is a reduction, and we don’t deny that it will have impacts on people with disability and their families. But it is in a context where the scheme is growing very, very quickly. We do think that it needs to be fiscally sustainable, and so this is a measure we think we can take in a way that supports people with disability, continues to allow them to access supports of this kind because we know how important they are in people’s lives, but actually just starts to rein in some of the cost growth, which is unexpected, and ultimately puts the scheme on an unsustainable trajectory.

You will notice she did not say yes or no. In fact she didn’t even address the issue. 

Our research estimates that the just under $17bn worth of cuts in 2029-30 alone are equivalent to around 94m hours of paid care. 

Let me tell you, someone is going to need to do that care, and it will be families. And if it is not, most likely it will involve great neglect. 

I’ll just note that when my wife recently rang the NDIA to ask about our daughter plan, a bloke on the phone wondered if we could not just go part-time and do some of the care instead.

Thankfully we were assigned a case worker who regarded that suggestion with horror. 

Anyway. I hope you all enjoy the next Royal Commission into abuses of people with disability. 2031 seems like a likely date. 

In her interview on Insiders, NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister made some pretty extraordinary claims about having listened to the concerns of the disability community.

The reality is the government has ignored them.

When host David Speers asked:

Are you going to listen to any of that, or are you not going to budge on things like eligibility, who’s going to be kicked off the scheme, the community and social participation plans, and so on? Is there any movement on any of the concerns that were raised at the actual Senate inquiry.

She replied:

You’ll have seen in the House of Representatives when we debated this, we made a series of amendments to the bill, really to clarify policy intent in response to some of the concerns we’ve been hearing from disability advocates, and we continue to talk to them.

The problem is those changes did little more than acknowledge the concerns but did not actually address them. 

The big thing here is that the bill gives the minister discretion to cut certain sections of NDIS by up to 99%. 

No need for further legislation, no need regulation. The minister just makes determination. 

The main target is funding for a segment known (as Speers mentions) “Social, Economic and Community Participation” plans.

My daughter with Down Syndrome is on this – she attends such care 5 days a week from 9am-3pm. She learns some basic work skills (not that she will ever be able to do paid work), but also community and life skills – from the basic like getting used to going on public transport, or even just going to a shop and choosing what she would like to buy and taking the money to the counter. They also do things like yoga, and exercise and some community activities that enable her to have a… gee what to call it… yeah “life”.

The bill is looking to cut this program by as much as 50%. 

How it will work is that the Minister makes a determination that Social, Economic and Community Participation funding is to be cut by X% (let’s say 25%). That will mean everyone’s funding for those plans will be cut by that amount. 

The explanatory memorandum gives a specific example:

Omar has an old framework plan with $40,000 in the Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation budget. The Minister could make a determination that the funding component for Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation will     be reduced by for example 25 per cent. The Minister would have to consider participant safety when setting the determination. After the determination is made nothing will change for Omar until his plan is next reassessed or renewed. If Omar’s plan is renewed, the     amount that he can spend on community participation supports under his new plan will be the funding amount set in the new plan for community participation reduced by 25 per cent. This means he will have $30,000 in his Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation budget.

Notice how there is no mention of “Omar’s” disability. No mention of a review by the NDIA, no mention of anything other than the Minister decided everyone’s plan should be cut by 25%.

That is what this legislation will do. 

So what is the “clarify policy intent” that Jenny McAllister talks about? 

This was added to the explanatory memorandum to “clarify” the purpose of the minister ability to make a determination to cut funding:

It is not intended to affect supports that are essential to a participant’s health, safety or continuous care needs. The application of a support determination is confined to specified support categories, such as social, economic and community participation and improved daily living skills.

Yep. The government has decided that care that occurs for the best part of the working day, and which improves someone’s daily living skills does not improve their health, wellbeing or safety and is not “continuous care”.

 But hey at least McAlistter says she will “keep talking to” the disability community. Won’t be listening to them, but they will talk to them… 

Late last Friday afternoon, at the time when most people’s attention is diverted by thoughts of the weekend, and which is traditionally the “take out the trash” time of the week for the government to dump stuff it doesn’t want to much media attention, the government released the final report of the Senate committee’s inquiry into  the changes to the NDIS.

As expected, the report, which had a majority of Government members, ignored the vast number of submissions by the disability community and recommended the bill be passed. 

Myself and Luke Slawomirski last week released a report into the changes and it was cited numerous times in the Greens dissenting report. 

Yesterday NDIS minister, Jenny McAllister went on ABC’s Insiders to defend the bill. 

It was a performance that was extremely telling about what is required to be a government minister — slavish ability to stick to talking points and devotion to a reality that is not experienced by others.

McAllister was interviewed by host David Speers, and after praising the “extremely constructive” discussion with the coalition, she quickly mention fraud. 

There’s a reason fraud is always mentioned by the government when talking about the NDIS changes – they focus grouped it.

As Monique Ryan noted when she put forward some amendments last month:

“We all know that, during 2024-25 budget estimates, it was revealed that the NDIA had awarded two contracts—one in February 2023 and one in September 2023—with a total value of $400,000 to the Redbridge Group. The purpose of those contracts was to conduct     focus groups and message testing to identify how to best frame the changes proposed in the NDIS bill. Redbridge polling found that, while the NDIS is loved by the general public of Australia, the general public and participants would show qualified tolerance for funding cuts and stricter eligibility criteria were these austerity measures positioned as a necessary crackdown on NDIS fraud and rorting.”

This is also why they keep mentioning suggestions that fraud is as much as 20% (these are based pretty much on just “vibes”)

But here’s the kicker: the changes to the NDIS will cut around $38bn from the scheme over the next 4 years. How much do you think will be from cracking down on fraud? $7bn? Lulz. Sure that would be 20% fo the total, but no. $5bn? $3bn? $2bn? $1bn???

Nope – just $900m.

The changes are not about reducing fraud at all. 

And the reality while there is some actual criminal fraud involved with the NDIS, most of the “fraud” is inherent in the system that allows private operators to fatten profits in much the same way as every single other example of privatised public services.

The NDIS was conceived essentially by the Productivty Commission back in 2011.  It even gave a handy pictograph that explained how it would work. I have highlighted a bit of a flaw. 

Oddly the PC has been pretty bloody quiet about the NDIS changes. That’s one of the joys of being a body that never has to face any consequences. 

But former PC head, Gary Banks admitted back in 2024:

“In retrospect, the commission clearly underestimated the incentives for ‘overservicing’ that such a scheme presents and, in particular, was too optimistic about the prospects of an eventual payback to the economy,” 

Gee who could ever have for seen that for-profit providers would seek to maximise their profits. 

And none of the cuts in the NDIS bill will changes any of that. 

Glenn Connley

Major gambling companies won $5 billion from Australian punters in 2023-24, yet told the Australian Taxation Office that they made next-to-no profit, according to New research released by The Australia Institute today.

Three major gambling companies — Tabcorp, bet365 (Hillside), and Pointsbet — won $1.3 billion dollars from Australian gamblers in 2023-24, yet paid zero company tax.

bet365 (Hillside) and Pointsbet have never paid company tax in Australia despite winning over $2 billion. bet365 lists numerous subsidiaries in secrecy jurisdictions such as Delaware, Malta and Alderney in the English Channel.

These findings underscore the Murphy Review’s call for a federal levy on online wagering revenues to fund gambling harm reduction measures.

Key points:

• The five largest online wagering companies won $5.4 billion in 2023-24, but reported just $0.4 billion in profit (taxable income) and paid $0.1 billion in company tax, just 2% of their winnings.
• The big five spent at least $600 million on advertising and promotion in this period, six times more than they paid in company tax.
• These companies paid at most $700 million in state gambling taxes, some of which is earmarked for horse racing industry bodies that “invest” in promoting further wagering.
• These companies spent around $720 million on fees to sporting organisations, the vast majority of which goes to the horse racing industry. Media reports suggest the AFL and NRL collect just $50 million each per year.

“The Murphy Review recommended a federal levy on online betting and now we know why,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Online betting companies are very good winning money and very good at convincing the ATO that they don’t make any profit and shouldn’t pay any tax.

“Funding gambling harm reduction measures clearly can’t depend on existing tax measures and how clever these companies’ accountants have been this year.

“The companies claim that the taxes they pay to the states are sufficient. But much of this money goes straight to the racing industry that ploughs it back into promoting gambling.

“This report also exposes the lie of companies’ “contributions” to sporting organisations. The vast bulk of this money goes to the horse racing industry, not to little leagues and community sport.

“A simple levy on wagering revenue specifically to address gambling harm is badly needed if Australia is to do anything about our world-leading gambling losses.

“We have long known the harm these companies cause in Australian communities – causing bankruptcies, health and mental health issues, exacerbating domestic violence and also leading some people to suicide – but now to hear that they give so little back through their tax minimisation schemes is appalling,” said Martin Thomas, CEO of the Alliance for Gambling Reform.

“The Federal Government must do more to crackdown on these companies, to make sure they pay their fair share, rather than continuing to let our nation be a wildwest for foreign owned gambling companies.”

Hello and welcome to another day of parliament, as the second sitting gets underway.

You have Amy Remeikis with you, with a whole bunch of people waiting to drop in and let you know what you need.

Everyone is still waiting to see what the government will do about migration, after it announced plans to change the migration flow, in response to One Nation. Yes, One Nation, with one MP in the house and a conspiracy of senators, One Nation is managing to control both Coalition AND government policy. GOOD TIMES.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre responded to those reports yesterday:

Over 160 community, charity, multicultural and migrant organisations have written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warning that reported plans to remove work rights from people seeking asylum would force thousands of people into destitution and place enormous new pressure on already overstretched charities and community organisations.

Media reports have alleged that the Albanese Government is considering removing work rights from people seeking asylum after the initial stage of their application, even while they are lawfully exercising their rights to independent review. This could see tens of thousands of people who are currently working, paying rent, buying food and supporting their families suddenly lose their only source of income and be left with no way to meet their most basic needs.

People seeking asylum are generally unable to access Centrelink, while only a very small proportion (around 3%) can access limited government-funded income support. For many people, the right to work is therefore the difference between being able to support themselves and being unable to pay for food, rent and other essentials.

If the Albanese Government pursues this policy, the charities say the consequences will fall directly on them, and that they are already overstretched. They say that removing the right to work would also push people towards cash-in-hand employment and make them more vulnerable to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, exploitation and abuse.

We will keep an eye on that. And in less public news, the Greens are having a bit of a moment about whether or not they can allow the NSW government to break a promise and save Koalas. At the last election, the NSW government promised to save the Great Koala Park. It’s now claiming it can only do that if it can monetise the park, through carbon credits. The federal government would need to make a regulation change for that to happen, and they are all on-board with carbon credits (the exceptionally very scientific idea that not cutting down trees which are choking on present carbon, you can offset fossil fuel emissions without actually having to cut them at the source, because the choking trees will somehow continue to harvest carbon) so the feds aren’t overly upset.

The Nationals have put in a disallowance motion (which is just a parliamentary instrument to say ‘we don’t allow this change’) and the Liberals will probably support that, but the Greens are a little split over….reasons.

The Nationals don’t want the change because they think that will impact forestry but a disallowance motion doesn’t do anything other than not allow the regulatory change. So the Greens won’t be saying they want more forestry if they support it, just that they won’t allow national and state forest to be used for carbon credits. But there is a split over whether or not they make this stand, which is very strange, because the NSW government went to the election to say they would save the koalas, no ifs, buts or maybes. So it seems an easy win, but politics is always a strange beast.

That’s coming up tomorrow, but party room meeting is today, so we’ll see where they land.

Coffee number two is on the stove, so I’m going to go grab that and then get into all of this with you.

Ready?