The Point Live: Parliament returns. As it happens.

Now that we’re clear on what everyone’s toplines are for the week, we’re going to close the liveblog for today and go lie down.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us today, and as ever, thank you to the team for your contributions.

We’ll be back tomorrow coffee in hand, for day to.

In the meantime, take care of yourselves and of each other.

Anna Chang

We’re now debating the two urgency motions before the Senate today.

The two motions put up by the Greens and the Coalition again show what each of their priorities for this week are, in case it wasn’t clear to you before.

So, for the Greens that’s fossil fuels and climate change. And for the Coalition, it’s illegal tobacco and [checks notes] scaring people (?)

Senator McKim—Urgency motion—That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency—

The need for the Labor Government to stop approving coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis, with their 37th coal and gas project approved as a climate disaster unfolds in Nepal and Tibet.

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Cash)—Urgency motion—That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency—

The Albanese Government’s failure to stop the explosion in illicit tobacco that has handed billions to organised crime, fuelled firebombings and violence across our communities, and the need to smash the gangs, destroy their business model and restore the rule of law

Greg Jericho

Right now the LNP and One Nation have decided that tobacco excise is the policy du jour.

One Nation have suggested a cut of 75% off the tobacco excise, while the LNP have gone with an 80% cut.

All of this is notionally an attempt to counter the growth of illegal cigarettes.

That’s because excise prices have risen progressively since 2010 and a pack of 25s now costs about $50.

The 80% cut would take the excise back to what it was in 2010

But here’s the thing. In real terms (i.e. taking into account inflation) it would take it back to lower than it was before 2000.

There is absolutely no question that the increase in cigarette prices from 2010 onwards has reduced smoking rates.

Cutting the excise by this much will make smoking cheaper and certainly lead to an increase in smoking rates – especially among younger people.

Tobacco companies would love this.

It is worth remembering that the current shadow Treasurer, Tim Wilson back in 2010 when he was with the IPA, and was trying to make a name by arguing against plain packaging.

He was claiming that the government would end up owing tobacco companies $3b in compensation over trademarks.

They did not.

There are complex issues about tobacco. Clearly the price of cigarettes is so high that the risk of purchasing illegal cigarette has become low enough for more people to do it.

But getting into a price war with criminal gangs in order to help the sales of tobacco companies seems a poor way to go about fixing it, especially when crime gangs know the price of making a pack of cigarettes is about 20 cents.

So the Coalition is trying to get some policy debate up, but landed no big blows. The government is in defence mode – we have the defences of super and housing, but again, it is mostly coasting.

And nothing to show that the Albanese government feels like it needs to deviate course.

Oh, and Ed Husic is back in the chamber – he missed the last sitting after a car crash, but tells us he is ready to get back into it.

In what can only be bad news for Matt Keogh, the prime minister is now involved in the veterans care issue, which means that it has got so out of control that the big boss has had to step in to do the meetings. And Albanese only steps in if he cares about the issue personally or if there has been a monumental fuck up.

Albanese:

I’ll be meeting with veterans later again – this afternoon. Veterans have stepped up for us and we must step up for them. I want to make…(INTERJECTIONS)I want to make three points behind the government’s proposed changes, that are designed to come into effect on July 2027, which the Government continues to consult. 

Point one, the government is making a substantial increase to the fees paid to allied health professionals, providing services to veterans. Why are we doing that? Because it was recommended by the royal commission in recommendation 71, because what the royal commission found, was that veterans were unable to access those services because though – those who provide them weren’t being paid properly. That’s what they found. That’s point number one.

Point 2 is that we’re reducing the burden on veterans to go back to a GP every 12 allied health visit for a new referral. That was the existing system up to July 27, instead of that, we have expanded it on a $5,000 threshold before a veteran’s care is reviewed. What that means is that the system of reviewing will happen later than it has under the previous system. That’s point 2.

Third, third – is that ensuring further care will be available if there’s a clinical need beyond the $5,000.(INTERJECTIONS). The changes will not impact veterans on the specific rate disability pension, TPIs, or those determined to be catastrophically injured. My government’s priority is ensuring that veterans receive high quality care, that supports their health and their wellbeing. The debt we owe our veterans isn’t one that can be paid in gratitude alone.

It has to be paid by making sure that they get the services that they need with a system…(INTERJECTIONS) With a system…(INTERJECTIONS)..the previous limit was 12 allied health visits before they needed – before they needed a referral. Now, now…(INTERJECTIONS)..it will be more than 12 visits because of the $5,000.

He finishes.

The education minister is asked:

Why is consent and respectful relationships education important? Are there opposing views on the importance of teaching respect in our schools?

And says:

Mr Speaker, over the last few weeks, our country has been shocked by allegations of sexual violence against women. We’ve got serious challenges that we have to confront as a country. I want to take my hat off to the headmaster of St Joseph’s college, Michael Blake, who told boys at his school last week and I quote, “I want every young woman who encounters a Joey’s boy to be safer because you are there, not merely safe from you, but safer because of you.” For many women, this hasn’t been a hard week, it’s a sad ongoing reality.

It’s been a difficult week to be a man, it’s been infinitely harder to be female”. It’s a hard truth. And the truth is there’s a lot more that we need to do. Now schools don’t just teach our kids how to learn to read and write, they help to build character too. And ultimately, what this is about, is one simple thing – and that’s respect. Teaching boys to respect girls isn’t woke.

It’s just common decency. And teaching them about consent isn’t woke either, it’s the law. The real heroes here are our mums and our dads and our teachers and principals like Michael Blake. The bad guys are people like the Tate brothers, who want to spew out all this poison that’s affecting our kids and the tech companies who profit from it, and who are super charging all of it. It give you an idea of what it looks like in practice, these two individuals have run an online course, they’ve got the hide to call a PhD. And in this course, they teach young men how to sexually exploit young women online. 

Now, the idea that it’s our teachers, our it’s our schools, or it’s our curriculum that is to blame for sending kids towards all of this is one of the most extraordinary things I have ever, ever heard. But that’s what happened last week. 

That’s what the leader of the National Party argued.

Now, the truth is, it is not our schools that are to blame, if you want evidence of that, look at this, the other day a female journalist pretended on TikTok to be a 17-year-old boy. It took just 17 minutes before TikTok started sending her videos about what to think about girls. 17 minutes. That’s algorithms that are doing that. And remember, the average 17-year-old is spending 14 hours online a week at this moment. Being force fed all of this.

This is where the problem is. And this is where real leadership is required.

Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown asks Anthony Albanese:

Last week, while you met Pacific leaders, your resources minister and the NT chief minister turned on fracked gas from the Beetaloo. Experts at climate integrity say the 430 trillion cubic feet of Beetaloo gas will mean more than 50 years of Australian emissions. Do you back the Northern Territory government and its plan to ignite this giant climate bomb?

Anthony Albanese:

I support all my ministers and I support real action on climate change. I understand unless you have firming capacity, you won’t have the expansion of renewables that is important for the transition. And the Pacific Island leaders certainly understood that, who I met with. Pacific Island leaders praised Australia’s work and we’re leading the nation, indeed, last week, with the minister, and with the two ministers – I was there for the solar project in Palau, that will power 25% of Palau’s energy needs going forward. Making an enormous difference, because that will mean less diesel use, important for lowering emissions, but importantly as well, one of the lessons of what has happened with the Strait of Hormuz and the Middle East conflict, that nations need to be more resilient. They need to be less reliant upon events internationally, that we’ve seen can be turbulent. So, we have our eyes in these turbulent seas kept on the horizon, and on the horizon that means being more resilient as an economy, making sure we produce more of our energy needs here, which is why, whether it is the production, increase in use of renewables, whether that be the firming capacity that is necessary for that to be rolled out, that is being critical for areas such as Tomago, which is New South Wales’s largest energy user, that is making an enormous difference due to the work we’ve done together with the New South Wales government, and with the company there. Or whether it be the potential for…

There is a point of order that is not a point of order and then Albanese continues what could be a speech to the mining lobby:

Whether it be the seed funding to examine whether we can have an additional fuel refinery on the West Coast, or whether it be what we’re doing with liquid fuels, that will make an enormous difference. Making sure that our agricultural sector, in production, such as canola and others, can make a difference. In going into the production, not only, I think, something that we have the opportunity to help our own needs, in the areas such as aviation, but we have the potential if we get this right, as global demand rises, for us to be an exporter. So, the – the slogans that we were there in the question aren’t what will solve the issue of the challenges of climate change. What will solve the issue is taking up the opportunity which is there, for how do you lower emissions in a sensible, strategic way, how do you make sure that you take into account the need for energy security, while those emissions are being decreased. Because, if you don’t do that, you will lose public and community support for it. Which is why what we have is a plan….

He is out of time.

Anna Chang

The question from Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Larissa Waters, goes back to Greens greatest hits, asking about expanding fossil fuel projects and the expansion of more new coal and gas projects in Australia.

And we also know, any time the Greens mention Labor Government’s track record of opening fossil fuel projects, Labor bring up the Greens voting against the CPRS. We were probably even moments away from them also being referred to as ‘TheAustralianGreensPoliticalParty’ (all one word) as often happens in the Senate.

But as Australia Institute co-CEO Richard Denniss wrote in The Point last week, maybe ‘a CPRS moment’ is perhaps exactly what the Greens needs?

Senator Larissa Waters:

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong, last week, the Albanese government approved another fossil fuel project an extension to a coal mine in Queensland on the very same day the UN issued its first prediction that the world will not be able to constrain global warming to 1.5 degrees. 

Minister, can you confirm that 37 coal and gas projects have been approved by this government since May 2022 and explain how this is consistent with the government’s alleged commitment to a safe climate? 

Minister Penny Wong:

In relation to the UN reports, I have looked at those and yes, I you know, I think all of us should look very closely at what is being told to us, what is being reported. And I would also note that the El Nino event, which we are currently with which the globe is currently experiencing, is projected to be the worst in, in many centuries. So I am not one that you have to convince about the importance of acting on climate and the importance of changing your economy to deal with changing climate, and to deal with the imperative of reducing emissions. 

Which is why one of the great tragedies in history is when your party voted with Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi and Nick Minchin, and you can put your head in your hands. 

But that is the reality because that actually would have changed the Australian economy. 

And we all understand the way you betrayed the climate. You betrayed the climate for short term political gain. And you lined up you lined up with Tony Abbott. Can you believe it? The Australian Greens lined up with Tony Abbott. That is your legacy. 

That is your legacy when it comes to climate. And I will also give you another number, I guess. How many renewable energy projects since as at seventh of September 2026, 146 renewable energy projects run 146 renewable energy projects? 

Oh dear. Senator Henderson’s going to get very upset at that now. Very upset about that 146 renewable energy projects. 

Now in relation. I didn’t actually hear which project you were talking about, but if it is the Saraji mine, I would make the point, two points: this is not a new coal mine and it is already covered by the Safeguard Mechanism with its base line declining to zero by 2050. 

Senator Larissa Waters:

The catastrophic flooding that occurred in Nepal was triggered by a glacier collapse driven by the climate crisis. Yet on his recent trip to the Pacific, the Prime Minister was asked about the role of climate change in the Nepal disaster. And he said now is not the time. My question is if now is not the time, when is a good time to talk about the fact that Australia is fuelling disasters like this by being the world’s second largest fossil fuel exporter? 

Minister Wong: 

Thousands of people missing thousands of people over hundreds of people dead and 36 Australians still missing. And you want to play politics with this issue? 

Senator Larissa Waters: 

On the very day your resources minister was in the NT cutting the ribbon on tambourines, enormous beetaloo gas fracking project. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology warned about the upcoming Super El Nino. Can you explain to the Australian people who are waking up to bushfire warnings today and preparing for a deadly summer ahead? Why are you continuing to put corporate profits of the big polluters ahead of the safety of people and nature? 

Minister Wong: 

What I would say to Australians and what I do say is we are committed to reducing our emissions. We are committed to transforming our economy. We are committed to ensuring that we transition one of the world’s most carbon intensive economies to a much more low emission economy. And we recognise that that is a challenge and we recognise that that is not something you can where you can simply flick a switch. It requires thoughtful, considered economic policy environment policy and energy policy. What I would say to them is that we are committed to that opposite us. We have people who are still rail against renewable energy and down there to our right, we have people who are much more interested in outrage than outcomes, who think, who think that policy is all about politics.

Bill Browne

It’s the first sitting period since Four Corners turned its attention to one of the more visible examples of corporate influence in democracy, Australia’s professional lobbyists.  

A lobbyist is anyone who spends a significant amount of their time trying to influence the thinking of politicians.  

Independent MP Monique Ryan has reintroduced her Clean Up Politics private member’s bill today, which would expand the lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists (those who work directly for a company), limit the revolving door, disclose ministerial meeting diaries and ban gambling and tobacco political donations.

State and territory governments along the east coast of Australia all disclose ministerial diaries, so we know it’s possible. NSW bans gambling and tobacco donations too. There’s not been a convincing reason given why federal politics should be treated any differently.

Meanwhile the Australian Democracy Network has lined up civil society support (including from the Australia Institute) for a National Lobbying Act.

Of course, lobbying is only one dimension of the power of vested interests. I argued in The Point thatlobbyists cannot make a politician do anything the politician does not want to do. The Albanese Government failed to ban gambling ads because they weren’t prepared to pay the political price for doing so. They feared the anger of the gambling industry more than they feared the anger of the Australian public. 

If democracy is to thrive in the 21st century, people power must grow relative to corporate influence. And when enough public pressure is brought to bear, there isn’t a lobbyist in the country who can stop it.  

Greg Jericho

Right now the LNP and One Nation have decided that tobacco excise is the policy de jour.

One Nation have suggested a cut of 75% off the tobacco excise, while the LNP have gone with an 80% cut.

All of this is notionally an attempt to counter the growth of illegal cigarette.

That’s because excise prices have risen progressively since 2010 and a pack of 25s now costs about $50.

The 80% cut would take the excise back to what it was in 2010

But here’s the thing in real terms (ie taking into account inflation) it would take it back to lower than it was before 2000

There is absolutely no question that the increase in cigarette prices from 2010 onwards has reduced smoking rates.

Cutting the excise by this much will make smoking cheaper and certainly lead to an increase in smoking rates – especially among younger people.

Tobacco companies would love this.

It is probably worth remembering that the current shadow Treasurer, Tim Wilson back in 2010 when he was with the IPA was trying to make a name by arguing against plain packaging.

He was claiming that the government would end up owing tobacco companies $3b in compensation over trademarks.

They did not.

There are complex issues about tobacco. Clearly the price of cigarettes is so high that the risk of purchasing illegal cigarette has become low enough for more people to do it.

But getting into a price war with criminal gangs in order to help the sales of tobacco companies seems a poor way to go about fixing it, especially when crime gangs know the price of making a pack of cigarettes is about 20 cents.

Jim Chalmers then takes a dixer to defend superannuation (and housing)

The member for Riverina said he was think being the issues raised by One Nation today, Mr Speaker. They are all anti-super, because they are all anti-worker. It’s that simple. They would swing a wrecking ball through the retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers. And Mr Speaker, they don’t back workers, and they don’t back first home buyers either, Mr Speaker.

And that’s why I think the Shadow Treasurer will probably be relieved to have been thrown out a moment ago, Mr Speaker, cause I heard him ask a question of the housing minister about house prices. It just so happens, I got a quote here, a transcript, of what the Shadow Treasurer in a podcast on 14 July ’20-’21 said about house prices. Would you like to hear what the Shadow Treasurer said? I’m quoting the Shadow Treasurer. “I said quite publicly I like to slow the growth in the price of housing.” 

Then he says he wrote a whole book about it. Because, I’m quoting again he said, “What we’re creating is intergenerational inequity.” Quite right. “The housing market and the tax system is making things less fair in intergenerational terms and this Government has the guts to do something about it.

We’re making the housing market fairer for first home buyers, cutting income taxes, helping with the cost of living, because we know that people are under pressure, but we’re also reminded today that One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals, would cut super and make cost of living pressures worse, not better.

And then shortly after that, Daniel Mulino does the same thing.

We get a question on the Coalition’s idea to cut the tobacco tax by 80% which it says would cut down on organised crime and what health policy experts call a disaster.

Illicit tobacco now accounts for 80% of the tobacco market and rising. Last week, I visited Victoria street in Melbourne, where 10 small businesses were fire bombed in July. Because of Labor’s failed illicit tobacco policies, these small business owners are now victims of organised crime. When will the Prime Minister admit his government’s failings and join with the coalition to crush the organised crime gangs?

Tony Burke take this one:

The last thing this Parliament should ever do is out source its health policy to organised crime. That’s the last thing we should do. That’s exactly what the opposition leader…(INTERJECTIONS)..think about this single fact. The single fact is the raw cost – the raw cost of an illicit packet of cigarettes is one sixth the cost of legal cigarettes, before you get to the excise.

So, even if you reduce the excise, in the way the opposition are saying, you still have a massive price differential between what organised crime are able to to do, and what would be available at a shop.

That is why the way to deal with this, has to be through law enforcement.(INTERJECTIONS)T

…

Jim Chalmers says no.

Greg Jericho

Albanese cites the increase in investor loans for construction. He was right – it was a new record in the June quarter. Though to be fair this is a bit of an upward trend.

Tim Wilson is up:

My question is to the Minister for Housing: Sydney house prices are plummeting so fast that they are on track for the biggest crash in 40 years. The Prime Minister has not been transparent with Australians on modelling. Do you still stand by treasury that property prices will fall by only 2%?

(So we are still across that what Howard did with the CGT discount is what turbo charged Australian house prices right? And it was that change that led to average wages and average house prices being completely unhooked? Right?)

Clare O’Neil:

I thank the Shadow Treasurer for his question. And he is accurate in one sense that house prices are softening across the country.

Speaker, this is the fourth time that we have seen this occur in a decade in our country.

Now, I’m asked about the role that the tax changes have played in this, and Speaker, the Government could not have been more transparent about this in the federal budget. And to that end, I’m going to read to you, Speaker, from one of the fact sheets the company – the federal budget – fact sheet on negative gearing and CGT tax changes on page 5. Treasury modelling suggests the reform will increase the owner occupier share of the housing market, resulting in around 75,000 additional owner occupiers across the decade. This is equivalent, Speaker, to reversing around 10 years of deadlines in home ownership rate. The reduction in investor demand is expected to lead to a small and temporary slowing in house price growth, relative to new tax policy change.”

We’ve been transparent to the budget, treasury officials have had three opportunities for public questioning on what those were in the modelling. Not able to get much media commentary on it, it seems. What I would say to the Parliament is we put what is happening in the property market in context.

I want to remind the Parliament we have seen house price growth of 400% in the last 25 years. In fact, the member opposite asked me about Sydney house prices, he might like to remind himself in the 9 years those opposite were in power, house prices have doubled. We’ve seen house prices grow by 50% in the last six years. Now, that’s the context that is really important here, I know those opposite don’t have anything sensible to say about this. We have a really resolute commitment, and that’s that we want home ownership to be able to – a serious opportunity for young people around this country, no matter their income.

…I am speaking to the tax change in the budget, there’s a clear imperative about this. Our side of the Parliament wants to see first homeowners have a realistic shot at getting in the housing market. We’ve got a broken housing market in this country, a Government trying to do something about it, and the opposition who are the last man standing defending a broken system. We’re very happy to stand on the side of first homeowners when it comes to this debate.

Anna Chang

And if you were running a book on which Senator would mention Gloria Steinem in the Senate first, and how long it would take, we have our answer.

It was WA Labor Senator Ellie Whiteaker, in her Senators’ Statement just before QT.

(Amy edit – never forget Steinem was a CIA asset who wanted to make sure class consciousness didn’t become a major part of the feminist movement, particularly with Black Americans.)

Anna Chang

It is horrific how we treat children in prison. It is horrific that we lock up children that we deem not old enough to access social media, in prison.

Senator Lidia Thorpe speaks to her Private Senators’ Bill, which has been sent to inquiry and is taking submissions until 14 September.

Senator Lidia Thorpe:

Bodies don’t belong to the state. 

Last month, I introduced a private senators’ bill to ban strip searching of children. 

Strip searching is child sexual assault perpetrated by the state, and I want to share some words from proud Ewan woman Anna Vicky Roach, quote: ‘When the state takes bodily autonomy from children, it can shape how you understand your body, intimacy, consent, and control long afterwards. We cannot teach children about consent while maintaining laws that allow adults in authority to override it. We cannot decide that some children deserve bodily autonomy while criminalized children do not. Kids must be protected from the system. A child’s body belongs to that child, not to the police, not to a prison, not to an institution, not to the state.” End quote.

The inquiry into my bill is taking submissions until September 14, one more week. 

However, the Labor-dominated committee, who decides on who gets to run an inquiry and have hearings, shut it down. They shut it down. 

The Legal and Cons Committee shut down an inquiry on strip searching and sexual assault against children in this country, shameful, shameful. 

So the government are obviously trying to hide that we are strip searching 10-year-old children with disabilities in this country. 

They don’t want you to know what child gets strip searched in this country at 10 years old with a disability. How can you let this happen? And why won’t you let people with lived experience come and tell their story? 

Because you are complicit. You are complicit in the sexual assault of children in in prisons and in any place of detention. 

When are you going to stand up for those babies?

James Watson

Australia’s national Catholic schools body has announced it is considering cutting ties with the Congregation of Christian Brothers. In tonight’s Four Corners episode on ABC TV, the Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia (TEREA) will state that its relationship with the order has become strained over compensation payments to victims of child sexual abuse.

The Christian Brothers has faced numerous historical child sexual abuse compensation claims over the last few decades.

In June, it announced it had run out of money and had applied to stop all compensation claims against it.

This is despite the fact that since 2013, the Christian Brothers has transferred $891 million of school property to TEREA for either free or the nominal sum of $1.

This is reminiscent of a classic legal strategy in which wealth is shifted between various corporate bodies and subsidiaries to create a “corporate veil” between a firm’s wealth and its liabilities.

In the episode, a lawyer evokes James Hardie – the notorious asbestos company.

Indeed, asbestos litigation gives us some of the most infamous examples of this strategy. Wittenoom, the largest asbestos mine in Australia, was run by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) through its Australian Blue Asbestos (ABA) subsidiary. After the mine closed in 1966, ABA transferred its wealth to CSR and claimed it was unable to pay mesothelioma victims. This strategy was successful until 1988, when the WA Supreme Court allowed victims to “piece the corporate veil” and sue CSR.

TEREA has fortunately decided not to play along with the Christian Brothers’ strategy, and it will act as the defendant if a revised compensation scheme is approved. It is also considering travelling to the Vatican to have its financial and legal links with the order cut.

Anna Chang

Senator Jacqui Lambie has just given her 2 minute speech on AI and big tech, reflecting back on the important concerns she raised back in 2024.

I think it is a real and fair question to ask Big Tech reps, if they have algorithms to keep online spaces safer, why don’t they just keep those ones and get rid of the bad ones. It seems like such a basic question that it’s practically a joke. 

But looking at the cesspool that passes as ‘social media’ these days, the joke’s definitely on us.

Senator Lambie’s remarks in full:

“In 2024, during the Senate inquiry on social media ban, myself and other senators asked the big tech industry body what they were doing about their nasty algorithms. 

“The big tech rep said that algorithms were key to making online space safer, and the algorithms were already working to protect our kids. 

“What a joke that was! What an absolute lie! 

“And when I said ‘that’s fine, but can’t you just have the safety algorithms and get rid of the bad algorithms?’ Why didn’t they do that themselves? They didn’t have an answer for that. 

“They just said that there was a principle of duty of care which was needed, which is rubbish. 

“Even though they admitted that they were they were there was already safety expectation. 

“Big tech love these nasty algorithms because they are designed to keep our kids in online so they make more money. They don’t give a stuff about our children out there. We’ve got to come down hard on these guys. 

“Governments are both stripes that social media get out of control. Now we’re playing catch up. Two years ago, when Senators were telling the Labor government what the problem algorithms were, you ignored us. 

“Then they, then the government got rid of an independent advisory body staffed with the best minds of AI from Australia. You got rid of them, and they turned. And then they turned to big tech, is now advising them. Big tech all the way. 

“Now two years later, the Government has finally woken up. Now it’s all about algorithms. 

“And don’t tell me these nasty algorithms are about free speech because that’s rubbish as well. 

“There is a difference between free speech and using algorithms to pump ugly content to our kids. 

“A large study from the Melbourne University found that pornography consumption are the online behaviors that most consistently link with attitudes that normalise, minimise, and excuse violence against women. 

“I look forward to seeing the detail of the Government’s latest attempt to control big tech. 

“I want to see whether you’ve actually got some courage this time around, because this Government doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to protecting our Aussie children. 

“Look at what they did on gambling reforms. They did the least possible, and I expect they’ll do the least possible again when it comes to going up with our big techs. 

“Only because once again you lack the courage. You lack courage.”

Alice Grundy

David Littleproud introduced a bill into the House of Reps to “restore Commonwealth firearms and importation law to its position before Labor’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026, and would abolish the Prime Minister’s National Gun Buyback Scheme” according to a press release from his office. 

It’s interesting that he says, “The Bondi massacre was an act of Islamic terrorism. It had nothing to do with licensed firearm owners, and no evidence has ever linked them to it.” Only, as has been widely reported, one of the two shooters had a licence. 

Firearm caps are a practical measure to reduce the number of firearms in the community. After all, most Australians, according to surveys from both before and after the horrors of the Bondi massacre want stronger gun laws. 

These house prices drops take us back only a couple of years by the way. It’s not an issue, but much like a divorcee trying to prove they actually love living in their brother’s basement (look at how cool my gaming set up is!) the Coalition is desperately trying to prove it’s still relevant.

Angus Taylor:

The chief executive of the property council has described Labor’s toxic taxes as a ram raid on house prices. He says buyer confidence is at an all time low, new housing supply is dropping off a cliff, and there’s fewer first home buyers. Will the Prime Minister release Labor’s secret housing modelling so Australians can know how much further prices are going to crash?

Let’s just take a look at that question – the chief executive of the PROPERTY COUNCIL – a lobby group for property developers, who just want to develop more property with fewer regulations – is unhappy that house prices are slightly falling. So the LOBBYISTS who want to build more property – are upset that the market is going through a correction. FFS.

Albanese:

The figures that the Leader of the Opposition asked about are in the budget. And the changes that we made, the changes that we made, the budget made no changes for people who already negatively gear property, arrangements in place up to budget night remain grandfathered. Going forward, negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax can still be used for investment properties, but only on new builds, so when people choose to invest in housing, they’re not investing in their future wealth and assets, they’re investing in the future wealth and assets of the nation. I note the question went to new builds.

Investors are borrowing to build more new homes than ever before.

Indeed, the Herald Sun…(INTERJECTIONS)..the Herald Sun reported Aussie property investors notched a new – a record number of loans for the construction of new dwellings in the June quarter.”

ABS data shows an unprecedented 8468 investors signed up to build a new home in the June(INTERJECTIONS)quarter. 454 more than the previous record that was set in the previous three months.

It also came with a record of $5.99 billion in loan value being borrowed for the builds, more than 1.32 billion above the same time a year ago. Said it very clear. And a range of the – a range of the developers, members of the property council, that the – the Leader of the Opposition has asked about, Mirvac knows something about new builds, this is what they had to say, their CEO of development. 

“We’ve seen inquiries pick up. We do expect there will continue to be a demand for investors, particularly the way that tax settings favour new build product.” Stockland, the CEO of development, Stockland build a few homes in this country “we think the changes towards new build product will support the new build part of the market,’precisely what it was aimed at doing.

There is an interjection, but Albanese decides he has finished his answer.

But first we have a condolence motion for the flood tragedy in Nepal and Tibet.

Anthony Albanese:

I rise to speak about the disaster that occurred in Nepal and in Tibet China on 26 August. The flash flood preceded by … a glacier collapse brought devastation on both sides of the border but it was Nepal that bore the brunt.

What we saw from afar was breathtaking in its horror. What it must have been to actually be there, suddenly tiny in the face of cataclysmic forces, is barely imaginable. Consider the noise, the fury, the terror. While the scale was vast, the impact has been all too recognisably human.

Many hundreds are dead. Thousands of still missing. Locals, travellers, workers, and pilgrims alike. While our hearts are being lifted by the wonder of individuals being rescued alive many days later, the burden upon our sense of hope is growing exponentially.

So many are dealing with the devastation of loss, the loss of loved ones,000 loss of homes, the loss of entire villages and livelihoods and everything that gives daily life its rhythm and meaning. And so many are living with the agony of not knowing, clinging to the hope, with which every passing day, taking on the proportions of a miracle. At present, 36 Australians remain unaccounted for.

The hearts of all Australians are with their families with their friends. Right now, we have specialist drone teams providing rapid mapping and imaging to support Nepali authorities search operations.

There’s also seven Australian Federal Police disaster victim identification specialists on the ground in Kathmandu, to provide technical assistance to local authorities.

Two services Australia workers arrived last night and a dedicated family support hub is being set up by the embassy. This brings the total number of Australians deployed to assist the disaster response to 49.

As 6 September, there’s 1,342 confirmed deaths, and 4,496 missing, including 589 foreign nationals. At the same time, the Chinese government has reported 43 confirmed deaths, and 519 missing. The Australian government has committed $11 million to support the disaster response.

On Friday, I spoke on the phone with the Prime Minister of Nepal, Balendra Shah. On behalf of Australia, I expressed my deepest condolences to all Nepali people affected by this disaster. I also acknowledged the tireless efforts of emergency personnel working on the rescue and recovery in extremely difficult circumstances. I particularly want to express my deep gratitude to his authorities for all their work in searching the last known locations of Australians, who remain unaccounted for.

Today, as Nepal marks a national day of mourning, I want our Nepalese friends to know they do not carry this burden alone. Prime Minister Shah and I spoke of the close connections between our countries. A connection given its greatest warmth and strength by the fact that our nation is so proudly home to a large Nepali community, including in my own electorate, but I’m sure in electorates right around Australia. 

Right now, they are hurting deeply. And we will have an opportunity for a broader condolence motion once this emergency situation has got through. The Prime Minister and I discussed the assistance that Australia is providing, including hygiene supplies, solar light towers and kits, as well as the deployment of the specialist drone operators and personnel from the AFP. What I made clear is that Australia stands ready to provide additional support, we acknowledge the scale of what Nepal faces.

We acknowledge too the extraordinary difficult work the Chinese authorities are undertaking. This is now very much a race against time. And at this challenging time, our government is engaged with Australia’s Nepali, Tibetan and Indian communities.

Our thoughts with them and all those affected by this disaster. I ask all Australians to hold onto hope and to pray. And I say to Australians, I thank you for your compassion, your empathy, and the characteristic generosity with which you have dug deep and donated to the emergency action appeal. That spirit stands as a powerful reminder that no matter the scale of what we face, we face it together and we face it with our shared spirit of humanity.

Angus Taylor:

The federal opposition joins the government in reflecting on this devastating natural disaster and the human tragedy that has unfolded.

The massive ice and rock avalanche on the Nepal-Tibet border that triggered the flash flooding and landslide that has killed more than 1300 people, with around 5,000 still missing.

UNICEF says at least 65,000 people have been affected. 36 Australians remain unaccounted for. 

The uncertainty for the families of these Australians is nothing short of gut wrenching and heartbreaking. We pray for the missing Australians and we pray for their loved ones.

We hold onto hope as a nation, even as hope becomes harder to grasp with each passing day. Speaker, Nepal has a long history of disastrous earthquakes, avalanches, floods and landslides, with early records dating back almost 500 years. Several natural disasters have caused a catastrophic loss of life.

And that was heart breakingly again the case on 26 August. Many of us have seen the shocking CCTV and mobile phone footage of the devastating surge of mud, water, and debris that consumed all in its path. It was described as liquid concrete.

A handful of buildings that weren’t swept away, some people who escaped the cascading flooding by reaching higher ground, at the critical ground.

The 6-year-old girl pulled from the mud, after being buried for four days.

As I say, we hold onto hope.

Speaker, last Tuesday I was in Ingleburn with Senator Bragg. We met members of our Nepali community and business owners.

We held a minute’s silence to honour those all lost and pray for the survivors. I pay tribute to two dedicated community leaders in south-western Sydney. One is the New South Wales state coordinator of the non-resident Nepali association.

The association has been doing incredible work to help those affected. I was lucky enough to travel to Nepal after leaving school. It was my first trip out of the immediate region. Nepal has some of the most hospitable people in the world. I still fondly remember the warmth and generosity of the Nepali people. I see that same generosity and warmth on Australians of Nepali heritage today.

They have committed to Australia and so we are absolutely committed to supporting them. Speaker, as I said in Ingleburn, the coalition stands ready to support the government to help in what way we can. We support the provision of humanitarian disaster assistance and the government’s decision to send specialist advisors, drone teams, and an ADF humanitarian flight to assist the rescue and recovery efforts.

I thank the officials from DFAT who have briefed the coalition and whose consular and humanitarian response teams are working to assist Australians and the Nepali government. I thank all Australians who responded to the calls for help. Special the aid workers with Red Cross and World vision, the Australian rescue efforts who are tirelessly working on the ground, and Australians who have generously donated to the disaster appeal.

To the government and people of Nepal, to the families in Tibet who have suffered alongside them, and to every Australian family holding out hope for loved ones missing, the coalition extends its heart felt thoughts.

Anna Chang

The Greens urgency motion coming up later today is also on climate change and Nepal, so this seems to be the message of the day from them.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young rises to give her 2 minute Senator’s Statement on Nepal.

“I rise today to speak of the horrible, horrible situation that has unfolded in Nepal over the last two weeks. 

“We know that the death toll currently is at over 1,400. There are still over five and a half 1000 people missing. 65,000 people directly affected, including 22,000 children. Roads, bridges have been damaged, livelihoods gone. 

“So many communities cut off from this disaster. Not just the rebuild is going to be horrific and hard and treacherous, but all of this is, of course, hindering the most urgent right now, which, of course, still is the rescue mission. 

“These floods were triggered when the glacier in the Himalayas collapsed due to unprecedented levels of warming in the region, and I think we really need to take stock at that. 

“For years, scientists have been telling us that, as the globe warms, as global warming takes hold, and the climate crisis gets worse, these types of disasters and catastrophes would become more intense and more frequent. And the saddest part about all of this, of course, is that these types of disasters fall at the feet of the world’s most vulnerable, the poorest in the world. 

“Nepal is a country that has contributed very little to the pollution that is driving this crisis, but countries like Australia should be and can be doing more. 

“We export a lot of the world’s fossil fuels. We’re the third largest exporter of the pollution that is driving this crisis, and we now must take heed and do something about it.”

Jack Thrower

According to reporting, today the Government will release draft legislation to ban non-compete clauses for people earning less than $190,100.

What are non-compete clauses?

Non-compete clauses are terms put into employment contracts that stop staff from ‘competing’ against the employer after their employment ends. For instance, they will state that the employee must not work for a competitor in the same industry or set up their own competing business for a specific time period after leaving.

Historically, these clauses applied mostly to highly skilled and paid professionals such as CEOs. They were justified because businesses wished to protect trade secrets disclosed to the employee, or because the employee could make use of highly valuable professional relationships they had gained while working for their employer. Importantly, professionals like these usually have high bargaining power, enabling them to negotiate other benefits to offset the restrictions caused by these clauses.

In recent years, non-compete clauses have spread across all sectors of the economy and levels of employment, even becoming part of some template employment contracts. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over 20 per cent of Australian businesses are using non-compete clauses, while e61 research found about one in five (22%) employees are subject to these clauses.

The enforceability of many non-compete clauses is questionable, particularly where they do not protect a legitimate business interest or are drafted broadly. For instance, a non-compete clause alleging to restrict ‘competition’ across the whole of Australia for 10 years would be highly unlikely to be enforceable. For this reason, you might see ‘cascading’ clauses, where the contract states that if a broader scope is unenforceable (eg. the whole of Sydney for 2 years), a narrower scope is instead enforceable (eg, the Eastern Suburbs for 1 year). However, even where technically unenforceable, these clauses discourage workers unwilling or unable to spend the substantial time and money needed to prove this through the legal system.

Non-competes are a problem

Non-compete clauses effectively tie an employee to a particular firm and discourage competition between employers for workers. International evidence indicates these clauses reduce job mobility, discouraging employees from switching jobs regardless of legal enforceability. This is particularly concerning as job mobility often leads to both higher productivity and higher wages, because workers will leave jobs for others that better suit their skills and needs and which can also offer higher pay.

Banning these clauses for workers earning less than $190,100 is welcome. The vast majority (over 90%) of Australia’s workers earn less than $190,100, meaning non-competes will now only apply to the very top end.

Anna Chang

We’ve moved to Senators Statements time in the Senate (2 minute free kick per Senator to talk on whatever they want), and its already clear today that WA Senators of all sides are taking their speaking opportunities to react the Secret Harbour by-election.

But as if to illustrate our earlier point about the political class perhaps patronising regional communities rather than speaking to their concerns, we have this from Labor.

While I was just in Brisbane for Ekka, and love a good agricultural show as much than the next person (and arguably more), the juxtaposition between WA One Nation Senator Tyrone Whitton reflecting regional concerns back to them which we blogged earlier, and WA Labor Senator Slade Brockman clearly trying to Give A Speech To Appeal To Regional WA, I think shows a lot about why Labor is struggling and One Nation surging.

“I rise today to talk about regional shows in Western Australia. 

“And it’s been my absolute pleasure over the last couple of weeks to attend the Beverley Show in Beverley and the York Show in York, and these are both small country towns, about an hour 45 minutes outside of Perth, both grain-growing, sheep farming areas, and it’s an absolute credit to those local communities to see these country shows not only supporting their local communities, but thriving and growing and attracting new audiences every year to remind people that our food and our fibre doesn’t miraculously appear out of thin air. 

“It takes farmers. It takes a strong agricultural sector to make sure that we have food on our plates and clothes on our shoulders, and not only does it take a strong agricultural sector, it also takes those strong, thriving country towns-towns that have been under so much pressure with the the growth of technology, but also the the demographic changes that have occurred in the bush. 

“So many towns are under pressure, and country shows are a way for the communities to come together to support each other to showcase the great local things that these towns have on offers. 

“So to the organising committees, who are volunteers of both the York and Beverley country shows, I say thank you from the bottom of my heart. It’s a great opportunity to get out into the bush to meet so many hundreds, 1000s of people, and to be part of these great regional events.”

Greg Jericho

Those of us who were not among the record number of EV buyers in the first half of this year (and remember the RBA will use your “discretionary purchases” as a reason for lifting interest rates) will have noted that petrol prices have risen a bit of late and are back over $2/l.

This for the government will continue to be an issue, although not so much that they would look to reinstate the cutting of the petrol excise.

The main reason for all of this is Donald Trump is a slowly festering sack of faecal matter who decided to bomb Iran for… reasons.

A week or so ago he took to his AI botfarm of a social media that is Truth Social and posted him declaring mission accomplished (and decided to mock Geroge W Bush for doing the same).

Well karma is a bitch.

Since then the bombings have continued, people are still dying and oil prices have gone up 10%

Now I know what you are thinking? Please tell me that Woodside and Santos are still ok.

Yes, my friends, they are. And so too is Ampol.

The three of them have been laughing ever since Trump began bombing Iran

Laughing. Laughing at us and the government, who they know will keep giving them gas for free and pay bugger all tax, and letting them set huge profit margins on their refining process that feeds into our petrol prices.

Anna Chang

While Angus Taylor is talking about banning burning Australian flags, these are the kind of messages that One Nation (this, is from Senator Tyron Whitton in WA again)

You can see how these messages appeal to regional communities, while much of the media and the political class just treat them as raging racists.

On the other side of the coin, Greens and Independent MPs have been gaining traction on the below (especially in regional NSW) but sub out ‘renewable energy’ with coal mines and CSG.

Senator Tyron Whitton:

At the same time, these [renewable energy] projects can require enormous amounts of land, transmission, infrastructure, and government support. 

Regional Australians are often the people who have to live with the consequences: more transmission lines, more infrastructure, more industrial-scale development, more pressure on land use, more disruption to regional communities. 

Yet the financial returns can ultimately flow to large corporations, international investors, and investment funds. 

That is the contradiction. Who carries the risk? 

The government wants Australians to believe these projects are private investment, but increasingly, the public is being asked to carry more and more of the risk: government subsidies, government-backed schemes, government contracts, government-funded infrastructure, government mandates, and now preferential tax treatment, at what point does the taxpayer stop being the taxpayer and become the venture capitalist? 

If the project succeeds, the private investor receives a return. 

But if the government is guaranteed the conditions around that investment, the Australian public carries much of the risk. That is not the free market. That is the government intervention dressed up as private investment. 

If renewable energy is competitive, let it compete. Let me be clear: One Nation is not saying renewable energy should be banned. 

If a company believes a wind farm is profitable, it should build it — but not if the community doesn’t want it. 

If a company believes a solar project is profitable, it should build it — but not on our valuable farmland. 

If a company believes a battery project is profitable, it should build it — but not where there is a risk of fire. 

Let the investors take the risk. If the project succeeds, they receive the reward. If it fails, they bear the loss. 

That is how investment is supposed to work.”

Greg Jericho

The AFR is currently having a “Property Summit”. Among those speaking on the “residential” day (tomorrow) are those from the Satterley Property Group, Cooley Auctions, McGrath Estate Agents, Metricon Homes, Ray White Group and the Property Council of Australia. So a real cross section.

As Matt Grudnoff has pointed out they are all very worried about their profits being reduced… sorry, I meant house prices going down.

But let’s think about what we are dealing with here.

Amy, on the weekend, wrote a wonderfully engaging article about how young Australians are right to feel f*cked over. Such articles are always worthwhile not just because those things need to be said, but also for reminding people of just who is now young. We’re already 6 years from the pandemic, we’re 16 years from the debate over the Carbon Price Reduction Scheme, and heck as we were told last week, it’s 20 years since Steve Irwin died.

Young people are not your millennial young people anymore. (not that they have been for a while)

But here’s a way to think about it that will hurt Gen Xers like myself: If you’re 32 you were born after Kurt Cobain died. Now if you’re that age you are at the point where buying a first home is seriously something to be pondering. Seven years ago in 2019 you were just 25, and let’s be honest, buying a first home is not really on the agenda for most.

So for you, 2019 is history – something that was a time that others were able to take advantage of – while 2006, that second last year of the Howard government is just something that you vaguely remember from primary school.

Ok let’s do a hypothetical.

You live in Sydney; you’re on the average FT earnings of $107,000. You get taxed 21% (that’s roughly the income tax rate for that amount). You are renting, the median rent in NSW is currently $720pw. That leaves you without about $47,500 left over. I am going to say you are an amazing saver and have you save 15% of that – $7,127.

The current average first home buyer loan in NSW is $677,137. Twenty percent of that is $135,427. So how long would it take you saving 15% of your after-tax and rent income to save that much (for ease I am not including interest rate income)?

Try 19 years.

We have the average first-home deposit, earnings and rent inflation figures for NSW going back to 2002, so let’s compare this over the past 20 years:

In June 2006 you were looking at saving for 16.1yrs to get that deposit. In June 2019 it was 16.8yrs. There had been some ups and downs due to house prices and rental prices going up faster in some years than others. The path up was slow and steady… and then after 2019 things went nuts.

By the end of last year it was up to 19.4yrs worth of saving. That’s a 17% increase.

Thankfully things have gone down a bit in the first half of this year. But the 32 year old in 2019, or 2016 or 2006 had an easier time of it – and even they had it tough.

So let’s realise just how screwed the young people are and the only way to improve things is for property prices to fall, and stop worrying about those who have made profits off of a system that kept pushing prices ever higher.

Anna Chang

Senator Tyron Whitten, the WA Senator for One Nation gives his speech railing against the renewable energy carve outs in the CGT tidy up legislation (that’s what this Tax Laws Amendment is about — tidying up the CGT and income tax legislation passed as part of the Budget) currently before the Senate. 

While the main message is one of ‘fairness’, And Senator Whitten does a pretty tidy job of explaining a subsidy to the people sitting down back. 

It’s true that governments provide subsidies to what they want more of (and also tax what they want less of.) 

So, in my mind, some renewable energy subsidies are a drop in the water compared to the $16.3 billion in fossil fuel subsidies provided by state and federal governments in the last financial year (that’s a tidy $31,020 per minute in fossil fuel subsidies).

Aren’t some renewables subsidies to balance out the eye-watering fossil fuel subsidies available, only fair?

Senator Tyron Whitten:

“But when wealthier international investors and global corporations come looking for a concession in renewable energy, suddenly there is room for a special tax deal.

“Australians are entitled to ask, where is the fairness in that? 

“This is subsidy. 

“The government may prefer to call this an ‘investment incentive’, but let us call it what it actually is: a tax concession is a form of subsidy. 

“If government changes the rules so that an investor pays substantially less tax than they otherwise would, the government has provided an economic benefit. 

“The treasury receives less revenue. 

“The investor keeps more of the capital gain. 

“The Australian public carries the cost through foregone revenue. 

“The money does not magically disappear; it remains with the investor rather than being collected by the Australian Government. 

“And when that investor is a foreign corporation or global investment fund, we have to ask whether Australian taxpayers are getting a sufficient return for the concession they are providing.”

Bill Browne

At the end of last month, One Nation won the formerly “safe” Labor seat of Secret Harbour with about 39% of the first-preference vote and 57% of the two-candidate preferred vote. Secret Harbour is a lower house seat in the WA Parliament. The seat went to the by-election after the sitting MP, Paul Papalia, resigned from Cabinet and the Parliament.

Secret Harbour is an example of One Nation converting its high polling numbers into electoral successes, as it did at the Farrer by-election and the South Australian state election.

Pauline Hanson made a point of thanking state Liberal leader Basil Zempilas for directing votes to One Nation. Even so, it is worth noting that Liberal voters do not reliably preference One Nation. Antony Green observes that in Secret Harbour, 30% of Liberal voters preferred Labor to One Nation in defiance of the Liberal how-to-vote card.

The Liberal Party has not decided whether to treat One Nation as a helpmate or a rival. Andrew Hastie MP, whose federal seat overlaps the Secret Harbour state seat, criticised Zempilas for “running dead” against One Nation. “I don’t accept this idea that a win for One Nation is a win for the Liberal Party.”

The Liberals do seem to have ceded momentum to One Nation. The ABC reports an (anonymous) senior Liberal saying after the Secret Harbour win:

“While we are now the opposition in residence, One Nation is the opposition in waiting.”

This angst about what it means to be the “official” Opposition (and whether it matters at all) is a question the federal Liberals have also had to grapple with.

The reality is that official titles matter little if it is someone else who is setting the political agenda.

Anara Watson

The Senate is still debating the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026.

Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill and Greens Senator Barbara Pocock – who are both members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee conducting an inquiry into the KPMG audit leaks scandal – have called out the Big Four.

Calling on the Government to take further action, Pocock said:

“These reforms are a step forward, but they are moderately modest in their scope and size in response to multiple mass scandals that expose something much bigger: the fundamental problem with corporate power, regulatory capacity and accountability in Australia, especially in relation to the Big Four.

Australians are outraged by the PWC and the KPMG scandals, and they expect parliamentarians in this place to take it seriously, and we are. It’s good to see that the government’s considering options to reform the accounting, audit and consulting sectors, and they’ve brought forward an options paper.

But this options paper was largely written before the most recent KPMG scandal, and it narrowly focuses on order, leaving an outsider the broader issues from before around their multidisciplinary, very broad-based activities. Hopefully, we don’t spend too much longer trying to get to action on those issues and the broad range of services and the behaviours and the business model of the Big Four. We need to seek faster action. PWC and KPMG scandals have united the parliament and two major inquiries have made multiple clear recommendations for reform.

Reform needs to be driven by the public interest, not by what’s easiest or acceptable by the Big Four in terms of accommodating change.

The Big Four have lost their social licence in Australia, and the government should be using this as an opportunity to make ambitious structural change.

The Big Four have shown Australians who they are and the main forces that create their business model.

…

The lessons of the PWC and KPMG scandals are that we can’t stop here. We need a tax, auditing and consulting sector that’s fair, transparent and rigorously enforced.

Australians want regulators that are strong enough and bold enough to take on the big end of town. It’s time for Labor to act.”

Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce – Barnson, if you will, have come together to complain about superannuation. This is a slightly different policy then the previous One Nation policy – it’s designed to look like they have economic credentials (oh, if the housing market/interest rates go in then we will be able to take it back in your pay packet from your super contribution!) but it’s from the same neoliberal playbook – destroy superannuation because the neocons are worried that industry super will somehow start dictating policy.

There are arguments to have about superannuation – this one though, is not one set up in good faith.

Here is Hanson trying to explain it (it doesn’t matter that she can’t, nor that this policy will be contradicted in record time when others from her policy try and explain it – the media will take it very seriously, because they take anything Hanson says very seriously. Hanson also doesn’t have to have members in parliament to be winning the policy debate – she makes everyone jump because she is taken seriously by the very people who should be interrogating before elevating. The same people who will tell you this is a serious policy take, are also the ones telling you government spending is to blame for inflation.

Hanson on whether or not you to have prove economic distress (her justification for why the policy is needed) before applying to have your super contributions re-routed into pay:

If people want to apply for it to take that, yes, they can take that that money. Actually, there is at the moment, people can apply for superannuation through the superannuation payment for treatment, or whether they’ve got illnesses, or even for distress. So they can, but if you do that at the moment, and it’s just for alleviating the pressures of cost of living, well, then the government is taxing you 22% on that, so that’s what people are paying. They won’t be taxed.

Rod Campbell

New-old government documents have just been released under Freedom of Information (FoI) on which fossil fuel subsidies Treasury wanted to hide from the G20 in 2010.

At the time, Australia had just agreed to the G20’s pledge to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, or to be precise “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.

This sent government and Treasury into spin mode, with many pages devoted assessing “is it inefficient” and “is it a subsidy” in relation to particular policies.

In 2010 and in 2026, the big kahuna is the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme, which makes diesel cheaper for big mining companies, increasing their profits by billions. Here’s what Treasury had to say in 2010:

Australia has argued this ever since and now it costs the budget over $10 billion per year, mainly benefiting BHP, Gina, Clive and friends.

Treasury got one thing right – the IEA and OECD do call fuel tax credits a fossil fuel subsidy.

Bill Browne

NSW’s powerful anticorruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), is still investigating alleged breaches of political donation laws.

In NSW state politics, donations are capped and must be publicly declared if they are above a particular threshold. ICAC is investigating whether a right-wing Catholic ginger group called “The Reformers” received donations without following these strict rules. Among those fronting ICAC are Charles and Jean-Claude Perrottet, brothers of former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet (who has not been accused of wrongdoing).

The group had some success, recruiting some 1,200 party members, getting representatives onto the state executive and taking “control of some Liberal branches”.

The success of right-wingers within the Liberals has not translated to electoral victory. Quite the opposite. Money might shift a party’s direction, but it is the voters who pass judgement on whether that direction is the right one for the country. 

Another right-wing group linking itself to “reform”, the UK’s Reform Party headed by Nigel Farage, is also in hot water. Two of the party’s senior aides have been suspended after “appear[ing] to plot how to bypass UK laws on foreign donations” by benefiting from opinion polling paid for by a foreign donor.

The latest scandal follows Farage resigning and re-contesting his own seat in a wholly unnecessary by-election, over another possible breach of the UK’s political donation rules. Farage defeated his only serious rival at the by-election last month, [thepoint.com.au/opinions/260714-unlike-count-binface-joke-parties-cant-run-in-australian-elections-and-thats-serious]a joke candidate named Count Binface, but still faces investigation under donation rules.

Anara Watson

The Senate is currently debating the Government’s Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026.

After noting that the Greens will be supporting this Bill, Greens Senator Nick McKim has taken the time to call out the Government’s inaction on phasing out fossil fuels:

“I spoke about the blockers to renewable energy investment in Australia. I want to speak more about that because even though some of those issues, including international supply chain constraints, are largely out of the control of this Parliament and state and territory parliaments in Australia, one thing that is in control of politicians and political parties in this country is the fact that state governments keep extending the life of their dirty, ancient, clunker, coal-fired power generators.

And at the same time, we have a federal government, federal Labor government, that loves to pretend they’re all about climate and all about renewables, opening new coal and gas mines hand over fist. The Labor Party has opened 37 new coal and gas mine projects since it came into office about four years ago.

Now, they are running at about 10 new approvals per year for coal and gas in the context of a disaster in Nepal and Tibet that has claimed the lives of over 5000 people.

And why are these people dying? Because psychopathic governments keep opening new coal and gas mines. Because psychopathic governments keep logging and burning native forests. You cannot claim to care and take action on climate while you are still destroying native forests and while you are still approving, hand over fist, new coal and gas projects.

When you are doing those things, you have blood on your hands. You have blood on your hands – the blood of innocent people who are going to die in their droves this century because psychopathic, cowardly governments, in thrall to the fossil fuel corporations and the psychopaths that run them, are opening new coal and gas mines, destroying nature and clear-felling and logging and burning our forests.

What a time we find ourselves in here, colleagues, when the Prime Minister says “now is not the time to talk about climate change”. Well, if we don’t talk about it now, when are we ever going to talk about it? When will we ever tell the truth if you’re not prepared to tell the truth?

In the wake of thousands of people dying in Nepal and Tibet, when will you ever accept the reality of what the science is telling us?

It’s like the National Rifle Association in the US: another school shooting, another school massacre, “thoughts and prayers”. Well, that’s all we’re getting from our Prime Minister. “Time to think of the families” – yes, it’s time to think of the families.

But you know what else it’s time to do? Take action on climate change; stop approving new coal and gas projects.”

Matt Grudnoff

I have been watching the reaction to the government’s tax changes to make housing more affordable and what has been amazing has been how far the public have moved on house prices without the media or politicians realising what was happening.

There has been push back from everyone you could possibly think of who benefit from house prices going up. Real estate agents, auctioneers, banks, media companies that rely on property advertisers, and those who spruik property investing advice on social media. They have all been sounding the alarm that house prices have gone down.

The response from the overwhelming majority of people has been good, that means housing is now more affordable.

This response has not only come from people wanting to buy their first home, but also from people who say they already own their home but are happy to see it fall in value if it means their kids or grandkids can get into the market.

People are tired of hearing politicians constantly promise to make housing more affordable and then watch house prices rocket up. They have finally seen some changes that have cooled the market and they’re not about to believe a scare campaign that wants to rob them of more affordable housing.

This reaction from the public might make complete sense to most people but it has caught many off guard, including the government who continue to be reluctant to claim credit for these results.

But things have changed and the government will have a popular message to take to the next election. They have moved the dial, and housing has become more affordable.

Here is how Penny Wong opened the condolence motion for Nepal and Tibet:

President, the devastation we have witnessed in Nepal and Tibet, China has been catastrophic.

We have seen the terrifying force of floodwaters tear through towns and villages — homes, roads and bridges swept away. The scale of the destruction, almost beyond comprehension.

Families have lost loved ones. Thousands – thousands — of people remain missing.

And amongst them are 36 Australians.

I want to acknowledge how distressing this time is for their loved ones – and how much harder this becomes with every day that passes.

Every hour without news is another hour of waiting, of hoping and of fearing.

The Australian Government is doing all we can to find Australians who remain unaccounted for, to support loved ones and to assist in the disaster response.

We have deployed almost 50 officers to the region to support search, rescue, and recovery efforts.

Officials in Kathmandu, Beijing, New Delhi and Canberra are working around the clock to establish the whereabouts of Australians, meeting directly with family members who have travelled to Nepal, desperate for information, seeking answers from local authorities, tour operators, from hospitals, and other organisations – pursuing every possible avenue for information.

Dedicated case officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Federal Police have been assigned to support the next of kin of those missing – giving families a consistent point of contact in an unimaginably difficult time.

In addition to this, two Services Australia social workers arrived in Kathmandu last night and a dedicated family support hub is being set up by our Embassy.

From the outset, the Australian Government has made clear that we stood ready to help Nepal, including on search and rescue efforts.

And we continue to offer assistance to China.

Specialist Australian drone operators have now travelled to Nepal as part of a 15-person Disaster Assistance Response Team.

Drawn from Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Queensland Fire Department, they bring advanced technology capable of rapid mapping, imaging, and supporting searches in extraordinarily challenging terrain.

AFP Disaster Victim Identification specialists are also deploying to Nepal.

And we have provided telecommunication data to Nepali authorities with the hope that this may narrow the last known location of missing Australians.

We know most of the unaccounted-for Australians were last known to be in the Gyirong and Syabrubesi areas.

Nepali search and rescue teams are on the ground in both areas, and we are working directly with the authorities to gather any information we can. 

Australia has committed $11 million in humanitarian assistance, supporting emergency shelter, food, clean water, sanitation, healthcare, and other essential supplies.

A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 has delivered almost 24 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Nepal.

And Australians themselves have responded with characteristic generosity, donating $4.5 million of their own money to the Emergency Action Alliance.

And we have matched the donations from the Australian people with a $5 million contribution from the Government to the EAA.

Colleagues, we know the grief and anxiety of this disaster reached deeply into our communities.

Australia’s Nepali community is grieving for family, friends, and communities in the region.

Members of Australia’s Tibetan community are too experiencing great anguish.

And for many Hindu Australians, including those with connections to the pilgrimage routes and sacred places of this region, this disaster has brought deep sorrow.

To each of these communities, we extend the sympathy and solidary of this Parliament.

The search, rescue and recovery response continues. And we know the road ahead will be long.

Infrastructure must be rebuilt. Communities will need shelter and essential services will need to be restored.

Families will need support long after the immediate phase of this emergency response has passed.

We will continue to stand with Nepal through that long road of recovery.

Ready to provide further search, rescue and recovery assistance where needed.

Today, this Senate mourns all those who have lost their lives. And we hold close those still waiting for news.

We thank the responders, in Nepal, in Tibet, China, and from Australia, who continue their work in very difficult circumstances.

And on behalf of the Australian Government, I extend my deepest condolences to all those affected.

It’s that time of year again (via AAP)

An erupting volcano in Indonesia has prompted the cancellation of all flights at Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport and disrupted other domestic airports as ash drifts across western parts of the country.

The volcanic island of Anak Krakatau, in Indonesia’s Sunda Strait between the main Java and Sumatra islands, had showed signs of activity since Friday before erupting for 30 seconds early on Sunday and for 16 seconds about three hours later, Indonesia’s Geological Agency said. 

Closed-circuit camera footage showed lava flares from the volcano.

No casualties were reported and no evacuation order was issued. 

The nearest settlement is more than 16km away, but authorities warned residents and visitors to stay at least three kilometres from the active crater.

Volcanic ash spread across parts of Jakarta and Lampung province on Sumatra’s southern tip, Indonesia’s Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation said.

AirNav Indonesia closed airspace around Soekarno-Hatta and Halim Perdanakusuma airports in Jakarta, as well as six other airports, including Radin Inten II Airport in Lampung, because of volcanic ash.

By Sunday evening, the closure of eight airports had affected 170,000 passengers from 1558 cancelled flights, including 963 flights in Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta airport alone. 

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation said it was closely monitoring the eruption’s impact on air travel and co-ordinating with airlines, airport operators, air navigation services and the meteorology agency.

“Safety remains our top priority in every operational decision,” Lukman F Laisa, Ministry of Transportation director general of civil aviation, said in a statement. 

He warned flight schedules could face cascading disruptions affecting aircraft rotations, fleet availability and terminal capacity as airlines work to restore operations.

The eruption also disrupted services at Bali’s Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport and at Medan.

Indonesia’s volcanology agency and the Darwin Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre identified two ash clouds using satellite imagery. 

One plume rose to 6100 metres and drifted northeast over Jakarta, Banten, West Java and nearby waters. 

A second cloud reached 15,200 metres and spread over parts of Banten, Lampung and Bengkulu provinces, the southern Sunda Strait and sections of the Indian Ocean west of Sumatra.

Lana Saria, head of Indonesia’s Geological Agency, said activity at Anak Krakatau has intensified since July, with Sunday’s eruption the strongest during that period.

The repeated eruptions indicate a continued supply of magma and volcanic gases beneath the volcano, she said, though officials can’t predict whether a larger eruption will occur.

“We continue to evaluate the volcano’s development based on all monitoring data, not solely on the number of eruptions or the height of the ash column,” Saria said in a video briefing.

The main hazards include volcanic ash, high concentrations of gas and the ejection of hot rocks and other material around the crater area.

Vanessa Bleyer is now officially a senator. The Tasmanian has been sworn in to replace Peter Whish-Whilson. Bleyer is seen as more of your bolshie Greens type, and like leader Larissa Waters, has a legal background in environmental law.

The senate is up and running and Penny Wong has used the opening to give Australia’s condolences and support to Tibet and Nepal following flash floods which have killed at least 1,400 people.

Australia has pledged support through NGO partnerships for immediate help on the ground as well as infrastructure support.

The next step in the veteran campaign to have changes to veterans’ entitlements scrapped is underway, with veterans committing to laying down their medals in protest of cuts to allied health funding caps and who is able to assess them for access to funding programs.

The Coalition have jumped on this campaign, which has a lot of lobbying help behind it and Matt Keogh, the veterans’ affairs minister hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory throughout the process which has made their job a lot easier. The Coalition supported the same sort of cuts to the NDIS community (and worse) so a lot of the advocacy here is purely for political gain, and veterans have more institutional and cultural power than most marginalised groups, so you can see why they have leapt on this issue (after not covering themselves in glory during the fight for a royal commission, where politically, the parties were in the opposite position).

Parental advocacy group, The Parenthood has taken its campaign for 12 months of paid parental leave to parliament, partnering with Movember to explain the benefits for men to be able to take more time off with their children in the first few years of life.

From the release:

The Parenthood, co-hosting the day with Movember, has high-profile dads including Lachy and Simon Wiggle, Kevin Mitchell, Dr Billy Garvey, Sean Szeps, Zach Perez, Joel Phillips, Ben Tate, and Matty Johnson and Ash Wicks from the Two Doting Dads podcast, alongside MPs, babies and families on the Federation Mall lawn as part of a push for the next stage of paid parental leave reform.

The federal Paid Parental Leave scheme expanded to 26 weeks in July, with four weeks reserved for each parent, which is a significant and welcome step forward. But The Parenthood says 26 weeks shared between two parents, paid at the national minimum wage, should be the foundation rather than the finish line.

The organisation is calling for Australia to progressively build towards 52 weeks of paid parental leave at a replacement wage, with meaningful time reserved for each parent.

Australia currently ranks 34th of 38 OECD countries for dedicated, well-paid leave reserved for fathers. Japan and Korea top the table.

Anara Watson

Federal Labor may have passed watered-down laws on gambling advertising the last time parliament sat, but that doesn’t stop states and territories from taking their own action.

The Australia Institute has provided a submission to a private members’ bill that would ban political donations from the gambling industry in the ACT.

The Electoral (Gambling Industry) Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced by independent MLA Thomas Emerson in June.

If adopted, the bill would mean that the ACT would join NSW as the only jurisdictions to ban donations from the industry.

The ACT already bans donations from property developers and foreign entities, and The Australia Institute recommended in 2025 that this ban be extended to other industries, including the gambling industry.

The proposal comes amid an ongoing ACT Government push to reduce gambling harm. In the ACT, one in six people experience gambling-related harm, and young men are disproportionately affected.

Mr Emerson said when he launched the bill:

“It’s a serious problem when politicians are captured by vested interests. The Legislative Assembly acknowledged this when it banned donations from property developers and foreign entities five years ago. It’s time to do the same with the gambling industry.

…

We need our elected representatives to put what’s best for our community ahead of what’s best for harmful industries.”

Greg Jericho

I wish I could say this is because in the past couple weeks there has been data showing that the economy is going gangbusters and is in need of cooling off, but  alas…

Last week we had pretty crap GDP figures – a mere 0.4% growth in the quarter coming off a 0.3% growth in the March quarter. So, the first half of this year the economy has basically grown at half speed.

The expectations though were for something even worse than that so apparently that is why we need a rate rise.

Other things going on are more international and Trump related.

You’ll be reading a bit about bond yields at the moment. They are the interest rates on government borrowings/debt.

They have increased of late, and it is not just Australia:

The lazy explanation will be this is about government borrowing.

And, yeah, sort of but not really.

Firstly, the Iran War is causing oil prices to stay high and raising inflation expectations so those looking to lend money are wanting higher interest rates (Why would you lend money at 3% if you think inflation is going to be 3.5%)

And at the same time US government debt is exploding because defence spending is rising absurdly because of the idiotic Iran War and also because Trump decided tax cuts are a good way to raise less money.

So that is driving the increase in bond yields.

But so too is the investment in datacentres.

There has been an explosion in investment of those shitty things, and that requires a stonking large amount of money. That means there is a huge demand for finance, and so those who have money to lend are able to charge higher interest rates (because there is such a high demand for it) That leads to higher interest rates for all because if the Australian government wants to borrow money it needs to offer higher interest rates otherwise the money people will just go elsewhere (US, and all the AI companies).

This then flows through to our own interest rates.

So, thanks to high oil prices due to Trump being the biggest wanker in the history of the world, interest rate will probably go up on your mortgage.

Every get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

Alice Grundy

We’re expecting an announcement about legislation for a digital duty of care this week. This is about more than feeling annoyed that your algorithm is serving you content you’d rather not see instead instead of your friend’s pics from Japan. The real change that people want is the ability to have a say in what they see.

The government can also take action to help people who have been harmed online.

One example Australia might choose to follow comes from Singapore In June 2026, Singapore introduced a new online safety law that gives people harmed by big tech the right to pursue a civil claim, including for injunctions and compensation. The new law imposes duties on big tech companies not to engage in specific categories of online harm, including sexual harassment, doxxing, intimate image abuse, child abuse and incitement of violence. Singapore’s online regulator can also order the removal of harmful content and seek large penalties for breaches of the law.

We will update you on the draft legislation once it’s announced.

Richard Denniss:

Let me quote the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. According to Ross Gittins, ‘the truth is that the economist’s lovely offset scheme is a sham Labor is using to make us think it cares about climate change when it doesn’t’.

That’s the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Greens are going to be to the right of the economics editor of one of the mainstream media outlets that they say won’t give them a good run.

Look, I hope this is all a storm in a teacup. I hope they just vote the disallowance, and and we don’t have more offsets. That’d be good, isn’t it? So maybe this is all hypothetical. But the the idea that the Greens have missed a month’s opportunity to differentiate themselves from Labor, to differentiate themselves, you know, from the from the neoliberals seems pretty odd to me.

So does Australia want the Greens to be more Mamdani or more Allegra Spender. I don’t know. They’re the political strategists. But when you when you’re to the right of the economics editor of the mainstream media, you think criticises you or doesn’t give you a good run? Yeah, it doesn’t it doesn’t look like you’re really pushing that progressive boat out too far, does it?

Australia Institute co-CEO Richard Denniss had a chat to Solstice Media’s 7AM about the Great Koala National Park snafu and what is it the Greens are actually doing. Here is a taste:

Let’s just make this really simple: if we increase the supply of carbon offsets, the price goes down, right? The more offsets there are, the more pollution there’ll be, and the cheaper the pollution will be.

Yet the Greens are like, ‘oh, we don’t, we don’t necessarily want to have a fight with Labor. We want to look constructive’.

Now, to be clear, the Greens haven’t publicly said which way they’ll go on this, but it just seems like a no-brainer.

They could have spent the last month saying we’re the party that thinks we’ve got enough gas and coal, we don’t think that coal mines should be buying offsets.

You know, we actually just think we should stop subsidizing them.

And if people need money for national parks or or to save koalas or anything else, well, let’s tax gas. How hard is that?

But instead of that, they’re kind of stuck in this sort of centrist delusion of oh well maybe if we make the offsets slightly better wouldn’t that be better why on earth the Greens would get caught up defending offsets makes absolutely no sense to me unless your strategy is to just not have fights anymore

And on the offsets themselves:

Firstly, Labor had already promised to make the park, so from a scientific point of view, we’re not actually getting any extra trees because they’d already promised to save them.

Second, Australia’s already awash with carbon offsets. We don’t have a shortage of carbon offsets.

Third, any new offsets will just push the price down lower.

And fourth, why not just if we want to build national parks, if we want to have nice things, I think the Greens would just be on much stronger ground, saying, “Well, how about we tax gas and we could we could protect the koalas, or how about the New South Wales government stop subsidizing native forest logging?

Chris Minns, like Chris Minns, the New South Wales government owns a government-owned logging company that logs native forest, but the Greens are kind of falling into this idea that you know through privatisation, through financialisation, fancy offsets will will solve these problems.

Well, as an economist and as a voter, I think there’s far shorter routes to victory.

So, yeah, the the parliament will vote on this on the 15th. Again, the Greens haven’t said which way they’ll go. Personally, I just think they’ve wasted a month of opportunity to say how come Chris Minns and Chris Bowen are so keen on offsets if they want to save forests, stop subsidizing native forest logging. And if they want to tackle climate change, stop approving new gas and coal.

By Nick Wilson for AAP

Veterans are preparing to lay down their medals to protest changes they claim will make it harder for injured service men and women to find care.

The Coalition of Veterans’ Voices will on Monday meet with federal parliamentarians to oppose treatment funding changes in the May budget.

The delegation, which includes highly decorated veterans, will begin the day by laying down their medals at Federation Mall in protest.

The group has three demands: to scrap a $5000 annual threshold for allied health services, allow veterans to choose their own assessment providers and overhaul a claims system it says is leaving veterans waiting too long. 

“For years we have sat across the table from veterans and families who are exhausted from fighting battles they should never have had to fight after service,” army veteran Andy Cullen said. 

“They are not asking for special treatment. They are simply asking Australia to honour the promise that if their service causes injury, their country will be there for them.”

The delegation will meet with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh and parliamentarians from all sides on Monday. 

It falls within the week of the second anniversary of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide being handed to the governor-general. 

At the heart of the protest is the $5000 annual threshold for allied health services included in the May federal budget, set to take effect from mid-2027.

It would impose a limit on the amount of funding veterans can access for services including rehabilitation and physiotherapy unless it is deemed clinically necessary.

The Department of Veterans Affairs claims the measure would address overservicing and comes amid a major uplift in overall spending on veterans’ access to allied health.

But critics claim that requiring veterans to undertake additional assessments could interrupt treatment and complicate recovery for people with complex injuries.

“For a veteran seeing a psychologist or counsellor fortnightly, $5000 can be reached relatively quickly,” veteran and advocate Craig Ball said. 

“Veterans dealing with complex psychological or physical issues cannot simply put their recovery on hold while an administrative process determines whether their treatment should continue.”

The group is also demanding veterans be allowed to choose their own accredited assessment providers and for an independent inquiry into DVA claims processing. 

National polling for Fair Care for Veterans in April found 46 per cent had little or no confidence the government adequately supports veterans.

Of 2000 respondents, 52 per cent said the government spends too little on veterans’ support and compensation, while only five per cent said too much

Veterans will lay down their medals at Federation Mall at 7am before holding a press conference at nearby Mural Hall at 9am.

Lifeline 13 11 14

Open Arms 1800 011 046

By Miranda Murray and Kirsti Knolle for AAP

The Alternative for ‌Germany (AfD) has surged into first place in state elections in Saxony-Anhalt,  putting a far-right party on the cusp of power at state level for the first time since World War Two.

With 44 per cent of the vote, the AfD ‌handed a drubbing to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives on Sunday, reflecting the deep unpopularity of Germany’s ruling coalition and the rise of hardline parties in a fracturing political landscape.

If the AfD can translate its win into a majority of seats in the state parliament, it will secure ‌a foothold for advancing its agenda to heavily restrict immigration, restore ties with Russia, cut support to Ukraine and quit the euro.

It remained unclear if the AfD had secured enough votes to form a government but the wider political significance of the election was clear.

“We have made history in this country,” said Ulrich Siegmund, the 35-year-old AfD lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, who attracted thousands to his campaign rallies and who repeatedly cast victory in the state as a first step towards securing national power in federal elections due in 2029.

“The people have made it absolutely clear that they finally want political change and, above all, they have shown that they want it with us,” Siegmund said.

As ‌the first exit polls were ‌published, he stood arm-in-arm with his party’s ⁠two national leaders, who laughed gleefully as the extent of the victory became clear. 

Jubilant celebrations broke out at the party’s election night gathering in the city ​of Magdeburg, where people waved German flags and hugged each other in triumph.

US President Donald Trump posted a screenshot of the result without comment on his Truth Social site, while far-right leaders in other European countries cheered the election as a mandate for change.

The result marks a significant setback for Merz, whose personal approval rating has sunk to historic lows as voters turn away from both his planned reforms to revive Germany’s sluggish economy.

A poll from the ARD broadcaster showed 87 per cent of the state’s voters were unhappy with the federal government. 

Merz has vowed to revive Europe’s largest economy with business-friendly reforms and increased spending, while ‌warning that an AfD win in ​Saxony-Anhalt would damage the state and deter foreign companies from investing there.

Germany’s mainstream parties have all refused to work with the AfD, which has been classified as right-wing extremist by the local office of Germany’s domestic intelligence service. But it may find ​a partner in ‌the small BSW party, which looked set to clear the threshold to enter parliament.

Although Saxony-Anhalt is one of the smaller German states, with a population of just over two million, the result underlines ​the rapid advance of the AfD since it was created in 2013.

The AfD is now Germany’s most popular party nationally, polling at 28 per cent according to a recent INSA poll, comfortably ahead of the conservatives on 20 per cent.

While hard-right parties have gained ground ​elsewhere in Europe, ​Germany’s Nazi past has contributed to a reluctance among mainstream parties to co-operate with the AfD.

During the campaign, the AfD ‌tapped into growing disillusionment with established parties, which it characterises as tired and out of touch, offering instead a range of hardline policies and a nostalgic vision of a return to cleaner and safer streets and taking pride in being German.

The AfD’s program includes plans to push schools and cultural institutions towards what it views as more traditional values, while curbing immigration and overhauling public broadcasting. It wants the children of ​refugees to be taught in segregated classes.

It has called for rainbow flags in schools to be banned and for the German national flag to be hoisted every day. 

with Reuters and AP

Anna Chang

With the departure of Senator Surfer, Tasmanian Greens Senator Pete Whish-Wilson, in the last sitting fortnight, this week the Greens are welcoming and introducing their new Tasmanian Greens Senator, former environmental lawyer, Senator Vanessa Bleyer.

Australian Greens Senator Vanessa Bleyer said:
“I have always fought for the people, places and causes that have shaped my life.

“As a lawyer, I protected our native forests and the species dependent on them, I protected our marine wildlife and the oceans in which they live, I stopped illegal cruelty to non-human animals, and I stopped people being evicted from their homes.  

“As a Senator, I will fight to save the Maugean Skate which is on the brink of extinction, I will support our farmers as they are confronted with the impacts of climate change, and I will push for big corporations to clean up their act.

“We all inherit obligations to one another, to the people who come after us, and to the places we are fortunate enough to call home.  I am here to meet my obligations for all species on Earth.”

This should not surprise anyone who has been keeping up with the conservative panic over superannuation. It’s not the concept of the super scheme – it is how much power the funds, most of them not for profit, or union/industry led, have over the future direction of the country.

Superannuation funds hold about $4 trillion dollars. Maybe $4.5 trillion. That makes them among the most powerful investors in the world. It also means they can dictate things about the Australian market, and policy future, in ways which terrify conservatives, who think that only the big interests they serve should be able to have that much power.

So over the last 10 years, there has been a campaign to try and take some of that power back, by demonising superannuation, as well as look at ways to have the public push to have their money released to them when they want it. The more you push for people to have their money before they retire, the less money superannuations funds have to invest, and therefore the less influence they have over the market and policy direction – for example, superannuation funds moving away from fossil fuel investments is seen as one of the biggest reasons to take back control over their influence.

So it is no surprise that One Nation has now jumped on this bandwagon. It wants people to be able to divert superannuation contributions into take home pay – which most working Australians, who do not have foundations of wealth and are seeing their living standards go backwards, would do. That would leave them reliant on the pension in retirement (which if you have housing costs, will mean you live below the poverty line) and also take away power from super funds (mostly industry led).

But it will be one of the big issues leading up to the election, so pay attention.

Meanwhile, here is the government focus. Anthony Albanese had his name on this op-ed which ran in the Daily Telegraph on Sunday (a reminder that every social media expert said the social media ban wouldn’t work and also would be bad for children in general, because they would be less likely to say what was happening to them, or what they were seeing, but a FM radio host thought it was a good idea and here we are)

DOUBLING DOWN ON A BRAVE DEAL TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN

Last year, Australia took world-leading action by banning children under the age of 16 from having social media accounts.

It was one of the biggest social and cultural changes our country has ever faced, and it
was led by Australian parents protecting children.

When we proposed and introduced the ban, there were sceptics, there still are.

We didn’t lead the world for the sake of it.

We took action because the community said enough was enough and we would no longer let Australian kids be treated as commodities instead of children.

Our action is working. More than five million accounts have been removed or deactivated in Australia, and we have started a global movement, with more than 20 countries taking similar action to get kids off social media.

Despite our success, we know there is more to do. Our government will not back down.

This week in Canberra, we will seek to pass new legislation to double down on our efforts to protect Australian children from the harms of social media.

This legislation will give the eSafety Commissioner new powers to crack down on platforms that refuse to follow Australian laws to ensure the ban is effective.

The legislation does two things. It gives the government regulator the powers it needs to collect critical evidence, and it doubles the penalty that big tech faces for breaking Australian law.

When we passed our world-leading laws, we had bipartisan support. We said at the time we knew these laws wouldn’t be perfect and that it would take time to see the full impact.

Now, the parliament has the opportunity to come together again to strengthen bipartisan laws and to hold some of the richest organisations in the world to account for choosing company profits over child safety.

While we are strengthening the ban, we are taking the next steps to make interactions with the internet safer for all Australians – through our Digital Duty of Care.

This landmark reform will put the onus on services providers to take reasonable steps to create a safe online environment for all Australians.

We are also looking at what action we can take on harmful algorithms.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Algorithms are pushing people further and further to the extremes.

They are driving users – often young people – down rabbit holes of harmful content.

We also know harmful algorithms can be devastating for young people and body-image issues.

For young men, those paths far too often lead to misogynistic voices detached from the values and expectations of our societies.

The government is under no illusions. The connection between what is being fed to people on feeds and the terrible consequences of sexual violence that we see far too often in our communities is clear.

Every woman and every girl have the right to feel safe and must be safe at all times – in our workplaces, in our schools, in our sporting clubs, in our homes and online.

This is not about giving government control. It’s about giving people control.

People should have control of what they consume, and tech companies have a responsibility for what they platform on their services.

Advocates such as Chanel Contos and Teach Us Consent have highlighted the dangers of systems that push content on to users they may not be looking for – and which may harm them.

The Digital Duty of Care will place the responsibility on platforms to provide a safe online environment for all Australians.

We want to give users more choice of their digital platforms, rather than platforms having control over people.

Angus Taylor has identified exactly what is needed to fix the country – banning burning the Australian flag.

This is apparently the biggest issue in Australia, and once all banned, the country will go back to being all football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars or something.

This is not new – conservatives like the LNP’s Henry Pike have had private members bills to ban burning the flag and legislating to make January 26 Australia Day in the parliament for yonks. But as Taylor looks for ways to stop the Coalition’s continual collapse, he’s turning to ideas that even John Howard rejected.

This is all to protect “the greatest nation on earth” which is one of those things politicians around the world say about their country no matter where they are, because there is no real way of measuring it but feels. (If you want to talk global surveys on health, wealth and education, northern European and Nordic countries tend to top those)

In the 2025 global leading countries survey, which looks at all measurable ways of ranking countries, Australia came 15th, and was middling at best.

I’m sure banning flag burning will turn ALL of that around.

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live.

It’s going to be a big couple of weeks. As usual, the main game is not currently what is in front of the parliament, but rather what the politicians are bringing into the parliament. The government is looking at the opt in model for social media algorithms as it continues to try and find some way to win the public back. (I have ideas)

Green groups are fighting over whether or not The Greens should allow what Richard Denniss has called pollution permission slips (carbon credits) should be allowed in state forrest. This is all over the NSW Government now claiming it will only save koalas in the Great Koala National Park, if its allowed to monetise the park through carbon credits. It had promised to save the park as an election promise, and it’s all budgeted for – but now its threatening to back away from all of that if it can’t sell carbon credits (which basically allow polluters to continue to pollute – or in some cases, increase their pollution output – by claiming trees already choking on carbon will somehow, magically, be able to offset future pollution). The Greens hold the balance of power in a Senate disallowance motion, which was pushed to the 15th as The Greens party room have been unable to decide what to do. That’s mainly because the disallowance motion has been put forward by the Nationals, who see the motion as potentially damaging for the forestry industry (which already has the support of the government so it’s kinda a moot point in this debate). So you have Green groups falling along the usual lines when it comes to carbon credits – those who see them as better than nothing, and those who want to fight for better. We’ll be keeping an eye on that.

In other news, the Coalition is all a mess because to no ones surprise, Angus Taylor has not stemmed the loss of support flowing to One Nation. So he’s looking at the talent on his front bench and deciding the answer is to shuffle around the people, rather than finding policies that sets the Coalition apart. Rumours are there will be a more prominent role for Andrew Hastie, which is more about trying to keep his biggest threat to the leadership close, rather than anything else, while also looking like he is taking Hastie’s concerns about the party’s direction, seriously. Keep an eye on that.

And then there is everything else that pops up in these sitting weeks – you’ll have the usual team keeping you up to date and I have had three coffees this morning, so let’s see where that takes us.

Ready? Let’s do it.