The Point Live: Digital duty of care legislation introduced, while private health changes fall. As it happened.

The parliament, she be emptying.

The end of the sitting is upon us. And the parliament is emptying. There will be more political news, but everyone should actually be living their lives.

Because it is a bit of a mess in the Big House (or Bullshit Castle as my dad used to call it).

The ‘green shoots’ Anika Wells was optimistically pointing to with the Coalition entering negotiations for the Digital Duty of Care bill are dead and buried, according to this statement from Sarah Henderson:

The Coalition strongly supports protecting children online and holding big tech accountable.”

But protecting children must never become an excuse for censoring Australians, silencing political opponents or drowning small businesses in red tape.”

Labor’s bill fails that test and must be scrapped.”

And the opposition want to see the number of beds in the aged care system, but they don’t want to support the subsidy cuts to over 65s for private health insurance which is what the government said it was cutting so it could pay for the beds.

We don’t like the idea that older Australians are being targeted to have their health insurance, their private health insurance rebates removed from them,” Jane Hume told the ABC

Which, OK, but the subsidy was being cut to what anyone under 65 pays, not cut entirely. And Mark Butler is right when he says these things were put in place by 25 years ago and things change.

But also, we are seeing where the power sits in these debates more and more obviously – there was none of this for the NDIS. But veterans and now Boomers have had reversals and political power used for their benefit. If you are going to apply these sorts of principles, maybe apply them equally?

But that wouldn’t be Australian politics!

And so, we urge you to go out and cause some good trouble, but also let us know the areas which you think are being ignored and where power needs a nudge. We are always all ears – leave a comment, or email me. I’ll add it to the list.

And in the mean time – we will hopefully see you back here when the house sits for a house only sitting at the end of the month (and estimates)

Huzzah! Until then, take care of you. Ax

Lucinda Garbutt-Young and Andrew Brown for AAP

Greens senator Jordon Steele-John has rejected allegations he made inappropriate comments towards women.

The 32-year-old Western Australian senator has taken leave from the party room after seven members demanded an investigation into the alleged conduct.

Senator Steele-John is accused of concerning behaviour in the presence of women, with claims spanning almost a decade, from 2017 to 2025. 

A letter sent to Greens leader David Shoebridge contained accusations he said the party would take “extremely seriously”. 

“As leader, I want to make it clear that the integrity of the complaints process is essential,” Senator Shoebridge said. 

“In the circumstances, Senator Steele-John has requested leave from the party room, and I have accepted it.”

The senator will self-refer matters outlined in the letter to an independent complaints process. 

In a statement, Senator Steele-John said the allegations were made without specifics.

“I utterly reject this characterisation of me, which tries to assert I am someone I am not,” he said.

“Any allegation of this nature is extremely serious and must be treated accordingly. If someone has made an allegation, I am prepared to address it.

“I have referred this matter to the WA Greens, so that a fair, independent process can be commissioned that upholds the principles of natural justice and ensures procedural fairness for everyone involved.”

The Greens leader said he was only told about the allegations against the senator in recent days and accepted the leave of absence from Senator Steele-John earlier in the week once he was made aware.

“I’ve dealt with it with the urgency which I think is appropriate,” Senator Shoebridge told reporters in Canberra.

“I will not be engaging in a running commentary on the matter, because it is going to a fair and independent and timely process … Senator Steele-John is entitled to that process.”

Senator Steele-John entered parliament in 2017 when he was 23 and is the party’s spokesman for disability and mental health, leading a campaign against NDIS cuts. 

1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)

National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028

Shoebridge:

I received correspondence in relation to Senator Steele John earlier this week.

I want to be clear that I, Steph, and the party room take these matters incredibly seriously, and when matters like this are raised, they require a fair, an independent, and a timely process for them to be dealt with. The WA Greens are commissioning that process, and the matter has been referred across to the WA Greens for that process.

Senator Steele John has indicated to me that he sought leave from the party room, and I’ve accepted that request.

I will not be engaging in a running commentary on the matter, because it is going to a fair and independent and timely process. I think we would all recognize that when serious matters are being raised, Senator Steele John is entitled to that process, as is the substance of the matters of the complaint. Entitled to a process that is fair, that is independent, and that is timely.

Q: Were you ever aware, Senator? Were you ever aware of allegations or rumors of allegations against Senator Steele-John several years ago?

Shoebridge:

No, I received the correspondence in my capacity as leader of the Australian Greens, and I’ve dealt with it with the urgency which I think is appropriate.

Q: First of all, your letter, your your response to my story says you want an independent investigation. Senator Steele John talks about an internal investigation. Can I just clarify which it is? (There is also a reference to a nickname, which in the interest of fairness, we won’t publish)

Shoebridge:

Well, I come back to the need for a fair and an independent and timely process that cannot be run by party room colleagues who, and and should not be run by party room colleagues. The WA Greens have committed to working to commission an independent, fair, and timely process. That is the appropriate body to deal with it. It has the distance and the independence necessary for that, and that is the process that is now being undertaken.

…The appropriate way to deal with these matters is with a fair, timely, and independent process. The appropriate way to deal with them is not a back and forth in a press conference. It is to be dealt with in a fair, independent, and timely process, and that is what has been committed to.

Q: The Greens were split on forestry, split on leadership, and now this. Are you guys in disarray?

Shoebridge:

Well, I think you’ve seen the effectiveness of the Greens team in this Parliament just in this week. You’ve seen the United position we’ve taken in relation to a series of incredibly difficult policy positions.

We’ve taken it in relation to public health. We’ve taken it in relation to digital duty of care. We’ve taken it in relation to gas reservation. The hard work, the hard policy work, the hard politics, is being done by myself and my talented colleagues in the Greens Party room, and we are committed to continuing to deliver this.

The Australian public needs the Australian Greens in here because these policy issues, whether it’s gas, whether it’s digital duty of care, whether it’s punching down on pensioners, requires us to be in here making the case for fairness at this point.

The WA Greens senator says he has referred the matter to the WA branch of the Greens for an independent investigation and denies wrong doing.

The Greens leadership will speak soon.

Andrew Hastie asks Anne Aly a particularly silly question, which was also in the Daily Telegraph today (gee, wonder how it ended up there) about Aly’s travel.

Today, the Daily Telegraph revealed the minister spent more than $150,000 traveling to nine countries in four months. 30 businesses have gone bust every single day she’s been overseas. Minister. When are you going to stop jetting around the world and start fighting for small business?

(About 40,000 businesses are registered each month in Australia, just to give some context on the numbers)

But also, Aly has other portfolios. Including international development and multiculturalism – both of which require travel.

Aly:

As the member is aware, I’m also the Minister for International Development, which is a portfolio within foreign affairs and trade, and which obviously has a requirement for me to travel internationally on behalf of our country.

Kate Chaney asks:

Women in Curtin have told me about the continued abuse they’ve experienced from former partners through family law systems. The Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Commission found that family law and justice systems are continuing to cause harm. It recommends your department lead a time-bound program that builds on past reviews with measurable actions to address this. Will the government commit to that program so that our justice systems keep women safe?

Mark Dreyfus had worked on this while attorney-general as a priority.

Michele Rowland says:

The Albanese government is committed to ending family, domestic, and sexual violence and strengthening the safety of women and children across Australia. Because the tragic reality is that too many women and children continue to lose their lives to violence, most often at the hands of those whom they should be able to trust. The violence and these deaths must stop, mr. Speaker. In respect of the Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner’s yearly report to Parliament 2026, to which the member references, recommendation of that report does go to building on and strengthening existing justice and family law reforms, including working with states and territories through the Standing Council of Attorneys General, mr. Speaker, the honorable member is very right.

Every woman and child has the right to be safe, including when they turn to our courts and justice systems for help. The Commission’s report makes clear that while important progress has been made, there is much more work to do, and that goes to the questions of systems abuse that the member raises, particularly in responding to sexual violence and ensuring our family law and justice systems support safety rather than providing another system for abuse. mr. Speaker, whilst it’s relevant to note there is more to do.

Significant reform has been undertaken in this respect under the Albanese government. We have fundamentally reformed Australia’s family law system to put the safety and best interests of children at its center, including removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and making family violence, abuse, and neglect central to decisions about what’s in a child’s best interests, we have strengthened the court’s capacity to identify and respond to family violence and other safety risks, and we continue to work on how to improve the family law system and how it responds where perpetrators seek to use processes themselves as a form of abuse, including in relation to cross-examination.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that Commissioner’s report is an important input as we build on existing efforts in developing the second action plan under the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. That plan will guide our work over the next five years and will strengthen national coordination and ensure governments are focused on practical actions that improve safety and outcomes for victim survivors.

And as a practical example, within my portfolio, in March this year, we announced the establishment of new specialized trauma-informed sexual violence legal services pilots in New South Wales and Queensland, and they build on the expansion and extension of the pilots already operating in the ACT and in Western Australia, and the establishment of new pilots in South Australia, the Northern Territory, and Tasmania, which we announced in November 2025. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I can inform the House that women and children’s safety are standing items on the SCAG agenda, which I chair, and the commission’s report is the first agenda item at next month’s SCAG.

Just after that story dropped in the SMH, the Greens leadership have called a press conference for 3.10pm, immediately after question time.

Some of you may have seen the Australian Hotels Association AI generated ad in defence of migration, which shows (through AI) a lot of workers leaving their jobs after strict migration legislation is passed which impacts industries from hospitality to aged care. It’s not the most nuanced ad and it sends the message that migration is only good for the economy, but it IS some pushback in a space which has been mostly absent of pushback, as One Nation continues to run the show from outside parliament.

(Also notable – One Nation is down in the most recent polls, so they are doing what is now their favourite trick – keeping their head down, until people forget that seeing them reminds them of how little answers they actually have)

Albanese is asked a dixer on migration (hence the opening statements in this post) and sort of falls into the same trap as the AHA ad – there is some pushback, but again, it is just framed around the economy.

Albanese:

This morning, I had the great pleasure of speaking to the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and what FECA does is embody the spirit of a country that has long offered migrants the gift of opportunity, an offer that migrants have in turn responded to with extraordinary energy and initiative. Migration plays an essential role in our country, and throughout our lives, from maternity wards to the nursing home, every stage in between, because migration adds to our prosperity and builds our strength. And the people that migration has brought us work hard, and they pay taxes. They add to the bottom line, and they lift our ambitions as a country by expanding our sense of possibility. They underpin our world-class health system, in particular, with their skill and their stamina, from doctors right down to orderlies and nurses and the people in aged care, that simply, without migration, would really struggle to fill those positions.

They boost our economy. They have entrepreneurial spirit. More than a third of small business owners in Australia were born overseas, and the common link is a profound enthusiasm to be part of the great Australian story. And that was the theme of the conferences taking place here in this building today.

People who’ve come from all over the world, but are loyal to Australia, and they want to be part of the Australian story-a story that we are writing the next chapter in as we speak, a story that we’ll continue to write for generations, and a story that, at a time when the world is so troubled with conflict based upon religion and people looking for difference, here we can be a microcosm for the world, because overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, people live in harmony here in Australia, and we’re enriched by our diversity. People being able to celebrate who they are, practice their culture, practice their language, bring all their food and everything else that they bring dancing and music here in Australia, but at the same time loyal to Australia.

Migration has helped power Australia’s growth and development, and ultimately through hard work, aspiration, and love of country, migrants do something wonderful. They become Australians. They become us and who we are. Our conversation about immigration should be in these terms. We need sensible discussion about immigration. That’s fine. What we should not do is use immigration to stir up division, and to say that to people that the reason why their lot in life isn’t as good as they think it should be is because of someone who isn’t just like them. Concluded, it is un-Australian.

Here is a bit of how QT has looked so far:

Luke Slawomirski

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has released the latest health expenditure statistics.

In 2024–25, Australia’s total health spending was $290.7 billion (10.5% of GDP) – a 3.4% increase in real terms, bigger than the annual average growth of 3.2% over the previous decade.

Spending on hospital services increased by 4.0%.

Spending on specialist services (called ‘referred medical services’) increased by 4.2%.

But spending on primary care (including public health) increased by 1.2%, continuing a familiar pattern.

In short, we spend one tenth of what we earn on health care – with the majority going towards hospitals and specialists. But all this dough is helping make us healthier, right?

Unfortunately, no.

Two recent global studies have placed Australia second worst in the world on the number of years people spend living in ill health (our ‘sickspan’). Only the US is worse.

We have system focused on treating illness, not promoting health.

And it’s costing us.

Anthony Albanese gets a break from questions with a non-government question directed to Anne Aly:

Can the Minister confirm Labor’s digital duty of care bill introduces a new requirement for every small business with a website to undertake annual risk assessments, which must be kept for six years?

(This question should probably go to Wells – they are asking Aly because they want footage of her up again in QT today)

Aly:

Mr. Speaker, the Albanese government recognises the importance of small business to the Australian economy, and that’s why we met with the Council of Small Business Organisations (COSBOA) during the exposure draft consultation. A duty of care is not a new concept to small businesses who sell products, deliver services, hire workers, and indeed look after their customers. Providers of low-risk services like websites and applications run by small businesses will have minimal obligations under the digital duty of care. The eSafety Commissioner will provide further regulatory guidance in due course.

Now, that is in recognition of the fact that websites and apps run by small businesses generally don’t A) facilitate any user to user interaction, private messaging, or otherwise facilitate connection between strangers, B) allow users of the website to upload or stream or generate content for other users, C) provide harmful or classified material such as pornography or high high impact violence, or include design features associated with negative behavioural impacts, such as recommender systems or feedback features. Mr. Speaker, the digital duty of care is important reform, as we have heard today, to protect Australians from online harm, and I am ready to work through the issues like this with all sides of Parliament to get it done.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting Greens senator Jordon Steele-John has taken leave from the Greens party room after what the paper describes as allegations of inappropriate comments to women.

We don’t have the letter, so you can read more, here.

It’s all about Albanese in the House question time today. He has just been asked about the ‘humiliating defeat’ of the private health subsidy changes for over 65s in the senate (let’s remember the Coalition lost votes on the floor of the house, which it controlled on the numbers under Morrison) and why the government is waging war against older Australians.

(Laughs in millennial tears)

Albanese:

I’m asked about older Australians and their healthcare, and the decision in the Senate by no alition. of the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation, the Greens’ political party, to oppose this sensible reform, which importantly would just mean one thing: that the same private health rebate for someone, whether they’re 64 or 65, and would put every single dollar, every single dollar of that savings from that measure that came in by the Howard government during the mining boom, where they had to actually make changes to the Age Discrimination Act, in order to bring it in, in order to bring it in, because they had rivers of gold flowing in.

Now, what we have done is to work through aged care reforms, aged care reforms that are a direct result of the Royal Commission finding, which found in its interim interim report, was summed up with one word: neglect. Neglect, and we have an aging of the population. We will need more resources to go into aged care, and we have a view that you have to you have to find some of that money through sensible reform, which is what this is-sensible reform-and unlike the basis, if the basis for the leader of the opposition voting against this is that older Australians need more healthcare, yes, that is right. That is why there are pressures on the budget. That is why they will not pay not pay a different rebate from when they’re 64 for when they hit their 65th birthday.

No difference whatsoever. Now those opposite, those opposite at the last election under their then shadow treasurer promised higher deficits and higher debt. They’ve already racked up 110 billion dollars in unfunded promises, and then they want to add this to it. Well, we know last time round they ripped the guts out of the public hospital system, ripped the guts out of it and didn’t invest in aged care. What we are doing is we’ve put 25 billion dollars additional into the public hospital system through the states and territories. We’re funding urgent care clinics. We’ve tripled the bulk billing incentive, and what we have also done here is a sensible reform, so that there is additional funding available for aged care.

Anna Chang

It’s Groundhog Day in the Senate, the Coalition are trying to attack the Government on small business again. again. again.

Senator Leah Blyth, the Liberal Senator for SA (replacing Simon Birmingham) has the first question today, and asks:

Brisbane small business owner David Kelly, who employs nearly 40 Australians through his cleaning company, warned of Labor’s tax changes. 

They’re not looking at taxing big business or large corporations. They’re coming after the little guy. With Mr. Albanese pressing ahead with his 30% minimum tax trust, why is the Prime Minister making it more expensive for hardworking small business owners like Mr Kelly to operate, invest, and just employ Australians

Independent MP Sophie Scamps asks: Why is it Australia showing the same moral courage standing with our morals and allies and doing everything in our power to stop the Palestinian genocide and illegal occupation of the West Bank.

Anthony Albanese (after a bit of filler) defended what his government had done (worth mentioning here that the UK was among the Australian allies very surprised we did not sign the statement condemning the illegal settlements. The push for a place on the Security Council has been raised as one of the reasons why Australia hasn’t joined up with the barest of bare minimums on this)

Albanese:

Australia is not pursuing a blanket-style import ban. We have concerns about the implementation of a blanket ban, and unintended consequences for Palestinians and other entities, and that in fact, the declarations may not advance the objective of a two-state solution, but may in fact provide a setback.

As I said in a meeting I had with the member for Mackellar just this week, we will continue to work with our partners, as we will continue to call on Israel to immediately address illegal settlements and settler violence, which are undermining the two-state solution, just as we continue to condemn the ongoing acts of terror of Hamas that also aimed at undermining the two-state solution, there are people on both sides of that debate in the Middle East who are determined to rule out two states through their actions, whether it be Hamas that does not support the right of Israel to exist, or whether it be some of the people, including ministers in the Israeli governments, Smotrich and Ben Gvir, who are determined to rule out a Palestinian state.

Two states is in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, and is the only path forward for peace and security.

After a dicer on the digital duty of care, Anthony Albanese is asked by Berries and Cream (Tim Wilson) Today, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7% the highest rate in five years, because of Labor, 103,000 more Australians have lost their jobs this year. When is the treasurer going to lose his job?

That’s the new line – that Chalmers should be sacked. But honestly, this is one of the weaker ones. And also, the RBA wanted unemployment. And so do all the economists that the Coalition listens to. So now pretending that they don’t want more unemployment is a bit of a stretch.

Albanese:

I’m asked about employment, and then a usual sledge at the end of the question. So I’ll address them in order.

This government has the lowest unemployment rate of any government in 50 years.

I note that in the question that was acknowledged by saying it was the highest unemployment rate in five years since they were on the Treasury benches, because what we have sought to do each and every day is to prioritize employment growth, which is why, on our watch, 1.3 million jobs have been created.

And I’m asked about people in politics keeping their job, Mr. Speaker. And the Guardian has reported some Liberals privately concede Taylor is faring no better and possibly worse than the female leader he replaced, a Liberal MP told the Australian, “We’re struggling. If you’re the third party in a two-party preferred system, that’s a problem.

You think?

Berries and Cream has a point of order that is not a point of order.

Albanese:

The treasurer is doing a great job, and he and those opposite, those opposite. This is what they say. This is what they say about who’s going to lose their jobs.

The Liberal MP told the Guardian, “One Nation now controls the Liberal agenda.

Another senior Liberal MP has said, “The only joy is that the National Party would die before us. There’s optimism for you on that side, Mr. Speaker. And then another Liberal MP told the media, “I don’t think the federal president Tony Abbott is doing Angus Taylor any favours at all?

It’s becoming a weakness for him.

Another on the same theme. Every time Tony Abbott opens his mouth, it’s as if he speaks for Angus in the party. That’s even disturbing the guys in the hard right.

There is another point of order that is not a point of order.

Albanese:

If they ask a question like that, then it is perfectly within the standing orders for me to respond in an appropriate way. If they want to ask, if they want to ask about policy and be taken seriously, they should leave the sledges off the back of their questions.

And there is another whinge from the Coalition that Albanese is not being relevant. Milton Dick is like – you opened this box bro. FAFO. (Obviously I am paraphrasing)

Albanese:

The former leader, remember her, the former member for Farah, said this on the day the leadership spilled in February. The new leader said the Liberal Party needed to change or die.

The result in Farrah demonstrates that statement needed to be far truer today than it ever was then. Mr. Speaker, they come in here. They don’t ask serious policy questions because they’re too busy struggling to keep this bloke going.

It is already very, very rowdy in there – lot’s of pretend points of order and a bit of personal attacks. And it’s only the first question!

This is a one week sitting, so there are a lot of tensions running high at the moment. But it does nothing to advance any question.

It’s a tale as old as time – tension between a prime minister and the treasurer.

Angus Taylor wants to know ‘on what issue will the prime minister humiliate the treasurer on next?”. Taylor knows a bit about humiliation, so I can see why he asked this question.

Anthony Albanese:

We’re a government that works through a proper cabinet process that has a treasurer who I’m very proud of. A treasurer who’s promoting reform in the economy, including making sure that we don’t create a society where we have our generation able to own their own home and younger generations not able to own their own home, and the way that my government functions is orderly, proper process, proper cabinet, proper cabinet government.

Something that those opposite would not recognize.

We have the shadow opposition leader out there saying on RN breakfast clearly there’s a need for us to Change, saying on News 24, the Liberal Party is in a low ebb.

Dan Tehan wants to know about relevance. That’s not something that Tehan would know about so it is no surprise that once again he fails to get his point of order up.

Albanese:

I tell you what’s humiliating.

It’s having someone behind the leader of the opposition stalking him, and someone outside the parliament stalking him as well.

And this is what this is what Josh Frydenberg had to say.

If our vote recedes further, I cannot see the party surviving in its current form at all, at all. An existential crisis, and you don’t have to listen to people outside. You can listen to the leader of the opposition for the moment himself, because on Saturday he went along to a CPAC conference, which would be the equivalent of a Labor Party leader going to a Socialist Alliance rally.

He went along there to this far right gathering there in Brisbane, and he said that the government that he was a senior minister in spent too much money during COVID, allowed allowed in too many temporary migrants.

He said they should never have done net zero, and he said that they weren’t a party of the center right; they were just a right wing party. Well, you bet they are. In this race to the bottom, in the race to the bottom, if people have a choice, if people have a choice between one nation or fake one nation, they’ll vote for the real thing.

This guy is a fake

Anika Wells is asked about Donald Trump and Truth Social:

First, is his platform Truth Social, one of the platforms you envisage that would be captured by by your bill, and the second question is, if so, would that sort of content fall afoul of any of the existing powers or proposed powers for for you, the eSafety Commissioner, to to block or to punish.

Wells:

So the answer to the first part of your question is that yes, it would be captured as an online service on Australian shores. So as it exists, as its footprint exists here in Australia, yes, it would be captured. And as to the second part of your question, it goes to the heart of it, which is this is not about any individual post, any individual person, any individual comment, any individual reply or meme or video.

It is about the platform that hosts that piece of content having systems in place that identifies where content might be risky for its users and taking steps to mitigate against those risks. So, in this instance, it would be the obligations on Truth Social to have a risk assessment in place about those risks, and it would be not for me to discern, based on my own views.

Ultimately, a question of compliance would be determined by the eSafety Commissioner if it came to that.

Q: In which case, is that a practical outcome to try to pursue? To ask Donald Trump to police himself because he is a part owner. His corporation is part owner of Truth Social.

Wells:

Well, it wouldn’t be about our particular post. It would be about a 12-month, a 12-monthly risk assessment that Truth Social conducts across its entire systems.

And will, after Julie Inman Grant’s term is up, will the government consider a commission deliberating in the role, rather than one person shouldering all the decisions?

Inman-Grant (who I have previously spoken with as part of an on-going project speaking to figures in Australia who have been targets of online abuse) has been a target herself – from Elon Musk, to the Trump administration, to Pauline Hanson and speakers at the most recent CPAC conference in Australia.

Wells says:

Let me make this point. We were the subject of a lot of discussion at CPAC over the weekend, Julie and I, and I hope they’ve all had a lie down after they’ve run off all their steam.

It was a very excitable bunch.

I would make the point that Julie has not really done an outstanding job; she was appointed by the coalition, and then she was reappointed by the coalition. And now many of those people who made that decision are leading the charge in the criticism against her, and they should be held accountable for that change of position and for their conduct, I think it’s an incredibly difficult position. I, we have talked, you know, we catch up frequently. We talk about the pressure and abuse that a position like the E Safety Commissioner gets put under. It is testimony to the fact that online is not safe, and particularly, it is not safe for women. And part of legislating a digital duty of care is about making it a safer place for all people who work here in Australia. And thank you, Julie. And I’m sorry that happened to you.

So is a commission, rather than one person the answer? Here Paul Karp from Politico gets a news break:

Wells:

It’s certainly one solution I am considering at the moment, given the resourcing required for the digital duty of care, and the the volume that rises is rising sharply in complaints and people seeking recourse. How we regear our system so it’s modern. You know the way that we do it with the classification board, with e safety, with ACMA reflects a slightly different time. I think we can we can agree. And I really want to be a forward-facing minister. I want this to be a future-oriented portfolio. I believe that the communications portfolio is essentially infrastructure for the future, and I’m always looking at ways that we can do that.

Anika Wells is asked whether she or the government would be naming and shaming unsafe platforms and says:

I’d say that platforms have some for 15 or 20 years now had the ability to clean up their act with their own volition, and many of them have chosen not to do it. So I would say that the name and shame effect has been in place for 15, 20 years, hasn’t worked. The numbers are getting worse, so we’re going to legislate.

Wells is asked why the prime minister is still on X (Elon Musk’s company) given what people know about how the company is run and what is allowed to be published on the site (and not published).

Wells says that’s a question for the PM

Greg Jericho

The September unemployment rate rising to 4.7% – the highest since October 2021 – was not a shock. Last month I noted that the August unemployment rate of 4.6% was 600 more unemployed people away from being 4.7%. Now those August figures have been revised, and the ABS now estimates there was in fact 4.7% unemployed in August, and in September it rose very slightly (from 4.65% to 4.72%)

As Matt Grudnoff and David Richardson have already noted this is very much the result of the Reserve Bank deciding to raise rates three times this year in February, March and May.

More scary though is these figures cover September and on September 29 the RBA decided to raise rate again to make it four for the year.

In its decision, the RBA at the time said “the staff’s judgement was that these leading indicators pointed to broadly stable labour market conditions in the near term.”

Ahh well.

Back in May when the RBA raised rates, it was forecasting unemployment would get to 4.7% by June 2028. So congratulations on achieving their target ahead of schedule, I guess.

At the time journalist Michael Pascoe asked the RBA Governor Michele Bullock “So if the forecast comes true and unemployment does go up to 4.7 per cent, that would be considered too high?”

The Governor replied “No, I’m not saying it’s too high.”

As it is the RBA in its most recent forecast predicted unemployment hitting 4.7% in December 2027, so again ahead of schedule. Bonuses all round!!!

In the press conference after the September meeting Ms Bullock said

a rise in the unemployment rate does not necessarily mean job losses. People sort of say, “Oh, that means you’re kicking so many people out of work.” In fact, the unemployment rate has risen from 3.5 per cent over the past couple of years to 4.6 per cent, and in that time, there’s been over a million jobs created. So it doesn’t mean job losses.

She is right, but in September employment fell 39,300. And that’s the problem, yes the unemployment can rise just because more people are looking for work longer, but when the unemployment rate keep rising invariably the number of new jobs added slows, and sometimes falls.

The other problem is unemployment rising can often speed up quickly, and pretty soon it’s recession town, population you.

This is why US economist Claudia Sahm came up with a way of looking at changes in unemployment rates to work out when an economy is in danger of going into recession. She looked at the post WWII US economy and found when the 3 months average unemployment rate rises 0.5%pts in a year, then invariably the economy goes into a recession.

She thus recommends that when this happens that is the point at which the central bank should cut rates and governments should begin to provide stimulus.

The RBA has previously noted this recession indicator and suggested that in Australia the key point is a 0.75%pts rise.

And it is well they think that because Australia has now hit the 0.5%pts mark:

Unless unemployment falls next month, we will break through the recession barrier.

The RBA wanted higher unemployment rates; they got it. Now they need to make sure their wish doesn’t deliver a recession.

After saying no, Anika Wells has told the press club that the shadow communications minister (Sarah Henderson) has now reached out to her office, after she introduced the legislation, which Wells calls ‘green shoots’ in the negotiations.

There are representatives from the big tech companies, including Meta, in the audience, and Wells welcomes them in a question about what Australia is doing to stop the broadcast of US livestreamed executions.

Wells:

We discussed how we might achieve the objective of not having Australians exposed to to this in a scenario where this happens. You would have seen that President Trump has now since said that he’s going to reconsider that decision. It’s scheduled for the 3rd of December. A lot of water to flow under the bridge before we get there. But the E Safety Commissioner has written to the platforms about this, putting them on notice, and I will work with Meta and our other platforms to do everything that we can that is technically possible.

There’s a lot here that we don’t even technically know about how that might even be streamed in order for us to take action to meet Australians’ expectations in this space.

The first question for Anika Wells is whether or not the government would be open to include avenues to pursue damages in the courts as individuals, rather than just leave it all to the E-Safety commissioner.

Anika Wells says:

Yes, that’s right. It has been successful in the US, where that right exists, and I think it’s fair to say that our eSafety Commissioner does a marvelous job at enforcement and compliance, but it’s a huge burden, and private right of action allows people to share that burden.

It is something that we would contemplate because it has been something that has come in through the consultation process. The digital duty of care has been worked on for about two years, and the exposure draft has been out there, and that has been something that groups, particularly women’s groups, have asked us to look at. So we’ll keep working that through, and we’ll negotiate in good faith with the groups.

What about safety ratings for social media companies, like what we see on cars?

I think what I would like to do first is legislate our first digital duty of care. Wayne Holsworth, who runs Smack Talk, talks about how when seat belts were first introduced for him, they weren’t retractable; they were only on the front seats, not the back. Whereas these days, we have five-point harnesses. You know, it’s improved. There’s there’s been a race to the top. Different car companies want you to think that they they are the safest brand.

So I need to get this through the Senate to legislate a baseline basic safety standard, but yes, it is my vision that ultimately we would be in a race to the top, where tech companies want you to know them as the safest place your child can be.

And on sock puppet accounts (fake accounts created with fake identities) what is the plan there? Researchers use them to see what is being pushed to people with those identities (14 year old girl/boy for example) but there are concerns they could be used for more nefarious purposes (see the Russian bot farms for instance)

Wells:

I am happy to look at any amendment that any parliamentarian working in good faith wants to put to us to improve the bill. And the E Safety Commissioner and I were just discussing at lunch that there is still regulatory guidance that we need to work through, just as we did with the social media minimum age, you remember people were saying, “What on earth is a reasonable steps? What are reasonable steps going to be?

The commissioner put out extensive regulatory guidance that helped companies work through that. We’ve all learned a lot of lessons out of that process, I think. So we will certainly be doing that, and like I said, I will work in good faith across the parliament. This, I would really like to continue the streak of all online safety laws in Australia being passed in a bipartisan fashion.

Anika Wells is addressing the National Press Club on her Digital Duty of Care legislation. She is telling stories of children who have had their lives completely overturned, with the most tragic of consequences, by unregulated social media. She has held back tears at points.

She is also wearing an Unplug24 badge, which is a group that seeks to end sexual exploitation and suicide, and was launched in response to the loss of Mac Holdsworth, a 17-year-old who took his own life after he was made a victim of sexual exploitation.

It wants people to unplug from social media for 24 hours on 24 October, which will be the anniversary of Mac’s death.

If you are struggling, or think someone else may be, please don’t feel like you are alone. Help and a person to listen is available 24 hours a day.

Andrew Brown for AAP

Relations between China and Australia are on the right track, even though disagreements between the two countries may remain, the country’s new ambassador has declared.

In his first major speech since taking up the posting, Liu Jinsong said diplomatic ties with Australia was advancing across a range of areas.

“Under the strategic guidance of our leaders, China and Australia relations have returned to a right track of stable and sound development,” he told an Australia China Business Council event at Parliament House on Thursday.

“Treating each other as equals is the cornerstone of our engagement.”

Mr Liu took up the diplomatic position in August, following a thawing of ties between Australia and its largest trading partner.

Billions of dollars worth of tariffs were placed on Australian goods such as beef, wine and seafood by China in a trade war following the COVID pandemic.

The tariffs were gradually eased following the 2022 election.

Mr Liu said while tensions between the two countries had eased, there would always be stumbling blocks in the relationship.

“It’s perfectly normal to have differences. It would be unrealistic to expect none,” he said.

“What matters is how to manage differences rationally, smartly and, importantly, to grow our bilateral relationship.

“Co-operation is not about moulding each other into the same shape. It’s about making the shared cake bigger, while managing differences appropriately. We must never allow disagreements to define our bilateral relationship.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping for the fifth time during the APEC summit, which is being hosted in Shenzen in November.

Mr Liu said respect between the partners needed to flow both ways.

“As the Chinese scene grows, courtesy demands reciprocity. Australia speaks of the fair go. Both (countries) express the same core value: mutual respect,” he said.

“Australia values its agriculture and food exports to China. China is concerned with the interest of Chinese companies in Australia.

“Only when we hold our own and our partners’s core interest and concern in equal regard can dialogue be meaningful.”

Mr Liu raised eyebrows when he started the ambassador role by saying he travelled by bus from Sydney to Canberra.

He confirmed in the speech he travelled via a Murrays coach, a perennial favourite of Canberra commuters, but the length of time commuting was not among the strong points.

“Three and a half hours, my God,” he said.

“You know the same distance (between) Beijing and Tianjin, only 35 minutes by bullet train.”

We have just been pointed to this media release from OpenAustralia, which is a charity that operates open source information libraries for Australians wanting easy access to information on how their parliamentarians vote, where money is being spent and freedom of information.

It’s chief executive says rising costs and the loss of donors means the services are now at risk of being closed down:

Unless more of the people who use our library start supporting it every month, we will have no choice but to begin an orderly wind-down,” said OpenAustralia Foundation Chief ExecutivecOfficer Ben Fairless, the former volunteer administrator of Right to Know.

Donations are down, some of the larger organisations that paid for our data have left, and it costscmore than ever to keep the library running. We would rather explain wherecthings stand now, than write a farewell letter later.”

Fairless says AI scraping and cloning of its information, which it uses humans to gather and maintain, is also having a major impact, particularly around planning alerts.

That work cannot be replaced once lost, which would be disastrous for the pursuit of transparency and open government in Australia.

If the wind-down goes ahead, the foundation says:

• The software that collects information from hundreds of government websites every day would stop.

• More than 142,000 active Planning Alerts subscriptions would go quiet, and people would no longer be told about development proposals in their area.

• More than 14,400 freedom of information requests and responses on Right to Know would be gone.

• Without They Vote for You, there would be no plain-language record of how your federal representatives vote in Parliament.

• More than 936,000 Hansard entries on OpenAustralia.org.au would no longer be searchable.

The library is used by journalists, content creators, councils, advocates, businesses, government and members of the public. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner recently used the collection to check whether government agencies were publishing documents as required under FOI.

The group are asking for $20 a month from those who use the libraries.

Donations can be made at donate.oaf.org.au. Ben Fairless’s full statement is at oaf.org.au.

David Richardson

Tuesday night Bernie Fraser said the Reserve Bank interest rate hikes are causing ‘pain and agony’ without solving inflation. He said the Reserve Bank was “over-preoccupied” with inflation at the expense unemployment. Recall that the Reserve Bank legislation gives equal weight to employment and inflation though we might argue that the employment target is much more important than the inflation target. 

Following the September rate increase the Reserve Bank said “In reaching [the decision to increase interest rates], members acknowledged that the trade-off between inflation and full employment had deteriorated because of global cost pressures.”

In other words the aim of full employment has been junked in the interests of attacking inflation. Yet Bernie Fraser doubts the higher unemployment and interest rates will do much at all about inflation.

A new report from the Institute for New Economic Thinking says no country entirely makes its own inflation but they argue:

while inflation is usually treated as a national problem, its striking synchronization across countries suggests another story: one where inflation is shaped by global production, capital mobility, currency hierarchies, and the international distribution of economic power.

There is a lot of detail in the report that amplifies these themes.

Economists at the Australia Institute have been arguing for some time that the Reserve Bank has been wrong in both its belief that inflation is due to excess demand and that the appropriate cure is higher interest rates.

The clear implication of the report from the Institute for New Economic Thinking is also that the Reserve Bank is using the wrong medicine to cure a disease coming from outside Australia.

Luke Slawomirski



The Bill to remove the extra subsidy for private health insurance (PHI) for over 65s has been turfed out of the Senate.

The whole process has been a good example of politics trumping policy. It’s also illustrated how difficult it is to remove a taxpayer handout once it’s in the budget.

Niccolo Machiavelli was right when he said that there’s “nothing more difficult than introducing a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who profit by preserving the existing arrangements, but merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

Remember, the Bill wasn’t proposing to remove the rebate – which costs the taxpayer $8 billion a year ($12 billion if you include indirect costs to the budget).

It sought to remove the additional uplift for people 65 and over, saving $3 billion over four years. This was going to be invested in aged care – an area in desperate need of funds.

The Australia Institute supported the Bill, arguing that:

1. Younger Australians already subsidise older Australians’ PHI since they use health services less but pay the same amount for insurance (through the Community Rating provision).
2. Private health does nothing to take pressure off public hospitals. In fact, because it competes for the same specialist workforce as public hospitals, it actually increases pressure on thepublic system. What’s more, lots of private medical activity delivers little clinical benefit (even The Economist says so).
3. The money ($3b) will have far more impact on public hospital demand if directly invested in aged care because it will help accommodate the thousands of older patients ‘stranded’ in public hospitals.

Using taxpayer money to prop up private health is bad public policy.

But the vested interests cleverly used pensioners as human shields to protect their income stream.

It’s those very pensioners who would be the biggest beneficiaries of more investment into aged care, or just about any other part of the care economy.

Anna Chang

More from the Greens press conference on the Digital Duty of Care bill, with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young joined by Dr Gemma Killen, executive director of the Working with Women Alliance, and Josh Bornstein, director of corporate responsibility at the Australia Institute.

We hear what’s missing from the bill, that it’s getting sent to inquiry today (and as per previous post), that the inquiry will report 20 Nov in time for the Senate to deal with it in the final week. 

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young:

There’s some key elements missing from the package of legislation, as we’ve seen it this morning. 

Fundamentally, it does not include the right for individuals and the community to seek compensation when they have been harmed online. That is a fundamental part of any duty of care package to give it teeth to make sure it actually can work. 

There’s also little movement in the fines for big tech companies. 

We will push the government on both of those key areas.

I’m also concerned that there is little in the legislation itself that deals with the addiction elements of algorithms and social media. We all know what it feels like to be sucked in to online and on your social media and feel like you’ve been addicted. That is because the technology is designed like that. 

Big tech companies are making massive profits off a system that they know is harmful, that is designed to be addictive, and designed to deliberately keep you sucked in and stuck there. I want to see better protections in the law for all Australians, young and old. 

I want to see a duty of care pass this Parliament that actually delivers safety to all Australians.

There’s no point having a duty of care if it simply looks good on paper but doesn’t actually have the teeth to protect Australians. 

Dr Gemma Killen, executive director of the Working with Women Alliance

At the moment, there is more regulation on the toasters in our kitchens than in the technology that lands in our pockets via our phones or on our desks via our computers, and if we knew that toasters disproportionately harm certain parts of the population, there would be significant action taken rapidly. 

In tech, that’s not the case. Lots of people are harmed all the time through digital platforms, and they have apparently no recourse to take action privately. The digital duty of care is absolutely welcome. 

We need a systemic mechanism to respond to harms, but without a direct right to action with compensation, it will be toothless. And particularly, victim survivors of domestic family violence won’t have mechanisms to address the harm that they’ve been they’ve experienced through those difficult matters. 

So we’re very concerned that that’s not in the bill currently, and we’ll be pushing very hard to make sure that it’s in the final legislation.

Josh Bornstein, Director of Corporate Regulation at the Australia Institute

When it comes to digital duty of care, we have all got skin in the game. Everybody in this Parliament, everybody outside the Parliament, either knows someone who’s been harmed online or has experienced online harm themselves. 

So the bill that’s been presented today is of incredible importance. 

However, when it comes to companies that are making money out of facilitating harm, we know from many efforts at regulation in the past 50 to 100 years that one thing is at the heart of it, and that is companies have to be made liable where they cause harm. 

Once they are made liable for causing harm, they change their product or service to reduce that. 

At the moment, the bill that’s been presented to Parliament fundamentally fails to ensure that companies are made liable for harm. 

Instead, it gives the eSafety Commissioner a monopoly on enforcing the duty of care, and if you think to workplace health and safety, that’s probably a good analogy because we don’t say to our workplace regulators, you are required to enforce the duty of care for every single instance of harm in every workplace. We allow a role for the regulator. In more extreme cases usually to get involved, but we also allow people who suffer harm to take action to enforce the duty of care in the workplace. 

And so, what we’re saying to government and to this Parliament is there is a critical opportunity to get this legislation right, and you will only get it right and make the law effective if you ensure that not only is there a role for the regulator, but for also anybody harmed individuals or groups in the community to take action to enforce a duty of care and to seek compensation. 

Once the companies get the hint that it’s going to cost them and hit their bottom line. They will start investing very heavily in making sure they don’t have to pay lots of compensation, and that’s the big piece that’s missing from the current bill. 

And so we will be supporting anyone in the parliament who wants to make sure that this isn’t just going to be a well-intentioned start, but in fact works effectively to keep Australians safe online.

Matt Grudnoff

The ABS has released the Labour Force Statistics today and it has again shown an increase in the rate of unemployment. It is now up to 4.7%.

While this is bad news for the rest of us, the RBA will be pleased that its interest rate increases are having the desired effect.

The RBA wants to slow the economy because it believes the labour market is too tight. Essentially the RBA is worried that a tight labour market will lead to rapid pay rises and higher inflation.

The risk of rapid pay rises would be news to workers who continue to see a decline in their real wages.

The unemployment rate has increased from 4.1% at the beginning of this year, just before the first RBA interest rate increase, to now being 4.7%, after four rate rises.

But percentages can hide the number of people this is really impacting. Since the RBA starting increasing rates the number of unemployed people has increased by 107,000 to 732,000.

All those people just want to contribute and have a job. Some of them may have been forced onto crippling rates of jobseeker, which forces recipients to live in poverty.

Always remember that pushing up unemployment has real consequences.

Anara Watson

The Senate is currently talking about personal staffing, following a motion from Pauline Hanson that her Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Safe Staffing Guarantee) Bill 2026 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry.

Hanson has argued that the Prime Minister should not set staffing numbers, as he currently does.

This is an issue that has united members of the crossbench – with One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson, Independent Senator Fatima Payman and Independent member for Fowler Dai Le holding a press conference on the issue in mid-September.

On her motion, Senator Hanson said:

“The PM should have no right to determine what staff levels are given out to which senators or crossbench or members of any party, whether it’s the lower or the upper house. If you have a separate board that determines the wages, then why don’t we have a separate board that determines the staffing levels?”

Senator Fatima Payman, a former Labor senator turned independent, rose to speak on the motion. She’s also the only independent parliamentarian who has no personal staff.

“You talk a big game, Labor, about ‘same job, same pay’. Well, my chief of staff does the same job as the chief of staff of, say, Senator Thorpe, Senator Pocock, and yet she gets paid less, but she has to do a lot more work. They come in early, they leave late. Why? Because the Prime Minister is so bloody petty. Shame on you.”

Payman recently wrote about her experience with this in The Point, calling on the PM to “please stop weaponising your power against my dedicated workers and grant me the same resourcing you have afforded the other independents.”

The Australia Institute has argued that transparent guidelines that are easily understood and explained would allow for staffing allocations to be set in a fair way. Such guidelines could account for the number of parliamentarians a party has, whether a given parliamentarian sits in a chamber where the government does not have a majority, whether the party is the formal opposition, regional challenges, and so on.

The motion has been negatived, with there being 7 ayes and 29 noes, meaning that Hanson’s Bill won’t be referred.

Anna Chang

Speaking in a press conference in the Mural Hall on Digital Duty of Care with Josh Bornstein and Dr Gemma Killen, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has confirmed the inquiry reporting date, and that it’s the Greens intention to have the legislation dealt with in the final week of Parliament.

Question: …And on the inquiry reporting date, the Coalition is looking for a November 24th reporting. Green’s looking for November 20th. 

Are you going to get the Coalition to change? Is Labor going to be voting for this?

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young:

It will be the 20th of November. That’ll be agreed in the chamber. 

That allows then the Senate to deal with this legislation in the final week of Parliament, if indeed there is support for it once we’ve finished that process. 

So it’ll be November 20. That is the reporting date. That’ll happen very shortly. 

Matt Grudnoff

While the Coalition’s opposition to the government’s plan to close tax loopholes used by wealthy Australians might not be surprising, it is in stark contrast with other positions it holds.

The government is proposing to crack down on discretionary trusts, which are increasingly used by wealthy people to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

While the changes to trusts will only impact a tiny number of people, these changes will help all Australians.

It will raise tax revenue that can be used to provide the services that Australians are calling out for. It could be used to take pressure off roads, off schools, and off infrastructure.

This is exactly how Angus Taylor has been justifying his cuts to immigration. But while he is keen to cut immigration, which business warn will have large economic costs, he isn’t interested in boosting infrastructure by ensuring that a small group of wealthy people pay their fair share.

Anna Chang

This morning, the Senate has been debating Senator Lidia Thorpe’s private senators’ bill to prohibit the strip searching of children, and prohibit shackling during childbirth.

The stories which Senator Thorpe has relayed in the Senate are harrowing, and she ends her speech with this plea to the Senate:

So I ask all senators who have any decency in their heart, who have any decency to protect women and children in this country, and who have any legal knowledge, because there’s a lot of lawyers in here. 

You know that legally, we have the power in this place to change. We have the power to stop this demonic abuse of women and children. 

I ask you to think about the real consequences of your vote: more babies dying, more women dying, more abuse, more paedophilia, more rapes. 

That’s what you’re voting for. 

So think about that consequence before you jump up and shut it down and join forces with each other. Think about on people like Tabitha, on people like Sharon, and on people like Heather Calgarrett, who should still be with us today. 

So just do the right thing by them. It’s all we’re asking. 

Do the right thing with the power that this place has-we’re signed up to end torture through OPCAT. This is torture. We’re signed up to the rights of the child. This breaches that. 

So, give your party a conscience vote, because the shock horror that I’ve seen on the women in your parties, even One Nation is shocked.

Like, just do the right thing. Stop the torture.

David Shoebridge makes the point that if the Coalition and Government have reservations with the way the bill is written, not its intent — why don’t they move amendments in committee.

David Pocock adds his support to the bill, and opens his remarks with the following:

These bills are about our values as a country, and simply put, they say that we shouldn’t strip search children in Australia, and we shouldn’t shackle women giving birth in this country. 

Clearly, those two things are not radical propositions. 

In fact, I think if you spoke to most Australians about that, they would be shocked that those two things are happening in our country, and they would be urging the Parliament to ensure that they don’t, and here we have an opportunity to do exactly that.

Disappointingly, only Senators Thorpe, D. Pocock, Payman and the Greens Senators voted in favour of these bills.

Jacob Shteyman for AAP

Australia’s unemployment rate edged up to 4.7 per cent in September, above market expectations and the highest level in five years.

Employment decreased by 39,300, below expectations of a 20,000 increase, while the number of unemployed people climbed by 8,900, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported on Thursday.

The softer-than-expected result continues the gradual easing trend that the labour market has been in since the start of the year.

The jobless rate in August was also upwardly revised from 4.6 per cent to 4.7 per cent.

Unemployment is at the highest level since October 2021.

Former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay is the recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize and she has been doing the international media rounds about the prize, but also her work with the independent commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which found Israel had committed (and is committing) genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

She was asked about this on ABC radio RN Breakfast this morning:

Q: Last year, you finished your role as chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In this role, you handed down a report which found Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. While page three of this report says this is a legal finding in with the inquiry itself. It’s often described as having no legal authority. What weight should this finding hold, in your view?

Pilay:

Let me be honest, Sally. I too followed the school of thought that commissions should not cross the line and make legal findings because that’s the work of a court. But we were given the mandate by member states in the Human Rights Council not only to investigate, find the evidence, but to name the crimes and the individuals, the task, the challenge here was to see whether the the actions that the activities that had occurred, or which all appear in the factual findings, the statements of incitement to genocide or incitement to violence were made very openly by Israeli leaders. So we look at the context of all those factors, and we needed to see whether the evidence leads to the conclusion of reasonable inference that genocide was committed and was being committed. I too would have stopped short of it through habit.

I was a judge myself. I was, as you know, one of the three judges who delivered the world’s first judgment on genocide in Rwanda, the Rwanda Tribunal.

So I know that you have to be very careful, extra careful, in deciding whether there’s genocide. I look at the Genocide Convention.

It the focus, the very purpose is prevention.

Every state in the world is obliged to prevent genocide.

So, how would you prevent genocide if it hasn’t occurred as yet, and if people who gather information don’t even get up to mark on that?

I reasoned then that because we had a mandate and we could trace, connect these dots that we we can proceed to make findings.

We are not a court of law, but we are the highest authority at the moment until a court decides whether genocide has occurred, and that’s the application made by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

The other factor was, it struck me that people were asking me all the time. We can see what’s happening on on our television screens.

…So what’s different about this genocide is it’s actually it’s occurring in real time. So much of the evidence we gathered was seen by the public on television, and also there was a demand in in and an expectation for answers and for action. So we we we remain the authoritative body on this until a court of law draws its own conclusion and judgment.

Q: The Palestinian Authority says general elections will now be delayed. Countries, including Australia, recognize Palestinian statehood with the expectation that elections would be held soon. How do you see that situation and the need for elections in the Palestinian areas?

Pilay:

So, Sally, that’s really out of my area of expertise. I think it helped that countries like Australia recognised Palestine as a state, and they had a status, statehood for for limited purpose in the UN General Assembly. That was important. All of these factors actually helped us in South Africa to to have apartheid ended.

And the beautiful support we had from Australia, particularly in sports, and the fact that we had the ANC had observer status in the General Assembly.

I, as High Commissioner for Human Rights, when I visited Israel and Palestine, that was in 2012. I urged the Palestinian Authority, even though they’re not a state or not recognized as a state,

I urge them to begin to comply with the various treaties, like the Treaty on the Convention Against Torture. We were disturbed by the treatment of detainees by the authorities, the prisons, and soldiers, and they did do that. So, without actually signing those treaties, they they followed the directions in in making sure they extend rights to people.

The Trump administration has placed sanctions on the ICC for doing this work.

Greg Jericho

There’s a lot of people getting very angry about the government’s policy to limit the ability of discretionary trusts to reduce tax.

You can understand why. Discretionary trust are tax arrangements where you put (usually) members of a family in it and all of the income earned by that family then gets divvied up in a way the minimises the overall level of tax paid.

This is especially good when you have one person who makes most of the money in the family.

The AFR for example had an article titled “How to stop your kids and grandkids being taxed like CEOs” which, lulz, really is giving the game away.

One answer was:

“Use a family trust

The big benefit of a family trust is that the trustee can choose how to allocate income distributions, says Viola Private Wealth’s Nevill.

“The great flexibility of the family trust is its most attractive attribute,” Nevill says.

“So you’ve got the ability to distribute the earnings – whether that’s income, whether that’s realised capital gains – to whoever’s going to pay the least amount of tax on it.”

The reason is our progressive tax system means someone who earns say $400,000 pays more tax ($146,138) than 4 people who earn $100,000 ($20,788 x 4 = $83,152), and in a discretionary trust you can pretend that all 4 people in that trust earned $100,000 each.

Now discretionary trsuts are utterly useless for all of us who get income from wages and salaries. You can’t split up your wage, but if you get you income from investments (shares or property) then it is very handy.

The legislation is designed to stop this splitting up so that “that the net income of discretionary trusts is subject to a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent for income years commencing on or after 1 July 2028.”

Ok so how many of us have discretionary trusts? About around 850,000 people

The issue is that discretionary trusts have become more popular overtime than fixed trusts – the type of trusts set up for example to ensure a family member with a disability has a secure income

And these discretionary trusts contain stonks of money. In 2023-24 the total business income of discretionary trusts (not counting ones related to agriculture production, which are excluded from the changes) was $260.4bn.

And who uses these trusts? Well, the Treasury department estimates that the richest 10% account for around 63% of the income

Using the tax stats you can see for example that people who earn more than $1m a year in income make up around 0.17% of all taxpayers, they take in 5.1% of total taxable incomes, but get a whopping 19.2% of all the income that comes from trusts.

And unless you earn more than $1m a year, a majority of you don’t have a trust

Discretionary trusts are the tool of those with high incomes to minimise paying tax and you can understand why they are unhappy about that ending.

For those who don’t get the reference, it’s a meme from a scene in The Office, where a character is asked to choose between two different pictures, which are the same.

And that’s been the reaction of the senate this morning, after Mark Butler said he would re-introduce the same bill the senate rejected yesterday, back into parliament. James Paterson for the Coalition and David Shoebridge for the Greens have been on the same page – that this is the same bill as yesterday. So it’s a no for them. Which means it is a no to passing the senate, that pesky little chamber that ultimately decides the fate of legislation.

The digital duty of care bill is officially in the parliament. Wells says there will be a 12 month lead in time before any of the measures are put in place (once, and if, passed).

And she has again pushed back against it being about ‘controlling speech’.

It is not about controlling adults online; it is about getting illegal and seriously harmful material offline, and giving adults choice. Like when you buy a new appliance, the government sets minimum safety standards, but ultimately, what you choose to buy is up to you, as long as it’s legal and safe.”

Matt Grudnoff

The Government has introduced its important legislation on reforming trusts.

If you don’t understand how trusts work, don’t worry, you’re not alone. Very few people have anything to do with them. Only about 5% of people get any income from trusts.

But the people who do use them are overwhelmingly rich.

Associate Professor Sonali Walpola from the ANU pointed out, “Australians in the top quintile of wealth, where the average net worth is $3.267 million, own 94% of the value of financial assets held by private trusts.”

She went on to say trusts are mainly used by the wealthy to minimise tax. “Trusts in Australia create opportunities for unfair tax minimisation through income splitting and income streaming.”

It is important to distinguish between discretionary trusts and other forms of trust. It is discretionary trusts that are used for tax minimisation, and these are the trusts that the government is targeting.

But why is this important for everyday Australians?

It is these leakages that wealthy people can exploit to avoid paying their fair share of tax. It puts pressure on everyone else. Either by forcing them to pay more tax, or by reducing the quality and availability of government services.

It’s a good thing the government has decided to act and clamp down on these growing loopholes.

China’s new ambassador to Australia (he started in August) Liu Jinsong has appeared at an event in China for the China-Australia Business Council.

He was heard joking about catching the Murray’s to Canberra from Sydney airport (a true rite of passage) and how it was fine, but China’s fast rail would have completed the trip in next to no time.

Ahh yes – but who doesn’t need three plus hours crammed in a tin can while your fellow passengers take out the egg sandwiches they have been saving for just this occasion?

Alice Grundy

Thanks to anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, Sally Rooney’s books will no longer be available in England. 

When the advocacy group Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025, Rooney said she would donate the proceeds from her book sales to them. She has issued a statement saying:

“As a result, the fulfilment of contracts to publish my work in the UK could now constitute a serious criminal offence. After a process of consultation and deliberation, and with my full agreement, my publisher Faber has therefore determined that it can no longer supply my work within the UK.

“I have made every effort to be honest with the public about my beliefs and intentions, and I am wholly prepared to accept the consequences. I have no further comment at this time.”

Her publisher Faber has said that the legislation means they cannot pay Rooney her UK earnings and so have decided they can “no longer supply her works in the UK in any format”.

Readers in other territories, including Australia, can continue to buy her books. To find your local independent booksellers, click here. 

James Watson

Last night, Frank Bongiorno, the Donald Horne Professor of History and Public Ideas at the University of Canberra, delivered the inaugural Landers & Rogers lecture at the Australian Academy of Science’s Shine Dome.

The location – a Canberran architectural landmark distinct, affectionately nicknamed the “Martian Embassy” by locals for its hemispherical design – for a lecture on the importance of place and geography is Australia’s political history.

“Canberra bashing” is a long pastime among certain commentators (like Richard Carleton and Geoffrey Blainey), as well as parts of the public, who criticise the capital city for its elitism, alienation, and cultural barrenness.

It is not uncommon for visitors to the city to say it lacks “spirit” or “identity”, or that its citizens live in the “Canberra bubble”.

But as Bongiorno made clear last night, Canberra has its own unique culture that mixes political and social spaces, urban and rural geographies, and masculine and feminine norms (for example, Canberra led the nation in opening private members’ clubs to women, and it was a common critique in the mid-20th century that the city’s men were more “effeminate” than those in others).

It is a city with democracy built into its urban design – a place where a voter or journalist can run into a politician at the Fyshwick markets, Manuka’s Public Bar, or Civic’s Charcoal steak house, and engage in a (polite) discussion about current politics.

This access to politicians, of course, can create concerns about interested lobbying from industry, or about string-pulling by “faceless men” (as at the Kingston Hotel during the 1963 federal election).

But Canberra’s access, made possible by its compact geography and democratic spirit, creates just as many opportunities for transparency and accountability as it does for more nefarious practices. Bongiorno’s lecture was recorded and will soon be uploaded by Lander & Rogers and the University of Canberra’s Centre of Public Ideas.

David Richardson

The imposition of a 30% tax on trusts, the same as applies to companies, is expected to raise $4.33 billion in 2029-30, the first year of revenue. This estimate is a bit lower than the estimate in the Budget Papers of $4.47 billion, no doubt reflecting the carve outs the government has made for various interest groups. 

It is interesting to note that that Greens have announced that they will oppose the legislation. The ABC reports  “the Greens’ main concern is an exemption for money paid from trusts to charities, non-profits and other tax-exempt entities, including private schools.”

The explanatory memorandum says:

Where the beneficiary presently entitled to income of a trust is a registered charity or DGR [deductible gift recipient] and relevant conditions (discussed below) have been met, the corresponding share of net income of the trust is excluded from the minimum tax income.

This seems to be the sticking point.

While the Parliament debates what should and should not be covered by the new trust legislation we should not lose sight of the big picture. Yes the present forward estimate is lower by $0.14 billion. But in the interests of the other $4.33 billion we hope the differences between the Greens and the Government can be reconciled.

Lucinda Garbutt-Young for AAP

Sweeping private health insurance changes affecting pensioners have been resurrected in parliament, sparking fury from political rivals who previously booted the bill.

The proposal would wind back the rebates people over 65 receive on their private health cover from April next year, saving the government about $3 billion over four years. 

The plan would affect many pensioners as the rebate reduction would be calculated based on income in the same way it is for other Australians. 

The bill has been slammed by the coalition and the crossbench, whose members say Labor is using pensioners as a piggy bank for its own wasteful spending. 

They teamed up on Wednesday to discharge the government’s bill from the Senate notice paper, effectively booting it from parliament. 

But Labor vowed to reintroduce it, and has done so at the earliest time possible. 

Re-tabling the same bill on Thursday morning, Health Minister Mark Butler said it showed responsible budgeting, along with providing dignity and care for older Australians towards the end of their lives. 

“The government is committed to moving ahead with this bill,” he said. 

The unusual move has been met with a fiery response from across the political spectrum. 

Liberal Senator James Paterson warned ahead of the reintroduction it showed the government’s “contempt for the Senate”, which would be returned in kind.

“So it should be in this case, because this is a particularly cruel cut – a cut of $3 billion to older Australians who are taking out private health insurance, and in doing so, taking pressure off the public system,” he told News24. 

“These are people who don’t have a lot of spare cash, but value their health.”

Older Australians had “done the right thing” by paying their taxes but they were being punished because Labor couldn’t control its own spending, Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie told reporters on Thursday. 

“Wake up, do the hard yards up here instead of doing easy targets like our elderly,” she said. 

The coalition and Greens have indicated they may push the bill through if pensioners are protected, but both have made clear they will not budge without comprehensive carve-outs. 

“There is a pathway through on this legislation, but we insist on not taking about $1 billion from 1.2 million pensioners in the middle of a cost of living crisis,” Greens leader David Shoebridge told News24. 

“You carve them out, protect the pensioners, and we will pass this legislation in a heartbeat.”

The Australians caught in the crossfire were feeling scared by the volatility of the bill, National Seniors Australia chief executive Chris Grice said.

Almost a quarter of respondents to a survey conducted by the organisation said they would need to draw on savings to cover health insurance costs. 

Others would scrap their insurance and move onto the public system. 

“There is significant uncertainty about the impact of the cut on private and public hospitals and on the health of our older Australians,” Mr Grice said. 

Immediately after the bill was reintroduced, opposition member Dan Tehan condemned the “attack” on senior Australians. 

Mr Butler maintains those over 65 will pay about $250 per year more due to the changes, though it will be more for people with higher-level cover.

Angus Blackman

Treasurer Jim Chalmers outlines the big challenges facing Australia and the importance of changing the status quo – a situation that is clearly not working for many Australians.

In this special episode of Follow the Money, the Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP, Treasurer of Australia, addresses the loss of control many Australians feel right now, the rise of the far right in Australia, and the importance of meaningful reform.

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

Andrew Brown for AAP

The discovery of a video recording device in female shower facilities on a navy vessel isn’t a surprise and needs to be examined by an independent body, a senator says.

The device was found on the HMAS Leeuwin on Sunday while it was docked in Cairns in far north Queensland, leading to the government saying Australian Defence Force personnel deserve to be safe in their workplace.

An investigation has been launched by Defence into the incident, with it being referred to the Joint Military Police Unit.

Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie, who served in the army and raised the issue in the Senate, said Defence should not be left to investigate the incident in order to make sure it’s properly dealt with.

“This is a culture that, unfortunately, Defence has not been able to clean up, and it hasn’t even come close,” she told ABC TV on Thursday.

“The only way to fix this problem is to take the legal system outside of Defence’s hands.

“Their job is to fight in a war … and they don’t deal with this very well when it comes to the legal system.”

Senator Lambie said since the incident was made public, others had come forward over similar incidents that occurred over recent months.

“I should tell you that I’m surprised, but I’m not which is really unfortunate. It does bother me a lot, though, with what’s going on,” she said.

“The only way we’re going to be able to stop this is by taking it out of Defence’s hands and having an independent body that actually deals with this.”

Federal minister Anika Wells condemned the discovery of the recording device.

“I really feel for all of the people who are on that ship who are learning this and the people that may have been victims of this act,” she told ABC TV on Thursday.

“You deserve to be safe in your workplace, and the rise of tech-facilitated abuse, particularly upon women, is horrific.”

In a statement, Defence said it was working with civilian authorities as part of its investigation.

“Defence takes this incident extremely seriously and does not tolerate unacceptable behaviour in any form,” the statement said.

“The welfare of individuals remains Defence’s priority, and support is ongoing.”

Anglicare Australia wants the government to abolish Youth Allowance as a lower-rate payment and “bring young people onto the same working-age payments as other adults”.

They have put together a new report to coincide with Anti-Poverty Week and found that:

– A young person living at home with their parents has just $34 left each week after paying for food and transport, assuming they pay no rent and have their food costs halved.

– A young person in shared accommodation falls behind by $52 a week after paying for rent, food and transport, with rent set at just $178 a week.

– A young person living alone would fall behind by a staggering $382 a week.

From the release:

These figures show that Youth Allowance is setting young people up to fail,” said Anglicare Victoria CEO and report spokesperson Paul McDonald.

Young people pay the same prices at the supermarket, the same prices for transport, and the same rents as everybody else. But our income support system expects them to survive on less.

Even in our most generous scenario, where a young person lives rent-free with their parents, they have just $34 left after food and transport. That’s barely enough to cover a phone bill, let alone healthcare, clothing, study costs or saving to move out. For young people who can’t live at home, the situation is dire. Even with a cheap room in a share house, Youth Allowance falls short of the basics.

Of course, young people aren’t literally spending money they don’t have each week. Instead, they are likely to be skipping meals, delaying medical care, or taking on debt. Others are forced to rely on family to cover the difference – and that’s not always possible for those who grow up in foster care and have to fend for themselves.

We are calling for Youth Allowance to be abolished as a separate, lower payment. Young people over eighteen living independently should be on the same working-age payment as everyone else.

But we can’t stop there. JobSeeker and other working-age payments are themselves well below the poverty line. Moving young people from one poverty payment to another isn’t enough. We need to raise the rate for everyone.

Our social security system should help young people study, find work and build an independent life. Instead, it is holding them back before they’ve even had a chance to get started.

Young people don’t have lower living costs just because they’re young. It’s time to end the lower payment rates that are keeping them in poverty.”

Alice Grundy

There will be lots more on trusts today. It’s worth noting some Australia Institute research from earlier in the year that calculated around one quarter of Australia’s total economy was run through a trust in the financial year 2022-3 was run through trusts. That includes $489.4 billion in business income and $111.4 in incomes such as rent, dividends and interest. 

And just a reminder, the number of trusts have risen significantly since 1996. 

Anna Chang

In Parliament when you have the numbers, you can do anything — and that’s exactly what we saw in the Senate last night.

A motion introduced by Senators Jacqui Lambie and Anne Ruston, which gained enough support between the Coalition, Greens, and crossbench, successfully discharged the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 from the Senate Notice Paper.

On facebook, Monique Ryan, one of the leading voices in the House against this bill, wrote:

“That feeling when you knock off the government’s pensioner cash grab 🥳

“The government has had a shocker with this Bill, as they’ve refused to reveal the full extent of its unfair impacts. But this is such a big win for older Australians, who will retain the support they’ve invested in for decades, and keep the pressure off our overstretched public hospitals.”

Credit: Dr Monique Ryan facebook

According to Monique Ryan, this is only the tenth government bill in the past decade to have been discharged from the Senate.

A flurry of press releases were issued, with all parties and MPs part of the vote seeking their share of the credit.

As one of the co-sponsors of the motion, Senator Jacqui Lambie said:

“You’d be hard pressed to find a public hospital in this country that isn’t already at absolute capacity. This bill would have made it so much worse.

“Older Australians are already paying through the nose for private health insurance and many would have been forced to choose between putting food on the table and looking after their health. It’s unbelievable that anyone should have to make that choice in modern day Australia. 

“These were not going to be small increases. Older Australians could have been paying hundreds of extra dollars a year, and the worst part? Thanks to Monique Ryan MP’s costing request, we know the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that pensioners would account for around $1.5 billion of the projected $3 billion in savings. You do not balance the budgets on pensioners.  

“With our public hospital systems already under the pump, the Government should be doing everything in its power to alleviate it. Instead, they were going to make it worse.

“Making private health insurance harder to afford, will only mean that more Australians will have to rely on our public system. So, if you’re going to do it, you better make sure that our public health systems can handle it. 

“Older Australians can today breathe a sigh of relief knowing this bill won’t be seeing the light of day any time soon.”

The Liberal Party were also quick to send an email to supporters from Angus Taylor:

I wanted to let you know some good news.

Our Liberal and National team just secured a victory in the Senate to stop Labor’s attack on private health insurance

The Labor Government wanted to strip back the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over.

More than three million older Australians would have faced premium rises of up to $807 per year for singles or up to $1,614 per year for a couple.

Many of these are pensioners who have maintained private health cover their entire working lives.

We opposed these changes. We believe Australians who have taken responsibility for their own health care should not face higher costs as a result.

Minister Mark Butler has already vowed to reintroduce the same legislation to the Senate. 

But unless he can stump up something enticing enough to convince the Greens to come back and play ball with the loneliest kids in school, it’ll be interesting to see how the Government gets this one through the Senate in the dying light of this parliamentary year.

Lidia Thorpe has also been trying to ban the shackling of women during birth. It is supposed to be a last resort, but it happens more frequently in Australia than people realise. Again, the commonwealth says it is an issue for the state and territories, but Thorpe said the federal government could at least have minimum standards put in place and they are not doing it.

Thorpe:

We have medical professionals in these hospitals where these women are being handcuffed, legs and arms, trying to push out a baby, and those medical professionals are arguing with these security guards or prison guards to please remove the shackles so that they can do their job and allow this this woman to push out this baby. So again, we need those minimum standards, and again, the horrific stories: young woman only this year in Queensland was shackled, and that caused harm to her. That caused harm to the baby. She wasn’t allowed to hold her baby after that birth. So there’s arguments in the delivery suite between these prison guards and the medical professionals to to allow safe delivery. This is harm to a baby. What has this baby done?

So it can we we can rule that out. They’ve done that around the world, but unfortunately, in this country, we still use this barbaric practice, which causes immense harm and and a lot of deaths of babies and mums.

The interview continued:

Q: Do you have any support for this inquiry in in the parliament? How do you see the path ahead?

Lidia Thorpe:

Oh, look. Yesterday was just handballing from the Liberal Party coalition to Labor, and all the excuses why this is a state and territory responsibility. So there’s not the political will from the Labor government. If there was, we could stop these pedophiles accessing our children, and we could stop the many deaths in out-of-home care. You know, stories like a four-year-old carrying a three-month-old baby. They were removed from their parents that night. The four-year-old was allowed to walk around with this baby, and that baby’s no longer with us. And that four-year-old, well, he has to live with that for the rest of his life.

So there’s absolute horrific, horrific stories, and no one’s doing anything about it, they say it’s not a federal responsibility. Yet they have a federal commissioner for children, so you know you can’t have it both ways.

I’m not sure what the federal commissioner is doing about these situations. It’s okay to go to the Pilbara and deal with you know state by state issues, but it’s not addressing the root cause, which we can do at the federal level with minimum standards.

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe wants an inquiry into child protection systems, including child removal. She says the system is in crisis and children are being exploited and harmed.

She told ABC radio RN Breakfast:

This this inquiry is for all children, not just Aboriginal children. We are in a crisis in this country, and the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to set minimum standards in this country to ensure that all children are safe in state care. Now we have to remember government have responsibility for these children. Yet we are seeing many children dying in these state systems. We’re also seeing pedophiles rocking up to residential care, sending Ubers, and using those young people in those residential cares for sexual exploitation.

So states and territories are doing nothing about it, and I believe that using constitutional power to have those minimum standards will look at ways that we can bring those states and territories into line and ensure that all children are safe in out-of-home care and in residential care.

Q: What do you think of the very basics of this? It’s called the child protection system, but we know that kids in care often are at at incredible risk of all the the risks that you were just outlining.

Thorpe:

Look, I just hear so many horrific stories from families and communities. I went to Mildura where I learnt that a pedophile was living opposite a residential care, and he interfered with six young boys, and those six young boys have had no supports, no follow up. This man went to jail.

He filmed these boys, and it was just easy access. So it’s it’s an absolute crisis, and the government does have the power to make change, bring the states and territories into line. They’ll say that it’s a state and territory problem, but we we do have the power at the federal level to pull them into line, and and it’s about political will, really. It’s about policy. It’s not about whether the government can do it or not.

Over on ABC radio RN Breakfast, independent senator Lidia Thorpe has been asked about her home state of Victoria and particularly Melbourne, particularly for Indigenous people.

Oh, it’s it’s not the place I grew up in.

I’ve never seen Melbourne and Victoria become so racist, and the stories again from my mob around the state are just horrific in terms of racism towards children, towards our people every single day. So I think we’re going down a very dangerous path, and I think Labor are in real trouble, and I think Treaty is in real trouble.

Treaty is about bringing people together to be able to move forward and agree on that way forward. So I think we’re in trouble, and we’ve got to stand up against racism as a country as a whole, because it harms, it kills, and you know everybody has a responsibility here.

What One Nation are promising people are false. It’s false promises, and if we end up with a Liberal Coalition with One Nation, then we’re going to see the battlers and people of colour struggle even more than they are now.

AAP

Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program, also said the anti-immigration policies being touted by both major parties, as well as One Nation, would weaken Australia’s position on the global stage.

“Retreating from immigration will make us materially weaker,” he told a studio audience at the ABC in Sydney on Wednesday evening.

“We should recommit to multicultural immigration, not because diversity is strength … but because scale is strength.”

Mr Roggeveen’s talk was the first of four lectures from experts on Australia’s engagement with Asia in the 21st century, as part of ABC Radio National’s Boyer Lectures series.

He said the rise of China had made the US’s position in Asia “unsustainably weak,” meaning Australia could no longer rely on the United States to defend it in the region.

“America won’t risk its own troops in a fight against a nuclear-armed opponent because its vital interests won’t be at stake,” Mr Roggeveen said.

“To put it bluntly, America won’t have enough skin in the game.”

The AUKUS agreement with the US and UK, Mr Roggeveen said, was the US exploiting Australia’s “insatiable desire to win the approval of Americans”.

“Australia should be sceptical of both China and America, as one rises and the other declines,” he added.

“And from this dual skepticism flows an obvious conclusion: we must do more to look after ourselves.”

He added that the US’s decline and China’s rise was not because of current President Donald Trump, but that the shift in power would continue beyond his time in the White House.

“No previous US president could have prevented China’s ascent, and no future US president is going to risk their nation’s safety and prosperity by entering a competition with China that could lead to war,” Mr Roggeveen said.

He recommended Australia strengthen ties with Indonesia, warning that the dangers of getting the relationship wrong were immense.

“Indonesia is Southeast Asia’s leader, and soon its economy will surpass ours,” he said.

“If we get this relationship right, Indonesia offers a natural barrier against threats from third countries.”

Finally, Mr Roggeveen offered a scathing report of the current state of Australian democracy, describing the country’s major parties as “weak” and “fragile”.

“Right now, the boldness Australia needs has no political home,” he said.

His comments echoed those made recently by former prime minister Paul Keating, who has long been a critic of the AUKUS program and anti-immigration policies.

“In these arrangements with the Americans …and the British, we’ve lost sovereignty,” Mr Keating said at a Sydney Writers’ Festival event last month.

Tasmanian Liberal senator Jonathan Duniam (he styles himself as Jonno) delivered his final speech in the senate yesterday. Amongst the usual thank yous and naming of friends (a list on which he included Katy Gallagher, Penny Wong and Sarah Hanson-Young) was his advice to his party.

Everyone likes free stuff, so I thought I’d throw in some free advice today. Our adversarial system of politics is a breeding ground for division, where points of difference and argument are increasingly the only way to cut through. That’s necessary and healthy in a contest of ideas, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of resolving issues in the national interest. It’s incumbent upon all of us to find ways to resolve issues that confront Australia.

We will and we should always have our counterarguments. But Australians are looking for mature debate, where Australia’s best
interests come first.

Former US prosecutor Roy Cohn from the McCarthy, reds-under-the-bed era, is credited with coming up with the ‘three nevers’ rule: never apologise, never admit, and never back down. With trust in politics at a low ebb, his advice could not be a bigger bum steer.

There is nothing wrong with admitting when we get something wrong. And, in fact, I think it should be applauded. I note, though, I say this from opposition, where of course it’s an art form to seize on admissions of failure and defeat. But I believe it is in the country’s interest to admit when things don’t work and change course if needed.

As part of this free advice, it wouldn’t be complete without at least one Bible reference from me. Jesus said in the Parable of the Faithful Servant in Luke 12, ‘To whom much is given, much is expected.’ To all of us in this place, much has been given, without exception.

Therefore, from all of us much is expected by our community and by our country. And I hope every day those who go on to occupy this place remember this and live it out in whatever form they can.

As I conclude, I must acknowledge that the challenge for my party is real, and no-one can deny that. But this challenge is not insurmountable. I come from a proud party with strong foundations. The Liberal heritage, the legacy and the record are all things to be proud of. Having just handed down our methodically crafted and strong immigration policy, I’ve been reflecting on the legacy of our party when it comes to strong borders. I’ve been reflecting on how we’ve been the only party in the past to end the people-smuggling trade and fix a broken migration system. I’ve been reflecting on how my party remains the party of fiscal prudence and strong economic management.

One doesn’t have to cast their mind back too far to recall the debt the Howard government was left with, which they paid off and turned into the Future Fund money set aside for the advancement of our country.

We have a history, and we should be proud of it. My party can give Australians what they need, not by pretending to be someone else or seeking to appease certain actors but by returning to our roots—by backing in with conviction our values framework the We Believe statement offers and explaining why it is better than the alternative. We should never wave the white flag. We should always put forward our plan and make the case for people to vote for
us.

My party has been around for decades. It isn’t populist. It isn’t flash in the pan. It is here to stay. And, sure, we may have spent some time in the wilderness, but we have our bearings now, and I know we will be able to get back over there into government

Hello and welcome back to the last sitting day for this session and also the last joint sitting day for some time (we have a house only week and then a senate only week ahead of us, before the last joint sitting of the year)

Anika Wells will introduce the Digital Duty of Care legislation and jump straight back into negotiations with the Greens, with the Coalition a no. Not enough attention is put on how often the Coalition deals itself out of negotiations – a habit which started under Dutton, following the Tony Abbott playbook. They’ll still get media attention though, with their utterances on the bill they don’t want to negotiate on given a primacy. The Greens will be blamed for any hold up – just look at the response to the private health subsidy changes not going ahead – the Coalition voted no there too, but the government is blaming the Greens ‘new leadership’ and ‘a sudden rush of blood to the head’ which, I’m sorry – I didn’t know it was any non-government’s party’s job to just pass legislation the government wanted? And there were two parties there. The Coalition might get the question time heat, but the Greens get the government’s public and media blame. Just an observation.

Wells has taken out the minister’s role in deciding what is harmful or not from the legislation, in a bid to calm down critics who thought it was ‘political censorship’. Public interest journalists will get a carve out as well, which is going to be a fun exercise in determining who is and isn’t a journalist in the age of new journalism.

It’s unlikely any of this will be passed by the end of the year though. There is a lot of politics to be played and not enough sittings left to play it.

Meanwhile Mark Butler will be re-introducing the aft-forementioned private health subsidy changes bill after the senate said no. As we said, he is blaming the Greens, which is a pretty big dis-service to the Coalition who have worked very hard in making sure everyone knew they were a no on this. Butler says the change is necessary, but really, the bigger necessity would be to rework the entire private health subsidy, which was just established by John Howard because he really, really didn’t like Medicare, and re-invest those billions of dollars spent subsidising private health into public health. One can dream.

We will cover all of that off and more as the day unfolds. It will be a three coffee morning I am thinking. Please let me know how you are going.

Ready? Let’s do this.