The Point Live: Gambling reform deal edges closer, government pushes back against house price criticism, Bragg's bizarre communist rant.

Thanks for joining us today.

Amy’s still on the road, so tomorrow will be a team effort just like today.

See you then.

To close out Senate Question Time, Liberal Deputy Leader Jane Hume is criticising the government over productivity growth,

“The RBA has warned repeatedly that low or negative productivity growth will force it to raise interest rates. Does increasing taxes on individuals, on businesses, and on construction increase productivity or lower productivity?”

While Finance Minister Katy Gallagher’s response was initially dry, that “Treasury’s advice is the decisions in this budget support the productivity assumptions outlined”, Gallagher also took the chance to reflect on Andrew Bragg’s appearance at the press club this morning.

“Senator Hume wasn’t specific about whose taxes, because Senator (Andrew) Bragg on Bragg’s big day out, that’s what we’re calling it over here. Braggy’s big day out with the microphone and everyone else, oh God, what’s he going to say?”

“we’re hoping that Senator Bragg gets another spot next week at the Press Club. We’d all come down to have a listen.”

Deputy Liberal leader Ted O’Brien repeats his earlier question about melons.

The PM gives it the respect it deserves.

One last Dixer and we’ll be put out of our misery.

Sophie Scamps, Independent Member for Mackellar:

Today, this week is Dentists on the Hill week. Dental decay remains the most common preventable chronic disease in Australian children. Roughly one in three children has tooth decay by school entry, and one in four is living with untreated decay.

After the UK implemented a sugar-sweetened beverage levy 10 years ago, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of children requiring tooth extractions due to decay. When will the government put the health of Australian children first and implement a sugar-sweetened beverage reformulation levy?

The answer is interrupted by Dan Tehan bleating that it was the Liberals’ turn to ask a question.

Mark Butler, Health Minister:

There are no plans to introduce a tax, if you like, on sweetened beverages of the type that the UK and some other countries have done.

But I do want to indicate a couple of other things that we’re doing here. One of the challenges for parents, as I think we all know is understanding what is in the food that is on the shelves of the supermarkets. Although there are different views about a tax in the community, there is overwhelming support for better front of packet labeling.

There’s also, frankly, the question of formulation of foods, including sweetened beverages, and one way of changing that is through a tax. And we are conscious of the fact, for example, that a can of Fanta in Australia might have more than six teaspoons of sugar in it. It now has less than four teaspoons of sugar in the UK.

I would like to see a reformulation of a range of products that have high levels of sugar in them that particularly children consume. The assistant minister will be meeting again with industry later this month to put together a work plan to work through some of that. And I think industry, frankly, needs to consider the question of why voluntarily they could not reduce the sugar content of some of these sweetened beverages down to the level you do see in other countries without the imposition of a tax.

Andrew Wilkie, Independent MP for Clark:

Prime Minister, I’ve referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission my concern that individuals in the federal government, when formulating gambling policy, have been improperly influenced by individuals in the private sector. Clearly, donations, gifts, hospitality, and personal relations have resulted in a gambling policy diametrically opposed to research, public opinion, and the public interest. Do you agree this constitutes corruption? Do you understand how the donations, etc. have compromised your government and its judgment?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

To question people’s motives is, I think, undermining the civil debate that is required on these issues will continue to promote the legislation is before the Parliament today hasn’t been influenced from certainly my position has not been influenced by in the way that is suggested. I’m sure of all of the members on this side, and I don’t suggest members on any side of this debate have been influenced other than by how do we deal with an issue that is complex, it isn’t simple.

So we will have a debate on our legislation. Constructive discussions are continuing. I expect there will be amendments to the legislation that I hope receive the support of the entire Parliament.

Nationals MP Alison Penfold asked the Prime Minister: “By bringing 1.5 million migrants into Australia over the past four years, Labor’s record on migration has killed the Australian dream of home ownership. How many more migrants does the Prime Minister intend to bring into Australia, before his government builds enough homes to house them?”

The COVID pandemic was the biggest disruption to population growth since federation. After the borders closed population growth fell off a cliff, even going negative for half of 2020. This is because government COVID support was not available for visa holders. They couldn’t work and they couldn’t get support, so they left the country. Classes also went online and international students no longer had to be in Australia to learn. Most of them left as well.

But after the borders reopened, they came back. This is the period that people dishonestly cherry pick figures from. The figure below shows the annual population growth rate. You can see it crashes during the pandemic and rebounds after before, in the last year, resettling at the pre-COVID rate.

As for not building enough houses to keep up with population growth. Over the last 10 years the population has increased by 16% and the number of homes has increased by 19%. Homes are increasing faster than the population.

Now that the government’s tax changes in the budget are pushing out investors, we’re actually seeing housing becoming more affordable.

Andrew Wallace, LNP Member for Fisher, spoke on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 before the House today.

Here’s part of his speech:

“We made a decision decades ago not to allow smoking ads. What’s the difference? What’s the difference? The difference is this is a strong, powerful, well-heeled lobby group. We need to stand up.

This is an opportunity for Australians. This is an opportunity for us as parliamentarians – this is why we are here. If not for this, for what?

This is why our people, our constituents, sent us here – to stand up for them in this place. If not now, when? If not on this, on what?

I read a recent poll that said somewhere around 70% – it may have been even higher – 70-80% of Australians want to see significant reform in relation to gambling.”

And he is absolutely right about that last point.

Polling conducted by the Australia Institute in June found that four in five (79%) Australians support a total ban on gambling advertisements including on TV, radio and online, and that, despite this high level of support for a total ban.  

Australians lose $666 million per week to gambling. That is $34.8 billion per year.

So, it’s great to see that Wallace MP had “the political gumption” (his own words) to stand up for his constituents today.

Jo Briskey, Member for Maribyrnong:

What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to address the privacy implications of smart glasses?

Michelle Rowland, Attorney-General:

Last week, I asked the Privacy Commissioner to prioritise consideration of the privacy implications associated with this technology.

The potential for these devices to be used to covertly record, track, stalk, and harass requires prompt and careful consideration. Their discrete design can make it difficult for people to know when they are being filmed, increasing the risk of unwanted surveillance and undermining Australians’ ability to control how their personal information and images are collected, the increasing availability of this technology could have significant implications, particularly for women and children, who may be disproportionately exposed to inappropriate recording, harassment, intimidation, or other harmful conduct.

Research from the University of Sydney found many women are being filmed in gyms, workplaces, shops, and university campuses, despite expressing discomfort or refusing consent. Analysis of hundreds of Instagram videos captured using these devices found a staggering 60% of point-of-view content contained behavior classified as potential harassment.

The government will continue to progress work on a second tranche of legislative reforms to ensure our privacy laws are fit for the digital age.

Australians rightly expect their privacy to be respected, and that is exactly what this government is focused on delivering.

Angie Bell, Member for Moncrieff:

Does the Prime Minister accept that his toxic taxes will make it harder for young Australians to save for their deposit?

Jim Chalmers, Treasurer:

For too long now, the way that our housing market has interacted with our tax system is locked out too many people, particularly young people, from the from the great Australian dream of owning their own home.

Decided not to neglect that, or deny that, or delay that, and consign another generation of Australians to a broken status quo. We have chosen collectively to do something about it, and we’re proud of that.

Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, Kevin Hogan asked the Prime Minister:

Yesterday, the Prime Minister accused millions of Australians who have used capital gains tax and negative gearing to get ahead of taking and I quote “taxpayer funded landlord welfare.” The prime minister, the Treasurer and the minister of housing have all personally used capital gains tax and negative gearing on their investment properties. Why is the Prime Minister attacking millions of aspirational Australians for trying to get ahead, just like he did?

The problem is Albanese didn’t say that, he quoted someone else saying that – the Barefoot Investor, Scott Pape.

From yesterday’s Hansard we have

I note that Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor—someone who is well-known, who’s not always part of a cheer squad for the government—wrote in the Herald Sun:

“Average house prices have increased by more than 400 per cent since 2000, partly on the back of taxpayer-funded landlord welfare. They’ve grown much faster than workers wages. Which is why we’re in this pickle.” …

So Albanese dismisses the question “I was quoting Scott Pape, the Bearfoot Investor, in the Herald Sun. If the member wants to attack the Herald Sun, for – for its coverage of housing issues, then that is a matter for him. “

You will have read this morning on the live blog that new research from Fergus Green finds:

“the Federal Parliament should disallow a controversial new method for making carbon credits.”

That’s in relation to the NSW Minns Government’s proposal to sell carbon credits in return for creating the Great Koala National Park.

But what does it mean to “disallow” a law and what does it have to do with national parks?

I go into the details in a new article on The Point, but in short:

Government ministers are empowered to make some new laws without going through Parliament. This is called “delegated legislation”, because the Parliament has delegated its power to make laws to the government of the day.

A majority of senators can vote to overturn (“disallow”) a new piece of delegated legislation.

In this case, the new laws from the Albanese Government go against the core principle of “additionality”, that a project should only get carbon credits if it does something extra for the climate. The Great Koala National Park has been promised for 11 years, with no mention of it being conditional on “carbon credits” until last year.

The vote on whether to disallow the new law is scheduled for this Tuesday 18 August. It was introduced by the Liberal–National Opposition and the Greens will be the casting vote. As Leanne argues,

“while the Greens and Nationals clearly disagree on some goals, if they both believe the new [delegated legislation] is flawed then they should obviously both vote against it.”

The ABC is reporting on private health insurers seeking access to patients’ medical records. This story is being framed as a fight about privacy, legality and insurer behaviour.

But it exposes a deeper problem in Australia’s private health system – that those paying for care and those providing it have very different financial incentives.

For an insurer, every hospital admission, procedure and treatment is a cost. All else being equal, profits are higher when fewer benefits are paid. For private hospitals, specialists and other providers, the incentives run the other way. More activity generally means more revenue – and evidence suggests that the profit motive can trump best practice.

That tension is built into the system.

And the patient sits in the middle – the problem is that they have little way of knowing whether a proposed test, procedure or course of treatment is necessary, excessive, or inadequate. Healthcare is uniquely difficult to shop for because of the large information gap. The seller generally knows far more than the buyer – and the consequences of getting the decision wrong can be serious and irreversible.

This is why the dispute over medical records should prompt a broader policy discussion.

One response could be much better information. Australia measures enormous amounts of healthcare activity but remarkably little about whether treatment actually makes patients better. Systematic collection and publication of outcomes — including patient-reported outcomes or PROMs — would make it easier to identify care that delivers value, and care that simply generates activity.

A more fundamental alternative is a single payer system – where a single national insurer purchases care from public and private providers, but its statutory objective need not be minimising payouts or maximising profits. Rather, it can purchase an evidence-based level of care according to clinical need.

Think Medicare but with a broader remit and more measurement of the quality and safety of care.

Either way, markets will not resolve these competing incentives by themselves. We want the right health care to the right person at the right time. Rather than relying on financial incentives to hopefully strike right balance, we could develop tighter rules, better information systems, and balanced funding arrangements to make that happen.

A NSW Parliamentary inquiry into modern slavery risks faced by temporary migrants has recommended that people in Australia as part of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme be given the right to more easily change employers.

The PALM scheme allows people from nine Pacific Island nations and Timor-Leste to work in Australia on a temporary basis in low and semi-skilled jobs like fruit picking and meat processing. Their visa, and thus their right to be in Australia, depends on the sponsorship of a single “approved” employer. In many cases, PALM visa holders also rent accommodation from their employer, who is allowed to deduct the costs of things like accommodation, transportation and visa fees directly from a worker’s paycheque.

The inquiry found that dependence on a single employer “creates clear ‘exploitable power differentials’ between employer and employee that disincentivise migrant workers from reporting abuse and exploitation.”

Although PALM visa holders can technically move between approved employers, they need the permission of their employer to initiate the process.

Recent polling from the Australia Institute shows that the majority of Australians would support the rights of PALM visa holders to change employer if they are not being treated fairly.

Specifically, the poll found that:

• Almost seven in ten (68%) Australians either support or strongly support PALM visa holders having the right to change employer without permission if they are paid less money than they are owed.
• Nearly four in five Australians (78%) either support or strongly support PALM visa holders having the right to change employer if they are not provided with enough working hours to earn a reasonable income.
• Four in five (81%) Australians either support or strongly support PALM visa holders having the right to change employer when there is a problem with the accommodation provided to them by their employer.
• Two in three Australians (66%) support or strongly support PALM visa holders having access to Medicare while they are working in Australia.

The inquiry has made a significant recommendation, but the committee makes it clear that only the Commonwealth has the power to ensure PALM-scheme workers are protected.

In another case of the podcast that just won’t die, Liberal Senator Anne Ruston has brought the Senate back to Melon-Gate,

Minister [Gallagher], when the Prime Minister gestured towards his own chest to describe a female Prime Minister’s body during a crude exchange comparing her to Pamela Anderson, does the Prime Minister’s refusal to accept responsibility for that conduct confirm to Australians that the Prime Minister will say one thing before an election and something else afterwards?

In response, Gallagher touts the fact that the majority of Labor’s caucus and caucus are women and says that she’s proud to work with “a leader that always prioritises addressing gender inequality and unfairness for women when he sees it, and always respects women in his, both in the decisions he takes and in the engagements he has.”

This also marks the end of best-behaviour for the Senate, it seems respect for Timor-Leste could only keep heckling away for so long.

For years, Facebook took money from advertisers running scam ads using photographs of mining magnate Andrew Forrest. He had nothing to do with the scams, and repeatedly asked Facebook to put a stop them – escalating to suing Facebook in California for misappropriation and breach of duty.

The scammers used real photographs, but to make false claims. The danger has only greater, and the scams more convincing, with the rise of deepfake technology which can create realistic photograph-like images of things that never happened.

The ABC reports today that Forrest has had a win in his court case against Facebook: a US Federal Court rules that Meta “spoliated” (withheld or destroyed) evidence, which opens them to fees and costs and means that the jury may assume the missing evidence was unfavourable to Facebook’s case.

The tech giants have too often treated the Internet as a wild west. But for the last five years, Australia has been at the pointy end of tech regulation – and, as I wrote in The Point, the world is watching what we do.

It’s a relatively calm and slow start to Question Time, perhaps the delegation of MPs from Timor-Leste watching on from the sidelines has put Senators on their best behaviour (for now).

The first question is from Liberal Senator Dean Smith, who asks whether the Government’s recent changes to tax on trusts will apply to donations to charities and religious groups.

Penny Wong, on behalf of the Prime Minister, says that these sorts of implementation details are subject to consultation and that the government is working through that process. It’s back and forth on similar points for the supplementary questions.

Nicolette Boele, Independent Member for Bradfield:

Australia’s species extinction crisis is due to habitat destruction, invasive species, and runaway climate change, and now one in five Australian bird and mammal species are at high risk from H5 bird flu, including seabirds, black swans, and seals. Conservation scientists are calling for $200 million over two years to build that resilience of these critical species. Will the government commit that funding to give our wildlife populations the best chance of recovery?

Julie Collins, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry:

We have invested early in the $113 million investment in preparedness for the bird flu. Of that 113 million, 47 million dollars has specifically gone to improving habitat and improving biosecurity for captive-held threatened species, native species, with a focus obviously on birds and the mammals that will be impacted by the H5 bird flu.

The Minister for the Environment, the Environment Department, also has another program which is $99 million for saving native species, which is also about improving the habitat of threatened species, since the incursion of the H5 bird flu, we’ve also unlocked an almost 25 million dollars. I think it’s 24.8 million dollars now with the states and territories in terms of the response on the ground in relation to the H5 bird flu, and that includes the preparedness that is happening on the ground by the states and territories.

Ted O’Brien, Deputy Opposition Leader:

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that neither his office nor his department leaked official, and private correspondence from the government of Japan, and what steps has he taken to satisfy himself that this is the case?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:’

We take our relationship seriously, including our obligations for engagement, including with Japan, I note that in a political stunt from the opposition, they have they have referred matters to the AFP. The AFP is, of course, completely independent of the government, and they’ll undertake their work, and I’m confident about that.

Angus Taylor, Opposition Leader:

Why won’t the Prime Minister stop treating us like fools, man up and say sorry to the Prime Minister of Japan?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

My office and my team have spent four years carefully rebuilding our relationships in the world. We take our relationships seriously, including our regular engagement with Japan, and that is why we will always put the national interest first, and we continue to do so. The Prime Minister of Japan is a good friend of Australia. Prime Minister Takeichi is the third Japanese Prime Minister I have had dealings with. All of them have been constructive. She was a welcome guest here, as was one of her predecessors, Prime Minister Kishida. I have had the privilege of visiting Japan on three occasions, and our relationship has never been more strategically aligned.

Hard-right SA Liberal Senator Alex Antic used a 2-minute statement to complain about the census, and specifically, new questions on gender and sexuality.

“Every five years the Australian government demands, I might say under threat of daily fines, that you hand over your intimate details of your life, like who you live with, what you earn, your beliefs, and now, of course, questions about your identity and sexual orientation.”

On the new gender and sexuality questions, Antic said that “Australians deserve the freedom to keep their personal lives private”.

The good news for Antic is that Australians already have that freedom – the new questions were, after all, entirely optional. On Census night yesterday, anyone who didn’t want to put down their sexuality and gender were perfectly free to leave the boxes empty.

While the new questions aren’t perfect, they represent a long-overdue addition to make sure Queer Australians are properly counted in the country’s most important data collection.

Speaking at the launch of new research into the epic failure of Australian environmental policy, Independent MP for Mackellar Sophie Scamps has savaged the plan to sell carbon credits to pay for the Great Koala National Park in NSW.

We’ve got to call it for what it is. The Great Koala National Park being used for carbon offsets has got to be one of the biggest greenwashing hoaxes that we’ve had in Australia.

The Great Koala National Park has always been promised since 2015, and we need to do it because we have threatened species living in there, and we want to protect them.

We want to protect our koalas, so a carbon credit is supposed to be something that is of additional benefit, that is going to be additional to what is already happening. But we know that the Great Koala Park has already been promised, so there will be no additional benefit from buying these carbon credits.

So it’s basically a pay to pollute. It gives permission to the polluters to continue to pollute and doesn’t add anything extra.

No idea what the heck Andrew Bragg was doing before his National Press Club speech, but it would seem like he’d been binge watching Joe McCarthy hearings.

I haven’t heard this many mentions of communism since my first year politics tutorial at Flinders Uni in 1990. And Bragg really did nothing other than sound like a uni politician. It got embarrassing. By the end he was being mocked for how often he said it.

Let’s have a run though of all the mentions

On the Liberal Party:

We’re not Communists.

On removing the 50% discount on investments made on housing by self-managed super funds:

The Communist taxes are crazy.

On why household spending is weak:

It feels like we’re living in a Communist state.

Regulating social media and tech companies:

As I said, I’m not a Communist

On whether Angus Taylor will be leader at the end of the year:

Our priority is to beat the Communists

On a target for skilled migration:

It sounds like Communism to me

On the South Australian Royal Commission into AI:

Again, sounds very Communist

It’s a very Republican Party tactic. But Bragg just sounds like a 4 year old who has discovered a new word and wants to show off that he knows it.

Andrew Bragg at the National Press Club is asked if Angus Taylor will remains as leader until the end of the year, or do the polls need to improve.

This is his answer

That’s really a question for commentators to get into. I’m obviously working very hard on the policy stuff. With Angus, with our team. We think that putting out more policy is the way to go and everything else is basically commentary.

When he is then asked that it is actually up to him and the party room he replies:

We’re all working together. We… Our priority is to beat the Communists, OK? That’s our priority.

We’re all working together to outline a very clear policy suite that can be supported. We have other parties which I’ve referred to as, you know, fragmented elements of our political system that we need to beat and the only way to do that is by developing a very ambitious policy suite. We’re not going to achieve that if we end up talking about ourselves all the time.

Cripes.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Actually not an endorsement at all.

Bragg instead seems more focused on seeing commies in the Albanese government (my god, do words have any meaning anymore?)

John Kehoe at the AFR is writing about the role of AI data centres in construction costs and inflation:

In new home building, costs are escalating, and one of the price drivers appears to be the data centre boom sucking away workers and resources from residential construction. …

The RBA’s liaison with business has detected that data centres are hoovering up construction workers, adding to capacity constraints in the economy.

This is the part of ‘job creation’ that businesses and politicians rarely acknowledge.

In the short term, if a new building project is announced that will ‘create 1,000 jobs’ and unemployment is already low for construction workers, the new project will need to pay more to get workers. This does two things: it increases the price of labour and takes away workers away from other projects less able or willing to pay. This can benefit the workers but also increases the price of construction and means less construction is done in other industries. The same logic applies to things like construction materials.

Right now, there are already shortages of skilled labour and materials in the construction industry. This means a new AI data centre construction boom is only likely to increase construction prices and reallocate workers from other things, such as building or renovating houses, infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Looking at Victoria, a centre of the data centre boom, more work is already being done building data centres than hospitals and, as of March, schools.

This impact is only likely to intensify. Looking at the value of work in the pipeline, data centres have skyrocketed to more than schools and hospitals combined.

This same logic applies to construction for fossil fuel projects as discussed by previous Australia Institute Research.

According to the latest Department of Industry, Science and Resource’s latest Resources and energy major projects report, as of October 2025 coal and gas industries had committed over $35 billion to new fossil fuel projects. Continuing to invest in these projects not only worsens the climate crisis; it actively makes climate change mitigation and adaptation projects more expensive, less feasible and slower.

Andrew Bragg is speaking at the National Press Club, and I wish I could report it was not totally unhinged. But my god. Reds are under every bed.

Here’s a few snippets:

Today I want to talk about our country and honestly, because I love this country. But we are very sick. We are very sick.

We should recognise that things about Australia that shouldn’t change – adherence to our laws, freedom of speech and equality are non-negotiables.

We are equals in our society. There is no exception.

We cannot tolerate racially or religiously motivated violence, forced marriages, discrimination against women, LBGT Australians, or anyone else.

English is our national language. Respect is our ethos. These are the fundamentals, as is the teaching of inheritance from western civilisation. 

Bragg is talking to a few groups here, but the “English is our national language” and “western civilization” is very much a shout out to One Nation voters.

Other lines:

We’re becoming like Argentina

Labor has killed enterprise. They’ve killed small business. They’ve instituted state sanctioned corruption

The communist taxes are crazy

So far, they’ve shuffled billions out of the HAFF and made the corporate cop, ASIC, bend the investment disclosure rules. Their dream is for Melbourne and Sydney to look like Jacksonville or Atlanta, where corporate housing reigns supreme and you can rent forever from CBUS or Australian Super.

Apparently having a AAA rated debt means we’re going like Argentina, and removing a 50% discount to the capital gains tax is communist.

The line about Jacksonville and Altana – two cities from the USA deep south – might be the most unsubtly dogwhistle I heard in a while

No-one is buying anything in Australia and no wonder. It feels like we’re living in a Communist state.

Unhinged.

The Australian government constantly talks up the international rules-based order – but its willingness to uphold the principles that underpin it is inconsistent at best.

Human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry’s findings of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and how the Australian government could act in support of a genuinely rules-based international system.

Hear more on the latest episode of After America – find it now via the link or wherever you get your podcasts.

Guest: Chris Sidoti, Commissioner, UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute

Yesterday the RBA kept the cash rate on hold but in both Michele Bullock’s media conference and in the RBA’s August Statement on Monetary Policy also released yesterday there was a bit of focus on the “risks” of an increase in inflation and the need for more interest rate rises

For now the market is rating it a bit over a 50:50 chance of a rate rise by the end of the year – a smidge higher than was the case before the decision yesterday

But one of the risks for higher inflation comes from the data centre boom we are now seeing.

The statement of monetary policy noted of data centres that:

Several domestic and global factors pose upside risks to the inflation outlook.

Globally, a material escalation in the Middle East conflict could increase oil and related prices further. If domestic capacity pressures and elevated short-term inflation expectations persist, this raises the likelihood of greater pass-through to broader consumer price inflation.

Stronger-than-expected growth in AI and related technology prices may flow through to upstream producer prices and consumer prices, while a larger indirect effect could operate by exacerbating current capacity pressures, for example, through higher growth in construction demand for data centres that could push up costs elsewhere in the construction sector.

When they talk about construction capacity issues due to data centres what they are talking about is this:

The building of data centres now accounts for about 27% of all non-residential building that has been commenced in the past year.

That’s a massive surge.

But the RBA suggests that as “most activity in this sector is occurring in New South Wales and Victoria where capacity constraints are less binding than in other regions” for the moment “domestic availability of materials and contractors is generally not a significant constraint”.

So for now it should not be a reason for higher interest rates because there is not a sense of it leading to a boom in wages, and it is always worth remembering that the big thing the RBA fears is fewer people unemployed and more people getting higher wages.

Rebecca Sharkie, the member for Mayo is absolutely scathing of the online gambling bill – saying that “we’ve squibbed it today”.

She will support the bill, but only because she argues that voting against it will do no good for anyone who has been harmed by gambling.

She opened her speech:

Well there’s a saying in politics that you shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but with this bill though I kind of feel like it’s don’t let the woefully inadequate be the enemy of the good.”

She refers to Pete Murphy and points out the bill only address 10% of the “You win some You lose more” repor

She expects that this will be it for this government tackling gambling, and suggests the government (and perhaps future ones) will just say that they’ve already got a “big tick” next to job done on the issue.

She reference the $36bn in gambling losses I note earlier from The Australia Institute report, “Australian’s National Gambling Toll” and gives very much a sense of disgust at the government’s response and treatment of Peta Murphy’s recommendations.

We are nine speakers into the debate on online gambling and every speaker – even those from the government – are a combination of damning of its failures to go further or damning with the faint praise of “this is a start”

Government MPs have tried they old “some think we haven’t gone far enough, some think we have gone too far” line. But remember those who think they have gone too far are only gambling companies, so maybe that ain’t the balance the government thinks it is.

Let’s look at what we’re talking about.

A report by Matt Grudnoff, Matt Saunders and Morgan Harrington, Australia’s National Gambling Toll found that the total gambling losses has jumped since the end of the pandemic

The losses when we take into account inflation make the case even more.

In the most recent years, household gambling losses were 12% more in real terms than the pre-pandemic average – around $4bn more.

Every speaker is giving an example of personal cases they know of gambling harm, and everyone – even the government know this is not doing enough. It just comes down to whether the speaker thinks it is a bad bill that doesn’t deserve to pass, or a bad bill that is a start that needs amendment.

As it is it doesn’t seem like the current bill will pass both houses as is.

Mike Bowers captured Pauline Hanson doing a doorstop. He reports that she is fed up.. you know with stuff.

She also wants to take credit for the LNP wanting to slash migration numbers.

New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon has survived this morning’s confidence vote in his leadership, so he’ll likely lead his National Party to the country’s general election in November.

Polls show a dead heat between his National-led governing Coalition and the Opposition (Labour, Greens and Te Pati Maori), so this doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll end the year as PM, but buys him at least a few months.

Looking around the media today and my gosh, are they worried about house prices falling

The AFR this morning has this headline:

House prices in this loosely held Labor seat down $90k in three months

Wow, $90,000! Ok the Labor seat they’re talking about is Menzies in Melbourne. The AFR reports data from Cotality that show in the 3 months to July, the median house price in Menzies fell $90,067 to $1,400,000.

Yep to $1.4m

And this is apparently a catastrophe.

Then we have The Australian with a headline

Perth and Brisbane property prices tumble as housing market enters ‘perfect storm’

Now calling out those two cities is pretty nuts, because house prices in Brisbane and Perth have gone completely insane over the past 6 years

In both cities prices have more than doubled since March 2020. That compares to a 21% increase in average wages in both cities.

It all comes off the back of yesterday reports from ANZ saying that house prices are set to fall this year and in 2027 – before increasing again in 2028.

ANZ suggested by the end of 2027 prices in Brisbane will have fallen 7.9% from it’s recent peak, while in Perth the fall will be 5.2%

In both cases it won’t even undo the price rises in the past year.

So much scares for so little reality.

New Zealand’s gone all Australia on us! [or is that UK? – Greg] There are reports this morning that New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon might be gone by the end of the day. The National Party leader is facing a leadership spill this morning.

Obviously it’s not clear what this will mean for New Zealand just yet, but it’s in line with a pretty tumultuous few years for Kiwi politics. For a rundown of how the Luxon government has approached foreign policy, and its particularly pro-US stance, you can listen to our episode of After America with former Washington Post kiwi journalist Anna Fifield. 

Anna also has a great Substack where she’ll no doubt post some of her analysis soon – we’ll bring it to you as it comes in!

Today Australia’s biggest bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, released its profit results for the financial year just ended (2025-26). It announced a pre-tax profit of $15.6 billion, up 7.1% on the previous year. That is a massive amount.

The CBA profit increase of 7.1% compares to the 3.2% increase in wages over the year to March 2026. This reinforces the point that the Australia Institute makes; that Australia’s national income is moving towards more profit at the expense of wage and salary earners.

While the Reserve Bank quite rightly gets the blame for raising interest rates (fortunately it didn’t yesterday!) it is the big banks that immediately pass them on to ordinary Australians. The Commonwealth’s figures show interest income reached $65.7 billion. Effectively the Reserve Bank tells the private banks when to increase their interest income. 

What that means now is that just one bank receives interest income worth 2.3% of Australia’s total national income.

For homeowners it confirms our earlier estimates that home loans are extraordinarily profitable at the expense of home buyers. The Australia Institute found the big four banks were raking in $228,900 profit over the 30-year life of an average home loan.

Indeed, potential home buyers should shop around and try to avoid big banks like the Commonwealth Bank.  

Crossbench MPs – many in anti-gambling shirts – are speaking in the Mural Hall of Parliament House, critical of the deal between the government and coalition to rush through “weak, tootheless” gambling reforms.

It’s amazing what the threat of a late night in Parliament can achieve.

More on this shortly.

The Senate has now started sitting for the day, kicking off with Minister for Housing Tim Ayres explaining the government’s refusal to release some documents related to first home buyer advice.

Senator Ayres says that the excluded documents are those that “disclose the deliberations of Cabinet or prejudice Commonwealth-State relations. Those are utterly reasonable and completely normal basis for public interest immunity claims.”

The order, moved by Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg, had a deadline of 28 July 2025 and required two categories of documents to be produced:

1. any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government’s plan to invest $10 billion to construct 100,000 new homes for first home buyers; and
2. any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government’s plan to enable first home buyers to purchase a home with a 5% deposit.

The Opposition and Crossbench are not happy with Minister Ayres’ response. For the Liberals, Senator Bragg has labelled this “a complete failure to provide the documents the Senate has asked for”.

Greens Senator Barbara Pocock says that Australia, despite being “one of the wealthiest [countries] in the OECD area” has “hundreds, indeed thousands of people, homeless because of the failure of this policy.”

“So I want the minister to come here and be honest and respectful to the chamber, give us the data, give us the breakdown of the modelling, not just on the 5% scheme but on other schemes as sought by this Senate.”

This is the latest in the Senate’s long-running dispute with the government over orders for the production of documents, explained previously on this blog. As Nationals Senator Bridget Mckenzie says, “it is not very often that the National Party, the Greens, the Liberal Party and the entire crossbench all agree.”

The House is currently debating the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026.

Thus far we have heard from Renee Coffey (ALP), Melissa McIntosh (Liberals) and now Shayne Neumann (ALP)

The bill has been derided for essentially whimping out on doing what the Murphy Review (You win some you lose more) recommended and outright “prohibition of all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and all advertising of online gambling on social media and online platforms.”

Shayne Neumann in his speech talks a fair bit about welcoming workable amendments which as Amy suggested earlier means the government knows the current bill is not enough to get it through the senate.

Glenn is up at Parliament house for an event on carbon offset, so I’m (Greg) standing in for a bit.

This morning in parliament has been a mix of business and noise.

Angus Taylor tried to start things off by suspending standing orders to have the House

condemn the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister concerning the Prime Minister of Japan, Her Excellency Sanae Takaichi, which was deeply disrespectful and beneath the office of Prime Minister

Look, as a bloke I am not going to lecture anyone on sexism or misogyny, but this is such a beat up that has us now having the types on SkyNews after dark (or whatever they call themselves now) trying to lecture us all on standards.

Cripes.

And fine, if the media want to spend their time talking about a podcast hosted by a woman and whether or not Albanese was sexist, but suggesting this is at the point of needing the House to condemn Albanese is rather pathetic.

But now we have moved on to the second stage of the “affair”. Correspondence from the Japanese government to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been reported by The Australian showing that the Japanese government noted that it acknowledged there was no “ill intention” by Albanese.

The leaked correspondence is a classic case of government more concerned with speaking to the media than the public. It wanted to placate the media by showing proof that it wasn’t an issue. And guess what, the media (and opposition) has now decided THAT is now an issue.

Don’t feed the beast. It never is satisfied.

Mike Bowers was out early this morning, at a crisis housing announcement in Canberra

(Greg jumping with a quick note)

Today the Shadow Minister Housing Minister, Andrew Bragg, is to speak at the National Press Club. The big ticket item of his speech will be migration numbers. The Libs, worried about One Nation, have made migration the main pitch to solve housing.

The weird thing of course is right now we are seeing all manner of articles across the media about falling house prices, so maybe Bragg could acknowledge that actually getting rid of the 50% Capital Gains Tax discount and negative gearing except for new builds has worked.

(This was not a thing he agreed with when Amy appeared on the 7am Podcast to talk about how Howard ascrewed the housing market)

But Bragg has also decided the bit culprit is red tape and the building code.

He wants to strip the code down from about 2,000 pages to 80.

And sure 2,000 pages sounds a lot, but as ABC has noted even though Bragg says he won’t touch things like code for fire safety the fire safety standards part of the code runs to more than 80 pages, so what the heck is he cutting?

Bragg is reported to be saying in his speech that houses under his new code “won’t be gold plated but it won’t fall apart. It will be safe.”

Gee that’s reassuring.

The SMH reports Michael Fotheringham, managing director at the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute noting that Australia’s building standards are actually lower than other nations – especially those in Europe.

So what would be achieved by this?

Well the government is already looking at streamlining the code, but suggesting the number of pages is a goal is a pretty dopey way of going about it. “Cheap” houses sounds great, but not if the standard is so low that the in future years they need to be fixed up to make them up to a code that responds to the reality that the new houses are neither gold plates, nor safe.

The peak body for Australian physicians has joined calls for the federal government to strengthen gambling laws as negotiations continue.

Labor’s proposed reforms fall short of addressing gambling harm, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ addiction medicine chapter president John Saunders said.

“Disappointing for people working in the area of public health, but more importantly, disappointing for people who are suffering from the harm from gambling and their families,” Professor Saunders told AAP.

An inquiry led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy called for a complete phase out of gambling ads in 2023 and received cross-party support.

But few of the 31 recommendations have been implemented in the years since.

Prof Saunders said the government did not have the same incentive to intervene compared to past public health initiatives like plain packaging for cigarettes.

“The fact that they could identify tangible costs to healthcare services, meant a great deal,” he said.

But Prof Saunders said a gambling addiction created the same brain connections as any other drug addiction.

“We’re not dealing with something which is trivial, far from it. We’re not dealing with something which is a bad voluntary decision,” he said.

“I’ve seen tragedies and lives cut short, suicides, repeatedly over time … we have the greatest gambling losses of any country in the world.

“Surely we can do something.”

Negotiations between the major party leaders are ongoing with a growing number within the coalition pushing for stronger reforms.

The priority is to develop laws that protect rights and freedoms, opposition frontbencher Tim Wilson told reporters.

“Protect the importance of children to be able to be free of gambling, advertising, and to be able to develop without that influence,” Mr Wilson said.

Liberal MP Simon Kennedy told parliament he supported an independent review of the policy after the next election, echoing calls from independent MP Kate Chaney.

Ms Chaney said a review would force the government’s hand.

“When further evidence shows that partial bans just move the money around, then the government will have to actually face up to that after an independent review,” Ms Chaney told AAP.

The legislation is scheduled for debate on Wednesday afternoon with Labor hoping to pass the reforms during this sitting fortnight.

Last week, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters announced that the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (better known as the Exclusive Brethren) and right-wing lobby group Advance would give evidence to the committee on 21 August.

Both groups had previously declined to appear at hearings in November, March and May.

In late June, the Committee announced that, if they declined the invite to the coming August hearing, both groups would be issued a summons to compel their attendance, described at the time as “an extraordinary step, but one it believes necessary.”

The power to compel witnesses to attend an inquiry is inherited from the British House of Commons as part of our Westminster system of government, as part of the inherent powers of Parliament to investigate issues of the day.

The NSW Supreme Court recently struck down the state parliament’s equivalent power, with that ruling currently under appeal in the High Court.

JSCEM’s threat appears to have been enough to bring Advance and the Brethren – each of whose interventions into the 2025 election attracted significant controversy – to the hearing in August.

The fact that the mere threat of a summons has brought witnesses to the table is another reminder of why the power can be so crucial to a parliament’s work.

New Zealand’s gone all Australia on us!

There are reports this morning that New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon might be gone by the end of the day. The National Party leader is facing a leadership spill this morning.

Obviously it’s not clear what this will mean for New Zealand just yet, but it’s in line with a pretty tumultuous few years for Kiwi politics.

For a rundown of how the Luxon government has approached foreign policy, and its particularly pro-US stance, you can listen to our episode of After America with former Washington Post kiwi journalist Anna Fifield. 

Anna also has a great Substack where she’ll no doubt post some of her analysis soon – we’ll bring it to you as it comes in.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has moved to suspend standing orders in the House of Reps to get the melon beat-up onto hansard.

He says the PM has “stuffed up” and clearly feels this is far more important than … oh, I don’t know … the cost of living, interest rates, gambling reforms, NDIS reforms …

Says more about the Liberals than the PM’s cringeworthy sense of humor.

Shadow Attorney‑General Michaelia Cash‘s attempt to beat-up the Prime Minister’s foolish melon joke has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

She’s described Anthony Albanese’s gesture during a podcast interview as “dirty, grubby comments”.

In a regular appearance on the Seven Network, Housing Minister Clare O’Neil was having none of it, attacking the Liberals for calling in the feds to find out how the Japanese government’s dismissal of the incident became public.

Oh look, I’m not even going to get into that offensive diatribe. I’ll just say to the Australian people, you know, you can watch the video online if you want, but we can see that the Liberals have actually lost the plot this time. Wasting police time. Wasting police time on a podcast. Like get real, Michaelia. The country’s got real problems, and your job is to come here and debate about those.

I will hand you off to one of the other bloggers now, as I step out to deliver a speech. The parliament bells are ringing, so the sitting is about to get underway.

Strap in – it will be a messy one.

The US Embassy, which is a little more open about these things, has just released this note to the media:

The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America, Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Montenegro, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Philippines (the), Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We call on all relevant countries to commit to participate in arrangements for providing advance notification of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and space launch vehicles (SLVs) to affected states. One hundred and forty-five countries participate in one such mechanism, the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC).

Recent missile testing activity in the Pacific area did not follow the standard practices adopted by most states to notify and deconflict ICBM, SLBM, and SLV launches.

Conducting nuclear-capable ballistic missile tests without sufficient advance notice and detail is dangerous and disrupts the peace and security of relevant nations in proximity to these tests. It increases the risk of miscalculation, undermines global stability and security, and is incompatible with the responsibilities that come with possessing long-range missile capabilities.

We call on all countries, particularly nuclear-weapon States, that launch ICBMs, SLBMs, and SLVs to provide notification of such launches no less than 24 hours in advance. Notifications should include such information as the generic class of the ballistic missile or SLV, the planned launch notification window, the launch area, and the planned direction. Countries should also provide clear notices for airmen and mariners consistent with international standards to reduce risk, including in expected impact or landing areas.

Regularized, transparent notification arrangements do not constrain any nation’s military development or operational needs. Instead, they reduce the risk of miscalculation, build confidence, and reflect a shared commitment to security. We remain committed to working with all countries to strengthen the implementation of and expand notification frameworks and to hold accountable any state whose actions fall short of its responsibilities.

This is in response to a launch from China in the Pacific.

AAP

Australia’s economy remains resilient but growth is slowing as higher interest rates and inflation continue to pressure household budgets, the nation’s biggest bank says, after delivering a massive annual profit.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia has reported a statutory full-year net profit of $10.9 billion, up seven per cent from the previous year, on a seven per cent boost in revenue to $30.2 billion.

Cash net profit – its preferred measure of profitability – came in at $11 billion, also up seven per cent, and ahead of market expectations.

“The Australian economy has remained resilient, supported by historically low unemployment and longer-term investment,” chief executive Matt Comyn said on Wednesday.

“However, growth is slowing, with higher interest rates and inflation placing uneven pressure on household incomes and economic activity.”

Mr Comyn noted that housing activity has softened from a “high base”, after federal government policy changes weighed on the property market.

But the bank’s loan application numbers appear to have stabilised in recent weeks, he added.

The results came after the Labor government’s changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for property in the May budget, which led to some of the biggest monthly house price declines since 2022.

On Monday, Westpac revealed its mortgage applications had fallen 20 per cent since the budget, while NAB indicated on July 31 that its home loan applications were down 15 per cent in the June quarter.

Homebuyers did get some relief on Tuesday when the Reserve Bank of Australia left rates on hold for a second straight meeting.

However, economists deemed it a “hawkish hold” because the central bank expressed a bias toward future rate hikes.

“Australian mortgage holders have had an interest rate reprieve but are not out of the woods just yet,” Betashares chief economist David Bassanese said.

In 2025/25, CBA grew at or above system – which refers to the average banking sector performance – in each of its five core domestic product categories – home lending, business lending, consumer finance, household deposits and business deposits.

“It is the first time CBA has achieved this and the first time any major Australian bank has done so in the past 15 years,” Mr Comyn said.

“We remain the main financial institution for one in three Australian and one in four Australian businesses.”

CBA reported a net interest margin – which reflects the earnings it makes on its lending business – of 2.05 per cent, which was down three basis points on 2024/25 although it was two points higher from the first half of 2025/26.

CBA shares were trading at just under $174 on Tuesday afternoon, down 2.5 per cent from Monday but up 8.1 per cent since the start of the year.

That still gives CBA a trailing price-to-earnings ratio of 28.7, a valuation usually seen in fast-growing tech companies rather than mature businesses.

A price-to-earnings ratio measures a company’s share price to its earnings per share and shows how much investors are willing to pay for each dollar of a company’s profits.

By that metric – which implies investors are paying almost $29 for each dollar of earnings – CBA is likely the most expensive bank stock in the developed world, experts have said.

US banking giants like Bank of America and Morgan Stanley trade at price-to-earnings ratios of around half that.

CBA declared a final dividend of $2.70, taking the total for the year ending June 30 to $5.05, which was a four per cent improvement on the prior year.

AAP

A senior coalition frontbencher has refused to confirm specifics of his party’s plan to cut migration numbers, despite a formal announcement expected to be made.

Opposition housing spokesman Andrew Bragg will use a major speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday to call for a cut to net overseas migration levels by nearly half to meet the rate of new housing supply being built.

Treasury modelling published in the May budget expects net overseas migration to fall from 301,000 to 225,000 by the end of the decade.

Senator Bragg will advocate for an average annual net overseas migration rate of 180,000 to make up for a shortfall of housing.

But his colleague, shadow treasurer Tim Wilson, backed away from confirming the number just hours before the speech.

Mr Wilson was pressed on the topic during a News24 interview, in which he said: “I don’t think you should bank that at all (the 180,000 figure). Let’s just wait and see, firstly, what Senator Bragg’s saying in his speech”.

“We haven’t made an announcement about where we’re going to be going into the next election, but our focus is actually about what we need to do to invest in the long-term growth and success of our country,” he said.

Despite his colleague’s hesitancy, Senator Bragg is expected to say the changes would be the right ones for long-term growth in the country.

“Lifting migration standards, and analysing them carefully each year, is crucial to ensure integrity and public trust in our migration settings,” he will say.

Building codes will also come under fire during the speech.

“It is now illegal to build a cheap house in Australia,” Senator Bragg will say.

The centrepiece of Senator Bragg’s speech will be a commitment to replace the National Construction Code with a new 80-page Basic Australian Standard.

The codes sets the minimum required level for the safety, health, amenity, accessibility and sustainability of certain buildings detailed in more than 2000 pages.

The coalition’s new standards will focus on cost-effective structural, fire safety and health-related building standards.

“Anything else like mandatory ramps, flattened shower flooring or reinforced walls would be optional extras,” Senator Bragg will say.

“The house won’t be gold-plated but it won’t fall apart. It will be safe,” he will continue.

Labor announced it would freeze the National Construction Code following its productivity roundtable in mid-2026.

Housing Minister Clare O’Neil brushed off calls from the coalition to cut the construction standards to 200-pages earlier in 2026.

“I’ve talked to builders about that, they laugh their heads off. That is absolutely ridiculous,” Ms O’Neil told the National Press Club in May.

The government is not far off presenting a final plan to building minister later this year to streamline the code, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told ABC Radio National on Wednesday.

Senator Bragg has also called for the creation of a federal pattern book of model homes that could be given automatic approval by the states and territories.

High School and university students are planning to walk out of their classes tomorrow in protest against One Nation’s policies and messages.

The National Union of Students have organised ‘students say no to Hanson’ walkout in eight cities. Most will gather in the early afternoon.

One Nation MPS – and Liberal MPs like Alex Antic, who might as well be members of One Nation, have already started decrying the students, which seems pretty anti the free speech they claim to defend. But when have actual standards actually mattered here?

Much like the climate protests, right wing media and politicians are losing their mind that the adults of the future might have some thoughts about the political climate and what they are inheriting. Apparently, woke parents are to blame for raising kids who might care about issues like climate and racism. Shoutout to millennial parents!

Anyway – prepare yourself for new levels of unhinged as the walkout gets closer.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has also been asked about the melons on ABC radio RN Breakfast.

He’s gone from home prices falling (it is barely a blip in prices – we’ll be going back to where we were in 2023, which was still a massive jump from where we were in 2020, so let’s calm down shall we?) interest rates, inflation to…melons.

He said of the prime minister:

I think he has explained, and he’s answered a number of questions about that, as have my colleagues. I don’t think there’s anything I could usefully add to that, apart from reminding your listeners just how important that Japanese relationship is and how closely we work with our Japanese counterparts.

“I take him at his word when he says that the way that it’s interpreted is not the way that he intended.”

The Liberals have referred an alleged leak of communications between Japan and the PMO to the AFP.

The ‘leak’ appeared in the Australian newspaper (which reported Japan ‘noted’ the “sensationalised reporting in the Australian media” about the melons and said Japan believed there to be no “ill intention’ from the PM.

This is stuff that is meant to be confidential, but you may remember that text messages between Scott Morrison and the French president also found themselves in the media at one point – leaders do this when they want to show things are fine (or refute something) and it’s as old as diplomacy itself.

Now the Liberals want the AFP to investigate.

Clare O’Neil was asked about this, this morning on the Seven network and said:

They are referring this podcast matter to the Australian Federal Police. My personal view is that the [AFP] should be allowed to focus on their job, which is keeping Australians safe and fighting crime for Australians. And I just point out to your viewers at home: you know, we’ve got people watching right now who have got big and important problems in their lives.

They’re worried about how they’re going to pay for the next load of groceries, how they’re going to fill up the car, thinking about Medicare and the kind of education their kids are getting at school … I’d say instead of wasting police time with this silly political stunt that you’re pulling, how about coming to Canberra and actually representing the people who elected you?”

The Commonwealth bank has just reported an even higher profit than anticipated, with its cash profit increasing 7% to $10.98bn.

Shareholders can expect 4% higher returns than last year.

A reminder that higher interest rates just make the banks and their investors, richer.

Monique Ryan, David Pocock, Kate Chaney, Sophie Scamps, Helen Haines, Allegra Spender, Andrew Wilkie, Zali Steggall and Jacqui Lambie are still pushing for a stronger gambling advertising legislation (although it looks like the Coalition will give the government what it wants)

They will be holding a press conference a little later this morning highlighting the dangers of gambling advertising, featuring their take on the gambling big players – including Sportsdebt, Ladsbroke and Debt365.

From the release:

Australians experience some of the highest per-capita gambling losses in the world, losing $31 billion every year to gambling. 

More than three-quarters of Australians support a ban on gambling advertising, so why doesn’t the federal government? The legislation the Albanese Government has proposed to tackle gambling harm is too weak in its current form and fails to implement all 31 recommendations from the landmark Murphy Review.  

Today, as parliamentary debate begins on the government’s gambling bills, members of the crossbench will be wearing t-shirts featuring satirical gambling company logos while advocating for action that bans all inducements, introduces a comprehensive ban for online gambling advertising, an opt-in rather than opt-out feature for broadcast and streaming services, and establishment of a national gambling regulator.  

Asked about the potential for a Victorian school strike, Jason Clare tells the ABC:

I don’t think mums and dads will want to see a strike. They want to see their kids going to school learning and I want to see teachers paid well. I think this deal that’s on the table will make Victorian teachers the best-paid teachers in the country so, look, I’m optimistic on two things – that pay dispute will get resolved in a way that makes sure that Victorian teachers get paid what they deserve but also that will fix the funding of our public schools in Victoria and right across the country.

And on melons and podcasts (and whether the later are worth the hastle) Clare says:

I kind of think you’ve got to talk to people where they are. There’s a lot of people that would be watching the telly now that will turn it off in a minute and get in the car, take their kids to school or go to work and my bet is… instead of listening to a radio station, they’ll put on a podcast. 

So you’ve got to talk to people where they are, whether on the telly talking to people like yourself or talking on more.podcasts or anywhere else.

Q: Guessing you wouldn’t take part in some of these games, though?

Clare: Oh, I reckon, you know, probably a harder interview talking to you than being on a podcast.

After NAPLAN results still fell below expectations, there is a growing push to limit screens in schools and get students back to writing and reading basics. Which is in line with research that says we are losing fine motor skills through not using pens and pencils, and screens haven’t helped with information retention. Throw in AI and suddenly we have a ‘maybe we shouldn’t be doing this’ moment in the education system.

Clare has backed less screens as education minister and says:

Some states are already acting. In Victoria they will limit the screen time at primally school from years 3 to 6 to 90 minutes a day and high school to two hours. I think there’s a lot of evidence coming in that tells us that’s a good thing, that we need to set screen limits. A bit of a digital detox if you like. You know when I and I were at school, there was one room at the school where the computers were and now they’re everywhere, at home, and in every class. There’s a bit of evidence that shows that the mortgage time kids are spending on screens, the more their results go south. There’s also a fair bit of evidence that tells us that when children write something down with a pen and paper, that they absorb it more into their long-term memory than if they’re typing it and I’ve got to say, in the last few days, since I’ve been talking about this, I’ve been inundated with messages of support from parents but also at schools I visited, teachers coming up and saying this is the way to go. So ministers have asked for advice from officials about whether with next year’s NAPLAN test, we should make the writing test with pen and paper rather than typing it out.

But also to have a look at this issue of screen time, whether there’s too much of it and even more broadly than that, to have a look at the way artificial intelligence is beings used and should be used in our schools. The New South Wales Government has just announced that for students doing the HSC, that they’re no longer going to do take-home assessments because the risk is there that students will just put that into Claude or ChatGPT instead of doing the work themselves so everything is changing.

We’ve got to look at the evidence and adapt.

But despite not having the detail, and also knowing there are demands from the public to do more, Jason Clare thinks the government is on the right track:

I think we are taking tough action. I think Aussies have a right to have a punt but you don’t want to get to the punt where it means people go bankrupt and it ends up in families breaking up, right? So the legislation that’s in the Parliament is all about trying to make sure that when kids are in the car on the way to school, they’re not pummelled with gambling advertising, or when kids are watching TV and watching sport, they don’t see those ads either, but respect the right that adults are adults as well. Now, the fact that we’re hearing that the Opposition are talking constructively to the Government about the legislation, you know, that doesn’t happen all the time. I’m going to introduce a bill into the Parliament in just over an hour to lock in a pay rise for childcare workers. The Liberals and One Nation both seem to think that’s a bad idea. If the Liberals are willing to talk to the Government on the gambling reforms that we’re implementing and be constructive here, I think most Australians watching would say, well, that’s a welcome thing.

The government has rolled out Jason Clare this morning, which is what they do when they need someone to communicate something plainly to people on an issue they feel is not going their way.

Clare is one of the government’s best communicators and is also very skilled at batting away journalist’s questions – usually because he charms them.

Asked about the government’s plan to have an opt-out for gambling advertising online by ABC News Breakfast, Clare says:

Well, I think people want to see action and that’s what we’re doing with the legislation that’s in the Parliament now. No Government’s taken as much action as we have on gambling advertising or gambling harm. The legislation in the Parliament takes the next step there. You’ve got to forgive me, mate. I’m not the Minister for Communications so I’m not part of those negotiations and I don’t have any detail on what’s in and what’s out, but I read what you’ve read on the ABC websites this morning, that there’s constructive discussions going on between the Government and the Opposition and that strikes me as a good thing.

AAP

Some of Australia’s biggest polluters have cut emissions by less than one per cent over the past two years, a report has found, falling significantly short of their targets.

But major resources and industrial companies could continue to make modest pollution cuts, it said, unless the federal government strengthens laws designed to curb emissions.

The Climate Council issued the warning on Wednesday in a report into Australia’s flagship industrial emissions policy, the Safeguard Mechanism, that applies to 208 facilities across Australia.

The announcement comes days after Energy Minister Chris Bowen launched a review of the regulations, and after the government announced a target to reduce climate emissions by 62 to 70 per cent in 2035.

The Safeguard Mechanism applies to facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, including coal mines, liquefied natural gas plants, steelworks, and large manufacturers.

The council’s study analysed the types of companies that fall under the scheme, and the emissions they cut over the past two years, following its 2023 reform.

It found emissions had “barely budged,” with the 197 companies covered by the scheme during the period reducing pollution by 543,000 tonnes or 0.4 per cent.

Many large firms were choosing to buy carbon offsets rather than adopt environmentally friendly practices, report author and Climate Council senior advisor Ben McLeod said, as the scheme allowed it.

“We need to see some limits put on offsets because for as long as facilities are able to buy an unlimited number of offsets, they’re able to shirk the responsibility for cutting their own climate pollution,” he told AAP.

The greatest emission drops recorded in the scheme were due to facilities temporarily dropping below its 100,000 tonne limit, the report found, including a Queensland mine shut due to a methane explosion and the short-term closure of Darwin LNG.

Coal, gas and oil companies that remained in the scheme had increased their climate pollution over the past two years by 0.2 per cent, it found.

A redesigned mechanism should set more stringent requirements for pollution cuts from these firms, Mr McLeod said, and should align rules with the government’s 2035 climate target.

“If it continues as it has been, we won’t reach it,” he said.

“If we’re not driving (pollution) down with further steps up in ambition, whether that be the decline rate or the rules on offsets, we simply won’t achieve that goal.”

Other recommendations in the report include increasing the annual pollution reduction target from 4.9 to 6.8 per cent, maintaining a ban on international offsets, and setting strict limits on new developments.

The Safeguard Mechanism Review will remain open for consultation until September 18, with findings due in early 2027.

AAP

When Kelly Flanagan thinks back to her five months in solitary confinement, it’s the absence of small things she remembers most – sunlight, fresh air and voices not her own. 

The Wiradjuri woman, 39, was released from Melbourne custody in early 2025 after serving three-and-a-half years for offences including kidnapping.

She claims her isolation, and occasional restrictions on her access to open air, undermined her mental wellbeing and set back her rehabilitation prospects.

“I’m still very anxious, and my mental health sometimes gets really poor and I isolate,” she told AAP. 

“You can’t expect people to be good citizens when they are released if you treat them like animals in prison.”

Now, she fears the Victorian government is paving the way for a new generation of prisoners to suffer in the same way.

Under a bill now before state parliament, the prisoner’s right to an hour of open air a day would become subject to “operational considerations”.

These include inmate safety and prison management and would add to a rule allowing outdoor access to be cancelled due to poor weather.

The bill passed the lower house in June with bipartisan support and is expected to be debated in the upper house within days.

Human rights and legal groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Fitzroy Legal Service and Jesuit Social Services, have called for it to be scrapped. 

They are expected to join a protest against the legislation outside parliament on Wednesday. 

The Victorian government itself has admitted the reforms may be incompatible with elements of the state’s human rights charter. 

An override declaration was made to prevent the charter from applying to the relevant sections of the bill.

It also ensures the legislation does not have to be re-enacted every five years, as is ordinarily the case where the charter is overridden.

“The government does not take this step lightly,” then-corrections minister Paul Hamer told parliament in June. 

Mr Hamer, who now serves as minister for roads, said the extraordinary move was necessary for the safe management of open air access and prison functions. 

The bill was developed in response to international crime boss George Marrogi’s Supreme Court case against Victoria’s Department of Justice in January.

Marrogi, who is serving a 38-year prison sentence for murder and drug trafficking, successfully argued his human rights had been breached over his limited access to open air in custody.

Victoria’s department of justice is appealing the ruling, with a hearing set down for October 23 and a cross-appeal filed by Marrogi.  

The bill would also limit the government’s financial liability arising from the Marrogi case, ensuring it is not on the hook for any past loss or damage related to limitations of the right.

AAP

New Zealanders may have a new prime minister by day’s end, with a crunch caucus meeting of the National party set to decide on Chris Luxon’s leadership.

At 9.30am in Wellington, the party’s 49 MPs will meet to consider Mr Luxon’s position after a series of gaffes and poor personal polling.

Key backer Mark Mitchell says he believes Mr Luxon will survive that meeting and continue on.

If a no-confidence vote succeeds, Mr Luxon will be replaced just three months out from the November 7 election.

The signs are pointing to National turfing the former Air New Zealand chief executive.

Radio NZ political editor Jo Moir says the 56-year-old’s leadership is “hanging by a thread,” while NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan – who broke the story of increased discontent on Monday – said Mr Luxon surviving was “incredibly unlikely”.

Such an outcome would be extraordinary and historic.

Unlike Australia, which had four contested prime ministerial changes without an election between 2010 and 2018, New Zealand governing parties tend not to roll their leaders in office.

The last such occasion was in 1997, when National’s Jenny Shipley convinced her colleagues to ditch three-time election winner Jim Bolger.

Not since 1943 has a mid-term prime ministerial change produced a winning election for the governing party.

Adding intrigue to Wednesday’s meeting, there is no obvious contender to replace Mr Luxon.

Deputy Leader Nicola Willis, Education Minister Erica Stanford, Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Mr Mitchell, the police minister, have all been mooted as replacements.

Mr Mitchell denied this on Newstalk ZB on Wednesday morning, saying he sat with Mr Luxon until 11pm on Tuesday night “making sure he’s in the strongest possible position”.

“Discussions will be about calling out (disloyal MPs) and making sure there is loyalty to our leader,” he said.

“He’s been a great prime minister during very difficult global times … I’m behind him 110 per cent.”

No candidates came forward during frenzied leadership speculation back in April, when Mr Luxon moved and won a confidence motion to clear the air.

This week’s crisis is made even more remarkable by the fact that National is currently in an election-winning position.

The conservative party currently governs in coalition with the support of free-marketers ACT and populists NZ First.

Almost every poll in recent months shows a decent lead for that right bloc over a left bloc of opposition parties Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party.

The rise of upstarts Opportunity in recent weeks has challenged that orthodoxy, though the party has failed to win MPs at three previous elections.

The key factor behind National’s implosion appears to be their own cratering support, from 38 per cent at the 2023 election to a polling average of about 29 per cent.

If replicated on election day, that figure would end the careers of a string of MPs, including senior ministers.

Many argue National’s popularity slide is down to Mr Luxon, who has shocking personal favourability ratings.

In 2023, Kiwis were enthused by the former executive’s business credentials and voted him in after he campaigned to turn around the economy and reduce government debt.

Mr Luxon has failed to land either pledge, and has rubbed many the wrong way with a series of elitist or out-of-touch comments.

One such episode came in Rotorua last month at a small business forum, when Mr Luxon told struggling operators they were “negative” and should instead be “retooling and radically disrupting your business”.

The next week, he defended his use of a defence force plane to return home after a party fundraiser – a shocking look for a leader who previously was forced to return a housing entitlement to stay at his own mortgage-free property.

Still, he may hold on, if his rearguard convinces MPs not to change course before the election.

Andrew Bragg, who is called a ‘moderate Liberal’ by the centrist journalists he talks to, will announce the Coalition’s migration targets at his National Press Club speech later today. He’ll also be following up Angus Taylor’s budget in reply speech promise to take the building code from a book to a pamphlet which is an exceptionally stupid way of saying the Coalition wants to cut regulations.

Tony Burke was expected to announce that Labor would make the budget migration forecasts a target, which would set limits on how many people could migrate to Australia. He had to cancel that speech, because Labor is still divided over it, and the ways in which it could actually be achieved. Because of things like free trade agreements, and Howard’s changes to bridging visas (and most FTA were signed under the Coalition) temporary migration is not really something government’s have a lot of control over. So in order to pare back numbers, you have to make life harder for asylum seekers and make it even more difficult to access the family reunion visas. Hence Labor’s fight.

Bragg and the Coalition, being in opposition, don’t have to actually say anything that makes sense though. So they can announce a target of taking migration levels to under 180,000 per year on average, and pretend that it won’t have any impact on anything else.

Migration is falling. And has been since the end of border closure peak. But the Coalition have chosen to follow One Nation down this rabbit hole and Labor is now falling for it too. One Nation is nowhere near government and yet holds exceptional sway over our politics.

Mike Bowers was in the chamber for David Farley’s first speech:

With a deal inching closer on the gambling advertising legislation, you will be hearing more and more about inducements.

What do they mean? They mean all the freebies and special VIP treatment that gambling companies deploy to lure gamblers into gambling more and more. Former NRL player Luke Bateman gave evidence to the senate inquiry looking into gambling advertising that among what he was offered by gambling companies to continue gambling, were trips to racing events and VIP marquees, and illicit drugs. The gambling companies have denied the drugs.

But inducements are all the things gambling companies give away, because they make so much money from your losses. So it can be matching the money you put in your gambling account so you have double to lose, cars to pick you up and take you to an event, hospitality etc.

The Murphy review said all inducements should be banned. The Coalition don’t look like they will support that but they do want more bans. So that is where we are at. Some inducements, but not all. Will that help? Giving the harm we know gambling causes and the role of advertising in leading people to that harm….probably not.

Staff Writers 

A new working paper released today has found the Federal Parliament should disallow a controversial new method for making carbon credits.

The paper, by University College London Associate Professor Fergus Green, examines the New South Wales Government’s proposal to sell carbon credits in return for creating the Great Koala National Park.

The koala habitat has been a promised by NSW Labor for a decade. 

The proposal comes as the Senate prepares to consider a disallowance motion against the “Improved Native Forest Management” (INFM) method on August 18. The motion was put forward by the Nationals. 

“If the INFM Method is allowed to stand, the GKNP will be registered as an offsets project, and it will generate carbon credits that industrial polluters can buy to comply with the Safeguard Mechanism, instead of reducing their own onsite emissions,” the paper reports.

“For example, BHP recently abandoned plans to replace a fleet of diesel trucks with electric trucks as it was cheaper to instead buy offsets like those that will be generated under the INFM method.” 

The paper was released amid new polling which found that voters overwhelmingly believe governments have an obligation to protect koala habitats, regardless of whether carbon credits involved. 

The results show 82 per cent of Australians believe governments have an obligation to protect koala habitats, while only three per cent said governments have that obligation only if they are paid to do so.

This includes 77 per cent of Liberal voters and 73 per cent of One Nation voters.

Louise Morris, Head of Fossil Fuel Transition at The Australia Institute, said the proposal risked taking existing problems with Australia’s carbon offset system “from bad to worse”.

“Australia’s carbon offset system is already plagued with integrity problems, and this method takes it from bad to worse,” Ms Morris said.

“NSW Labor has promised a koala national park for over a decade, and now, at the last minute, Premier Minns says he won’t protect koalas unless he gets paid by polluters to do it.

“The key scam of carbon credits is to get paid to do something you were going to do anyway – protect ancient forests you already said you would protect, buy more efficient machines that you already needed to buy.

“This is the NSW government getting in on the scam – get paid for the park that you’ve already promised and budgeted for.”

Ms Morris pointed out approving the method would set a dangerous precedent.

“If NSW is paid for a park it was already creating, then every other state government will want to be paid to protect its forests, or indeed to take any other climate action,” she said. 

“The polling results show that the public sees through this. They want koala habitat protected, just like they voted for.”

It isn’t usually news when someone doesn’t do something – but David Farley delivered his first speech in the parliament yesterday afternoon – and didn’t echo One Nation’s policies and demands on immigration.

He didn’t openly pushback against them, but he did say:

I stand here today in front of you as a member of One Nation. I represent every constituent in Farrer: those who
voted for me and those who voted against me—and those who never dreamed of voting for me. That is democracy.

Once elected, representation extends beyond the ballot box. Our national ambition should be equally broad.
Australia must remain a country where the circumstances of someone’s birth don’t limit their future, where enterprise
is rewarded, where work has dignity and success is respected, where those who need assistance receive it, where
assistance becomes a bridge to opportunity and not a permanent architecture of, or for, dependence.

And, most importantly, we should rebuild confidence in ourselves. We are one nation of extraordinarily fortunate people
occupying an extraordinarily fortunate continent. We can manage our own destiny.

His speech was mostly about generational responsibility – that his generation of boomers need to prove themselves worthy of what their parents left them, by leaving more for the generations after them – and the Murray Darling and what he believes is the need to build.

Debt was canvassed. But not the set piece in One Nation’s policy platform. And it’s not like it has gone away – just yesterday, Hanson was banging on about a (non-existent) plan to ‘secretly bring in one million people’ (again, doesn’t exist) so it is notable that it wasn’t part of his speech.

Farley was said to have stumbled on this during the election campaign where he didn’t back in One Nation’s position on this. So let’s see what he does with it. (If anything – he is still in the party)

Staff Writers 

New polling has revealed that Australian voters across the political spectrum overwhelmingly believe governments have an obligation to protect koala habitat.

The polling, commissioned by The Australia Institute, found 82 per cent of Australians believe governments have an obligation to protect koala habitats.

Only three per cent said governments have that obligation only if they are paid to do so.

The polling comes alongside a new working paper by University College London Associate Professor Fergus Green, which takes aim at a  proposal by the New South Wales Government to sell carbon credits in return for creating a national park to protect koala habitat.

Meanwhile on August 18, a Senate vote put forward by the Nationals will take place on a disallowance motion on the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method.

The Australia Institute’s Head of Fossil Fuel Transition, Louise Morris, said the results show that Australians want NSW Labor to keep a decade-long promise to deliver the Great Koala National Park.

“NSW Labor has promised a koala national park for over a decade, and now, at the last minute, Premier Minns says he won’t protect koalas unless he gets paid by polluters to do it,” Ms Morris said. 

“The key scam of carbon credits is to get paid to do something you were going to do anyway – protect ancient forests you already said you would protect, buy more efficient machines that you already needed to buy.” 

On his podcast, ‘What’s the Point?’, Australia Institute co-CEO Dr Richard Denniss said the koala national park was a prime example of a good idea being used to justify a bad idea. 

“This koala national park is one of the bigger frauds in environmental history,” he said. 

Hello and good morning and all the things.

I am coming to you from the Canberra airport, as we have a bit of a mixed up day blog wise today. You’ll have me, Amy Remeikis for as much of the morning as I can manage, then a mix of people like Greg Jericho and Glenn Connley to take you through the day.

Small operations means that sometimes, other work happens and you have to make do. So thank you for making do with us.

News Corp is very annoyed about both melons and house prices. The first is not too much of a stretch, if you hold consistent standards. Which, given News Corp’s pass on Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott (who is today DEMANDING Albanese apologise for melon-gate – he of the ‘sex appeal’ comment for a female candidate and women would be hit by an ETS because they did the ironing and that uses electricity and the one woman in cabinet and making himself minister for women – that Abbott) is a bit of a laugh.

Albanese doesn’t seem to have the same contempt for women that Morrison was seen to have (at least according to his focus group readings) and so while the comments and gestures are clumsy, and should have been called out at the time, it’s not becoming the diplomatic incident the Coalition and News Corp would like it to be. You can tell that because Albanese hasn’t apologised and if he thought it was something Japan was upset about, he would.

Plus, there is a feeling in PMO that the Bush Deep podcast and the gaffes played OK for the PM – much like his love affair with FM radio, they think it humanises him and that most people who don’t have their heads buried in politics don’t care and think it was a daggy joke.

Should we be making daggy jokes about these things? No. We shouldn’t. And it was all a bit dumb of Albanese to not have answers that didn’t play along with tired tropes.

Is it a national scandal? No.

But we are talking about melons because the Coalition is on board with what we should be talking about – the useless gambling advertising legislation and the cuts to the NDIS. In the absence of policy disagreement, you get….melons.

We’ll be covering all of that off and more as the day rolls on. So consider this your holding post to greet you as you wake up, with more on the way.

Ready? I have had two coffees so far – and there will be more to come.

Ax