The Point Live: Final sitting of winter parliament; as it happened.

We did it fam! We made it through the winter sittings. Now it is a slide into the back end of the year and the abyss that is the Victorian election.

But that is not our concern for a little bit yet – the politicians are departing and won’t be back in Canberra until August, which means we all get a bit of a break from their BS. Not entirely – we will still be doing all the work and so they will, but we aren’t going to be crammed in together in the one place for a little bit. Maybe I’ll get back to the gym! See some sunshine! Not want to run headfirst into a wall! The options are endless.

As is our love and appreciation for you- thank you to everyone who is growing this little project with us. It is absolutely incredible and we are so honoured to have your trust and company. Thank you. Even you Shoe, who seems to find some joy in the hate read. Thank you for that too.

So make sure you get a little bit of joy in the coming month and that you check back to see what is new on The Point. We’ll be keeping up the factchecks and different points of view. It’s just The Point Live which will be on hiatus.

So until parliament returns – take care of you. Ax.

Here’s a bit from QT:

Greens senator Barbara Pocock has just dropped this statement:

Today, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has published an email from newly appointed KPMG independent chair Mr Michael Ebeid to his fellow directors and others. 

The letter raises serious concerns about his suitability to fix the ethical and integrity disasters that have been revealed in KPMG. Further, it illustrates his disrespect to the whistleblower, who bravely surfaced these failures, and to the Parliament and its members.

Mr Ebeid’s appointment as independent chair at KPMG Australia was announced this morning. His appointment comes in the wake of multiple KPMG scandals, including sharing confidential client information to win audit tenders, using AI to cheat on internal exams, breaching audit independence, misleading the parliament and mistreating the whistleblower who raised these concerns. 

The Greens say Mr Ebeid has shown a flagrant disregard for the parliament and his appointment as KPMG ‘independent’ chair does not bode well for a cleanup at KPMG.

Pocock:  

“Mr Ebeid’s letter shows his lack of respect for whistleblowers and the Parliament. His words reveal his willingness to attempt to exercise inappropriate influence on senators and committee processes. They also indicate his depth of knowledge and pre-formed views about events within KPMG and its whistleblowers allegations.

“Mr Ebeid has firm and dismissive views about the whistleblower and the nature and legitimacy of concerns about ethics and integrity failures within KPMG – failures that have since been admitted by KPMG. 

“Appointing Mr Ebeid to ‘independent chair’ at KPMG Australia is KPMG’s version of a ‘cleanup’. This is hard to take seriously. This is a clear conflict of interest. This looks a long way from independent.

“His appointment is a performative rather than a substantive ‘clean up’ of KPMG. This is a firm that has failed to meet its obligations in handling a whistleblower and it appears he was involved in that.

“Mr Ebeid’s appointment shows the deeply embedded nature of the cultural problems at KMPG, evident in the recent scandals. It risks entrenching the very culture and leadership that need to change.  KPMG does not appear to understand the scale of the integrity, accountability and trust deficit it faces.

“This doesn’t pass any ethics test. If you’re on the board working with partners to oversee a whistleblower investigation into serious allegations of ethical misconduct, it’s hard to see how there isn’t a conflict of interest. I don’t think Australians would regard that as independence.”

“This is not the fresh start for KPMG that it attempts to be. Mr Ebeid is a part of the culture and leadership team where things have gone seriously wrong in KPMG.

“Mr Ebeid shares responsibility for KPMG’s recent treatment of the whistleblower and the leadership’s failure to hear and respond to the very serious allegations of ethical failure at KPMG. 

“Appointing an existing board member with deep involvement in KPMG’s recent issues as an ‘independent’ chair simply doesn’t pass the pub test. 

Albanese keeps it open in order to deliver this speech, so he can then wrap up the week on this high (and you’ll see this all over the socials from Labor MPs)

Well, as we wind up the Budget session here, I thank the member for Gorton for her question. And this is a Budget that delivers real change for Australians.

We don’t defend a status quo that doesn’t work for people, nor do we pretend that the answer is to tear it all down and walk away.Order.We do the hard work of building Australia up. We choose progress over protest. We choose action over anger. We choose outcomes over outrage.

We choose real change to make a real difference for Australians. Not just identifying issues..but taking real action. Not simply occupying the space or just passing the time. But making a positive difference, delivering change that people can see and that they can feel. And that is why just this week the increase in the minimum wage, the decrease in taxes, the support for paid parental leave, the super paid every payday – all of these changes making a positive difference to people’s lives.

And whilst Australians can rely upon the Labor Party to deliver real change

They know that the three right-wing parties, the axis of grievance over there, will oppose all of the positive measures. We want higher wages – they actually argue for lower wages as a key part of their economic architecture.

We want lower taxes – they go to elections arguing for higher taxes for every working Australian.

We want more first-home buyers.

We saw in the last question who they want to represent and who they want to defend, who they want to defend. That’s their priority. We back Australian aspiration. They undermine it.

The three right-wing parties just offer grievance and division. Nothing more. Labor backs every single Australian and backs their aspiration, because Labor is the party of aspiration. Aspiration for all, not just for some. And we’re a party absolutely committed each and every day we’re in office to delivering real change.

In case you missed it, the mortgage broker who spent thousands on anti-Labor tax billboards, Joseph Dauoud, paid the highest bid to win the event the press gallery was selling for some one on one time with the prime minister. Dauoud paid $16,500 to play tennis with Albanese.

He’s been on socials bragging about it and wants to ask about the tax changes. This has been celebrated by some in the media, who see no problem with the press gallery selling access to the prime minister and other senior politicians.

And this is a bloke who has a spare $30,000 to drop on these sorts of things – and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for him because of tax changes that will make it easier for first home owners to buy their own house? I do not have a spare $30,000. Nowhere close to it, and I earn more than the average Australian. But this is where we are.

Albanese is asked:

“Aussie legend Joseph Daoud spent $17,500 of his own money on billboards telling the Labor Government to drop their ambition taxes. He’s paid up again, winning an auctioned tennis match at The Lodge to get the Prime Minister’s attention. The Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election that his word was his bond. So, when Joseph gets to the Lodge, will the Prime Minister tell him why his word on negative gearing and capital gains tax was broken? Or will Joseph be served up another Labor tax hike?”

Albanese:

….I’m sure you were there, and many were, and we’re not supposed to talk about it, in spite of the fact he just came in and asked a question about it! … and good on you for standing up to…but I suspect there’s another bloke having a go over here (Dan Tehan)

The bloke who stands up whenever a question is asked and moves two or three points of order, makes sure his KPI is reached of getting on the TV, 10 times every day.

Because why would you ask that question, Mr Speaker?

Why would you ask that question?

I’ll make this point. When it comes to this gentleman – and I don’t know who he is, obviously…the Leader of the Opposition mentioned him in his speech, and he’s obviously a mate, and they think it’s very clever to do all this.

And I’m quite happy that more money is going to charity. But let me make this point as well – if it’s a choice between someone who’s in the sector somewhere and who’s got enough money to buy billboards and spend all this, or first-home buyers struggling to get into a home….I’m for the first-home buyers! I’m for the first-home buyers.

I’m for the people who have nothing to give but their time. I’m for the people who work hard. I’m for the people who have a right to have the security of a roof over their head.

And let me tell you this – the more they go down this road, the more aces we will serve up.

Independent MP Sophie Scamps asks:

My question is to the Prime Minister: more than 400 Australians die by suicide linked to gambling every year. That’s more than 1,000 lives lost since the Murphy Report was handed down the Government has ignored key recommendations from the inquiry, including establishing a national regulator and ending gambling inducements and advertising. Prime Minister, why has the Government chosen to protect the profits of gambling, media and sporting companies, instead of implementing all of the inquiry’s recommendations in order to save the lives of Australians?

Albanese:

The legislation that was introduced into the Parliament today follows on from the previous work that my Government has done. More work than has been done by any government, any government to crack down on gambling since Federation. And this legislation will make an enormous difference.

It restricts advertising of gambling. It makes sure that people can opt out of receiving gambling. It addresses underlying issues of gambling advertising as well. It addresses the issue of overseas and international companies and makes sure that they can be excluded. It addresses also issues that have never been addressed, such as – I forget what the member for Mackellar, or the member for Warringah, to give Manly Warringah home turf, the ground there at Brookvale Oval, as I call it, was, of course, sponsored by a gambling company.

So that when every time there’s a game on there, and every time around the ground, you see that constant advertising as well. What our legislation will do is to make sure that future contracts can’t be entered into over things such as advertising on jerseys, advertising on grounds.

We have sat down as well and worked with – we have worked constructively with the anti-gambling sector, we’ve worked constructively as well with the commercial broadcasters, we’ve worked constructively with sporting organisations as well. To make sure that we can minimise harms, to make sure that reforms are practical – that’s what governments have to do, is to receive appropriate advice. 

This is good reform. This is a major step forward. And the Parliament should vote for it. If they don’t, if they don’t, then you do have the option of the status quo. You do have that option.

But what we will do is we have taken the strongest possible action that any government has taken in history.

Albanese is asked:

I refer to another mean-spirited act by the Prime Minister to cut the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged over 65. The CEO of National Seniors Australia, Chris Grice, has said, and I quote, “The cuts could push people to downgrade their cover, potentially leaving them underinsured when they need it most. At the same time, this will add pressure to an already stressed public hospital system.” Prime Minister, how many older Australians will be worse off under this broken promise?

Mark Butler takes it:

I thank the member for his question, which is a question I’ve answered before in this place since the Budget. As I’ve said on a number of occasions publicly and in this chamber, the additional support that over-65s have received since about 2004 for their private health insurance premium is something we did revisit, given the significant pressure on our aged care system and the need to find additional funding to deal with the demand that has been the subject of some discussions in this Parliament over the course of this week.

Let’s be clear – the additional premium on the rebate has meant that households next to each other on the same income, on exactly the same income, have been receiving a different level of support for their private health insurance based solely on their age.

…And at a time, as I said, when we need to lean so heavily into the need to find additional capacity in the aged care system, that was not a use of taxpayer funds that we felt we were able to continue. Now, to the question that I was asked or referred to by the Prime Minister, our modelling indicates that this will lead to a change of about 44,000 people in the health insurance system, or about, I think, 0.4% of the health insurance membership. Set that against the fact that health insurance membership has been climbing by 2% per year on a very consistent basis over the last several years, health insurance will continue to grow.

Tanya Plibersek takes a dixer on paid parental leave and adds in:

…none of this is safe if those opposite have their way. The Liberals have never supported paid parental leave. One Nation hates it. Senator Hanson said in 2017 that ‘women just get pregnant for the money;. She said in April – she said, “Listen, love, you have the equipment. That’s what you’re here for. If you don’t want to interrupt your career, don’t have a baby”. And at the Press Club recently, she said, “The gender pay gap is all smoke and mirrors. Women take time off and they’re not paid their wages ’cause they’re not working. Fair enough,” she said.

But this is typical.

One Nation pretend they’re for working families but they’re not. They’re for lower wages. They say that workers are lazy, they should be easier to sack, and they’re paid too much. Fits right in with the Liberal Party, who say that low wages are a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. Mr Speaker, on this side, we know what we’re for. We are for higher wages, we are for lower taxes, we are for stronger paid parental leave, we are for a stronger Medicare system, we’re for free TAFE and lower university costs. We are for working families. Those opposite are all whinge and all pretence.

Albanese is asked:

Twice in this Parliament, the Prime Minister has been directly asked to guarantee housing prices will not tank. Twice, he refused. The Prime Minister keeps claiming his Budget is helping first-home buyers. Can he tell the House whether the number of first-home buyers has actually increased since the Budget, and by how many?

Albanese:

I thank the member for his question. I’m asked about house prices and I’m asked about first-home buyers. And I really thank you for the question. When it comes to house prices, the Shadow Minister for Housing has made some comments about this. He has said this on just 1 July, “I think these will blips and bumps.” He went on the day before, in case you think it was an accident, “In other markets, speaking about Sydney and Melbourne, there may be price growth.” There may be short-term hiccups. In case you were wondering whether that was an accident, he said this way back in May, “I can tell you, as Shadow Housing Minister, I think house prices are too high.” Now, when the Shadow Minister for Housing says that, who’s been appointed to be the housing spokesperson for the Liberal Party and the National Party, then one would assume that that is all of their position. I assume that has been through the shadow cabinet and that that is their position.

Then we all lose about seven minutes in a back and forth over points of order that go no where. There is nothing else worth reporting here. We do not deserve this.

Tony Burke takes a dixer on border security and then he takes this question from Ted O’Brien:

Over recent weeks, shots have been fired at an Australian Border Force vessel from an illegal boat. We’ve seen the biggest seizure of cocaine in Australia’s history, with police believing the drugs were imported by sea. And we’ve had 12 more illegal arrivals in Far North Queensland, who managed to have a frothy at the pub before authorities detained them. Why is the Albanese Government so weak in protecting Australia’s borders?

Which? Excuse me? That is three examples of being intercepted? This does not make sense, but then again neither does the Coalition.

Burke takes this one for the PM

I am proud of our authorities when they intercept drugs.

Those opposite see a drug interception, see a drug interception as a problem for our authorities.

Every time drugs are intercepted by Border Force or the Australian Police, we have pride in the people who wear that uniform and we stand with them.

When Border Force intercept, you get a sense – you get a sense of the level of aggression in that question, the level of aggression from those who want to harm our borders and those who want to harm our country.

And I am proud of Australian Border Force and Operation Sovereign Borders, that even when people come with those sorts of weapons, we make sure, we make sure that they are not successful.

We make sure that their operations are not successful.

There is something that I will pay credit to the previous government for, I will pay credit for, because it’s something that has continued.

It has been more than a decade since there has been a successful people smuggling operation. More than a decade.

Because it’s true and that’s the message that people smugglers don’t want to hear.

But this character, this character, this Leader of the Opposition, the guy who wants to bring all three right-wing parties together…

Dan Tehan has a point of order about titles.

Burke:

Mr Speaker, at 2:30 on 2 July, he’s the Leader of the Opposition, and I refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition. (which is a dig at the rumblings that Taylor is also on the outs in the Liberal party)

But let me say, the Leader of the Opposition… I notice they took issue with the title but not issue with the accusation.

No issue with the accusation at all! Because he is giving the messages, he is giving the messages that people smugglers want.

Tehan has another point of order – he wants to know about the frothies. (no really)

Burke:

You go through all three examples they gave. One – drug interception, successful, good. Second – Border Force intercepting and following on even in the face of gunfire. Even in the face of gunfire. And instead of standing with those Australian officials, you want to mock them. And, thirdly, thirdly, what happened in Weipa, what happened in Weipa – clearly a question they wrote before they realised every one of those individuals had been removed from Australia.

If you want to show that you care about the borders, stop providing the information for people smugglers. I never thought… And a hint, a hint on border protection – if the key question for the Leader of the Opposition is, “Do you get your senators to vote with the Greens?” Warning. Warning in terms of where that leads.

Monique Ryan asks Jason Clare:

My question is to the Minister for Education: It was reported today that the Australian Tertiary Education Commission won’t advise on the reasonable cost of degrees until mid-2027 at the earliest, which means that the Job Ready Graduate Scheme will continue at least until 2028. 285,000 students will next year pay more than $54,000 for arts, law and commerce degrees. $90,000 for double degrees. How can you justify this when you’ve acknowledged on many occasions that Job Ready Graduates isn’t working?

Jason Clare:

Can I thank the member for Kooyong for her question, and for her passion in this area of higher education. Like me, like I think all members of Parliament, you understand the power of education to change lives.

And the truth is that we’ve got a good education system in Australia, but it can be better, and it can be fairer. And that’s what the reforms that we’re implementing across early education, across school education, and across higher education are all about. And particularly in higher education, we’re driven by the recommendations of the Universities Accord. We’ve now implemented 36 of the 47 recommendations in the accord in full or in part.

And we’ll continue to work through that report. And as you rightly point out, that makes recommendations about the Job Ready Graduate Scheme. I have said it’s failed. I’ve said work on fixing it is unfinished business. And I have said – and you will know – that the Australian Tertiary Education Commission has also pointed out the work they’re doing on the cost of teaching and learning, that they will finalise next year. Now, they are the facts. What is also a fact is that no government has done more to cut student debt than this government and this prime minister. 

We have cut student debt by 20% for 3 million Australians. And by doing that, taken $16 billion off the backs of young Australians. Something, by the way, that the Liberal Party described as “profoundly unfair”.

Said it was vote-buying, did you? Yeah, they still don’t get it. They still don’t get it.

But it sort of explains why they are over there and we’re over here. The other point I’d make is it’s not the only thing we are doing to make our education system better and fairer.

Because there’s also legislation in the Parliament at the moment to invest an extra $3.5 billion into our system to help more kids get a crack at going to university.

And, in particular, help more kids from poor families, from the bush and from the regions to get a crack at going to university – something that the Liberal Party has just said they think is “socialism”. 

Well, I actually think it’s fairness. And I hope that my friends in the National Party, whose kids in their communities will agree and do what they always do when they think the Liberal Party gets it wrong, and that is roll them and vote for legislation that will help kids from the bush.

Milton Dick takes a moment to pay tribute to Steven Smith, a Comcar driver who is retiring next week after driving MPs for 44 years.

The Comcar drivers pick up MPs and drive them to work engagements. More than four decades is incredible. Smith is watching online from Melbourne, Dick says.

Dick says

COMCAR drivers play a vital and valued role in supporting the work of Parliament. They ensure that members and senators can carry out their duties safely, efficiently, and reliably, often working behind the scenes but always contributing to the smooth functioning of our democratic processes. Their professionalism, discretion and commitment are greatly appreciated by all of those who serve in this place. Mr Smith, in particular, will be a familiar face to many present in the chamber. For more over than four decades, he’s provided exemplary service to countless members. He is asked I convey this message to all members today: In his words, “That it’s been an honour of a lifetime to serve members of Parliament for so many years.” So, on behalf of the House, I thank Mr Smith for his remarkable contribution to the Parliament, to the nation’s democracy, and I give a shout-out to all COMCAR drivers.

The house applauds. As it should. It is the people behind the scenes who keep the parliament running – and MPs are truly nothing without people who dedicate their lives to taking care of the little details that make it all run smoothly.

It’s only taken forever, but the Coalition have found an actual policy issue Australians care about, to ask about.

Angus Taylor:

Under Labor, aged care wait times have blown out to over a year. More than 200,000 Australians are waiting for care. Today, Labor was defeated in the Senate, which passed the Coalition’s bill to put people back in charge of aged care decision-making. Why won’t Labor support the Coalition’s bill to provide human oversight of all aged care decisions?

Anthony Albanese is not happy to be dealing with this.

Albanese:

I will make two points before I ask the minister to respond. The first is that the premise of the question is wrong. There is human oversight over all of these processes. And, second, is that for the party of Robodebt to actually have the hide to come in here and talk about these issues shows extraordinary, extraordinary gumption. When we were left with an aged care system that was titled, summed up by one word in the Interim Royal Commission, established under the former government, and that word was “neglect”. We have not engaged in neglect. What we have done is to actually have legislation that passed the Parliament…

I ask it be withdrawn.

Tim Wilson has said something, but it is unclear what. Milton Dick asks him to withdraw. Berries and Cream stands up like a petulant only child and says:

…Fine, I withdraw. Fine.

There are ooohhhhs from the chamber, but Dick doesn’t bite.

Albanese:

And the final point that I will make is that the aged care legislation that passed this Parliament in the last term, which was the most significant reform of aged care this century, by a long way, passed – to give credit where credit’s due – with the initiative of the Government but with the support of the Peter Dutton-led Opposition at that time. That was a good thing. And as a result of that, you have seen these changes flowing through from a period that was, frankly, in a state of collapse.I’ll invite the Minister for Aged Care.

Sam Rae:

Let me be clear – assessments are always conducted by qualified human assessors with clinical input, documented from start to finish.

And this is about delivering a system that is efficient, accurate, and fair, so that no matter where in Australia someone lives, or who does their assessment, they are treated equitably.

Now, being a responsible steward of this system upon which so many older people rely means approaching changes in a careful and considered way.

The Government has been clear – it shares the intent of the priority senator’s bill, but we’re concerned that in practice it would lead to inconsistent and subjective decisions and increased wait times for older people.

This morning, I announced the Government will itself, through legislation, establish a new legislated escalation option so outcomes of the aged care integrated assessment tool can be changed in extenuating circumstances.*

This means that in the small number of cases where a person’s complex circumstances are not fully captured by the tool, under this new pathway their assessment can be escalated to the Secretary of the Department and adjusted if necessary so they get appropriate care.

Now, we’ll take the parliamentary break to consider what specific form this pathway might take. We’ll consult with older people and the sector. And we will, if people are willing, work across the Parliament to get the best outcomes for older people.

*This came up after Monique Ryan raised this issue last week in the parliament (after weeks of behind the scenes representations)

It is the last one for about five weeks, so you know it is going to be a mess.

But Simon Kennedy opens with an actual proper question addressing something politicians should be across:

In February 2026, a constituent of mine, Mr Austin, aged 98, had his aged care application reviewed by Labor’s AI tool. Despite his age and suffering a light threatening fall, his application was assessed as low priority. His family wrote to the minister, only to receive a generic departmental response. The next day, Mr Austin unfortunately died. Will the government now support the coalition’s bill to provide human oversight of all aged care decisions?

Sam Rae:

I thank the member for the question. And, firstly, can I extend my condolences to Mr Austin’s family? As I said earlier in this week, it stands to any reasonable person’s judgement that there’s not a single person in this place who wants an older Australian to die while waiting for care.

It’s why our generational reforms of Australia’s aged care system have been, and continue to be, so important. The royal commission looked into older people dying while waiting for care. And as I said earlier, the peak of the aged care crisis in 2018, more than 16,000 older Australians were dying every year, waiting for care. And, of course, that Aged Care Royal Commission released a report that was titled Neglect.

We, since being elected in 2022, have made the most significant investments in Australia’s aged care system ever. We are overhauling the aged care system, whether it’s in-home care, residential aged care, from the ground up. And the way that we drive down the numbers, and that we’ve successfully done so, is to reduce the wait times for older people to receive the care that they need. The latest data shows that we are well on our way to do that. Standard priority cases are waiting, on average, three months less. Medium-priority cases are waiting two months less.

High-priority wait times are now just one to two months. And those assessed as urgent priority, as always, will receive their full funding within a single month. Assessment wait times have been reduced from the worst point, where the people were waiting up to 10 months, and the median wait time for comprehensive assessments is now well under a single month. Next year, the Federal Government will invest $47 billion…

There is a point of order about the AI part of the question.

Rae says:

There is no artificial intelligence in our aged care assessment system. And it is dishonest for any actor to pretend otherwise. The integrated assessment tool uses qualified human assessors to complete the clinical assessments, and that is then used to apply the Aged Care Rules so that we have a system that is fair for every single Australian. We’ll continue to make sure that Australians get the very best care – that’s what they deserve. And you guys should have done it when you were in government.

It is the airing of the grievances for the MPs – also known as 90 second statements, so go and get yourself a little sugar and whatever it is you need to get through the next hour and a bit.

We don’t judge here. Get what you need

The last question is about whether or not the government would support a second Pacific team and Conroy says:

I’m looking forward to the PNG coming and dominating the competition. This is great for people to people connections, it is great for building the economy of PNG, it’s great because it is based on a shared strategic underpinning, a strategic trust. I just say to people who follow other codes, like Aussie Rules, and I’m being kind because I have a national audience here, this is the first time in the history of the world a sport has been used for international diplomacy, and I’m proud that that’s rugby league. This country is safer and more secure because of rugby league, and long may it be.

Q: I want to continue on the theme of AUKUS as well. Considering the ongoing debate within the Labor movement and I appreciate you made ta case that it’s still a vocal minority speaking out against it but should Labor have done a better job for making the case on AUKUS to the rank and file when the party signed up to the pact back in 2021, in the early stages then, and do you suspect – did you think that people – prominent Labor Paul Keating, Peter Garrett, can be convinced or do you agree to disagree from here on?

Conroy:

I think we’re firmly in the agree to disagree territory to be honest, think that’s reasonable. I have great respect for Peter Garrett. I think his contribution to public life is incredibly audible but he’s a ran and almost got elected to the Senate in 1984 on an anti-nuclear position. To think more than 40 years on he’s suddenly going to change his position on this issue is quite frankly ridiculous. I which think we need to be reasonable about this.

The debate in this country sometimes – and I don’t want to get into sledging the fourth estate because I’m about to have 30 minutes of questions from them but I just think there’s a hyperbole here that is just ridiculous.

We’re hitting every milestone. There’s an element of confirmation bias where every single piece of news demonstrates someone’s pre-held position about AUKUS.

I don’t think that’s mature if we look at it based on the facts, we’re hitting every milestone, we think it’s in the national interests, we’ll keep making that case but people have a right to disagree. That’s why we live in this vibrant democracy that I’m committed to defending.

Q: It’s been three years since you had to justify AUKUS to the Labor movement at National Press Club conference. What does it say that the debate hasn’t been settled and has to be quelled this time?

Pat Conroy:

Thanks for the question but I do reject the characterisation you put into the latter the part of that. There is very strong support for AUKUS within the Australian Labor Party. At the national conference it got well over an 80% vote.

For any contentious issue that’s an overwhelming majority and I’m confident that the support is strong. It’s natural for all parties to look at this issue, not just in Australia but in the UK and the United States.

This is a huge multi-decade undertaking that requires significant investment. It’s in our national interests. I’ll keep making that case but support remains strong but it should always be examined because it’s not just the concept of this project, it’s about delivering the project and that’s what we’re focused on.

Why won’t it be debated then?

I’m not getting ahead of confierce, the conference is its own master. Every delegate has the right to movements — amendments as per the Standing Orders of the conference but I’ll make a point.

There’s a vocal minority within the party that have questions about that and that’s fair enough, that’s understandable but at recent delegate elections where we elected national conference delegates a candidate running AUKUS running in the very progressive seat of Sydney, I can’t think any more progressive that Sydney, and he got something like 25% of the vote.

For anyone saying there’s this huge cord, disconnect, between the elected members of the Labor Party and ta rank and file they’re just not reflecting reality and that vote demonstrated that.

Pat Conroy:

I see two issues at play. First, the system did impose any discipline on changes to requirements which meant that designs were reworked and recosted. 

Secondly, the system entrenched incentives that encouraged cost underestimation to secure support for a project discouraging a frank or accurate costing.

Take the Hunter Class project for example. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of changes were ticked off without considering the impact of cost, schedule or the design. A project with the right intent and capability at the time. But let down by a system that prioritised gold-plated requirements without considering cost and schedule impacts. The task force found that defence’s costing capability has atrophied over time. It’s become fragmented, underresourced and overreliant on contractors and consultants.

When we came to government in 2022 there were more than 8,000 contractors and consultants working in defence. Many doing jobs normally dope by public servants and ADF members.

We have brought this down to around 5,000, and further reductions over the next three years will result in a total expected saving of more than $3 billion on external labour by 28-29. Importantly, at the same time, we’re investing in the capability of the defence workforce so they have the skills, experience and commercial acumen required to work more effectively with industry and deliver better capability to the ADF. 

It must be said that these reforms have not come about because of any failings of the thousands of people in the defence workforce – t’s about ensuring they are set up for success. For too long they have been hamstrung by processes and systems that were not fit for purpose.

I was heartened to read that Senator James Patterson says that he is open minded about these reforms. We welcome that because, really, this is something that should be above politics.

The defence industry minister is addressing the press club about some of the defence procurement changes he is floating. Here is the plan announced in a statement ahead of the speech:

The 2026 Defence Industry Development Strategy builds on the Government’s plan to support a defence future made in Australia by:

• Setting targets for large defence primes to grow the defence industrial workforce, with a focus on apprentices.
  
• Enhancing broader workforce initiatives to grow the required skills, encourage the uptake of STEM learning, and strengthen partnerships between Defence, industry and the education sector. This includes:
  • Extending the Defence Industry Internship Program (DIIP) with more than $17 million in funding, ensuring more university students gain practical experience in Australia’s growing defence industry.
    
  • Investing nearly $30 million to expand the Schools Pathway Program, encouraging school students to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics studies and explore careers in defence industry.
    
• Adding the Ghost Shark extra large autonomous underwater vehicle as a priority export capability for the Australian Defence Strategic Sales Office.
  
• Reforming and relaunching the USD $3 billion Defence Export Facility, which has been underutilised since its establishment in 2018, making it easier for Defence industry to access this pool of funds.
  
• Investing an additional $80 million in Defence Industry Development Grants to build self-reliance and support Australian defence businesses. 
  
• Streamlining procurement to enable faster, more agile delivery of capability to Defence, including by implementing a ‘Continuous Capability Development and Delivery’ and ‘Minimum Viable Contracting’ approach.

Morgan Harrington

Earlier today, Andrew Wilkie used a speech in parliament to mention a new counter that“shows the amount of money lost to gambling in this country since the Murphy report was given to the government.”

What’s he on about?

Yesterday The Australia Institute released the National Gambling Toll, which tallies Australia’s gambling losses since July 1, 2023, right after the Murphy Review released its final report. You can see the losses stack up in real time here. The toll stands at over $104 billion a year. That’s an average of $666 million every week.

Today the Albanese Government is introducing legislation in response to the Murphy Review. If passed, certain restrictions on gambling advertising will be introduced, but they will stop well short of the full ban on ads for online gambling recommended by the Review.

Australia’s losses to gambling have increased a staggering 75% since 2020, and the rapid rise of online gambling is partly to blame. In 2024, more than one third of Australian adults participated in online gambling, compared to just 8% in 2017.

On a per person basis, Australians lose more money to gambling than any other country. Australians are also the biggest online gamblers in the world. To curb the all-pervasiveness of online gambling, the Murphy Review recommended a full ban on ads for online gambling, and the introduction of a national regulator. Without this kind of serious reform, the National Gambling Toll is only going to continue its rapid climb.

Anna Chang

Clearly the topline message for defenders of this year’s Midwinter Ball is some version of: “since its inception the Midwinter Ball has now raised a total of over $6 million.”

That’s one way to get yourself a big number. Just to be clear, the actual amount raised for charity last night was reportedly (but much, much less reported), $375,000.

While I’m all for raising money for charity — just this week, we sent our own EOFY appeal emails and messages to help keep The Point running for another year, the thing is this: for the assembled power in that room, $375,000 is a drop in the ocean.

When it comes to the Midwinter Ball, it’s important to remember that while charity shifts millions, politics shifts billions. That’s what Parliament does every day when it sits. 

(That’s why we have billionaires buying politicians planes.)

So while we obviously don’t begrudge local charities much needed funds, let’s get real.

David Richardson

The financial press never tires of pointing to any “bad” figures on productivity and weaponising those figures to put pressure on government to follow an economic policy agenda favoured by big business.

The Financial Review repeats that sort of reporting today saying “Australia’s productivity went backwards by 0.7 per cent in 2024, ranking it 29th out of 39 advanced economies and lower than New Zealand.”

A few days ago former chair of the Federal Reserve System (the US central bank), Alan Greenspan died. He was one of the longest serving CEOs of the Fed going from 1987 to 2006. That may seem unrelated but his legacy has important lessons for Australia.

Greenspan allowed the computer-led “new economy” boom to continue without bringing it to a halt with a contractionary monetary policy that others recommended. He didn’t believe the forecasts of higher inflation and, in particular, mistrusted the productivity figures.

Like Australia the US is dominated by the service sector in which both productivity and inflation are notoriously hard to measure. Indeed, the relevant statistical agency often measures output values by measuring the value of inputs which imparts a downward bias to productivity and an upward bias in inflation measures when adjustments for quality are not made. Eventually Greenspan was proved right. By letting the boom continue productivity improved and the inflation bogey never turned up, despite unemployment going down to levels not seen in the US since the 1960s. 

Contrast with Australia. You will hear the Australian Reserve Bank say that economic growth needs to be restrained because productivity growth is too low. So they make sure we do not have a boom or anything like it. Demand has been repressed in Australia yet it is well-known that higher growth is associated with higher productivity, as indeed, Greenspan showed.

ABS figures show Australia’s service sector is 82% of the economy. It is this sector’s productivity that is hard to measure. Mining is 10% of the economy and its productivity growth has been minus 5.2% on average over the last 5 years. Nobody believes that, every year, Australian miners are 5% per annum worse at what they are doing. So we should not take mining productivity statistics too seriously. Neither should we take services productivity too seriously!  And we should also note that a couple of years ago Australia’s unemployment went as low as 3.4% (October 2022) without showing signs of accelerating price or wage inflation—just like in Greenspan’s new economy boom. 

Australia’s flagship climate policy, the Safeguard Mechanism, is failing to drive actual emission reductions.

On this episode of Follow the Money, the authors of new Australia Institute research, Dr Fergus Green and Frances Medlock, join Glenn Connley to discuss the major failures of the Safeguard Mechanism, the dodgy “carbon offsets” at the heart the scheme, and what can be done to drive down emissions.

Journalist Peter Greste and advocate Holly Rankin are among those who have signed up to the Democracy Counts campaign, which unites groups and people in a non-partisan way to call for truth in political advertising and better standards in politics and institutions to try and win back trust.

The group believe that trust in democracy will continue to decline in Australia if there are not changes made to ensure information people receive is factual and can be counted on.

Skye Predavec

Today, NSW’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) announced that it’s investigating potential undeclared political donations made by Catholic Schools NSW for “purposes that included the recruitment and/or renewal of members to the Liberal party”.

Specifically, ICAC is investigating whether, between 2019 and 2023,

1. Persons, including Christian Ellis, Jeremy Greenwood, Robert Assaf and Jean-Claude Perrottet solicited or accepted political donations, including from prohibited donors, in amounts that were not declared and exceeded applicable donation caps, for purposes that included the recruitment and/or renewal of members to the Liberal Party;
2. Political donations, in amounts that were not declared and exceeded applicable donation caps, were made by Catholic Schools New South Wales, pursuant to payments arranged and approved by its Chief Executive Officer, Dallas McInerney, for purposes that included the recruitment and/or renewal of members to the Liberal Party;

This is part of the broader “Operation Rosny” into donations and funding “associated with” the Liberal party’s NSW division.

In terms of Catholic Schools NSW, the investigation centres on its CEO Dallas McInerney, who allegedly “arranged and approved” the donations. ICAC is also investigating other Liberal party figures, including Jean-Claude Perrottet (the brother of former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet) who previously made “serious, deliberate and co-ordinated attempts” to evade appearing before a parliamentary inquiry into his alleged acceptance of donations from a property developer. Jean-Claude Perrottet is also the media manager at Catholic Schools NSW.

McInerney is a factional ally of Angus Taylor, and like many of the others being investigated he’s linked to the right-wing faction of the NSW Liberals.

Operation Rosny is another reminder of ICAC’s value as an independent commission that’s able to freely investigate political figures, a feature that’s enabled it to bring down three state premiers.

But it also brings up the political influence of private schools, with peak bodies that made tens of thousands in political donations before the 2023 NSW election, and which frequently criticise parties and candidates that seek to rejig school funding arrangements.

Catholic Schools NSW’s funding comes mainly from governments and levies on Catholic schools. Allegations that the Catholic Schools NSW CEO may have secretly made substantial donations as part of Liberal party branch-stacking efforts is another reason to be sceptical of these kinds of political links to Australian education.

Hamdi Jama

The cost of living and climate change are often viewed as totally separate subjects, but they are inherently connected.

Climate change is already driving up the prices of essentials like food and insurance and this is only going to get worse.

Extreme weather events like floods, bushfires, and storms can damage homes, crops, and vital infrastructure, adding to the cost of living.

The Australia Institute research from 2024 showed that one in 20 Australian households spent more than seven weeks’ worth of their gross income just to insure their homes.

To add to this, food prices are higher as rising temperatures make crops harder to grow, or disasters completely wipe them out. In 2023, 92% of Australian farmers reported being more affected by climate change than in the previous three years. The climate catastrophe will continue to disrupt supply chains and, in some cases, worsen food insecurity.

Australians are paying more for basic living costs because of decades of wilful Commonwealth inaction on climate. Without stronger action to reduce emissions and build climate resilience, Australian families are likely to face even greater cost-of-living pressures in the years ahead.

Rod Campbell

A big renewable hydrogen project has had a ‘final investment decision’.

Explosives manufacturer Orica deciding to go ahead with a biggish project in the Hunter Valley, according to Energy News Bulletin (Good publication. It’s where gas industry people speak honestly to each other). 

This project is worth highlighting because so much coverage of hydrogen has been just hype and greenwashing. The Australia Institute has been calling it out for a long time.

But this is not some ridiculous ‘green energy superpower’ talking point. (Think Kitty Flannagan in Utopia “I don’t want to build it, I want to launch it”)

This is government and a major company that is major user/producer of hydrogen and related chemical products working to decarbonise existing hydrogen use. 

This is exactly what clean hydrogen development in Australia should look like. 

There’s a way to go, but let’s hope it’s successful. According to the piece:

“Construction is scheduled to begin this year, with first hydrogen production targeted for early 2029.  

“Once operational, HVHH is expected to be among the largest renewable hydrogen projects in the southern hemisphere.”

Anna Chang

Andrew Wilkie has just given a passionate speech in the House on the impacts of gambling and the need for genuine gambling reform. It’s genuinely worth the watch (sorry, I’m a bit more earnest about the happenings in Parliament), as Wilkie has been a staunch advocate for gambling reform for over a decade.

Wilkie tells the House it’s not his first rodeo, and then reminds them what did happen on his first go around:

“You’d remember in my first term I had a written contract with the Prime Minister for widespread and deep gambling reform in this country, but of course the gambling industry applied the blow torch to the government. I assume the factions applied the blow torch to the Prime Minister, and ultimately the Prime Minister refused to honor that deal, and when the government went on its own path with much weaker gambling reform.”

He then goes on to call the Murphy review “without doubt the best blueprint for gambling reform this country has ever seen” and, because politics is about who has the numbers, reminds the Government that it has them (something this government does seems to need regular reminder):

“This time is completely different. The government has a thumping majority in the House of Representatives and, if it was to try and legislate and enact strong gambling reform, I do not doubt it would have the support of the Greens in the Senate. 

“In other words, this time around, the government, the Labor Party, has a clear runway. There is no obstacle in the way to finally doing it. “

Wilkie also gives us some facts, which include:

“…It was interesting. We had a counter out yesterday put out by the Australia Institute, and it shows the amount of money lost to gambling in this country since the Murphy report was given to the government has now exceeded $100 billion I’ll say that again, Deputy Speaker. In Australia, more than 100 billion with a B has been lost by gamblers since the Murphy report brought down its brought down the report, the Committee brought down its report. 

“How can we tolerate that? How can we tolerate that, and it’s not just a financial cost, it’s a personal cost.”

“…We’re meeting with families who have had someone in their family suicide because of addiction. They say that at least 400 people suicide year on result of gambling addiction in this country, and we know that the prevalence is probably chronically under reported. In other words, since the Murphy report was provided to the government. More than 1000 Australians have suicided because of inaction by politicians and governments. How can we live with that? How can we sleep at night?..”

Indeed.

David Richardson 

The Financial Review has reported that South32, an Australian mining company, is selling its aluminium businesses to Alcoa, a powerful American multinational. Key asset in this is South32’s stake in the Worsley alumina operations in West Australia. 

If this goes ahead it will further increase the excessive foreign ownership in Australian mining. The Reserve Bank has estimated that some 80% of the mining industry is foreign owned.  A Treasury report put Australia’s foreign ownership at 86%. These estimates are no longer up to date but it has been decades since the Australian Bureau of Statistics published foreign ownership figures by industry. 

The Fin reminds us that “Alcoa recently ran afoul of WA authorities when it was fined $55 million for unlawfully clearing thousands of hectares of jarrah forests near Perth, and the state’s Environmental Protection Authority is scrutinising its bauxite mining operations.”

This is not yet a done deal. South32 shareholders can oppose the deal and there are various regulatory hoops that can potentially hinder or block the deal. Unfortunately the Resources Minister, Madeleine King, has put out a press release welcoming the agreement. 

It would seem the last thing Australia needs is reducing Australian control of the mining and minerals processing industries and increasing the power of the already powerful foreign corporations that have a stranglehold on Australian resources.

Anna Chang

Just a quick update from yesterday, worth mentioning: the Government and Coalition managed to kybosh the Greens’ disallowance motion on part of the payday superannuation regulations (where employers now have to pay workers superannuation when they pay their wages, rather than at a later date).

The Greens had tried to disallow the part of this regulation where under 18s who work less than 30 hours per week won’t be paid super, but this disallowance motion was defeated late yesterday.

The weirdest thing about this, is that disallowing this kind of pay discrimination is something that the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) have been campaigning for.

But for those familiar with the SDA and things they’ve campaigned for in the past (aka ‘why we can’t have nice things’), it feels a little jarring (to say the least) that this is the hill that Labor has chosen to defy the SDA on.

Nationals leader Matt Canavan is leading the anti-gun law charge, doing the whole ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’

He is claiming (and backing) a claim that ‘legal fire arm holders’ are being targeted. A reminder that the Bondi shooter had a gun licence.

Bill Browne

The Catholic church might seem like an unlikely source of guidance on Artificial Intelligence and social media, but the church has long been interested in the interaction of technology, society and economics; and the new Pope Leo XIV (who has a background in mathematics) is familiar enough with computers that his brothers call him for tech support.

That culminated in May with the very substantial encyclical Magnificent Humanity, which warns that technology should serve humanity and not the other way around. I wrote about it briefly for the live blog, including its implied rebuke to tech bros. 

We know it’s influencing the Labor Party’s thinking as Labor MP Ash Ambihaipahar gave a speech last night about the connection between Catholic concern over technology and the Albanese Government’s social media ban. She flags introducing a “digital duty of care” that would recognise that tech companies owe a responsibility to their users.

Front Porch Republic has a series on Magnificent Humanityand Catholic social teaching if you’d like to read more.

Zac de Silva and Tess Ikonomou for AAP

Delaying changes to strengthen Australia’s social media laws will give big tech companies time to “shred documents” and prepare their case, the communications minister claims.

In the final sitting day before parliament breaks for more than a month, the federal government will introduce legislation giving the eSafety commissioner extra powers and increasing fines, along with a bill cracking down on gambling ads.

Neither bill will pass parliament on Thursday, with debate on the two resuming when politicians return to Canberra in August.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said the social media laws were urgent, despite the coalition and Greens teaming up to delay the reforms by sending it to an eight-week inquiry.

“I’m crestfallen,” she told ABC Radio on Thursday.

“Angus Taylor has decided to walk away from bipartisanship and he should explain why he would make such a craven and expedient decision.”

The communications minister said the opposition should front up as to why it was giving big tech an opportunity to prepare their case for “500-word” legislation that isn’t complex.

“Eight more weeks to get their ducks in a row, potentially eight weeks to shred documents now that they know these changes are coming,” she said.

Ms Wells also defended changes to gambling laws from critics who argue they do not go far enough as they would not stop inducements such as bonus bets.

She said parents had the ability to prevent their children from being exposed to gambling ads on free to air television by watching programs through a streaming service.

Liberal MPs plan to spend the next five weeks selling their proposal for permanent year-on-year tax cuts in a bid to build their profile with voters and push back against One Nation.

Party officials are optimistic parliament’s long winter break will give them room to make Australians more aware of their policy proposals, helping them cut through and reverse their dire political fortunes.

The coalition ends the first half of the parliamentary year trailing Labor and One Nation on a record low 17 per cent primary vote according to Newspoll, with some MPs beginning to chatter about Angus Taylor’s long-term leadership prospects.

Liberal MPs needed to focus on building a narrative voters could relate to, opposition treasury spokesman Tim Wilson told AAP.

“What should our focus be? It should be building out the policy frameworks, to have a story to tell Australians about how we’re going to build a more bright and hopeful Liberal future,” he said.

A press conference will be held a little later today with representatives from 35 organisations – from politics, to the media and non-government organisations, calling for truth in political advertising reforms. It’s called Democracy Counts and its aimed at restoring trust in politics and Australia’s democracy.

 We’ve all heard the warnings about democracy in decline but the message we’re bringing to Canberra today is not one of despair but one of action,” said Campaign Director Tom Mooney. 

These are the reforms governments must embark upon to earn back the public’s trust in politics and politicians, and to ensure all Australians can have a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their lives.   
 
Australia’s democracy is not broken. But the rules that protect it haven’t kept up.” 

 
The group has taken out a full page ad in today’s Australian newspaper and the Australian Financial Review to call for governments to: 

• Support modern civics and media literacy education  

• Implement truth in political advertising laws 

• Regulate lobbying so that politics works for all and not just some 
• Create greater independence for public service appointments  
• Increase funding for public interest journalism  
• Protect our nation from disinformation and interference through social media  

AAP

Some Australians are being charged a “poverty premium” by insurers because they can’t afford to make annual payments on policies.

Industry group Financial Counselling Australia and the Financial Rights Legal Centre have put insurers on notice after discovering customers are being kept in the dark on their payment options.

For many, paying premiums annually or by instalments can have big financial consequences because paying monthly or quarterly costs more.

This effectively amounts to a “poverty premium”, FCA disaster recovery co-ordinator Louise Hayes warned on Wednesday.

“People who are already stretched should not be charged more because they cannot pay a full year of insurance in one hit,” she said.

According to a report released by the FCA and the legal centre, insurance customers should expect to get clear information on their options.

It found customers using instalments pay an extra seven to 11 per cent on top of the annual payment.

Of the 20 insurers the report covers, 12 charged customers on instalment plans more.

Of those 12, only four clearly disclosed the cost difference and potential savings for yearly payments.

Two told the report authors they are reviewing their products, which will be checked once they are available.

That left six insurers who were leaving some or all of their customers in the dark.

When the time came to renew a policy, notices to customers tended to use vague wording, such as annual payments “may” be cheaper or instalment fees “may” apply.

“For the insurance market to work properly, consumers need appropriate information to make an informed decision,” legal centre policy development principal Drew MacRae said.

“The practices highlighted are unfair and financially penalise the people who need a break the most.”

Both bodies said it was time for insurers to clearly disclose costs and payment options at renewal time and remove instalment “penalties”.

The industry also needs to make sure, particularly during the current cost-of-living crisis, that customers in hardship aren’t locked into higher-cost arrangements.

The bodies also warned that if insurers are unwilling to adopt sufficiently transparent pricing practices, they will consider further action.

The most common types of insurance are home and contents, motor vehicle and private health. 

According to Canstar, the average annual home and contents insurance premium was $2,795 in 2025.

National Debt Helpline: 1800 007 007

AAP

Choked fertiliser supply chains teamed with an El Nino event could trigger food shortages and instability in the Indo-Pacific region, former national security leaders are warning.

The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group say there’s a plausible case for regional food shortages emerging over the next 12 months.

”This dire combination of a strong El Nino and the fertiliser crisis will have a significant impact on food production, and may lead to shortages, higher prices, panic buying and perhaps social unrest and conflict in the Indo-Pacific,” said retired colonel Neil Greet, a former Australian Army officer. 

The alliance fears Australia is not well-prepared for compounding climate and geopolitical risks threatening its neighbours and security partners, nor exacerbated cost-of-living pressures at home.

Australia’s climate is driven by more than just the El Nino-Southern Oscillation patterns that cycles in the Pacific Ocean periodically, though the recently confirmed El Nino event has historically brought less rain and warmer temperatures to the southeast.

The cyclical warming in the east Pacific Ocean is also associated with weaker monsoon rains in India, drought in Brazil and Colombia, more rain in southern parts of the United States, and coral loss in parts of the world, potentially weighing on fish stocks.

El Nino is also occurring on a background of higher global temperatures caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The war on Iran further complicates the outlook, the former defence chiefs says, with roughly a third of the raw materials used for global fertiliser production needing to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. 

Higher fuel and fertiliser costs had been weighing on agriculture margins globally, prompting many farmers to scale back plantings including in Australia, RaboResearch Australia and New Zealand general manager Stefan Vogel said.

He was not expecting a sharp global reduction in staple foods due to the Middle East conflict, however.

Market creativity to keep fertiliser supply chains moving, as well as price increases favouring the planting schedules of countries north of the equator, had helped soften the blow, Mr Vogel told AAP.

An El Nino was associated with drier conditions in Southeast Asia but the agricultural analyst said its influence on cropping was hard to predict given warm and dry weather can aid some phases of the growing cycle.

However, Mr Vogel said India – a big producer of wheat, rice and pulses – was already experiencing a delayed monsoon, and lower crop yields were possible without a recovery in rainfall conditions.

The report from former security leaders recommended Australia bolster regional food security programs and improve climate threat intelligence.

The group have been critical of the federal government’s failure to release a declassified version of a Office of National Intelligence assessment of the climate security risks.

The UK has released a similar redacted intelligence report warning declining global ecosystems could push more people into poverty and food insecurity, potentially fuelling higher migration rates, political polarisation and economic insecurity.

A review of a small number of defence projects came up with about $29bn in cost blow outs. That has put the government on the front foot over how defence procurement is dealt with, and what needs to change.

Pat Conroy (who was one of the ministers absent from the ball overnight, choosing instead to have a dinner with colleagues) was on 7.30 overnight where he was asked about the cost blow outs and whether he took responsibility as defence industry minister. He said:

Every minister involved in this over the last 15 years should take responsibility for what’s occurred. This sample included projects that had started well beyond a decade back. So, this has outlasted governments of all persuasions. We announced reforms in October 2022 that have improved the situation. But it’s clear that we need to do more and that’s why these radical reforms are necessary and that’s why we’re doing it. This will improve accountability, this will improve performance. And we’re being transparent with the Australian public that we need to do better. But we should also be fair dinkum that no one around the world does this perfectly… 

Pushed to ‘own the failures’ Conroy said:

I’m open about that. This is being about being transparent with the Australian public that the system put in place through the 2014 review by the Abbott Government where they outsourced project management from Defence to the private sector has failed. They put in place a bureaucratic structure where 26 of the senior leaders spent cumulatively 1600 hours in meetings where they – 

Q: Sure, as I just said, you’ve been in, you’ve been in the position as minister for a couple of years with control over the public servants as well as over how those decisions get made. So, you, you own that as well as Tony Abbott putting it in place.

Conroy: 

And that’s why we’ve announced the biggest reforms to the defence in 50 years. We announced them last year. We didn’t announce another review. We made a decision to reform and those reforms have come into place yesterday. And that’s a great thing for this country.

Q: As the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, I would like to ask you about the Royal Commission that is taking place into anti-Semitism and social cohesion. We’ve heard some pretty distressing evidence over the past few days in particular. Yesterday there was a comment that Elon Musk is partly to blame for anti-Jewish hatred on his social media platform, X. Do you think he is partly to blame?

Anne Aly:

I know that my colleague Josh Burns talked about this and I had a chat to him. I know what it’s like to give testimony when you are consistently and relentlessly on the receiving end of hatred and racism and harassment. So the first thing I want to do is to say that for those who gave testimony, just to thank them, but also to reach out in understanding of how re-traumatising and how difficult it can be.

I agree with my colleague, Josh Burns, that social media has a huge part to play here. I would so far to say that it is a cesspool when it comes to expressions of hatred, division, racism, anti-Semitism and again racism and misogynist tick language in all its forms. I think that social media companies have a responsibility.

We’ve done so much in terms of keeping children safe. I think social media companies have a responsibility, but I also want to reach out to all the adults in the room, too, that we also have a responsibility, every single person has a responsibility to, as the Prime Minister would say, take the temperature down, but also to ensure that when we get online, we are not just – what we are saying is not just words, they have consequences and they have impact.

Minister Anne Aly is out and about this morning for the government talking the gambling advertising legislation. The bill has been kicked to a senate committee and the Coalition has signalled they want it to be tougher, which the government is selling as ‘siding with big tech’ which, (and I don’t make a habit of defending the Coalition) this is not what this is – the legislation is flawed and does almost nothing to reduce harm for Australians, while allowing big gambling companies to continue exploiting Australians. The Greens are also against it, so Aly is asked if it is “inevitable that the Government will have to make amend to the gambling legislation?”

Aly:

I don’t think so. I think these are the strongest reforms that any government has taken around gambling. I know the Minister for Communications responsible for this, Minister Anika Wells, is committed to gambling reform, as is our Prime Minister and our entire Caucus. It is a big task to take on. Australia, you know, having a flutter, or whatever it’s called – I don’t gamble, so I don’t know – having a flutter is really part of Australian culture. It’s part of what we do, so this is difficult reform, but it is reform that we need to undertake.

Q: David Pocock wants a complete ban on gambling ads on TV and radio. He says no parent wants their kids being exposed to this. Are you comfortable with kids still seeing these ads?

Aly:

What we are doing, as I said, is undertaking the biggest sweep of gambling reforms that any government has ever taken. Even to this day, even before these reforms, there were a lot of things that we did to tackle harmful gambling and to tackle gambling addiction.

Q: Your colleague, Labor MP Mike Freelander views the advertising restrictions as a first step, that there is more to be done. Do you think it is a first step, that you can go further down the track?

Aly:

There is always more that we can do. We are not a government that sits still. We are a government that undertakes action and that keeps on moving, whether it’s in terms of raising wages for minimum wage workers that we are done ever since we’ve come into office in 2022, whether it’s tax cuts for Australians that we’ve con consecutively delivered in 2022, whether it’s gambling reform, but there is always more to do. The Prime Minister it rate this consistently, that governments do not stand still, that if you stand still the world will pass you by. Of course there is more that we can do and we are always looking to the future and looking at what we can do to serve Australia in the best way that we possibly can.

Q: You said that gambling, having a punt, having a flutter is part of Australian culture, but we lose more per capita on gambling than any other country. Surely that is not a culture that we want here?

Aly:

No, I don’t gamble. It’s not part of my cultural heritage if I can say that. I agree with you. I think that problem gambling is an issue. I think we need to distinguish here between gambling that is a flutter or something that people do on occasion. That is part of, I guess, a sporting event or whatever, but problem gambling – and I think the issue here is that we tackle problem gambling.

If you read anything today (other than The Point and The New Daily of course) make it this piece from award winning author, journalist and all round savant, Niki Savva.

A taste from the excellent piece:

[Angus] Taylor’s obvious replacement, Andrew Hastie, a conservative who can be both cerebral and cut-through, has pledged to destroy Hanson before she destroys him. Hastie’s rationale is that Liberals have to fight on all fronts. If they can’t convince voters they can stand up to Hanson, they will never convince them they can stand up to Labor.

Despicable threats to Hastie’s family incited by his opposition to One Nation and his appearance in court against accused war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith have understandably had a profound impact on Hastie’s thinking and approach.

Those two issues have won him admirers outside the Liberal Party, however they have undoubtedly cost him support internally, to the point where if he feels abandoned by the Liberal Party in this fight to the death, he will abandon the Liberal Party.

Hello and welcome to the final sitting day ahead of the winter break.

Thank goodness. Even for Auspol this has dragged on. There isn’t a huge amount on the agenda which means there will be plenty of time for all of the feels. And there is a lot of feels in the parliament at the moment, particularly around the Coalition which is a question in search of an answer at the moment. Or maybe a shiver in search of a spine. It’s hard to say.

The midwinter ball was overnight and it seemed to be the usual boring affair. We’ll bring you more gossip as the morning goes on, but Pauline Hanson did not show. In fact, in terms of politicians, it was a bit light on it seems. Is the midwinter ball losing its shine? One can only hope so. It does nothing to engender trust with the public – I mean, it’s hosted by journalists who are supposed to be speaking to power – not inviting power for little private cash for access chats and a dance floor.

Angus Taylor’s speech was one of the worst parts of the night we are told, with one ‘joke’ about there not being a red carpet at the ball because Tony Burke had laid it out for the “ISIS brides”.

Which WTF. Honestly. The ball should be scraped all together. His funniest line was about asking Sussan Ley for advice on the speech because she gave a good one last year and when she didn’t reply he wrote his own reply from her ‘fantastic, good job, well done Angus’ which is the one joke he has (other than his ambitions to be prime minister).

Anthony Albanese listed off all the things he has done for Sky and News Corp, including opening their headquarters to interviews and then had all the negative press he has received since the budget flash up – which got a big laugh from the room, but honestly – does anyone see the actual irony in it all?

With the gambling advertising reforms kicked to a senate committee, there won’t be a huge amount on the agenda for Labor, which purposefully passed it’s big legislation (the budget housing tax changes) last week.

That leaves lots of room for more moaning about small price drops in house values (not even uniform drops – just a small fall in some markets) and for the Coalition to moan about not having policies in general. Good. Time.

We’ll all need a break after today. So grab your coffee (number three is on the stove for me) and whatever you need to get through the day – and let’s jump in.