Australia Institute Live: 'I'm very proud of the team I lead' says Sussan Ley as she's forced to fend off party room woes for the third day - as it happened.

And so on that note, we are going to start wrapping it up. I think everyone is a bit tired, and overwhelmed and also just over it in general? It can be very hard watching parliament when there is so much going on in the world. It can make you want to scream at times.

We are very lucky, and at times, very stupid and lacking grace. Thank goodness for people like you who keep us going.

So thank you to everyone who has followed along this week. We will be back with the next sitting (and maybe with a few updates – there is some forward sizzle for you – and if you are interested in politics done well, you may want to mark this event in your calendar: Barrie, Bowers and Friends

I am lucky enough to be one of the ‘friends’ (but annoying hanger on is probably more accurate) but there are lots more very interesting and smart people who I know you will enjoy hearing from, so if you are in Sydney, have a think about joining us at Town Hall.

Keep an eye out for new Australia Institute research as well, and as always you can catch me in The New Daily, the 7AM podcast and other media outlets around the traps, so if you have questions, drop me a line.

Until then, please – take care of you. I’ll be spending my time hoping the bombs and killing in Gaza stop, that we get some accountability for this horrid time in our history, and a collective shift towards action.

However the next few weeks look for you, just promise me one thing – that you’ll take care of you. Ax

These two shots from Mike Bowers pretty much sum up the mood:

One of those moments where you are questioning all of your life decisions that have led to you being in a particular place:

One of those moments where you are questioning how someone else has ended up in this place:

Anthony Albanese takes another dixer that is just a press release and calls time on the questions.

So that is it until the end of the month.

What did we learn in that question time? I know it sounds like we did this yesterday and the day before – because we did – but not a lot.

We know as much as we did entering question time. That’s not a great thing, given it is one of the only forums where you can get information. The opposition do not know what they are doing. We already knew this, but we are also very settled into this new parliament and the Coalition do not have a strong line on who they want to be.

And it makes the government look so much more put together than it is. That doesn’t make for great policy, so we are all losing out with this.

After a whole heap of guff we get a question from the member for Indi, Helen Haines:

After the Robodebt royal commission, the government said never again to the culture of secrecy that allowed it to happen in the first place. The royal commission into road at recommended repealing section 34 of the FOI act, yet the Freedom of information Bill before the House will conceal even more information from the public.

Why is government expanding cabinet secrecy when the royal commission recommended the exact opposite?

Michelle Rowland takes this as the AG:

I thank the member for her question and the way in which she has engaged on this matter. I must respectfully say that the premise of the honorable member’s question is not correct.

I would point out that the benefit of the house, Mr Speaker, but it was this government that initiated a royal commission into robodebt, because we understand the importance of restoring integrity to what was an illegal scheme that destroyed lives and secondly, and weeks ago, we as a government announced the single largest class action settlement in Australian history to bring that sordid matter to a close.

I will say in relation to the cabinet exemption of which the honorable member asks, these changes are designed to clarify existing exemptions. That is to make sure they are consistent with their original policy intent.

So they are applied when they should be applied and cannot be applied where they should not be applied.

The cabinet exemption is being amended to clarify its operation and ensure it appropriately protects information central to the cabinet process which is consistent with its original intent. Speaking of robodebt, to address the concern that was raised in the 2023 royal commission into robodebt, the amendments would also make it absolutely clear that merely labeling something cabinet and confidence does not make it so.

That is a fundamental part of this legislation that is proposed. I would also point out that the proposed amendments are consistent with provisions that already exist in a number of state jurisdictions.

I want to make it clear because honorable member has asked about robodebt that the government accepted or accepted in principle all 56 recommendations made by the royal commission. In relation to the closing observation made by the royal commission about the cabinet exemption, the government stated that it is critical that the cabinet, decision-making body of government, as comprehensively informed in all its deliberations because taken by the cabinet are collective.

On the principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings, in the expectation they can argue freely in private while maintaining unity in public when those decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that opinions expressed in the cabinet and cabinet committees including documents and in any correspondence are treated as confidential.

Sussan Ley is still trying to twist what answers have been given, instead of just directly addressing issues. So what we get is a garbled piece of bullshit, which the government can neatly side step in response.

You can tell why Ley had not wanted to ask questions about the Australians who have returned from Syria – it is because the opposition have nothing on this, other then some very scary music and some deliberately misconstrued statements.

Here is some of QT so far, as seen by Mike Bowers:

Yesterday we reported the Cotality Report showing that “Rental growth re-accelerates amid tightest vacancy rate on record”. Well just to make sure you are completely confused, Domain has a report out today which shows “rent for houses stable across combined capital cities”.

So what does this mean? Well that we should wait till the ABS brings out the latest inflation figures and we will see what is happening. For what it’s worth, here’s the latest figures.

The whole chamber is a rabble and I am taking the advice of Grogs and mentally squeezing the squishy chicken today (this is an actual squishy chicken soft toy, so none of that please) and just not bringing you the guff, because it is Thursday, the last day of the week and none of us need this.

In good news, Ted O’Brien has been booted from the chamber. Bye Super Ted!

I have not had enough sleep for this ridiculousness from the Nationals today.

The opposition is now stuck on the issue of ‘Isis brides’ (which is their terminology for Australians who have left Syria, after in some cases, going to join ISIL fighters of their own free will, but in others tricked or misled, or were taken as children by parents) and asks” if the government “how many more and when”, but Anthony Albanese is not playing:

The assumption of the question is wrong because the assumption suggests they are coming back to Australia with our support which they are not.

Andrew Wallace, the member for Fisher, is booted under 94A.

Independent MP Rebekha Sharkie gets a question:

My question as to the Minister for Defence, in September 2020 for I asked if the Woodside barracks would remain operational and if the government would rule out selling the site for housing. The Minister responded and said the state audit received was awaiting response. After nearly two years no response has been published nor has the Minister responded to my letter of 13 this year. When will the Minister revealed the future of Woodside barracks? My community is very concerned about this.

Richard Marles:

It was … presented to government at that time and it is a very important piece of work which has looked that the state of fitness if I could put it that way of the Defence estate for what is defences needs in 2025, understanding there are a number of properties within the Defence estate that really have their history in the Defence estate as being part of something in the past and not necessarily focused on the future.

The really important piece of work that was undertaken as I have previously said did have implications in terms of personnel and to be frank it required more work concerns for the government response than we are nationally anticipated and it was to that end we took more time in terms of developing a response and I have previously spoken about that.

What I would say to the member now is we have been working on this out of pace since the election and we are, we will be in a position to respond to that audit in the very near future. And in the context of that response will be able to specifically reply to her correspondence in respect of the particular property. Making sure the Defence estate is fit for purpose in terms of what the fans needs are in 2025 is absolutely paramount, making sure it gives us the full basis upon which we can engage in our strategic purpose and that is to be able to engage in pack for protection is fundamentally important. I think those who had worked on the Defence estate audit and would also like to acknowledge the Assistant Minister for Defence, the member for Wills who has been working on this since the election and you will be hearing from the government very shortly in respect of this.

Sussan Ley is back:

In September, the Prime Minister was asked about returning ISIS brides and said, quote ‘the Australian Government is not providing assistance to this cohort’ but senate estimates of evidence suggested the government persisted with medical interviews and DNA tests for children and citizenship by descent claims and assisted with passports. Why did the Prime Minister to Australians bumping or doing the exact opposite?

My Dolly this is a long bow to draw. This is the first question the opposition has asked on this issue all week, despite Michaelia Cash and others trying to make it a primary issue and honestly – this is what they come up with when Ley finally capitulates and has a question included in their QT attack?

Because a department providing documents that Australians are LEGALLY entitled to, is not ‘providing assistance’ it is fulfilling a duty.

Tony Burke:

I’m glad the Leader of the Opposition has raised this, to be able to do that directly and personally after some of the claims made by Senator Paterson in senate estimates yesterday.

Everything that was just described as assistance by the Leader of the Opposition, would have been an offence for the government to do. Under the citizenship act once someone applies there is an obligation to make a decision according to law, under the laws governing passports. If someone is eligible for passport applies to one of our embassies, there is an obligation for them to be provided.

These individuals received what they were entitled to, no more, no more and no less. What is hidden behind the Leader of the Opposition is saying, what she is suggesting, maybe this is part of them being the party of Robodebt but one of the options in front of the government was not to follow Australian law.

Australian law has been followed no more and no less. These individuals, when they return to Australia and a small number of them have, a much larger number of them returned under those opposite, and those who returned under those opposite, to give a complete comparison with the example just provided by the Leader of the Opposition.

Sussan Ley:

My question as to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what a 5-year-old child is abused and their attacker is back on the streets before that child has even turned 8, but is not justice, it’s a betrayal. In the last year alone there were an average of 226 cases of child sexual exploitation, each and every day. This morning Labor voted to delay the Coalition push a crackdown on child offenders. Why did the Prime Minister instructors Labor government to vote against the protection of children?

That is quite the take.

Anthony Albanese:

Child sexual abuse is abhorrent and is totally unacceptable. All children deserve to grow up safely and free from abuse. I would have thought of bills issued but should be free from partisan shots, it is not. Order. For new members of the house, private member ‘s business is dealt with on Monday after it is introduced. Everyone knows that is the case. It is being the case since it was 1996, since I have been here. People know that is the case. The government is committed to protecting Australia’s children from harm and will always seek to engage the opposition…(there are interjections)

We give credit where credit is due. I give credit to Peter Dutton for the work that he did as Minister and establishing the Australian Centre to counter child exploitation in 2018. This was a critical initiative but by the vendor opposition and supported by the current government. That is the way we deal with these things. In 2020 the opposition then under my leadership, without shots across the chamber, supported then coalition government introducing mandatory sentences for the most serious of offences and repeat offenders. Those laws from the former government remain in place today. After about 9 years in office. My government will continue to enhance Australia’s response to child sexual abuse including through implementing the national strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse within states and territories on reforming their working with children’s cards. I know the Shadow Attorney General has written with ideas for further reform and my government will always consider any sensible proposals for reform because as our record makes clear, we are always ready and willing to work constructively in the interests of child safety, something I think we can findone issue which we can connect and actually work together, I would have thought this was it.

It starts with the Nationals Kevin Hogan getting in trouble for something he said which I didn’t quite catch but Milton Dick is NOT impressed.

And then there is a moment of indulgence to congratulate Professor Richard Robson of University of Melbourne who has been jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Then we are into the questions!

Oh this seems healthy and very much an example of Australia’s ‘Shared values’ with the US (via AAP):

US President Donald Trump has promised “very threatening” steps against antifa and asked right-wing media allies for help identifying backers of the movement he has told the federal government to treat as a “terrorist organisation”.

Nearly a month after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Trump on Wednesday threatened action against left-wing groups and donors with no demonstrated ties to the killing.

The Republican president has also moved to push federal law enforcement and troops into Democratic-run cities from Chicago to Portland, Oregon, over the objections of local officials and despite ongoing judicial review.

We are now in the downhill slide to the final question time of the week – so prepare yourself by letting yourself get a little sweet treat.

We’ll see you soon x

The crossbench is getting BOLSHIE!

It seems like independent MPs are no longer willing to play the ‘least they can do is good enough’ game and is now actively pushing the government to do more and calling it out when it doesn’t.

Here is Monique Ryan on the CDC:

“Australians were promised a world-class Centre for Disease Control during the pandemic. What we’ve been given is a shell—underfunded, underspecified, and underwhelming,” said Dr Ryan.
Dr Ryan criticised the Coalition’s opposition to the CDC, describing it as “wilfully ignorant.”

“At a pre-election debate, Senator Ruston blamed the U.S. CDC for America’s COVID death toll, ignoring the Trump administration’s sabotage of its own public health agency. Ivermectin and bleach were not CDC recommendations. They were Trump political theatre, and they cost lives,” said Dr Ryan.

The U.S. CDC is now being defunded and politicised under the Trump administration, and riddled with ‘quackery’ courtesy of Robert Kennedy Jnr. This development is frightening; for decades the U.S CDC has had a global role in worldwide disease surveillance, data collection and analysis, and in providing evidence-based advice to both government and non-government bodies. The Trump administration’s evisceration of the U.S CDC has put enormous pressure on Australia to step up and build its own world-leading public health agency.

Dr Monique Ryan introduced today an amendment to expand the CDC’s remit to serious preventative health measures such as addressing the mental and physical health impacts of gambling addiction. This week, gambling harm has dominated public conversation. The government must respond to the urgency and scale of this issue.

In the next sitting period Dr Ryan will move further amendments to the CDC bill; to expand its scope and ensure it is equipped to meet Australia’s most pressing health challenges.

Among other things, the amendments would:

Address chronic diseases (e.g. heart disease, cancer, diabetes) from day one.

Ensure the CDC acts on preventative health strategies, such as addressing the mental health impact of gambling addiction and climate change.

Mandate that the CDC address pandemic preparedness and the health effects of climate change from day one.

Address injury prevention and occupational exposures from day one.

Ensure the independence of the CDC through regular review and reporting.

“A job worth doing is worth doing well. Once again, the Albanese government is trying to shortchange Australians, and risk the health of this and future generations, by walking back from the Prime Minister’s 2019 commitment to a CDC that ‘would play a role in preventing health threats posed by chronic disease as well as infectious diseases.’

Here is AAP on the NSW appeal court ruling on this weekend’s planned anti-genocide march:

A planned pro-Palestine march set to end at the Sydney Opera House has been scuppered after a court ruled the risk to public safety was too great.

The decision on Thursday, which allows officers to move on or arrest those in the iconic landmark’s forecourt, comes after NSW Police challenged the Palestine Action Group’s proposed protest in the NSW Court of Appeal.

The organisers are now pivoting to a new location after estimating about 40,000 people would have joined the march through Sydney’s city centre to the steps of the famed waterside landmark.

Justice Stephen Free said a protest of that size would have “given rise to a risk of crowd crush”, which was the unanimous view of the court, he said.

The appeal court judges pointed to the “exceptional risks associated with the particular route and ultimate destination of the procession” combined with the crowd size and its movements.

That informed the “court’s conclusions as to the unacceptable nature of those risks”.

The absence of consultation on how organisers would address risk factors, including emergency vehicle access, reinforced the court’s concerns.

“It is not a question of hoping for the best or hoping that things don’t go wrong,” they said.

Chief Justice Andrew Bell raised concerns over crowd safety during Wednesday’s hearing, pointing to the 1989 Hillsborough crowd crush disaster and evidence the Opera House forecourt could only safely accommodate 6000 people.

“The court proceedings did not go our way today and we won’t be marching to the Opera House,” Palestine Action Group organiser Damian Ridgwell told reporters after the decision.

“But we know courts often get things wrong.”

He said Sunday’s demonstration would instead head down George Street in Sydney’s city centre in cooperation with police, urging leaders to light the Opera House sails in the colours of the Palestinian flag.

“Our right to protest is paramount in a democratic society,” Mr Ridgwell said.

Nick Hanna, a lawyer for the organisers, characterised the legal showdown as a “David vs Goliath battle” after the Opera House Trust, Botanic Gardens and Jewish groups all gave evidence supporting the police court challenge.

He warned anyone thumbing their nose at the decision and rallying at the Opera House forecourt on Sunday could be considered in contempt of court.

NSW has a permit system that allows protest participants to block public roads and infrastructure unless a court denies permission after a police challenge.

Premier Chris Minns welcomed the court for making the “right decision”.

“It’s very important and very clear from this judgement that the protest should not take place down at the Sydney Opera House,” he told reporters.

Organisers had pointed to previous non-ticketed events at the Opera House, like popular light show Vivid, that were managed capably.

In the 1990s, Australian-New Zealand band Crowded House performed on the steps of the Opera House to a crowd of 100,000 people, Palestine Action Group noted in a post on social media.

But the court said entry points to the forecourt and requirements for security checks would have pushed protesters into a tight space that could lead to crowd crush.

Palestine Action Group has been organising weekly rallies for two years since Israel’s military assault on Gaza began in 2023.

The Israeli response came after 1200 people were killed and about 250 were taken hostage during a surprise attack by Hamas, which Australia deems a terrorist organisation, on October 7 that year.

The subsequent war has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Liberal senator James Paterson, who gets to live out his dream job under Sussan Ley’s leadership (talking about security all day long) is very happy with Sussan Ley. He told Adelaide radio 5AA:

I strongly support Sussan, and my assessment is that the overwhelming majority of the party room supports Sussan. We recognise that this is a very tough time to lead the Liberal Party. We’ve just come off the worst defeat in our 80 years of history, and we’re in a rebuilding phase, and some of that involves what looks like a messy public debate.
But it is necessary for us to do that. But I’ve also said that this debate can’t go on forever. It has to
have a time limit. And well before the next election, we have to demonstrate that we are united, and
focused, and disciplined, and that our priority is the priorities of the Australian people.

(Not sure that less than half is an ‘overwhelming majority’ but OK.)

The Senate Estimates of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee is happening today, and the tough-talkers are putting their toughness on display. Coalition senators — Michaelia Cash and Jacinta Price — repeatedly says “Chinese Communist Party” whenever they refer to the Chinese government. It is a well-established practice in American and Australian politics, especially by those who portray China as a menacing totalitarian state.

Of course, the Chinese state is highly integrated with the Communist Party. But the very same politicians who say “Chinese Communist Party” as an epithet would count other one-party states as Australia’s most important friends. 

Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party has been in power for 64 of the last 70 years, and its symbiotic relationship with the administrative bureaucracy is well known. Singapore’s ruling party, the People’s Action Party, has been in power since Singapore’s independence in 1965 without interruption, and holds nearly 90% of the seats in Singapore’s parliament.

Would Senator Cash and her colleagues call the US government the “Republican Party”? There is certainly a strong case for it if they apply the same logic. The Republican Party controls all three branches of the US federal government – including an increasingly political Supreme Court, which gave the US president immunity in carrying out (vaguely defined) official responsibility. The Republican administration in the White House is increasingly using armed forces domestically, against the American public. And the American system already expects top officials in government agencies to be political appointees.

When Canberra’s tough-talkers refer to the Chinese government as the “Chinese Communist Party”, they are trying to present themselves as being clear-eyed about the “real” China, and present China as a uniquely exotic and dangerous entity. By implication, China is an existential threat to Australia – perhaps the existential threat.

Very few of China’s close neighbours share that view: even Southeast Asian countries, with whom China has territorial disputes, have been maintaining good trade relations and regular diplomatic exchanges with China. To them, the “hard-nosed” alarmism about China only shows that some in Australia are simply not serious about doing foreign policy in a complicated real world.

The Albanese government has also welcomed Donald Trump’s announcement that the first stage of a ‘peace’ plan has been agreed to by Israel (which has previously not agreed to previous plans/broken ceasefire agreements) and Hamas:

Australia welcomes President Trump’s announcement that Israel and Hamas have signed off the first phase of the plan to bring peace to Gaza.

After more than two years of conflict, hostages held and a devastating loss of civilian life, this is a much needed step towards peace.

Australia has consistently been part of international calls for a ceasefire, return of the hostages, and the unimpeded flow of aid to Gaza.

We urge all parties to respect the terms of the plan.

We thank President Trump for his diplomatic efforts and acknowledge the important role of Egypt, Qatar and Türkiye in delivering this agreement.

Australia strongly supports the plan’s commitment to denying Hamas any role in the future governance of Gaza.

There is a very long road to recovery in Gaza, securing long term peace and building the Palestinian state.

Together with our partners, Australia will continue to do what we can to contribute to a just and enduring two-state solution.

Thee has been a lot of reporting on the Deloitte report which was found to have used AI and most of the reporting has focused on that, rather than what the report was actually about.

Which was the Targeted Compliance Framework. You probably know that as mutual obligations. The report was about the issues with the automated system being used to cancel people’s welfare payments. You may remember from episodes such as ROBODEBT and EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS CONTACT WITH THIS SYSTEM TELLING YOU, that this is illegal and this has the potential to cause some pretty major problems for the government. And right now, it is causing major problems for people who are being made to fulfil demands from an illegal and immoral system just to have their below-poverty-line payments reinstated/continue.

That’s a pretty major problem, Australia. And not a new one. The only people benefiting from Australia’s mutual obligation program are the owners of job provider agencies who are paid billions of dollars to set menial and often degrading ‘duties’ for jobseekers to meet so they can maybe continue to pay their rent that week.

So not only is the consulting firm which was paid to do a report into the issues with an automated system which is causing immense harm to jobseekers and returned a report riddled with errors because it used automation to complete that report still getting paid, the government is yet to address the substance of the report.

Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne said

Hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients lose access to payments every year, and Labor have said they can’t even say if it’s lawful.”

These payments can be the difference between food on the table or going hungry. If Labor can’t defend the system they should end the TCF and stop suspending payments immediately.”

Under questioning in senate estimates from Greens senators, Murray Watt has agreed that Deloitte should apologise.

Great.

Let’s see whether the government apologises for keeping mutual obligations and welfare suspensions in place at the later session of estimates which will deal with social services.

Independent, Jacqui Lambie Network and Greens crossbenchers have today presented a united front against the Albanese Government’s proposed changes to Freedom of Information, calling on the Government to “abandon” the flawed bill.

Australia Institute research shows the problems with the FOI system are due to government inefficiency and secrecy, not the applicants who would be punished under the Government’s proposed changes.

Earlier this week, academic Maria O’Sullivan joined the Australia Institute to warn:

“The over-use of the cabinet document exemption and other problems with the FOI system are critical reasons why Robodebt was allowed to continue with impunity for so long. The proposed changes to the FOI Act will actually expand the cabinet exemption even further.”

The Liberal-National Coalition has also “vowed to oppose” the bill, calling the changes a “truth tax”.

In the midst of all of that, the government’s FOI over-reach can not find a friend in the non-government benches. Which means – no senate passage:

If Australia just collected the OECD average in tax, the government would have an extra $130 billion a year to spend on essential services like health and education.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Matt Grudnoff and Ebony Bennett discuss the latest data from the Australian Taxation Office showing that 30% of large corporations paid no company tax in FY23-24 – with the gas, coal, salmon and tech industries among the worst offenders.

The Department of Finance has:

“concluded that PwC is an organisation now that we are comfortable with the Government being able to consider engaging with”.

They say PwC is now an organisation that “is very different from the organisation that led to the position that we have been in.”

Notice the careful language to avoid saying it is that PwC actually did – which is to misuse government information to help multinational corporations avoid paying taxes in Australia.

An amnesty for PwC is out of step with public opinion – the Australia Institute’s polling research found four-in-five Australians (79%) wanted consulting firm PwC banned from receiving new government work, including nearly half who backed a permanent ban. Over 60% wanted a ban of five years or more, versus just 17% who thought a ban of five years or less was appropriate.

One of the reasons why government departments pay over the odds for consultants is that they can shift blame. But by giving PwC the seal of approval, the Department of Finance is tying its reputation to the dodgy consulting firm. 

Let’s see if PwC repays the trust that has been placed in it. 

Last night at Senate Estimates, Senator James Paterson probed the Australian Public Service Commission on the Albanese Government’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Amendment Bill.

The Commissioner, Dr Gordon de Brouwer, has briefed the Opposition, Greens and crossbench on public servants’ experience of the FOI reforms that the former Labor Government introduced in 2009.

He says that after the FOI reforms, “less advice [was] being put in writing” because public servants were concerned that it would come to light through FOI,  and therefore “people were not putting things in writing that they should be”.

That’s pretty damning for the Australian Public Service Commission, which is supposed to be uphold Australian Public Service values and the code of conduct.

And as Dr de Brouwer says, the problems around scandals like Robodebt were mostly unrelated to FOI.

“Much more than problems around people being afraid or concerned about putting their frank advice in writing to government, they really came down to lack of character, lack of leadership, very poor decision making”.

His briefings have involved the question: “Has the narrowing of FOI … made it harder for public servants to do their duty?”

But by the Commissioner’s own evidence, that’s not what’s happening.

The democratically elected Parliament gave public servants additional duties around freedom of information.

The Commissioner confirms that public servants are evading those duties.

The Government’s proposed solution?

Change the law so public servants can keep even more things secret.

Please spare a thought for Grogs who is still trapped in Treasury estimates:

Senator James Patterson is trying to ask Treasury why they did not model the cost of the 2035 target. Treasury point out they take the base case of getting to net zero by 2050 and then model how we get there.  

He is essentially trying to say they should model the cost of doing nothing without saying that he thinks they should do nothing. He wants to be able to put out a media release saying the Government told Treasury not to model the cost of the 2035 target, but the underlying theory of that line is that acting on climate change is a bigger cost than doing nothing, which is complete bollocks.

Amanda Rishworth is introducing a bill to the parliament that will stop employers from being able to cancel maternity/paternity leave in the event of a stillbirth or an early infant death.

It has been sparked by the case of Baby Priya, who was born three months early and lived for 42 days before passing. Priya’s mother (she has been asked not to be identified) rang her employer of 11 years to tell her of the loss, and then soon after received a text message telling her her three months maternity leave had been cancelled and she was only allowed four weeks paid personal leave.

You can read more about Baby Priya and her family’s shock, here.

Every workplace law has been put in place after workers suffered. When people speak of wanting to ‘cut redtape’ or ‘regulations’ they are talking about things like this, where humanity is NOT automatically applied and people are reduced to their productivity ability, no matter their circumstances.

Priya’s parents met with Anthony Albanese and Rishworth ahead of the bill’s introduction. They have had to fight for all workers, while grieving the loss of their daughter. That they have needed to should be a national shame.

Greens Senator Nick McKim is currently asking Jenny Wilkinson about inequities in the tax system and ask her if she is aware of the most unequal tax concessions. She is not. He helpfully points out it is the capital gains tax discount, 82% of which goes to the richest 10%

We have been banging this drum for a while, and as David Richardson reported, those on high incomes are more and more taking advantage of the 50% tax break by shifting more of their income to capital gains rather than wages.

And of course it all is distorting the housing market and sending houses prices up.

Senate Estimates has probed the Government’s position on increasing the number of politicians and extending parliamentary terms to run for four years instead of three, with Senator Don Farrell saying the topics warrant discussion but not exactly giving full throated support for increasing the size of Parliament:

“But the Australian people might say we don’t want a bar of this, we’re happy with the existing numbers of MPs, and that could be the end of it.”

A multi-party parliamentary committee (called JSCEM or the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters) has been tasked with considering both of these reforms, but it does frustrate me a bit to see them conflated.

An increase in the number of politicians is long over-due (we were writing about it back in 2018). It would make politicians more accessible and accountable, and more sensitive to community concerns. With each local MP expected to represent around 170,000 people, they are spread too thinly.

The ABC reports that the Liberal-National Coalition “has already dashed any hope of bipartisanship on the matter”, because Liberal shadow minister Senator James McGrath has criticised even looking into the topic.

There’s two problems with this. 

Firstly, the Albanese Government doesn’t need the Coalition to pass legislation. Yes, the Labor Party seems to ignore this — but we shouldn’t. 

Secondly, the Coalition is made up of Nationals as well as Liberals. With Australia’s population increasingly urbanising, regional and rural seats are getting geographically larger and larger. As Shane Wright points out, this leaves National MPs in particular serving very large electorates that are time-consuming and draining to cross.

As for four-year terms? They’d need a referendum, which has already been ruled out by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To re-litigate four-year terms when there is so much unfinished business (truth in political advertising laws, whistleblower protections, etc) seems like a waste of time at best and a distraction at worst.  

Back to Treasury estimates and Senator Bragg has turned to housing itself and wants to know how many houses have been built by the HAFF, why not more have been built etc etc.

It’s worth remembering that Senator Bragg is the one who thinks the big solution for housing is to allow people to use their super to pay for the deposit (Bragg hates Industry Super funds)

The big problem with housing in Australia for those on low-median incomes is that for 25 years the public sector has exited the field. That’s a lot of time to make up for, and to be honest, the HAFF is a weird way to do it. Rather than establish a fund which them uses the proceeds to invest in the private sector to build low-cost housing, why doesn’t the government just borrow at its 10 year bond rate (at the moment that’s 4.3% – rather lower than the 5.5% average home loan rate) and build homes.

The court of appeal (NSW’s highest court) has issued a prohibition order over a planned march and rally at the Opera House this weekend, after NSW police applied to have the event shut down.

The court ruled that the size of the crowd was likely to cause a public safety risk.

This doesn’t mean the march is stopped – but it does mean that attendees will not have the legal protections that apply to sanctioned events.

We’ll bring you more in a moment.

Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg wants to talk about housing and Housing Australia and the reports about alleged issues with its board particularly its chair Carol Austin that led to a “Treasury review” and a report in the SMH that that Housing Australia’s former general counsel and board secretary Rod Saville wrote in an email to the review of the HA that “It became apparent very quickly to me and other senior executives in the organisation that Ms Austin had very little, if any, experience or understanding of housing issues in Australia, let alone social and affordable housing,” “

Treasury head Jenny Wilkinson is telling Bragg that he can ask questions to the Treasury corporate sector later in the day as they were the ones in charge, but of course he keeps on going in a roundabout way.  

The ABC is reporting that Murray Watt is very close to making a deal with the Coalition to pass it’s environmental protection legislation. Jake Evans, a very good up and coming reporter, says that Watt and the Coalition’s Angie Bell are having their third meeting to nut out an agreement.

We spoke about this on Tuesday. There is another pathway in the Senate – through the Greens – so if the government is negotiating with the Coalition to pass environmental protection laws, it means THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT TO GO FURTHER THAN IT HAS TO ON THESE LAWS.

The mining industry want the Coalition to negotiate on these laws, which will set out go and no go zones for development and fossil fuel projects, because the alternative is the government negotiates with the Greens and that would mean some actual protections would be put in place.

And we can’t have that.

So basically, Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce will be on the same side as the Labor government on environmental protections. What does that say about the legislation?

(And a reminder that Tanya Plibersek had a deal with the Greens in the last parliament, where the Coalition refused to negotiate on the laws, which was scraped after the PM intervened, because Labor didn’t want a deal done that way. Because it is committed to doing the very least it can do.)

Talk has turned to what is driving the economy and the ALP senators want to highlight the private sector is now driving economic growth. And yes, that’s great but the private sector SHOULD be the main driver of the economy, and it still remains pretty small

The Secretary of the Treasury Jenny Wilkinson, opens her first appearance as Sec of the Treasury  with a statement that points out that Trump’s tariffs are expected to weigh on global growth, mostly in the US, but it’s all a bit of a mess a swell because even the legality of the tariffs is still yet to be resolved. She talks a bit about bond yields – which is mostly around disruptions and volatility – code for “there be uncertainty out there because of Trump”

She then notes that gold prices are reaching record highs because gold is safe and Trump is not, which means the US dollar is no longer as safe as it used to be.

She points out that here, household spending has increased recently – due to lower interest rates and that has been the main driver of the economy. Dwelling investment hasn’t been great, but is hoped to pick due to those lower interest rates.

She then turns to investment and notes there been a stack of investment for renewables while mining investment has fallen a touch.

Inflation is now down, due to good falls by drops in rents, insurance and new housing build price growth [but alas, rents seem to be going back up].

She points out that as inflation has fallen unemployment has not risen as much as it has in the past when we’re had interest rates go up to kill inflation, [so that’s good. And hopefully the RBA doesn’t do anything that causes unemployment to keep rising]

She has a bit of a plug for the economic roundtable and how a big outcome has been looking at regulations. [This is the whole “Abundance” palaver where apparently reducing regulations will unleash everything… and yeah… maybe]

Then she ends with a boast of the small budget deficit in 2024-25 budget of $10bn, mostly due to around $4bn lower spending and $12bn more revenue than expected.

And she ends with a talk about the climate change risk report and its modelling [this is something the LNP senators will bang on about because climate change is a bit of a myth in their view so they think all the risks are exaggerated, which mostly just reveals they don’t understand climate change, economic modelling or a risk assessment].

If you need more evidence that the Coalition’s attack against Australian citizens who returned to Australia from Syria (a legal move, as Australians have the right to return to Australia, no matter why you left the country in the first place) is completely bereft of any sort of rational reasoning, here is Sussan Ley arguing on the Nine network that she has a problem with the government not trying to stop something they have no legal right to stop.

Ley is speaking about two women and four children who are being monitored by security agencies, and who were monitored as they managed to leave Syria and start making their own way back to Australia. Which they are legally entitled to do.

Well I can’t see any evidence, Karl, that the government has tried to do that and that’s what the problem is here. Accompanying that is a failure to reassure Australians of community safety. This is not some romance that went wrong. This is a group of individuals who willingly left this country, in itself breaking the law, to go and join ISIL, a death cult that has at its heart the destruction of our way of life and our society. If we cast our minds back to Islamic State at its height and the security threat that was talked about here in this country, do we really want these individuals just let back in and why can’t the government answer questions about how much it’s costing, whether they’re being monitored, whether they are being rearrested, what is going on, why all the cover up?

Meanwhile, in estimates last night, it was revealed that the NACC is still a mess.

WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS (the answer is everyone paying attention):

We then get to:

Q Just quickly. What is happening inside the Liberal Party? You’ve had Jacinta go, you’ve had Andrew Hastie go, you’ve had an MP stand up this week saying I didn’t join to fight internally, I joined to fight Labor. It’s a mess, isn’t it?

Ley:

Well, I’m not going to reflect on conversations within our party room, but just to say this, Nat, I welcome the contest of ideas, wherever it comes from…

Host: Seems to be a bit more than that though.

Ley:

Wherever it comes from, and we did suffer a significant defeat at the last election. People are having their say. As I said, I welcome that, but I’m very proud of my team this week. We’re holding the government to account on its Optus triple zero failures, we’re asking the questions that you’ve just asked about these returning ISIS members, and we’re reminding Australians that we’re having the biggest drop in living standards in the developed world. So I’m proud of the team I lead. We’re working hard to demonstrate that this government is leading Australia down the wrong path, and we have something to fight for every day, and that is the future of hard working Australians.

Mainstream media is once again running the line that an anti-genocide protest “could be a disaster” which is what police said when they tried to stop the walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. If you need a reminder of that, up to 300,000 people walked the bridge to protest the genocide in Gaza and there were no incidents. Police responded to the fact there were no incidents by saying there could have been.

And yet, even though there were actual incidents at the far right march a few weeks after, we continue to hear about how “precarious” people marching against genocide could be.

That continued this morning with Sussan Ley’s breakfast media tour.

This is from the Seven network:

Host: We are being warned a pro-Palestinian protest at the Sydney Opera House this weekend could be a disaster, as concerns grow over the scale of the event and the potential for crowd crush. Let’s bring in Opposition Leader Sussan Ley live in Canberra. Good morning to you.

Ley: Morning, Nat.

Host: So in 1996, the final Crowded House concert drew 150,000 people, in 1990 Nelson Mandela drew 40,000. Should these protests go ahead?

Ley:

And those two events Nat, brought people together. But our opera house, our iconic opera house, should never be the background for the symbols of hatred that unfortunately, if this protest goes ahead would be seen and beamed around the world. Now, maybe it’ll be illegal – I hope it is, but it’s certainly immoral that this is proposed on the anniversary of those dreadful, terrorist inspired events in southern Israel. We all want the war to end, we want to see peace in the Middle East. There’s a US brokered peace deal on the table. Everyone with passion and concern should be focusing their efforts on supporting the outcome of that peace deal to see the hostages released, most importantly, aid flow to Gaza and an enduring peace put in place.

The host adds “and to stop the bombing” and then immediately goes into “Isis brides” which…GAHIKAIDbjl;Ogbfaguj;kwsbfew;GFSBoj’lzBCn’dilS.

It’s not as bad as it could be – the host asks about people who returned from Syria under the Coalition and exit counseling and how the Coalition can be so sure of the intent of the two women and four children. Ley doesn’t have answers to those questions and keeps repeating the BIG SCARY LINES.

Activists are locked onto a concrete barrel, blocking an access road into the Pine Gap. They have also brought in boats in solidarity with the flotillas attempting to break Israel’s blockade in Gaza.

The “flotilla of boats in the desert” says it has stopped contractors working at the Pine Gap base on Arrernte Country from entering the base and is demanding:

• the Australian Government enact immediate sanctions against Israel;
• the Australian attorney general prosecute Pine Gap’s active involvement in the genocide;
• Close and return Pine Gap stolen lands to Arrernte people.

We’re here because Pine Gap is sharing surveillance data, including geo-location information from mobile phones with the genocidal Israeli regime, who are targeting journalists and their families, children, teachers, doctors, patients and the entire population of Palestine.” Jorgen Doyle said in a statement.

The group and their supporters say senate estimates will be examining the defence portfolio today and Pine Gap’s role in supporting Israel’s genocide should be investigated.

Grog’s has written on the tax system for the Guardian this week (you can find the whole column, here)

Last Friday two news reports perfectly encapsulated why people might feel the economy is rigged against them. First, the ATO released the corporate tax transparency report showing that 28% of companies with annual turnover above $100m paid no tax on their income here. Then came a report by Jonathan Barrett on the impact of the ATO’s new initiative of clawing back old tax debts.

The political reality is if we want a better, more equal society, the government needs to raise more tax to pay for better public services and benefits. But more tax only works if the system is also fair.

As I have said many, many times before, Australia is a very low taxing nation – and this is not without consequences.

It’s not a fluke that Australia is the ninth-richest country in the OECD, but has the fifth-worst rate of poverty among women aged 66 or older (and seventh-worst among men) – we have the worst rate of aged pension for women and the second-worst rates of male aged pension. And not surprisingly Australia raised the 10th-least amount of tax:

Meanwhile, the actual real world impact of the Coalition continuing to circle the drain (and I know I have said this for a while now, but I do believe that the Coalition’s woes are irreversible and that it won’t make it out of this decade intact. There will be a centre right/right party, but it won’t be this one) is that the Albanese government can just skate along doing the very least.

Journalist Nick Feik makes that point in the latest 7AM podcast:

Sussan Ley is then asked:

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has written a letter to you wanting to crack down on leaks to the media. Now, this is to do with Andrew Hastie and Peter Dutton’s opinion of him. She says the Coalition is at risk of looking like a clown show. Is that how you see it?

Ley, who had to tell her colleagues that she doesn’t have access to the submissions to the internal party review into what happened at the last election, after Dutton’s submission blaming Hastie for the loss was leaked,

I’m not going to reflect on internal processes. We obviously have our discussions within our party room and you would expect them to focus on the contest of ideas*, which I welcome, and every single colleague is valued.

But who I value right now is Australians and the circumstances they find themselves in going backwards with declining living standards. We’re here and I’m very proud of my team. We’re backing aspirational Australians, Australians who want to get ahead, who get up in the morning, who take risks, who have a crack, who build this country and who deserve a government that supports them.

So we’re focused on lower taxes**, on aspiration, on holding the government to account for its failures with 000, its failure to answer questions on repatriating ISIS brides to this country***, and a host of other things**** that really there is a sense of disappointment***** from Australians in Anthony Albanese right now.

*’Contest of ideas’ is a very strange way of describing complaining about leaks, pointing the finger at different colleagues, and pointing out the dysfunction within the party room.

**The Opposition went to the last election with a plan to raise taxes. After the stage three tax cut changes, Ley’s immediate response was to repeal them (which would have raised taxes for all but the 10%).

***The Opposition has not asked any questions on this in question time all week, despite Michaelia Cash and others trying to make it happen, so take this as a sign Ley is capitulating.

****I would think the opposition leader could come up with more than two examples of how the government is failing?

*****Opinion polls have Anthony Albanese enjoying higher levels of approval.

Sussan Ley is on the defensive offensive today (a special move by politicians about to lose their leadership) where she is trying to keep the focus on the 000 failure and Communications minister Anika Wells, but in doing so, keeps the stories about her fractured party alive and well with more quotes denying there are any issues.

ABC News Breakfast kindly gave her some time to speak her Optus lines first up:

We are asking the Government what on earth is going on when they are supervising a system because the regulator sits within the department of communications and when lives are on the line, you don’t side with the telcos. You don’t jet off to New York. You don’t cover up your failures. These are three things the Communications Minister has actually done. And I was bewildered yesterday in Parliament. We’ve asked many questions, because why wouldn’t the minister support a parliamentary inquiry to find out what is going on in the 000 system? This is 2025. Not 1925. Australians deserve answers. People have died. The minister has pointed the finger at everyone but the processes that she, as minister, is responsible for. So we are asking the questions of this government because ultimately it’s their responsibility.

So a few things here: Wells has not ‘sided with the telcos’. She went to New York with parents who had lost their children to suicide to talk about the government’s social media age verification laws, which the opposition had pushed for and the cover up appears to be more of a f*ck up. There is no evidence things were “covered” up, just that no one really knew what to do for 24-48 hours and a lot of mistakes were made.

There is a story here, and there are questions to be asked. But as usual, Ley focuses on the politics, not the practical and that’s why people tune out.

The government is pushing ahead with its bill which will make it even more difficult to access information under freedom of information. The government claims the bill is necessary because of AI bot campaigns and the burden on public servants processing the requests has grown too big (which is mostly because FOI requests are now checked by more people than ever – without reason – which has not only slowed down processing, but increased the hours each request is worked on. (It’s now four public servants for essentially what one public servant did under the Howard government.)

The government wants upfront payments and an end to anonymous requests among its changes for…reasons. There is no real justification for it. The bill doesn’t have a lot of friends in the parliament, and the crossbench have been leading the charge against it.

They’ll be holding a press conference on that issue later this morning.

Israel has stopped another attempt to break through its blockade on food and life sustaining supplies in Gaza, boarding the boat The Conscience, which was carrying 93 journalists, doctors and activists, including it’s captain, Australian Madeleine Habib, in international waters.

That’s illegal under international law.

The people on board the latest flotilla were taken by Israel and are in unknown conditions in an Israeli prison.

Habib had anticipated Israel’s actions and had pre-prepared a video her supporters have released, while calling on Penny Wong and DFAT to intervene and ensure Habib’s and others are released from Israel’s captivity:

Al Jazeera reports:

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he strongly condemned the Israeli action and demanded that Malaysian activists taking part in the flotilla mission be released.

Turkiye’s Foreign Ministry confirmed the flotilla includes its citizens and lawmakers. It called Israel’s actions a “grave violation of international law” and “an act of piracy.”

German progressive political party MERA25 said one of its members, activist Amira Zayed, was among those detained and that it was “deeply concerned” about her well-being.

It follows Israel illegally intercepting and seizing The Sumud flotilla, which was carrying about 450 people:

Several activists from that flotilla have alleged physical and psychological abuse while in Israeli custody. Rima Hassan, a French-Palestinian member of the European Parliament, said she was “beaten” by Israeli police after the flotilla was intercepted. American activist David Adler described being “stripped”, “zip-tied”, and “blindfolded” before his detention, as well as being forced to be photographed with Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Michaelia Cash is really, really, really trying to make returning Australians from Syria a scandal.

In perhaps a good sign for the wider Australian population, so far she has not succeeded.

Last night, Cash made her poor staff stay back and send a press statement out after hours because the AFP told a senate estimates hearing Tony Burke had been briefed in June “about the intention of the ISIS brides to return to Australia.” (It’s two women and four children).

Which they have every right to do. Because they are Australian citizens.

AFP said Burke was then updated on September 23 about the planned arrival on September 26.

The government has not said it was unaware of the return of Australians who had been in Syrian camps. It said it had not repatriated anyone. So far there is no evidence the government aided in their return to Australia, or helped the women and children leave the camps they were stranded in, in order to access a third party country where they could then return to Australia from.

But you know why we have these dates, and why Burke was able to be briefed? Because intelligence and security agencies have been doing their job and monitoring the women and children. So it’s not a surprise these Australian women and children returned to Australia, and it’s not illegal that they did so. That’s citizenship law.

The hearing also heard that the women are under investigation. Which is also how it works – break Australian laws and you are subject to Australian consequences.

But the modern Coalition has always been more of a ‘play stupid games, win stupid prizes’ player, so Cash is taking all these very normal, expected and legal happening and elevating it to a “scandal” because…reasons.

Australian citizens have a right to return to Australia. If they committed crimes under Australian laws, they should be investigated and face consequences if found guilty in Australian courts. This applies equally to Australian women who left of their free will, or were tricked, or were children when they left the country for Syria and to Australians who have joined the IOF.

Not sure Cash will want the law to apply to that latter group though. Which tells you all you need to know about this selective ‘outrage’.

Hello and welcome to the last House sitting day and coverage of the ongoing estimates hearings.

We have almost made it. After this, there is a two week break and then we are into the final sittings of the year. There is a rumour we are going to all have to put up with an extra final sitting in December (which is very annoying) but that is still to be confirmed. We will keep you posted.

Last night estimates continued and the new managing director of the ABC, Hugh Marks experienced his first round of ABC-stimates. Which used to be favourite time of the year, and to be honest, it has never truly been the same since Abetz left. Sarah Henderson tries, but she doesn’t have the same impact. Abetz was unintentionally funny, which made it very, very funny as he waged his culture wars. Henderson is just annoying. It just doesn’t have the same pizazz.

As appearances go, Marks didn’t do too badly. He did reveal how much the ABC spent defending itself against the unlawful termination of Antoinette Lattouf – $2.5m. That’s before final settlement costs as well, and the costs hearing.

A reminder that Lattouf had wanted to settle for $85,000.

So not ideal. Marks told the committee mistakes had been made.

It should have been done better, and it wasn’t.”

Meanwhile, the Coalition is in the middle of a fight over who is leaking, which makes me think that a whole bunch of people spent 2009-2019 watching Buffy re-runs instead of studying how Labor managed to almost destroy itself by doing much the same thing.

None of this is complicated. Sussan Ley was not elected because she is the natural leader of the Liberal party – she was elected because she was not Angus Taylor. That’s still a party divided, particularly since Ley lost votes in the senate change over. Andrew Hastie has been weighing up for some time whether he wants to stay in the Liberal party, lead it, or start a new thing. This is obvious to anyone who was paying attention last term, and particularly during the election campaign, where he was obviously doing his own thing. Taylor is no longer seen as the natural successor to the right wing – he is a bit to Angus Taylor for that, but Hastie also doesn’t have the goods and so they are splitting the numbers. If you want attention at the moment (cough, cough Jacinta Price) then you back in Hastie, because that is where the headlines are. Is it where the leadership is? Wrong question. Does any of this matter? Right question and no. No it doesn’t.

Leaks from the Liberal review don’t do anything except confirm what we knew – it’s a mess, they don’t know what they are doing, where they are going, or how to stop walking off the cliff. And yet here we are.

Thanks for joining us on this three coffee morning as we try and wade through all of the muck. I’ve already done a round of radio commentary and have a bit more booked throughout the day, so let’s see how long it takes until the exasperation can no longer be held back. I’m thinking 8.10am (Canberra time). If I really, really try.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.