The Point Live: Aukus in trouble with Sth Korea deal, environmental laws bring less transparency. As it happened.

The Senate mess is continuing which means we are going to call it a day because honestly, there needs to be a limit.

It has created some very funny scenes in the senate though, including Jane Hume showing off a paper necklace she made from Minties’ wrappers:

We will be back early next week for the second week of insanity – we hope you will join us?

Thank you so much for joining us in this first week of The Point! It has meant the world to see so many of you jump on board – that the numbers grew as the week went on was also really, really heartening. It’s a small team and obviously there are some bugs, but we appreciate all of you for coming with us as we work it out.

I’ll be back on Monday, until then – get into some good trouble and take care of you Ax

Plenty of big tech companies are losing money on their artificial intelligence investments, begging the question: do people actually want the products?

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the “shock” inflation figures, what energy subsidies have to do with the larger-than-expected increase, and why the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) is suing Microsoft.

The Antipoverty Centre has had a very busy day, bringing together advocates to speak on the amendment to the Social Security and Other Leg. Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 which will give police the power to recommend an end to welfare payments if a person is suspected of a crime (not convicted)

This probably won’t get a lot of attention elsewhere so here it is in full:

The government’s last minute amendment enables police to advise the home affairs minister to stop a person’s Centrelink payment if there is a warrant for their arrest in relation to a serious crime. It affects people receiving any income support payment including Parenting Payment, Paid Parental Leave and Family Tax Benefit, meaning it can deprive people and children who are not accused of any crime of the money they need to live.

At the same time, the government voted against an amendment brought by Andrew Wilkie to implement a Robodebt royal commission recommendation to bring the time limit on Centrelink debt recovery into alignment with other types of debt – a recommendation the government committed to more than 2 years ago.

These draconian powers are a breach of the right to social security and the right to due process, which every person is entitled to. Police should not have any involvement in social security decisions and people accused of a crime, no matter what it is, are innocent until proven guilty. Punishment without conviction is incredibly dangerous, and offends the separation of powers between government and the judicial system.

The original bill affects millions of people and was rushed through with no meaningful opportunity for those harmed by unlawful debt collection to provide feedback. It has now been made even more undemocratic with this last minute, unpublicised addition of a completely unrelated amendment that has not undergone even the bare minimum scrutiny. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have already handed down their reports. Neither the government nor the Department of Social Services provided any information to these committees to indicate that this new police power would be inserted or was even being considered. All opportunities to scrutinise the bill and consider the implications and unintended consequences of this change have now passed.

Meanwhile the government has still not come clean about how many hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients have had their Centrelink payment unlawfully cancelled and their lives destroyed in yet another welfare administration scandal.

No one with a conscience should support this bill while this amendment remains.

Welfare rights advocate Tom Studans said: ”Serious violent crimes require a serious response. Convictions must be sound. Using the welfare system this way will not prove lawful, just, or otherwise effective. The welfare system is often used as a powerful surveillance tool for the police and security agencies that comprise Home Affairs. In Australia, punishing criminal offenders is the job of the courts.Social security law already provides for those in prison to lose their benefits—no argument has been made for broad discretionary powers to pre-empt the judicial process, as this cannot be done lawfully in Australia. Government efforts to improve women’s safety in the welfare system must focus on improving their financial position and agency in the system, and eliminating the ways offenders can use it to perpetrate their abuses—but it’s clear safety has nothing to do with these amendments.”

Antipoverty Centre spokesperson and JobSeeker recipient Jay Coonan said: “Labor can only get away with creating this terrifying expansion of powers because it’s easy to punch down on welfare recipients and use us as a political football. It is purely performative, and will only open the door to further demonise welfare recipients and justify more punishment outside the judicial system. When a warrant has been issued for a serious offence, removing a person’s Centrelink payment will not undo whatever act may have occurred.”

The Council of Single Mothers and their Children said: “Council of Single Mothers and their Children are perturbed by this proposed amendment which has the potential to cause further harm to women and children who have already been subject to family violence. We have plenty of evidence that perpetrators of such violence are often skilled at using government systems to weaponise their violence. We see this in relation to taxation, child support, and family payments where recalcitrance in not meeting their obligations can impose debt burdens on their victim. Indeed, these issues are before the Ombudsman now. Why therefore, would we risk providing additional ways for them to cause harm? False reports of child abuse and of violence already see too many single mothers and their children, many of them Aboriginal, misrepresented as perpetrators of violence or taken into child protection. We call on the government to withdraw the proposed amendments withholding social security payments or concession cards, family assistance payments, or paid parental leave payments on the grounds of an arrest for any reason, until any unintended consequences for children and their primary carers can be fully and openly assessed.”

Anti-Poverty Network South Australia Campaign Co-coordinator and Carers payment recipient Samantha Skinner said: “This amendment is another shocking example of the government weaponising the welfare system against the very people it is meant to support. Giving police the power to cut off someone’s Centrelink payment without due process is not only cruel, it’s unlawful and undemocratic. Once again, people on low incomes are being treated as second-class citizens whose rights can be ignored for political convenience. Instead of expanding punitive powers, the government should be focused on repairing the enormous harm already done to people through years of unlawful debt recovery and inadequate payments. We need a welfare system built on care and justice, not control and punishment.”

Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union President and JobSeeker recipient Avery Howard said: “Labor will continue to punish people on payments in any way possible. We need to do more to protect people who are victims of serious violent and sexual offences, but further demonising welfare recipients and using the social security system as a form of punishment is not the way. If Labor wants to tinker with the social security system, they should increase payments above the poverty line, which will serve to help victims of these crimes a whole lot more than convoluted and potentially unlawful ways to cancel people’s payments.”

Anglicare Australia Executive Director Kasy Chambers said: “This proposal is completely at odds with the principles of fairness and justice. Cutting off someone’s income before they have been found guilty of any crime is punishment without conviction. We should not have to explain why this has no place in a fair society. This is a shocking overreach of police powers into the social security system. We’ve seen too many times what happens when governments rush through changes without thinking through the consequences. Robodebt should have been warning enough. We’re calling on the government to withdraw these amendments and commit to a system that upholds people’s rights and dignity, not one that tears them away.”

Everybody’s Home National Spokesperson Maiy Azize said: “This is a shocking and dangerous proposal. Cutting off someone’s Centrelink payment means cutting off their rent, their groceries, and their lifeline. It will push people into homelessness before they’ve even had a chance to defend themselves in court. These changes mean that someone could lose their home because of an accusation that later turns out to be wrong. Once you’ve lost your home, there’s no easy way back. No one should be made destitute or homeless before they’ve been found guilty of anything. Using the threat of homelessness as a form of punishment is unconscionable. The government should withdraw this amendment immediately.”

Labor has used every dirty parliamentary trick in the book to try and make senate question time as unpleasant as possible (which is a big ask given how terrible it is in general) in response to David Pocock, the Greens and the Coalition changing the standing orders to have an additional five questions asked by non-government senators in QT. It adds about an extra half an hour to the proceedings, and is in response to the government’s failure to produce the Briggs report into public servant jobs being awarded to ‘Labor mates’ which Pocock and others have been trying to get for two years.

Labor have tried suspending standing orders during the non-government questions so it’s senator could ask a question, for no other reason then to drag it all out even further. Here is some of the reaction to that from Independent Senator David Pocock, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Liberal Senator Jonathon Dunian as captured by Mike Bowers:

Labor is obviously very annoyed at David Pocock – there is an unspoken agreement that when senators step in or out of the chamber, it is not acknowledged formally. Pocock, who was clearly in the chamber for senate QT, stepped out for a brief period. On his return, Labor’s Tim Ayres made a big song and dance about it saying something to the effect of ‘good to see the man who is responsible for this longer question time’ as if he had just walked into the session.

Pocock pointed out he had just stepped out to go to the bathroom.

But yup, that is the standard at the moment.

What did we learn?

Well, there is still no challenge for the government. The Coalition had two issues from yesterday (HAFF being audited and inflation) and then some half hearted attempts to try and paint the government as being behind on mining, which – WE WISH?!

Albanese has been out of the country for a week and the best the Coalition managed was a bullshit attack about a t-shirt he wore, five days after he wore the t-shirt.

Tomorrow the Coalition backbenchers can attend a briefing on net zero with Dan Tehan. None of this is getting any better for them.

Liberal MP Melissa Price asks an attempt at a gotcha on whether or not the government supports mining (which – honestly, has she looked at what this government is doing? It fricking loves mining!)

Chris Bowen makes that point, but less frankly:

I’m sure the chamber of minerals and energy and the Honorable Member supports everything this government has done in recent weeks to support the mining industry in Australia and critical minerals in the great state of Western Australia, with the Prime Minister’s leadership and the leadership of the Minister for resources, and engaging in proper international diplomacy, engaging in proper interactions with our key trading partners.

That’s what our future made in Australia looks like, proper investments and a proper calibration of Industry and Energy policy as well as foreign and trade policy to ensure that our great critical minerals that have so much capacity to power not only Australia but the rest of the world. We have a periodic table of minerals under our Earth, we have nine out of the 10 minerals necessary to make a battery in our country.

We think that’s a good thing. We want to see more of those minerals exploited and more value added in Australia, and batteries made in Australia, and minerals processed in Australia. That’s our vision.

Your vision is stuck in your 10 years of denial and delay while you’re arguing tomorrow about whether climate change is real and whether humankind has anything to do with it and whether government should even bother to try Well, that’s why you are out of office now, and you are showing the Australian people continually you are not fit for modern government in Australia.

The Nationals MP for Cowper, Pat Conaghan asks:

Recent collapses like Shield and First Guardian have put over $1 billion of Australians’ hard earned retirement savings at risk. How many times has the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC to effectively regulate these schemes?

Daniel Mulino takes this one:

I know this affects members across the chamber. I want to acknowledge from the outset how distressing this has been for many people who have lost considerable amount of funds. There are many individuals and families who have lost a significant proportion of their life savings. I have met with victims of these collapses and I’ve heard first hand harrowing stories and I understand how difficult this has been.

Can I stress that the focus of ASIC over recent months has been to protect investor funds and it has undertaken a range of actions to do so. It has a range of actions already under way in court. This includes actions in relation to individuals involved in the financial advisors involved in these collapses. It involves also actions against individuals involved in the matched investment schemes. Importantly, there were also significant actions in relation to the platforms.

And I welcome the fact that recently there was an agreement reached between Macquarie and ASIC which saw over $300 million returned to investors.

A significant proportion of the investors in the Shield will see a full return of their capital.

I do acknowledge there is more work to be done and I continue to work with ASIC and other regulators in relation to the immediate priority of protecting investor interests.

…I haven’t ignored any warnings. When I was notified of this matter earlier this year I very quickly sought briefing from my department in relation to the matter. Following on from that, having found out about these matters. I wrote to APRA and received briefings in relation to what further actions might be needed in relation to platforms.

I have been working constructively on that matter. I have written to ASIC in relation to whether or not capital holding requirements are sufficient. And having been notified of these matters, I have asked my department to provide me with briefings in relation to how we might strengthen regulatory arrangements going forward. So what I would say to this chamber and of course to the member who has asked this question is as we consider options going forward, I look forward to working constructively with members of this House in order to find ways we can strengthen arrangements going forward.

Rebekha Sharkie asks Sam Rae:

Every Mayo home care provider I have researched is lifting its fees on Saturday from 40% to a 100% increase. One provider is charging non-grandfathered self-funded retirees and part pensioners a co-payment of up to $132 per hour for meal preparation and up to $101 per hour co-payment for showering on a Saturday. Most older Australians can’t afford this. Will you please look at the price capping and look to bring it forward?

Rae:

I thank the member for Mayo for her question and her ongoing commitment to ensuring that older people in her community do get safe, dignified and high quality aged care. Of course, from Saturday, with bipartisan support, we herald the arrival of the new support at home program which is a new generation of aged care for every single older person across Australia. And to this program it’s the member’s question pertains. From Saturday, we will ensure that administration prices under the home care program are capped. They have previously been exorbitantly charged by some providers. Not all providers. But by some providers and caps will come into place at 10% around most administration fees. We want the money that is afforded to older people for their care to be used for their care, not for administrative purposes.

We also have the independent pricing authority having issued pricing guidance to both consumers and providers. A better level of transparency and understanding for the entire sector around what appropriate pricing for services looks like. From July 2026, the independent pricing authority will of course introduce the pricing caps to ensure that no older person is inappropriately charged for the services.

Of course, Mr Speaker, we have to understand the road that we have trodden to get to this point, we had a royal commission which uncovered extraordinarily distressing stories of mistreatment of older people, it was mononymously named neglect. For nine long years, those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition in her position as health minister, neglected older people across our and finally Labor has come to the plate to ensure that every single older Australian can be afforded the safe dignified and high quality aged care that those opposite should have done a long time ago.

The coal lobby in Queensland didn’t like our Revenue Summit yesterday, which showed how much more money could be raised from coal companies.

They were so upset, they even got their facts wrong!

Claim: “The Queensland Resources Council warned the royalty regime had cost more than 1000 jobs and damaged the state’s international reputation as a reliable place to invest.”

Fact: The number of coal mines operating in Queensland INCREASED after the royalty change.

Claim: The Queensland Resource Council said “other states and countries have not followed the former government and raised royalty rates”.

Fact: NSW increased its coal royalty rates in 2024.

Mike Bowers has decided to punish himself today and head into the senate for QT. Here is a series on Bridget McKenzie, being Bridget McKenzie.

Michael McCormack is allowed to ask a question. It’s been a while since we have seen Tip Top in QT – welcome back Tip Top! In very McCormack areas, the question is from something that happened almost six years ago.

My question is for the Minister for Energy and climate change. Labor promised Australians their power bills would fall by $275 in 2025. Is the minister aware that it is now 2025 and that electricity bills are up by nearly 40%? Why did the minister mislead Australians?

Chris Bowen:

I am aware it’s 2025. Not sure the National Party is.

He waits for the laughter to die down.

I am also aware there are pressures in our energy system as around the world. I’m aware the AEMO quarterly energy dynamics report released today which is a welcome progress report, which shows wholesale down, and 27% year on year and 38% quarter on quarter. I see this as good progress w much more to do. And there is no coincidence that the quarterly report which showed a 38% reduction in wholesale prices also shows the highest renewable penetration for that quarter in Australian history. This is the sign of progress. We have never said that there isn’t a lot more to do. We haven’t said there aren’t pressures in the system.

We have announced energy relief which were opposed by those opposite. That’s the difference between the two parties in this House – the Government and the Opposition – we recognise the need to ensure we have more, most reliable and cheapest form of energy which is renewables and those opposite are opposed to it.

Jim Chalmers gets paid to answer Super Ted, so here is what he said:

For those of you wondering why the Shadow Treasurer cuts such a come comical almost cartoonish figure in this place that’s your answer.

We are working through serious economic challenges and that is the best way in the considered, methodical, consultative way that defines this government. If the Shadow Treasurer wants to ask me about unemployment, he needs to acknowledge the average rate under this government is the lowest of any government in half a century.

Half a century.

Under those opposite, unemployment averaged 5.6%, under this government, 3.9%. I find it odd that the Shadow Treasurer would want to highlight that in Question Time in the House of Representatives.

Similarly on inflation.I take advice in the course of job as Treasurer but I won’t take advice on inflation from those who left us with inflation that was 6.1% and rising fast.

Inflation on their watch was twice what it is now and it was rising fast. One of the reasons for that that we now know, whether it is from the COVID review or other places, is that when inflation was absolutely galloping in our economy, in 2022, 6.1 and rising fast, they were pouring more and more fuel on the flames.

We know that now. That is an economic fact and that is their legacy. This is why they have no economic credibility, especially with inflation, especially with employment and also when it comes to real wages. I’m asked about government spending. Those opposite promised a surplus every year in office. They delivered nine consecutive deficits.

This side of the House, weave been here for three full years. We have delivered two surpluses and one smaller deficit than we inherited from those opposite. They had spending as almost a third of the economy. We got it closer to a quarter.

They had real spending growth growing 4.1%. We’ve got it growing at 1.7%. This is why the questions from those opposite lack any credibility whatsoever, because we remember your record. We remember your record. We know that when we came to office, inflation was roaring, interest rates were rising, real wages were falling, living standards were plummeting, you’d only delivered deficits.

There was $1 trillion in Liberal debt. We spent every day or our three and a bit years cleaning up the mess they left us.

Backk to the house of reps and Ted O’Brien inflicts himself on all of us, which honestly – haven’t we been punished enough this week?

We learned yesterday that inflation has smashed through the top of the RBA target band. This is a direct consequence of the Treasurer’s spending spree. Labor spending is growing four times faster than the economy and reached a 40-year high outside recession. What is the Treasurer’s explanation for unemployment and inflation being well above the RBA forecast, not unlike the stagflation from the 70s which people nowadays refer to as the “Jimflation Effect”.

I am begging all of the Gods – could someone with an actual sense of humour, or at least a tiny bit of wit write these questions? Because for Dolly’s sake it is so pedestrian if I wasn’t been forced to watch this, I would be stabbing myself in the face with a fork because it would be less painful.

Senator McKenzie is up next to ask why the government has been sitting on the report for two years.

Senator Farrell says that Katy Gallagher has said it will be released at the appropriate time and that this government doesn’t want to rush things and make a wrong decision.

He then says that the government is a government of action.

Senator McKenzie made use of some pretty subtle mime work to express her disagreement

Sophie Scamps gets the first crossbench question and it is on the Briggs report into ‘jobs for mates’ that David Pocock has spent the past two years trying to get the government to release.

In February 2023, the minister for public service announced an inquiry into public board appointments to end the jobs for mates culture of the previous coalition government. The minister stated, “In line with the government’s commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid-2023”. The government has had over two years to consider its findings, and has repeatedly refused to make the report public. When will the government release the Briggs report and legislate a transparent, merit-based appointment process across the public sector?

It means Richard Marles is back:

I thank the member for her question on this important matter. As the member referred to, we commissioned Briggs to undertake a report to Cabinet that would look at what were the appropriate standards in terms of appointing people to public sector boards. Ms Briggs has undertake than work. The matter is in front of Cabinet. It is there to be considered. The Cabinet is working through the process of considering the report and we will respond and when we do, we will release the report as the Minister for the Public Service has repeatedly said, and so we will release this report. We will do so after Cabinet appropriately considered it given it is a report to Cabinet. That is the appropriately, that’s the normal and appropriate way to go about this. We listen for the interjections from the other side.

The hypocrisy in those is breathtaking, given that when it comes to the question of appointing people to government positions they industrialise it in terms of who they are reporting from their ranks.

The Briggs report, that saids an important piece of work and we are considering it at Cabinet and when we respond we will make it public. On but on the question of transparency the member raises.

It was the former Rudd Labor government which introduced the Ministerial Code of Conduct and that government introduced the Lobbying Code of Conduct and the Lobbying Register which provided transparency. It is the Albanese Labor government which has established the National Anti-Corruption Commission which increased funding for the ANAO, strengthening whistleblower protections. When you look at which party is on the side of government transparency, and government accountability, it is the party currently running the government.

Amy Remeikis​

In the Senate the Liberal Party Senate Leader Anne Rushton asked if the govt was going to retaliate against the Libs for it and crossbench (led by Senator Pocock) forcing the govt to have Question Time go for 30 more minutes in order to get the govt to table a report on Jobs for Mates. The news reports are that the govt will strip the Libs of their Deputy Chair spots on committees (and thus lose a chunk of income).

Don Farrell says, oh no, heaven forbid!!! He also says he is not aware of these reports, which, yeah nah.  

It all gets a bit heated and Bridget McKenzie is asked to withdraw a statement.

Sen. Ashton then asks about the Centre for Public Integrity report saying the government is shonky on transparency.

Sen. Farrell then brags about the government’s changes to electoral reforms which we pointed out last year, basically work to secure the duopoly of the Alp and LNP.

Farrell’s time quickly runs out saving that skerrick of life force I still have after having listened to him for these past couple minutes.

Union giant Tony Maher has announced he is retiring after almost three decades at the helm of the Mining and Energy Union.

Grahame Kelly, currently the MEU general secretary will assume the role from January 2026.

Maher said that leading the MEU had been the honour of his life:

I’m proud that we have reshaped the Mining and Energy Union into a strong,
independent union with growing membership and a dedicated leadership team.

Today’s MEU traces its history back to the first trade unions in Australia formed
in coal regions 170 years ago. We’ve always had tough employers with deep pockets; and our members have organised and fought for their rights, safety and living standards. I’ve done my best to continue our union’s long tradition of honest, militant and democratic trade unionism.

Double jail and the Judas Cradle for his Uber driver – David Smith, the Member for Norfolk Island (which includes part of Canberra in the electorate of Bean) asks a dixer to Richard Marles.

NEXT!

We are straight into it today.

Sussan Ley starts on…the national audit office looking at the Australia Housing Future Fund, which happened YESTERDAY if you wanted to know just how off the pace the opposition is.

Ley:

The dream of homeownership has become a nightmare for millennials and Gen Z who have no hope of ever owning under Labor. The Auditor-General has launched an investigation into Labor’s failed housing fund. The Chair of Housing Australia resigned. The failed Minister for Housing is building bureaucracies instead of building homes. Why is it when Labor fails, Australians always pay the price?

That tag line at the end is what the Coalition are currently trying to get off the ground. Not sure it is working for them.

This question also inflicts Richard Marles on all of us, which is maybe the more unforgivable crime.

Marles:

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. The first point to make is that if the Liberals are so concerned about the Housing Australia Future Fund and its contribution to providing more houses in this country, it should have supported the Housing Australia Future Fund much earlier than it did.

The Housing Australia Future Fund is now making an important contribution to the building of houses in this country, indeed, in the Leader of the Opposition’s own electorate, there are 54 homes in one area which are currently part of the first tranche of the Housing Australia Future Fund’s project. In the member for Lindsay, there are 135 homes in Penrith being pursued, in the member for Moncrieff’s electorate, 213 homes are pursued.

Since we came to government… half a million houses have been built. That includes 5,000 social and affordable houses. In the nine years that those opposite were in government, the number of social and affordable houses they constructed was 313. 313 in nine years. What we have done is the biggest investment in housing we have seen from a Federal Government. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a critical part because we care about providing affordable housing in this country and what we have over this side is enormous hypocrisy and a massive gap between what they say and do but the Australian people saw through it.

This is not going to be good for Australia for the reasons Allan has laid out a little earlier. Here is what the PM had to say about it:

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the US President has confirmed a green light to transferring the nuclear technology needed to South Korea to enable them to build nuclear-powered submarines. Given our enormous investment in AUKUS, does this concern you in any way and do you agree with the summary that many are taking from this, that South Korea is actually being given a higher level of secret US nuclear technology than we’ll receive under AUKUS?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, in a word. To put it clearly. These bilateral arrangements are a matter for the United States and Korea. The arrangements that Australia has entered into with the United States and the United Kingdom are in our national interest, they will provide for Australia to have access to that technology. And that’s a very positive thing.
 
JOURNALIST: But just following up on that, the US Defence Secretary said it was highly doubtful the US would be able to sustain AUKUS while also helping the South Koreans get nuclear. So, given this announcement by President Trump, do you think there are potential implications for AUKUS?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No. I think President Trump’s comments couldn’t have been clearer and they were very clear last week in the White House. They’ve been clear ever since. President Trump has made very explicit his not just support for AUKUS, but indeed the bringing forward of the timetable, if that is possible.
 

(The US can not deliver the submarines at any time)

JOURNALIST: But you won’t be attending, just to confirm?
 
PRIME MINISTER:

I didn’t say that. I very clearly didn’t say that. We’re working through those issues. We’ll be represented. We make announcements at the appropriate time.

To the questions:

JOURNALIST: What would positive outcome between the US and China look like to you and to Australia?
 
PRIME MINISTER:

The world has an interest in economic activity. We live in a globalised world and with a global economy. We want to see less tension in trade and we want to see a positive outcome going forward. We want countries to work together. That’s something that we have worked very strongly on. We have, if you look just at the last few years, when we came to government, the economic relationship with our major trading partner had a range of impediments. Those impediments have been removed. That means jobs for Australians, particularly in our regions, in our agricultural sector, but also in our services sector as well. We obviously also want to see a reduction in tension around the world. And the United States and China have an important role as the two major economies and the two major powers that exist in our region and right around the globe.
 

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did Mr Trump personally invite you to that dinner last night? How did you receive the invitation?
 
PRIME MINISTER:

We received the invitation in the usual way and we engaged very constructively. And I was very pleased to accept the invitation last night and it was a great honour for Australia to be invited. It’s not the usual thing for such a small, intimate dinner, as it was last night to occur, but a real opportunity and one that I was very pleased to accept.
 

JOURNALIST: Can you confirm whether or not you’ll attend next week’s COP Leaders’ Summit in Brazil? And if you’re not going, does that risk sending a signal that Australia is not serious about its bid to host?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. I’m sometimes amused by the contradictory messages from Australian media saying I should do more international travel, but when I do, say I should do less. We will work out our itinerary. Australia will be represented there. Parliament is sitting next week. This is the first full week of Parliament I’ve missed in 30 years, almost, of representation. And so obviously, this week is a leaders’ level meeting, but we take COP very seriously. We are advocating to host COP at the end of next year. We’re working through those issues.

The transcript is out from Albanese’s press conference in South Korea:

Last night, we had a terrific informal dinner hosted by the President of Korea with the President of the United States, President Trump, as the special guest. But it was an opportunity, for around about two hours, to have a discussion with four of the Five Eyes countries, with the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, in addition to our neighbours here in Asia in Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam. It was an opportunity to once again have a discussion with President Trump about the successful meeting that we had just a week ago to reinforce the support for AUKUS, the support for our defence and security relationship, but also our support for the critical minerals and rare earths arrangements that have been put in place. And to strengthen the economic relationship that we have with not just with the United States, but with our region here as well. It was a real opportunity to develop relationships further with leaders from those seven other countries and a really positive initiative from the President of Korea, who I will have a bilateral meeting with later today.

In addition to that, today I’ll visit POSCO. POSCO is Australia’s biggest commercial partner. Just last year, this mind boggling figure, $18.2 billion of Australian exports from one company, POSCO, right here in Korea. I visited POSCO’s operations in Australia that by and large are around the regions in Western Australia, in Townsville, in Victoria. These are an important commercial relationship that we have and I’ll be meeting with the CEO and the Chairman today at their major facilities, watching the import of Australian value. And what that is, that represents Australian jobs and Australian economic activity. That’s my focus of international engagement. We live in a globalised world. These relationships are important for our economy and for jobs. They of course are also important for our security and for peace in the region as well.

Today, there will be an important meeting, as we speak, will commence soon, if it hasn’t already, between President Trump and President Xi. We welcome the meeting of the world’s two largest and most powerful countries and economies. We are optimistic about a positive outcome. I’ve had the opportunity now to have a discussion with President Trump as well as with Premier Li of China in just the last few days, and it has been an opportunity for me to engage with them. These are important relationships for Australia.

Murray Watt says he will refuse projects likely to cause the extinction of a species under new nature laws. But when he had the opportunity to prevent the likely extinction of Maugean skate, he changed existing laws to protect the foreign owned salmon industry in Tasmania, not the skate.

And now the government is misleading UNESCO by saying the species is recovering when its own advice says it’s not possible to make such conclusions: Labor misleads UNESCO to protect destructive industrial salmon farms – The Australia Institute

Ed Husic was out on this very early from within the Labor caucus. Why? Well, there is nothing stopping it from being used whenever a government decides it needs to pass a project:

157L Grounds for grant of national interest exemption

(1) Before granting a national interest exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter, the Minister must be satisfied that:

…

(c) it is in the national interest that the provision not apply to the taking of the action by the person to whom the exemption is to apply.

…

(3) In determining the national interest for the purposes of a provision of this Division, the Minister may consider:

(a) Australia’s defence or security; or

(b) a national emergency, including an emergency to which a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) relates.

This does not limit the matters the Minister may consider.

Oh, look at Watt what just popped up in the enviro law notices portal…proposal to expand NSW’s biggest coal mine:

This means that around the time that the enviro law re-boot is ready to be voted on next year, Minister Watt will be needing to make a decision on a disastrously big thermal coal mine.

This mine also employed Ernst and Young (EY) to do their economic assessment, just like the Tahmoor mine that has just gone broke.

Holly asked: At face value this looks a lot like the dumped amendment from the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Act 2024, is it basically the same thing?

Greg Jericho looked into it and says:

This is a very good pick up, Holly.

Having a read of those bits in the OPGGS Bill that got kicked out, it was about the Minister  for Resources being able to override the Minister for the Environment for setting approvals rules including First Nations consultation for offshore gas projects; this appears to be essentially saying the Minister for the Environment can ignore the EPBC Act if they think the Minister for Resources in approving a project under the OPGGS Bill has already provided the same protection as the EPBC Act.  

So, it does thus feel a little bit of a backdoor way of getting the same thing of giving precedence to the Resources Minister.

This part of the Environment Protection Reform Bill explanatory memorandum is generating rather a lot of interest (As Amy has noted):

National interest approval

The Samuel Review recommended that the EPBC Act should include a specific power for the Minister to exercise discretion in rare circumstances to make a decision that is inconsistent with the national environmental standards, where it is demonstrably in the public interest and with a clearly articulated statement of reasons. The Reform Bill would provide an approval mechanism that responds to this recommendation for designated projects that the Minister considers to be in the national interest to be approved even if they do not meet the requirements of the EPBC Act. However, such actions will only be able to be approved so far as any such inconsistency is reasonably necessary for the action to result in the outcome the Minister has decided is in the national interest. 

So what is “national interest”? Basically, whatever the minister thinks. Which given the recent (long) history of Australian politics is not a good sign.

On ABC RN Breakfast tried to make it sound like it would be exception and rare… but not necessarily so. He suggested when asked if he’d be happy for an LNP minister to have this power he said:

“Governments of the day should, in very rare circumstances, have the ability when something is in the national interest to approve a project proceeding, even if it doesn’t meet the usual environmental standards.”

Ok, but what are we talking about? He continued “What we’ve said in the bill is to try to give a flavour of the types of projects that we’re talking about would be most likely defence or security projects, actions that may be undertaken in responding to a natural disaster. We have made the point that that should be rarely used, that there’s got to be transparency with the minister of the day issuing a statement of reasons justifying why they’ve done that. And just to be clear, that decision to approve a project in the national interest would occur after a full assessment was done.”

Oh, goody a full assessment – like the one that led to the North West Shelf Extension being approved.

And here’s the thing about “defence” projects. The government – led by Resources Minister Madeleine King has very much linked approval of new gas projects to national and internation security. Earlier this month she told Sky News that:

“Australian LNG has a vital role in the energy security of Japan but also in Korea. It plays its part in Singapore and in Malaysia and also in China. So what we know is energy security is what – is the underlying reason for prosperity in a region. So that energy security is what leads to peace and prosperity in our region.”

She and others in government at the Australia-Japan Business Cooperation Committee conference also earlier this month talked up how (as the AFR put it) “Australian gas keeps the peace in Indo-Pacific”

So, excuse me for being a bit sceptical that the line about national security will not be abused.

Q: I wanted to ask about the national interest provision. Would a Minister be able to exercise that provision to approve housing, energy, critical mineral projects that otherwise wouldn’t comply with environmental standards?

Murray Watt:

What the bill itself says is that it directs, the kind of examples or the situations in which those matters could occur are more related to defence and national security matters, national emergencies, there’s got to be a really high bar before people can actually, before a minister can intervene and approve a project not withstanding its environmental impacts. I would expect they’d be the types of things that would occur, rarely exercised, explained with a statement of reasons. And this is something Graeme Samuel recommended. He recognised elected governments should have the ability in rare situations to make a decision that is inconsistent with those national standards.

Q: Still technically possible?

Watt:

I’m not going to give hypotheticals about the kind of situations they could be used. I think the bill in referring to those types of matters around defence and national security and national emergencies gives you a good indication. You don’t have concerns it could be exercised for other projects? I’m not going to speculate about the kind of projects they would be used for. They’re the kind of things we’ve got in mind.

OK, so that is what Watt has in mind. But let’s take critical minerals, with 80% of potential projects sitting on Indigenous land. We have already seen the critical minerals deal with the United States linked to national security by the resources minister. And so while Watt is saying the provision could be used for ‘national security’ you have a prime example of what that means, right there.

Indigenous land? Environmental concerns? Doesn’t matter – national interest provision can over-ride it all.

Q: The Coalition says that you’ve cherry picked from Graeme Samuel’s review. Can you say with a straight face that you have honoured that review and has professor Samuel told you that himself?

Murray Watt:

I can absolutely say that the bill that we’ve introduced reflects the Graeme Samuel’s recommendations. If you walk your way through his recommendations it covered, we need new national environmental standards, we need a restoration fund for offsets, we need a net gain principle for offsets, we need stronger penalties, we need to streamline the approvals and come to with states that she people go through one assessment, rather than two. So time after time the things that we have put in the bill are almost directly out of Graeme’s report.

I haven’t spoken to Graeme the last few days I’ve noticed what he’s had to say and I agree with what he had to say. They’ve been wanting this work done for five years. I think it’s astonishing we still haven’t got it done five years on. Now is the time to get it done. I’ll work as hard as I can over the remainder of the year to get it done.

Has anyone thought to question why we are relying on a review that is five years old?

Let’s look into some of the questions Murray Watt is being asked:

Q: You spoke about what you say was a false choice between or the push and pull environment and business development. Perhaps in the macro that’s the argument. On the micro, if we’re talking about unacceptable impacts, if there’s a situation where no matter what you do to change a project, if it goes ahead, it will likely mean a species becomes extinct. What happens then? Is that a decision by a Minister on what’s more important out of those two scenarios?

Watt:

Well, I mean, without speculating about individual cases, the point about that definition of unacceptable impacts is that it’s where the impacts on the environment simply cannot be avoided or mitigated. So the first choice for a proponent is to avoid or mitigate the environmental impacts. But, as I say, I don’t think you’d find many Australians out there who would say it’s OK to go and mine Uluru or drill on the Great Barrier Reef or some really serious impact or threaten the viability of a species to drive it extinct.

I don’t think many Australians would accept that and they would say we want you to change your proposal in a way that avoids or impacts or minimises those impacts. Frankly, if it can’t be done, it won’t happen. I think these are extreme examples rather than the usual run of the mill situation. But I do think that strikes the balance between saying to business, we’re not saying you can’t build a project, we’re saying you can’t have an unacceptable impact that will drive a species to extinction or complete leave habitat irreplaceable.

Q: So there wouldn’t ever be a project important enough to say this species, this project, the project wins? Is that what you’re saying? I know there was the ministerial inconsistent decisions, parking that. Under the normal circumstance, no species would deliberately go extinct under what you’re saying?

Watt:

Our government has a policy of zero new extinctions to begin with. My view is the way these laws would apply is that if a project is going to drive a species extinct, it will get a no. I reckon I’d be confident I’d ge-99% support in the community for that.

Q: It wouldn’t matter how big the project is, how tiny the species?

Watt:

If it’s unacceptable it would a species to extinction or mine Uluru, they’ll get a no. The benefit of that is not just for the environment, but as I say, you often hear businesses saying they want quick yeses and noes. That’s a way of getting a quick no. Not even bothering putting up a project and saving yourself the time and money involved.

Allan Behm

President Trump’s visit to South Korea shows that extortion works. South Korea has played its “get out of tariffs jail card” by coughing up $350 billion to the US at a rate not exceeding $20 billion a year, with an additional $600 billion or more to come from south Korean companies and private investors.

For their money, South Korea got a bonus. President Trump announced that South Korea will build a nuclear-powered submarine at its Philadelphia ship yard, which it has owned since 2023. Details are scarce, but it looks as though it will get some version of the Virginia class, which is Australia’s fondest hope.

But Trump’s largesse will have unforeseen consequences – at least unforeseen by Trump.

· It will radically complicate the technology release problems for the US Navy’s head of reactors.

· It will also radically complicate other technology transfers for the US Navy

· It will put even more pressure on the US supply chain, which is currently unable to meet current construction schedules.

· It will certainly put pressure on Australia’s plans to lease a few “pre-loved” Virginias, and the acquisition of new ones.

· It will probably put even more pressure on Australia to cough up more “no strings attached” money to US construction yards.

· It probably puts paid to the Australia-UK hopes to design and build their own version of a nuclear-powered submarine, since the Virginia standard will inevitably determine whatever the allies of the US are able to do.

If AUKUS wasn’t already in trouble, it is now.

The government introduced laws last sitting, that would amend the Fair Work Act so parents who suffer a still birth or early infant death remain entitled to their parental leave. The amendment was the result of lobbying from Baby Priya’s parents – who died after 43 days of life. Baby Priya’s mother was told by her private sector employer that she was no longer entitled to maternity leave and could use her sick and personal leave, but would then need to return to work. The amendment makes it clear employers can’t do that.

So what do some members of the Coalition decide to do? Link it to late-stage abortion, in a cynical attempt to try and make some political points about an issue which is about health. Late-term abortion is a very cynical way to use jargon to try and pretend that women are just waking up one day a few weeks from delivering and just changing their mind about having a baby. That doesn’t happen. It’s because the pregnancy is un-viable, or the mother’s life is at risk.

Barnaby Joyce and Andrew Hastie were among the Coalition MPs who have tried to derail the amendment debate.

ACTU president Michele O’Neil is pretty pissed:

Barnaby Joyce and Andrew Hastie need to get out of the way and let the Senate pass this much-needed Bill. Their behaviour is deeply offensive to women, they need to get out of the way and let the Senate pass this much-needed Bill. They are targeting women when they are grieving and at their most vulnerable.The Baby Priya Bill is designed to give certainty to grieving parents so they know they can expect to have paid parental leave if they ever have to face these tragic circumstances.

Baby Priya’s mother was in Parliament when the bill was introduced. She is looking forward to having it made law so that other families are not left with the sudden withdrawal of paid parental leave at the time they need it most.

This bill will mean employers can’t cancel paid parental leave if a child is stillborn or dies. Australian unions are tired of men on the far right of politics getting in the way of what is critical legislation for women and their families.

Barnaby Joyce and Andrew Hastie need to stop trying to control women and focus on their day jobs to serve the community. They are seeking to make the lives of working women and mothers tougher than they already are.”

The Australia Institute is hosting a webinar tomorrow with Bob Brown to discuss his new book, Defiance: Stories from Nature and Its Defenders.

When: TOMORROW – Friday 31 October at 11:00am AEDT

Where: Zoom

What: For half a century, Bob Brown has been standing up to the powerful interests who would put profit before planet. In Defiance, he draws on this experience to inspire a new generation of individual and collective action. He reflects on the people and places that have shaped him, celebrates the irreplaceable beauty and value of nature and shares what motivates him to keep fighting. He considers the challenges facing nature’s defenders – hostile corporate lobbyists, vilification in the press, the powerful pull of consumerism – and shows how courage, persistence and community can defeat them all.

You can register here.

With the news earlier this week that the Albanese Government has been marked down on transparency and integrity, Paul Sakkal in the Sydney Morning Herald had a particular example: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision to “cut the number of staff working for the Coalition and several minor parties”.

The Prime Minister determines personal staffing numbers for all parliamentarians, which means he effectively controls what resources are available to other parties and the independents. Personal staff help parliamentarians scrutinise legislation and engage effectively on issues that require specialised knowledge.

Anthony Albanese has selectively granted additional staff to some crossbenchers but not others, with no clear rationale.

When Senator Fatima Payman defected from the Labor Party to sit on the crossbench, she was not given personal staff. Other senators had their personal staff allocation delayed, in one case for over a year. Following the May election, the Albanese Government again slashed staffing numbers for the Opposition, while making more limited cuts to its own staffing.

Without consistent rules to prevent staffing numbers from being misused, there is a risk that prime ministers use them a tool for reward and punishment.

The Australia Institute recommends transparent guidelines so staffing allocations are set in a fair way. Read more in the Democracy Agenda for the 48th Parliament.

Murray Watt is delivering his press club speech – we will bring you some of the Q&A.

Mike Bowers caught some of the small protest outside the NPC:

The senate has passed a motion to kick the environmental protection legislation Murray Watt has just introduced into March next year, by sending it off for inquiry.

The inquiry won’t report until March, so the legislation won’t be back on the agenda until March (this is for now – senates can also change their mind, so if the government gets a deal to pass the legislation, the senate would reverse this decision)

But for now Sarah Hanson-Young is calling it a win:

“Labor’s laws fail to protect our forests and fail to protect our climate. Despite the Government spin, this package leaves nature for dead. 

“The Albanese Government’s proposed environment bill will make things worse for nature and the climate. It will take environment protections backwards while fast tracking approvals for business.

“Big business and the mining companies have had their grubby fingers all over this package, there’s no wonder the Government wanted to rush the laws through without scrutiny. 

“Instead, the Senate has today sent the Bills to an Inquiry, to ensure the laws are properly scrutinised and that the community is given a say. 

“Now that we have seen the full bill, it’s clear the only thing being protected here is the profits of the mining companies and big business.

“These are meant to be environment protection laws, not big business approval laws.

“This bill is riddled with weasel words and carve-out clauses for big business. It makes approvals quicker and cheaper for the mining and big business lobby, and fails to provide proper protections for nature. 

“The Greens have been clear from the start: we will not rubber stamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, wildlife and climate. 

“We need laws that protect nature, not make way for big business to make big profits. The Greens cannot pass these so-called environment laws in their current state.”

OK on the national interest exemptions (which people like Ed Husic have already raised the alarm over)

On what grounds can the minister grant a so-called national interest exemption?

First (1)(c) says the minister must be satisfied that the exemption “is in the national interest” (broad terminology). 

Then:

“(3) In determining the national interest for the purposes of a provision of this Division, the Minister may consider:

(a) Australia’s defence or security; or

(b) a national emergency, including an emergency to which a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) relates.

This does not limit the matters the Minister may consider.”

Note the language “may” (not “must”) consider defence or security and can dream up other factors too: “This does not limit the matters the minister may consider”

Angus Taylor was up in Parliament earlier lamenting the shutdown of the Tahmoor Coal Mine in his electorate (ABC coverage here).

Gee, who could have predicted that this mine was dodgy and financially marginal?

Oh, that’s right! We did! Here’s what we said at the time:

Angus is out blaming the company, Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance. Fair enough, but there’s plenty more blame to go around.

It was consultants Ernst and Young (EY) that used dodgy economic modelling to cook the numbers for GFG. The NSW Department of Planning blindly repeated EY’s dodgy numbers and the NSW Independent Planning Commission largely did too.

Coal mines shouldn’t be extended in the 2020s. Economic consultants like EY can’t be trusted.

Good job, Angus. Well done.

The government is all for transparency, except when its not. When isn’t it? They can’t tell you. That’s a secret (this is the whoosh-whoosh version of the parts of the legislation below)

Item 223 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Reform Bill relates to the proposed changes to the EPBC Act concerning the national interest approval.
Section 133 of the EPBC Act allows the Minister to approve the taking of a controlled action by a person for the purposes of a controlling provision for the action, after receiving the assessment documentation relating to the action.
Item 223 would amend existing section 133 to insert new subsections 133(7A) and (7B).
New subsection 133(7A) would require the Minister, as soon as practicable after deciding whether to approve the taking of an action that is a national interest proposal, to publish the reasons for the decision on the Department’s website

This is intended to ensure transparency in relation to the approval of national interest proposals, as modified tests relating to national environmental standards, unacceptable impacts and compensation would apply to such actions (see new sections 136A, 136B and 136C, proposed by item 237 of Part 1 of Schedule 1.
New subsection 133(7B) would have the effect that the Minister would not be able to publish, under new subsection 133(7A), any information that:
• is an exempt document under section 47 of the FOI Act (trade secrets etc.); or
• is a conditionally exempt document under section 47G of the FOI Act (business documents) to which access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5) of that Act; or
• that the Minister believes it is in Australia’s national interest not to provide.
The note after new subsection 133(7B) would explain that the reference to ‘Australia’s national interest in that provision’ refers to the meaning of that term in relation to national interest proposals generally, and refers the reader to new subsection 157C(2) (proposed by item 58 of Part 1 of Schedule 1).

While Parliament was underway this week, young people from Australia and the Pacific gathered in Canberra for the Australia Pacific Youth Climate Dialogue, urging tougher action to address climate change. This youth forum launched the 2025 National Child and Youth Statement on Climate Change, based on 27 sessions with more than 800 youth leaders in every Australian state and territory. Among other things, they want:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership embedded across all stages of climate policy along with meaningful Pacific partnerships.
• Stronger action to reduce Australian emissions in line with the global 1.5°C target.
• Youth-centred energy transition planning, with targeted education, green skills training, and job pathways.
• Greater investment in climate resilient services and infrastructure across schools, hospitals, transport, and housing, particularly in regional and rural areas.

Supported by UNICEF, it’s part of a wider Global Youth Statement to be presented to the COP 30 presidency.

The bill also includes:

“NOPSEMA (regulator for off-shore renewables) approved actions: 

The Reform Bill would amend EPBC Act to allow the Minister to declare that offshore projects do not require separate approval under the EPBC Act, if the Minister is satisfied that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and OPGGS Environment Regulations provide the same environmental protections as the EPBC Act, replacing the existing strategic assessment. This would include relevant national environmental standards.”

Boom! Here’s the climate section – the explanatory memorandum goes out of its way to highlight that the reporting of emissions does NOT cover scope 3 emissions (our fossil fuels burnt overseas) and that it is “an information provision only and not a balancing consideration for decision making”.

That means it’s a transparency measure that can’t be used to alter what the approval decision otherwise might be.

It is, as the government had already said previously, most definitely not a climate trigger.

Here’s the full section of the EM dealing with this:

“Climate

The Reform Bill would introduce a provision requiring proponents to disclose estimates for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of the assessment of a controlled action.

Proponents would also be required to disclose associated emissions mitigation measures and abatement targets along with the estimated emissions. This supports the effective operation of the Safeguard Mechanism and supports Australia to meet its climate targets.

The Safeguard Mechanism is the Australian Government’s mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at Australia’s largest industrial facilities. Under the Climate Change Act 2022 the Environment Minister is required to give certain emissions estimates they have received to the Minister for Climate Change, as well as the Climate Change Authority and the Secretary of the Climate Change Department.

Requirements for disclosure will be aligned with requirements under other government legislation with requirements to be set out in regulations. This is an information provision only and not a balancing consideration for decision making.”

The first thing a friend of the blog has pointed out in relation to the government’s environment bill is:

Strategic assessments

Page 6 of the EM talks about how it will “amend the provisions of the EPBC Act relating to strategic assessments that have frustrated the making and operation of landscape assessments and approvals”.

The amendments include “requiring the Minister to obtain and consider advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee when deciding whether to approve a class of actions involving unconventional gas or large coal mining developments”.

There’s a report out today that the head of Australia Post, Paul Graham, is calling on Australians not to buy Temu and Shein and other pretty cheap and nasty products for Christmas.

Now the Opposition is very much aware of the risks of such things given the wipeout they got after buying Peter Dutton a Temu Trump outfit for the election campaign, and as anyone who has bought from those outlets probably has a good idea that you truly get what you pay for and that ain’t much.

But a report by Nina Gbor, the Director, Circular Economy & Waste Program here at the Institute, last year found that Australia is the biggest buyer (and waster) of fast fashion in the world. Australians buy on average 56 items of clothing a year – much of which is driven by fast/cheap/low quality clothing that lasts roughly one wash.

The problem (apart from the waste of money) is that clothing all ends up in landfill and it is essentially made completely from plastic. Nina found that  “in 2020–21, Australia generated an estimated 860kt of textiles, leather and rubber waste. This is the more than 16 times the weight of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. A big part of this – about 300kt – is clothing waste”. Also that “Shein launches up to 7,200 new items per day, and is reportedly able to produce a clothing item, from design to packaging, within a week. This fast fashion ‘trendmill’ means that overproduction and overconsumption have become longstanding fashion trends, and a massive feature of our clothing culture.”

Because of brands like Shein and Temu “between 2018 and 2023, the production of synthetic fibres in China increased by 21 million tonnes – this is enough to make more than 100 billion t-shirts in a year, which would be enough to give everyone in the world more than 12 t-shirts a year. Ultra-fast fashion brands such as Shein and Temu have been accused of contributing to the persistence of China’s oil demand.”

So yes, avoid Temu and Shein – it’s going to leave you crying due to a crap product, but it is also terrible for the environment and the climate.

Here’s Nina on ABC last year explaining the problem and what to do about it:

As mentioned earlier on the live blog, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has emphasised just how many orders for documents the Albanese Government has complied with: more than any other government in history.

It’s a retort to criticism about the orders for documents that Labor hasn’t complied with, specifically to release the Briggs review into public sector board appointments (looking into concerns about “jobs for mates”).

But what are orders for documents?

Orders for documents

Orders for documents or OPD (technically, “orders for the production of documents”) are used by the houses of Parliament (the House of Representatives or the Senate) to require the government to produce information.

Every Australian parliament in the country has the power to order the production of documents (from their respective governments; the Victorian Legislative Council can’t make the Queensland Government produce documents).

If you have seen the ABC’s very good (but very distressing) reporting on abuse in childcare centres, that reporting is based in part on information revealled by a successful order for documents from the NSW Parliament.

While either house of Parliament has the power to order the production of documents, in practice they mostly come from the Senate because the government has the numbers in the House of Representatives.

What is the volume and nature of OPDs?

The power to order documents is inherited from the United Kingdom’s House of Commons. Its use has ebbed and flowed: between 1901 and 1906, the Senate issued over a hundred orders for the production of documents before the practice fell into disuse in the 1910s. It was revived in the 1970s, and the Senate’s annual volume of orders for the production of documents in its first six years was not matched until the 1990s.

Some orders for documents have remained in force for years and changed the culture and practice of government departments. The website listing all government contracts, AusTender, has its origins in an order for documents, and it is thanks to a different order that Australia’s quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data is published promptly.

I won’t deny that orders for documents are sometimes for things I think are trivial and intended just to score a political point. But that was also true when the Liberal–National Coalition was in government, and Labor was putting forward orders for documents. And a Senate order for documents cannot pass without multi-party support; it is never just the result of one party’s agenda.

What happens if the government refuses to comply with an order for documents?

The consequences are political, not legal. The Senate is within its rights to stop voting on the government’s legislation until it gets the relevant information. Or to take away some of the government’s privileges, like being able to sit at the central table (this symbolic honour is more important to them than you may think!)

In this case, the Senate has said that since the government won’t be transparent on this issue, the Senate will demand more transparency in other areas: by extending how long Senate Question Time runs for.  

For those asking, the amendment that has been slipped in which will see police given the power to recommend the cancellation or suspension of welfare payments, before a conviction, can be found here.

Murray Watt has introduced the environmental ‘protections’ bill into the parliament:

You can find it here.

We will go through it and give you our thoughts soonest.

Who says politics is just a game?

This morning, in the Mural Hall of Parliament House in Canberra, five remarkable young Australians took on our political leaders in games of giant Jenga, Connect Four and Noughts and Crosses.

But it wasn’t all fun and games.

These kids had a stark message for their political playmates.

They told them what it’s like to be young and poor.

They spoke about missing meals, wearing ripped school uniforms and being excluded from opportunities their parents couldn’t afford, which other kids take for granted.

“Sometimes I choose not to ask for food, because it’s easier to go hungry rather than upset anyone or risk them not helping me in the future,” said one participant, Aimee, who is one of six children in a blended family that squeezes into a three-bedroom unit.

“My dad didn’t have enough money to buy we a new school shirt when my school shirt got a rip in it,” said another, Hunter, who helps his parents by caring for his younger siblings.

“My teachers at school would give me warnings, and I would explain to them that I couldn’t afford to buy a new one. One day the warnings stopped, and I started getting detentions instead.”

“It was really hard to be in detention because I didn’t do anything wrong, and they knew I needed help.”

They were tough, but necessary, conversations.

It was all part of an initiative to raise awareness about the extraordinary – and growing – number of Australian children living in poverty.

The games were hosted by the End Child Poverty campaign, run by the Valuing Children Initiative.

The children visiting Parliament this morning all take part in programs run by 12 Buckets, which provides mentoring for disadvantaged children in schools and the community.

The End Child Poverty campaign wants the federal government to legislate a “clear, child-centred poverty measure and definition”.

There is no official measure of poverty in Australia, which makes it difficult to monitor the effectiveness policies aimed at improving the lives of those doing it hardest in our society.

“We need to measure the impacts of poverty in a child-centred way, so we can reduce the harmful effect that can last a lifetime,” said campaign lead, Sarah Quinton.

Last year, the Productivity Commission estimated that 14 percent of Australians lived in poverty, which is the number of people living on 50 percent of the median income, or below.

The End Child Poverty campaign calculates that nearly a million Australian children now live below the poverty line.

It’s now nearly 40 years since the late Bob Hawke declared in his 1987 re-election campaign launch “by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty”.

Last year, The Australia Institute released its Ending Child Poverty in Australia report.

The institute’s team of economists often say, “poverty is a policy choice”.

In a rich country like Australia, governments could effectively wipe out poverty with a single piece of legislation.

The report stated, “Poverty has long-lasting and insidious impacts on a child’s health and well-being and can affect their schooling and employment opportunities throughout their entire lifetime.”

“Given that the low rate of income support payments keeps many families in poverty, reducing child poverty is not inherently complicated.”

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government managed to lift 650,000 Australians, including children, out of poverty overnight by supplementing existing income support payments.”

Surely, if there was one single ambition of a government with a big mandate and, seemingly, little appetite for meaningful reform, ending child poverty is a no brainer.

Yesterday in the parliament, the house of representatives were discussing amendments to the government bill to compensate people for the unlawful Centrelink debt repayments, which is a bit of a bandaid solution to some of the issues surrounding a different type of unlawful debt to Robodebt.

Yes I know it is confusing, but stay with me here.

Among the amendments, the government slipped in one which is, totally unrelated to this bill, which would give police the power to recommend the suspension or cancellation of a person’s Centrelink benefits, before they are convicted.

The chatter around the parliament is that this is the government’s attempts to address criticises Desi Freeman received benefits, but it will apply to anyone the police decide should have benefits cancelled. Before a conviction from the courts. This amendment and the ‘reasoning’ pretty much guarantees that the Coalition will vote for the bill, blocking the Greens from negotiating in the senate.

This didn’t get a lot of attention yesterday, but it is a pretty major step and also conflates powers between the police and the public service without any input from the courts.

There was an inquiry into this bill a few weeks ago, which didn’t raise this issue- there was nothing in the bill or the department’s evidence that this was coming – the government has surprised everyone with this amendment and from the quick conversations I have had with advocates, there doesn’t seem to have been much consultation about it, even about unintended consequences.

Today has been deliberately chosen for the introduction of Labor’s environmental protection ‘reforms’ into the parliament – it is five years today that Graeme Samuel handed his review into then-environment minister Sussan Ley.

Watt is using the anniversary to start his merry-go-round of media talking about the need for the laws. At a doorstop today he was asked how negotiations to pass the legislation was going and said:

What I’ve heard since Sussan Ley sent that silly letter to the Prime Minister saying that we should split the bill, is that even business groups don’t support doing so.

She put forward this idea that we should only proceed at this point in time with the matters that business groups want to see delivered, such as streamlining our approvals.

But even business groups have been out there saying it was a silly idea, and they recognise that we’ve got to pass a balanced package that delivers for both the environment and for business because that’s the way that we will have enduring, lasting reform that delivers for the environment and for business.
Since that time, I have met again with Angie Bell, the Shadow Minister for Environment, I think that’s the fifth or sixth time that I’ve met her and I’ve met a similar number of times with the Greens Spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young.

So, we’re at a stage where both the Coalition and the Greens are flagging issues that they would want to see dealt with in order to pass the legislation. We haven’t seen any draft amendments yet, that’s understandable, people will be still working on that at the moment.

But we’ll work our way through this and I’ve always said that we’re open to passing this bill with the support of either the Coalition or the Greens.

If either side sets ridiculous demands for us, then we’ve got another option to pass these laws. My purpose in this is to pass these laws as quickly as we can and deliver a balanced package that delivers for both the environment and for business.

I would bet my two cats that this didn’t come up at the dinner Anthony Albanese attended with Donald Trump last night. Save the Children reports at least 52 children were killed in Israel’s latest breach of the ceasefire in the last 24 hours:

At least fifty-two children were reported to be among those killed yesterday by renewed airstrikes from Israeli forces in Gaza.

Ahmad Alhendawi, Save the Children’s Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe, said:

These reports are excruciating. After some weeks of cautious optimism and hopes of rebuilding Gaza, children and families are once again reliving scenes of fear and loss.

This cannot become the new normal under a ceasefire. A lasting ceasefire must mean safety, relief, and recovery for children not continued suffering. It must be fully respected and upheld.

We are pleading: stop this now. Protect the ceasefire, protect children, and give Gaza’s families a step towards the genuine peace they have been waiting for.”

I have seen some of the images – no doubt you have too – and I couldn’t sleep last night as their faces lived just behind my eyelids. I couldn’t stop thinking that these children would have been excited for when the ceasefire was announced, and maybe even had hope. There was a newborn I saw, perfect in form (the shockblast from the weapons Israel uses can literally crush your insides, without leaving a mark on the outside) and I couldn’t help but think that maybe their parents saw them as the dawn of a new future. They were only a week old, born a week or so after the ‘ceasefire’ was put in place – and was still killed by a bomb.

We reported a little earlier that Angus Taylor has decided the best way forward, is to step outside of all the Coalition mess and just focus on things he is doing. He is the shadow minister for defence, but is using his member for Hume hat to make the issue of the Tahmoor coal mine go national.

The decision to stand down hundreds of workers at the Tahmoor coal mine is deeply disappointing and will have serious consequences for the workers, families and small businesses who depend on the mine.

My first concern is for the employees and their families who are affected by this decision. Operations at the mine have been scaled back for several months, leaving workers without answers, suppliers out of pocket, and the local community in a prolonged state of uncertainty.

For months, the community has been patient and hopeful that GFG Alliance would deliver on its promises, but that patience has now worn thin.

 GFG needs to be honest about the future of Tahmoor.

Earlier this week, I wrote to Mr Sanjeev Gupta to make clear that GFG’s management of Tahmoor has failed to provide the stability, financial integrity, and long-term certainty required for sustainable operations.

I put two choices before Mr Gupta. Either restart the mine, or, if that is not possible, pursue an orderly exit to allow new ownership to restore the colliery’s viability.

The Tahmoor Colliery is a critical asset for the region and for Australia’s steel and resources industries. With the right leadership and investment, I am confident Tahmoor can once again prosper, securing jobs, supporting local businesses, and delivering long-term economic benefits for the community.

Here is what the chamber looked like as Tanya Plibersek delivered this statement on domestic and family violence. By the time the Liberal party’s Melissa McIntosh delivered her statement in support of the report, the Coalition had made it into the chamber. But they had missed most of the opening statement.

Tanya Plibersek also addresses the work which is being done in First Nations communities:

The devastating reality is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 33 times more likely than other Australian women to be hospitalized due to family violence, and up to seven times more likely to be homicide victims.

Right now, we’re finalising ‘Strong ways, Our voices’, the first standalone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander plan to end family, domestic and sexual violence, which has been developed in close partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

We continue to work closely with Aboriginal and Torres, Strait Islander peoples across the country, so that government policies and investment will have the greatest impact.

Tanya Plibersek talks about a new inquiry the government is establishing:

We are under no illusion that there is always more to learn. There is always more to do.

That’s why today I’m announcing the launch of an inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence related suicide.

The inquiry will be undertaken by the house standing committee on social policy and legal affairs, chaired by the member for Boothby, because experts have told us that suicide risk for victims can be amplified through feelings of entrapment, fear of the perpetrator, and the cumulative effects of violence, both during and after a relationship.

It’s vital we continue to understand the pervasive and far reaching impacts of gender based violence if we are to effectively prevent it, it is an unimaginable tragedy for some women that life with the fear of abuse becomes intolerable.

The last parliament session of the week is underway and it opened with Tanya Plibersek delivering the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission’s Yearly Report to Parliament.

Last year, the Prime Minister convened an urgent national Cabinet meeting on gender based violence.

National cabinet agreed to strengthen our collective efforts under the national plan, through the rapid review of prevention approaches.

Since that report was delivered in August last year, we have accelerated our efforts, and today, Minister Gallagher and I have released a public update on progress towards recommendations made by that rapid review.

We’re supporting essential front line services with $700 million in new matched funding with the states and territories to support women and children at risk to reach safety.

We’re focusing on sexual violence and being informed by the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence, investing over $21 million to expand trauma informed legal services and pilot new roles to help victims of sexual violence navigate the justice system, we’ve invested $3.9 billion in the new access to justice partnership, including $800 million for Family Violence legal services, the largest amount invested in Australia’s history. This follows our changes to family law to make sure the system considers family violence risk and places the best interests of children at the center of all parenting decisions, we’re taking action to deal with high risk perpetrators, investing over $82 million to detect, monitor and intervene earlier with serial domestic violence offenders.

We are supporting the recovery of children who’ve experienced violence, investing over $81 million to expand services like child specific counseling, because children deserve to grow up safe, happy and healthy.

We will never break the cycle of violence, until they can.

Lidia Thorpe also addressed the lack of action around the attack on people in Camp Sovereignty during the first ‘March for Australia’ rallies, which were supported by neo-Nazis. Thorpe says that despite the attack meeting he hate crimes threshold in her opinion, there has been no action at a federal level:

There’s a petition with over 400,000 signatures to call on this government to make it a hate crime & we’ve heard nothing from the Prime Minister. So when a synagogue or a Mosque is attacked in this country, the prime minister is all over it. But when it’s Aboriginal sacred site, he must be hiding under the desk somewhere, because he is not calling it out. And it’s an absolute disgrace for the prime minister to be ducking and weaving on calling this a hate crime and standing up for First Peoples in this country.

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe held a quick doorstop interview this morning where she spoke about the racial discrimination act and while the 50th anniversary isn’t all sunshine and rainbows:

We know that in the 50 years that the Racial Discrimination Act has been around, that the government of the day decided they would suspend it so they could be racist and put in the Northern Territory intervention.

Thorpe said that both the Coalition and Labor had abused the spirit of the Act when it suited them and despite the Racial Discrimination Commissioner commissioning a report asking politicians to undergo anti-racism training, it is still unclear how many have actually done it “given its still a racist place and the racism in this building continues every day”.

So there’s nothing to celebrate there. 

Still looking at behind the scenes with the Liberal party and Scott Morrison has been out and about having chats. The Australian has reported previously that his genius idea is for the Liberal party to support net zero in theory, but not the 2050 deadline. So a whoosh whoosh of the spirit, but not the timetable.

The timeline is the most important part, given it is meant to see nations scale down their emissions over the coming years, so the planet can you know, survive.

But ever the political animal, Morrison sees the way through the ideological issues within the Liberal party is just to por qué no los dos? their way through it. Net zero for the ‘non-negotiables’ like Andrew Bragg but no need to do anything or make any changes for the ‘is this even a things’ like Tony Pasin.

The world is larger than the Liberal party, but you can see business try to work out which line to walk, as this ABC RN Breakfast interview with BCA Chief Executive Bran Black makes clear:

As you say, we support net zero, achieving that by 2050. From our perspective, the critical thing, though, is to note that we need to do that as a country affordably and reliably.

So our effort and our focus is on working to ensure that the Government’s net zero planning, which is very much underway, and particularly in the context of setting sector-specific plans, is informed with an evidence base that is, what is it that industry needs, what type of policy levers need to be pulled, and how can we do so effectively, so as to ensure, as I say, that affordable and reliable transition to net zero.

Angus Taylor is having fun running around doing things in the background, while publicly keeping himself away from any and all of the Coalition’s messes. After his decision to convince Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to leave the Nationals party room and joining Liberal party room to be his deputy on the leadership ticket failed (many within the party saw it as too cynical a move and it also overlooked Liberal women who had spent years toiling away in the party which turned them off) Taylor has taken a backseat and just kept watch. Does that mean he has no leadership ambitions? Of course not. But it does show he has maybe finally learnt the number one lesson of leadership aspirants – don’t have a single fingerprint on the mess.

So Taylor has been out and about doing other things, showing what he would do as leader, while staying out of the messy debates and attacks (at least publicly).

He got prime position on Sydney radio 2GB breakfast this morning, which is basically a direct line to the Liberal party base.

He has written to Sanjeev Gupta telling him to ‘pack up and sell his Tahmoor coal mine’ which ticks two big boxes for the base – standing up to a foreign owner and supporting coal mining. And he didn’t enter into any of the Liberal party issues while speaking to the program (and wasn’t asked) – the whole exchange was about what Taylor himself, is doing. Take note.

Taylor:

No, look, the mine has been shut since earlier this year, or not operating since earlier this year, and now we’ve seen many of the workers being put off. Ben, there’s nothing wrong with this mine, it’s a great mine. And the miners just want to what their job is, which is to mine coal. And the mine’s the heartbeat of our community. It’s hundreds of jobs, local businesses, families depend on it. And we’ve just seen, as you you said, 250 people put off now. And so Gupta needs to either get the mine back up and running or sell it. And there are others wanting to take it on. They’ve been speaking to me and others. So this really matters to a lot of people. They’re coal miners. We want to get the coal mine back up and running again.

…it’s time for him to get on and do the job here. This has gone on for too long. To be fair to him, he has been paying workers up until now, but it’s got to a point now where people are incredibly frustrated. They’ve had enough, and I’m going to stand up for them and fight for them. That’s why I’ve written to him and frankly enough is enough

The Financial Services Union has criticised Westpac’s decision to cut 134 jobs across 99 branches just two months before Christmas, as it moves more of its functions online.

Finance Sector Union National President Wendy Streets said Westpac had only just agreed to develop a $5m capability fund “to support workers and provide better opportunities to those who are displaced”.

These are tellers and personal bankers who have stood by customers during a difficult few years and they deserve respect, consultation and the time to make real decisions about their future, without being rushed out the door.

Westpac has a choice: it can pause these cuts and treat its people with fairness and decency and work with us to find solutions, or it can prove that its choosing the path of chaos and putting profits over people.
Westpac has made a big show or promising to invest in its people by setting up a fund, yet now they’re cutting the very workers this fund was supposed to support.”

Earlier this week, the CPA warned accounting and finance bodies from scraping junior roles in favour of AI, warning it would have issues down the track.

Banks are among the businesses which have been early adopters of new technologies historically, as it generally allows them to cut human wages. In August, Westpac’s results showed a net profit of $1.9bn for the quarter.

David Pocock’s attempts to have a duty of care to future generations built into Australian legislation was knocked back by both major parties this week, just as Murray Watt is about to introduce environmental protection laws that are designed to fast track coal and gas approvals.

The Climate Media Centre has thoughts on this:

The federal government’s once-in-a-generation overhaul of our national environment law risks entrenching climate destruction, with leading legal and climate experts warning the reforms fail to deal with the single biggest threat to our environment – climate change.

The Government’s draft Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act reforms will reportedly exclude any meaningful consideration of climate pollution or compatibility with Australia’s climate targets. Despite promises of stronger protections, the reforms will not consider the climate impacts of new or expanded coal and gas projects. Polluting projects would not be blocked on climate grounds, even if they breach Australia’s emissions targets or worsen climate harm.

Experts warn that by ignoring the climate impacts of projects, the laws expose Australia to domestic and international legal risk, including under obligations recently clarified by the International Court of Justice’s climate advisory opinion.

At a time when climate-fuelled disasters increasingly wreak havoc on the lives of everyday Australians, the reforms risk entrenching the very industries driving the crisis, and put future generations at risk.

Professor Jacqueline Peel – Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor and Australian Laureate Fellow, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne said:

Australia’s national environment law is being rewritten for the first time in 25 years, yet it fails to address the biggest environmental threat of our time: climate change. By excluding climate impacts from environmental assessments, the Government is writing a law that guarantees more harm to the very ecosystems it claims to protect.

This is a once-in-a-generation chance to build an environmental framework that’s fit for purpose in a warming world. Instead, the government’s reforms leave the door wide open for new coal and gas projects that are fundamentally incompatible with Australia’s climate targets and our international obligations.”

Chalmers also spoke about the growth in private investment, particularly in renewables, which he said was growing twice as fast as mining investment since the 2022 election. But it was his line on AI spending which caught my attention:

In the data, we also see an important shift in the nature of business investment.

Non-mining investment, particularly in renewable energy and technology, is now doing more of the heavy lifting.

In fact, it’s grown over twice as fast as mining investment since the 2022 election, averaging 9.4 per cent of GDP over the past three years.

That is the highest three-year average share of GDP since 2012.

Spending on intellectual property like software, data, and AI is now almost as large as spending on mining.

Capital expenditure in energy construction is up nearly 40 per cent since we came to office, driven by the roll-out of large-scale renewable energy projects and supported by our Future Made in Australia agenda.

More new businesses are being created each month on average than under any previous government, and the insolvency rate is now around half of what we saw during the Howard years.

This is a solid foundation from which to meet all this global uncertainty.

Jim Chalmers spoke at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry dinner overnight, where he thanked the chamber for “the chance to speak to you over dinner about three things that occupy almost all of my time as Treasurer”.

What are those things?

Building on momentum in the private sector.

Making progress on the directions we set at the reform roundtable.

Against a backdrop of serious and persistent global volatility.

He also spoke about some of the ways he watches for that ‘global volatility’:

There are a number of ways to understand this volatility but just consider, for a moment, commodity prices.

Each week Treasurers get a simple page summarising movements in eight different commodities.

So, by my count that brief has landed on my desk 179 times now.

Usually, treasurers look for the iron ore price at the top of the page first.

About 96 bucks this week, not bad.

Then it’s gas prices, about halfway down.

Other times it’s oil, particularly when conflict in the Middle East flares or tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalate.

But there’s one commodity that until this week was missing from that weekly briefing that I’ve been watching most closely lately – and that’s gold.

Gold is up almost 50 per cent in the past year.

More than $12 billion has been funnelled into gold-backed funds in one week of this month alone.

A year ago, an ounce of gold was about US$2,800.

It took 169 days for it to climb to US$3,300, and 167 days to climb a further US$500.

The most recent US$500 price jump took just 20 days – and that progress has almost unwound with the big fall in gold over the past fortnight.

We watch this with interest because, historically, spikes in the price of gold have been a symptom of a big event or more substantial global economic shock.

In the late 2000s it was the GFC and its aftermath driving the price of gold bullion up by 50 per cent.

Three decades before that, the ‘Nixon shock’ kicked off the biggest gold bull run in history – a 19-fold price increase in just a decade.

It all started when Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971.

It was fuelled by two oil crises in the Middle East and sustained by a global battle with inflation.

Familiar signs of uncertainty and volatility are visible again across the global economy today.

Conflicts abroad.

Governments everywhere managing the aftershocks of an international spike in inflation.

Global shifts in trade.

Do you have thoughts on the 2025 election? The Electoral Matters Committee would like to hear them.

Committee Chair Jerome Laxale MP said:

Aggressive conduct at polling booths has been the biggest issue in our early submissions. The Committee wants to keep hearing from community members about their experiences participating in the 2025 Federal Election, and to use this information to shape our upcoming hearing.

…You don’t need to have put in a submission to register your interest, you just need to tell us what you want to talk about and a bit about how you participated in the election. We might not be able to hear from everyone on the day, but we want to hear from as many people as we can.’

The Committee will be holding hearings in Melbourne (12 November 2025) and Bendigo (13 November 2025). As part of these hearing members of the public will be invited to get on the record by making short verbal statements of up to 5 minutes.

To register your interest in making a statement at upcoming hearings, contact the Committee Secretariat at em@aph.gov.au.

Further information on the 2025 election inquiry can be found at the inquiry webpage. Committee details can be found at the Committee’s webpage.

Meanwhile, Labor senator for Tasmania, Richard Dowling had THOUGHTS on transparency:

When the opposition get up here and preach about spin and secrecy, Australians might recall—who hid the energy prices? Who silenced the watch dogs? Who turned public service into private property? Integrity isn’t optional; it’s the foundation of trust. We’re rebuilding what they tore down. We’re rebuilding it with sunlight, not spin. The coalition’s idea of transparency was a blackout curtain. The Albanese Labor government’s idea is daylight, and, after what we inherited, that’s not just good government; it’s a public cleansing.

That is what we need—trust in institutions, faith in democracy and keeping integrity so that our institutions respond to public need, public data and transparency. We are restoring that after a decade of cover-ups, a lack of sunlight and a lack of democratic process.
The Albanese government is investing in our democratic institutions to improve transparency for Australians

In the senate, Katy Gallagher accused non-government senators of abusing the order for production of documents measure, and said it was being used like questions on notice:

During the Keating government, there were 53 OPDs—when you say 93 per cent were complied with, there were 53. We have had nearly 100 in the last few sitting weeks.

That’s the scale of what we were dealing with. There were 336 OPDs agreed to in the 47th Parliament. Some of those were for documents that are publicly available. Some of them had a scope
that extended to thousands and thousands of pages, and some of them were required to be complied with within timeframes that are simply unreasonable.
On the question time changes, what the Senate is going to do here is rip up the convention of how question time has applied in this place, with consensus, and it will deny non-executive-government members the opportunity to answer questions. So, when everyone comes in here and says everybody has a right to ask questions, this motion seeks to deny my colleagues the right to ask questions. That is what is happening here, on a document that will be released with OPDs. That section needs to be reformed because we have complied with more OPDs than any government in the history of this chamber

Which, OK. But back in the Keating days (and indeed most goverments before Howard) there was a lot more transparency in general about the machinery of government. As governments have become more secretive, non-government MPs (which has included Labor while in opposition) use what tools they have to try and force transparency.

Reading through the Hansard from yesterday (always a fun punishment) and independent David Pocock has proved he has absolutely mastered the parliamentary game – he pulled a swiftie on the government yesterday and won a motion for an extra five non-government questions to be added to senate question time.

That will extend senate QT by at least 30 minutes. The Coalition voted with him and the crossbench, which is what won him the motion. And it wasn’t because Pocock necessarily wanted more time to ask questions – but because he wants more transparency. He’s been waiting for the government to release the Briggs ‘Jobs for Mates’ review for the last two years, with no success. So now he’s forcing Labor to deal with him, by messing up their control of the senate.

Ron Mizen from the Australian Financial Review reports that in retaliation for the Coalition voting with Pocock on the motion, it has threatened to remove Coalition from senior committee positions.

Which it could do in the house of representatives, because that is where it controls the numbers.

So we have Labor, who campaigned on more transparency, withholding a report into how it has awarded senior public servant jobs for two years, now reportedly threatening to sack Coalition MPs from the deputy positions on parliamentary committee, because the Coalition voted with David Pocock for more questions during question time, in a bid to force the government to release the report.

What’s that they say about absolute power?

Sussan Ley doubled down on her criticism of Anthony Albanese’s t-shirt on Wednesday, telling reporters:

I don’t take a backwards step on my comments and I don’t know that people realise that the prime minister in wearing the T-shirt was well aware of the dark history behind the words on the T-shirt.

There is a lot of chatter among even supporters of Ley that these sorts of controversies that she creates (there were her calls to sack Kevin Rudd last week, which she very quickly backed away from. This immediate kneejerk reaction isn’t new either, it also happened when she was deputy leader under Peter Dutton, most notably when her immediate instinct on the state three tax changes was to say the Coalition would immediately repeal them and return it to the old Coalition plan, which heavily benefited the wealthy).

But many in the Coalition are still saying privately that Ley will remain leader while they work out the policy messes behind the scenes – because no one else wants to own that – and then once a policy platform is decided, she will be challenged. Which could mean she remains leader for as long as the Coalition has left, because given how some of those policy chats are going already – it could be years before the Coalition has a platform!

That being said, T-shirtgate was stupid-stupid, even for Auspol.

You can read how stupid, here.

A third of veteran families experienced unemployment or underemployment and more than half reported mental health challenges in the past 12 months, a damning report reveals.

Research commissioned by the Families of Veterans Guild has demonstrated the ongoing impact of military service on families, which includes significant financial stress and inadequate access to health care.

The 2025 Veteran Families Survey undertaken by YouGov questioned almost 600 family members of current and former defence force personnel.

Three in 10 participants said their household had one or more adults who have experienced unemployment or underemployment.

The same number said they or their family had trouble accessing mental health services, while more than half (52 per cent) had experienced poor mental health.

The majority of families were worried about their financial situation.

Looking at the impact on children, almost three-quarters had experienced personal difficulties in the past year, while 60 per cent had school-related issues.

Despite the challenges facing their families, 59 per cent of those surveyed would still recommend a career in the Australian Defence Force, while a quarter would not.

The report will be launched at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday.

Families of Veterans Guild chief executive Renee Wilson said the organisation was advocating for the expansion of the Veteran White Card for mental health to include spouses and children of veterans

“This report must be a catalyst for action,” she said.

“We have the evidence. Now we need a co-ordinated national response to ensure the families who sacrifice so much and enable the defence of our country are supported in every way possible.”

The guild also recommended the federal government act on the royal commission into defence and veteran suicide’s recommendation for an independent review of veteran and families counselling service Open Arms, to ensure it was meeting the needs of families.

Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh will tell a veteran family roundtable serving in the ADF takes immense sacrifice, for members and their families.

“Families are often at the front line of the pressures that military life can bring,” he will say.

“Listening to those families, and learning from what they tell us about their lives, is one way we can honour their sacrifice.”

Mr Keogh will say there is much more work to be done as the federal government goes about implementing the recommendations of the royal commission.

Lifeline 13 11 14

Open Arms 1800 011 046

A very big good morning to you and welcome to Parliament Friday (unless you are a Coalition backbencher – then you are being encouraged to stick around for a meeting about net zero tomorrow).

Today’s events open in South Korea, where Anthony Albanese dined with Donald Trump as part of a small dinner organised by South Korean president Lee Jae Myung.

Lisa Visentin from the Sydney Morning Herald was there and reports that Trump praised Albanese for a “great meeting” last week and said:

We’re working together on rare earths, but we’re working on a lot of things together,”

So don’t expect any pushback against the US any time soon.

Albanese and Lee will hold the annual leaders meeting today. Penny Wong will represent Australia at the ministerial meeting.

Back home and Murray Watt is going to introduce his environmental ‘protection’ legislation and top it off with a National Press Club appearance to answer any and all questions (allegedly).

The Coalition under Sussan Ley is still looking to split the bill for reasons that have more to do with trying to save her leadership and the Liberal party than any actual reason. The Greens want the government to actually *gasp* protect the environment. And it is not all sunshine and lollipops in the caucus room either, with backbencher Ed Husic speaking out against the expanded ‘national interest powers’ contained in the legislation, which allow a minister to approve major projects and override environmental checks.

Husic spoke up against the expanded inclusion in the caucus, warning it risked abuse by future Coalition governments and again yesterday when he told the ABC, “one scenario could be, for instance, the AUKUS arrangements require us to open up a new uranium mine. If it doesn’t meet the test, do we say on the basis of strategic national interest, we’ll let the mine go ahead, even if it’s assessed as having unacceptable impact?”.

He isn’t pulling this out of thin air – at the last election campaign, Peter Dutton said he would approve the north-west shelf expansion using the existing national interest test if he won government, no matter what the environmental concerns (Watt approved the project as one of his first acts as minister, with ‘conditions’ that have done nothing to allay people’s concerns over the impact of the expanded gas project that will now run until 2070.

So that is the set up for the day. You have Amy Remeikis with you and it will be a two coffee morning and maybe some chocolate and an apple as I have pushed even my limit with the sugar and caffeine and now need to eat like an adult again (which I do very well in non-sitting weeks for the wowsers out there)

Ready? Let’s get into it.