The Point Live: Coalition continues to tank as parliament enters its final week. As it happened.

Given the clusterf*ck that is the senate at the moment and not much doing in the house, we will put the blog to sleep for a small bit – but fear not – we will be back very early tomorrow morning.

It has been A day of just depressing nothingness. That always has me in two minds – because how lucky we are as a country that for the most part, our politics is boring, but how depressing is it that so much is taken for granted and stunts like the one Hanson pulled are just expected as part of the show.

Our government could be doing more and for reasons completely unknown, is choosing the path of the least possible.

And so, we continue the fight for a braver, fairer Australia – and we are so lucky to have you along for the ride. Thank you. It means the world.

So until tomorrow – take care of you. And those around you. It can be rough out there and people like Hanson make it so much rougher.

Ax

And there we have it – unity of a sort in the senate, with the chamber agreeing to officially suspend Hanson until she complies with the order to apologise.

This has happened before. Hanson grandstands and then makes herself the victim in the apology.

Independent senator Fatima Payman, who wears a hijabi said Hanson was “disgraceful” and demanded the senate act against Hanson’s disrespect of the Muslim community.

Penny Wong has moved a motion to suspend Hanson from the senate sittings.

The senate is in complete chaos and is now suspended while it deals with it.

The senate is in absolute uproar, and Hanson has now been ‘named’ by the senate, which means she needs to give an apology or explanation to the senate for her behaviour.

Unlike the house, the senate president can’t boot people out of the chamber – only the senate has the power to do that, through a vote and follows a lengthy procedure. But the president can force explanations.

We are all David Pocock. Photo: Mike Bowers

The One Nation leader is back in the senate wearing a burqa. Not only is this disrespectful, xenophobic and tired, it is also a repeat of what she did back in the day’s of George Brandis’s ‘you have a right to be a bigot’ speech.

The only reason she is doing it is to capture more headlines. Disgraceful. What a punish of a human.

Let’s take a look at some of what Mike Bowers saw during QT shall we?

The face of someone who is completely unbothered and unaffected:

Something, something tail wagging…

Totally normal people having a totally normal convo

So many lols

When the principal walks past

Re-watching some of a motion from this morning that I missed while watching press conferences (I am but two eyes, two ears and two unco hands) Labor MP Ed Husic had some things to say about gas.

Husic sais that he agreed that Australians deserved “a gas market that is predictable and reliable, affordable and transparent”.

It is not a radical proposition,” he said.

“But right now our gas system defies even the gravity of basic economic logic. The consequences are felt in households, factories and businesses across the country. We face a projected seasonal gas shortfall by 2028 – not because we don’t have enough gas, but because the gas that comes from beneath Australian soil is prioritised for customers offshore, rather than customers onshore.

Pre-pandemic gas prices sat around $3 to $4 a gigojoule. Today, it is around $10.30. When I said our gas prices defy the gravity of conventional economics, I mean this; domestic gas demand has actually fallen but the supply has been shunted off shore and that is largely why prices haven’t fallen.

The market is fundamentally distorted.

Husic said his government has been the first to tackle some of that distortion, even as the Coalition rejected the intervention into the gas market, and the industry cried foul.

Husic went on to say that “predictable voices will tell you, ‘all we need is more supply’. That’s misleading. We need supply at the right prices.”

He said that the contracts manufacturers are forced to sign with gas companies undercut their ability to do business and a “complete re think” was needed to ensure “Australian resources” serve “Australian interests”.

In this country it is almost as if we are embarrassed at possessing so much resources and calls for controls over gas companies being able to sell uncontracted gas overseas at the expense of the domestic market.

The Australian Financial Review has had another go at the Victorian Government this time based on a report of the Victorian  Auditor General’s Office (VAGO). The Fin turns a fairly deadpan treatment into emotive language such as the “Victorian Labor government has blown a $50.6 billion hole in the state’s finances over the past six years”.

Notice that 6 years includes the COVID period when deficits skyrocketed at all levels of government; Commonwealth, state and local.

If you keep reading you will eventually find that there was an operating cash surplus of $3.2 billion in 2024-25. The $50.6 billion hole was based on a non-cash definition of the budget balance. Without going into the technicalities note that we usually talk about the federal budget on a cash basis. Cash accounting is simply the difference in money coming in versus money going out – that’s the same accounting as you use when you follow your weekly bank balance. It makes sense at the state level as well.

But all that is looking in the rear vision mirror.

The Victorian budget papers look forward and show net operating cash flows of $6.2 billion in 2025-26 and $26.5 billion over the forward estimates. The Fin does not look at that.

The Fin’s story didn’t get past the introductory parts of the VAGO report so there was no mention of the even bigger cash deficits when you take into account Victoria’s investment in infrastructure, dwellings, roads, rail, bridges and the rest.

But, and this is the interesting thing, if you look at the Victorian Government’s total assets you find net worth has increased and is expected to increase by another $29.5 billion from $170.8 billion to $200.3 billion over the period to June 2029. That will be a net worth of around $28,000 for every man, woman and child in Victoria by 2029. 

Even during the worst of COVID, the Victorian net worth continued to grow.

As you rummage through the budget accounts and the VAGO contribution it is hard to appreciate what is really going on. Hidden behind the cold numbers are the benefits Victorians get through their various health, education and other services as well as the infrastructure. This is not to say everything is perfect, the states are crying out for more capital spending. Think of potholes, traffic congestion, crowded public transport, the need for more health facilities, schools, public housing etc. These shortages need addressing yet those at the Fin are hung up on debt, deficits and keeping taxes low. We should instead by focused on unleashing the full potential of the states.

Question time is still going but honestly, we have seen enough.

So let’s take a look at what we have learned.

Labor seems to be intent on making this week all about what it thinks it has achieved and throwing that all up in bright shiny lights. It is by design – not just because it is the end of the year, but because it wants to show what the Coalition can not – unity and policy.

The Coalition is really trying to Gretchen Weiner it’s way through its net zero mess by trying to pretend there is any legitimacy in its position.

And repeat. That’s where we will be all week.

Labor MP Cassandra Fernando just asked a dixer – she has returned to parliament with her new born. Mike Bowers caught this photo just ahead of QT, as Fernando delivered a speech while holding her little one:

Recent reports that Australians have purchased up to $3.8 billion of petrol and diesel made from Russian crude oil, worth $2 billion in taxation revenue to Moscow, is a timely reminder that Russia is not the only major fossil fuel exporter that has made huge amounts of money from the war in Ukraine.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, global oil prices increased rapidly.  Natural gas prices follow crude oil prices because, quite literally, oil and gas often come from the same holes in the ground. World prices of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), the form of natural gas that is exported from Australia, surged from around $A550 a tonne of LNG in 2021 to over $A1,100 in 2022. 

The surge in LNG prices generated huge windfall profits for Australia’s predominantly foreign-owned LNG industry. According to research by Ogge, Saunders and Campbell LNG windfall profits since the invasion in 2022 have amounted to $100 billion, profiteering from the war in Ukraine.

Australian taxpayers have received little of the LNG windfall. Over half of the natural gas used in Australia for LNG exports is given away royalty free. Meanwhile, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PPRT) is so poorly designed that in 2023 Treasury revealed that no LNG operation had ever paid PPRT, highlighting how the ATO considers the oil and gas industry to be “systemic nonpayers” of tax.

While it could be argued that better taxation of Australia’s LNG industry would mean the Australian government is also profiteering from the war in Ukraine, the $17 billion a year that would be raised from a 25% tax on LNG exports could go a long way to ensuring Australia no longer needs to rely on fossil fuel imports from Russia, or any country, and significantly reduce overall fossil fuel consumption.

There is some more stupidity from the Coalition.

Next.

Then we get back to the crossbench and some actual questions that matter with Zali Steggall asking:

Is it the government’s position that advertising online on vulnerable Australians is acceptable?

This is in response to reports in the AFR that the government will use the social media ban as cover to pass a very watered down response to the Peta Murphy review into gambling advertising.

Albanese:

No.

Sure, Jan.

My Dolly the Coalition are bad at this. And by this I mean – everything. They are essentially the political version of the movie Saving Private Ryan at the moment – except instead of saving Matt Damon, they are trying to save a tiny bit of relevancy, even if it (politically) kills them all.

The member for O’Connor (Rick Wilson if anyone cares) asks:

There were warnings in the recent energy council report in which the CEO of an energy company said that bills will increase for the next decade, Prime Minister, why is the part-time Energy Minister and full-time president more concerned with the COP31 negotiation then he is with power bills for households and businesses in Australia?

This is just so stupid my migraine fled in terror.

We interrupt QT for this rare news – Economic Justice Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service have released a statement calling out the government for misleading people about their support for the police welfare legislation.

This is rare because peak bodies usually have to play the political game and largely stay back from this style of criticism of Labor governments- think of it as keeping the powder dry (although there have been shifts away from that style of advocacy in recent years, with more of a focus on being bolshie)

The statement was just released and says:

EJA and ACOSS reject any suggestions that organisations were consulted on Schedule 5

Monday 24 November 2025

The highly contested Schedule 5 amendment to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No.2) Bill 2025 (the Bill) has this morning taken up the majority of discussion in Senate.

During questioning about the legitimacy of the amendment, the debate included discussions about whether any organisations were consulted about Schedule 5. Led by Senators Penny Allman-Payne and Lidia Thorpe, Senator Katy Gallagher was asked whether any organisations were consulted. Comments made could have been heard as suggesting consultations did take place.

Both EJA and ACOSS would like to make clear that we were at no point consulted on the Schedule 5 amendment.

EJA and ACOSS confirm that, from the first notification from the Government about the proposed Schedule 5, both organisations have made clear we oppose the Schedule 5 amendment.

Subsequent to learning of the addition of Schedule 5 to the Bill, both organisations have put out strong statements opposing it. Each organisation has urged Parliament to reject Schedule 5.

We continue to urge all parliamentarians to reject Schedule 5 in its entirety.

Our statements are linked below for reference.

• ACOSS and EJA joint statement: Laws to cancel social security payments must be scrapped
• Media Release: EJA strongly opposes legislative amendment that would erode principles of justice for people on social security
• ACOSS calls for removal of new powers to withhold income support

David Littleproud gets the next non-government question and reminds us all while the Nationals are experiencing such drastic falls in membership.

My question is to the Prime Minister. There are less than five weeks left in 2025, when will Australian families receive your promised $275 eduction to their power bills?

Jim Chalmers, who is representing Chris Bowen (who is in Brazil for Cop) takes this and says:

Thank you, Mr Speaker and thanks to the Leader of The Nationals for his question. As we have made it really clear, Mr Speaker, and relevant experts, the Prime Minister read a few out of them a moment ago and they have made it clear, Australia’s best chance to put downward pressure on electricity prices is from introducing cleaner, cheaper, more renewable, more reliable energy sources. Mr Speaker, that never used to be controversial. For a long time it was not an especially controversial proposition, even those opposite held that view, Mr Speaker. I am asked that question by the Leader of The Nationals. The Leader of The Nationals said once before when he had a more sensible position on this, “It is a good thing that renewables are coming on, the disruptions happening with technology moving towards renewable energy particularly in storage for baseload is exciting and think it is a good thing’ and he also said “Economics will win out in the end and if baseload power can be stored in particular that is an exciting thing for the environment and for everyone’s hip pocket”, Speaker and he says “In my own electorate people are self-sustaining through solar, there is a reality that that kind of disruption is happening and that is exciting for the environment and for the hip pocket”, Mr Speaker.

Milton Dick says he wants to hear from the member for Page, which is a lie because no one wants to really hear from Kevin Hogan. He has a point of order that is not a point of order and we move on.

Chalmers:

I am asked about power bills and I am answering a question about power bills reminding the house at the Leader of The Nationals once had a more sensible position on this. The upward pressure on electricity prices in our grid Mr Speaker does not come from a new, cleaner, cheaper, renewable reliable energy, it comes from the legacy of 22 failed energy policies which saw four gigawatts of energy come out of the Greens.

Then everyone is yelling. Dick tells them to shut it and Chalmers continues, but he seems very over it all.

Richard Marles takes a dixer to deliver a love letter to Aukus. It’s like watching the middle age man try and convince his friends that the dancer does really love him back.

Dan Tehan then illuminates us with:

The Australian energy council CEO said ‘I think the storm is coming around cost and competitiveness’. Prime Minister, if the 40 per cent price rise that Australians have faced under the Albanese government are just the calm, what percentage power price rise is the storm going to bring?

SIGGGGHHHHHH.

Anthony Albanese says:

I thank the member for his question and as for what the energy sector and The Business community think about energy policy in this country, the Australian energy council CEO has said using coal for longer will increase costs rather than decrease cost.

And it also means that it is not the right market signals for new renewable investments to come in because Coalition are still sitting there blocking the system. We cannot keep coal in the system for ever. There is a large proportion that do need to exit.

The Australian industry group I’ve quoted before said, there was no interest in going backward on net zero. The Business Council of Australia CEO said this dash we need to make sure that we continue going to keep Australia as a competitive place to do business. With only the practical terms is that we need to a clear plan, a pathway towards what that net zero looks like. So there is, went on to say, so there is confidence to invest. Andrew Mackellar, CEO of ACCI, said business does need this certainty if we are going to get investments in place for the future that we need to understand what the policy is. To characterise their policy at the moment, it seems to be a bit of a plan to not have a plan, unfortunately.

Now, the Australian Energy Council when talking about the way forward said, we are now in a directory for a higher renewable system supported by renewable energy and that will give the lowest cost outcome. So that is what the experts actually had to say.

When they were in office, we had an energy system that was 50 years old. So 24 out of 28 coal-fired gas stations announced the closure and nothing replace them. You had four gigawatts leave the system and one gigawatt into the system as a result of lack of supply increases cost. What dealing with now is how we transition. Those opposite pretend that that is not the case. They pretend because they are too busy fighting the ongoing climate was that have been in place on their side for decades now, holding Australia back.

Tehan has a point of order because of course he does. Albanese sticks to his answer. We have all wasted another three minutes of our one precious life.

We re-join it as Allegra Spender asks:

Today’s rental affordability index shows two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential workers like teachers. The new homes bonus was supposed to incentivise new homes and help fix this but were just that a city likely to be this target, the effectiveness of this incentive is under question.

Would you consider reconstructing the bonus scheme to help this dates to critical rezoning, speedup approvals and build infrastructure that the states need to enforce these targets?

Clare O’Neil thanks Spender for the question and says:

It is a good one and ended reflects the real seriousness in which she engages in the housing debate. We have a crossbench here wherefore many of these one — wonderful people, housing is a critical issue in their community and they work with our government and the member for when web is one of those.

They asked about issues facing Australian renters and I agree with her, this is a critical concern of our government. We have a housing crisis in our country that has been cooking 40 years and really, the people who are bearing the biggest point of this are people who are in rental accommodation. They are feeling it in rental going up too fast and too frequently, they feel in the lack of power they have in negotiating with their landlords and speaker, a very distressing is chair of renters tell us they are they are actively fearing practically becoming homeless and that should not be happening in a country like Australia.

So one thing that the member for Wentworth has been constructive in working with the government with is understanding what the crux of this issue facing our rental population is and that is for this 40 year period, our country has not been building enough homes.

For a long time in Australia, the Commonwealth government wash their hands of this problem. As you know, most of those who are in office and government they were checked out of housing that they did not even have a Housing Minister to negotiate with. We have changed that and one of the main ways we are engaging with states and territories is throwing something the National Housing Accord. Instead of saying that our government would not take any responsibility, we have stuck — stepped up, with leaders across the country including local government and the local sector and said, if you want to get a change we need to make a difference to how…

There is a point of order on relevance and O’Neil has to stick to the topic, finishing with:

I am talking about the National Housing Accord is because the bonus that the member asked me about this at the end of the National Housing Accord. We are in constant negotiation and discussion with the states and we have a problem in our country when it has become too hard, too difficult and too lengthy to have a home built in this country estates are critically important to solving the problem and… The $3 billion incentive that the member asked me about as she has mentioned sits at the end of the Accord target and of course the state are always keen to see that money flowing to them fast enough but what I would say to the member is that the $43 billion package that sits across all of our housing policies

Quite a big part of that actually flows through the states so we had as part of the original negotiation, $1.5 billion in funding, much of that flow to the states. That Future Fund went to the states, we have $10 billion which is going to the states to deliver 10,000 homes until billion but went to them for social housing so there is a really strong partnership there and what a lot of money flowing there.

At a press conference ahead of QT, Zali Steggall was asked by a News Corp journalist if she believed the government had ‘dealt fairly’ with Linda Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown in it’s agreement with Brittany Higgins.

A reminder that Higgins was paid out for what she experienced in her workplace in what a judge in a civil case found was rape.

If you have been reading News Corp you know why they asked the question and why. Steggall wasn’t playing and responded:

I don’t have any comment in relation to the government’s dealings with them. But I should say my sympathies are with Brittany Higgins who was found by a court to have been assaulted in her workplace, and all of us as employers take seriously that responsibility. 

And I should say, the ordeal she has been put through – and  yes, she was found to have defamed Ms Reynolds – but I don’t think any of us, and you in particular as a young woman, would ever consider putting yourself in the shoes of a person has been sexually assaulted in her workplace. 

I think the continued harassment and pursuing of this issue is disgusting.

After the press conference Steggall released a statement saying:

I accept that the defamation claims against Higgins were upheld by a court. But I’m concerned pursuing those proceeding reinforces the chilling effect defamation proceedings have over victims of sexual assault.

Brittany’s courage in coming forward led to the Set the Standard report and the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service which hopefully means Parliament House is a better workplace for everyone.

With the under-16s social media ban set to take effect on December 10, it’s a reminder that political will is the real currency of government action. When governments want to ban something, they absolutely can. They move fast and bring in laws that protect the Australian public. 

This comes with threats of “punishment“ by lobby groups representing tech companies, who say the ban is unfairly targeting US tech companies. Social media platforms covered by the ban, including Meta, TikTok, X, YouTube, and Reddit, have refused to sign a pledge affirming their compliance.  

The Australian government moved decisively to introduce the ban and keep under-16s off social media. So why can’t it stand up to the foreign-owned multinational companies that are paying $0 in tax, exploiting our national resources and driving endangered species to extinction? 

If our leaders can stand up to digital media platforms, then they could also tackle monopolies, tighten environmental laws, ban the opening of new coal mines and regulate gas exports.  

The social media ban isn’t just about apps. It’s a spotlight on what government could do if it prioritised people over politics.

Turns out not even my computer wants to partake in question time.

So apologies for the delay. Back on line now though so let’s gooooooo

We are on the downhill slide into QT.

It looks as though independent senators and the Greens have managed to stop the government legislation that will give police powers to stop welfare payments for people suspected of a crime (not convicted) from passing today, although there is no guarantee about what will happen tomorrow.

Grab what you need – no judgement here – to get through the next hour and a bit. It is going to be ROUGH.

Have to say it is completely wild, and also shockingly normal, that the government is working out just how much it can water down environmental laws, while the Northern Territory braces for a cyclone.

One of the big announcements at last week’s UN climate talks in Brazil was that the South Korean Government has committed to phasing out coal-fired power by 2040.

This is a big deal. Not only because it will reduce the substantial emissions of Korea, but because of the influence it will have on the other big Asian coal importers – China and Japan. There are centuries of rivalry between these countries and one of them moving to phase out coal will help move the others forward.

But this globally significant news might not have been possible were it not for grass roots environmental activism in New South Wales.

Three major South Korean companies had planned coal mines in NSW over the last decade – Bylong near the Hunter Valley, Wallarah 2 on the NSW Central Coast and Hume Coal in the Southern Highlands.

All three were defeated by opponents in the local communities, backed by organisations like The Australia Institute, Lock the Gate and the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).

Combined, these projects would have seen Korean companies invest $3.6 billion in mines that would have produced 13 million tonnes of coal each year. They would have seen the Korean Government deeply invested in Australian coal mines planned to operate into the 2050s.

But none of these mines exist thanks to community opposition.

This demonstrates the importance of local, grass-roots climate activism. This shows the global impact that local groups can have in this interconnected world.

More than this, however, it shows the importance of opposing mines and gas fields by climate activists. This is a complete vindication of the strategy that The Australia Institute and others have taken in targeting fossil fuel supply and highlighting Australia’s role as a major fossil fuel exporter.

Sussan Ley has completed her annual reading of domestic violence victims into the Hansard, which is something she has done for years.

This year 74 names were read. It took three minutes to name them all.

Today as the government attempts to use police powers to target those on welfare payments, new data shows just how horrific is life for those on Jobseeker.

The latest Rental Affordability Index released today by SGS Economics and Planning highlights the impossibly for many on Jobseeker to survive.

While the figures in the report suggested some good news for overall housing affordability – especially in capital cities where affordability had stabilised after a few years of getting worse – for those on Jobseeker the situation remains dire.

The report acknowledges the common view that rental stress occurs if those on low-incomes need to spend more than 30% of their weekly income on rent. By that measure every place in the country involves such stress.

For those living in capital cities however the situation is well past the point of stress and into critical desperation. In Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth, those on Jobseeker are having to spend ALL of their income on rent.

Even in the most affordable areas of country SA those on Jobseeker are having to spend half of their income on rent – well beyond the “30%” point of rental stress.

This is what happens when you have a combination of housing policy that is driven by tax breaks for property speculators, a reduction in public housing and a 30-year fall in the real value of Jobseeker:

The solution is not to further demonise those on welfare by using police powers that remove the presumption of innocence, but to boost Jobseeker to a liveable amount, and increase public housing so that we don’t have those on Jobseeker and their children living in abject poverty.

What does the Coalition want on the environment laws? It is hard to say, because it is mostly about throwing weight around, rather than actually getting a win. Industry and the business community want the government to do the deal with the Coalition so that there are no more environmental protections in place, and that tells you everything you need to know about the intent of these laws. Business has been fairly muted on the Coalition’s dumping of net zero precisely because it is hoping it will just come to their side and pass the laws. The whole thing is a mess.

Angie Bell told Sky Business this morning:

Well, certainly we put forward seven main issues that we have with the bill, but there are
many more. And there’s a secondary list as well that I’ve asked the Minister to look at, certainly the Environmental Protection authority’s powers, and we want to make sure that the CEO is accountable to the Minister, has KPIs, and that there is a binding agreement around that, so that the CEO can be dismissed if they do not perform.

That’s certainly a stakeholder concern.
There’s the definition or lack of definition around unacceptable impacts and also net gain
that is in the bills. Stakeholders are concerned about that, so we need clarity on that.

We want to make sure that there’s streamlined pathways, and that the pathways the Minister is
suggesting to take away, which are no longer in the bills, are put back in the bills. Because
stakeholders are concerned around the impact that may have on projects, and of course, that
means jobs at the end of the day.

There are very many other issues. I can outline all of them, if you like, but there’s some duplication around emissions reporting as well that we think is unnecessary because it’s already reported under the safeguard mechanism.

Stop the presses. Billionaire thinks we should have less regulation.

James Packer has let loose on Dan Andrews in an interview, saying the former premier surprised Crown Casino with a new tax in 2022. Packer claims new regulations not allowing casinos to use cash puts them at a huge disadvantage to pubs and clubs who can allow punters to gamble with cash.

Packer sold Crown Casino in 2022, halfway through the investigation. But he is still interested in how it operates. In the interview he said, “I think it’s outrageous what’s happening to the casinos in Australia”.

For those who don’t remember, these rules were changed after recommendations from the Victorian Royal Commission into Crown which variously described Crown’s behaviour as “disgraceful” as well as “illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative.” It found an “alarming catalogue of wrongdoing”, with repeated breaches of money laundering and links to criminal gangs.

Crown agreed to pay $450 million in fines over breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.

So, should Victoria soften regulation on casinos?

Australia Institute research shows Australians gamble more than any other nation, with troubling rates of gambling for those 18 to 19 years olds.

What this sorry saga with Crown Casino, as well as Star Casino in Sydney, tell us is that this is an industry that needs strong regulation.

Gambling causes significant harm in Australia and governments at both the federal and state levels should be restricting what this industry can do.

The Greens have also joined the fight against the bill. Penny Allman-Payne said:

I sat on the legislative committee that examined this bill. Schedule 5 was not scrutinised in that
process because Labor snuck it in at the last minute.
This is a Government with a worse transparency record than the Morrison Government.
Labor told people on income support that “no one would be left behind.” Yet instead of increasing
payments – so that 2.5 million Australians are not living in poverty – or implementing the Royal
Commission’s recommendation for a six-year limit on debt recovery, they have inserted an
amendment that criminalises people before they have even been convicted.
It is abhorrent. It is shameful. And many people out there must be asking: what is the point of Labor?
This bill attempts to wipe away 30 years of unlawful conduct by the Department. In doing so, Labor
has inserted Schedule 5, which breaches the rule of law and undermines people’s human rights – all while avoiding scrutiny.
The Greens will work with the crossbench to remove Schedule 5. Hundreds of experts are warning
that it will demonise people on income support and breach basic legal principles. We will stand up
for people and do everything we can to stop this

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has been arguing against the bill from the beginning:

This morning I will be tabling a letter from more than 100 concerned groups and organisations –
including the Law Council, Aboriginal legal services, and disability groups – calling on the
Government to remove Schedule 5 from this legislation.
Labor tried to sneak this in at the last minute, bypassing even the House of Representatives. As a
member of the Human Rights Committee, I can tell you it never came before us for scrutiny.
This is a dodgy attempt to demonise the most vulnerable people in this country.
We will pass the bill without Schedule 5. But if the Government continues to bully us into passing it
with Schedule 5, then we will bring the house down – because we have to protect vulnerable people.
What Minister Plibersek said about me supporting rapists and murderers is absolutely outrageous. I
refute it completely. And it is not just me calling this out – there are more than 100 organisations
demanding this schedule be removed.
Labor needs to stop demonising our communities and do the right thin

Maiy Azize Anglicare Australia said the bill punishes people before they are convicted:

People will be able to have their Centrelink payments cancelled and lose their homes, lose their income, lose their ability to buy food.
Our agencies know that once someone loses their home, there is almost no way back – even if they
are later found innocent, even if they are eventually paid back.
This is completely unfair and would never be tolerated for any other group in society.
As Kristin said, changes like this create the impression that anyone on Centrelink is suspect. Even
people who have done nothing wrong end up being treated as though they are.
We are calling on the Government to withdraw these changes, and calling on the Senate to reject
them.

John Stainsby from the Australian Council of Social Service agreed:

The bill before Parliament today was not intended to give police extra powers over people on low incomes. It was intended to resolve issues for people who had debts unlawfully raised under the
income-apportionment calculation.
It is right that the Government is trying to make progress on that issue. But we are not here talking
about income apportionment today.

We are talking about Schedule 5, which was introduced via
amendment – after proper parliamentary scrutiny was no longer possible – and which does
something entirely unrelated to the rest of the bill.

Schedule 5 gives the policing Minister new powers to cancel a person’s income support payment if
they are accused of a serious crime – crucially, before they have been charged.

This is a dangerous step towards using the social security system as a policing tool, and it overrides
the presumption of innocence, a fundamental legal principle.

There is no evidence this will make the community safer. There are no robust protections for
dependants, including children. And the measure will exacerbate systemic inequality – particularly
for groups who already face disproportionate contact with the justice system, including First Nations people and people with disability.
Because it was inserted late, Schedule 5 avoided assessment by the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Human Rights.
This proposal faces opposition across the community – from legal experts, community organisations, and groups representing marginalised people. It threatens rights and liberties we all value.
ACOSS joins legal experts and community advocates in urging the Government to remove Schedule 5 from this bill.

Kristin O’Connell from the Antipoverty Centre had this to say about the amendment to give police powers over welfare:

We’re here today to talk about an egregious attack on the rule of law. First Nations people will be
disproportionately harmed by the new powers the Government is attempting to give itself.
As Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes warned, politicians must stop the easy populism of antiwelfare rhetoric. But that is exactly what Minister Plibersek and the Labor Government are doing
with this bill.

The underhanded nature of this amendment – sneaking in a drastic attack on the rule of law at the
last minute, after inquiries had already concluded – is shameful. Many of you may not know this, but the Minister then went on Sky News to say that we all “support people who are rapists and child
abusers.” It is disgusting.

I’m here today on behalf of groups representing single mothers, Aboriginal women’s legal services,
disabled people, welfare advocates, and many others. And we are saying clearly: this is absolutely
unacceptable.
It is unacceptable because of the process. It is unacceptable because it removes the presumption of innocence from people simply because of their income level. That presumption is foundational to
the rule of law.

If this bill passes, 5.5 million people will no longer have equality before the law.
This bill was supposed to address the Government’s own unlawful raising and collection of
Centrelink debts. Instead, the Government has decided to fuel more anti-welfare sentiment,
stigmatise people further, and cause more harm to welfare recipients and their families – who will
also be punished under this bill.

Well let me just pick my jaw up from the floor, because who on earth could have thought that more public housing might be a solution?

Oh that’s right. Everyone (but also us here, here, here, here and here and… well you get the idea).

Public and social housing is one of the major aspects missing from the Australian housing puzzle for well over 25 years. Way back in the mists of time (you know the 1960s and 1970s) public housing was not a rarity. Each year around 120 new public sector dwelling were being built per 100,000 residents. It’s why when Anthony Albanese talks about how he grew up in public housing, it actually doesn’t quite have the same meaning as it does now.

Public housing was not uncommon. I grew up in a small town in South Australia. My dad was a public-school teacher and for a few years we lived in a house owned by the state education department, and we lived in an area with a large numbers of public housing. It wasn’t great by any means, but not rare.

But the shift away from public-housing began in the 1980s as neoliberalism took hold, and really let fly after 1995. From the turn of the century, less than 20 dwellings per 100,000 residents have been built each quarter:

So, the long-term situation is bad. That is a lot of years of the public sector abandoning the field to the private sector to undo. Add in that since 1999 the private sector has also had the 50% capital gains tax discount and you end up with a housing market where the private sector is supercharged and given free reign.

So no, the 5% deposit guarantee is not going to undo anything.

But the good news is that there is a slight increase in the public and social housing.

If we look at the period since the GFC stimulus, the past year does look more promising – a nice increase in the number of public-sector dwellings being built.

But there is such a long way to go.

The government plans under the HAFF to build 55,000 social and affordable homes in 5 years. That works out at around 40 per 100,000 residents – or more than double the 15 currently being built.

You don’t undo 25 years of housing policy failure with a few tweaks. We have Defence Housing Australia. Why not Nurses Housing Australia, or Teachers Housing Australia, or… Housing Australia!

The capital gains discount clearly needs to be repealed but governments around Australia need to recommit to building public housing like was common back when the dream of owning your own home was a realistic ambition.

Here is how Mike Bowers has seen the morning:

Last week Climate Minister Chris Bowen was at COP30 in Brazil, where, at the very last minute, Australia signed onto something known as the “BELEM DECLARATION ON THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS”.

The Declaration is what it sounds like – a plan to collectively work towards “a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels”, with a point specifically on helping countries “reduce structural dependence on fossil fuel…importation”.

By our calculations, Australia was in the Belem Declaration for less than 24 hours when Prime Minister Albanese said this at a press conference:

JOURNALIST: Do you understand how people would understand that now that you’ve signed up to this declaration that there would be movement on tapering off coal exports or gas exports or gas in general? You’re saying that that’s not the case at all?

PRIME MINISTER: No.

So somehow Australia is both helping countries reduce gas and coal imports while expanding our exports of gas and coal.

Less fossil fuels with more fossil fuels.

File this one with “Peace through war”. “Transparency through secrecy”. “Acting and not acting on gambling”.

Skye Predavec
Researcher

In a Newspoll published yesterday, voters were asked who they preferred as leader of the Liberal Party. The favourite? “Don’t know” had 31% support among those intending to vote for the Coalition.

In second place was Sussan Ley with 28%, followed by Andrew Hastie with 20%.

The result has heightened speculation of a leadership spill sometime this week – the last chance for one this year.

If that happens, Sussan Ley’s leadership would be cut short before it reached 200 days, making her the shortest-serving leader of the Liberal Party or its predecessors – ever.

But it also prompts another question: If the Opposition is so divided that it can’t offer an alternative government, what is the point of it?

As my colleague Bill Browne wrote last week, having a single opposition party is increasingly out of step with the way Australians are voting – 2025 was the first election where more people voted for independents and minor parties than the Liberal-National Coalition.

When the Nationals (briefly) quit the Coalition earlier this year, the Liberals were left with no more lower house seats than the crossbench, leading Independent Andrew Wilkie to provocatively suggest “The crossbench could become the Opposition, and a crossbencher the Opposition Leader”.

If a so-called Opposition is so divided that its own voter base has no clear preference on a leader and has no serious path to government, does it make sense to call it the alternative government? 

Australians need new language to describe the distribution of power in multi-party democracies, where there are sometimes many oppositions, and sometimes none.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether Ley’s leadership will survive the week, or if she can last longer than a head of lettuce.

Hunter MP Dan Repacholi who recently shaved off his beard on live TV for charity has come to parliament wearing a TradeMutt, a brand created by Ed Ross and Dan Allen after the loss of a friend to suicide. It’s usually tailored for workshirts, and the bold prints are designed to spark conversations about men’s mental health.

Mike Bowers was at the press conference:

Today the Financial Review carries an opinion piece by the Managing Director and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, Mark Riotti, arguing that the red-tape burden is holding us back. He has announced the release of a report they commissioned arguing that the cost of federal regulatory compliance was 5.8% of GDP last year. He admits some regulation is necessary to protect consumers and investors but he claims we have gone too far.

This is the sort of judgement that is in the eye of the beholder, and we can all disagree. But to restore some balance we need only think about child abuse in childcare with the overwhelming problems being in the for-profit sector where the profit motive encourages businesses to cut corners at the expense of maintaining appropriate standards.

Riotti might also think back to the Hayne Royal Commission which revealed serious cultural problems in the finance sector. Banking staff were incentivised to rip off investors rather than managing wealth for the benefit of the investors as they pretended.  

It reminded us of the Presidential Address to the American Finance Association by Professor Luigi Zingales who warned that “in the financial sector fraud has become a feature and not a bug” and the reason: “If the most profitable line of business is to dupe investors with complex financial products, competitive pressure will induce financial firms to innovate along that dimension.”

The perverse impact of the profit motive is not confined to the finance sector. It seems that whenever there is an opportunity to profit with anti-social activity someone will be attracted into that pursuit. Unfortunately anti-social business practices are endemic.

Over the years Woolworths has had more press releases and court action than most other companies with prosecutions resulting in heavy fines. Woolworths seems to be one of Australia’s worst corporate recidivists and continues to “play chicken” with the law.  

The federal income tax legislation is now a massive document. Why is that? Because Parliament enjoys making new laws? Or because taxpayers, especially wealthy non-wage earners are motivated to find ways to avoid or evade paying tax?

Greens senator Barbara Pocock has spoken on the rental affordability crisis:

Australia is in a national housing crisis that is spiralling out of control and renters are paying the price. People on low and moderate incomes, who can’t afford to buy a home, are facing extreme rental stress. Essential workers – teachers, nurses and police – can’t afford to live near where they work.

Across Australia, we’re seeing a rental market that is unaffordable. With vacancy rates at record lows, the rental market is so tight that landlords can hike prices leaving renters with nowhere else to go. That’s exactly why the Government needs to introduce rent caps – to stop profiteering and give people a fighting chance.

The problem is that successive governments have created a housing system where rich property investors get billions in tax discounts to buy multiple properties, while millions of others can’t even find an affordable rental, let alone buy a house of their own. It’s no wonder 89 per cent of Australians agree we’re in a housing crisis.

The Government’s $181 billion tax breaks for wealthy investors – via the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing – are locking out first home buyers and forcing rents to skyrocket.

Without tackling the root causes of the housing crisis, Labor’s policies, such as their 5% deposit scheme, are pushing property prices up further – locking even more people out of affordable rentals and home ownership. That includes essential workers, such as nurses and teachers, who are already struggling to afford homes near their workplaces.

This government needs to start treating housing as a human right instead of a game of monopoly. Rather than giving billions of tax breaks to wealthy property investors, the Government should be investing directly into building good quality homes and renting them to people who need them at prices they can actually afford.”

Helen Haines has followed up her op-ed on regional renewable zones with a speech to the parliament, where she spoke on Barnaby Joyce’s scrap net zero bill.

Haines says Joyce’s bill seeks to deny regional Australia financial freedoms:

This bill would wipe out almost $10 billion in projected payments to farmers, strip $1.9 billion from community benefit programs for regional councils and undermine thousands of jobs expected from renewable projects,” Dr Haines said. 

And there is no alternative proposal – just repeal, rescind, omit.” 

From Haines’ statement:

Dr Haines said that while the Coalition claims to stand up for regional Australia, its actions were not helping communities achieve the potential prosperity available from the energy transition. 

Polling commissioned by Renew Australia for All shows strong support for renewable energy across regional Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales – including in Mr Joyce’s own electorate of New England. 

“While the Member for New England says ‘no’ to net zero, the majority of his constituents are saying ‘yes’.”  

She highlighted communities already securing major benefits including Armidale Regional Council establishing a multi-million-dollar renewable future fund, a $2 million fund over 30 years and mobile tower in Goorambat in Indi, and Hay Council negotiating $26 million in community benefit.

Dr Haines said regional Australia is on the brink of a new gold rush, with $12.7 billion invested in renewable energy in 2024 alone. 

“Just like the gold rush shaped our towns, this transition can deliver long-lasting prosperity – better infrastructure, local jobs, new income streams for farmers and cheaper, more reliable power.” 

“But that prosperity isn’t guaranteed. It depends on strong community benefit funds that return wealth to the towns hosting these projects.” 

She stressed that early, genuine community engagement is what turns renewable investment into “intergenerational benefits.” 

“Places like Dubbo and Armidale show what’s possible – but they’re still the exception. Developers can’t just ‘plug in and play’. Communities deserve to be at the negotiating table.” 

“If the transition fails regional Australians, the whole transition risks failing.”   

“But if communities share in the benefits, we can secure a new era of regional prosperity – our next gold rush.” 

We will bring you some of the press conference independent MPs, social service and poverty advocates, legal experts and disability advocates held just a short while ago very soon, but here is a piece from the Antipoverty Centre’s Kirsten O’Connell and Maiy Azize, Deputy Director of Anglicare Australia have written for The Point on why the police powers over welfare amendment is so bad:

For most people in Australia, losing your income without warning would be unthinkable. For someone living on a Centrelink payment, it could mean losing your home, your food, your medication, and your ability to keep your children safe.

And yet the Government is trying to give itself the power to cut that income off before a person has been found guilty of anything at all.

It is punishment without conviction. It has no place in a fair society.

This is not a small administrative change or an obscure bureaucratic power. It would allow police to trigger the cancellation of income payments, family assistance, and even parental leave for people who have not been arrested, charged, or convicted.

In fact, the person may not even be aware a warrant exists.

There is no guarantee those payments would ever be reinstated, even if the person is later found not guilty or have no case to answer. There is no guarantee they would receive backpay. There is no independent review. A single minister would hold enormous discretionary power over whether a family has money for rent and food.

This approach fits into a much larger and dangerous trend. The Robodebt Royal Commission laid bare how governments have increasingly treated people on social security payments as suspects, how quickly political rhetoric slips into implying that people who receive social security are doing something wrong. The Commission warned about the way politicians exploit “taxpayer versus welfare recipient” narratives, and how easily that kind of language slides into punitive policy.

This latest proposal shows that lesson is being ignored.

Independent MP Helen Haines has written in defence of renewable projects in the regions for The Weekly Times:

The legacy of the gold rush is etched across regional Victoria – in our grand public buildings,
historic town centres, telecommunications, roads and railways and in the generations who call the regions home because their ancestors were drawn to a new opportunity.

Today, regional Australia stands on the cusp of another gold rush. This time, the opportunity is
powered not by precious metal, but by the global shift to renewable energy.
Indeed, the Clean Energy Council reported $12.7 billion in new investments in Australian
renewable energy in 2024 alone. Regional communities understand better than most why this transition is essential. We are living with the consequences of climate change every day – destructive floods, relentless bushfires, and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns.
Some politicians continue to cling to coal in the name of stability, but the market has already
moved on.

Investors simply aren’t investing in ageing fossil fuel infrastructure and are instead looking to new forms of energy generation. Pretending otherwise is a fantasy.
Households are already leading the energy revolution with 4.2 million Australian households taking up rooftop solar and more than 100,000 homes installing a battery. But to build a truly reliable and resilient grid in the most realistic and cost-effective way, large-scale renewable generation and transmission are essential.

If done well, this shift can unlock a renewed boom of prosperity for regional Australia – delivering jobs, investment, new income streams for farmers, reliable and cheaper power and long-term infrastructure.

The truth is clear, the regions hosting energy projects are vital stakeholders in the transition to
renewables and must also enjoy the prosperity it creates. And a critical mechanism to make
that happen?

Long-term, substantial community benefit funds.

Where communities and proponents have developed trusting relationships through early,
effective community engagement, they have secured stronger agreements, clearer financial benefits and more say over local outcomes.

Towns like Dubbo and Armidale, where multimillion-dollar funds are being established, are setting up intergenerational prosperity. But right now, these examples are the exception, not the rule.Community benefit should not be an optional extra.

Communities hosting wind farms, solar farms, transmission lines and batteries should receive long-term benefit funds, cheaper local energy, and improved services, legacies that remain for years to come. Communities must be proactive in advocating for this.

The Snowy Hydro scheme transformed regional Australia with lasting housing, roads and jobs.
Today’s renewables rollout should be equally impactful. Because if the transition fails regional Australians, it risks failing altogether. But if we get engagement right, if benefit funds flow, if prosperity is shared, our energy transition can secure a thriving future for the regions for decades to come.
Renewable developers can’t simply “plug in and play”.

Now is the moment for regional Australians to take our place at the negotiating table – to work together, act smart, and secure a prosperous future on our own terms

We’re nearly at the end of the parliamentary year but the Albanese Government has not taken the opportunity to introduce legislation to ban online advertising for gambling. Such a move would be hugely popular as polling research from The Australia Institute shows. It would also help reduce the enormous rate of underage gambling. Around 600,000 young people gamble online yearly.

Banning advertising for online gambling was a recommendation from the bi-partisan report, You Win Some ,You Lose More, known as the Murphy review, named after late Labor MP Peta Murphy who championed the inquiry.

Instead, as we read in the Australian Financial Review last week, Labor is likely to drop the proposal.

Taking real action on gambling advertising is just one of the ideas in Australia Institute Press’ new book, A Time for Bravery. In his essay “More Than We Can Afford: the High Price of Gambling Advertising”, Tim Costello writes:

“Since the Prime Minister’s thumping election win in May 2025, there has been political commentary that his government could and should be braver in its second term. On gambling, I could not agree more.

We have seen brave souls within the two major parties agitating for a full ban on all gambling ads and other reforms — some of them have even been public advocates. But we still do not have enough political will for reform.”  

You can preorder your copy here.

Labor insists its environmental reforms, aimed at speeding up project approvals while balancing nature protections, will get over the line with the minister flagging further concessions to strike a deal.

As the federal parliament returns for the final sitting week of the year, the Albanese government is yet to secure the numbers it needs in the Senate to pass the bill.

“Under no illusions, we are going to pass these laws this week, and it’s going to happen with either the coalition or the Greens,” Murray Watt told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

“They have an important choice to make about whether they want to be part of this process and work with us cooperatively, or whether they want to sit on the sidelines complaining and see us do a deal with the opposite party.”

In a bid to win over the Greens, Labor has promised tougher rules on native forest logging which would still go ahead under the new legislation, in addition to scrapping a provision to allow coal and gas projects to bypass the main approval process. 

The coalition has been offered changes to limit “stop work” orders, and wants a requirement for a project to report its carbon emissions to be dumped.

Senator Watt said based off negotiations at the weekend, he was “very confident” in landing an agreement.

“We are prepared to make some further concessions in order to pass these laws, because it’s not in anyone’s interests for us to hang on to the current laws that we’ve got at the moment, which are completely broken,” he said.

Opposition environment spokeswoman Angie Bell said the coalition was “not in a rush to fail” and was seeking to work constructively with the government.

“The ball is in the minister’s court,” she told ABC radio.

“I would need to see the amendments in terms of those substantive issues, and there’s a list of seven, but there are more than that that I presented to the minister.”

Just one more on the hollowness of the ‘once in a generation’ line the government is using for its mining friendly environment laws, listening back to ABC radio RN Breakfast and Murray Watt says:

There’s certainly some more that we could compromise on. There is a limit to what we’re prepared to compromise on [but] I’ve always said that I’m a realist. I am a senator. I work in the Senate. I understand that you’ve got to make changes to bills to get them through.

They had them through last year, but they didn’t want to upset the mining industry. So here we are.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie will introduce a private members bill today to end online gambling for greyhound racing.

Sophie Scamps will second the bill.

Wilkie:

My private members bill would remove the exemption for online wagering on greyhound racing in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. This would end online wagering on greyhound racing and, because online betting props up the industry’s profitability, hasten the demise of an already declining industry,” Mr Wilkie said.

Australia has the ignominious honour of hosting the largest greyhound racing industry in the world, and has around half the world’s remaining operational greyhound tracks. Australian’s themselves account for roughly 70 per cent of all bets placed on dog racing worldwide. And all the while dogs are suffering, with 99 dogs having died and 9,663 having been injured on tracks in Australia this year alone. 

Online wagering is propping up this deeply unpopular and cruel industry and it is beyond time to ban it.”

Given the mining friendly environment legislation will be getting a bit of attention this week, let’s take a look at some of the arguments which are being made by Labor.

We keep hearing that it has been five years since Graeme Samuel handed in the report Sussan Ley had commissioned him to do as environment minister. Yes, that is true. But putting aside the question of whether that is a flex in itself given how much the world has moved on in five years, FOUR of those years were because of Labor. And just last year Anthony Albanese scuttled the deal Tanya Plibersek made with the Greens. So it is Albanese who has slowed the reform, not the parliament.

We are also hearing a lot about a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ – which, I’m sorry, what? Why? It’s a piece of legislation that can be changed at anytime if the parliament has the will. You know – like how Labor and the Liberals came together last year with the salmon farming laws? That defied the science? Because that is how parliament works – anytime you have the numbers, you can change the law.

And all this talk of a ‘wedge’ – save me. The deal Murray Watt is making is ‘I’ll save the forrests’ to get the Greens to pass the bill or ‘I’ll log the forrests’ to get the Coalition on board. This is what is at stake here.

No wonder people are confused as to what the government stands for.

Labor MP Matt Thistlethwaite (as someone with a strong lisp, saying his name in commentary always needs some extra practice) was asked about the $96m BoM website upgrade and said:

I think that that cost blowout is ridiculous. And that’s why Murray Watt has launched an investigation to try and find out how this has occurred. The BOM website is pretty important. I use it regularly to see what’s going on with the surf and where the good swells are going to be. But more importantly, farmers use it on a daily basis to run their businesses. So, it is an important piece of government infrastructure. And that cost blowout is ridiculous and simply unacceptable.

Liberal senator Maria Kovacic (who can not be enjoying the party at the moment) was asked what the Liberals wanted the environment laws to do on Sky News – it’s the usual, even less regulation and more benefits for industry:

We have those concerns that are outlined, as an example we have concerns in relation to the proposed EPA and what its powers and accountability look like. This is a new authority, so there is, you know, nothing to sort of suggest what it’s actually going to do. And I think it’s not unreasonable for us to want to have an understanding of that. In particular, given that it appears that there is no Ministerial oversight and there probably should be. You know, there are issues with definitions of particular terms like net gains and unacceptable impacts. Again, not an issue with those as they stand. But what do they actually mean? This is a 1,500-page piece of legislation. There is a lot of detail in this and it’s right for us to ask questions about it. And in what is pretty much a trademark of this government, they are looking to ram that through in the final sitting week of the year.

On 1 November, National Party members met in Canberra for their national conference, toppling the first in a series of dominoes when they decided to abandon their commitment to achieving net zero emissions. 

The National Party caucus dropped net zero the following day, placing pressure on their senior coalition partner to follow. Finally, the Liberals formally abandoned their own commitment to net zero less than two weeks later, completing the Coalition’s abdication of climate responsibilities. 

All of this prompts the question: who are the National Party members with such an outsized influence on Australia’s climate policy? 

The answer: a very small slice of Australia. Less than one in every 2,000 voters in NSW is a financial member of the National Party, and their membership has close to halved over the past decade (from 4,500 to 2,500). 

NSW is the only state or territory that requires parties to declare how many members they have, though only those with paid memberships (meaning that there may be some Nationals with free memberships not included in these figures). 

Members of the National Party are not only few in number, but also unrepresentative. A “former high-profile member” of the Nationals told the Sydney Morning Herald in 2020 that they had “the oldest demographic of the main parties”. In that member’s electorate, “just four out of 80 members were born after 1950, with the most common decades of birth being the 1920s and 30s.” 

The NSW branch of the Nationals is one of the largest and most prominent, having supplied nine of the party’s eleven leaders over the past 50 years. Trends in the NSW National Party are likely mirrored in other states, which would mean the party’s membership is dwindling nationally.  

But it was those few Australians, just one in 2,000, who ultimately decided the Coalition’s policy on climate last week. 

The NSW Nationals’ decline is the starkest, but it is not the only party in the state with slumping membership. 

You can read the rest, here

Oh what do you know – the government investing in social housing works to lower housing prices?! Well smack me down and call me avocado – who knew that the thing everyone says would work, is actually working?! There is a long way to go and much, much more needed, but this is a start:

Via AAP:

Renters are set to benefit from the federal government’s efforts to fund social housing after years of worsening affordability.

Pressures on low-income earners remain acute but rental affordability has stabilised, according to a report published by consultancy firm SGS Economics and Planning and affordable housing peak body National Shelter on Monday.

The rental affordability index, which compares rent prices with incomes, was steady in the past year after rapid declines to record-low levels since 2021.

While rentals remained unaffordable in many parts of Australia, including Sydney and Perth where the average household was spending at least 30 per cent of its income on rent, green shoots were emerging, National Shelter chair John Engeler said.

For the first time in years, social and affordable housing stock appears to be increasing.

“The federal government has made vital steps towards turning this situation around, including delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund and committing to a Better Deal for Renters at national cabinet,” Mr Engeler said.

“We’re already seeing the delivery of hundreds of homes under the HAFF, with thousands in the pipeline which will take pressure off the private rental market. 

“We must now build on this momentum, including by expanding the construction of build-to-rent housing, to further improve affordability for renters.”

Federal government initiatives, such as the Housing Australia Future Fund and Social Housing Accelerator, deliver 11,000 homes a year.

But the independent national housing agency, Housing Australia, estimated in 2021 that to plug the shortfall, 44,500 social and affordable homes would need to be delivered annually over a 20-year period.

The report makes the case that not only is building more social and affordable homes better for struggling renters, it’s also better for the economy.

As the federal government attempts to lift productivity growth from 60-year lows, that task was being hampered by unaffordable rents because it made it harder for employers to attract workers.

“From cafes and hotels to hospitals and childcare centres, businesses across Australia are struggling to find staff because there’s nowhere affordable for them to live nearby,” said Housing All Australians executive director Robert Pradolin. 

“Housing that people can afford is absolutely critical economic infrastructure and without it our national prosperity and productivity are being held back.”

The report recommends innovative ways to partner with the private sector to deliver new affordable housing, given the limited funds available to the government.

Housing Minister Clare O’Neil pointed to Swift Walk in Kensington, Victoria as an example of a project being delivered with HAFF and private sector financing, that would result in 272 social and affordable homes.

“Our government is building homes – for key workers, for families, for Australians who need extra help and support,” she said.

I am not joking.

There is a back and forth with Tanya Plibersek who is sacrificed as tribute to ‘debate’ Joyce on the Seven Network every Monday. Plibersek isn’t in a studio which puts her at a disadvantage – she is just hearing Joyce’s rants on delay.

“…And saying oh well, it’s climate change, well everything seems to be climate change these days. I lose at the races, it’s climate change. I have a argument with my wife, it’s climate change. Everything is climate change. CLIMATE CHANGE!”

Plibersek says the project was approved in 2019 under the previous CEO and Joyce says sarcastically “oh I know, it’s our fault”.

This is political debate in 2025.

Barnaby Joyce, who is apparently still waiting for an official dinner invitation from Pauline Hanson to ‘discuss his future’ and will miss the Nationals party room meeting (he and David Littleproud can’t stand each other and despite dragging the Coalition into ditching net zero, still isn’t happy) also has issues with the $96m price tag for the BoM website.

The project was first approved in 2019 but the final price didn’t come to light until last week.

Joyce says farmers (and tbf most people) just want the old site back.

It infuriated so many farmers and the people who worked [with it] because we really liked the old site. It was one of the most visited sites, or the most visited site, I think, on site yet now we’ve got this fiasco, and we find out it’s cost us $96 million to stuff something up completely,

Women in the transport industry are being forced to carry used period products in their pockets and jeopardise their health and dignity due to inadequate access to clean and safe bathrooms.

A union report released on Monday found that 82 per cent of transport workers believe limited access to sanitary toilet facilities undermines their dignity and respect as workers.

It also revealed women are turning to dangerous coping strategies at work, deliberately dehydrating themselves, delaying bathroom breaks, or using inappropriate locations.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union national vice president Leanne Holmes said the report exposed appalling standards experienced by workers across the country.

“Women across the transport industry are being denied the most basic workplace rights: safe, clean toilets and the ability to use them when they need to,” Ms Holmes said. 

“Not only is it unacceptable, it’s dangerous.”

The report includes first-hand accounts from women forced to justify toilet breaks over public radio, as well as workers who bled through their clothes or wet themselves at work due to lack of toilet access.

Workers also reported carrying their used period products in their pockets during their shifts, with some taking contraception to skip their periods during to a lack of facilities. 

At least 73 per cent of women have experienced health problems, including urinary tract infections, dehydration, or stress, due to filthy bathroom facilities.

“We’ve had members hospitalised with kidney infections and recurring UTIs simply because they can’t access a clean toilet,” Ms Holmes said.

“This is more than just a workplace issue, it’s a national health and safety crisis.”

Union members are now calling for a complete overhaul of standards to guarantee women’s dignity and health in the transport sector.

This includes guaranteed access to dedicated women’s toilet facilities and proper sanitary disposal units serviced regularly by contractors.

According to the Financial Review, the Albanese Government is considering using their planned ban on social media for under-16s as an excuse to drop already watered-down reforms to online gambling advertising.

This is fundamentally misguided. While people under 16 years old might not see social media ads for gambling – assuming the social media ban works at all – they will still see ads on other platforms, such as television.

This will also totally miss the key demographic of adult teenagers, as shown by Australia Institute research. Gambling rates skyrocket when children reach young adulthood: almost half of 18 to 19-year-old Australians gamble (46%). To make matters worse, gambling participation tends to remain stable or increase from ages 19 to 24, indicating that young adults establish persistent gambling behaviours rather than just exploring curiosity about gambling.

Australia has a gambling (industry) problem

Australians are the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling. Last year, Australians’ net losses from gambling (losses minus any winnings) were $34.8 billion. That’s more than households spent on electricity and gas ($29.5 billion) and alcohol ($26.8 billion). The gambling industry destroys lives year after year, and they are actively trying to target new demographics such as women.

You can read more on The Point, here.

But it is pretty much a done deal. The new CEO’s job is not to do it again.

Murray Watt:

Well, I think one thing I would say, is that the initial figure that the in the range of $4 million was for one aspect of the website development. It’s a matter for them why they chose to provide that figure rather than a broader figure. But there’s no doubt that there have been increases in the cost of this website as it’s been developed. One of the things that I’ve asked the new CEO of the BoM to get on top of is – what happened here? And if there are lessons around future procurements that are needed, then we need to know what they are. As I say, I don’t think anyone could be in any doubt about my view of this, having had that meeting as soon as the issues broke, and I’ve got a lot of confidence in the new CEO of the BoM to get on top of this and drive some change.

For reasons lost to anyone sense, the recent BOM website overhaul cost $96m and has managed to do something almost impossible – unite Australia in agreement. It sucks.

Murray Watt is asked about the price tag and says:

I’m not happy about this. You will recall that, when the issues first surfaced with the changes to the BoM website recently, I called in the acting CEO of the BoM for an explanation and clear that it wasn’t meeting the public’s expectations. And we’ve now learned that the cost increase has been higher than what was originally known. We have had a new CEO of the BoM start only a fortnight ago. I met with him on his very first day to outline my concerns and my request for him to get on top of this. I’ve met with him again – twice in his first two weeks. I was actually really heartened by the interview he provided with one of the media outlets on the weekend, where he acknowledged that there does need to be more transparency from the BoM. So I’m looking forward to a bit of a change in the culture and the approach of the BoM. And I want to make very clear that it’s an institution and has staff that I very much support. They perform a really important role Australian public. high-quality BoM delivering can manage its budgets properly. I’m expecting the new CEO to be able to take charge of that.

He tells ABC News Breakfast that it is hard to say (it’s the Coalition) and adds:

There’s no doubt we’ve been able to get closer with both the Coalition and the Greens. I met with their representatives again over the weekend. We’ve continued talking. That will continue today as well. It won’t surprise you to hear that the kind of requests that are coming from the Coalition and the Greens are quite different. The Coalition want more changes support business. The Greens want more changes made to support the environment. You will remember what I’ve always said through this process is that we need to have a balanced package that delivers wins for both the environment and for business. It’s not one or the other. We need to get both. We believe that the package that we introduced and have now passed through the House Representatives does provide that balanced package so, in the end, I suspect that we’ll end up going with whichever of those two parties is more prepared to come closer to the package that we’ve already passed through the House of Representatives.

Late last week ABC Brisbane’s Ellen Fanning interviewed Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh about his talk to a mining industry conference. The transcript has just gone up on Andrew Leigh’s site.

Andrew Leigh’s answers were both shocking and  unsurprising, and give a good insight into why the government is failing on mining, green minerals, etc.

Fanning had already quizzed the Assistant Minister on why Australia was getting so little money for gas exports and then pushed him on whether “we will get what we’re owed for our critical minerals?”

To respond that “it’s just a great opportunity to be part of these supply chains” shows that Leigh and the Government don’t get it. Being “a part of the supply chain” is enough for them. Just having the big countries buy stuff from us “makes us a power player” apparently.

Nonsense. The great opportunity is to make a lot of money and to develop new, clean industries in Australia. This will require a match-fit tax and royalty system, big public investments and a government that will stand up to the companies and governments that want Australian resources on the cheap, at any environmental cost.

Being a “power player” in resource markets requires using the power you have. Giving gas away, giving coal away and weakening environment laws to suit mining companies are not the actions of a power player.

Look at Saudi Arabia and Colombia. They do not just sit back and “be a part” of supply chains. They throw their weight around. Saudi Arabia just about derailed climate talks to keep their oil money coming in. Colombia used its position in coal markets to pressure Israel on genocide, which Australia then undermined.

That is how power players act. And if Australia is to get what it is owed for “critical” minerals, Australian governments will need to take note.

You can read more on the legal and advocacy experts warning against giving police welfare powers here

There are a lot of concerns, but among the most pressing:

Violation of the presumption of innocence and due process
The proposed amendments would allow the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel social security
payments for individuals who are merely subject to an outstanding arrest warrant—that is, individuals
who have not been arrested, charged, tried, or convicted, and who may be entirely unaware that a
warrant exists. This punishes people who are legally innocent, directly contradicting the presumption
of innocence, a fundamental principle of Australian common law3
that is expressly protected under Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a State Party. Article 14(2) provides that “everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

Ministerial power without procedural safeguards or independent review
The amendment would grant the Minister for Home Affairs personal decision-making power over
individual welfare cases based on police requests, with no access to merits review—only the limited avenue of judicial review. This contrasts sharply with the normal social security framework where, with very narrow exceptions, decisions are made by delegates applying legislated criteria and are
subject to independent appeal and review through the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Under the proposed Schedule 5, a person could have their payment cancelled without being aware a
warrant exists, with no requirement to revoke the cancellation once they have been arrested, no
provision for back-payment if found innocent, and no meaningful way to challenge the decision before
losing their income.

This concentration of power removes the checks and balances that protect against arbitrary decision-making, political interference, and errors, creating a parallel system where social security recipients are denied the procedural protections fundamental to the rule of law.
From a constitutional perspective, Schedule 5 risks blurring the separation of powers that underpins
Australia’s system of government. It enables an executive officer, the Minister, to impose what is
effectively a punitive sanction on the basis of mere allegation, without judicial determination or due
process. In substance, this power authorises the executive to impose a measure that is punitive in
nature and traditionally reserved to the judiciary, blurring the distinction between administrative and
judicial functions

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live, where we have made it to the final week of parliament! Huzzah! We did it, Joe.

Almost.

Labor looks like extending the final week so that the parliament sits on Friday as well so it can pass its mining friendly environment laws, now that the mining industry seems to have pushed the Liberals into agreeing to negotiate on the bill (it had been pushed into March next year by way of an inquiry, but as we said at the time, these things can always be changed if a deal is made).

This all comes as the Coalition falls to 42% in the latest Newspoll and Sussan Ley is beaten by ‘don’t know’ as preferred leader of the Liberal party. (We predicted this too – turns out not standing for anything DOES end up being an electoral liability).

While the decline of the Coalition continues to suck up all the oxygen, Labor is continuing to get its own way and doing a bunch of things no one asked it to, including upending the presumption of innocence and pushing legislation that will give police powers over welfare payments. Labor wants to pass a law that allows police to recommend cancelling the welfare payments of someone suspected of a crime – not convicted, just suspected. Right now, they say it will only be in the worst case scenarios, but the thing with these laws is that they end up being applied to everyone. Especially protesters.

More than a hundred experts and advocacy workers have co-signed a statement on why it’s a very bad idea, but the government is trying to push the legislation through the senate, with it re-appearing on the list for this morning.

We will keep you updated on that, and everything else that is going on. Mike Bowers, on loan from The New Daily, is roaming the halls for us, and you have a whole team of experts ready to let you know all the missing information and context surrounding what the media is talking about.

It is going to be a three coffee morning. This week is going to be tough, so I am trying to ease into it. I also have one last chocolate frog, which a lovely friend of the blog gifted me last week following an event and which I have been saving for this very day. Treat yourself.

Ready? Let’s get into it.