The Point Live: Nationals push for Coalition to delay mining friendly environment laws, while the fallout from Hanson's Islamophobic burqa stunt continues. As it happened

Technology hates me this week, which is quite stressful but also showing that the world wants us all to switch off.

Ted O’Brien is at the press club tomorrow, so brace yourself for that.

And the parliament will be sitting on Friday because of the environment laws, which is a punishment none of us needed.

So take tonight off.

We will be back early tomorrow – not bright, because that is impossible at the moment. But until then – take care of you Ax

A multi-million dollar funding boost for a crucial 24-hour domestic violence helpline means more calls, chats, texts and video sessions for vulnerable women and children reaching for help.

The international day for the elimination of violence against women is marked on November 25, kick-starting 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. 

Parliament House will be illuminated orange on Tuesday night to recognise the event. 

The federal government has announced an additional $41.8 million for 1800RESPECT, a hotline that provides confidential information, counselling and support for people experiencing domestic violence.

The free service available 24 hours was established in 2010 and has had a 3000 per cent increase in people contacting the service seeking help.

In 2023, the service launched an SMS channel followed by video counselling in 2024. 

In the last financial year, the service received more than 342,000 calls, video calls, online chats and texts, allowing victim-survivors to seek support via the best medium that suits their needs. 

More than 90 per cent of calls are answered within 20 seconds, and Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek paid tribute to the frontline workers committed to protecting women and children.

“We’re seeing some areas like intimate partner violence slightly decreasing, but we’re seeing big increases in young relationships, under-18s … so we need to keep evolving as this problem in our society evolves,” she told ABC radio on Tuesday. 

“I think anybody who discloses family, domestic or sexual violence needs an enormous amount of courage.

“Right across our community, there are people who are working every single day to keep women and children safe (and) I want to salute them as well.”

Ms Plibersek has called on all governments and services to do better when it comes to protecting victims of domestic violence, following media reports about the way women who have been killed were failed by police and support systems.

The government wouldn’t rest while there were still women and children impacted by gender-based violence, she told parliament. 

Too many women in Australia were living in fear of men’s violence, Women’s Minister Katy Gallagher said. 

“Services like 1800RESPECT are often the first safe door they can walk through to tell their story and get help,” she said. 

“This funding boost means more calls, more chats, more texts and more video sessions can be answered when women and their children reach out.”

1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)

Lifeline 13 11 14

Men’s Referral Service 1300 766 491

Ed Husic’s ‘breaking ranks with Labor’ speech in parliament yesterday (as reported in this blog) which claimed gas exporters are profiteering from Australians and driving up domestic energy prices, is right on the money and well backed by the data.

Gas exporters have made an estimated $100 billion in windfall profits driven by record‑high prices for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Global LNG prices surged from around $A550 a tonne of LNG in 2021 to over $A1,100 in 2022.

Despite being the world’s second-largest exporter of gas, since we don’t set aside a small portion of gas for domestic use, local prices are linked to the higher foreign prices. Local prices have been linked to foreign prices since the Australian government approved the exporting of gas from Queensland, commencing in January 2015.

According to data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), since gas exports from Queensland started, domestic gas prices have tripled, and electricity prices have doubled. Currently, gas and electricity prices remain at near record highs. Electricity prices follow gas prices because gas-fired electricity generation is often the most expensive form of generation in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM). The Government’s design of the NEM means the most expensive form of electricity sets the wholesale price of electricity for all users.

Ed Huric is also right in saying we don’t have a shortage of gas in Australia. Best summarised by MP Nicolette Boele as “we do not have a gas supply problem, we have a gas export problem.” According to data from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in Australia, 83% of all gas extracted is used for export. Over the last five years, gas exports have been enough to supply domestic users for 22 years.

Finally, Ed Husic also nails the simplicity of the solution: “Our gas, our prices”. A simple way to achieve this would be the ACTU’s proposal for a 25% tax on gas exports. This would keep a greater share of Australian gas in Australia, greatly lowering gas and electricity bills for Australian households, and perhaps, save what’s left of the Australian manufacturing industry.

So what did we learn?

Again, nothing. For the second day in a row the Coalition made Chris Bowen the target, which is a short sighted strategy because the man knows parliamentary procedure and his particular brand of incensed works well for QT.

There is also no policy the Coalition can point to in terms of compare and contrast – it’s fishing and coming up with old boots.

The crossbench are trying to get something on gambling reforms – Albanese ruled out a conscience vote – not surprising, that is Labor party policy (all for one and all that) but it does show the ridiculousness of the situation – the Labor backbench are very uncomfortable with the lack of action on gambling reforms, but the leadership won’t budge.

Kate Chaney then asks the same question Andrew Wilkie just asked:

Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the movie review’s unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber is seeking to ban gambling despite what you said but when asked about reform you list actions announced before the review. Many members of your own party support and add ban. Why won’t you allow a free vote on a ban on ads for online gambling?

Anthony Albanese gives the same answer:

I thank the member for her question to me as Prime Minister but I am also leader of the Australian Labor party and we are a political party, not a bunch of individuals and what we do… What we do what we do is we make decisions, we make decisions in our caucus, in our caucus that make a difference and when we make decisions in our caucus what that does is result in action.

People have the choice, Mr Speaker about what political path they will take and how they will participate in politics. People can participate as independents and then make decisions by government and then whether they will decide or oppose them. I respect that, I respect the member for Curtin and the way she takes policy development seriously in this Chamber, and she has put forward a range of amendments to government legislation that have been supported by the government in the last time and this, and I encourage her to continue to do so. But we treat every member of the parliament with respect.

That hasn’t always been the case. That hasn’t always been the case for governments. But we do that. But we have introduced modern legislation to tackle problem gambling for any government since Federation, and one of the things that we continue to do is to work with organisations, including media organisations, including sporting organisations as well, on ways in which we can move forward to further tackle the problem gambling issue.

We will have further measures, but we won’t do it by pretending that you can just wave a wand and fix things immediately with one piece of legislation. We will continue to do it piece by piece to make a difference, and that’s precisely what we are doing.

The independent MP for Bradfield Nicolette Boele asks Chris Bowen:

The Safeguard Mechanism the government ‘s primary lever for achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction is set to be reviewed on 2026-27. In August this year the Productivity Commission recommended reducing the threshold for facilities covered by the mechanism to those taking pollution down from the 100,000 times, when will the government start the review of the Safeguard Mechanism and will except the Productivity Commission ‘s recommendation to lower the Safeguard Mechanism pollution threshold?

Chris Bowen:

I will say with the greatest of respect and seriously, the Honourable Member answered the question in the question in many respects because it was indicated in the explanatory memorandum, which accompany the safeguard reforms, that we would review the safeguard legislation in 2026 – 27, we are not yet there.

That review will begin next year. I am pleased with the way the Safeguard Mechanism reforms are working thus far. The first year shows a reduction in on-site emissions…equivalent to one-third of Australia’s domestic aviation, no small thing, a good reduction in emissions

…It’s a good policy. We will review it. The Honourable Member refers to the Productivity Commission advice report to Government- it will be considered with a range of other submissions when we begin that review next year, the Honourable Member will be welcome to put in a submission to that review and we will take it and all other submissions very seriously.

So far, the opposition has put up the LNP MP for Longman, the LNP MP for Fisher and now the LNP MP for Capricornia.

So that is three Queensland backbenchers.

The Coalition have lost relevancy and power in Queensland and from what I understand their polling is even worse than at the last election. So it is not surprising that they are going so hard to try and win back voters in what was one of their stronghold states.

If only they had some policy to go with it.

We get through some dixers – the Albanese government is great for students and the economy don’t you know (no really, they really want you to know) and then we get more from Queensland LNP MPs about WHEN WILL POWER PRICES COME DOWN.

This didn’t work during the 2025 election, and it shows no signs of working now.

Andrew Wilkie gets the first crossbench question and asks:

I recently had conversations with a significant number of government backbenchers who want gambling advertising band as unanimously endorsed in the cross party report. As I asked in my personal appeal to you a fortnight ago will you allow government members a free vote on this issue so they can exercise their own judgement, represent their communities and finally end this impasse?

Albanese says:

I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his genuine engagement on this issue. Our Labor caucus makes decisions which is why we have done more than any other government since Federation to tackle problem gambling and we will continue to work as a caucus and as a government to continue to work on these issues.

And that is it. No more from Albanese on gambling. The easiest of all the reforms

There is a back and forth over stupid things that don’t matter. We move into a dixer and then we hear that Bronwyn Bishop is in the chamber, which explains the sudden chill in the air.

We are further punished by Dan Tehan getting the next question:

The Lowy Institute reports as president of Cop30 President André Corrêa do Lago visited more than 50 countries and media reports he travelled 1200 miles the in prevalence of eight trips around it.

As president of COP31 negotiations how many countries for the Minister be required to visit, how many miles for the need to travel, how much taxpayer money will be spent on funding full-time presidential duties of the part time minister?

Dick says no more with the part time minister and warns he will boot out anyone who uses it next.

Chris Bowen:

Firstly I must correct the misperception both the Leader of the Opposition in the Shadow Minister are perpetuating. The role of the President is not a full-time position it is quite common for the role of the president of the COP, I will be president of negotiations, they are different jobs.

Last year ‘s COP president was the Minister for the Environment for Azerbaijan. The president of the first COP I went to was the Minister who continued in his role in the Egyptian Cabinet while being president of the COP. To suggest a full-time job somehow is to a complete invention. A fantasy. You can set as many times as you like it doesn’t make it true, Mr Speaker. Order. The leader of the Nationals. The leader of opposition was asked this morning by Kieran Gilbert isn’t that Australia is have a seat at the table and can share some international talks and the need of opposition replied no it’s not, no it’s not clear on….

Bowen continues and then Tehan has a point of order that is not a point of order, which incljudes the line “we don’t need a history lesson what we want to know is how much the taxpayer how much the taxpayer is going to pay from this president and part-time Minister travelling the world?”

And Dick boots him out.

We then get to the question:

How many days of Parliament will be part-time minister Miss in 2026 and what will be the cost to Australian taxpayers of the Minister’s full-time presidential duties?

This is just so stupid. Just ask him how he feels about making all that song and dance about hosting and getting a made up job and clipboard as a consolation prize!

Chris Bowen:

Mr Speaker, when you are a patriotic party of government you celebrate National successes whether you are in opposition or in government. That is the approach the Labor party in opposition talk when John Howard chaired APEC, with our support. It is the approach the Labor party took when Tony Abbott chaired the G20, with our support. The approach the Labor party took to support the appointment of Mathias Cormann as Secretary General of the OECD. I am even old enough, Mr Speaker, to remember the Labor Party and government supporting the employment of Malcolm Fraser as the Secretary General of the Commonwealth because if you are a serious party of government you want your country to do well whether in opposition or in government. And I am pleased that this government’s achievements have been recognised with the appointment of COP negotiations and it tells you a lot about the leader of the Liberal party in a domestic debate they say we should not take any action on climate change because we are just 1% of emissions.

Maybe Australia complain international role and they say it’s a terrible thing and could not possibly have that. This is a testament to Australia are testament to my team and I want to thank the assistant minister, the Member for Fremantle who represented Australia us at COP very well.

Sussan Ley brings out the Gretchen Weiner again to ask:n

My question as to the Minister for climate change and energy and welcome back to Australia! The Coalition… . The Coalition thanks the full-time president of COP 31 negotiations were taking the time today to make himself available and accountable to the Australian Parliament in his capacity as part-time energy minister.

Tony Burke has had enough. NONE FOR GRETCHEN WEINERS

Burke:

Standing orders are clear on references to members, page 514 and practice makes it clear in the reference she has given is not referring to someone by their title.

Alex Hawke then has thoughts:

The manager of opposition business on the point of order. On the point of order the leader did refer to the Minister by his title, correct title and she is allowed to describe the Minister in any way she likes. It was not part of his title. And he is the president as well. You made him the president of COP. T

Milton Dick has to play daddy and says:

To assist the house and let us move forward if the Leader of the Opposition could move to her question and we do not have commentary while we are asking questions that would help everyone and especially when addressing someone by their correct title we need no other descriptor otherwise we will get into dangerous territory. Let’s move forward and let that be a lesson to everyone. We will ask questions without descriptors. The leader may continue with her question.

The Point reports Nauru’s president, David Adeang, wrongly claiming the NZYQ refugees are “not refugees”. This is despite the Australian government recognising their refugee status. He openly suggested sending them back to their home countries. Because they have been found to be refugees, this is a move that would be blatantly illegal under international law.

The NZYQ are a group of 358 non-citizens whose visas were cancelled on “character grounds”. They were kept in immigration detention until 2023, when the High Court ruled that indefinite detention was unlawful.

To bypass this decision, the Australian government amended its immigration laws to pay other countries to accept them. Australia is reportedly paying Nauru $2.5 billion to take them on 30-year visas.

Legal experts are already warning that the deal looks unlawful. Australia can’t pay a small island nation to do what it legally cannot. And the government knows this.

Almost everything else about the deal is buried behind secrecy, with the Australian Human Rights Commissioner warning that the lack of transparency “raises serious human rights concerns”.

Could this be why the Australian government is blocking details of the deal, withholding documents, and even stopping the full translation of Adeang’s interview?

This level of secrecy isn’t just suspicious, it’s unacceptable.

And it’s exactly why the Australia Institute has called for transparency from a government that keeps insisting it has nothing to hide.

To learn more about why government transparency matters, read Australian Democracy in 2025 and sign our petition to end government secrecy.

Meanwhile, after the Coalition tried to change the censure motion to not name Pauline Hanson and instead just have some mealy words about ‘respect’ Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi had thoughts:

But first there is a condolence motion for Graham Richardson which, sigh – hasn’t there been enough? Of all the people, ‘Ritcho’ does not deserve to be lionised.

Pauline Hanson is speaking about her censure and saying it doesn’t bother her, which would be true – it’s not like Hanson attends every sitting. If anything, the censure motion makes it look like she actually does something in the senate.

She is pretending this is about a ‘dress code’ and not a Islamophobic stunt:

There is no dress code yet I’m not allowed to wear it. So, to me it has been hypocritical. I’m not into answer to the parliament or the members in there because to tell you the truth, I do not have respect for most of them. I think they say one thing and do another. It is a heart of democracy to move my members bill, to debate the issue and putted to the vote. They have denied me that right, not under this one occasion but previously as well. And I think that needs to be questioned also. I am censured. It does not really worry me. It does not. For seven days? None at all. I will stand my ground and what I believe in and I will continue to do so. And, you know, it will be the people that will judge me. I will be standing for the next election in Queensland and I will let the people of Queensland judge whether or I have and my place to be elected again or not. I will not let these people here judge me

It’s the end of the year and it’s not like Hanson turns up to every sitting anyway, but she has been officially suspended from the senate for seven days.

This was the censure motion Penny Wong put forward:

(1) Notes that:
(a) on Monday 24 November 2025, Senator Hanson engaged in behaviour in the chamber that
was intended to vilify and mock people on the basis of their religion;
(b) Senator Hanson’s actions were disrespectful to Muslim Australians;
(c) Senator Hanson’s actions disrespected the Parliament and were inconsistent with the
standards of behaviour that all parliamentarians have an obligation to uphold;
(d) Senator Hanson further disrespected the Senate by refusing to obey the ruling of the chair;
(e) the Senate then took the extraordinary step of suspending Senator Hanson for the remainder of
the sitting day;
(f) Senator Hanson refused to comply with the Senate’s order and leave the chamber, requiring
the sitting of the Senate to be suspended; and
(g) Senator Hanson’s actions were contrary to the standing orders, a blatant disregard for the
authority of the Senate President and disrespected her Senate colleagues and the people they
represent.
(2) Affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith.
(3) Reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by
respect for each other and each other’s right to live in peace.
(4) Rejects any attempt to vilify or mock people on the basis of religion.
(5) Reiterates its solidarity with those who have been vilified because of their faith.
(6) Reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of
behaviour in Parliament.
(7) Calls on those who work in and report on this Chamber to ensure they are not causing harm or
platforming harmful actions.
(8) Censures Senator Hanson for her actions, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate
or the Australian people.
(9) Does not regard it as appropriate for Senator Hanson to represent the Senate as a member of any
delegation during the life of this Parliament.
(10) Considers Senator Hanson’s conduct in defying the ruling of the chair and refusal to leave the
chamber following her suspension amounts to further disorder under standing order 203.
(11) Calls upon Senator Hanson to attend the Senate immediately to make an explanation or apology, of
no more than 5 minutes, in accordance with standing order 203(3)

Sussan Ley, who has entered the most annoying part of being an embattled leader – trying to make fetch happen – is still trying to make fetch happen.

Her fetch is calling Chris Bowen the ‘part time energy minister’ because he is at COP. Which is so stupid, it almost makes Twilight seem reasonable.

This is all happening while Barnaby Joyce is lollygagging with One Nation, teasing that he may make an announcement on his future by the end of the week.

“The Albanese government will establish an AI Safety Institute early next year to assess the risks from emerging artificial intelligence systems and help safeguard Australians from potential harms.”

InnovationAus reports the government will be working to set up an AI safety institute, which fulfils a pledge made last year. You can read more about that, here.

The Greens’ Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill is a proposed remedy to the Morrison government’s massive university fee increases. 

Job-Ready Graduates is a scheme that was designed to push students out of Arts degrees and into studying other subjects such as Maths or Agriculture by significantly raising the price of some degrees. 

However, as Professor George Williams, Vice Chancellor of Western Sydney University said in his recent Vantage Point essay: 

“The policy failed in its own terms and also failed the nation as a whole. While the plan was, for example, to use high prices for arts degrees and low prices for agriculture degrees to change student choices, it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how students choose what to study. A potential history student did not seek a career in farming, nor did a student passionate about philosophy shift to mathematics. Instead, it made the entire university system more socially regressive and inequitable.”

One study found that fewer than one in fifty students changed degrees because of the policy. 

Australia Institute polling research has shown Australians think degrees cost too much: three in four Australians think university degrees should cost $10,000 or less, yet Arts degrees now cost nearly $17,000 per year.

Despite over one term in office, the Labor Government is yet to act on this inequitable system. 

The Nine newspapers series of reports on “Blood Oil” on petrol that has been reportedly refined from Russian Oil being imported to Australia should horrify Australians. Australians should not be delivering profits to Putin, or indeed any regime conducting an illegal war or genocide.

However, it should serve to remind people that ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Australian gas companies, and those fearing ones operating in Australia have effectively been garnering massive profits due to the illegal war.

No, they have not been supplying gas to Russia, but Russia’s invasion caused world gas prices to soar – including in the Japanese market, which determines the price of much of LNG from Australia. In the nine months from January 2022 to September that year, the price of LNG in Japan rose 61%. And with it went Australia’s exports of LNG – up 70% in the same period.

Did this boom in exports and prices lead to a boom in tax revenue? Nope.

It was the purest example of “windfall profits” you could get. Nothing the gas companies did caused this to happen. There was no special marketing going on or new way of refining or exclusive development that saw gas prices and their profits rise.

And yet that windfall did not lead to one for Australian taxpayers.

Australia’s notional tax on the super profits of gas companies is the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT). And yet as the exports of LNG from Australia boomed, PRRT revenue actually fell:

I guess the gas companies would boast about how much they pay in royalties. Well sorry, but over in WA the small amount the gas companies pay is so pathetic that they now contribute less to the WA budget than do gamblers in the state

That’s pretty amazing given WA, unlike every other state, does not have pokies in pubs.

That’s be real – gas companies in Australia have made massive profits purely due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nothing they did caused gas prices to rise – Putin committing and illegal act did that.

But those same gas companies have taken the money and also shouted loudly that they should not have to pay anymore tax.

Profiteering off of a war used to be condemned, we should not let these gas companies off the hook now.

It’s why the government should introduce a 25% tax of LNG exports that would raise around $17bn a year and no longer let gas companies take the absolute piss.  

That sound you hear is the culture war clarion – because the ABS has announced the new census topics for 2026 – and the date. You may remember the government pre-emptively scraped some question proposals on LGBTIQ issues because it was worried about a pushback THAT HADN’T EVEN HAPPENED. That decision was reversed.

We’ll all be making it count on 11 August 2026 and among the topics will be (from the ABS website)

The 2026 Census will include new questions on gender and sexual orientation. These updates will provide valuable insights into the experiences of LGBTIQ+ Australians and support the development and delivery of targeted health and social programs and services.

Changes have also been made to existing questions to improve data quality and ensure inclusivity.

These include:

• allowing respondents to report up to four ancestries
• enhancing the third response option on the sex recorded at birth question
• updating the wording of the Country of birth of parents questions.

More information on these updates can be found under each topic group heading.

The question on number of children a woman has given birth to will return to a once-per-decade collection and will not be included in the 2026 Census. 

Nicolette Boele welcomed the bravery (and rationality) from a government MP:

It’s great to see former senior Cabinet minister Ed Husic MP break ranks to publicly back my Private Members’ Motion on effective gas market regulation. 

his shows a growing recognition that it makes no sense for people in Japan to pay less for Australian gas than we do here in Australia – and the Government should heed this warning. 

We have enough gas in this country. We do not have a gas supply problem; we have a gas export problem. 

It’s time the Government understood that strengthening gas market regulation isn’t optional – it’s essential to our energy security, our economic competitiveness, and the credibility of our pathway to net zero. 

We covered this yesterday when Ed Husic spoke on Nicolette Boele’s private members’ motion on the need for effective gas regulation.

As a refresher, here is some of what he said:

In this country, it’s almost like we’re embarrassed about possessing so many resources and are so timid we feel we just have to cop what overseas companies and buyers tell us—what rot. Or we are spooked by this argument: if we demand too much these companies won’t invest in new fields—lame. Former WA premier Alan Carpenter stared down that threat and established a west coast reservation system. Our generation trades on the courage of past generations without displaying the spine to do the same today.

This timidity has allowed a structural flaw to fester, with domestic prices influenced by export prices and Australian users competing with Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore for Australian gas. We beg for the scraps—forced to cop globally indexed pricing that has absolutely no relationship with the cost of production. Our gas, our prices—that should be the bedrock, the cornerstone, of our thinking. The cost of doing business in this country, for multinational gas firms, is that they must provide a gas price in line with
historic pre-pandemic levels.

This should apply to any new field that’s open, too. We absolutely need to establish a gas reservation policy to meet our local needs in this decade, not in the next. We must stand firm on another issue. We cannot tolerate being lectured to by overseas buyers telling us what we can do with our gas when they on-sell the gas they get from us to make a massive profit. Last year, Japan resold a
third of the LNG it had purchased from Australia, making over $1 billion in profit and in quantities large enough to supply our domestic industry for a year. We should reshape the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism to allow the government to intervene, adjusting future supply based on past resold volumes. This nation should not be reduced to pauper status. We should be an energy superpower, and that should translate to economic strength. That’s the ambition we should have no hesitation in pursuing. We may also need to prevent the sale of uncontracted gas offshore and ensure companies don’t sidestep this by ramping up sales of uncontracted gas to drain what’s available for locals.
We cannot wait for a better deal for this country. We should have the ambition to pursue better for this nation, and we should reject the naysaying and the fearmongering by those who want to tell us that we should cop something that we all in this place know we should not

Continued in next post

Australia’s favourite mining heiress is in the AFR today putting a “blowtorch” on BHP, Rio Tinto and ‘watermelons’:

“If government truly cared about its duty to Australians, they would stand up to the noisy watermelons and the far-left,” Rinehart wrote. “We need to help them, don’t we?

“Be prolific in online comments, including supporting those who do stand up against the watermelons.

Several people online and in The Australia Institute office were confused as to what Gina was talking about, and so to the extent that I can translate Gina’s thoughts and poetry into standard Australian English, here is a brief explanation.

While the watermelon has become a symbol of opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and support for Palestinian causes, Gina probably means someone who is “green on the outside and red in the middle”.

The suggestion is that people who express concern about the environment, perhaps the Greens/greenies, are actually “reds”, people secretly plotting to spread communism.

This seems a bit ridiculous decades after the Cold War and in the face of the obvious links between environmental justice and social justice, but that’s not even the weirdest bit of Gina’s rant.

The really weird bit is that she takes a crack at BHP and Rio Tinto for “sacrificing…on the green altar” profits and dividends to shareholders.

If she was taking a crack at Fortescue, I would understand. Fortescue is actively pushing other mining companies and the government to decarbonise and to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

BHP and Rio Tinto, by contrast bankroll the campaign to keep Australia’s biggest fossil fuel subsidy in place. BHP are pushing for cheaper coal (for themselves) while Rio Tinto weirdly won’t criticise the gas industry that is harming them.

If you’d like to hear more of Gina’s thoughts, there’s a whole weird video here.

It looks like austerity is back in fashion as we read reports that Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, has ordered Commonwealth government departments and agencies to outline sweeping spending cuts worth up to 5 per cent of annual budgets, in a move intended to rein in ballooning public service costs.

Between the lines the Financial Review is gloating that its reports of excessive staffing and wage costs seem to have been validated by the government.

Critics of the public sector like to suggest that the work of the bureaucracy is unnecessary anyway. Arbitrary cuts like those proposed seem to concede the point by suggesting any cuts are as good as any other cuts.

Prior to the election then Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, promised to cut Caberra staff by 41,000 positions. Senator Jane Hume wanted to put an end to work-from-home arrangements.  The Labor Government resisted those calls at the time, so what do we make of the present reports?

Now it is also reported that the Finance Department has written to cabinet ministers and public service heads asking them to detail how they would meet the 5% cost savings target.

One possibility is that there is nothing in this story. Treasury has just called for budget submissions to assist in preparing the next budget. Around this time it is standard practice for the Finance Department to prepare savings options for consideration by the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet.

Finance might suggest it is just doing its job by getting Cabinet to review the spending priorities, but people always get nervous when leaks put their jobs or budget priorities in the firing line. It may turn out to be nothing more than the usual speculations about budget deliberations fuelled by the occasional government leak.  

“AI slop” is the Macquarie Dictionary’s 2025 word of the year, after claiming victory in both the committee and people’s choice votes.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term as “low-quality content created by generative AI, often containing errors, and not requested by the user.”

To claim the prize, it beat out 14 other nominees, including “six-seven”, “Ozempic face”, “attention economy, “medical misogyny”, and “clanker”. The latter three received honourable mentions.

AI slop has strong continuity with last year’s winner, “enshittification” – both have made the experience of browsing the internet worse.

Generative AI has been the source of many controversies this year. From instances of AI psychosis, to the Albanian government’s bizarre decision to appoint “the world’s first AI government minister” in September, or the Productivity Commission recommending effectively disposing of copyright on Australian work to help AI train.

The time when AI was a fun oddity is long past, and it’s begun to threaten our democracy. In 2024, a “deepfake” video of Queensland’s then-Premier Steven Miles became a campaign controversy, with The Australia Institute re-upping its call for truth in political advertising laws in the state.

The growth of deepfakes also prompted Senator David Pocock to introduce his My Face, My Rights Bill to Parliament yesterday, which would mean Australians who share deepfakes of another person without that person’s consent could be sued or face steep fines.

The 2025 word of the year is a timely reminder that generative AI isn’t going away. AI slop is one of the more mundane consequences, but it’s still damaging. More and more of the internet is being replaced with ersatz pages, text, and images – they’re almost, but not quite, right.

But if AI continues to grow without regulation, slop may be the least of our worries.

Of the interview, Shoebridge said:

I want to thank my colleague Senator Pocock and I want to thank the ASRC for joining with me tonight to tell the truth about this interview, because this is the interview that the government has refused to produce. This is an accredited interpretation of the interview that President Adeang gave when the announcement leaked out from Nauru—it did not come from our own minister—about a $2½ billion secret deal.

This government have been trying to keep this secret from the Australian people, refusing to produce their own interpretation and refusing to tell the Australian people what the Nauruan president said.
I know that Senator Pocock and I read the transcript out in somewhat of a rush, but we did it because we weren’t certain that we would get it on the record in the time that we had available. It should have been the government that told the Australian people about this. It should have been the government that had the decency to step forward and be honest with the Australian people about what the Nauruan president said.

No doubt there are reasons why the government wanted to hide this, because President Adeang wrongly makes the statement, no doubt on advice from the Australian government, that none of the NZYQ cohort are refugees, which is plainly wrong. Did the government tell them that? Did our government mislead the Nauruan government? Do they adhere to what the Nauruan president
said about these people not being refugees—none of them? They’re probably also embarrassed about the fact that President Adeang made it very clear that he wants these people to return to the country they came from.

We know that they have fled from persecution, by and large. Does the Australian government join with Nauruan president in wanting to send people back to persecution in Iran, in Iraq, in Russia and in Sudan?
Finally, we get to read the truth onto the record. I want to again thank the ASRC for the work they’ve done on this.

David Shoebridge continued:

I’ll continue reading from the same transcript read out by Senator David Pocock.
Question: Because of the background of these people, that you are saying have committed crimes.
The safety concerns of the people of Nauru, what does the government have to say to ease their gut about the fact and the shock that they are living within their community?
Answer: The first thing we have to remember is that these people have their time in jail. They have a history yes, but they also have a present. And the present of this people now is that they are living within the people of Australia and are not committing crimes, some of them are just enjoying their lives and continuing their lives but they are not from there and Australia does not want them.
And for some reason, some legal reasons, they cannot be deported. So, we are the solution to them being moved from there. I did wanna provide a solution. But to address our own, its not that different from how we protected our community back when the refugees first came and after
we allowed them out of detention to settle within our community, they also had a history and we also have a history, there are some that come out of jail here with their own histories.
We weren’t harmed and we wont be harmed. Of course, there are extra community safety arrangements that we will bring out to look after our community, maybe, for example, and help them (NZYQ) a little with their movements and to ease the shock of the community.
Because the biggest thing I see now is that there will be surprised people and we have to remember that this is not the first time we have let foreigners come to our home and it will not be the first time we have accepted foreigners with backgrounds that are not 100% pristine.
and we know how to handle arrangements like this and we also know how to empower the lives of these people and we know to take care of them.

And we all get along just fine. We hold that we will be fine.
We will bring out a lot of things for this and we welcome the input of the community if they want to give us their feedback on how to make them feel safer/more secure.
They can make contact with their relevant members of parliament and ministers to let us know.
I have also sat with the Opposition recently to give them all of the facts of this thing that we have entered. So that they know what is true and what isn’t true.
The Australian media will have their own spin on it but what I have given you is what is true to all of my knowledge. There are three people that will come first, within days, maybe less than a week. We know their profile, what their names are, their backgrounds and their ages.
And we have already prepared them a space and we have prepared the safety protocols to protect them and to protect us. And we are not overwhelmed, because we have already gone through these things. This is not new here. The only new thing is that they are not refugees.
Question:
If the 30 years ends and we have not resettled them in another country, what is Nauru and Australia’s Plan?
Answer:
Well I guess in 30 years time, there will have to be meetings between the Government of Nauru and the Government of Australia and what we’re going to do about these people.
But there’s a long way into the future I do trust however, that maybe before then, we will little by little be able to return these people home if they want that. I also anticipate that these people will have family from Australia that will want to visit them here and we are not closed off to
that, just like when the refugees were here, we allowed their families to visit them here, we opened our arms to them and we will do that with these people also.

Late yesterday in the senate, Greens senator David Shoebridge and independent senator David Pocock read an interview into the senate they say the Australian government tried to keep secret.

Pocock:

I’m going to read out the transcript of an interview between President Adeang of Nauru and Joanna Olsson of the Nauru Government Information Office. This interview was posted to Facebook on 17 February 2025 and has been translated by an iindependent translator. My thanks to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre for providing this copy.
Question: Good Afternoon Your Excellency, this news that Nauru has entered a new agreement with Australia where it states that we will be accepting non-citizens from Australia known as the NZYQ. Who are these NZYQ?
Answer: Um, It does not matter as much what they are called, what does matter is what type of people they are. The particular group Australia is asking us to take are not people of Australia.
They are in Australia, they have committed a crime, served their time in jail and are now out and living within the communities of Australia. Now leading their lives not unlike any other person living in Australia. Now, Australia has been trying to return them to their home countries and have been unable to for multiple reasons. Because they are unable to, Nauru and Australia have joined into a partnership, due to our history where we have been able to home people on our land; like people who sought asylum or those that are refugees.
To clarify, these people are not refugees. They are regular people but their background or their history is that they have been to jail. These days, they are free to roam around Australia and while they are no longer under penalties but they are not of that place
and despite Australia’s preference to send them home, they are unable to.
So that is what we have entered into, we will help Australia and take these people and allow them to live among us.
Question: Regarding this agreement, this is great for Australia as far as protecting their communities. We in Nauru, have we reached a point where we can take care of people like this?
Answer: We have looked at every corner of this arrangement. This has been going on since last year. It is not like we slept and woke up and got asked something big.
We have thought about it since last year that it is not unlike the RPC arrangement that we are still undergoing here at home.If we remember, the people that have come here under the RPC arrangement are not without their own history, they have come from war-torn areas.
Some have taken lives, some have abused people and when they have come here, they have not interfered with anything. They have just come here, they live their way.
They want to just continue their lives because we are a country and a people that are peaceful.
That is also our attitude at the moment, we say that these people that are coming, there are some that are just going to want to continue their lives and will want to build their lives up in a peaceful way, just like each and every one of us.
Question: The visa they have, how is it different to the one we are offering to the RPC cohort? How long are they going to be in Nauru and what are the rules of their visa?
Answer:
When they are given the visa, it is clear to all of us that we have given them a place here. 35 If we say 30 years, then 30 years is what they are given. Unless of course, we, your government, find a way for them to move around, for example; they get to go home. The problem now is, Australia cannot return them home, these people are what you would refer to as stateless.
Their homelands do not want them and they do not have a way to go home.
And if over time we find a way to return them home then of course they will not reach the 30 years. But the Visa we are providing them to start is 30 years.
It’s the same as everyone we brought in during RPC, they can work, we also encourage them to work, so they can feel like they contribute to our community, nothing will be stopping them.
But they will have a 30 year Visa rather than the shorter visas and that’s the only difference. Otherwise, they are also subject to the laws of Nauru.
If they break the laws of our home, they will follow our normal legal process. Taking them to court, sending them to jail if needed, fining them if needed.
We are anticipating that now that we are talking, it is not like they are breaking the laws in Australia but Australia does not want them because they are not from there.
So we will take them for the time being, We are not anticipating that they are wanting to come here and break laws, they just want to continue their lives.

The Greens will try to once again have the cost of arts degrees halved – they doubled under the failed Jobs Ready Graduate program, which lowered the cost of some degrees, but made arts and the humanities pay for it – but what do you know, there is more to how students choose a degree then just cost and it didn’t work to attract more students to where the government wanted – but it did saddle more students with larger debts.

The government says it will address the Jobs Ready mess, but is waiting for…something. Story of this government’s life really.

Rumours about America’s role in the dismissal of Gough Whitlam have circulated for decades – but is there any truth to them?

On this special episode of After America, we explore the state of the Australia-United States relationship under the Whitlam government, the machinations at the time around the renewal of Pine Gap, and the previously untold account of Dr Liz Cham, former executive assistant in the office of Prime Minister Whitlam, who recalls handing over a mystery letter to an American official just before the Dismissal.

Tanya Plibersek, the social services minister spoke to ABC News Breakfast this morning where she was also asked about Pauline Hanson’s Islamophobic stunt.

Plibersek said:

I don’t remember the last time someone in a burqa robbed a bank. I think it’s completely standard, you know, rehashed Pauline Hanson, headline grabbing behaviour.

The only thing that you can be guaranteed of is that some girl in a headscarf on her way to school today is going to be bullied on the train. I think the other thing that’s disappointing about this is we’ve had warnings from the ASIO director that the biggest, you know, fastest growing threat in Australia
is from right-wing extremism.

We saw a bunch of Nazis lined up outside New South Wales Parliament a couple of weeks ago. I don’t see Pauline Hanson calling out that behaviour or that risk. She’s once again going for a group of people who will be, you know, threatened, abused and perhaps even physically assaulted on their way to
work or school today.

The Australian Financial Review today reported that Gina Rinehart called on people to “stand up to the noisy watermelons and the far-left”.

The Fin said “Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has called out global resources giants, including her own company’s joint venture partner Rio Tinto, for sacrificing shareholder value in the pursuit of net zero emissions policies.”

What does she mean by that? In remote areas like the Pilbara the mining companies have been diversifying out of fossil fuels and into renewables, which are cheaper anyway. But Gina thinks the miners are giving into a green agenda associated with net zero. So she said she wanted more Australians to mobilise and pressure the government via letters, talkback radio or social media, to abandon emissions reduction policies, to lower power bills and reduce grocery prices [as if].

If you don’t agree with Gina you are a noisy watermelon and on the far-left! We suppose that includes the management of BHP, Rio and Fortescue.

Anthony Albanese has met with the Zhao Leji in the Prime Minister’s courtyard. Mike Bowers popped by ahead of his special project to take you there – including the awkward waiting moment (these staged photo ops are never comfortable for anyone)

It is party room meeting day, which means parliament won’t sit until midday. It seems like both major parties want to try and have some downtime, so don’t be too surprised if it goes very q word (it is a jinx in journalism to use the q word, much like wishing someone luck in a theatre.

It is the last party room meeting of the year though, which will mean there is a lot of rah rah (and attempts at rah rah in the Coalition) but it is also the festive drinks season, so there will be media drinks at the Lodge, the opposition drinks at parliament, the Greens drinks (usually off-site) and a hodge podge of crossbench drinks.

I have a rule now of not attending (and haven’t for years) because I try not to cross the streams as much as possible and that includes standing around and making small talk with people I am meant to be holding to account. That doesn’t mean I never see these people, but it’s always clear it’s for work.

Fatima Payman has written an essay for A Time for Bravery: What Happens When Australia Chooses Courage? published by Australia Institute Press;

The first bravery I knew was my father’s.

In 1999, he spent 11 days and nights on a small, crowded boat traversing the Indian Ocean, fleeing war-torn Afghanistan. He left behind his pregnant wife and his two little daughters, hoping to find them a safe haven, or die trying.

Life in Australia brought safety but not ease. He worked as a kitchen hand enduring underpayment; as a cabbie weathering abuse; as a security guard working overtime just to give us the best shot in life. He never complained. But I now know he was afraid; afraid of the unknown, of a language he didn’t speak, of a culture he didn’t understand, of a way of life that was completely foreign.

And yet, he would always smile in gratitude. He would tell us to live with integrity, to give back to this nation that gave us refuge, and to never give up no matter the hardship.

I was raised to believe that silence in the face of injustice is itself an injustice. Every day of the last seven years since he passed away from leukaemia, I’ve heard my father’s voice in my head. To me, he is the definition of bravery. I am certain he was scared from the moment he set foot on the boat to the moment he was told he had only a few hours left to live. Afraid of leaving us behind, afraid of the uncertainty we would face without him, and yet he smiled in contentment, knowing he had fulfilled his purpose: to provide for us and raise us with strong values.

You can read the whole essay at The Point, here and you can pre-order here

The independent senator, who quit the Labor party after it refused to condemn the Gaza genocide, was asked how she thinks the last parliamentary year has gone:

I think this government has clearly shown they are afraid of transparency. We have asked questions during estimates. I have asked questions around the $1 billion building early education fund and it six weeks later we haven’t seen answers for it. We don’t know where the money that this government a allocating where the money is going, why it is not helping build the infrastructure that they’re committing. When it comes to the EPBC Act they have stalled. We know climate change is real. We know there is a climate crisis Tropical Cyclone Fina in the Kimberley is an example of how real it is and how it is impacting real lives.

And on the mining friendly environment laws, Payman says:

If it is that important they wouldn’t rush it, right? We would have the opportunity to scrutinise the bill. There is seven pieces of the bill in this package, the biggest environmental reform package we have seen and they are trying to rush it by making deals.

If this was such an urgent matter for the government they would have passed it before the election when they actually had a deal with the Greens and some cross bench Would you vote for it as members. the legislation currently?

I think there are many improvements that are required, including climate trigger and the national interest that the powers that the minister’s going to have and there are various elements of it that the government needs to improve before it can pass the Senate

Q: What effect does it have on Muslim women? You are the first woman to wear the hijab in parliament. So many women across the community are reporting a rise in Islamophobia. What effect does an incident like this have on them?

Fatima Payman:

There is bound to be people out on the streets, young school girls who are probably yelled at or abused or assaulted and it is just the division that we don’t want to see in society. Australians deserve better, Australians deserve their politicians to behave in a befitting manner that harmonises and brings people together, not alienates and demonises a community because Pauline Hanson’s actions are pitting one group against another and the government’s lack of action just indicated that they were fast asleep at the wheel and were not able to deal with this incident promptly

Hanson pulled this after her latest ‘ban the burqa’ motion failed. She had been talking about bringing it back for a while (it was expected last sitting but she was in Mar-a-Lago speaking at a conservative conference and so it landed this week.
Slade Brockman was in the president’s chair and didn’t seem to know what to do when Hanson entered the senate in the garment. He originally allowed it saying that religious dress was allowed under senate precedent and didn’t appear to grasp the seriousness of the stunt, attempting to shut down senators who complained about Hanson’s behaviour. It wasn’t until the more senior members of the Labor senate team, including president Sue Lines and Penny Wong returned that action was taken.

Payman explained what happened:

Pauline Hanson did not appreciate her – the introduction of the bill that she wanted to put up to ban the burqa, which was refused by the Senate and I think government did not handle it well because the President – President Sue Lines was nowhere to be seen. It was a stunt Pauline Hanson has previously pulled, so the fact that the government were found asleep at the wheel was just not OK and definitely not suitable of a government that claims to care about multiculturalism and a safe work environment. There wasn’t just me but so many other senators felt unsafe and disrespected by such behaviour. The government definitely needs to do a lot more when it comes to upholding the principles of the Senate but also to ensure that this sort of behaviour didn’t get the attention that Pauline Hanson was craving.

…She should have been removed from the chamber earlier. As soon as she entered the chamber with the burqa on, using it as a prop and an abhorrent stunt, the President should have entered the chamber and made the ruling because the precedent was set back in 2017 and I remember when this stunt was taking place. My dad was in hospital for leukaemia and I remember going in and getting weird stares and remarks thrown at me. I was wondering what was going on. This is an old trick that Pauline Hanson has pulled out of the bag. It is disrespectful and un-Australian and the government should have handled it better.

Independent senator Fatima Payman has been asked by ABC News Breakfast whether Pauline Hanson’s stunt was racist in her opinion and says:

Absolutely. Pauline Hanson and her actions are not reflective of the broader Australian public and the community. In fact, I just came from the Australian Catholic University inner faith breakfast here in Parliament House this morning and so many people came up to me and were absolutely appalled by the disgraceful behaviour of Pauline Hanson.

They were sharing sympathies and expressing that this is very un-Australian for a senator to pull the same trick out of the bag and be disrespectful to a segment of society.

Ali Kadri said he also thinks the government can do a lot more than what it is to address Islamophobia.

I think that the Government is taking it seriously, but we need to take it even more seriously. Because people like Pauline Hanson are trying to divert attention from the real issues which Australians are facing – the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis.

They don’t care about red herring issues like a burka ban. So I think that the Government needs to do more, and I think that the recommendations need to be adopted as soon as possible.

…A lot of members of my community are scared to go out in public, because verbal abuse is, unfortunately, a common occurrence for many. And especially for women, because they’re more visibly Muslim than men in most cases.

And as I said earlier, when Pauline does these kind of stunts in the Parliament, it actually escalates, radicalises more people and makes people think that it is OK to go and abuse fellow Australians.

The chief executive of the Islamic College of Brisbane, Ali Kadri is speaking to ABC News Breakfast about Pauline Hanson’s latest Islamophobic stunt, after she wore a burqa in the senate for the second time in her career.

Asked what he thought when he saw it, Kadri says:

When I saw Pauline Hanson do this again, I thought that that stunt belonged on TikTok, not in our Parliament. I mean, all she’s doing is making a joke out of the Parliament and the parliamentary process with this red herring issue, which no-one else except her and a few other people care about.

Kadri said he sees the impact Hanson and those like her have on the Muslim community, including children:

Let me give you a fresh example from yesterday. I represent one of the largest Islamic schools in the state with 1,800 And yesterday, when I was driving back home, one of the students was waiting to get picked up outside the gates of the school. And this is a young, primary aged student who of waiting for a parent to come and pick her up. And an adult male passing in a ute was slurring and hurling abuses at her. This is the experience of Australian Muslims. Whenever Pauline Hanson does these stunts in the Parliament, it escalates and radicalises people even more where people think that it is OK to abuse a little Australian Muslim girl wearing a hijab.

Anthony Albanese will meet with Zhao Leji, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China in Canberra today.

Yesterday, supporters and protesters lined the main entry road to parliament and the lawns ahead of Zhao’s visit.

The department which heads up parliamentary services yesterday sent an email to parliamentarians warning there could be disruptions to the parliamentary wifi service and asked that wifi connected devices in areas where Zhao and his delegation will travel through, be switched off.

During his weekly breakfast TV ‘debate’ yesterday, Barnaby Joyce mentioned that he had not yet been invited by Pauline Hanson for the steak dinner she had promised to talk about his future. Last night, his office released a photo of Joyce and Hanson dining under a portrait of Hanson in her office to the Nine newspapers. Because they are ‘ordinary Australians’ despite their massive salaries and personal wealth, they made sure to have the Saxa salt front and centre.

Hanson was riding high, having been suspended by the senate just hours earlier for her xenophobic burqa stunt which was too much even for Joyce ally, conservative Matt Canavan who told the ABC yesterday:

You can make a fair and reasonable point about immigration and migration and integration and Pauline has a voice to do that in the Senate but this kind of stunt, it weakens her case and cheapens our Parliament, and most Australians will look away in disgust.”

Hanson’s stunt and the release of the dinner photo gives the Coalition some fresh air in this last sitting week, which began with Sussan Ley (and every other leadership contender) being outpolled by ‘don’t know’ as preferred Coalition leader and the Coalition’s 2PP vote falling to 42% – a further electoral wipe out. Got to love an ally, right? Just taking one for the team?

We are back for the last party room Tuesday. And oh to be a fly in the wall of the joint party room today, as the Nationals now openly flex as much muscle as possible and push for the Coalition to vote against Labor’s mining friendly environmental laws.

Oh that’s right – we don’t need to be flies because the Coalition is also full of yappers. And yapping those yappers have been. Bridget McKenzie had a chat to the SMH where she told Paul Sakkal and Mick Foley the Nationals thought a ‘yeah, nah’ to passing the legislation was in order, which shows you who is really in charge (just in case you didn’t know). And it’s not just McKenzie – Nationals MPs have been yapping up a storm about what they want to do next and this was on their list.

And while it’s not exactly a bad thing for the Coalition not to pass these terrible laws, it’s entirely for the wrong reasons. Which again, isn’t the worst thing in the world, because all of this is just pushing the Coalition to its inevitable end point of splitsville (centre right politics will survive, but there is no law that says the Coalition has to) but it’s a lot of annoying pain in the meantime. They are the Ross Gellar of political parties.

So that leaves Murray Watt talking to the Greens and maybe including some actual environmental protections or choosing to shelve the legislation again because of Labor’s refusal to negotiate something industry isn’t happy with.

The senate is also dealing with the fallout from Pauline Hanson’s latest Islamophobic stunt, with the One Nation senator having donned a burqa in the senate for the second time in her career.

The stunt, which she performed for a cheer squad she had brought along in the public gallery, as well as her allies who giggled and smirked their way through her suspension motion.

Hanson has given the Coalition some clear air, which was obviously one of the aims, but it has also once again damaged the senate and insulted the Muslim community. It is almost impossible to imagine any other community being so so openly vilified in the parliament. Hanson has achieved her aim, but she was never going to pay the actual cost.

You’ll have me, Amy Remeikis to guide you through most of the day. And at least four coffees. And some mini cupcakes. We all need some little something-something.

Mike Bowers is on a special assignment so we will miss him today but you will have factchecks and special guest posts throughout the day.

Ready? Good. Me neither. But still – let’s get into it.